1958-06-23

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Cathers.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on veterans affairs, presented to the house on Thursday, June 19, 1958, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Hayden Stanton (Leeds) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, presented to the house on Thursday, June 19, 1958, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motions:
June	19-The	Minister of	Transport-The
following proposed motion:-That a sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping owned and controlled by the government be appointed to consider the accounts and estimates and bills relating thereto of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys; and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time and that, notwithstanding standing order 67 in relation to the limitation of the number of members, the said committee to consist of Messrs. Bourbonnais, Brassard (Lapointe), Broome, Carter, Chevrier, Chown, Creaghan, Drysdale, Fisher, Fraser, Grills, Gundlock, Hardie, Kennedy, Loiselle, Martini, Mitchell, Monteith (Verdun), Pascoe, Robi-chaud, Robinson, Rowe, Rynard, Smith (Calgary South), Smith (Simcoe North) and Tasse.
Mr. Hees:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion
stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



PRAIRIE GRAIN ADVANCE PAYMENTS ACT


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-31, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.


Mr. Chevrier:: Explain.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill which will introduce certain amendments which will tidy up some of the features of the act, and in particular will make allowance for the delivery of seed grain and the delivery of malting barley so they shall not count as against procuring cash advances against wheat stored on the farm. Those are the main items in the amendments proposed. The other amendments are simply of an administrative character.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD


Hon. Howard C. Green (for the Minister of Justice) 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 introduce a measure to establish a board to be known as the national parole board; to provide for the remuneration and expenses of the members of the board; for the appointment of the officers, clerks and employees necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the board; to provide generally for the administration of the act; and further for the repeal of the Ticket of Leave Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the

Proposed Legislation
following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act so as to increase the amount of insurance that may be paid to the beneficiary as an annuity in certain cases and to remove restrictions in payment of insurance in the case of pensioners.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: 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 introduce a measure to amend the Veterans Insurance Act so as to increase the amount of insurance that may be paid to a beneficiary as an annuity in certain cases; to remove restrictions in payment of insurance in the case of pensioners and to extend the time limit for applications for insurance.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 7-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between the federal government or any of its departments, and the government of each province, since January 1, 1957, dealing with federal assistance towards: (a) the construction of the trans-Canada highway: (b) any other roads, including:	(i) a primary highway
system; (ii) provincial highways; (iii) urban roads,
Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public
Works): The hon. member for Assiniboia and I have agreed that the production of these papers shall be limited to papers passing at the ministerial level.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion as limited by agreement between the mover and the minister?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: May I ask the Acting Minister of Labour if she has any statement to make on the threatened strike on the Black Ball line between Vancouver island and the mainland which, if it took place, would complete

the isolation of that island from the Canadian mainland in so far as surface transportation is concerned?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Minister of Labour):: The negotiations between the Black Ball ferries and their employees come under the jurisdiction of the provincial department of labour, and I understand the provincial minister of labour is presently inquiring into that matter.



CANADIAN PACIFIC STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: May I ask the
Acting Minister of Labour what plans the government is making for renewed efforts or more vigorous efforts to settle the work stoppage against the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which matter comes under the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Labour?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, the commissioner is presently on the west coast and I understand he is in Victoria today. Until we receive his report no further steps will be taken by the department, but we hope to receive that report very shortly.



SAINT JOHN, N.B.-REPORTED STATEMENT RESPECTING THERMAL PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: May I
ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources if he is now in a position to comment on the question I asked him on Monday, June 16, in regard to the statement made by the chairman of the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: The hon. member for Gloucester asked me about this matter on June 16, and since that time I have had the press report translated. It states that the chairman of the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission would not comment on the type of fuel to be used at the East Saint John plant, that no agreement had yet been completed with the federal government with respect to the construction of this plant, and that he did not believe he needed the advice of Mr. Hicks in New Brunswick.
I have no comment to make on these statements, Mr. Speaker, apart from saying that the main agreements with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are designed to do two things.

One is to reduce the cost of production of thermal power in the Atlantic provinces. The second objective is to reduce the cost of power used in coal-fuelled plants of the Atlantic region. As it has repeatedly been made clear, this government is aware of the importance of using maritime coal in the Atlantic provinces. That is why this government provided a subvention to make maritime coal competitive in the Atlantic area with coal used in thermal plants in central Canada.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This question arises out of a press report from Washington by the Free Press Chicago Tribune bureau on June 18 to the effect that Senator Warren G. Magnuson, chairman of the Senate commerce committee, in hearings on a Senate bill which would require all vessels operating on the great lakes to carry licensed pilots, announced that the state department, which had interposed no objections during house consideration of this bill, had telephoned him Tuesday to urge delay because of opposition by the Canadian government.
Could the minister inform the house of the reasons for this opposition, and what the suggestions of the Canadian government were in this matter?


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, whether that report is true I do not know. I will accept the question as notice.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport on the same matter. Has the Minister of Transport received any proposals from the shipping federation of Canada that his department should press for intervention to retard legislation proposed by the United States coastguard which is now before the United States Senate?


George Harris Hees: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY TARIFF OF TOLLS  APPROVAL BY UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Following the hearings which the St.
Inquiries of the Ministry Lawrence seaway authority intends to hold concerning the tariff of tolls, which the minister announced the other day, is it the intention of the government to seek approval of this tariff of tolls from the United States government?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as I announced last Wednesday in the house, the tariff of tolls will be open for representations from shippers and other interested people starting on August 6, and at the conclusion of these hearings the St. Lawrence seaway authority will make certain proposals to myself. The St. Lawrence seaway development corporation will make proposals to the United States government; there will be consultation between both bodies, and we hope to make an announcement some time after that as to what the tariff structure will be.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. If a company or individual is aggrieved by the tariff of tolls, may a complaint be lodged with the board of transport commissioners under section 15 of the act?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Section 15 of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act provides, among other things, that the final tariff and any amendments shall be filed with the board of transport commissioners and any person may, at any time, file a complaint alleging unjust discrimination in the tariff. There is no provision in the act whereby the seaway authority would hear applications alleging unjust discrimination, and the government does not presently contemplate making such provision.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister say when the recommendations of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation following the hearings held by the board on June 12 and June 13 last with regard to the granting of a television licence for station CHAB, Moose Jaw, will be considered?


George Harris Hees: I thank the hon. member for his courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question. I appreciate the extensive work done and interest taken by the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre relative to the television station at Moose Jaw, and assure him that as soon as my technical
1508	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry officers have completed their examination of the recommendations of the C.B.C. board meetings on June 12 and June 13 I will give this matter prompt attention.



MARITIME PROVINCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Could the minister inform the house what progress has been made toward the establishment of a French television station in the maritimes?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to speak to me about this early last week, in fact a week before that. I would have answered last week except for the fact that I was away, and I am sorry that in the meantime a story appeared in the press with respect to this subject. It is certainly not the fault of the hon. member that his question did not receive prior attention.
The fact is that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is concluding engineering studies with respect to a French television station at Moncton. These studies have been practically completed, plans have been prepared and it is anticipated that the work will progress to such a degree that at the end of this year or early in the next calendar year a French television station will be in operation in Moncton.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the travelling public in general I wish to direct a question concerning national health and welfare to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that a certain hospital in Kootenay West has been informed by the legal officers of the Canadian Pacific Railway that persons suffering from communicable diseases may ride in the baggage section of the present Budd cars on the Kettle Valley railway, and in view of the fact that this section of the car is occupied by the baggageman, trainmen and the news agent with his sandwiches, buns and other delectable morsels provided for the sustenance of the company's patrons, does the minister consider this a suitable arrangement having regard to the health of the [Mr. Hees.l

patient, the patrons and the railway employees; and will he investigate this situation?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for advising me of his intention to ask this question. It was handed to me just as I entered the house. I am not aware of the details he has outlined, but I will immediately get in touch with the management of the Canadian Pacific Railway and give him an answer as soon as possible.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MANITOBA    REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING TAX RENTAL AGREEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister would care to table the correspondence between the government and the premier of Manitoba referred to in the press respecting the tax rental agreements in a manner similar to the tabling of the correspondence with the premier of Saskatchewan last week?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the press contained with respect to this matter, but whatever letters have been received will certainly be tabled.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Can the minister confirm a Canadian Press report to the effect that Avro proposes a 47-day lay-off in Nova Scotia coal mines instead of a lay-off to last for 25 days, and that this 47-day lay-off as well as permanent closure of three mines will come about unless the government gives financial aid? If this report is correct, what is the company asking in the way of financial aid?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no; we have not made any proposal on that.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The company made no proposal to the government?

Inquiries of the Ministry BROADCASTING



WATER POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Perhaps the minister may wish to take this as notice. Has any action been taken by the Department of Transport to stop ships that are sailing below Montreal from emptying their oil tanks in the river, thus causing a very serious water pollution problem in that area?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, this is the first I have heard that this is being done. I will make inquiries and give the hon. member an answer as soon as I can.



CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question asked by the hon. member for Laurier in my absence on Friday. The hon. gentleman asked if I had received a telegram from the Halifax board of trade regarding the sale of the Canadian National (West Indies) steamships. I have received such a telegram, which I read with a great deal of interest, and these representations will be given serious consideration.



SUGGESTED TRANSFER OF VESSEL TO WEST INDIES FEDERATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is there any truth in the statement that Canadian National Steamships have sold one or all of their vessels?


George Harris Hees: I have not been so advised, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: If it is not correct, has the minister or the government given consideration to the transfer of one or more of these vessels to the West Indies federation in lieu of the construction of a passenger-cargo vessel for the federation at a cost of $2.5 million?


George Harris Hees: Yes, that matter has been considered, but according to the information we have the West Indies require a ship about half the size of the smallest Canadian National steamship, and those ships are not satisfactory.



KITIMAT, B.C.    INQUIRY AS TO GRANTING OF LICENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.
I	should like to know what progress is being made with respect to the recommendation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation board of governors made on December 6, 1957, for the granting of a private radio station licence in Kitimat, British Columbia.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with that particular case. I will check up and get an answer as soon as possible.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, on June
II	the Leader of the Opposition addressed a question to me with respect to a possible sale of Canadian uranium to Japan. I informed him on that occasion that I would discuss it with my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and there was an implicit undertaking in my answer to reply further to the question.
As the members of the house will recall, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I have informed the house on several occasions of steps being taken to promote the sale of Canadian uranium abroad. Among these steps was the negotiation with friendly governments of bilateral agreements for co-operation in the peaceful uses of atomic energy. Although these agreements do not in themselves constitute contracts, one of their purposes is to establish conditions, satisfactory to the two governments concerned, under which such contracts may be concluded on a commercial basis.
We have been anxious to negotiate such agreements with like-minded governments and have taken active steps in this direction. In particular, we have prepared a standard draft which could serve as the basis for these negotiations, and this draft was passed on last year to governments which had expressed an interest in co-operating with us in this field. Since then we have entered into negotiations with several governments, and we have kept in communication with other governments about this matter.
1510	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
Japan is among the latter group, and although negotiations for the conclusion of a bilateral agreement are not yet under way, we have kept in close touch with the Japanese authorities. We understand that they are as anxious as we are to co-operate in the peaceful uses of atomic energy. We hope they will shortly be in a position to begin such negotiations.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of the very threatening drought conditions in the three prairie provinces. Is the government giving any consideration to increases in payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to meet any such emergency?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, if drought conditions continue to be serious-and no doubt they have been serious up to date-undoubtedly the payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act will be very much higher than they have been in recent years.
If the hon. member is referring to an increase in the rates, which I see he is because he is nodding his head, then we have not given consideration to an increase in the rates of prairie farm assistance.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES INQUIRY AS TO CONFERRING OF DEGREES BY ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence which relates to the important announcement made by an Ontario provincial official that the Royal Military College is to award degrees. Has the minister any statement to make which would indicate the reasons for this step, and its relationship to military training?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, for a number of years the Royal Military College at Kingston has been conducting courses very similar to degree-granting courses at various universities. I am pleased to announce that by arrangement between this government and the government of the province of Ontario agreement has now been reached whereby the Royal Military College will have the privilege of granting degrees.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question; will those degrees be granted with the same amount of academic training as exists at the present time, or will they require a further academic year?


George Randolph Pearkes: No; they will be granted at termination of the fourth year at the Royal Military College.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, on June 19 the hon. member for Northum-berland-Miramichi asked the Acting Minister of Labour a question regarding employment at the Halifax citadel. Since this comes under my department I thought I could give the information the hon. member was requesting.
The number employed at the Halifax citadel in an average summer would be in the region of 30 to 35 persons, and of those we keep about 10 who are employed on a year-round basis. Last December, as a means of relieving unemployment in the area, arrangements were made to add to that number, and as a result a total of about 70 men were employed during the winter and early spring. The winter employment program came to an end on April 30, and since that time we have been gradually cutting back the staff until there are now 46 on the job.
It had been planned to make still further reductions to bring the employment level about to that pertaining in a normal summer. However, in view of the unemployment situation in the area, and also having established that there is still useful work that can be performed, I have authorized them to keep on this work as long as the money in the vote lasts. I am sure hon. members will be pleased to hear that employees at the citadel who had previously received notice that their jobs would be coming to an end will now have been advised that there will be continued employment for some months.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBILITY OF SECOND ROUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is the government formulating any plans for entering into financial arrangements

with the provinces for the construction of a second trans-Canada highway?


Howard Charles Green: Any policy in this regard would be announced in due course.


Frank Howard: I wonder if the minister has read the newspaper account in last Saturday's Vancouver Sun which sets out in some detail plans for this highway, and refers to the financial arrangements?


Howard Charles Green: No, I have not read that, but I get quite a bit of advice on this question.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, June 20, consideration of the motion of Hon. Donald M. Fleming (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. Benidickson, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Argue.
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to relate what the Minister of Finance had said about the projected expansion of this country under this government to the question of railroad construction in the north country. I was making fairly heavy weather with my French when fortunately I was interrupted by Your Honour at five o'clock.
Before going any further, I should like to give briefly some of the background to this question of railroad construction in the north country. I am doing this because from what I know, confirmed by an examination of the records railroad development in the Peace river country has been a sorry record of neglect, delays, frustrations and broken promises. It is quite obvious that one injustice has been done to the people of the Peace river country, and I hope to see that another is not committed as well.
The Peace river country is not part of the western prairies, nor is it part of the true north, but a connecting link between the two. Many of the people who went overland to the Yukon came through the Peace river country. The first white man to cross this continent came down from the north along the Peace and wintered close to the town of Peace River, then went on the next spring to the Pacific coast. I refer to Sir Alexander Mackenzie. I know these things, sir, because from my home, four miles from the town of Peace River, I can see the hill known as Mackenzie lookout, in the shadow of which Mackenzie built his fort. Along the
The Budget-Mr. Baldwin trail past my home went the people who travelled to the Yukon. There is a further grim reminder, possibly, that this area forms the natural gateway to the north in the fact that recently teams of archaeologists have been seeking in our country some confirmation of the fact that countless generations ago people crossed the Bering strait from Asia and so came into the centre of this continent.
In earlier times the large railway companies could or would never accept the fact that our country constituted a natural road to the north, both from the centre of the continent and from the west coast. It was necessary for the province of Alberta to construct railways into the area.
The province, of course, was limited by its boundaries and financial resources, but all during the 1920's there was a constant effort made to persuade the government of Canada and the railway companies to construct an outlet to the Pacific coast and also to build toward the Northwest Territories.
I have been able to find a great number of references to this, particularly in the speeches made by the late Mr. D. M. Kennedy, who was the member for Peace River from 1921 to 1935. He was supported by such members from British Columbia as General Clark, Hon. Harry Stevens, Senator McRae and John Fraser. These men were amongst those who had sufficient foresight to understand the necessity for the construction of this outlet.
I should like to continue, however, with regard to these promises by referring to a statement made by the then prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, speaking in Edmonton. The reference is contained in Hansard for 1926-27, page 2214:
"It is the policy of the government of which I have the honour to be the head to introduce a vigorous policy of immigration which will people the vast areas of undeveloped country in the great west," declared the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, premier of Canada, when addressing a mass meeting of the citizens in the First Presbyterian church last night.
The future prosperity of this country is bound up in the development of its great natural resources, and to develop these resources it is necessary to have a large increase in the population of Canada. There is to the north of this city a great tract of land that is crying out for development. The Peace river country is amongst the richest in Canada, but before the proper development of that country can take place an outlet to the Pacific coast is an absolute necessity. I pledge myself that as soon as it is humanly possible the great Peace river country will be given that measure of railway relief that will bring to the pioneers of that country the outlet they have been so long denied, and will open up the country for prospective settlers.
"The times that we are passing through are very difficult, and I would ask you to have a little patience, and in as short a time as possible, a railway outlet will be provided for the Peace river
1512	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Baldwin and northern Alberta districts that will open up an era of prosperity for that country which will not be equalled by any other province in Canada."
However, this was an election speech; and since it was a promise made before an election I examined the speech from the throne of the following year with some care. I had to look through it twice before I found any mention of the Peace river, and then I found this promise had shrunk to this insignificant statement; "that in due course steps would be taken to further colonization and settlement in other fertile regions such as Peace river". This was as far as the matter went. This is typical of the treatment given to the people of that area in so far as this allimportant question of railroads is concerned.
Now, as a matter of fact some survey parties were sent out, and they came back muttering about tonnage, population and economics. At that time we had only
20.000	people. Our railway tonnage was
110.000	tons going out of the country and
50.000	tons going in.
I recognize that we cannot be starry-eyed and visionary about this question of railroad construction, but I submit that railroads and their construction should be regarded as an instrument of national policy. They were considered in that way by the people who made this country, and I feel that the same consideration should be given today. If Sir John A. Macdonald and the people who constructed the C.P.R. had stopped to confer with hordes of chair-borne statisticians the C.P.R. would never have been constructed. Western Canada would still probably be a vast hunting ground for the buffalo or, more likely than that, we would have fewer provinces in Canada and there would be more stars in the United States flag.
In 1929 the Alberta government sold its railroad system to a statutory corporation created by the government of Canada. What was known as the Northern Alberta Railways was created, comprised of equal ownership by the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. By the statute of incorporation this railroad, the N.A.R., was authorized to commence construction of and given authority to build a railway to the Northwest Territories. The statute is chapter 48 of the 1929 statute. There is one particular part of the schedule I should like to read into the record because I think it has some bearing on what I propose to say. This new statutory corporation was authorized to lay out, construct, maintain and operate-
*-a branch line from a point at or near Grimshaw in a generally northerly direction to a point that will when surveyed approximate to a point in township one hundred and eleven, range nineteen or twenty, west of the fifth principal meridian,


thence in a generally northerly direction approximately parallel to the Hay river to the northern boundary of the said province.
That is precisely the route which we in the Peace river country advocate today. It follows precisely the same route which we advocate today on the question of this railroad which has been projected to Great Slave lake.
Considerable exception was taken in the house at that time by those who were interested and had some knowledge of the situation to the way the N.A.R. was formed. They said the creation of a statutory corporation of that kind comprising equality of ownership by the two great railway companies which were actually competitive was not a good thing for Peace river. Actually that is the way it turned out, because not one mile of railroad was ever built in furtherance of the suggestions made in 1929 when that corporation was created. It was actually left for the province of British Columbia to build this coast outlet, which it did when the P.G.E. was eventually completed into the Peace river country; and only a few days ago I understand the first train from the coast came up and across the Peace river at Taylor Flats in British Columbia.
The excuse of the major railway companies was that they did not think there was sufficient tonnage or population. I recall Sir Edward Beatty in Peace River saying that just as soon as our production was ten million bushels of grain, that would justify a coast outlet. Later on he was speaking in Edmonton, and I have here a quotation of his that was given in this house by Mr. J. A. Sissons, who was the member for Peace River from 1935 to 1940. Sir Edward Beatty then said what all of us knew to be correct:
That north country needs a settlement plan and needs it quickly, and together with that there should be a program of rail development.
The Peace River district impressed me most favourably. But its one major need still is that of increased settlement. I am confident that the country could absorb at least twice the population it now bears.
I certainly intend to suggest to the federal government that it embark on a broad policy of settlement for the north. Extension of rail facilities to go hand in hand with colonization. That is something that should be axiomatic.
We have reached and far surpassed all the figures that have been suggested with regard to population, tonnage and crop production. Our crop production is many times that which Sir Edward Beatty had in mind. Our population is four times that which existed at the time former prime minister Mackenzie King made his statement in Edmonton. Our tonnage going out is ten times that which it was in 1924. That argument no longer should serve as an excuse.

As a matter of fact I think we have ample confirmation of the truth of the statements our people had made earlier. As a result-and I think it is no accident that the two matters that have come to pass are linked together-of the projection of the P.G.E. to the Peace river country in the last two years, we have seen the beginnings of industrialization and growth. In the small southwest area of the Peace river country comprising part of my constituency and part of that of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Henderson) there are a large plywood plant, two oil refineries and the beginnings of a petrochemical industry probably running into $30 million or $40 million and ultimately two or three times that much.
That has come about, I submit, as a result of the fact that at long last the coast outlet was brought to Peace river. I hold no brief for Premier Bennett, but I think it is only proper to pay tribute to him for the industry, initiative and intelligence he has exercised in directing that railroad into our country. I can only assume that it was because of the years he had spent as a member of the Conservative party that he acquired those characteristics.
We now face the question or the problem of constructing a railroad into the Northwest Territories. In that regard I should like to refer to a statement by Hon. Charles Dunning, who was minister of railways in the King administration. It was truly a pertinent one. This is what he said during those debates which took place in 1929 on this bill creating the Northern Alberta Railway. Speaking about this railroad into the Northwest Territories he said:
I believe I shall live to see the day when there will be a railhead on Great Slave lake tapping the resources of that great northern area.
This indicates what was intended at that time; and having in mind the countless numbers of people who went in there on the basis of promises of that kind, I submit it should be considered when we now come to deal with this question of a railroad into the north country.
Quite recently the government of Alberta established a royal commission known as the McGregor commission to inquire into the development of northern Alberta, which by the terms of reference was defined as being that part of Alberta lying to the north of the 55th parallel of north latitude. This commission has made a very extensive survey and I commend it to hon. members in so far as facts and statistics are concerned, though I must say I disagree very violently with some of the conclusions derived from these facts.
Included in these statistics is information relative to undeveloped agricultural area,
The Budget-Mr. Baldwin including certain territory which the commission designates as arable and other lands which are said to be possibly arable. I checked the figures with my own personal knowledge derived from almost 30 years' residence in that country and continuous travel through all parts of it, and I agree with their views which give a maximum of 14 million acres of undeveloped agricultural land with a potential production running into some $600 million to $700 million a year.
Certainly there is no doubt that here is the last great source of undeveloped agricultural country on the North American continent. I do not like cliches, yet the phrase "great inland empire" I think could nowhere be better applied than to this particular country. But empires, like all living organisms, must have nourishment and this empire was in grave danger of destruction, of dying stillborn because of lack of transportation facilities.
Following along the Peace river, the Northern Alberta Railways and up to the Northwest Territories, are people who for many, many years have struggled against tremendous odds to try to maintain themselves in that country. I say to the hon. members of this house, particularly those who come from agricultural constituencies, think of the problems of these people who have to pay 40 cents to 50 cents a bushel for wheat in order to bring it down to the railhead, $10 a head for cattle, $3 for other stock and so on. These are extreme examples, of course, and as you approach closer to the railroad the figures become somewhat less.
There is also the reverse side of the coin, and we must consider that everything which goes into that country requires an extra toll from the people because of the cost of transportation. We have every problem and every difficulty faced by people in other parts of Canada, but we also have this immense difficulty with respect to transportation owing to the great distances involved. On the economic scale there was slowly but surely being poured into the balance, the weight of these figures and if we had continued under the methods established by the previous administration there could have been but one inevitable result, stagnation and ultimate extinction.
That is why the people of my part of the country were so glad to hear of the program of national development planned by the Conservative party, as national development of course to us means primarily northern development. We were glad to hear of the construction of a railroad to the south shore of Great Slave lake, and to learn that we had not waited in vain for this railroad which, provided it commences at or near Grimshaw
1514	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Baldwin and goes through the Peace river country, will bring many obvious benefits to us.
I would like to mention the mineral production of the Pine Point area of the Great Slave lake region which, since it could reach the market at a cost which would make it competitive, would be a great step forward; but this is only the beginning, and there are many other tremendous considerations. The Northwest Territories would have the advantage of obtaining food supplied from an area comparatively close at hand which would substantially reduce the cost of living. The farmers providing these supplies would have a corresponding advantage by being able to increase their sales, and the new and expanding secondary industries of our country would find their markets increasing in both area and population.
The orthodox development of oil and gas would favour the route through the Peace river country, that is to say through the western part of northern Alberta. The figures given to the McGregor commission by the oil and gas conservation board of Alberta show as a minimum that 8,000 wells will be drilled by 1980 in the area affected by this railroad, at which time there should be an annual production of 62 million barrels of oil and 230 billion cubic feet of natural gas. This is a controlled production based on market requirements, and there are very interesting tables on pages 59 and 60 of the McGregor report with regard to this aspect of development.
The proposed route would serve 90 per cent of the people of northern Alberta, including those living on the British Columbia side of the Peace river, which provides the largest concentration of people and thus potential labour north of the 55th parallel in Canada, which I must say contrasts quite pitifully with what is believed to exist in the same latitudes in Russia. There is an excellent forestry potential with respect to both timber and pulp, and there are also first class hydro power facilities in the area to be served. The cost of construction would be reasonable, since there are no bridges of any consequence nor are there any substantial grades. Finally, having in mind the diversity of potential production, the railway would not be exclusively dependent on minerals which, being non-recurring resources, often cause the abandonment of railways and of towns.
The McGregor report recommended an alternative route. If this should be adopted, which I hope it will not be, I am quite certain many of the pioneer farmers of our country may well give up the struggle, which would result in a large exodus from some areas. I have recently been receiving an


average of 50 to 75 letters a day with respect to this matter, many from people I know personally as pioneers of the area, all urging me, as I hope they have urged the members of the government, to take these things into consideration when a decision is reached with respect to the route to be adopted when building this railway.
These people, and there are thousands of them, have held on grimly and tenaciously Dver the years in the face of considerable obstacles. They have cleared their lands, built homes and become good farmers- which they had to do in order to exist at all-and have also become good citizens. They have raised and educated their families, expanding the perimeter of civilization. So far they have done all this without too much help from government sources. They know nothing of national housing and very little of unemployment insurance benefits. For many of them some of the ordinary assistance available to agricultural producers has also been lacking. Even the benefits under the Can. Farm Loan Act have only recently been extended to some of the northern regions, and then only to a limited area close to the railroad. Despite these disadvantages, however, they have always held before them the hope that some day, somehow, at the end of the rainbow, there would be the construction of a railroad.
Many of us, of course, knew that a realistic appraisal of the national and world situation, so far as agricultural commodities are concerned, would make it difficult to justify, and indeed that it might be found impossible to construct that railroad having in mind only the agricultural aspects of the matter. We did however feel, as we still feel, that an additional incentive has now been provided by the further discoveries of minerals in and around the Great Slave lake area. We believe, therefore, that when the railroad is built it should be built through the Peace river country. We should not and we must not abandon these people. They must not be content to be second class citizens if they wish to remain in their country, or to have only one alternative, namely to give up their homes and everything for which they have struggled and move elsewhere.
If we permit them to leave behind them everything they have built up we shall be abdicating our responsibilities and failing in our duties. I suggest this railway is a fair test of what lies ahead in respect of northern development. Are we to consider human resources as being of paramount importance? Do we want to fill the country with people or are people to be subservient to the privilege and interests of those concerned in exploita-

tion? We are confident that the Conservative party, with its history and traditions-and this government has expressed its views by actions and utterances in recent months-will recognize our position and will appreciate that railroads exist to serve the people and not people to serve the railroads.
We have been told that a highway may be constructed as a substitute for this railway, that is to say a rebuilding and extension of the Mackenzie highway which now runs over 400 miles from Grimshaw to the port of Hay River on Great Slave lake. We welcome the fact that we now have this indication of the firm intention of this government to thus develop the northland, but I say this is not an alternative for our agricultural producers, who simply cannot develop farming communities at a distance of 40 miles or more from railway facilities.
As a matter of fact I am being a little optimistic when I say 40 miles, for I have in my hand a volume entitled "The Settlement of the Peace River Country", which was written by Professor C. A. Dawson, professor of sociology at McGill University, and Professor R. W. Murchie, professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota.
Their position as a whole strengthens mine. Here is what they have to say:
In the older settlements of the prairie provinces there are few farms more than 10 miles from the railway. Productivity fades before the twentieth mile from the railway is reached; beyond that it declines with great rapidity.
The McGregor report states that the need to stimulate agriculture in the north country remains open to question, and I assume that other people may entertain the same opinion; but if so they are not taking the long range view, as I propose to point out later. In any event I want to say that our agricultural economy is largely becoming, and will be even more in the future, one of mixed and diversified farming tailored to help us sustain our role as supplier of the Northwest Territories, as well as being geared to the exigencies of the larger world picture. Our people are realists, and the Peace river country has the necessary requirements so far as land is concerned to go into the type of production which will find and is finding markets, and we are turning away from the commodities which are surplus.
Such being the case, is it not a far better thing to do what is necessary to quicken the stirring of new life by opening this country, by establishing the many communities which will provide the necessary services along the new railroad through the country to Great Slave lake, than to accept the defeatist and narrowly pragmatic attitude which is inherent in this other type of thinking?
57071-3-96J
The Budget-Mr. Baldwin
I believe that the appointed purpose of this land is that it should be made available for the many, a home for all who wish to come; and there will be many who will wish to do that. Any railroad construction and any development which aims at a lesser result is an abuse of the trust we have had bestowed upon us. "Without vision the people will perish" surely applies here, and this government has a vested interest in that phrase.
At this point I want to make it absolutely clear that anything I have said is not meant to suggest that the railroad should be built through the Peace river country without regard to the proper and natural aspirations and the development of the eastern half of northern Alberta. As and when, and that time may well be now, the economic development of that area and the requirements of Canada as a whole justify railway branch lines or highway construction or navigation improvement, then by all means they should be undertaken. But I submit as strongly as I possibly can that at the present time a branch line to the north which disregards the logical needs, and fails to give effect to the long held prayers and hopes, of the people of the Peace river country is wrong.
It has been said that the sole responsibility for providing communication to these people in our country rests with the provincial government, and I admit that it is a responsibility which Alberta must share, having in mind that the Northern Alberta Railways was originally constructed and operated by the province of Alberta. However, I would point out that most of the settlement came into the north country from 1912 to 1935, and that prior to the passage of the statute which implemented the agreement for the transfer of natural resources from Canada to Alberta in 1934, Canada alone had control of the land settlement. The homestead and land officers were those of the senior government, and the people who went into this northern area were encouraged to do so by the Canadian government. So the responsibility should be shared jointly among the province of Alberta, the federal government and the railway company.
Certainly the statement made by Mr. Dunning to which I referred previously with regard to this line to the north was accepted by many who went in there as a firm indication of the government's intention, and I know as a fact that many people who went into the north country did so because they honestly believed that this line would be built and that it was the intention of the government and of the railways to proceed with it. Certainly the department of northern affairs felt that way in 1956, because they presented a brief to the Gordon commission. On page
1516	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Baldwin 24 of the brief there was a map-I believe it was submitted by Mr. R. G. Robertson, commissioner of the Northwest Territories- which shows this railroad projected into the Great Slave lake area, and it shows it starting from Grimshaw. On page 29 of this report on the economic prospects of the Northwest Territories I find this:
A railway to Great Slave lake will not be just another railway. It is not a railway to a lake or to open a mine or to serve a community. A railway to Great Slave lake will be one of the great development railroads of the country. It will not bring population to the Northwest Territories to the same extent that the western railroads brought it to the prairies; but it may well bring in the years ahead a comparable increase in the wealth of Canada. This railway is quite different from most of the branch lines constructed in recent years which were destined to serve one mine, or a group of mines; its purpose is to open up a whole new region.
What I have said so far may be construed as being on a purely limited and local basis, but I submit that examined against the larger background of the national interest the answer comes out precisely the same. A branch line from Grimshaw to Great Slave lake would permit agricultural and other products from the northern and the Peace river country to seek their natural markets. We hold no brief for or against any particular area, but we wish to encourage our products to flow to the Pacific coast or to the east as economics may dictate.


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


Mr. Pickersgill:: Let the hon. gentleman finish his paragraph.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Is it the
unanimous wish of the house that the hon. member be allowed to continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Thank you. Some consideration must be given to the fact that the development of the Peace river country will lead to an influx of people and will to some extent syphon these people from the larger areas to which they have been attracted in ever increasing numbers in the last few years.
While I recognize that one cannot turn the clock back, and that the general tendency is toward people coming together in large cities, there is an inherent danger in this. In a news item in the Halifax Chronicle Herald of Tuesday, May 6, I observed a statement from the population reference bureau, a United States agency, that our neighbour to the souch is today suffering acute social and economic problems because the


population has grown quickly and concentrated in cities, and this bureau's reference points out that Canada is heading in the same direction.
I see no reason why we should not avoid this or at least minimize it, by encouraging people to go to the north country where there is the space and there could be the opportunity under the right conditions, based on proper railroad facilities. I am quite confident that there is still present in our people the spirit of adventure and the desire to make a new country that originally persuaded those from the older parts of the world to come to the new world.
Then is it not possible that in the final analysis the ability of Canada in the future to furnish food as and when required may be the deciding factor in the world struggle that envelops us? I would suggest that appeasement, not in the sense that^ it was used in the earlier days of Munich but appeasement of the hunger of the many millions who belong to the yet uncommitted countries, may be the answer to this struggle. We hear talk of agricultural surpluses, but I suggest that apart from wheat and one or two other products the normal increase in population, naturally and by immigration, may leave us in a position of balance in the not too distant future. In that regard the figures I have given previously indicate our potential, but you cannot make that production available as you would turn on a tap. There must be railroad construction followed by settlement, clearing and cultivation of land, providing of marketing facilities, establishment of communities to give service, and many other things. Even if the gleam in the collective eye of the Peace River people was transferred to the board of the draftsman tomorrow, I would thing that from 15 years to a quarter of a century might well go by before a reasonable percentage of the production potential is available.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is not sufficient to build a railroad just to transfer large quantities of minerals out of the north country to be processed elsewhere, so that at the end of 20 to 30 years we may have only a gigantic hole in the ground in the north to show for it. I agree that mining is tremendously important and must play a great part in our development, but this development must be complete and well rounded, and will be a failure unless eventually it results in the populating of our country.
There is a phrase that nature abhors a vacuum. If we do not fill it we may well find that some other country may do so. Thus when we propose railway extensions

we should think in terms of 50, 60 or 80 years; and he will be a reckless man indeed who will say that based on that consideration the building up and settlement of a country like that which lies in the north, capable of a diversified economy, is open to question. Here is a great land, a fair and fertile country, stretching from Grande Prairie and the oil fields of Valley view in the south hundreds of miles northward to the south shore of Great Slave lake; a country which is capable of maintaining a substantial civilization and of serving as a natural and proper passage from the settled areas in the south of Canada to the great storehouse of the north. Here is a chance to deepen the present limits of settlement. We must not ask this country or the people who have helped to build it or the people who wish to go to it, to wait another 40 years.
I have good authority for this point of view, and I call to my support the statements of two great Canadians who at different times have stated their views in this house. Here is what Sir John A. Macdonald wrote in a letter to Sir Stafford Northcote on May 1, 1878:
I shall not be present; I am an old man, but I shall perchance look down from the realms above upon a multitude of younger men-a prosperous, populous, and thriving generation-a nation of Canadians, who will see the completion of the road.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, speaking in this house with reference to the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, said:
We cannot wait, because time does not wait; we cannot wait because, in these days of wonderful development, time lost is doubly lost; we cannot wait, because at this moment there is a transformation going on in the conditions of our national life which it would be folly to ignore and a crime to overlook.
(Translation):


Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the subject I wish to discuss today, I should like to call attention to two significant events in the history of this country, both of which are taking place this year.
First I would like to call the attention of hon. members to the British Columbia centennial. When I was president of the Young Liberals Association of Canada, I had several opportunities of visiting that beautiful province, and was always impressed by the unforgettable scenery and the charm of the people of British Columbia. I therefore ask hon. members who represent that province in this house to please convey to the people of British Columbia our congratulations and best wishes.
The Budget-Mr. Rouleau
I would also like to recall the fact that this year we will be celebrating the 350th anniversary of the founding of the city of Quebec by Samuel de Champlain. A visit to that beautiful capital of the province of Quebec, that old historic city, is always a moving experience. As a matter of fact, it is one way of reliving the history of the beginnings of the colony. Quebec, with its monuments, houses and parks, has a charm which is equalled only by the hospitality of its citizens.
Quebec city authorities have decided to mark this occasion by impressive celebrations and, last Saturday evening, they opened the first of a series of events designed to commemorate the 350th anniversary of the founding of the city. Mr. Speaker, that occasion is such as to be of interest to all Canadians, in every part of this country, since it is on that spot that, 350 years ago, civilization, Christianity and French culture were permanently established. It is from there that discoverers and settlers departed for all parts of this lovely land of ours, Canada.
After the conquest of Quebec by the English, some 150 years later, our Englishspeaking fellow citizens brought over with them from England those various British institutions which we enjoy at the present time, including parliamentary freedoms. On the occasion of the 350th anniversary of the founding of Quebec by Mr. de Champlain, I would like to congratulate citizens of that city and extend to them my best regards.
I would feel remiss, Mr. Speaker, in not pointing out the immense contribution made by Canadians of French descent to the life of this nation. On the eve of the feast of the patron saint of French Canadians, I should like to mention that the history of this country began under a French civilizing influence and that we are now, as I said a moment ago, participating in a larger sense in the life of this country as a whole. I said a moment ago that tomorrow we shall be celebrating the feast of the patron saint of French Canadians. We will do so in a spirit of true Canadianism, conscious of the fact that our French culture is a contributory element to the life of the nation.
Mr. Speaker, I had a good reason, just now, to speak of the celebration of the 350th anniversary of the foundation of Quebec by Mr. de Champlain. It is well to recall that on the Plains of Abraham may be found two monuments, those of Montcalm and Wolfe, who are admirably expressive of Canadian unity, that unity which binds those two great

The Budget-Mr. Rouleau races which, in due course were joined by all those other groups of Canadians, of whatever origin they may be.
Mr. Speaker, on such important occasions as these, gifts are always in order. I would have thought that this government would have marked those two anniversaries by gifts to the people of Canada. However, the only gift they saw fit to offer us was the Fleming budget, one that will be long remembered. The first Conservative budget in 23 years, it is a deficit budget, a tradition with the Conservative system. It is the modern version of the great blackout years, and I would call it the "blackout budget".
(Text):
In his speech the Minister of Finance has repeated the same old Tory principles which have not changed and which, as always, will carry the nation in the wrong direction. As is customary for him the Minister of Finance took very long to say very little, but it did not take very long for the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River to burst the balloon which was let loose in the House of Commons by the Minister of Finance. At this stage I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River for the manner in which he answered the budget speech. His remarks were solid, realistic and constructive, and were worth much more than the funny, amusing, flippant and light remarks delivered by the hon. member for Carleton. His speech was all wind-


John Whitney Pickersgill: All wind and no sail.


Guy Rouleau: -and one got the impression that he was engaging in an oratorical contest.
(Translation):
At the beginning of his remarks, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) sought to deride the opposition, stating that they were taking their roles as critics rather literally. (Text):
I hope the hon. member for Carleton was in his seat and understood my remarks in French.
(Translation):
That is an amazing statement on the part of a member, Mr. Speaker. To speak this way, he surely failed to read the speeches of former years when members of his party sitting in the opposition came out with countless and protracted lectures, always complaining about being gagged. If he would only read them he would see that they freely indulged in the worst kind of nonsense.
He should also reread, for his own guidance, the remarks which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) made in this house on November 17, 1953, as found on page 99 of Hansard and I quote:
We are in the opposition. We have our responsibility to discharge, to maintain our constitutional system. There can be no freedom without an opposition, strong and fearless to criticize, and above all to provide suggestions and ideas as an alternative to those advanced by the government.
Again for his guidance, the hon. member for Carleton should go to the trouble of reading over-if he has the time, the patience and the courage to do so-the speeches made by the present ministers when they were in the opposition.
As for us, who sit on this side of the house, conscious of the fact that we represent at least 2J million people who voted for us in the last election, we will continue to defend what we consider right and in the nation's interest, unheedful of anyone's toadyism.
The hon. member for Carleton who, I admit, has a certain zest, quickness of repartee and a degree of wit which would make him a first-rate comedian on the CBC, tried to take our minds off the deficit of almost a billion dollars which the Minister of Finance announced in his budget speech.
He also tried to take our minds off the monsters of unemployment and economic recession which we now have with us. He went even further, trying to give the impression that the Liberals had done nothing in the 22 years they were in power, and were responsible for the present situation.
It reminds me of the Bible picture showing a statesman who, delivering a righteous man to be crucified, was washing his hands to free his conscience.
Mr. Speaker, the responsibility for governing this country lies with the present Conservative government. Let them therefore finally accept those responsibilities which are theirs and stop acting like young hopefuls.
We, in the opposition, assume our own responsibilities. Our role is to scrutinize the actions of the government and to make constructive suggestions.
In his reply to the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) stated our approach to the situation which now faces us. He also stated what we think of the deficit budget presented by the Minister of Finance. His speech was a synthesis of Liberal opinion.
Last Friday, the hon. member for Carleton intimated that the Liberal party was a house divided against itself.
Accustomed as they are to travelling in a one-man car, with nothing to say or do but let themselves be led along, accustomed to following the dictates of their leader, without thinking or reflecting, they cannot realize that the Liberals, though inspired by the same political doctrine, are able to express themselves in personal terms without always

keeping an eye on their leader to see if he approves, disapproves or even motions them to sit down, as happened here in this house.
As regards unity, Liberals have nothing to learn from the Conservatives. It is enough to remember what happened at the Conservative convention where the present leader of that party was chosen, in December 1956, when a faction of the Conservative delegation walked out in protest against the choice of the Prime Minister as leader of the Conservative party.


Mr. Lambert:: Were you there?


Guy Rouleau: I had the privilege of witnessing, on television, that unspeakable gesture, and I can assure you that it was not highly impressive either for people in politics or for our Canadian fellow citizens.
Mr. Speaker, there is another difference at the basis of that disunity right here in the house. One has but to appreciate the deep difference in the thinking of Quebec Conservatives whose leader is Mr. Duplessis of the Union Nationale, and of Conservatives from other provinces. One has only to compare the speech made by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion), setting out the doctrine of the Union Nationale chieftain, the doctrine which inspires the Quebec Conservatives who sit in this house, to the speech from another member- I see that my friend, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) finds this a laughing matter, although he has not yet seen fit to break in on my remarks.


Mr. Ricard:: Because they are childish.


Guy Rouleau: He is perfectly aware of their aptness and that is why he thought he had better not break in sooner, as he usually does.
As I said, one only has to compare the speech made by the hon. member for Belle-chase with that of the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Small) a few days before the end of last session, a speech which very aptly sums up the old Tory philosophy which still haunts the Conservative mind.
As far as we are concerned, we have always stood united behind a unanimously elected leader. All of us stand united behind the same leader, whatever our racial origins, whatever our province.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: With a few exceptions.


Norman Platt Lambert: Ask delegates from western Canada.


Guy Rouleau: In the leader of the Liberal party, the present Leader of the Opposition, we have a man admired the world over, a man looked up to by all his fellow citizens. We Liberals in this house, members of the
The Budget-Mr. Rouleau Liberal party, all admire him, are happy to serve under him, and will continue to serve the country when we are called upon to do so, as we have done for 22 years, giving to our country a sound administration, in spite of anything that might be said by the member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) and his friends.


Norman Platt Lambert: It is going to take quite some time.


Guy Rouleau: The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell the situation was not so tragic, we could conclude with Mr. Guy Fournier:
Thanks just the same, Mr. Fleming!
(Text):


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to me to take part in the debate on this budget which is the first budget produced by my old friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). He and I had long worked together in the service of the party to which we belong. We entered parliament together in 1945. We shared a room for the first four years. I have watched with interest and admiration his progress to the position which he now holds which is based on industry, ability and reliability.
That was easy to say and to believe but from here on in it is not so easy. It seems to me it is difficult to support a budget-it is hard suddenly to shift oneself across the gangway-which has not been effectively criticized.
The attitudes toward the budget might really be divided into three classes. There are those who praise it and who are fairly large in number. I am referring now particularly to the press. Then there are those who are neutral, who do not wish to praise it openly but who in the phrase of a friend of mine praise it with faint damns. In their hearts they really praise it but they just do not like to come out and say so. Then of course there are those who really criticize it. I suppose they must be doing it sincerely but in the case of these real criticisms that I have run across, and to which I shall refer later, I confess that with whatever capacity I have for taking a realistic attitude they seem to be so far fetched and so wild that I can hardly believe they uttered them; though they uttered them, I can hardly believe they meant them. I shall refer to those later.
Of course it is perfectly clear that the budget was received with considerable equanimity and why not? It was merely putting into arithmetic what the people knew. The people had been warned in various ways. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) had said that if it was a matter of choice between debt and deficit on the one hand and unemployment and suffering on the other hand the choice would be made in favour of the relief of unemployment and

suffering. The Minister of Finance said the same thing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might be permitted to ask the hon. gentleman a question?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the hon. gentleman give the occasion on which the Prime Minister said that before June 10, 1957?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. I do not know that I could give the date. The Prime Minister has said that, I believe, both before and after June 10. Of course this was what Canadians voted for on March 31 last. After all, it does not make sense, with Canada's real resources, to permit a temporary world condition to condemn its people to want. As I have already indicated, the press had been pointing out that a slow-down was gradually making itself felt. Happily there are now signs of a turn-up. I should like to quote briefly from the Globe and Mail which said:
In framing his government's first budget, Finance Minister Fleming was compelled to draw a line somewhere between the requirements of an expanding national economy and a drop in revenues imposed upon the nation from external sources.
And again they said:
Instead of being a "sick budget", as described by opposition critics, it offers convalescent aids for an economy whose ills were aggravated by mistaken policies of the late Liberal regime.
Then the Toronto Star, believe it or not, gives the minister grudging praise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes. They said that
he overcame what they call "his prejudice against deficit spending in time of recession". The truth is that they had no warrant for believing that any such prejudice existed. But even that fraction of approval from the Star indicates something new.
I should now like to refer to certain signs of approval which occurred and which pleased me, certain signs that things were not as bad as might be suggested in certain quarters. I will read a few headlines, first from the Toronto Telegram on June 18:
Sharp Tightening Anti-Dumping Laws Aids Industry Here
From the Toronto Star, June 18:
Save Fifth of Mill on Sewers-Budget
The new federal budget could have "far-reaching effects" in long-term savings for Metro taxpayers on the huge sewage system program now under way,-

I read another headline from the Montreal Star:
Universities Praise Income Tax Action
I read from the Ottawa Citizen:
Removal of Sales Tax Helps City's Finances
From the Toronto Telegram again:
Applaud Move to Up Tourist Buying in U.K.
The article reads in part:
Ontario Hydro chairman, James Duncan, who served as leader of the Canadian Trade Mission to Britain last fall, today applauded the revision in duty-free purchase allowance for Canadians abroad as an excellent move.
I shall have occasion to say something more about that later. There was even a report-I cannot put my hand on it at the moment-that there was a good deal of pleasure existing or hope given to those who cannot speak for themselves. I refer to the dumb animals. Yes here it is. The Globe and Mail of June 19 says this:
Finance Minister Fleming may not have sent the farmers whooping with glee up and down the concession, but there was one section of his budget speech that seemed certain to bring joy to the hearts of the cows, pigs, chickens and the rest of the barn population.
To be specific, he said it was time the sales tax was removed from "certain agricultural, horticultural and forestry goods" such as "stock conditioners, condiments and food supplements for addition to poultry, cattle and other stock feeds.
In other words, it put a bit of flavour into things at the manger level.
I now want to come briefly to the speech of the financial critic. I rather sympathize with him because I have made some efforts in that line myself. There were the usual phrases that we have heard such as "bluff and bragging", "empty as a bird's nest". Then there was one interesting word that he used, namely "gobbledygook". I suggest that if he looks up the meaning of that word in the dictionary, he might be surprised at the word he has used and he might find it of some interest. I am not going to expose it here and I am not going to spend much time on the hon. member because I thought that the crashing broadsides from my friend the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) fairly well dealt with that speech. However, there is one quotation from the speech upon which I do want to comment seriously because the comment was made seriously, and I believe it is quite misleading. He said this:
One could certainly argue for spending and deficits, if they are not aimless but rather are planned, comprehensive and vigorous enough proposals to provide incentive, to provide lift, to perk up the economy.
57071-3-971
The Budget

Mr. Macdonnell
Now I suppose it is fair to assume that what the hon. member had in mind when he said that was the kind of thing which was used in the Liberal campaign, and I would now like to refer to some of the promises made. I am anxious to be very clear about all these things which were promised in view of the actions which have been taken since last autumn and the obligations which have been assumed by the government and which are included in the present budget which, as we all know, produced a deficit. In other words, when these proposals by the opposition were made these government proposals were in effect and have been embodied in the budget and, what was proposed was actually an additional deficit of $400 million. These are the figures which were bandied about and I believe it is very important that we should bear in mind that those figures were, and were intended to be, in addition to the measures which had already been announced, carried out and voted upon by the opposition last autumn.
It is interesting to observe that between February, when the campaign began, and the end of March, when it ended, things steamed up a bit and the promises, I thought, became a little more remote and a little less justifiable; in fact, a little more the product, quite obviously, of the excitement of the moment. I do not propose to go into details too deeply but I would like to quote from the Ottawa Citizen of February 10 last, where there was a headline saying, "Advances Plan for More Jobs in New Boom." We were going to have a new boom! Then there were all the other things-the marriage tax allowance, the basic exemption for married couples in the first three years $4,000 instead of $2,000; lower income tax; special reduction of excise tax on cars; aid for small business; municipal loans; highways; social security and youth. I will spare you the rest of the details.
On the same day, as reported on February 11 in the Gazette we had a headline, "Crash Program for Jobless Promised". The use of the word is interesting-it might have been a different kind of crash from that which was intended, but at any rate that was the word used. This is a Canadian Press item quoted from the Gazette of February 11, and it says:
His election platform-
This is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), of course-
-outlined at a press conference was centred on an unemployment crash program-

The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell
But it included a wide range of promises from $400 million worth of tax cuts to special aids for cities and towns and outlying regions. It would appear, therefore, that my figure of $400 million was conservative, because this was to be $400 million plus. Then we get a further report on March 22 when the Leader of the Opposition was at a great party in Toronto which was described in the Ottawa Citizen of that date as a carnival. They were having a great time and, by the way, there was a really delightful and new idea at this party-six tax free weeks. A tax cut for six weeks. There is something very nice about that, something that attracts everyone. We all in our hearts disapprove of taxes and we all feel the world would be a much better place if there were no taxes. Here the Leader of the Opposition was going to give us six tax free weeks, and I am sure he felt he was really going to do something! It is perhaps fair to point out that this was done in what is described as a carnival spirit, for the newspaper said:
The Liberal leader announced the new pledge to rousing cheers from some 2,800 party workers gathered in carnival spirit at a Massey hall rally. Clowns, horn-tooters, bands, balloons, confetti and other stage gimmicks enlivened the rally as the 18 Toronto and York Liberal candidates were introduced.
It does not say that the Liberal leader was a clown but it says there were clowns there and horns and tooters and balloons and confetti and other such gimmicks. There is a sour note at the end; the reports says in the last paragraph that only one of the 18 Liberal candidates in this area was elected in the last parliament. Perhaps it is not very kind to remember that that one member is now cold and dead, and I think it is fair to excuse the Leader of the Opposition in the midst of all this confetti and horns and tooters and clowns. We should deal very gently with him under these circumstances and not be unkind.
There is one other quotation I would like to give, this time from the Windsor Star of March 14, which is headed, "Takes Aim at P.M." This refers to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), who was calling for tax reductions to improve the purchasing power of Canadians, the immediate removal of the excise tax on automobiles and the provision of missile orders for the automobile industry. I presume these missiles were to be used in the ordinary course of warfare and were not in any sense directed against the

Conservative party but at any rate this was his contribution to the situation. Some of these suggestions had as I said a romantic appeal; for instance the double exemption for young married people, and as I say, nothing was left undone to attract people.
These are the things which I presume the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) had in mind when he spoke of perking up the economy, and it therefore seems to me that we might have expected some of these proposals in the amendment proposed. But there was nothing to warrant that belief in the amendment. Where are all these ideas? They were not nailed to the mast and I imagine they have been thrown overboard by now.
Here is the wording of the amendment, which I think is rather an anaemic affair:
This house regrets that the government, in its budget proposals, has failed to cope satisfactorily with the problems of the recession in spite of the largest peacetime deficit in Canadian history and that it is moving towards greater trade restrictions at a time when other countries in the western world are moving in the opposite direction.
I will have a little more to say on trade restrictions in a few moments, but I feel that certain fellows of the baser sort are trying to exaggerate such matters. However, nothing in the resolution talks of any of this $400 million proposal. All it suggests is that we have failed to cope satisfactorily with the recession. They knew what we were doing and in fact they voted for many of the things we have done, so if anyone knew what was coming, they knew.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River had a good deal to say about the failure of the Minister of Finance to provide what he calls anti-recession medicine. I would like to say a word about that. The Minister of Finance, I consider, outlined very clearly and simply the things which might be done. He divided them into three parts and discussed them all-tax reduction, public investment and income maintenance. Let us look at these three divisions.
Firstly, tax reductions amounting to $178 million; public investment under housing, as the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) pointed out, provided for 100,000 men being employed under the far-reaching credit arrangements made. Housing, resource development, improvement in transportation; tens and tens of millions have been spent in those fields.

Then, again, there has been assistance to provinces and municipalities; and in income maintenance there have been increases in old age pensions, veterans benefits, unemployment insurance, to name only some of the things which have been done and in my opinion the Minister of Finance was justified in referring to this as involving expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars, and he went on to say -and he was justified, too-that the timing was good. I think the timing was very good. If hon. members will remember, the housing industry, which had been lagging, was stimulated last summer and the results since then have really been quite remarkable.
Other things were done at the same time which prevented the recession going further, and I think that while governments must not take too much to themselves we are entitled to take credit for the fact that the comparison with the United States, for example, is now greatly to our advantage. Retail sales in Canada are ahead of last year, while in the United States they are 6 per cent down. Production in Canada is down by 5 per cent; in the United States it has declined by 12 or 13 per cent. I think that is a fair comment on what the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River had to say about antirecession measures.
Now I come to the criticism which has been made by our old friend the Winnipeg Free Press. The Winnipeg Free Press permits itself some comments on the tariff proposals which have been made by the government comments which-and I am trying to choose my words carefully-I can only regard as wholly irresponsible. There is an old adage which says that speaks of the person who given an inch takes an ell. But if you give the Winnipeg Free Press an inch, they take a mile.
On the one hand, the paper admits that "the immediate tariff changes are not large" but adds:
Mr. Fleming left no doubt that they are merely a start of what Is to come. Even so, they spit in the face-
This delicate language may perhaps result from the putting of heads together between the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River who used gobbledygook and the editor of the Free Press.
-of the British proposal to free and increase trade with Canada: they raise our tariff against one of the things-woollens-that Britain can best sell to us.
In one small move, the government has made nonsense of all the talk about more trade with Britain with which it attracted votes. Where we will be when it gets beyond the small beginnings is almost past imagination.
Now I should like to try to deal with these wild and irresponsible utterances in sensible
The Budget

Mr. Macdonnell language if I can. First, some comments on the facts of the tariff changes. All the tariff changes are extremely small-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Like the housemaid's baby.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Some are up, some are down. It is not quite clear whether the net result will turn out to be a rise in tariffs at all. As regards some important items- iron and steel, pipes and tubes and others- the result was really simplification and modification without any significant change up or down. They were also presented to the GATT signatories as a balanced package of increases and reductions and they were accepted as such.
The Free Press concentrates particularly on the wool tariff, as is to be expected. This industry had a special claim on humanitarian grounds. Yes, I repeat it, and I do not apologize for the word "humanitarian". The industry, as pointed out by the tariff board, which is not a sentimental organization, is by and large a small town industry. As the tariff board report points out:
Very often even today it is the industrial backbone of semi-rural communities. It is currently giving employment to several thousand Canadians . . . Partly because of its long association with scores of localities, it is part of the warp and woof of Canadian life.
I suppose it comes as near to being an indigenous Canadian industry as you could get. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate (Mr. Pickersgill) smiles, but I ask him to think it over. I make that statement seriously and if he will himself inquire as to the number of these small mills there are in small communities in Canada I think he will realize there is a good deal to be said in favour of it. I continue quoting from the tariff board:
Often in its own area it provides the only opening for skilled and semi-skilled labour.
This action is in accord with a statement made by the Prime Minister on June 5 to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in the following words:
On the domestic front, the government of Canada cannot be content merely with a high gross national product. We are concerned, in addition, with the welfare of each individual citizen. The constant objective must be to attain for each individual his fair share of the produce of this land, and this can only come about in a condition of fullest employment.
Moreover, earnest attempts are being made to make up to the British the loss which will be incurred. A special concession to enable tourists to buy more in the United Kingdom without having to pay duty, will help in this regard.
1526	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell
In addition the Prime Minister said:
The tariff board's recommendations relating to wool fabrics involve a change only in the British preferential tariff. For the time being the present most favoured nation rates, as bound under the GATT will continue to apply. But it is our intention to renegotiate item 554b as soon as possible with a view to restoring the margin of British preference.
I suggest that in these circumstances even the most convinced free trader would find it hard to resist the argument, particularly in view of the promise which the minister has given.
I should like here in answer to the Free Press and its wild statements to recall, briefly, what the minister said about the broad trade objectives.
1.	To achieve expansion, diversification, better balance, and greater stability in our trade with all countries;
2.	To extend and strengthen Canada's trade and economic relationships with the commonwealth;
3.	To support and promote a regime of law, order and morality in the field of international trade; to respect the spirit and intent of international commitments; and to stand ready to defend our rights and interests if they are challenged or ignored;
And I should like to interpose here for the benefit of the Free Press to remind them that we in this party have welcomed GATT, supported it from the outset and regarded it as part and parcel of our economic life ever since. I go on to quote from the minister:
4.	To recognize the legitimate needs of Canadian producers; and to safeguard them against unfair trading practices;
5.	To promote the balanced growth of all sections of Canadian industry and agriculture.
Now I come to the second and perhaps even more preposterous criticism of the Free Press. In the same issue that paper charged the Diefenbaker government with what it calls "a great deception". Let us see what this great deception is. According to the Free Press, the Minister of Finance last December "refused to look ahead to the fiscal year in which the tax cuts would have their effect. Now, he says the principal tax changes affecting the present fiscal year were introduced and approved by parliament last December."
The Free Press continues:
They were made, but, as Mr. Fleming now admits,-
I think that is wholly incorrect.
-they were made without an accounting for the year that they, together with all the government's spending plans, actually affect. This is the great deception of which the Diefenbaker government is guilty. In the election it went to the country with its measures but without the bill for them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perfectly true.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: How far can captious
criticism go? On December 6 last the Minister of Finance set out the effect of the total tax reduction in a full year. In the course of his speech he also pointed out that there had been an increase of some $100 million in public service salaries. He referred to the effect of increase in old age pension, veterans benefits, dealings with the provinces, and gave the total. Moreover, the legislation involving the increases was passed unanimously in the House of Commons, and everyone was aware of what was going on. To refer to this as a "great deception" is simply a misuse of the English language. There is no foundation for it whatever. The Canadian Tax Foundation and any other intelligent observer was able to calculate with considerable accuracy the amount of the deficit before it came.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Finance could not calculate his own deficit.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, come now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He said there would be an $80 million surplus and there was a $40 million deficit within three months and if that isn't deception-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well, things happened within those three months-


John Whitney Pickersgill: They certainly did.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -and they were events outside the control of even such an august person as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the privilege?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said, "If that isn't deception-" referring to statements of mine in this house. That is not a proper remark to make. It is not parliamentary and I ask that it be withdrawn.


Lionel Chevrier: Picayune.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest pleasure in withdrawing the remark and substituting "an egregious error".


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is at least parliamentary.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: And it is 53
years old, too.


Lionel Chevrier: You should not interrupt your colleague's speech this way.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Nor should you.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, I am enjoying this.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The third criticism I wish to mention, Mr. Speaker, is taken from a publication for which I have great respect, the Financial Post, in these words:
One of the most astonishing assertions in the budget speech is that which, by implication, declares our export industries to be of little or no importance. And here we refer to Mr. Fleming's satisfaction with the continuing premium on the Canadian dollar over the American dollar.
The Financial Post attributes by implication what they call a most astonishing assertion by the Minister of Finance that he "declares our export industry to be of little or no import". All that the minister did was this. In the course of his statement on the financial situation he naturally had to deal with the Canadian dollar. He gave a simple, straightforward statement pointing out the advantages and disadvantages to exporters and importers of the premium on the Canadian dollar. Here are some of his words spoken on June 17, 1958, as recorded at page 1234 of Hansard:
-a change in the external value of the Canadian dollar brings gains to some Canadians and losses for others. The exchange rate is determined by the interplay of forces operating in the exchange market through their effect on the supply of and demand for United States and Canadian dollars. While our exchange fund is used to limit the effect Df short-run fluctuations in these forces, we do not attempt to reverse persistent market trends.
Could a more matter of fact, detached, realistic statement of the situation be imagined? And yet the newspaper permits itself to read into this statement a declaration that our export industries are of little or no importance.
I wish to add a word about the Canadian dollar. The Canadian dollar was set free in 1950 without any serious question being raised either inside parliament or out. The compelling reason was that with the heavy influx of money from outside Canada it was found extremely difficult to control speculation in Canadian funds and the financial authorities felt in these circumstances it was in Canada's best interest to set the dollar free. So far as I can ascertain, since then there has been no request from any responsible Canadian quarter that the dollar should be again pegged. I leave the matter there. I can only hope that the Financial Post for which I have great respect will recede from the position it has taken.
And now just a word or two about the recent speech of the hon. member for As-siniboia (Mr. Argue). What a grand time the hon. member had the other day in speaking in the budget debate. What free wheeling, slashing and swashbuckling! He really had a gale behind him with all the sails full and drawing well. I am sure he enjoyed
The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell himself. If I may mix sail and steam I would comment that he was under such a full head of steam that I shall not attempt to follow him in his headlong career. I will quote only one of his hyperboles as recorded at page 1470 of Hansard of June 20, 1958:
I had expected until a very few weeks ago . . . that the government would continue for some time on the road it took last session, a road of progressive legislation, a road to improve the economic lot of the ordinary people of the country.
I must thank the hon. member for As-siniboia for those kind words. I think I should read that sentence again:
I had expected until a very few weeks ago . . . that the government would continue for some time on the road it took last session, a road of progressive legislation, a road to improve the economic lot of the ordinary people of the country.
I regret that the hon. member for Assini-boia is not in his seat to accept my thanks for his accurate description of the legislative program of this government. However, he went on to say:
But I have been fooled. They have now halted that forward progress. . . . Last session we saw the progressive face of the Progressive Conservative party but now we see the conservative face, the Tory face with the mask off.
What fun the hon. member must have had saying that. The name of our party is a double-barrelled name and the hon. member could not resist the temptation of making a contrast. I am sure it pleased him and his colleagues.


Mr. Deschaielels:: What he said is quite true, you know.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am coming to that in a moment and after you have heard what I am going to suggest I believe you will change your mind about that.
I am glad that the hon. member for Assiniboia felt that last autumn we were on the road of progressive legislation. I would suggest to him that this change which he describes so dramatically is a change only in his own mind. Let the hon. member go and read the speech from the throne delivered on May 12 last. He will find that it is still full of progressive legislation, that it is still the intention of this government to improve the economic lot of the ordinary people of the country. As I have said, I suppose our double-barreled name intrigued him and drew him on to make that statement in which he really accused us of having a split personality. The Conservative party does not have a split personality. In spite of his fulminations the hon. member does have moments of realism

The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell and I suggest that if he will take the cure I have prescribed for him he will come back and say that his wild statements were not justified.
I have been advised that my time has almost expired-perhaps I have become too enthusiastic, too,-but I wish to speak about the commonwealth conference about which a great deal has been said in this house. I want to recall that on March 27, 1957, the present Prime Minister asked the then prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, who had just returned from a meeting in Bermuda with President Eisenhower and Mr. Macmillan-and I think Sir David Eccles and Mr. C. D. Howe the then minister of trade and commerce were in attendance too-if there had been any discussion of a trade and economic conference and the answer was highly unsatisfactory. The then prime minister indicated that apparently Mr. Macmillan had some idea concerning a conference to be called in London but as far as one could judge from reading the record it had not greatly excited Mr. St. Laurent. It did not seem to mean very much to him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: His time is almost up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the hon. gentleman recalls that that proposed prime ministers' conference was not an economic conference at all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I tried to make clear what Mr. St. Laurent said about the views of Mr. Macmillan and I submit that no one reading the record would come away with the feeling that Mr. St. Laurent was interested in the proposal for the holding of a commonwealth economic conference. But what about our present Prime Minister? The present Prime Minister was sworn in on June 21 and on June 23 he went to London to attend the prime ministers' commonwealth conference. I would like to recall what Mr. Macmillan said in this room just ten days ago as recorded at page 1150 of Hansard of June 13, 1958. Addressing the Prime Minister, the prime minister of the United Kingdom said:
-you came post haste from a general election to the commonwealth prime ministers' conference.
I shall always admire the way in which you arrived almost at a day's notice.
That is quite true. He continued:
Nor can I forget that at that conference by your inspiration and persistence there were sown the seeds of the commonwealth trade and economic conference to which we are looking forward with such high hopes.
Although my time is short I want to say that the preparations for that conference are


being pursued with the greatest energy. The Minister of Finance has been holding meetings of ministers and senior civil servants. There has been a preliminary meeting in London at which civil servants from all over the commonwealth have been taking part. There is no doubt but that this proposition has been considered in the most serious way. I am sorry I have not time to say more about it but I would like to go on to my conclusion.
I believe this is a good budget and when people look back on it they will realize that it was a compound of cautious realism and temperate and constructive courage. That is what I believe and I believe in their hearts that is what other people believe. I would suggest to hon. gentlemen opposite that they realize it was a very good thing that their promise of a $400 million larger deficit was not taken up by the Canadian people.
I would also like to say that in this budget there is optimism but there is also wise warning. The minister said in his closing paragraph at page 1250 of Hansard:
But we live in a world of realities.
Moreover, I confess my concern over costs of production and prices in Canada. Only by keeping our costs of production in line with those of our competitors can we hope to achieve expanding employment and progressive improvement in our standard of living.
Farther on the minister said:
I echo the warnings issued by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) to all sections of the Canadian people in appealing to all, whether employers, employees or self-employed, to have regard for the general interest in the returns they seek for their services and products. One must depend upon the sense of responsibility of free men and women not to demand more than their fair share of the national income.
He then went on to proclaim the fact that the role of government is limited, and that in a democracy the burden comes down squarely on the shoulders of every individual citizen. I believe the Minister of Finance has shown us the way to work through our present difficulties and to emerge on a new level where we shall be able to resume the advance temporarily interrupted.


Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, before I deal with some of the matters that are contained in the address of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) I want to take half a minute to say something else to the minister. I express the hope that before he grants any further financial aid to this fair capital city of Ottawa, or to the federal district commission, he take serious note of the warning that the hon. member for Assi-niboia (Mr. Argue) and I sounded in this house last week when we appealed for the abolition of firetraps in this city. I regret

very much to read in this morning's newspaper that yet another human life has been lost because of fire in the slums of Ottawa within a stone's throw of the beautiful parliament hill. I feel it is very poor policy indeed for the minister to want to spend millions of dollars to build a beautiful green belt around Ottawa when the heart of the city is in such urgent need of redevelopment and renovation.
On Monday last I had the privilege of spending a day in the most beautiful part of Canada, the lower mainland of British Columbia. Because of the kindness of the soviet ambassador in Ottawa a number of members of parliament were finally put on a par with the members from Ontario and Quebec in that we for once were able to spend a weekend at home. However, when I was at home I was profoundly shocked to find, at this very early date after the election, the extent to which this government had already lost the confidence of those who had voted for it as late as March 31 last. We have previously warned in this house that this new government which was elected with such an unprecedented majority was in this position. The expectations of action on the part of this government were higher in the minds of the people than they had ever been in any government in Canadian history. Because those expectations were so high therein might lie the reason for some of the disappointment nf the people at the present time. Now that they have read about the budget the disappointment will be even worse. Perhaps it was reflected in the results of the election on Monday last in the province of Manitoba, where the Campbell government held much firmer than most Canadians had expected it to hold, where the C.C.F. representation in that house was increased by more than 100 per cent and the Conservative vote in the course of 11 short weeks was sliced in half, and all this despite the very hard efforts of all the Manitoba members in this House of Commons, who left the ship of state at Ottawa to take part in that election campaign. I know they will faithfully record their absenteeism when they collect their wages at the end of this month.
While in British Columbia I spoke to the farmers there. They are disappointed. They are disappointed because as a floor price is established for one commodity after another it is becoming obvious to them that they are going to be guaranteed 80 per cent of the income they had been receiving. The government's promise of last session that the greatest regard would be paid to the cost of production seems to be entirely ignored in the floor prices that are being set up. Our unemployed are still unemployed. I believe
The Budget-Mr. Regier this week the supplementary insurance benefits expire. Our unemployed are now faced with the unpleasant and humiliating task of becoming wards of public or private charity, or of becoming a burden on their local municipal relief officers. It is no longer good enough for this Conservative government to say that the Liberals are to blame for the present high level of unemployment.
This past week the Tory party celebrated its first year in office, and after one full year in office the unemployed of Canada are no longer satisfied with the Tory government blaming the Liberals for the plight in which they find themselves. For a married man with a family, with monthly payments on his home and taxes on his home which are growing each year, with payments for furniture, medical bills, and so on, there had been some hope in the Diefenbaker announcement that no one would suffer because of unemployment. However, they have been unemployed since last fall and if our government members think that unemployment insurance over a course of six or seven months in the case of married families will prevent suffering, then maybe they ought to attempt to exist on that measly weekly allowance for six or seven months and I am sure they would agree that they had suffered.
If those unemployed cannot find work in the summertime-and we are now nearing the middle of summer-what will their lot be next winter? The prosperity corner of the late R. B. Bennett is becoming very round indeed for the unemployed of Canada.
The small businessmen to whom I spoke were also filled with great expectation. We are told that the small businessman is now receiving the consideration of this government. According to newspaper reports it may be that the small businessman is going to be able to receive advice-I presume advice as to how he can run his business, how he can get more hours of work out of his employees or out of his family in the grocery store. At any rate, advice is going to be given, I understand, by a special branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
The workers who are now employed, and they still constitute the vast number of Canadian people, are living in constant fear that their services may no longer be needed. We see lay-offs in many industries involving thousands of men with many, many long years of service. I refer to railway workers especially. Some years ago the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) claimed in this house that the lay-offs of men in railway yards were completely unnecessary and yet now, time after time, he tells us that nothing can be done to help the unemployed railway workers.
1530	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Regier
Other workers are finding each day that the taxes on their homes and other costs of living are rising month by month. They note the net earnings of their employers, and yet when they ask for a share in the earnings of the corporation to meet these rising costs of living and to bring their wages in line with their growing productivity, they have not only the bosses to contend with across the bargaining table but they now find that even the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), at Winnipeg, has told them to hold the line. Even the Minister of Finance said in his budget speech, as recorded at page 1250 of Hansard.
I echo the warnings issued by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) to all sections of the Canadian people in appealing to all, whether employers, employees or self-employed, to have regard for the general interest in the returns they seek for their services and products.
Now labour is fully aware of what that warning of the minister means. The minister, however, nullifies his own plea with the preceding remark to this statement when he says:
-but to an important extent prices are the result of competition among the various economic groups which compose our nation, each striving for a greater share of the national product.
Then, later on he says this:
This budget has been born of confidence in Canada's future, not blind wishful thinking, but unshrinking realism.
I wish the government would use a little bit of this unshrinking realism when it advises labour to hold the line in its dealings with employers. When labour is at the bargaining table they have to consider whether the corporation with which they are bargaining can pay higher wages and remain in business. Labour has to consider the effect that a strike might have on their own immediate families and on their communities. Labour has to consider the public inconvenience that might follow if they withhold their labour. Labour has to consider what bargaining power the organization really has. However, let us use some of this realism and admit that as long as we maintain our present economic setup the employer will charge all that the traffic will bear. If he does not, in modern day circles he is considered an inefficient businessman. All these people, our unemployed, our workers, our farmers and our small businessmen expected action to be outlined either in the speech from the throne or in the budget speech.
This budget is a typical Harris budget. I would not go so far as to say it was an Abbott budget. Somewhere along the line a few years ago the Liberal party lost its way and it became an ultraconservative party. Possibly


Mr. Harris was the perfect example of that. I find very little difference between the language of the first Conservative budget and the last one introduced by the Hon. Mr. Harris, the last Liberal minister of finance.
There is nothing in the budget that is really of any major significance for these people. Oh, yes, in the budget there is an announcement that we are going to borrow more money. The government is going to borrow $200 for every man, woman and child in Canada during this fiscal year. They are going to borrow an unprecedented amount. We do not oppose deficit financing, but at the same time we recognize it as a tool with which the capitalistic system can occasionally give itself a shot in the arm. We allow excess profits to be taken year after year. We allow the farmers and workers to be denied the fruits of their labour, and then things come to an end. Then we turn around and have to borrow this money back from these people who wrongly took it from the farmers and the workers in the first place. All that is left of the farmers and workers is that they must pay back the money and pay interest on that money which is rightfully theirs. Deficit financing is very decidedly not a socialist approach. If you did not keep denying the workers the fruits of their labour you would not run into this snag where you have to borrow back this money in order to get it back into circulation.
Before asking labour to offer any co-operation in the solution of our problem let us consider what has been done to labour over the past several years. I am always a little surprised at some of our Christians who wonder why the task of the missionary amongst the coloured races of the world is so difficult. The answer is not very difficult to find. The Christians entered the areas of the world inhabited by the coloured peoples, they exploited them to the hilt and then, by way of the Christian church missionary societies, used a tiny fraction of their ill-gotten gains from the sweat of the coloured man in an attempt to reform the coloured man to the Christian faith. If labour is supposed to hold the line, they certainly expect a little more than pious appeals to the employers of Canada that they hold the line. Pious appeals are just laughed at by these people when they meet in the board rooms. It is a sign of weakness today for a business administrator to exercise any compassion, to respond to an appeal of this type.
I should refer specifically to what the minister did say. I should like to compliment the minister upon the goodly number of admissions that he made during the course of his

speech. On page 1231 of Hansard, he said, referring to the past 18 months:
In Canada unemployment emerged as a serious problem-
The minister says that over the past 18 months unemployment has emerged as a serious problem, a fact that they were denying in this house last fall. In fact it was not until after New Year's that government benches began admitting the emergence of some unemployment. For many long months they intended to label it, and did label it, as merely seasonal or regional. Now the minister in his budget speech says that for 18 months unemployment was becoming a serious problem in Canada. Why did the Prime Minister not tell the electorate that before March 31, instead of informing the electorate he could assure them we were past the peak so far as unemployment was concerned. If anyone ever deliberately, at election time, misled the people of Canada, it was the Conservative party.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise on a point
of order. The hon. member has just allowed himself to say that the Prime Minister deliberately misled the Canadian people. This is an entirely offensive expression. It is untrue to begin with, but quite apart from that it is completely unparliamentary and I ask that the hon. member be required to withdraw it.


Lionel Chevrier: If I understand the hon. gentleman rightly, the statement was made outside of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. He just made it right now.


Lionel Chevrier: The statement was made concerning activities outside the house. If he is referring to a statement made concerning activities outside of the house, then it is not unparliamentary language, I submit.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) was not paying attention. In any event, he has completely missed the point. I am referring to something that has just now been said in this house and it has been said in terms that are not permitted in this house. It is not permitted to one hon. member to say of another hon. member that he deliberately misled. That is unparliamentary.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the point of order is this. The minister objects to the expression used about the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) namely that he deliberately misled the electorate.


Erhart Regier: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that if the Minister of Finance had not been so hasty in rising to his feet he would full well have heard that
The Budget

Mr. T. M. Bell what I said was that this was deliberate deception on the part of the Conservative party.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That does not help the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is perfectly proper and normal.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the hon. gentleman who has been asked to withdraw certain words now says that he did not apply them to the Prime Minister but to the Conservative party.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But, Mr. Speaker, he did say that of the Prime Minister. He used the expression "the Prime Minister".


Hazen Robert Argue: You have to accept his word for it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not accept his word as to something that was said in this house. He has used the words "the Prime Minister deliberately misled the electorate". Those words are not parliamentary and, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you direct that he withdraw them.


Mr. Speaker:: Let us understand clearly what is the point of order and what we are discussing. As I understand it, the point of objection that was taken was that the words complained of referred to the Prime Minister, that he had deliberately misled the electorate. The hon. member now says that he did not say that of the Prime Minister but that he said it of the Conservative party.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, he can say that he wishes to withdraw earlier words and substitute something else but he did use the words that the Prime Minister had deliberately misled the Canadian people and I ask that they be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that if the hon. member used the words or that if they could have been taken as referring to the Prime Minister he withdraws them with respect to the Prime Minister and that his reference is to the Conservative party generally? Is that the position?


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I said that, in the Prime Minister assuring the people that we were past the peak in so far as unemployment was concerned, that was a deliberate deception on the part of the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erhart Regier: The minister was rising and did not listen to the last half of my sentence.


Mr. Speaker:: From what the hon. member now says it is clear that the imputation is that what the Prime Minister said was a

The Budget-Mr. Regier deliberate misleading of the electorate. That is the point I shall have to consider, as to whether or not that is an infringement of the rules of this house.


Lionel Chevrier: May I say a word, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. I shall be glad to hear hon. members who have some views on this matter because it is a rather important one.


Lionel Chevrier: All I want to say is that if Your Honour rules that this expression is unparliamentary, I am afraid that many similar expressions will have to be eradicated from Hansard because on more than one occasion it has been stated that an hon. member has deliberately misled the house. While I am sure that those who state it refers to the Prime Minister do not like it, nevertheless my submission is that if it applies in this case then surely the words should be withdrawn in so far as the other cases are concerned which have come up from time to time in this house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear in the decisions that have been made in similar situations that the use of the word "deliberately" makes the expression "mislead" completely unparliamentary. It imputes to an hon. member a dishonourable course of conduct and that is the essence of the point that is now before you. The statement was not that a member of this house had misled someone. It might be argued then that that statement is not unparliamentary because it does not necessarily impute that it was done deliberately. But the hon. member said that the Prime Minister had deliberately misled the people, and that was his expression. No kind of argument on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite will change the fact that it has been the clear course of decisions in this house that to say that an hon. member has misled someone deliberately is imputing to him a dishonourable course of conduct; and that language has been ruled to be completely unparliamentary and in similar situations has been directed to be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of any specific precedents I should like to give some consideration to this matter. I think there is a clear distinction between the imputation of an unintentional act and the imputation of a deliberate intention. Certainly if the expression used had been "misled"-and I recall that expression has often been applied or used from both sides of the house-there could be little objection. Unless the hon. member wishes to modify his statement, I shall have to take it under consideration and deal with it later.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I will say that what I meant to say, and what I still believe I did say, was not that the Prime Minister deliberately misled the people but that the Conservative party, in having the Prime Minister make that statement in Vancouver, deliberately misled the Canadian people. If that statement is unparliamentary, I withdaw it; but that was the intent of my statement.


An hon. Member:: That is even worse.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall have to give this matter some thought because I am not sure but that the point is well taken, even as the hon. member has re-expressed it. If he left his allegation as one against the party generally I would not feel it necessary to deal further with the matter. Perhaps he will modify his statement to that extent. But if he will not do so I will consider the matter and give a decision on it later.


Erhart Regier: In order to save you time, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw any implication I may have made as to the integrity of the Prime Minister of Canada. However, my challenge to the Conservative party remains.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for making my course easier.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to continue my remarks and to turn to something the minister had to say as reported at page 1231 of Hansard in reporting on agriculture. He said this:
There was a moderate gain of one per cent in the volume of non-agricultural production, but agricultural output declined as a result of the smaller western grain crop.
We in this section of the house greatly regret the decline in our production. In the last week we had in this city a guest from India. In speaking to the people in Ottawa he again sharply reminded us that one-third of the world is always undernourished, that a further third of the world is usually undernourished and that only one-third of the people have enough of the things of life at most times. As long as such urgent need exists for the labour of our hands we ought to be engaged in all-out production.
At page 1232 of Hansard I notice another admission of the minister when he says this:
Following the recession of 1953-54 there was a new period of expansion-
And then he goes on to say this:
As a result, world capacity in metals, fuels and forest products was enlarged much more rapidly than demand, and Canada, an important source of these materials, experienced the full force of this expansion.
Early in 1957 many commodity markets moved into a position of over-supply. The doubts created by these particular developments began to affect the plans for further expansion. In particular, this

began to make itself felt in the resource industries, and as a mood of caution began to develop it spread to other industries. By mid-1957 the value of large capital projects being started began to run behind the value of projects being completed.
And then later on he says:
During 1957, however, the competition for loan funds became less active as the year progressed-
Here is another lie of the Tory party. The
Tory party has claimed that they were responsible for relaxing the tight money policy when this was not so. The minister in his own words at page 1232 gives an honest appraisal of the situation when he says there was a decline in investment for which he gives reasons, and that there was a decline in capital expansion. Then he sums it up in one sentence when he says:
During 1957, however, the competition for loan funds became less active as the year progressed.
The net earnings of Canadian corporations began to decline and there seemed to be an over-supply of goods produced. Alarm was beginning to be felt and there was hesitancy to further the productive capacity of the Canadian nation. Therefore money became available for other social needs of the people, and that is the basic reason why it is now easier to obtain money for the municipalities. It is also easier for individuals wishing to do business with their chartered banks to obtain money, and all this big hullabaloo of what the Tory party has done to break the tight money policy stranglehold ought to be thrown out of the window by anyone who knows anything of the movement of large masses of capital. I do not believe the minister can cite one single fact with respect to any action of his or of any other member of the government which has had any effect on the relaxation of the tight money policy.
On page 1232 of Hansard the minister has something else rather significant to say, which is as follows:
Expenditure on durable goods, however, showed practically no increase over the previous year, reflecting in part the slower growth of incomes-
This is an admission that labour's income is not the reason that labour's productivity was increased.
-but also the rapid expansion in 1955 and 1956 which was based upon large increases in consumer credit.
In various debates in this house we have attempted to warn the government that the consumers of Canada were being oversold in that their buying was putting them into the position of accepting goods for which they did not have the money. We warned of the dangers, and the minister now admits that the market in Canada was oversold as far as 31-1958-3
The Budget-Mr. Regier the supply of money in the hands of the consumers was concerned. He said at page 1233:
Corporate profits declined by 11 per cent as costs rose and markets became more competitive. Other investment income, which includes rentals and bond interest, rose by 11 per cent.
When we compare the plight of Canadian corporations with that of the unemployed we must recognize that the costs of the depression are not being borne equally by the people of Canada.
Then the minister does an amazing thing; he completely brushes aside the old Tory concept that progress within our country is the result of the personal savings of individuals. At page 1233 he refers to such things as depreciation allowances and undistributed profits as being part of total savings. He says that in 1957 business saving-according to his definition that is depreciation allowance and undistributed profits-as a whole was little changed from 1956, accounting for about three-quarters of total saving. Personal saving was down about 5 per cent and, he said, accounted for almost one-quarter of total saving.
The money for the industrial expansion in Canada does not come from the poor widow's mite. This money, by the admission of the minister himself, or three-quarters of it, comes from depreciation allowances and undistributed profits. For the benefit of the readers of Hansard, that means after the payment of dividends there was left depreciation allowances and undeclared dividends of some $4,500 million last year, three times as much as the savings of individuals.
On page 1234 of Hansard the minister says:
The rise in consumer prices offset about half the increase in average wage rates so that advance in real income during the year was about two per cent.
In this connection I would refer to a speech he made, I believe in Waterloo, some weeks ago, when he admitted that labour productivity has risen by 3 per cent per annum in each of the last ten years. Now he says that the advance of real income has been about 2 per cent, which means he is admitting that labour is not receiving its share of the increase in its productivity.
We in the C.C.F. group place the welfare of the people ahead of the welfare of our political organization. It is therefore with a great deal of regret that we see so many warnings which we have made in past years emerge as fact. These facts are now admitted by the minister. We would much rather have been wrong in our analysis of what has been happening in this country in order that our people should not be suffering today. We do however appreciate that throughout the budget

The Budget-Mr. Regier speech the Minister of Finance repeatedly admitted the correctness of our position and we hope before long he will begin to apply a number of the remedies we offer from time to time.
The falling off in the domestic and world markets has caused serious unemployment which has been realized by the minister, who has admitted that while we have expanded our productive capacity such expansion has not been accompanied by a corresponding growth in markets. The minister has also admitted that our social investments have not kept pace with and have been sacrificed to the rapid industrial expansion.
The minister further admits that any inflation we have had is still very much with us and that the danger can be a very real one if there should be an upswing in economic activities. He has also brushed aside the old concept that individual savings bring about the growth of our industrial society. While we appreciate his honest analysis we regret that the budget seems to be completely bankrupt of any proposals for successfully meeting our perplexing problems. In fact nothing is offered which is of any significance. The government offers to borrow in this fiscal year $200 per capita, and then turns around and offers by way of aid to the municipalities the grandiose sum of 35 cents per capita. In fact, all it is offering to the Canadian people, if added together, amounts I believe to $1.65 per capita. The huge corporations brush aside the minister's pious appeal and continue to charge all the traffic will bear and so far as the farmer, the worker and the unemployed man is concerned, there is nothing in the budget that will help them very much. The people sacrificed nothing when they elected this government but it is perhaps characteristic of human nature that people do expect to get something for nothing.
At this time of uncertainty, when a bold and imaginative program on the part of the government is so badly needed to restore public confidence, the people must surely realize, after looking at the budget, that this government is nothing but the lackey of big business; that the Conservative party found itself a good advertising agency, organized its circus, had a real clown as leader-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to take notice of the fact that the hon. member has referred to the leader of the government as a clown. I ask having regard to the decencies of parliamentary procedure in this house you ask him to withdraw that term.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no doubt that the term is offensive, and standing order 35 says


no hon. member may use offensive words against either house or against any member thereof. However, it is not the sort of word I feel I should ask the hon. member to withdraw, because it is among the order of words which do not reflect upon a man's character or motives. Nevertheless, I hope the hon. member will observe the rule, though if it were interpreted in its literal sense rather than its meaning as it has been applied it would rule out a good deal of what is said in this house. I do not feel I can ask him to withdraw the term, but I would ask the hon. member to remember that the debate is on principles rather than on personalities.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the part played by the right hon. gentleman during the election campaign.
For the unemployed, for the workers, for the farmers, and for the only real free enterpriser, the small businessman, there is no tax relief of any significance, no full employment program, no restoration of the domestic markets, and no program for expanded trade. The minister, in the budget, has admitted the evils that beset us. It is unfortunate for all of us that this government is either unable or unwilling to apply the remedies that are necessary. We do not want an economy planned for us by monopolistic corporations, we do not want an economy planned by any one political party, but we do want an economy planned for and by the people of Canada through the medium of a freely-elected parliament and government.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, after the chilling socialist snow which has fallen in this chamber perhaps a little sunshine from Alberta will serve to dispel some of the gloom. It is a great privilege to stand in this chamber and take the time of this house to tell you something of that fine constituency I have the honour to represent. It is called Athabasca, a name which comes from the great Cree language, and which means "the place where there are reeds."
Athabasca has an area of 60,000 square miles and is situated in the northeast corner of Alberta. To give hon. members an idea of the size of the country, it is approximately the same size as England and Wales. The population, however, is only some 65,000. But these people are some of the finest people in the world. In the first place they are Canadians and in the second place they are pioneers. They are still pioneers. They discard socialist gloom and they look forward to capitalistic expansion. Three-quarters of

our people are engaged in agriculture, and they live in the southernmost portion of this vast area.
I do not wish to dwell on agriculture this afternoon, because it is well known that agriculture is the backbone of Canada's economy. The main trouble facing the people of Athabaska today is the lack of transportation. In this vast area we have very few roads, and the roads we have are very primitive. When I tell you we only have 24 miles of hard-top roads in this great area hon. members will understand what I mean. Athabasca is the gateway to the north, and if we are to bring about the future of Canada in the way it should be brought about, we need roads and railways. We also need air strips.
During my election campaign I found it necessary to fly to some parts of my constituency; there are no roads in the northern half, and the northernmost section has not even a railway. My returning officer was killed; he flew into a frozen lake in a white-out. A week later we followed him up into the same country and flew into the same weather conditions. That is not exceptional. The great bush pilots who serve this part of the country do this almost daily.	Wop
May, to mention one of such men, has gone to the great beyond, and today men such as the Berry Brothers, Milt McDougall, Shoemaker and dozens of others who serve this great northwest possess the pioneer spirit to its ultimate extent, and the people who are coming behind them on the surface of the earth also have this pioneer spirit. Men like this need our help, and they have needed it for a long time.
The people I represent come from every country in Europe and from every ethnic group in Canada. A great section of the country is still populated by those noble Indian tribes, the Crees, and the Chippewas. It is to these people that we who pioneer this country turn to lead us across its frozen wastes and across its melting muskegs in the summer. They still retain the skill of the redmen; they still retain all the hardiness which mixed with white blood has created that sturdy race of people the metis.
The metis are principally Scottish and French in ancestry. They pioneer beyond the roads; they trap, hunt and fish and today, with the development of the mineral resources of the north, we look again to them to man the canoes, to man the freight boats, to cut the timber and care for the white men who live among them. But they ask no handouts. Indeed, they scorn handouts. They are not looking for socialism. They are looking for a new capitalism, a capitalism which has had,
The Budget-Mr. Bigg
as my hon. friends opposite say, a shot in the arm from the Conservative vision. This vision is not a new vision, but it is a rejuvenated vision. We do not welcome the scorning of this vision. We should like to see all hon. members in this house getting behind this movement to give the northland the attention it deserves.
I said before that transportation is the main need of the north today. The first consideration is airports. We require airstrips throughout the north country and we need them now. I suggest that this may be one way in which we can provide immediate work to many unemployed men this year. We have airstrips at Athabasca, Mc-Murray and Fort Chipewyan. When I last visited Fort Chipewyan during the winter we landed on the lake but during the breakup season, a period of six weeks in the spring, and for a period of six weeks in the fall there is no proper place to land at Fort Chipewyan. Fort Chipewyan serves a local population of approximately 600 persons and for three months a year the only method of transportation, air, is cut off from them. If a bush pilot wants to land in this period he is forced to land in the main street of the village where the children are playing. The space in which he must land is no larger than the floor of this chamber and only a bush pilot could land there. When he takes off again he does so at great risk to life and limb.
The railway ends at Waterways which is some three miles from McMurray. It is a joint venture of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways called the Northern Alberta Railway and most of the heavy freight not carried by air is brought over this line. It is proposed to extend this line roughly straight north to a point on Great Slave lake called Pine Point. At Great Slave lake the standard method of transportation to the deep north is by water.
It is not proposed at present to extend the railway further. You heard my colleague making a strong plea that this railroad should start in the Peace river district and go to Great Slave lake and I make a similar plea that the railway should be extended north from McMurray to serve this same area. It is not just a question of whether the railroad should go north out of Peace river or north out of McMurray if we take into consideration the future of the northland because the Peace river district needs a railway and so does the territory north of McMurray. My own suggestion would be to extend the railroad north to serve those portions of the Peace river district which already require a railway and to construct a

The Budget-Mr. Bigg
bridge across the Athabasca river at Mc-Murray and extend the Northern Alberta Railway northwards. I see no reason why northern Alberta cannot support two such railway lines. At present the railway companies admit there is enough tonnage going in and out of the north to justify the construction of one of these lines. I think it requires little imagination to see that this great territory could support two railway communications into the north if indeed not more than two.
Just north of McMurray there are tar sand deposits known as the Athabasca tar sands in which nature has deposited not less than 200 billion barrels of oil. This oil is not commercially available at present to compete with oil produced from wells but scientists have found the secret of releasing this oil and there is no doubt that in the near future this will prove to be one of the most valuable oil reserves in the world. Some sections of these sand deposits contain asphalt in a state where the asphalt can be rolled directly on the road surfaces prepared for black top. I have seen places where this has actually been used for sidewalks and short pieces of pavement and it has withstood the ravages of time and wear for 20 years. The asphalt was merely dug directly out of open pits and rolled on the ground. It might be that the government would put money into the development of tar sand for these purposes and build the roads that are needed in that part of the country outward from the tar sand deposits instead of building expensive roads inward from southern industrialized areas of civilization.
The Athabasca constituency is served by the mightly Athabasca river, one of the finest sources of fresh water on the North American continent. It is safe to say that the Athabasca river can supply any type of industry with water it might require in any amount for many many years. A fine fresh water supply is something that is required by industry today. The town of Athabasca is ideally situated for expanding into the chemical, oil and gas refining industries.
Roads are needed throughout the constituency. The great airport of Cold Lake is situated at the eastern edge of the Athabasca constituency where there is located Canada's only weapon trained range for aircraft and guided missiles. This great airport employs 5,000 personnel. It is in many ways the most up to date airport in the world and need I say that the personnel who operate this base are the finest air force in the world. We depend on these boys for the safety of this whole continent. It is here they are trained and here they live. Canada's pioneers of outer space will be trained here.

We need a road between Edmonton and Cold Lake. In fact, I would take up even more time than did the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) if I were to detail the roads that are required in this area because they are as numerous as the requirements for wharves around the shores of Newfoundland. We do not ask for all these roads. Roads are principally a matter of provincial jurisdiction but roads which lead to the north and to great centres of national defence may well be considered projects worthy of assistance from the federal government.
Athabasca is rich in her natural resources but her greatest resource is the people who live there. They are not discouraged by any difficulties they encounter. They have the same thrust and desire to carve out individual careers for themselves as had the first pioneers to this country. They are not whiners but workers. Again I say they look to us for help. Before them is the great north country and behind them the rich plains of Alberta. I know they are not going to be disappointed in the help we give them. There is one last great frontier in Canada, the north. We who live at the gate to the north challenge the youth of Canada to move in and possess that great northland.
There will be no handouts; there will be work; there will be struggle. I assure you that there will be great reward.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like to begin by congratulating the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) upon one aspect, and upon one aspect only, of his presentation of the budget the other evening. I do think that the Minister of Finance gave evidence the other evening of what might be called the first stage in the education of Donald Fleming. I contrasted it, as I am sure every other hon. member who was here a year ago did, with the forecast of this first budget that he gave to the press and which appeared in the Ottawa Journal on June 26 last, almost a year ago. That was the day the minister, after five days in office, said that a new budget to reduce taxes and increase old age pensions would be brought down in the fall. This was in black type, as it was obviously considered by the reporter to be the most important of the many important forecasts that the minister made at that time. I will not use a word that might cause commotion in the house, Mr. Speaker, but we all know that we never saw that budget. We also know that-


Mr. McGee:: You saw tax reduction.


Mr. Cardiff:: You saw increases in old age pensions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We saw the increase in old age pensions; we saw a lot of things. We have seen the most phenomenal increase in deficits in the history of Canada in peace time.
I may say, sir, the minister also promised us at that time that he had declared war on waste and extravagance. We have seen the results of the first battle-I suppose that is the first battle of the war on waste and extravagance-we have the greatest estimates for expenditures ever presented by any Canadian government to any parliament.


Mr. Pallell:: Which one are you opposed to?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The next thing that I would like particularly to refer to is that we heard none of the things in the minister's speech that we heard so frequently in the past from the minister and this is why I say it seems to me that the minister's speech represents a stage in the education of a minister of finance. There is not a word in his speech about how he had changed the tight money policy; there is not really anything about that policy at all. There is not a word about the savings the minister had effected by the elimination of waste and extravagance. There is not a word about the so-called over-taxation which was one of the most appealing- I suppose one of the most appealing-features of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Diefenbaker) great appeal a year ago when the Prime Minister told us that we were overtaxed by over $500 million a year. Presumably, if we were overtaxed-and not "presumably" because the Prime Minister worked it all out arithmetically-that $500 million was going to be reduced. Well, of course, it has not been; it is not going to be. There was not a word either about that so-called hidden report that the Prime Minister made such a fuss about here last January in the previous parliament.
Indeed, we find that the Minister of Finance attributed the unemployment to something entirely different from the policies of the Liberal government. In his speech he attributed the unemployment to world causes. Indeed, nothing is more remarkable, it seems to me, in the minister's speech than the remarkable tribute he paid in the first part of his speech to the accuracy of his predecessor's economic forecast. In order to make sure that my memory was not playing any tricks on me I sent for Mr. Harris' budget speech, and I have made a comparison of that section of his speech with the minister's speech and the amazing thing is that practically the whole of Mr. Harris' forecasts
The Budget-Mr. Pickersgill were borne out by the experience of the year which has now been completed. His estimates of the gross national product, his estimates of the probable decline, which he very honestly forecast, in the rate of advance and his estimate that there would be an advance all through the year were completely borne out; his estimate that there would be an increase in employment was borne out. Indeed, it would have been hard to conceive of any more completely accurate vindication through the year 1957 of the forecasts made in Mr. Harris' budget than are found in the accounts produced by the minister in certain paragraphs of his speech.
It is evidently the strategy now to leave all these political arguments to the lesser lights. We had all the claptrap that we used to hear from the minister regurgitated by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell). It is apparently no longer quite respectable for a minister of finance to talk such nonsense but for an aspirant to that office it was apparently regarded as good coin.
Perhaps you will call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I had just paid a compliment to the hon. member for Carleton. I was astonished at the pattern which seemed to appear in this debate from the other side of the house this afternoon, when the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), followed the same extraordinary line taken by the hon. member for Carleton the other day. This extraordinary, and I might say rather belated interest of hon. gentlemen opposite in the program of the Liberal party in the last election, is very touching to us on this side of the house. The only conceivable reason I have been able to think of for this extraordinary interest in that program at this stage is that hon. gentlemen opposite are executing still another diversion in this debate. They realize the damp squib that this budget is turning out to be, and they are trying to distract public attention from the budget to something else. I do not intend to pursue them in this diversionary line.
I am much more tempted to pursue another line, but I intend to resist that temptation, too. The line I should like to pursue if the clock was not working against me is the line about unemployment. The hon. member for Carleton repeated all the old pre-election

The Budget-Mr. Pickersgill explanations about unemployment. However, the minister was honest enough in his budget speech to say nothing whatever about any of those so-called explanations. The minister instead said that we did not have as much unemployment as other people had but that unemployment was a world-wide condition. I am not surprised that he did not use the old line, because if he did not remember it himself his officials probably reminded him that as late as November he was telling people there was no serious unemployment.
I would, rather, deal with two specific points in connection with this budget. The other day the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), in a display of candour and naivete that was, I think, very entertaining and interesting, admitted, and I give him credit for his honesty, that he had been fooled by the progressive face, I think he called it, of hon. gentlemen opposite. He later used the word "mask". Now we in this party never thought it was a progressive face; we always knew it was a mask and we were at no time deceived. It does seem to me, that the progressive mask on the Tory face is better illustrated by the trade proposals in the budget than by any other aspect of it, although I think almost any aspect of it could be taken to illustrate the same point.
There does seem to be something peculiar about this country. Once in every generation it seems to be necessary for the people of Canada to learn the same lesson. We had it in 1911; we had it in 1930; and we had it again in this dual effort of 1957 and 1958. Every so often it seems to be possible, I suppose because of the fallibility of human memory, to excite the people of this country by stirring up feeling against the United States and by parading a great affection for Great Britain. Now we had that in 1911; we had it in 1930, and we had it again in the last two years. In every case, sir, it is always followed by the same thing. The affection for Britain proves to be purely verbal and when it comes to policy, those of us who remember 1932 and what followed from it; those who remember 1911 and what followed from that, will have no real doubt about what is going to follow again. The pattern does seem to go on.
It starts, of course, with this wholly fallacious doctrine that it is a wicked thing to have a lot of trade with the United States. It never seems to occur to a real Tory that trade is an advantageous thing for any country. It never seems to occur to a real Tory that, other things being equal, any person engaged in trade will try to sell what he has to sell for the best price wherever he can get it, and buy for the lowest price wherever he can get it. I can assure you that
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
is one thing which the British, including the British Tories, never forget. But it is not long after the Tories come into office on any occasion when this same old reaction occurs.
It is, I think, interesting that, even though the mask is off, as the hon. member for Assiniboia has said, hon. gentlemen opposite, with the exception of the hon. member for Carleton, seem to be a little ashamed of the face. In 1930 I think you could say Mr. Bennett approached this whole problem boastfully. We had Mr. Bennett boasting about raising tariffs and blasting his way into the markets of the world. We watched for five years while the trade of this country shrank steadily and the prosperity and well-being of the people disappeared.
We have a rather different situation this time. If Mr. Bennett was boastful, I suppose the only thing we can say is that Mr. Fleming is furtive. The Minister of Finance tries to sneak this change in trading policy in by the kitchen door. I use the word "kitchen" advisedly because the hon. member for Greenwood this afternoon said these tariff increases were so small. Of course, they are small in exactly the same way as the famous housemaid's baby was small, as I reminded the house this afternoon. But a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.


John Cameron Pallett: You are mixing your metaphors.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, and with a certain deliberation which the hon. gentleman will perhaps comprehend later in the evening.
This proposal about dumping is the nicest example one could find of this furtive approach. The Minister of Finance, in a statement which was literally true but I hesitate to say, sir, calculated to mislead, and which perhaps may have had the effect of misleading, suggested he was going back to 1948. It is true, of course, that in 1948 Mr. St. Laurent came into the house and said, let us take off the statute books this provision that has not been used for thirteen years. The fact is that this dumping provision, this Bennett provision-I do not know that I should call it a Bennett provision because Mr. Meighen tried it before him and it was repealed once before by the Liberals before Bennett-is, of course, of all the protective devices, the most insidious and the most dangerous.
I well remember, in the year 1933 driving through Chicago and having two flat tires-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Kucherepa:: You still have them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and having to replace them. Naturally, I bought in the cheapest

market I could find, which was Sears-Roebuck. When I came to the Ambassador bridge at Windsor, the Canadian end of it, there were five different imposts put on before I was through, and when I had got finished I had paid more in duty than I had paid for the tires. One of these imposts was described in such a way-I forget the precise words now

as to give the impression that the Canadian government was collecting it for the United States. I said to the customs officer, "You don't mean to say this is going into the United States treasury, do you?" He said, "Oh, no, but a lot of people think it is." I said, "If I were an organizer of the Liberal party"-and I may say that in those days I was a lecturer in history in the university and had only an academic interest in politics-"or if I were a member of the Liberal party, I would set up a booth at the end of this bridge and nobody that crossed it would ever vote Tory again." I had already been converted prior to that time, but if I had not been converted I certainly would have been by that experience.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: Why
didn't you buy the tires in Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman was not old enough to remember that in Saskatchewan in those great days of the Bennett government there were many people who had to travel around on the rims and have their cars pulled by horses.


An hon. Member:: Bennett buggies.
Mr. Pallet!: He will not sell his politics for two tires.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The thing that astonished me most of all in the astonishing speech made by the hon. member for Greenwood was his suggestion this afternoon that the woollen industry was an industry indigenous to Canada. I really want to say something about this increase in tariff on wool because it seems to me that in many ways it is the most fantastic thing in the whole budget. Here we have a government headed by a Prime Minister whose main appeal to the Canadian people was that he was going to divert a great part of our trade from the United States to the United Kingdom. If anybody doubts that the Prime Minister gave that kind of impression, not merely in this country but elsewhere, I should like to read a brief extract from the monthly bulletin of the commonwealth and empire industries association published in London. It is commenting on the Prime Minister's great success in March of 1958, something which we all remember. Here is a sentence or two:
The Budget-Mr. Pickersgill
In 1957 the Conservative leader. Mr. Diefenbaker, roundly declared that he would like to see a switch of 15 per cent of Canada's trade with the United States to the United Kingdom. On assuming office he had not a majority sufficient to allow him to put his plans into effect and so he went to the country again in 1958 having made no concessions or abated one item of his intentions. The result we know,-
The result, Mr. Speaker, we know. The first result was this. The first time the Prime Minister has had a chance to do anything about it, what does he do? He puts on a tariff on what is-if any single item is-the classic export from Britain to Canada. It is true that the government say it is only a small duty, that it really will not increase the cost of what anyone has to pay very much. But I say, sir, that small or large, the symbolic significance of this increase is tremendous. In the first place, it is an evidence of the trend, the direction in which this whole tariff section of the minister's speech pointed. It is the first faltering step; but I suspect that, if the minister is able to get away with this one, there will be many longer strides following.
This is no matter of mere academic interest to anyone who represents a constituency where the majority of the electors make their living out of what is an indigenous industry and what is the oldest industry in this country, namely the fishing industry. Not only do my constituents have to make their living by selling in the markets of the world at world prices practically everything that they produce, whether it be wood products or fish, but they have to buy practically everything they consume in a market, which is in the essence of things- and always has been since confederation, since 1949-protected to a degree. It was not protected to the same extent before confederation. This tariff on British woollens will have the effect of increasing their cost of living, perhaps not very much but some.
But what I think is much more serious to Newfoundland is the second part of the minister's proposal, namely the proposal that he is also going to increase, if he can worm out of our trade agreements, the most-favoured-nation tariff. Everybody knows that outside of Britain the one country that has made real progress in getting into the Canadian woollen market is Italy. Perhaps everyone in the house does not know that Italy is without exception the best market for Newfoundland fish on the continent of Europe. There has been a risk, ever since the common market was established, that this market for Canadian fish may be lost to some degree because of the combined tariff around these six nations, because France is included and because France has fishing grounds at

The Budget-Mr. Pickersgill St. Pierre. But if we are going to kick the Italians in the teeth as we have already indicated we are going to kick the British in the teeth-I should not say "we"; I should say as the government has already indicated it is going to kick the British in the teeth- we are going to jeopardize even more that market for our fish and that will affect the interests of every fish producer, every producer of cod fish on the east coast. It is true that it is only Newfoundland fish that goes to Italy. But if that market should be diminished or lost, it simply means there is going to be that much keener competition for the markets that remain. We simply cannot afford to jeopardize any of our external markets.
I want to take the rest of the time I have at my disposal to refer to a great gaping hole, a great chasm, in the budget. I notice that the minister said the other night that he had-he interjected this when my friend the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River was speaking-made some reference to federal-provincial relations in the budget. Of course the minister was right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; I did not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister did so, anyway, whether he said it or not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Stick to the truth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will read what the minister said. Perhaps that will be the best evidence that he did say something. As recorded at page 1234 of Hansard the minister said this:
(Translation):
Additional financial assistance being given to the provinces will enable them to proceed with needed capital improvements in the provincial and municipal fields.
(Text):
That is the whole of what the minister had to say about this important subject about which, when he was boasting about what he was going to do in his budget, only a year ago he had this to say-this is from the Ottawa Journal, the same reference I used this afternoon, namely June 26, 1957:
Mr. Fleming said on this point that a new dominion-provincial conference will be called, probably this year,-
That was 1957.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was called.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I continue the quotation:
-to revise the basis for division of the joint fields of taxation-
I emphasize those words "to revise the basis".
-and to provide the provinces with increases in these revenues.

And what did we have? We had a two-day conference in November when the provincial governments were not allowed to discuss the main subject, they were diverted into other fields which most of them had not come there to discuss and about which the premier of Manitoba-and he is still the premier of that province for a few more hours-complained.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, the hon. gentlemen may laugh, but it may be that they will not be laughing for very long for unless the minister does something about this gaping hole, it will not be very long before that gentleman is again premier of Manitoba. I say this because I have made some computations and, like the Minister of Finance in his early days as minister, I have had to do my own arithmetic. This is not because I do not trust my officials but because I have no officials to do it for me. The result of the best computation I can make indicates that it is highly improbable that out of this dole- the money doled out by the telegram last January- the provinces will in fact receive any additional revenue whatsoever in the year 1958-59. I may be wrong, but the minister did not make any attempt anywhere in his speech or in his papers to give any indication of any kind as to what that figure would be.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the hon. gentleman aware of the fact that there was a debate on this subject on June 2?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I am perfectly well aware of that fact and I am also aware of the fact that on the day of the budget speech the Prime Minister tabled a letter which the Minister of Finance wrote to the premier of Saskatchewan and which was, I think, the most arrogant communication which I have ever seen addressed by any federal minister to any provincial premier.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In this letter he said he was very sorry that it was not his business -I am paraphrasing now-


Some hon. Members:: Read the letter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Please read the letter. Let us have no more of these misleading misquotations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -to prepare the budgets of the provincial governments. Hon. members will find the letter in Hansard of that day.


Some hon. Members:: Read it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have very little time and I am not going to oblige the minister

by reading the letter in full, but I think perhaps to satisfy him I will read a sentence-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Read the letter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -to which I have particular reference. The minister said that in the circumstances he could hardly be expected to assume responsibility for the budget estimates of the provinces. That was the nice, tactful approach, the new approach, the conciliatory approach about which we have heard so much, and the rest of the letter is in exactly the same tone.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Go on. Read the next sentence.


Some hon. Members:: Read it all.


Mr. Habel:: They are trying to divert you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister, I believe, has the right to speak at any time. He can read the letter to his heart's content but I have some other things to say.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Just read one more sentence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In January Mr. Lesage and I did our best to get the Minister of Finance to state that he would stabilize his extra 3 per cent, and he pretended not to understand the argument.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He didn't pretend any such thing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Now he has admitted that there is no stabilization whatsoever for the extra amount. Mr. Greenlay, the provincial treasurer of Manitoba-according to my best information he is still the provincial treasurer -is reported to have said, according to the Winnipeg Free Press of June 20 last-I might say incidentally that when Mr. Greenlay entered the government in Manitoba he was generally considered to be a member of the party of the hon. members opposite, but he has learned something-


Donald Methuen Fleming: He certainly has.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What he is reported to have said is as follows:
The claims of Prime Minister Diefenbaker and Tory MP's who campaigned here during the provincial election-that Ottawa was giving Manitoba an extra $3.4 million in tax-rental payment-are misleading and probably false, Hon. C. E. Greenlay indicated Thursday.
The fact is, of course, that if the revenues from these great fields of taxation do diminish -as they are diminishing, and as the minister himself indicated in the table he put on Hansard he expected them to diminish-I suspect that he gave as optimistic estimate as he dared to give of that diminution-it could happen that this whole $62 million would be
The Budget-Mr. Pickersgill out of the window. Certainly the minister is not paying on the basis of the extra $62 million at the present time, or anything like it, and he knows that. He has never given us any estimate of what in his opinion it is that the provinces really will get, in the light of revised figures of which he and his officials are aware but of which this house is not aware. We do not know what they are likely to get, but it is perfectly clear that it is not going to be anything like the $62 million and my suspicion is that if there is any addition at all when the accounts are in at the end of the year, it will be a very small one.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It will be 3 per cent more than they would have received had there not been a change from the Liberal administration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Did you use stabilization?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is quite wrong even in his last observation, if I caught it correctly, because if they do get anything out of this $62 million it will be because Mr. Harris' stabilization comes into effect, and furthermore it will be only because of that and not because of anything done by the present government, if they do get as much as they got last year.
We have been told absolutely nothing about the future. We know that this famous dole, the unilateral dole by telegram, is for one year only, and we do not know what is going to happen after March 31 next. The provincial governments have been told nothing whatsoever and they certainly did have the right to expect that they would at least be told in the budget, because they were not allowed to discuss the matter at the conference. I must confess I do not believe the government has the slightest intention of meeting the provinces again in 1958. Alternatively, they should know what it is proposed to do when the present statute expires on March 31.
I predict that what will happen is that at the beginning of next session we will have another of these telegrams-I hope the arithmetic will be correct this time-covering another interim arrangement. This method will be used because the government has been too busy with other things to bother with the provinces.
If the government has different plans, if the government really intends, when they have disposed of parliament, to call some kind of a conference, or if they intend to work out some kind of hole-in-corner deal with the government of Ontario-as Mr. Macaulay, the new minister, seems to be hinting every few days with, I suspect, a little prodding from behind from the premier of that province- then surely this parliament is entitled to know, as it was always given the opportunity

The Budget-Mr. Pickersgill to know under the previous government, what is the policy of the government. We have not the faintest idea; there is no indication whatsoever in this budget as to what the provincial governments may expect after March 31, what they are really going to get, or even what the department thinks they are going to get or what the minister thinks they are going to get between now and March 31.
The minister said with great exuberance last June that the government was going to hold a conference last year to revise the basis for the division of the joint fields of taxation. There has been no such division. The government did not decide anything at the conference, but they sent out this telegram, just taking the formula of Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Harris and giving the appearance of adding to it another 3 per cent, but they left in the joker about stabilization so that the 3 per cent could disappear, as it is indeed disappearing and as I suspect it will disappear more and more as more realistic estimates come to be made as to what, in fact, the proceeds of these great fields of taxation will turn out to be.
It does seem to me that on these two grounds alone the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) and which I had the honour of seconding is amply justified in both of these particulars. The minister has said he has given this extra money to the provinces. That is a free translation of what he said in French as I read it a little while ago. He said he gave it to them so that they could embark on big spending programs. But he did not tell them he had done it all with mirrors, and that they would probably not get any more at all. In fact, he left them in a worse state than before he started, because they do not know what they are going to get, whether it will be more or less. My hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River set out the other day what was done with respect to the public works program and the national development program. There again, it was all done with mirrors. There is nothing whatsoever which will give us any hope of effective action being taken to meet the recession.
Of course, the minister talked a lot about the tax reductions he made last December. I have been looking at that, and I have added to the $178 million the $26 million allowed in the present budget, and it comes to a little over $200 million. This is all we got in tax reductions as compared with the half a billion dollars which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance promised just a year ago would be the amount of the reduction.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what they promised, and this is what they offer. When you contrast that sum with the $128 million by which Mr. Harris reduced taxes a little over a year ago at a time when there was virtually full employment in this country, at a time when the boom was continuing, it is a sad spectacle that we are confronted with.
Turning to the second part of the amendment, about which Your Honour expressed some qualms the other day, I should like to say now what I should have liked to say then, that I did much appreciate the courteous attitude of the Minister of Finance. I think his attitude was wise and just. He suggested that this motion really was about something new, and that was our intention. It was our intention to relate this amendment quite specifically to this disastrous policy, this back-to-Bennett policy of regarding trade as a bad thing, the attitude that you must have a little, but the less you have the better. That is the essence of Toryism.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Dreadful nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At least when I was a young man the Tories were proud of it. I remember Mr. Arthur Meighen in the Winnipeg rink in 1925-


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are sick.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, it was 1925. The hon. gentleman is mistaken.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say 1926. I said "you are sick".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, I misunderstood the hon. gentleman. I remember Mr. Meighen making that famous brick by brick speech which lost vote after vote.


Mr. Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member. His time has expired.


Mr. Rene Letourneau (Stanslead):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great honour for me to be given the privilege of speaking in this house on behalf of my constituents, and I want to thank each and every one for the support they have given me, and for the confidence which they have placed in me by this mandate.
At the beginning of my speech I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) upon his wonderful address in presenting the budget. I also want to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his cabinet for bringing new hope for greater prosperity to the country by doing everything possible to check the recession, which was brought about by the laissez-faire policy of the previous administration.
I wish also to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to a man who once represented

in this house the riding that I represent today. Many of the older members here will remember the late Senator John T. Hackett. Senator Hackett was a great Canadian. I only wish that I may serve my country as well as he did, and with the same devotion.
Mr. Speaker, I represent the beautiful county of Stanstead, the nicest of them all, in spite of whatever my hon. colleagues in this house may say. The county of Stanstead contains a population of 45,000 inhabitants of whom 33 per cent are English speaking and 67 per cent French speaking, and both these groups live in the best of harmony, in spite of racial issues which were introduced in the last two election campaigns by our Liberal opponents in Quebec. I really think that under the present government and our present Prime Minister there will be greater understanding and unity.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, may I give to the house a picture of my constituency, both from a geographic and economic standpoint.
In the extreme western part of my constituency, there is the fine city of Magog, a tourist centre dominated by Mount Orford and endowed with a national park bordering superb lake Memphremagog, where tourists take pleasure in visiting regularly. Furthermore, Magog has one of the most modern and largest textile plants in Canada. Here I should like to thank the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) for all the consideration he kindly gave to the textile problem, and I am sure he will continue, along with the government, to bring new remedies to that industry which is vital to the economy of the province of Quebec and the eastern townships in particular, as well as to that of the country as a whole.
The eastern part of the riding comprises the town of Coaticook, with a population of 7,000. This town also has various industries including a textile plant, though not so large as the one in Magog. Coaticook is, more particularly, a shopping centre for the people of the surrounding fine farming communities.
In the northern part of my riding, Mr. Speaker, there is the town of Lennoxville. It differs from the others in many respects, especially because of its people, who are mostly English-speaking and have a culture very much their own. This is easily understandable, because a nationally known university is located in this area, i.e. Bishop's University, where I had the honour and pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to see an honorary degree conferred on the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker).
Now, Mr. Speaker, coming to the southernmost part of the riding, we find what is called the Three Villages-in French les
The Budget-Mr. Letourneau Trois Villages-which form but one town with the unique distinction of being administered by three different municipal councils. There is first the village of Beebe whose granite quarries are known all over the country not only for the quality of their products but for the modern way in which they are put on the market. I am therefore happy to draw to the attention of the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) and of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) to the fact that they can provide all the stone required for the construction of federal buildings in the different parts of the country, even for those which the Minister of Public Works will have to build for my hon. colleague from Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) who, a few days ago, asked the Minister of Public Works to build more harbours and post offices than the preceding government has constructed during its whole mandate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not correct.


René Joseph Eugène Létourneau: That's the way I took it.
We now come, Mr. Speaker, to the American border where we find Rock Island with its various industries among which is a very large tool manufacturing plant, the only one of its kind, called the Union Twist Drill. This plant has been constructed half on American territory and half on Canadian territory and employs Canadian and American workers who work under the same roof in perfect harmony. This should be an example for the whole world.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with a problem which affects Rock Island as well as the whole area of the Eastern townships and the whole province of Quebec. I mean the construction of a customs and immigration office in that town.
(Text):
Regarding the problem I must tell the house that the Liberal administration has talked about building the customs port at Rock Island for the last 22 years and especially in election years. My predecessor to my personal knowledge used it at least three or four times in order to get himself reelected, but this time it did not work.
The Rock Island customs port is one of the oldest in the province of Quebec. I wish to quote from a publication called "The Customs and Excise Examiner", issue of November 1956:
Prior to 1821, when a port to collect His Majesty's customs was established in Stanstead Plain, there

The Budget-Mr. Letourneau was as far as I have been able to And out, no Canadian customs house nearer than St. Johns, Quebec. So it is no surprise to read in the same Gazetteer of 1824, under the heading of Derby, Vermont, that "This town (Derby) was a port of entry in the late district of Memphremagog, and a collector's office is still kept here by David M. Camp, Esq., Deputy Collector".
This item points to the fact that customs houses may well have been opened first in the United States across the border from this location. This may be further borne out by the fact that Joseph Bouchette, surveyor-general of Lower Canada, in his report of 1815, said:
In the southeast part of the township is the village of Stanstead, which though small has some good houses in it; the main stage road from Quebec into the states of Vermont and New Hampshire, etc., passes through it from which, as bringing a continual influx of strangers some little consequence is derived. From hence the same road leads to Derby in Vermont: at that place communication to almost every part of the United States is easy. To take care of this great traffic a Canadian customs office was opened in 1821 in Stanstead, the first such office anywhere near this area, though another customs office was opened later in East Hereford, Quebec, to cover another stage road up the Connecticut river route.
I have cited these quotations to indicate that for 22 years under a Liberal administration we have in Stanstead, Rock Island, a customs port which has been a disgrace to Canada. It has been shameful to see tourists to Canada having to wait for two or three hours before they could enter the country through this port.
I have some interesting statements concerning the Rock Island customs immigration highway office gleaned from various sources. The first of these is a statement to be found at page 7 of a publication entitled "Travel Between Canada and the United States" for the calendar year 1957 as follows:
Rock Island is one of the largest customs points for the entry of vehicles, in the province of Quebec.
It is the customs port in the province of Quebec having the greatest number of commuters and is the only port in Quebec issuing commuters stickers to speed this traffic. Set right on the main street of the centre of the town and some 100 yards from the international frontier, the customs and immigration office at Rock Island has frequently a tangled web of traffic in front of it during the heavy tourist season or when several trucks awaiting clearance are being held. On some occasions, as with a log jam, some one car has to be released to let things move.
A few years ago-and this must have occurred in an election year-the plan to relieve this congestion was to take the automobile traffic east of the Tomifobia river and, while this was under consideration, three
[Mr. Letoumeau.l
properties were purchased by the Department of Public Works on the east bank of that river. These were the Morel, Clarke and May properties, the latter two being on Church street, Rock Island, and the Morel property being on a lane running from Main street to Church street. The properties were never used for the purpose and have since been resold for a ridiculous amount. During this period at least three suggestions were made and considered to take the traffic off Rock Island's Main street to a customs-immigration office on or near the properties acquired but none managed to meet with the approval of all the municipal, provincial, state and federal authorities involved in the relocation. I have in my hand a brief presented to Mr. Ernest Gohier of Quebec city which outlines this development.
The passage of the national system of interstate highways by the United States in 1956 with a designated throughway, limited access, from Boston and New York to Derby Line, Vermont, adjacent to Rock Island, Quebec, presented a complete change of planning regarding the relocation of the Rock Island customs-immigration office. The period 1956 to the present has seen a closer drawing to agreement of the many governmental agencies concerned in the relocation of the United States and Canadian customs and immigration offices at this key border point.
Automobiles entering Canada on some holidays have lined up in the United States for more than a mile from the port of entry and quite often during the summer months have to be policed both in Derby Line, Vermont, and Rock Island, Quebec, to keep the main streets in both towns open for local business. The traffic varies greatly but I have here exact figures taken from the official records for inward traffic only. As many or more people would be leaving Canada on the same dates. On June 30, 1956, 7,296 persons entered Canada through this port; 6,682 on July 1, 1956; 7,934 on July 2; 7,482 on September 1 and so on. I have placed these few representative figures on the record to indicate the heavy volume of traffic that passes through this port. Year by year the traffic has steadily increased and a large new trucking firm is making arrangements at the present moment for entry of its vehicles through this port. Special chartered buses regularly enter Canada through this port in the summer and it is not an uncommon sight to see anywhere from 30 to 70 people from the buses seeking to use one public toilet now found in the present customs immigration building.

With the new interstate throughway to Derby Line, Vermont, presently under construction in that state and it being understood that the state is ready to complete its section of the throughway from near Newport, Vermont, to the international boundary, it is hoped that the traffic difficulties which have beset the Rock Island customs-immigration officials may be ended before long. I am sure the government will give consideration to my request and that its humble servant will not have to go back to Rock Island and make promises to this effect in order to be reelected next time.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the government take every opportunity to help the war veterans. The government could do that by improving the Veterans' Land Act, the Pension Act and by giving the veterans better hospitalization care and attention. I feel that no government will ever be reproached for giving more attention to these men who defended our freedom and liberty.
(Translation):
And now, I would like to suggest to the government that early provision be made for the pegging of family allowances to the cost of living, so that our children may continue to attend school at least until the age of 18. This would not only be of assistance to large families, but would increase the purchasing power of heads of households.
Mr. Speaker, I could hardly refrain from saying a word about the farmers of my constituency, who are an important class there, in numbers as well as in quality. As you know the Eastern townships are particularly suited to dairying, as well as to hog and poultry raising. In the constituency of Stanstead, more particularly, are high class farms of a type rarely seen in other parts of Canada, except out west. There let me congratulate the government for the concern it has shown for the position of the farmer in
The Budget-Mr. Robichaud
Mr. Speaker, I cannot let go unnoticed the feast of Saint John the Baptist, patron saint of French Canadians, which is celebrated tomorrow. On this occasion I extend my best wishes to all the French-speaking Canadians of my constituency, of the province of Quebec and of Canada as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude with these words which I often like to repeat: "Oh Canada, my country, my love, where it is good to live in peace and prosperity!"
(Text):


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I must confess I am forced to limit my praise and congratulations to the delivery only of the budget speech. In doing this I can see where I am in complete agreement with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I can agree also with the first words spoken this afternoon by the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), when he said that nothing spectacular or that no surprise came out of this deficit budget. In fact, he told us that the Prime Minister (Mr! Diefenbaker) had warned the Canadian taxpayers about the coming deficit. As I will mention later in the course of my remarks, this warning was certainly not given before March 31 of this year and even before June 10 of last year.
Tuesday, June 17, 1958, will remain as a blue Tuesday in the history of the Canadian parliament, but it will be a blue Tuesday written in red letters. We had before us after the call of the bells at eight p.m. on that date a Tory Minister of Finance wearing a blue suit, a blue tie, a blue carnation in his lapel, delivering to the astonishment of his blue colleagues and to the other hon. members another one of the historical Tory government deficit budgets.
its agricultural prices maintenance legislation. I am sure that it will soon find other ways of improving agriculture not only in our area, but throughout this country.
I would suggest to the government to revise the Canadian farm loan act so that the farmer may borrow substantial amounts of money in order, first, to expand his farm and then mechanize it. It should be realized that today a man can no longer support his family on a 100 or 125-acre farm because with farm mechanization, the farmer needs at least 300 to 500 acres. To that end the farmer would require more credit, on more favourable terms and with a longer period of reimbursement.
If the Conservative members of this house sometimes have the blues when it rains, they definitely had the blues after the Minister of Finance completed the delivery of his first budget presentation. Mr. Speaker, never in the history of the Canadian parliament have so many words been spoken to take away so much from the taxpayers and give so little in return. In fact, it took 46 long pages of Hansard to let the Canadian people know that rat poison would be cheaper and even the ambulance if required could be used at a reduced cost.


An hon. Member:: How about glass eyes?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Glass eyes come later. And having close relations with poison and the

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud ambulance, we were told that even the flowers would cost less; and I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether the pied piper of the Tory party is aware that under a Conservative administration an increasing rodent population is inevitable and could easily invade our idle factories, our closed mining pits and our depressed manufacturing plants to such an extent that a cheap poison would be needed to prevent a disaster resulting from such an undue plague.
After listening the other night to the Minister of Finance and also after listening on Friday afternoon to the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) who was trying, in vain I would say to carry the ball for the government but who unfortunately for them dropped and missed and fumbled, one cannot help but reach the conclusion that the Conservative party may have fooled some of the Canadian people some of the time but all of the Canadian people will not be fooled all of the time.
The 1958 budget will remain in history as a great disappointment to the nation, a budget where the main problem of unemployment has been practically overshadowed by a cloud of mist and uncertainty, a budget where many words were spoken, numerous figures were tabled, but still a budget where confusion, disappointment and unrest prevailed, a budget where even the hopes of the Minister of Finance himself had vanished in illusion and in imagination. It is a budget inconsistent with the policy advocated by the minister and by his colleagues; it is a budget in fact, which by its nature is inflationary and which offers no measure whatsoever to curb or slow down the present trend of inflation which is still threatening the Canadian economy. On page 2009, volume II of Hansard for December 6, 1957, we find the following words:
Having previously forecast a surplus of revenue over expenditure for the year ending March 31 next of $106 million, we may now expect a surplus of $80 million after giving effect to the tax changes that I have proposed.
Those were the words pronounced in this house on December 6, 1957, by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). At a later date, on page 4019 of Hansard for January 30, 1958, only two months before the closing of accounts for the last fiscal year, the same minister answered a question addressed to him by the former member for OkanaganBoundary in the following words:
It is not customary to answer questions of that kind or to make interim statements during the course of the fiscal year as to what the expected end result may be of the government's financing for the year. There is not any statement as of May 31, as the question seems to assume. I did give the house a statement on December 6 as to the expected surplus at the end of the current fiscal year.

I want the minister to listen carefully to the next sentence.
I have no reason to depart appreciably from that estimate, and I think at March 31 government operations for the year, thanks to prudent management, will show a respectable surplus.


Mr. Hardie:: He knew then there was going to be an election.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On Monday, June 16, the minister tabled the budget papers covering the government's accounts for 1957-58 or the highlights of government financial operations in the last fiscal year. In this way the house and the country learned that the great hopes of the Minister of Finance had vanished and his predicted surplus of $80 million three months earlier had been transformed into a $39-million deficit, a deficit to which we can add another $102 million to take care of the deficit on the old age security fund which is now covered by a temporary loan and for which parliament will be asked to authorize a regular vote for expenditures.


An hon. Member:: Were you opposed to
increasing pensions?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: It must have been rather embarrassing, and I could add almost humiliating, for this great believer of balanced budgets, for this self-appointed protector and custodian of the nation's rights, to have been selected to present the 1958-59 budget, the largest deficit peacetime budget in Canadian history. We are now told by the minister that he is forecasting a deficit of $648 million for the fiscal year. How about the $165 million being liquidated from the national defence equipment account and which, when added to the government's deficit, will make a total of $813 million? On December 6, 1957 the minister predicted a surplus of $80 million, and even as late as January 30 of this year, as I have cited earlier, he stated, and I want to repeat his words:
I have no reason to depart appreciably from that estimate, and I think at March 31 government operations for the year, thanks to prudent management, will show a respectable surplus.
The minister must have had personal and political reasons for his optimism. Those words were uttered when a general election was in sight, and at a time when the minister was refusing to bring down a budget; at a time when it was in the best interests of the hon. gentleman and of his party to hide from the Canadian electors the true facts about Canada's financial situation. After returning to power, and during the last three months, the same government, the same Minister of Finance, this same gentleman who on December 6 last informed this house that no previous minister had ever faced as heavy a

volume of work as that which faced this minister; this same hon. gentleman who on that date very humbly told about the 17 or 18-hour work-day and his 100 hours of work per week; yes, the same minister in the most frank and flowery exposure within the memory of parliament, delivered to the nation the results of his labours, the results of his ambition for power at all costs.
The Budget-Mr. Robichaud Mr. Robichaud: Hon. members can applaud, but while gifts and praise were being showered on the man they said made this Tory political era, while Conservative members, senators and organizers were jubilantly celebrating, what was going on outside? What was taking place in the country from Newfoundland to British Columbia?
The 1958 budget will remain in history as the Diefenbaker vision at its best. It is a budget which will result in the Canadian taxpayers being asked to supply a total of $1,400 million of new cash for the present fiscal year. I want to warn the hon. gentleman that this could result in the present government advocating, before long, measures and policies quite different from those which they have so far enunciated. We have in sight what could shape up as the biggest year for new government borrowings since the war years, and the present government may be gradually heading into a situation in which they will not be in a position to practise what they have preached and having to put into effect policies which they claimed to have been so strongly against in past years, particularly since taking power in January of last year. At this advanced date in the present session the whole country is still waiting for the exposure of this so-called vision of the Prime Minister, a vision which may coincide with the definition of the word itself and could well be nothing else but an illusion. We may find that the utopia existed only in the minds of the members of the government of the day.
Where is this so-called additional money that was to be available for stepping up the


Mr. Montgomery:: What was taking place?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: It is sad to state and sad to realize what was taking place; in fact after 12 months of Tory power history repeats itself. The first budget of a Conservative government was one of gloom, one of disappointment and one which represented too high a cost for a democracy to pay for a change of government. After 12 months of Conservative power, at this late date in June, 1958, we have to admit that there are over 500,000 men and women seeking jobs, hungry for food. This is happening in a young, growing country in which, according to the minister's own words: "Providence has blessed us with vast resources and in which its people are vigorous and enterprising." To this the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne), if he were in his seat, might add "So what!"


An hon. Member:: What would you do?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: You may find out before I am through with my remarks what I would do. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) had a great vision, a northern vision full of promises and expectations. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Prime Minister once again of the pledge which he made to his people of Prince Albert on February 14 last when he said this:
program of public works? The estimates of the Public Works Department have been before this house and the larger portion of those estimates have been passed. What did we find? We found nothing but the normal increases of previous years, accentuated it is true to a slight extent, but far from representing the great national development policy about which we heard so much during the last campaign. Where is the huge public works program to be inaugurated, in the words of the Prime Minister, to ensure development of the country and to provide help to Canadians, work to Canadians and an opportunity for the better things of life?
On Friday evening last the Conservative members got together to celebrate on the eve of their first anniversary in government. While gifts and praise were being showered on the man-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
57071-3-981
" lons as. 1 am Prime Minister, no man or woman is going to suffer from unemployment so long as public works will provide them the assistance they require.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Very few of the hon. members opposite are applauding. I realize why there are so few, Mr. Speaker.
There are today in the country-and the Prime Minister is aware of it; and I repeat it over 500,000 hungry Canadians seeking work. Must this be taken as an evidence that the present government's program has failed to reach its objective and has proven to be ineffective. To those members who were applauding I want to repeat what I said in this house on May 19 last:
Is this the right time to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to open new roads in uninhabited areas, to help discover new mineral deposits at a time when our own already populated areas need new roads and at a time when our people are urgently in need of employment?

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud Day after day, week after week, mines are closing down or are curtailing their operations. Only last week the last mine operating in my constituency of Gloucester had to close its doors. There was vanishing the great hopes and opportunities of the years 1953 and 1954 when northern New Brunswick was credited with the greatest mining discovery of the year. Only four years later our population cannot recover from this shock; they are forced to admit that their great faith and optimism, their yearning for years to come; have disappeared almost overnight. Again last week it was the Dominion Coal Company announcing that its coal mining operations will for "several months" or "until new markets can be found" operate on a shorttime basis.


Mr. Morris:: On a point or order-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The hon. member will
have plenty of time to make his remarks.


Edmund Leverett Morris: May I speak on a point of order, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Edmund Leverett Morris: The hon, member has been a member of this house for some considerable time. Surely he is aware of the fact that the reading of speeches in full is not permitted. We on this side of the house are not even sure that it is his own speech.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, if I have notes at my disposal, I can say that they are the result of the homework I have been doing in the last few days. This statement may not apply to the hon. member and to his colleague the member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) who may need the help of his father-inlaw at times to prepare some of his remarks as he is an expert in interjections in this house.
When I brought this problem to the attention of the government at the opening of the present session-in fact it was on Friday, May 16 last-the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) bluntly denied having any knowledge of such curtailment being contemplated by the coal company. Today, one month later, the same company cannot carry on with its present scale of operation. With a stockpile of 1,400,000 tons on hand growing from day to day, and with market prospects far from bright and promising, ^ it is forced to close down for an indefinite period. After such a decision how can the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois) justify the statement he made a few weeks ago to the effect that the entire stockpile of coal was sold and waiting to be moved to destination points at a later date? 

How can he justify the reply which he gave to my question this afternoon when he said that no proposal had been put before the government for aid of the coal companies of Nova Scotia?


Edmund Leverett Morris: Oh, oh.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I realize that the hon. member for Halifax does not like the remarks I am making at this time. What did we hear about this situation from members on the government side of the house, including the hon. member for Halifax? Only on Friday last, after the company's announcement was an accomplished fact, did the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir) ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys for assistance for the 8,000 to 9,000 miners affected by this temporary lay-off.
Oh, Mr. Speaker, the burst of applause and rejoicing from the members on the government side in listening to the presentation of the budget on Tuesday last, must well have changed into serious thinking and more realistic understanding after they had a chance to realize fully how little relief the Canadian people can expect from these 20,500 words, splashing more red ink than satisfaction. Let the hon. members realize that their party has been in power now for over 12 months and let them have a serious and unbiased look at the situation in their respective constituencies and compare conditions with those existing a year or so ago.


An hon. Member:: It is impossible for you to take an unbiased look.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: My hon. friend will be like many of his colleagues. He as well as they will be unhappy to find that the number of unemployed has increased by almost 100 per cent in almost every region and in almost every constituency. He can also listen to this statement. The line-ups awaiting them when they visit their respective constituencies are for them more sickening than heartening. These are the conditions existing today in the Atlantic provinces as well as in other areas of the country.
I still well remember how scandalized the members of the Conservative party were when the preliminary report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects was made public in January of 1956. This report of the Gordon commission had reserved special chapters to the economy of the Atlantic provinces and included many strong recommendations concerning the area.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Including deportation.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: May I say this to my hon. friend. You will admit, if you want to be

unbiased, that in certain sections of the mar-itimes, in certain communities of your own constituency as in mine and as in that of the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne)-and he would admit it if he were in his seat-we have a certain percentage of our population which should be removed to more progressive areas.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Get that on the record.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he indicate what section of the constituency of Gloucester he believes ought to be deported?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: My friend I do not want to take too much time with my remarks but I want to tell the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) that in my own constituency of Gloucester in certain settlements back of Nicholas Denys and in certain sections of Allardville parish a certain percentage of the population would be better off if they were removed to a more highly populated area in my constituency where they could find work or employment.


An hon. Member:: You had better stick to your written speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I notice two bells ringing, the Saint John bell and the Carleton bell but I will carry on just the same.
In his budget presentation in March of last year the then minister of finance, Mr. Harris, included some of the main recommendations of the Gordon report and the government was called upon to proceed with the necessary legislation required for the actual implementation of this particular program.
In the few minutes left at my disposal I should like to deal specifically with some of the problems of the Atlantic provinces where the basic need is business together with a diversified industry and a diversified system of economic activities.
The improvement of an integrated basis of transportation facilities, a new application of a land use classification scheme with wider and more practical assistance to small farmers, a more effective and modified system of encouragement towards the greater use of Nova Scotia coal are some of the solutions to the economic problems of the Atlantic region. Some hon. members on the government side will say, "Why did you not do these things when you were in power; why did you not speak about these things when you were sitting on the government side?"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
The Budget-Mr. Robichaud


Hédard-J. Robichaud: "Hear, hear". I wish to advise those hon. members that they have the privilege of looking over the record of discussions which took place in previous sessions of parliament and they will find, probably to their great disappointment and surprise, that my remarks were not limited to congratulations to the government of the day but included constructive suggestions, some of which have resulted in the realization of some of my hopes. Many of these today are accomplished facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Hon. members must recall that it was during the last Liberal regime, from 1935 to 1957, that the Liberal party led this country with great glory through world war II and it was the Liberal party which, in the post-war period, gave to Canada the greatest decade of expansion and prosperity in its history.
I have just mentioned the improvement of an integrated basis of transportation facilities as an important factor in the solution of the economic problems of the Atlantic region. General recognition of the transportation problem which exists in the Atlantic region is required, as is a long and most complete study of the whole situation. This problem cannot be easily assessed; it could involve rather serious difficulties. It is in fact directly related to the economic development of the whole area and higher government subsidies may not be the answer. Consideration should be given to a more efficient and better integrated system of transportation based upon the economic possibilities of the entire Atlantic region.
On October 18 last the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) said that the bureau of transportation economics operating within his department had been instructed to carry on studies with respect to the transportation problems in the Atlantic region but, on January 30, the only information I could obtain from the minister was that very satisfactory progress was being made with this study. Knowing that the minister never makes exaggerated statements to this house, I inquired of him on May 15 last, seven months after he had announced the study was under way, as to when we might expect a report on the findings of this study. The reply was short and to the point-the study had not been completed. However, on June 10, in reply to a similar question, I received a rather more ambiguous reply from the minister and I will quote his own words as follows:
As no time was set as a target, and as this investigation is a study, it will be carried on until conclusions are reached. It is impossible to give a direct answer to the hon. member's question.

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud
Here is a problem which deserves the immediate and most serious consideration of the government and it is a problem that is considerably aggravating and is substantially contributing to the slow and too modest start in the development of our natural resources.
In view of the immediate importance of this matter, I would suggest the appointment of a special agency, comprised of full-time government officials, which would have specific instructions to study our Atlantic air, water and land transportation systems. Representatives of the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Transport, the Department of Public Works, the Canadian National Railways, the national harbours board and the Department of Finance could share in the work of this agency. Other problems such as the government's purchasing policies, coal policy, the problems of agriculture and fisheries, could also be assigned to this special federal agency. In other words, this would be the group responsible for the co-ordination of the work of different departments, including matters of research, with respect to the Atlantic region.
Such an organization should be assisted by a special Atlantic provinces fund to be assigned for the economic development of the region. The government could set aside the sum of $75 million to $100 million, which at the initiation or suggestion of the provinces concerned, could be used-for say a five-year period-to promote major projects which could in turn ensure the economic progress of the area. A joint capital projects commission under the jurisdiction of the four Atlantic provinces could recommend to the federal authorities or to this agency those projects requiring financial assistance on a priority basis, and the whole Atlantic region would be isolated as a single unit for such a purpose, which would provide for a wide range of federal intervention within these provinces.
I want to make it clear that our oldest provinces should not be regarded as just another Colombo plan area for which the federal government should be asked to vote emergency subsidies. It is furthermore not another area where large interests in the central provinces can look for secondary outlets for their consumer goods or for good market prospects for the disposal of surplus production. What we want in the Atlantic provinces is a fair share of and a participation in the economic growth of Canada; we want to participate through a more diversified system of business activity in the industrial expansion which has so obviously taken place in the last decade in most sections of our country.

There is no doubt that the Gordon commission report, which was followed by concrete measures instituted by the prior administration in co-operation with the efforts of local authorities, created a great psychological effect on the maritime population, resulting in the generation of the confidence and initiative which is so essential for the development of our resources and the expansion of new industries.
The special agency I have suggested-possibly operating under the direction of the Department of Trade and Commerce-could be either a departmental division or a crown corporation whose primary responsibility would be to promote economic development. It has been recognized that the Atlantic provinces do not share the expanding frontiers of other parts of Canada and that something should be done to bring the economy of this vast area in line with those regions.
Once again I wish to remind hon. members that my suggestion should not be regarded as the introduction of a second Colombo plan for the purpose of helping to subsidize a particular emergency program. On the contrary, the people of the Atlantic provinces and the people of other provinces of Canada have witnessed other federal programs such as P.F.R.A., the construction of the trans-Canada pipe line, the St. Lawrence seaway and other projects which have helped certain regions far more than they have helped the Atlantic area. I might say some of these developments have even been detrimental to the Atlantic region, particularly from an economic point of view. The special assistance I have suggested, far from being considered a handout or a charity, could be an effective method of balancing out certain disadvantages which could have resulted from federal intervention in other regions.
Such interventions were needed and have proven beneficial to the areas concerned and the same effects would apply to the Atlantic provinces.
I am not discounting the special grants of $25 million awarded for a period of four years to the four Atlantic provinces as per a formula forming the basis of the equalization principle and being effective as of April 1 of this year. Let us not, however, arrive at the conclusion that these special grants will by themselves solve the problems of those provinces. I hope also that hon. members on the government side are not of the opinion that this particular measure was the first move by Ottawa towards recognizing the needs and requirements of the Atlantic provinces. In looking over the estimates for the fiscal year 1958-59, I find very little in new projects of major importance which could

have favourable and influential reaction in relieving our present unemployment situation. In fact, the largest items in public works estimates are votes specifically designed for the completion of projects originated under the previous administration. It may be advisable to remind hon. members opposite of such projects as the Canso causeway, the Macdonald bridge, the Chatham air base, a number of airports, and the $100 million Camp Gagetown, all projects of major significance which have taken place in the Atlantic provinces in the last ten years.


Edmund Leverett Morris: What has the federal government got to do with the Macdonald bridge?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The hon. member has
something to learn before he will find out.
The northern vision of the Prime Minister could well be revised, and a second look at the Atlantic provinces might right now be suggested by all members from the provinces by the sea.
I am not against the development of the northern section of our country, but again I want to say let us think twice before we launch now, at this crucial period, a vast expansion program at Baffinland, and let us concentrate on areas where the people are unemployed, on areas where vast natural resources are already available and where its development could immediately contribute to the economy of the whole country from coast to coast. Opportunity exists in New Brunswick, and why should the attention of the government be leaning towards the north when our own mines, one of our own basic industries, lie dormant waiting for better days to come. It is important for the maritimes that concrete action be undertaken soon in order to meet the needs of our population by taking full advantage of the possibilities offered from our great untapped reserves.
Mr. Speaker, it may not be too late for the Minister of Finance and the present government to reconsider its attitude and to give practical recognition to our particular problems. Time does not permit me to elaborate further, but in closing I wish to emphasize once more the immediate need for a more concrete study of our transportation problems, for special consideratoin of the possibility of better land use by our farming population, for the creating of a special agency for promoting the development of our natural resources and, finally, the fulfilment of a program which could bring the Atlantic provinces back in a position comparable with the rest of Canada, sharing equally in the country's growth and expansion.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should first like to congratulate the Minister
The Budget-Mr. Broome of Finance (Mr. Fleming) for having done a job which would have stumped any of his predecessors. Previous budgets were rather easy to make because it was only a question of finding a rug large enough to sweep the surplus under. But this budget, where there has to be a careful plan of pump priming and also a continual watch in case of inflation taking over, is a job for an expert and I congratulate the government on having a minister of the calibre of the Minister of Finance.
As the Minister of Finance has stated, we have a paradoxical situation of having at one and the same time a period of recession and a danger of inflation. In this regard I should like to echo the words of the minister when he said that this country must depend on the sense of responsibility of every man and woman not to take more than their fair share of the national income; that increases in income can only be justified by increased productivity, and by increased productivity alone; and that only by keeping our cost of production in line with that of our competitors could we hope to achieve expanding employment and a progressive improvement in our standard of living. The Minister of Finance also emphasized-and this, perhaps, is something new to the members of the opposition-that in respect to all public expenditure we should continue to search for economies and eradicate inefficiency and waste wherever we find them. He asked all members of parliament, regardless of party, to assist him in tracking down waste in every way possible.
We all know how diffidently our friends on the opposite side accepted the offer of the chairmanship of the public accounts committee, which is one major method by which a check can be kept on public expenditure. We also know that on the estimates committee a free rein is given to all members to check as deeply as they wish into the estimates that come before that committee and that is the first time that the committee has had the power, as a standing committee of the house, to do the job that it should be doing.
The budget speech also emphasized that the budget had taken energetic steps to combat the recession. We know that interest rates have declined substantially and that the banks for some time now have had plenty of funds with which to meet all credit requirements. We have been informed that treasury bills are now at their lowest interest rate for many years, and this easing of funds, this change in our monetary policy, has been of tremendous benefit to the country in combatting this recession. Although present investment intentions of business for capital

The Budget-Mr. Broome outlays in 1958 are 11 per cent below the 1957 level, planned outlays for housing, expenditures by government departments and institutional services on the other hand are 14 per cent higher.
I contend that the government acted, and that it has acted with decision. As a result of this action-the measures taken with regard to housing, the increases in pensions, veterans benefits and unemployment insurance-the present recession has taken a much more moderate course in Canada than in the United States to whose economy we are so closely linked. For instance, on a yearly adjusted basis our retail sales are running ahead of last year, while in the United States they are down about 6 per cent. Industrial production in Canada has declined about 5 per cent from its peak, while in the United States the drop is 12 or 13 per cent. Total labour income in Canada has hardly declined at all, while in the United States it is down about 3 per cent. We do not take any satisfaction in the somewhat greater declines in the United States, for nothing could benefit Canada more quickly than an early resumption of business expansion in the United States. But this government is entitled to some credit for the relatively stronger economic position in Canada.
The Minister of Finance expects revenue to be down $387 million and more than half of this reduction, as he pointed out, is due to tax reductions made by this government. However, it is of interest to note that the remaining half of this reduction comes almost entirely from a falling off in corporation profits. Further tax reductions submitted in this budget total $26 million in a full year and these combined with previous tax reductions brought in by this government give a total of $200 million in the way of tax reductions in this government's first year in office.
Although the budget anticipates a record deficit of $648 million the relationship between the net debt as estimated for 1958 and the gross national product is practically unchanged and in fact is lower than the percentage relationship in 1955 or any previous year according to the table included in the budget speech. This percentage relationship was 37 per cent in 1958, 42 per cent in 1955, 44 per cent in 1953 and 47 per cent in 1951. With the exception of the years 1956 and 1957 this is the lowest percentage of the net debt expressed as a relationship to the gross national product.
At this point I would like to express appreciation to the Minister of Finance for the steps that were taken with regard to the revision in the tariff on wood products.
fMr. Broome.]
I wish to quote from the budget speech as recorded at page 1248 of Hansard where the minister said:
Another change relates to the duty on certain lumber products. A recent decision of the tariff board had the effect of classifying many kinds of worked lumber as "manufactures of wood" carrying a higher rate of duty than had generally applied previously. Canadian lumber interests have expressed serious concern about the possible implications of this change for their important export interests and they have been urging that the earlier position be restored.
This budget restored the earlier position which gave United States exporters equality with Canadian exporters to the United States. Considering that we ship more into the United States than we import from that country this is the measure which we on the west coast really desired.
The lumber industry on the west coast accounts for at least 25 per cent of our total payrolls and in certain areas it is the mainstay of entire communities. The position of the lumber industry is dependent to a large extent on transportation costs. Transportation costs to eastern Canada have been skyrocketing in the last few years according to the brief submitted to the transport board by the British Columbia lumber manufacturers' association. This association points out that between April 8, 1948 and January 1, 1957, freight rates have increased from 85 per cent to over 100 per cent. The effect of this has been that rates per 100 pounds Vancouver to Toronto which were 884 cents prior to April 8, 1948 rose to $1.55 on January 1, 1957. If you transfer these rates from the basis of 100 pounds to 1,000 board feet measurements on the basis of 2,600 pounds per 1,000 feet board measure you arrive at a freight rate from Winnipeg to Vancouver which prior to April 8, 1948 was $14.70 increased to $34.60 on January 1, 1957. If it had not been for the action of this government in refusing the latest increase asked by the railways that figure would have risen to $35.90. On the same basis of comparison, Vancouver to Toronto, the rate prior to April 8, 1948, was $22 and on January 1, 1957, it had risen to $40.30.
While freight rates have gone up by over 100 per cent the average selling price f.o.b. mill on coast lumber has on the other hand decreased from $74.28 per 1,000 feet in 1948 to $70.13 per 1,000 feet in 1957. The brief goes on to point out that the British Columbia coast producers being the farthest from the Canadian consuming markets in the prairies and in eastern Canada have of course been hit hardest by these freight rate increases. They point out that in 1948 British Columbia shipped to the prairie provinces 4,330 carloads of lumber. They shipped 1,760 carloads of

lumber in 1957 to this market. They shipped 5,660 carloads to eastern Canada in 1948 and only 3,530 carloads in 1957.
The reason for this of course is that the railroads are caught in a squeeze. A great portion of their traffic comes under bound rates which they cannot change or they will lose the revenue. Also the Crowsnest pass and related rates on grain constitute 27 to 30 per cent of the railroads' volume of traffic and comprises less than 10 per cent of their revenue. In brief the railroads have to have more revenue and they have a limited number of commodities on which they can get that revenue. The answer is not to take away from the grain grower the rates which were given to him at the time the Canadian Pacific railway was put through. It is also not the answer to make a relatively small volume of traffic carry all the extra cost as far as railway operations are concerned. It may be that the railways will be able to hold the line through increased efficiency and complete dieselization. I believe that the Canadian Pacific railway and the Canadian National Railways are about 50 per cent dieselized at this time.
The lumber industry on the west coast had several other requests of which I will mention only one and that is with regard to forestry expenses. They request that these be made allowable expenses in the calculation of income tax. With respect to depletion they request that it be based on realistic replacement values for the depletion of lumber resources, that is the replacement of timber as it is cut down. They request that it be placed on the basis of the value of the timber at the time of replacement rather than at the time of acquisition. Two of the largest forestry economies in the world, the United States and Sweden, have both realized the significance of this problem and allowed depletion on this basis. I hope the government will take a look at the request of the lumber industry and that it will see fit to meet some of their requirements.
The lumber industry submitted briefs to the tariff board with regard to the proposed increased protection on Canadian steel and steel products and with respect to woollens and worsteds. I took the time to check very carefully into the changes that were proposed by the tariff board. I can assure the hon. member that the changes made in the iron and steel schedule were such as to increase the British preference, if anything, because the previous government had through a multiplicity of end uses-and by that I mean specifying certain end uses of steel imported for that purpose-so changed matters that 57071-3-99
The Budget-Mr. Broome no tariff would apply. Therefore, in effect, the tariff for a great part of the imports was ineffective. Again, the tariff was based on steel at, I believe, six cents a pound. This tariff was set up 15 or 20 years ago. Steel has increased in value to such an extent that the tariff rate at present is not even equivalent to what it was supposed to be at the time it was put on.
As far as woollens are concerned, the increases granted are purely nominal. As far as I can see, the major victory is that we have kept a ceiling of 55 cents to 60 cents a pound and that limits the amount of the tariff that can be paid. I believe the figures given indicate that it will amount to something in the neighbourhood of 20 cents or 30 cents extra cost in the material that goes into a suit of clothes.
While I am discussing our lumber industry, I should like to make reference to the harbour of Vancouver. It may be that some changes should be made in the charges by the national harbours board. In the year 1957 the Vancouver harbour board had a surplus of $1,214,000. Montreal had a deficit of $679,000; Halifax had a deficit of $285,000; and Quebec had a deficit of $1,152,000. Therefore, the deficit of these three ports combined amounted to something over $2 million as compared with an operating surplus in Vancouver of almost $1,225,000. It may be that the charges in Vancouver harbour are perhaps a little excessive or else our operation is a great deal more efficient.
I should like to thank the minister for the changes made in section 35 of the Customs Act which has to do with dumping. In explaining this the minister had this to say, as reported at page 1246 of Hansard:
The present dumping duties section of the customs tariff together with the valuation provisions of the Customs Act are adequate to deal with some forms of dumping. However, they do not deal with cases where goods are being imported into Canada at less than their cost of production and are also sold in the country of export below cost.
The minister said that section 35 was to be amended along the lines of the legislation in effect prior to 1948, requiring that, where appropriate, the value for duty of imported goods shall not be less than the cost of production plus a reasonable advance for selling cost and profit.
I can assure hon. members that this change will be of tremendous advantage, not only to the textile industry of Canada for whom it was developed but also to such people as the Canadian association of equipment distributors who are in the contractors plant and machinery field. I should like to refer to an

The Budget-Mr. Broome article which appeared in the Financial Post, and which reads as follows:
Threat of millions of dollars of cut-price, used U.S. construction equipment flooding the Canadian market grows.
Until now Canadian machinery men have worried mainly about:
Surplus equipment at U.S. bases in Canada.
A build-up in the U.S. itself of privately-owned used equipment.
But now comes word that middlemen may try to unload in Canada huge government-owned stocks under bond in Los Angeles and other cities.
Much of the equipment has come from U.S. foreign defence bases and is prohibited by law from being sold in the U.S.
From U.S. Pacific coast cities: Strenuous efforts are being made by bulk purchasers of government-owned equipment, now under bond, to unload it in foreign markets.
A large movement of it into Canada can be expected if it is not made illegal.
I expect this change in section 35 will take care of something which could completely disrupt the machinery industry on the west coast and, for that matter, throughout Canada.
Would you call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
On motion of Mr. Broome the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask what the business will be tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: A continuation of this debate all week.


[Stage Direction]
At ten 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. Meunier: 1.	How many loans were made in each province
Questions
by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation from June 10, 1957 to date?
2.	What was the total amount in each province?
3.	During the same period, how many such loans were made in the area of (a) Montreal; (b) Quebec; (c) Sherbrooke; (d) Three Rivers; (e) Abitibi; if) Hull; (g) Lake St. Jean; (h) Rimouski; (i) St. Hyacinthe; (j) St. Jean?
4.	What was the total amount of such loans in each of the above areas?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):
1 and 2.
June 1, 1957-March 31, 1958
_ Corporation Loans	Insured Loans
Including Small Home Loans-Agency
Loans	Units	Amount	Loans	Units	AmountNewfoundland	
Prince Edward Island	
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	... 138 . . . 4 ... 103 ... 202 ... 726 ... 492 ... 2,992 ... 2,159	141 4 217 236 7,000 17,584 1,236 899 3,778 2,985	$ 1,581,980 34,271 1,948,807 1,996,517 62,873,294 169,262,599 10,777,872 7,750,951 35,958,060 27,055,346	35 6 273 214 2,704 10,223 540 871 2,350 1,896	35 6 285 217 2,843 11,414 548 871 2,364 1,929	$ 422,574 75,150 3,089,454 2,210,088 31,555,613 127,044,997 5,886,538 9,198,214 26,899,905 22,137,137Total	34,080	$319,839,697	19,112	20,512	$228,519,6703 and 4.	June 1, 1957-	-March 31, 1958	Corporation Loans (Including Small Home Loans-Agency)	Insured Loans	Loans	Units	Amount	Loans	Units	AmountMontreal	
Quebec	
Sherbrooke	
Three Rivers	
Abitibi county	
Hull	
Lac St. Jean county	
Rimouski	
St. Hyacinthe	
St. Jean	.. 1,328 ... 357 ... 29 ... 28 ... 3 ... 103 ... 122 .. . 17 .. . 9	3,985 371 30 28 50 110 123 17 9	$ 32,318,939 3,725,288 310,160 290,060 387,133 1,189,136 1,211,253 158,248 90,500	1,230 304 38 7 3 45 14 6 6 18	1,350 310 41 7 3 45 14 6 6 21	$ 15,283,338 3,084,029 450,453 77,373 32,811 516,365 143,830 65,751 66,040 204,982T otal	... 1,996	4,723	$ 39,680,717	1,671	1,803	$ 19,924,972
Note: Statistics are not tabulated for part of a month, i.e., from June 10-30, 1957.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Deschatelets: How many civilian employees have been dismissed from the staff of the Department of National Defence since March 31, 1958 (a) in the Montreal area; (b) in the Quebec area; (c) in the Toronto area?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):
57071-3-99J
The number of dismissals, i.e. action following a breach of regulations, in the Department of National Defence since March 31, 1958:
(a) 2; (b) 4; (c) nil.


IMPORTS FROM UNITED KINGDOM
Mr. Deschatelets: 1.	What was the total value of imported goods from Great Britain to Canada (a) from June 1, 1956

Questions
to June 1, 1957; (b) from June 1, 1957 to June 1, 1958?
2.	For the period June 1, 1957 to June 1, 1958, what was the total value of imported goods from Great Britain in the following categories; (a) footwear; (b) textiles; (c) automobiles; (d) machines and parts?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
1 and 2.
Value of Imports from the United Kingdom to Canada
June 1,1956 June 1,1957 to	to
May 31, 1957 Feb. 28, 1958 (latest available)

Total imports	
504,089,771	377,666,191Footwear	
4,025,952	3,012,038Textiles	
49,473,076	32,905,443Automobiles	
25,362,800	25,115,005Machines and parts .	48,959,111	37,203,131
Statistical Classes Included Footwear Textiles Automobiles Machinery
1702-1703	3026-3055
2232-2234	3131-3140
9059-9060	3221-3232
3281-3296 3371-3373 3401-3402
5641-5644	5290-5296
5302-5307 5321-5324 5326-5334 5343-5352 5354-5361
Footwear Textiles Automobiles Machinery 3472-3486	5363
3488-3501	5441-5590
5591 (as of Jan. 1/58 only)


INSURANCE PAYMENTS TO FISHERMEN
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	What amount has been paid by fishermen on
(a)	lobster trap insurance premiums; (b) fishing boat insurance premiums, by Nova Scotia and New Brunswick fishermen respectively?
2.	What amounts have been paid out under the insurance plan for loss and damage to lobster traps and fishing boats to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick fishermen?
3.	What are the numbers, respectively, for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, of fishermen who have insurance coverage for lobster traps and fishing boats?
Answer by: Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):
As at April 30, 1958:
1.	(a) Nova Scotia, $47,751.82; New Brunswick, $563;	(b) Nova Scotia, $60,601.23;
New Brunswick, $14,664.49.
2.	(a) Nova Scotia, $147,803; New Brunswick, $999.75; (b) Nova Scotia, $69,610.31; New Brunswick, $13,153.
3.	(a) Nova Scotia, 256; New Brunswick, 1;
(b)	Nova Scotia, 957; New Brunswick, 361.

Tuesday, June 24, 1958