1959-04-20

RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Howe.
Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand the right hon. Prime Minister correctly that he indicates opposition to the motion on the ground he has stated, but not on a point of order that the motion should not be heard?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 53-Mr. Murphy:
For a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the trustees of the national gallery in 1923, relating to the purchase of the painting "The Road", by Karl Henry Ahrens, and also a copy of the record of the national art gallery showing in what places this painting has been shown since its purchase.
He said: Stand.
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I am willing to accept this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to proceed?


Mr. Murphy:: Stand.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: There is no need for delay, Mr. Speaker, because the minister has accepted it.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Yes.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I am sorry; I did not hear the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 83-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of any letters, lists or other memoranda sent to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation by the Department of Justice since January 1, 1956, stating the names of legal agents that may be engaged by the corporation.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 85-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of all communications received by the Minister without Portfolio from Newfoundland since March 25, 1959, protesting the announcement of the government regarding term 29 of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada, together with the replies thereto.
John George Diefenbaker: My understanding of the practice is that when a minister does not have
Aiken
Allard
Allmark
Anderson
Baldwin
Baskin
Bell (Carleton)
Bell (Saint John-Albert)
Bigg
Bourbonnais
Bourdages
Brooks
Broome
Browne (St. John's West) Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway)
Cadieu
Cardiff
Casselman, Mrs.
Charlton
Clancy
Coates
Comtois
Cooper
Creaghan
Crouse
Diefenbaker
Dorion
Doucett
Dubois
English
Fairclough, Mrs.
Fairfield
Fane
Fleming (Eglinton) Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke)
Flynn
Fraser
Frechette
Fulton
Grafftey
Green
Grenier
Gundlock
Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace)
Hamilton (Qu'Appelle)
Hanbidge
Harkness
Hees
Henderson Hicks Hodgson Horner (Acadia)
Horner (The Battlefords)
Howe
Jorgenson
Jung
Keays
Kennedy
Kindt

Inquiries of the Ministry
Knowles	Nielsen
Korchinski	Nowlan
Kucherepa	O'Hurley
LaRue	O'Leary
Legere	Ormiston
Lennard	Pallett
Macdonald (Kings)	Pascoe
Macdonnell	Paul
Maclnnis	Payne
MacLean (Queens)	Pearkes
MacLean (Winnipeg	Phillips
North Centre)	Pigeon
MacLellan	Pugh
Macquarrie	Rapp
MacRae	Rea
McBain	Regnier
McCleave	Ricard
McDonald	Robinson
(Hamilton South)	Rogers
McFarlane	Simpson
McGee	Slogan
McGrath	Small
McIntosh	Smallwood
McLennan	Smith (Calgary South)
McPhillips	Smith (Lincoln)
Mandziuk	Smith (Simcoe North)
Martel	Southam
Martineau	Speakman
Martini	Starr
Matthews	Stearns
Milligan	Stefanson
Montgomery	Stewart
More	Taylor
Morissette	Tremblay
Morris	Van Horne
Muir (Lisgar)	White
Murphy	Woolliams
Nasser den	Wratten-133.



CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING PAINTING BY BREUGHEL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 89
Mr. Batten:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between any minister or acting minister, official of the government, director of the national gallery or any other official of the gallery on the one hand, and Baron Von Polnitz or any person acting on his behalf on the other, dealing with the painting "Landscape with Christ appearing to the Apostles" by Breughel.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 90-Mr. Batten:
For a copy of the minutes of any meetings of the trustees of the national gallery, relating to the painting "Landscape with Christ appearing to the Apostles" by Breughel.
Motion agreed to.
p.c. 24/3539, july 15, 1949
Motion No. 91-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of P.C. 24/3539, July 15, 1949.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 93-Mr. Dumas:
For a copy of all communications exchanged since July 1, 1957, to date, between the Minister 
of Labour or any officer of his department on the one hand, and any other person and organization on the other, regarding the chairmanship of the board of referees for the Quebec regional division (district of Rouyn, Quebec) under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I wonder whether the hon. member will agree to let this motion stand.


Mr. Dumas:: Yes.
Motion stands.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago I asked the Prime Minister a question regarding the legislative program for the rest of the session. He indicated then that he would look into the matter and hoped to be able to reply in a few days. I wonder whether the Prime Minister can say anything about this important matter at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, apparently I do not have my notes on the matter with me, but I will reply tomorrow.



POLYMER CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Warner Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Labour could bring the house up to date on the strike at the Polymer Corporation, Sarnia.


Michael Starr: The only thing 1 can say is that Mr. Frank J. Ainsborough of the Department of Labour was appointed on Friday as mediator in this dispute. Today he is in the process of arranging a meeting between the company and the union.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, and I must mention a most interesting coincidence. This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, while I address this question to the minister a former comrade of ours Mr. Percy North is in the galleries and will witness my interrogation and his explanation. I might say

that the last time we were together was during the battle of the Somme in 1916.
Does Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or any other agency or department of government make loans to clubs or community organizations for the building of curling rinks?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I ask a supplementary question. My question is based on a report in the Ottawa Journal of April 16 which mentions that the crown made a loan for the building of a curling rink at H.M.C.S. Carleton. Would that be the Department of National Defence?


Howard Charles Green: It certainly is not public works.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the Minister of National Defence inform the house if this money was lent by the Department of National Defence?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: I will have to take that question as notice. I really cannot tell you whether or not the money was lent.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister aware of the statement reported in the Financial Post of April 18, in which it is alleged that the United States secretary of defence, appearing before a congressional committee, made a statement to the effect that Canada would get no defence contracts from the United States except for items to be used in Canada, and also to the effect that Canada would not be getting as much defence business and that the request made by Canada was a very modest one?
In view of the statements made by the Minister of Defence Production in the house and by the Minister of National Defence, himself, I wonder if the minister would be good enough to comment on these statements.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have read the statement in the Financial Post of April 18, and it refers to a meeting I had with the secretary of defence, Mr. McElroy, in Washington earlier this month. An identical question was asked by the hon. member for Ottawa West on April 9, and both these questions refer to the same meeting I had with Mr. McElroy. There is complete understanding so far as the United
Inquiries of the Ministry States officials are concerned as to Canada's position. I made it quite clear to Mr. McElroy and the other officials who attended that meeting that Canada would not be satisfied with a production-sharing program which was limited to those projects which were of purely Canadian interest.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary
question. If there is complete understanding between Mr. McElroy and my hon. friend on this matter, would the minister then urge Mr. McElroy not to make statements of the kind he is reported to have made to a congressional committee, which indicate there is a misunderstanding in somebody's mind.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. On March 9 motion No. 67 standing in my name was agreed to, calling for certain documents to be filed relating to contractors' claims for payments from the St. Lawrence seaway authority. This was some 42 or 43 days ago. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he would kindly advise the house and myself when the order for return is going to be filed.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for advising me of his intention to ask this question. I have spoken to the St. Lawrence seaway authority about it, and they have told me that considerable work has been entailed in preparing these answers. They expect to be able to provide the answers in the near future.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Concepiion):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has he seen the statement in the St. John's Evening Telegram of April 16 attributed to the minister from Newfoundland, to the effect that he saw no reason why Bell island ore mines should not be treated in the same way as Sydney coal mines? Is the government considering any action to avert the impending lay-off and consequent unemployment?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Michael Starr: The hon. member sent me notice of his intention to ask this question when I was sitting in my seat. This same problem has been of great concern to the hon. member for St. John's East, who has been in communication with me on a number of occasions. I am sorry to inform the hon. member that I have not seen this report in the St. John's Evening Telegram to which he refers, but I want to assure the hon. member that this problem, as many other problems, is being given very serious consideration. We are looking at the situation to see what can be done.


Hon. W. J. Browne (Minister without Portfolio):: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I made no statement to the St. John's Evening Telegram on April 16. I have no recollection of any such statement at all.



REPORTED LAY-OFFS IN ALBERTA MINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I have been advised by the secretary of the united mine workers of America at Calgary that recently in the Drumheller area, namely at East Coulee and Drumheller itself, Murray Collieries Limited and the Midland and Hy-Grade mines have been closed as a result of dwindling markets for domestic coal, coupled with the constantly rising costs. As a result some 500 men have been put out of work in the Drumheller area, 300 men have been put out of work by the closing of Murray Collieries Limited, and approximately 200 by the closing of the Midland and Hy-Grade mines.
Has the minister received notice of the situation, and is any consideration being given at the present time to giving assistance to these men who cannot obtain employment elsewhere in that area?


Michael Starr: This is the first time this matter has been brought to my attention. I would appreciate it very much if the hon. member would give me more details so I could look into the situation and ascertain how it could be alleviated.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I shall be happy to do that.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of

Citizenship and Immigration. Is the minister in a position to repudiate a charge appearing in the Toronto Telegram of April 16 that the recent ruling on immigration was drafted by civil servants to embarrass the government?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is simply a request to state whether or not a newspaper account is true, and that is not in accordance with the practice followed at this time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; you have ruled that the question which has just been asked is not quite proper. I wonder, with great respect, if it is not proper to ask this question of the minister and thus give her an opportunity of repudiating a charge against the integrity of the civil service?


John George Diefenbaker: That statement on the part of the hon. gentleman answers itself. It is a ridiculous statement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is not an answer to the point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The question was framed as an invitation to repudiate or deny the truth of the statement in a newspaper. We have followed the practice of not permitting questions of that kind to take up the time of the house at this stage.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would it not be proper then for the hon. member to ask the minister if the story referred to has any foundation in fact?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Essex East is in exactly the same dilemma with that question.



PETROLEUM PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but in his absence perhaps I could direct it to the Prime Minister. My question is, has the government received a request from the Canadian Petroleum Association to sponsor a meeting of the industry to consider present market problems? If such a request has been received, is it the intention of the government to sponsor such a meeting?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will bring this to the attention of the minister and have a reply as soon as he returns



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the attention of the government has been drawn to a statement made by the director of the raw materials division of the atomic energy commission in Washington five days after the visit of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to Washington, to the effect that United States uranium imports from Canada will be cut down by more than two-thirds after June 30, 1962?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer that question at the moment. I realize the situation in general with regard to uranium, as I am sure the hon. gentleman does, and also the difficulties which lie ahead. By 1962 we trust that steps will be taken in order to meet the needs of the two countries, and that agreements will be arrived at.
In so far as the dispatch is concerned, I would suggest that the question be directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has the fullest information.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I do so because I had the privilege of spending two days in Welland, where I was approached by a number of pilots. In view of the fact that the St. Lawrence seaway will be opened, I understand from the minister's statement, on April 25, and the pilots there do not know whether or not to report to work or what their position is, can the minister make a statement as to the position of these pilots when the seaway opens?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, if the pilots concerned will get in touch with the closest pilotage office under the operations of the Department of Transport they will be advised what the regulations are regarding their particular case.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Min-
Inquiries of the Ministry ister of Transport. Now that he is back from Washington, where he made certain representations in connection with the legislation to amend the Canada Shipping Act, is the minister in a position to make any statement arising out of his visit?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I spent last Thursday and Friday in Washington, where I met the secretary of the treasury and senior representatives of the various departments and agencies concerned with pilotage matters on the great lakes and discussed these matters. After my meeting with Mr. Anderson, the United States secretary of the treasury, we issued the following statement:
We met today in Washington to discuss the question of pilotage on the great lakes and further consultative meetings will take place at the staff level with a view to working out co-operative arrangements for pilotage.
Further consultations on these matters are continuing this week at the official level between Canadian and United States representatives in Washington. I might say that today these consultations have resumed. I believe that satisfactory progress has been made in this matter, and I will be prepared to make a more detailed statement in connection with the bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act at the appropriate time.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister; I regret I was unable to send him notice. My question arises out of his statement of April 17, as to Canada's position that the United Nations should be asked to play a useful role with regard to the Berlin problem. In view of the reported rejection of the United Kingdom's position, is the Prime Minister able to say whether the very useful and important proposal which he put forward has met with success?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman will agree that it would not be very helpful at this time to comment on the various plans and possibilities which are under study by the various powers. I do not think I could go any further at this time. I feel that possibly later in the week, if the hon. gentleman chooses to bring the question again to my attention, an answer might be forthcoming; but at the moment there is nothing I could add which would be of benefit.

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE


REPORTED BAN ON PHOTOGRAPHING DESTRUCTION OF PARTLY FINISHED PLANES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is it a fact that photographers are prevented, on grounds of military security, from taking pictures of welders destroying six partly finished Arrow interceptors?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of any such order having been issued.


REPORTED PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT FROM FRANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister state whether or not it is correct that Canadian armed forces are acquiring certain equipment from France; and if so, was any endeavour made to have this equipment produced in Canada under licence?


George Randolph Pearkes: I presume the hon. member is referring to the ground to ground missile which is known as the SS-10 and SS-11. This is an anti-tank missile which has been produced for the French army. Canada is acquiring two control units and a very limited number of these missiles for trial purposes. If the trials prove successful and there is a requirement for this particular type of weapon in the Canadian army, I have every confidence that they could be manufactured in Canada.


CANADIAN RADIO PATENTS LIMITED
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the Canadian government has made any formal protest through diplomatic channels to the United States government against its anti-trust suit involving Canadian radio and television manufacturers, or was the protest made only in the conversations between the Minister of Justice and the attorney general of the United States?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that information at the moment. The hon. member will realize, on the basis of his own experience, that a question such as that cannot be answered off the cuff.


WINNING OF SENIOR BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP BY ALBERTA CHINOOKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. May I call the attention of this house to another invasion from the west. The southern Alberta Chinooks senior men's basketball team from the premier section of the dominion have just taken home from Ottawa the senior men's A championship, and may we add our congratulations.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, April 17, 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.
(Translation):
Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last Friday night, I was telling about the altogether deplorable unemployment situation in my constituency and in the whole Saguenay-Lake St. John area in general. Unemployment is so serious in my constituency over the whole neighbouring area that municipal authorities, local organizations, local boards of trade as well as the Saguenay-Lake St. John local of national unions felt alarmed about it and formed a "regional committee against unemployment", of which Dr. Henri Vaillancourt, mayor of the city of Jonquiere, is the distinguished president.
Last Wednesday, April IS, the representatives of that committee met with the premier of the province of Quebec and asked him to consider the number one problem of our region, unemployment. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, today is the premier's birthday and I want to join with his friends to extend to him my best wishes for a very happy birthday. Now that I have done my duty in the matter of etiquette, I shall go on with politics.
Mr. Speaker, I have never spoken in this house of what goes on in Quebec. However, because of the great significance of the matter for the unemployed in my riding and in the surrounding area, I think I have the duty and responsibility to refer to it today, at least with regard to the requests submitted to the premier and his answer to them.

The brief mentioned that at this moment there are in our area some 16,875 unemployed householders with dependents. It states too that a survey has shown that nearly 66,200 people, out of a total population of 250,000 are adversely affected by the lack of employment. The brief also points out that one of our householders is at present unemployed.
The committee members made several constructive suggestions to the premier. Now I know that those who volunteered to look into that serious matter in order to help the unemployed gave it much of their spare time.
Let me refer here only to those suggestions which might interest the federal government. In the first place the premier was asked- and I quote from the brief:
To see that Quebec is given an opportunity to avail itself of the federal government's offer in the matter of unemployment assistance and to accept Ottawa's co-operation in building access roads to mining areas.
For my part, I have repeatedly pointed out to this house that Quebec is the only one of Canada's ten provinces which is not participating in the unemployment assistance plan introduced in 1956 by a Liberal government. Of course, the chief weakness of the plan is the fact that it was adopted by a Liberal administration and by the very fact, is in violation of Quebec autonomy. Mr. Speaker, not only are the people of Quebec deprived of unemployment insurance benefits, but, through their income tax and other taxes of all kinds, they contribute to the payment of that special financial assistance which is being distributed in the nine other provinces of Canada, in order to help the unemployed who are not or have ceased to be entitled to unemployment insurance. It is not, as I said here previously, that I am jealous of my fellow citizens in other provinces who do enjoy those benefits, but I wish my fellow citizens from Quebec could recover at least a small part-however slight-of the hard-earned money they pay over to the federal government. That financial assistance would be particularly welcome at this time, in my area, because so many of our unemployed do not now get the benefits. Besides, we are very anxiously hoping the government will soon submit its proposed amendments to the unemployment insurance act, so that we might see whether it will give due consideration to the many unemployed who no longer get unemployment insurance benefits or will stop getting them as of May 15 next. What does the government propose to do for those people who will not qualify for unemployment
The Budget-Mr. Brassard insurance benefits next fall and next winter, and who are now out of work? Will the government evade the issue and tell us that unemployment is decreasing, or will it dare repeat to our faces, with all the cynicism and irony characteristic of certain government members, the words spoken to the Canadian people by the Prime Minister during an evening television broadcast on February 18, 1958, as reported in the Montreal Star of the following day, and I quote:
(Text):
"As long as I am Prime Minister of Canada," he said in a live telecast, "everything that can be done, everything without regard to limit, will be done to the end that no one shall suffer."
(Translation):
Everybody knows that, at the time during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister was speaking of the unemployment problem in Canada. That solemn declaration, that official commitment on the part of the first citizen of our country, if considered in the light of what is happening in Canada today, can only induce the people of Canada to lose faith in their public men. It is by dint of saying or promising something, and then not doing it at all or half-doing it, that public men end up by destroying the confidence the people had put in them. A great many people today look upon politics as a rather queer galley, and that is the very reason why many good men refuse to have anything to do with it. Should the situation deteriorate, it could, without the least possible doubt, lead to excesses that everyone would bitterly regret.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to asking the premier of Quebec to allow our province to enjoy the benefits of unemployment assistance, the representatives of municipalities and public bodies also urged him to accept co-operation with Ottawa with regard to the establishment of access roads to certain mining areas. This is another case where my fellow citizens from Quebec are paying for something enjoyed by other provinces, and this time something that does not bear the stigma of having been proposed by a Liberal administration. On behalf of a very large number of my constituents-the majority, I would say-I ask the government to confer with Quebec provincial authorities in order that my fellow citizens of Quebec may at least profit from a small fraction of the millions of dollars they are paying in taxes of all kinds to the federal government.

The Budget-Mr. Brassard
The Quebec premier's reply to the members of the local committee on unemployment assistance gave little cause tor hope; I would say it was similar to the reply made by the Prime Minister of Canada last fall to representatives of municipalities, when after a lengthy speech, he finally told them: "Go back to your homes, our commitments are too heavy". He did not seem to have called the conference to find a real solution to the many problems of municipalities, but rather for the purpose of keeping at least one of his many promises.
It was his own peculiar way of respecting the autonomy of municipalities which exist only by provincial government proxy and which, constitutionally, are unknown to the federal government. Those "daughters of the provinces", if I may use the expression of Quebec's premier, were standing there, shy and trusting before the Prime Minister of Canada, in the absence of any representative of their mothers, the provinces.
The premier of Quebec gave some of his reasons for his inability to do anything, then he seemed to seize the opportunity of aiming a shaft at his Quebec friends in Ottawa, as if he wanted to encourage them to speak his language here in this House of Commons. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read out to you a paragraph-only the first paragraph-of the interview reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail of April 16, and I quote:
(Text):
Premier Duplessis moved one step closer to an open rift with the Diefenbaker government today when he charged that the new federal Conservative government has been no better than previous administrations in stealing Quebec's fiscal rights.
(Translation):
Such a statement, Mr. Speaker, may seem strange if compared to another declaration, that of the Hon. Antoine Rivard, as published in L'Evenement of March 21, 1958. The minister happened, entirely by chance, to attend a meeting of the federal Conservative candidate at Notre Dame des Lauren-tides, near Quebec. This is what he said:
"I am independent of federal parties, but I must be fair. And in all fairness, I must say that, in the past 10 months during which the Conservative party has been in power, we have advanced further in the recovery of our powers, in the protection of our freedoms and the defence of our rights, than during the 22 years of Liberal rule", said the hon. Antoine Rivard-
How can such contradiction be explained? Well, there is only one explanation: everything depends on timing, that is whether a speech is made before, during, or after an election.	*
Besides, this is also the present policy of the federal government. In fact, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) implicitly confirmed that approach when he stated, in a somewhat puerile speech, that after all election promises should not be taken too seriously. Another childlike statement which I should like to point out to the house is the one also made by the Minister of National Revenue in the same speech when he said, as recorded on page 2626 of Hansard:
If that disastrous event should come about, I am sure both the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister would be willing to start smoking cigarettes and drinking whisky to save the economy, but I think we need have no fear of such a catastrophe occurring-
I feel that such maturity of mind makes him fully competent to step into the shoes of the Minister of Finance. All that, Mr. Speaker, inclines me to read, with much hesitation I admit, to my colleagues of the house, the text of an intelligence test given to all candidates wishing to officially enter the ranks of the Conservative party. That text, which I took from the Vancouver Sun of April 11 last, reads as follows:
(Text):
Spring, 1959, Intelligence Test for Conservatives:
Examiner: So you want to be a Conservative. Let's hear you answer a few basic questions- Describe in your own words, "the Fleming budget."
Candidate: It is a courageous document.
Examiner: Tell me now-what caused the federal deficit?
Candidate: The discredited Liberal administration.
Examiner: If someone said to you that dynamic John Diefenbaker ever promised to reduce taxes what would be your response?
Candidate: I'd say it was a dirty opposition smear.
Examiner:	Actually, have the Conservatives
raised the taxes?
Candidate: Anybody who does not pay taxes will not pay a cent more than before.
Examiner: What is the cause of this inflation that we hear about?
Candidate: Inflation is caused by the opposition parties.
Examiner:	Is there much unemployment in
Canada today?
Candidate: Statistics show that more Conservatives are working today than for years.
Examiner: Outline, in a few words, the Conservative government's policy on agriculture.
Candidate:	The Conservative government has
adopted a hands-off policy on agriculture. They are allowing the farmers to lay off their hands.
Examiner: Is the dynamic Diefenbaker government keeping its pledge to stand up to America?
Candidate: Our government has adopted a new policy. Instead of standing up to the Americans we are standing up for them.
Examiner:	What do you think is the best
weapon for Canada's air defence?
Candidate:	I have not yet seen this afternoon's dispatches from Washington.
Examiner: My boy, you've passed! You're a Conservative.

(Translation):
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the major concern and by far the most characteristic obsession racking the great majority of Conservative minds-there are, fortunately, a few exceptions-is the constant craving for politics, and only politics. Are they so much to blame, after all, to desire to become the worthy followers of their leader who surpasses them all, and who keeps on giving them each day eloquent lessons on the matter, even in this house?
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the umpteenth time that I have heard the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) give us one of those soliloquies which characterize him so well. I fully understand, as we all do, I believe, how anxious he is to attract the attention of members of the government and of the Prime Minister in particular, and especially in case the latter, in order to act quickly, should decide to appoint the parliamentary secretaries before 1961.
My hon. friend will perhaps allow me, however, to invite his reflection on a thought which could, in any case, be very healthy for him in the seeking of the objective which haunts him and which prevents him from sleeping soundly. I refer to a sentence by Carlyle, a Scottish writer, historian, critic-


Paul Joseph James Martin: And Liberal.


Augustin Brassard: -moralist and humorist at times, who lived in the 19th century. Oh! I have no doubt that the precocity and constant erudite concern of my hon. friend will have made him discover, even in his very young kindergarten days, that ravishing pearl, very ravishing indeed, which I shall recall, without unduly prolonging his cruel waiting, to his always respondent intelligence:
But I want to be kind to my hon. friend; so I will not let him wait until tomorrow to satisfy his quite legitimate curiosity by consulting the French Hansard in order to find out what my lingo means. I will try then to give him right now-not the best, for I know too well the requirements of my learned colleague-but the less peculiar translation possible, which is approximately, in my own poor language, at least, as follows: (Text):
God gave you that gifted tongue of yours,
And set it between your teeth,
To make known your true meaning to us.
Not to be rattled like a muffin man's bell.
(Translation):
And now, Mr. Speaker, let us go back to more serious matters, in a language that everybody will understand.
I could give many examples to illustrate what I just said. However, I will be satis-
The Budget-Mr. Brassard fled to quote but two remarks that were made here last week by the Prime Minister. On April 13, according to page 2608 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said to the hon. member for Ottawa West, (Mr. Mcllraith):

Whom the former administration put and kept in a position of subservience-
On April 16, answering then a question politely put to him by the hon. member for Toronto-Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), the Prime Minister said, according to page 2738 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman having occupied a portfolio in the last government in the days between April and June-
Mr. Speaker, that is the type of entirely personal remarks that the former prime minister, the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent, would never have made; he had a high degree of respect for the human person, and was much too conscious of the dignity of his position, as first citizen of the country, to indulge in any type of pettiness.
Moreover, the Prime Minister knows full well that the hon. member for Ottawa-West is a former parliamentary assistant. If, in using the expression "position of subservience" the Prime Minister is revealing what he truly thinks of the position of parliamentary assistant or secretary, this is hardly a compliment to those who are preparing or yearning for such an inferior job. Furthermore, the Prime Minister's actions in this regard are another proof that he considers the position of parliamentary secretary as an inferior job. As further proof of this, I need only to say that over a year has elapsed since his government was re-elected, and the Prime Minister has not deemed it advisable or important to fill the vacancies. Moreover, the appointments will be for one year only as, though to imply that the people appointed need not-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member that we had a debate on this subject in this house not so long ago.
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In any event, such statements made by the Prime Minister of Canada in this house are somewhat disappointing, coming from a man whose high office should raise him above party considerations. Why does he not leave such

The Budget-Mr. Brassard tasks to other Conservative members? There are some who are extremely well qualified in this field. To use an expression that is dear to the heart of the Prime Minister "the old glory of parliament" does not lie only in a bill on human rights, nor in a proposal for the abolition of the closure procedure, a matter which, incidentally, is no longer being mentioned.
The main point I wish to stress is that, during the period in which I served as a federal civil servant before being elected in 1957, I never heard the Right Hon. Mr. St.-Laurent cast personal aspersions on anyone who approached him, or try to humble them. His first and foremost interest was in directing the country's course.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Augustin Brassard: As far as he was
concerned, the people of Canada always came before members or friends of the Liberal party; the interest of the country had precedence, and by a wide margin, over the interest of the party. He was at the same time head of the government and leader of the Liberal party, but he devoted 99 per cent of his time to the business of the country, occasionally accepting representational functions. He was devoted to his heavy administrative duties to such a point that he was criticized for not being enough of a politician. Even during election campaigns, he never indulged in extravagant promises just to get votes. He was a devotee of higher politics, the first citizen of the country, a statesman, maybe one of the most prominent and respected Canada ever knew. He did not make Canadians pay for his "vision" but just the same the whole nation benefited greatly from his greatness. He was not a man who considered only immediate results of the moment whenever he had to take a decision that could have important effects for Canadians; he would consider the whole area.
In 1955, just over six years after assuming the administration of our country, and after repeated invitations, he made his trip around the world. He was then 74 years old and indeed, it is not for the sake of pleasure or to avoid his task, and much less for the sake of publicity, that a man of his age undertakes such a tiring trip. So, his health was greatly affected by this exertion and I wonder if he ever completely recovered from the fatigues of that journey.
Wherever he went, thanks to his simple dignity, his poise, his skill, his modesty and


perfectly balanced judgment, he added great lustre to the reputation of this country, of which he was indeed the first citizen. If Canada now enjoys that enviable prestige all over the world, it is mostly due to the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. It is also due, and certainly to no lesser extent, to that man who directed, with unmatched competence for nearly nine years, our Department of External Affairs, the hon. member for Algoma-East (Mr. Pearson), the leader of the Liberal party, who more than anyone else, in his functions, helped Canada attain, among the nations of the world, a rank held by very few countries of 17 million inhabitants.
It is precisely men of such mettle who are lacking in the Conservative party to direct our affairs today.
Precisely men like Right Hon. C. D. Howe, who is being criticized by many birdbrained people who do not know that Right Hon. C. D. Howe will occupy a select place in the gallery of the great builders of Canada. He had faults, I agree; he made mistakes, of course-political mistakes, I mean-but where is the serious and objective mind who will dare question his immeasurable contribution to the expansion and good administration of Canada during those twenty-two years in which he held office in successive Liberal administations? Besides, after his defeat, newspapers in the country were unanimous in paying tribute to the gigantic work he had done in those twenty-two years of political life, at the service of his fellow-Canadians. It is such a man, or men like him, I repeat, that the Conservative government urgently needs today.
The former Liberal team has been upbraided for having managed this country the way businessmen do, but, to say the least, in all that period which some fanatics still attempt to decry, Canadians knew where they were going, the country was sound and in good hands; nobody feared those chaotic business conditions that, today, brand as incompetent an administration playing at politics in a "mock parliament".


Some hon. Members:: Hear. Hear.


Augustin Brassard: The Leader of the Opposition has the mettle of Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent, and you will never hear him express any inconsiderate criticism, of the kind I heard when some members of this government were sitting on this side. The Leader of the Opposition will never yield to the temptation of making the type of criticism which

betrays irresponsibility, because he himself knows what it is to administer a country. No, Mr. Speaker, I am not ashamed to belong to the Liberal party-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Augustin Brassard: -a party which has been defeated and decimated. As the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent said on television on the night of June 10, 1957:
What is good for Canada is also good for the Liberal party.
Canadians had the right, after 22 years, to change their minds when faced with all the extravagant promises that were made to them. They must have learned for themselves whether they have changed for the better. The test is beneficial since it gives the Liberal party the opportunity to regenerate and to renew itself. To those who think that our group is not large enough to return soon to the other side, I will mention two facts, and only two: first the June 10, 1957 election has proved that public opinion can change very fast, and second, on the eve of the same 1957 election, the Conservatives had but some 50 members in the House of Commons.
Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister and all his candidates made great promises to the people of Canada in the 1957 general election. We see now what is happening to those promises.
They promised to settle the unemployment problem, and the problem of federal-provincial relations; they promised to find new markets, new outlets. They made all kinds of promises. The Prime Minister, who had heard C.C.F. and Social Credit candidates making promises that were as extravagant as his own, if such a thing is possible, made a statement in this connection.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but I must tell him his speaking time is over.
(Text):


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to participate in this interesting debate. There are some who observe that the budget debate is not a very interesting performance. Sometimes the members of the press gallery indicate that, and occasionally even members of the house so intimate. Frequently, however, one notices the latter point of view emanating from those who do not participate in the debate!
The opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Finance is one which I welcome most heartily. He deserves great congratulations
The Budget-Mr. Macquarrie for the brilliancy and incisiveness of his splendid budget address and I believe, too, for the realistic appraisal of the economic state of the nation which he made some few nights ago. I believe that already his performance in this most onerous office in these most difficult times rates him with the great finance ministers of our nation's history, men like Fielding, Sir Thomas White and E. N. Rhodes.
The budget as the Minister of National Revenue pointed out, is perhaps a not overwhelmingly popular document, yet it is one that is being accepted realistically by the Canadian people. It is encouraging to note that it has won widespread approval from many economists in universities and various business bureaux, men who are specialists in the field of fiscal operations on the governmental level. There is a pretty general consensus that this type of budget was just the sort which was required for this particular phase in our nation's economic health.
I would be making no startling pronouncement if I said I am not one of those who rejoices over the contemplation of increased taxes, even the moderate increases that have been provided. But these are things which at this stage we must accept. It was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said some years ago that taxes are what we pay for civilized society. It seems we now live in a phase in our history, as my colleague the Minister of Fisheries pointed out the other day, when as the years go by the role of government in our daily life increases and, of course, as government grows the cost increases proportionately.
I am not one who is terribly alarmed about this development. I am not sold on the idea that the word "Conservative" and the word "reactionary" mean one and the same thing. I think if we look back on the history of Canada we will find that the extension of governmental operations dedicated to the welfare of the people has been carried on by parties of both labels which have held power in this country.
Looking over the program, projected and completed, of the government which I am proud to support, I see no place where I would suggest that a certain project or expenditure be blotted out or withdrawn. The programs that have been advanced in the interests of national development have served and will serve a very useful and valuable purpose not only in long range national development but, in the short run, in that important objective of cutting down the unemployment which the government faced early in its career for reasons that have been discussed many times in this house. The estimates, for instance, for the little province of Prince

The Budget-Mr. Macquarrie Edward Island, from which I come, are the largest on record. They represent assistance which will benefit directly or indirectly all the people of our province.
In considering questions of national development it is perhaps not surprising that I should focus my attention on one particular area, the maritime provinces. In the maritimes since our entry into confederation we have had many problems to deal with, many difficulties to surmount or at least to attempt to overcome. Some of these were imposed by geography, some by topography and some were aggravated and I am afraid augmented by confederation.
One of the most urgent of these, of course, is the problem of transportation. I suppose a railway timetable is not a usual reference paper in this house, but I should like to direct hon. members' attention to one little item which may graphically demonstrate some of the aspects of our transportation problems. If one looks at the railway timetable covering service between Ottawa and Montreal he finds therein that the railway lists a distance of 117.6 miles, and the Canadian National can make the trip in two hours. If he looks at the railway timetable for the run from the great railway centre of Moncton to the city of Charlottetown, the cradle of confederation, he will find that the railway lists a distance of 126.8 miles, and that the time for the trip from Moncton to Charlottetown is six hours and 20 minutes. Going the other way it is much faster; the trip is made in 6 hours and 5 minutes! I think that demonstrates graphically that we have a legitimate complaint when we make comparisons with respect to the transportation situation.
But one part of the trip from Moncton to Charlottetown is the water link between the province of New Brunswick and the province of Prince Edward Island, and I should like to devote some few minutes to that. Last week I made a short, quick trip to Prince Edward Island. On the way back on Thursday morning I encountered a situation which most certainly underlined for me the transportation problem that we in Prince Edward Island face. On arriving at the terminal at Borden, P.E.I. I found that no automobiles could be transported across the strait because that gallant old ferry, the Prince Edward Island, had suffered propeller trouble and was not able to leave the dock all day. Thanks to Maritime Central Airways, the one bright spot in the transportation system of the maritimes, I was able to get over to Moncton and back to Ottawa.
I must say that the officials of Canadian National Railways put forth their very best effort and the next day the Prince Edward Island was in operation again. On Thursday, the day the accident occurred, the ancient


ship Scotia was again brought into service and made some trips. But for some considerable time the province of Prince Edward Island was isolated as far as automobile traffic from the rest of Canada was concerned. This occurred because our No. 1 ferry, the Abegweit, was in drydock in Montreal for spring refit.
Three times in the last year the Prince Edward Island has suffered a complete breakdown and has not been able to operate on her usual run. Everyone knows that the No. 1 boat, the Abegweit, may at any time suffer some mechanical disability, as happens to any automobile, train or boat, and when that occurs the people of Prince Edward Island are dependent upon a very old boat which is displaying its inability to cope with the demands now being made upon it.
Down through the years this chamber has heard my predecessors from Queens and the predecessors of my colleagues from Prince Edward Island deal with the subject of communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. Indeed, as is known by all, Prince Edward Island was one of the colonies which were reluctant to enter confederation. For six years we demurred at becoming a part of confederated Canada. It was believed that the position of the province as an island isolated from the rest of the country and as a smaller province made for a different set of circumstances, and that our interests would not be altogether identical with those of the larger provinces to the west.
To mitigate against our separation and insularity great emphasis was placed upon the matter of communication. A situation was to be created whereby we would get all the benefits of a direct link with the Intercolonial and other railways which were being projected at the time. The disadvantages of our isolation were to be overcome, and on that basis the colony of Prince Edward Island entered confederation in 1873. The terms of our agreement are precise on this question, and I quote from the 1873 agreement:
The dominion government shall assume and defray the charges of efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers, to be established and maintained between the island and the mainland of Canada, winter and summer, thus placing the island in continuous communication with the Intercolonial Railway and the railway system of the Dominion.
I might say that last Thursday I found the communication neither efficient nor continuous! Down through the years there has been much dissatisfaction about the implementation of these terms, much hardship and, indeed, at times in the older days

actual suffering on the part of the people of my province in trying to make this connection with the rest of Canada. For years there was talk of a tunnel, and a survey was actually made during the administration of Sir John A. Macdonald. Boats were provided, but never did they seem to be adequate. In 1911 Mr. Robert Borden, leader of the Conservative party, came to the town of Summerside and said, "If you elect me prime minister of Canada you will get a car ferry." That promise was faithfully kept. The car ferry was built, and in his honour the terminal on Prince Edward Island was called Borden. This boat, built well over 40 years ago, is the one to which I made reference a moment ago. It has been crashing back and forth through the heavy ice of Northumberland strait for well over a generation. This splendid boat has been a credit to the fine Scottish shipyards which produced it, but it should have long since been put into an auxiliary role instead of being retained as one of the main links in this most important communication area.
There is still a feeling in the province of Prince Edward Island that we have not yet obtained the proper type of communication contact with the mainland. We do not talk about tunnels in this modern age but as this house has heard before we are very concerned, and very hopeful, that the final fulfilment of the confederation terms will be granted through the construction of a causeway which will provide continuous communication with the mainland. We rejoice that the government has taken such an interest in this project and has carried out such an extensive and, I believe, thorough survey of the whole problem connected with building the causeway.


Mr. Crestohl:: What will it be named?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I think there are many prospects in that connection, Mr. Speaker. We could, perhaps, make use of the names of a great many people who would be involved. Prince Edward Island would be very generous in the naming of it, if it emerged as an actuality. We look forward, in any event, to the tabling of the report on the causeway. It is our fervent hope that as a result of the report the government will have reason to believe that the project is feasible and will move forward to accomplish this final step in bringing this old island province into the kind of communication pattern for which it has sought so long.
I think I would not be guilty of excessive partisanship or of revealing a lack of realism if I were to say that this government has already demonstrated to Prince Edward Island
The Budget-Mr. Macquarrie an awareness of the needs of the island and a regard and consideration for its difficulties. This would lead one to believe that a government of this type, with a truly national view, would proceed to build a causeway for the province if it were technically feasible, to the advantage of the maritime region and Canada.
However, Mr. Speaker, I would not be covering this whole question if I stopped there. It would take some years, with the best engineering skill, to build that causeway. There is at this time an immediate problem, and important problem. We are hoping to see the causeway built, but I think this transportation situation at the present time has two important aspects. The first one is that the boat, the Prince Edward Island, is old and should have been replaced or augmented a good many years ago. The second aspect is that both the Prince Edward Island and the Abegweit cannot cope with the summer traffic which every year brings thousands and thousands of tourists to the beautiful province of Prince Edward Island. This indicates that there is much wisdom in every part of the world, very good judgment and taste. The demand for tourist accommodation is rising year by year. There is no place in which these tourists are more welcome than in Prince Edward Island.
We are very much concerned about the fact that we cannot get these people over fast enough, and that from time to time there are long lines of automobiles anxious to get across to the province. These boats now have to work under forced draft to accommodate these people. Until a causeway is built, if it is built and we hope it will be, immediate and interim action must be taken to provide another boat. Suggestions have been made to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) that this boat might be purchased outside of this country. I am not alone on this matter. All Prince Edward Island members are deeply concerned, thoroughly aware of the problem, and most anxious that the province's transportation be upgraded to meet modern conditions. I do not bring this problem forward as a humble suppliant for favours and certainly not in any posture of threat or club-wielding admonition. We in Prince Edward Island have scarcely the strength to take the latter position and certainly are not of the temperament to take the former.
On a basis of simple justice, as an appeal to the most helpful and understanding dominion government that Prince Edward Island has ever had, I put forward this case, just as my colleagues and I have in recent months to the minister concerned. We expect that our just cause will be fully and

The Budget-Mr. Macquarrie properly dealt with and that, as with the Borden government of old, the Diefenbaker government will move quickly and effectively to meet the vital needs of this great province of Prince Edward Island.
Mr. Speaker, there is a temptation for one to devote himself to matters concerning only his constituency. I was impressed with the remarks by the hon. member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Kennedy) the other day when he spoke about his own reluctance to speak often, and then when I heard him describe the glories of Colchester-Hants I felt I was like him in that connection. Although the temptation is there, I should like to just direct a few thoughts to a subject which was discussed the other day by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Jung). He spoke about some of the economic aspects of Canada's position in the outside world. Certainly, I am not going to discuss such things as the Berlin crisis, which would not be appropriate at this time, and which I know are receiving attention of the ministry and absorbing the interest of all hon. members. There are two areas of what we might describe as external outreaching which I think that Canada, in its present position, might well explore a little farther.
I have been interested for some years in the Latin American area. In recent years Canada has strengthened its trade links with this part of the world. Recently new ties have developed in the West Indies federation. I know all members hope that these ties will be strengthened and relations will grow more friendly as the years progress. In this western hemisphere there is an old regional agency, the Organization of American states, which was founded in 1890. In the early days Canada could not become a member of this great body because we did not have jurisdiction over our foreign policies. Indeed, we would not have been too warmly welcomed by one of the great member nations immediately to the south.
But modern times have brought changed conditions and Canada is most heartily welcome at the present time. There is every evidence of that. I believe it would be a most valuable step, considering the present world conditions, if Canada moved to make complete the hemispheric solidarity in the western hemisphere and become a member of this very successful international organization, the organization of American states. We have much in common in the diplomatic field with its members, and I think our role could be not only a useful one but an important one, indeed perhaps great.
Then there is an area which today finds many changes coming in rapid succession. On the great continent of Africa we find that


the tide of nationalism rises faster today than it did in Asia, which event itself seemed to be just yesterday. In the United Nations we find that there are many new members about to enter that body. These come from the great and long-silent continent of Africa. I am sure we all remember that in our school days when we looked at the map of Africa we found if we wanted to trace the political status of certain areas we had to look at the map of Europe, where we could find the same colouring. Practically every part of Africa was a colonial state of some European country. In my school days there were only two independent countries, Ethiopia and Liberia, two small areas in a total continent of subjection and dependency. Yet now we find things changing, and changing very rapidly; indeed, so rapidly that there are political, social and economic ramifications of considerable disturbance. But these changes are bound to come. They are inevitable; they are irrepressible. The importance of these changes cannot be underestimated by a country like Canada which has been so successful in carrying its burden in world affairs and which has built up over the years such a fine reputation in the international field. I can but hope that Canada will move toward the realization of greater interest in this area and that our Department of External Affairs will expand in this part of the world and we will have more listening posts and greater awareness of this great continent, of its needs, of its interests, and of the burning desires of its people at the present time when they find themselves emerging into the field of national sovereignty and autonomy, with all its changes, responsibilities, difficulties and problems. I believe that Canada, with its great reservoir of goodwill and very fine staff of diplomats, in its splendid external affairs department, can do much to reach out to the peoples of Africa in these days when their disposition on questions of international diplomacy are of such great significance, and may tomorrow be even vital.
Perhaps with the great crises of international affairs which come upon us from day to day it is difficult to take a long range view. Certainly in these crises it is not so easy for Canada to play a commanding part, although we always, I hope, play an important one, but in some of these long range considerations I believe our role could be potentially greater perhaps than that we have yet played, thus enabling us to further the fine performance which we have to our credit.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker,
I am sure that the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Marquarrie) will agree with me that it is desirable at the earliest moment possible for the government, through the Prime Minister

(Mr. Diefenbaker), to make an appointment in succession to the late and much respected secretary of state for external affairs. The hon. gentleman's interest in foreign affairs I know would justify my assuming that he would readily concur in this suggestion. The other day I addressed a question to the Prime Minister and asked him if he thought it was in the national interest to delay the appointment of a new secretary of state for external affairs until such time as all matters having to do with the budget had been completed in this house. The Prime Minister's irrelevant reply was interesting and is a matter of record, but it did not answer the question which I put to him. I therefore suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) that he might pass on to the Prime Minister the suggestion which I make on behalf of this group, that if the appointment of the new minister would be facilitated by this house dealing with all matters having to do with the budget at the earliest possible moment, he may be assured of that co-operation.
This is an all important matter, as the Minister of Finance, who sombrely looks at me now, will be the first to realize. This is a matter involving the appointment of the secretary of state for external affairs who will formulate, in co-operation with his colleagues, the foreign policy of this country at one of the most critical periods in recent history. We all admired, I am sure, the capacity and the competence of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) when he spoke for Canada at the recent anniversary meeting of the NATO council; but in following the precedents of other council meetings it would possibly have been helpful if other ministers had been present, particularly a minister charged with the responsibility of projecting foreign policy in this country.
The foreign ministers of the great powers are to meet soon. It may be that these meetings will be followed by a meeting at the summit. There certainly will be further NATO council meetings. This is one of the most important periods when Canada should not be without a secretary of state for external affairs. The President of the United States did not delay in the appointment of a secretary of state for foreign affairs in that country, and while the responsibilities of the government and the people of the United States are greater than the government and the people of Canada, this does not mean that our responsibility and our opportunity for constructive suggestion and participation does not exist. We hope, as I know the people of Canada hope, that there will be a decision in this matter by the Prime Minister at the earliest moment.
20, 1959
The Budget-Hon. Paul Martin
Mr. Speaker, this may or may not be the last budget of my hon. friend and classmate, the Minister of Finance. I can only say to him that because of my admiration for him, and my affection too, I sincerely hope that whatever he desires he will receive provided we are generally satisfied as to the competence which must attend the particular realization that he may or may not have in mind. I am sure that the Minister of Finance could discharge other obligations with great credit to himself and the country. I share with him the anxiety of these difficult moments until such time as this important decision will have been made one way or another.
I can only say to the Minister of Finance that, notwithstanding my goodwill toward him, like other hon. members 1 have an obligation to give some consideration to the budget which he presented to this nation a week ago last Thursday. It seems to me that the amendment offered so ably by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Beni-dickson) expresses in general terms our dis-satifaction and criticism of this budget, as I believe it now expresses the judgment and reaction of the people at large.
It proposed:
That all the words after the word "that" be deleted and the following be substituted therefor:
"this house regrets the bad faith of the government which sought and secured support from the Canadian people on a program of lower taxes, reduced expenditures and a balanced budget, and which has now produced, in flagrant disregard of pre-election promises, a budget calling for higher taxes, record expenditures and a large deficit."
This amendment is a criticism of the government for its reversal of the main elements of the Conservative party's financial policy as stated by the Minister of Finance and other spokesmen for that party in this house prior to the elections of 1957 and 1958. Now what were the basic elements in the former policy of the Conservative party as represented by the Minister of Finance and others? The elements of this policy were, first of all, balanced budgets, reduced taxes and a persistent effort toward the elimination of waste and extravagance. These elements were deeply imbedded in the policy of the Conservative party as stated by its spokesmen in this house. The spokesman for a long time was the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), the Minister without Portfolio in the present administration, and I have looked at some of the things that he had to say about financial policy. In Hansard, at pages 2764 and 2765 of April 5, 1955, here is what the financial critic of the Conservative

The Budget-Hon. Paul Martin party had to say about the matter of a deficit in a budget. He said on that occasion:
Now, deficits are things we should fully understand. We should realize what happens when we have a deficit; we should realize what it means. It means that the minister, after wringing out of us every dollar that he feels he can, after scraping the barrel, or rather the pocket, then goes out and borrows $194 million in order to keep level, and that means you and I and all the other taxpayers will have to pay that money back.
And then he went on, a little later-and this is the financial critic of the Conservative party speaking only a few years ago-to say:
We come now to the deficit, which is not a good thing. There is not a word to indicate any sense of uneasiness.
It seems to me that these words apply so aptly to the mood and to the demeanour of the Minister of Finance when he spoke the other night. The Minister without Portfolio, as he now is, continued:
There is not a suggestion that there is any chagrin. Certainly there is not a suggestion of any apology to the people of Canada. But after several years of booming times, of good times, they have not been able to organize the economy so people can get work. After all, in two general elections we were told that everything was going to be taken care of.
I have stated that the financial policy of the Conservative party was one of a balanced budget, and it is important, therefore, that we should have some idea what was the position of the Conservative party with regard to the question of surpluses. That statement by the financial critic of the Conservative party had to do with deficits, but the hon. gentleman also stated his views and those of his party on surpluses by quoting, as the minister will no doubt remember, from Mr. Snowden. Speaking on March 19, 1957, as reported at pages 2458 and 2459, the hon. member for Greenwood, then the financial critic of the Conservative party, had this to say:
This means that the government has taken an extra $382 million from the Canadian people. Philip Snowden used to say that if any government took half a crown more than it needed it was guilty of getting money under false pretences. But today the government has no hesitation in taking hundreds of millions extra from the taxpayer.
Now, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), though not dealing directly with this question of a balanced budget, said that if there had been a violation of Conservative party promises this was because of circumstances which existed unknown to the opposition. He suggested that the hon. members who presently sit on the ministerial benches did not know of a situation which the previous government had hidden from them. The conclusion reached in his observations was that if they had known this they would not have


made certain declarations or given certain assurances to the people of Canada, forgetting, of course, what the position of the Conservative party while in opposition had been, as stated by its financial critic and others including the present Prime Minister and, of course, the Minister of Finance whose observations are well known. But lest there be any misunderstanding about the position of the Prime Minister, the present leader of the Conservative party, long before this famous secret economic report of 1957, let us look at what the Prime Minister said in Saskatoon on June 13, 1953 as reported by the Star-Phoenix:
The Progressive Conservative policy was one of lower income taxes. There was no need to tax married men earning less than $3,000, particularly with the cost of living at its highest point in history.
And then at Clinton, on July 9, 1953, as reported in the London Free Press, the right hon. gentleman pledged an October session of parliament to cut taxes by $500 million, or $170 per family.
Then again, the Prime Minister is reported from Foxford on July 13, 1953 as having said, according to the Star-Phoenix that the Progressive Conservatives would remove the 10 per cent tax on such needs of the home as furniture, clothing, shoes, tea and coffee and other necessities now heavily taxed, and would provide for full taxation of all federal government properties on the same basis as was applied to all other municipal taxpayers.
And so it went on. And if there could be any doubt about the position taken by the leader of the Conservative party during the election, we now have the opportunity to examine a document which is well known to many hon. gentlemen but which I saw for the first time only within the course of the last few days.


An hon. Member:: The hidden report.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: This document is called "A new National Policy" and underneath the title appear the words: ''Unity requires it... Freedom demands it... Vision will ensure it...". Then it continues: "A date with Diefenbaker", and on the other side of the cover Mr. Grosart, or someone, goes on to say:
In a remarkable way these statements reflect the man and his mission . . . his concern for great matters of state and his abiding faith and interest in the average man and woman.
I have no doubt that the Prime Minister has an interest in the average man and woman but I want to relate that interest to some of the things that he as leader of the Conservative party and the Minister of Finance and others told the Canadian people as a result of which they now sit to Mr. APRIL
Speaker's right. Among other things I find these words on page 2 of the document to which I made reference:
Call a dominion-provincial conference for the purpose of making the Senate an effective arm of democracy.
We will discuss that at some other later date. I did not know that was in the party plank. But here is one that interested me very much because it has to do with what I have just been saying. This is the Prime Minister speaking:
Last year Canadians were over-taxed by $120 for every family of four.
He then went on to say:
Major elements increasing inflation are heavy government spending and high taxes in both of which fields the St. Laurent government seems to pride itself on its record of failing to reduce either or both.
Those words may be found on page 7. On the last page the Prime Minister went on to talk about the old age pension system in the United States concluding with a statement in these words:
A Progressive Conservative government will consider expanding the present old age pension system by the addition of an insurance system similar to that in the United States. The United States plan of old age and survivor insurance provides average monthly benefits on retirement of $76.00 for single workers, $128.00 for aged married couples without dependents and $65.00 for aged widows.
The average contribution per person is $27.08 not much more than the average contribution by Canadians of $22.70 for the old age pension. A Conservative government will consider implementing such a plan "in addition to'' the present pensions system. The United States plan is "worthy of the highest commendation."
Well, there will be ample opportunity to discuss that plan at some future date. There we have the Prime Minister promising to reduce taxes and increase benefits, not explaining how those contradictory things could be done. Supporting statements of a similar nature were made by every hon. member who now sits to Mr. Speaker's right and the overflow to Mr. Speaker's left as a result of which these hon. gentlemen sit in the seats of government today.
If there is any doubt about this promise to reduce taxes, one could refer hon. gentlemen opposite to the speech made by the Prime Minister before the Montreal chamber of commerce on February 19, 1957:
-tax changes to put Canadian companies on a basis of equality with foreign corporations or their subsidiaries operating in Canada.
Or one could refer to the Prime Minister's opening campaign speech in Massey Hall on April 25, 1957, when he said that any government he represented would introduce: 66968-9-181
20, 1959
The Budget-Hon. Paul Martin
-less discriminatory methods of taxing Canadian oil companies.
One could also refer to the speech made by the Prime Minister at Edmonton on March 8, 1958, as reported in the Vancouver Sun of March 10 of that year, at which time the minister referred to:
-drastic changes in taxation treatment of oil companies.
Or one could again refer to the opening speech of the Prime Minister in Toronto when he promised:
-further incentives in the Income Tax Act for Canadians to invest in Canadian equity stocks.
One could also make reference to the speech of the Prime Minister at Campbellton, New Brunswick, on May 4, 1957, at which time he promised:
-tax inducements to persuade business firms to process raw materials in Canada.
Or one could refer to a speech made by the Prime Minister at Brantford on February 17, 1958, at which time he promised: tax reduction for the tobacco industry.
And I have by no means exhausted references of this nature which I could cite to hon. gentlemen opposite.
When Mr. Harris presented his budget for 1957 his estimated tax was $4,780 million, and if you add the revenue from old age security it came to $5,150 million. The present Minister of Finance anticipates tax revenues of $4,757 million and revenues for the old age security fund of $536 million making a total of $5,293 million. In other words, in spite of all these promises the total tax burden for a year in which we are just emerging from a recession is to be greater than it has ever been before at any time in Canadian history.
Of course, these promises do not mean anything, we were told by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) who made a most unusual exposition, I thought, of a new theory of public morality when he said that commitments made to the Canadian people were not to be taken as seriously as commitments made by the Prime Minister or the leader of a party in this house.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: He did not say
that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Finance is wagging his head in the negative but not too strongly. I suspect he thinks I am not quoting the Minister of National Revenue correctly. Let us see what that hon. gentleman did say as reported at page 2624 of Hansard of April 13, 1959:
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that promises of any kind, whether pre-election promises or otherwise should be honoured and resoected so

The Budget-Hon. Paul Martin far as circumstances will possibly permit, but I would suggest to you, sir-and I think all hon. members on both sides of the house would accept this general principle-that promises made to this House of Commons and promises made to parliament stand in an even more favoured position in so far as sanctity and respect are concerned than promises made during an election campaign.
I cannot say that this represents the view of the Prime Minister and I am sure it is not the view of the Minister of Finance, but I express the greatest surprise that the Minister of National Revenue, for whom I have always had the highest regard, should make that kind of distinction. Surely if public life means anything as we practise it in this country, an assurance given to the people of Canada is sacred whether it is made in this house or on the hustings during an election and made for the purpose, particularly during an election, of giving hon. gentlemen the right and the opportunity of governing the affairs of this nation. Assurances made to the people of Canada to cure unemployment, to cut taxes, to have balanced budgets and similar pledges cannot be dismissed unless we want to weaken the structure of our political system.
If the Minister of National Revenue does not fully concur in what I am saying I would ask him to look at the words of a great leader of the Conservative party and a former prime minister of this country, Sir Robert Borden who, speaking in the House of Commons on January 20, 1909, said:
I say that the system of offering bribes to the constituencies in this country is a vicious one, and that, so far as I am concerned, I lifted up my voice during the last parliament in favour of the prohibition by statute of such acts; and I hope some day to see this wrong righted in Canada by statute.
I looked up the Hansard of 1909 quite some time ago. I asked for it this morning in the library and it was not available. I would, however, refer hon. members to what Sir Robert Borden said which represents basically in principle what I have just said he did observe in this house on September 9, 1930, as reported at page 35 of Hansard of that date. At that page there appears a reference to the statement made by Sir Robert Borden on January 20, 1909.
Sir Robert Borden, leader of the Conservative party of that day, a prime minister of great note, felt that assurances given to the people of Canada were no different from assurances given in parliament by a leader of a political party and I say this by way of deduction from what he said. For the Minister of National Revenue to take a different position is, I suggest, to run counter to the kind of public morality that in this country most of our public men for a long period have sought to practise. As a matter of fact,


that this is the tradition is clear from what Professor Robert MacGregor Dawson the eminent Canadian political scientist says in his book, "The Government of Canada":
Election manifestoes are largely the work of respective party leaders and essentially personal pledges given by them to the electorate.
It cannot be otherwise construed or else the people of Canada would have the right to conclude that anything said by a leader in an election was not to be taken seriously. There would be nothing that would undermine our political system more than to find that what was said by the Minister of National Revenue in this house represented the true situation. I believe it does not. For that reason we have the responsibility and the duty of reminding this administration of the promises which it made in so many fields and with respect to a vast number of matters and particularly concerning matters relating to reduced taxation and balanced budgets.
As I have said, the Minister of Finance has broken all peacetime records by the deficit he announced in this house on budget night. His deficit for 1958-59, however, I suggest to him, is not as some other hon. members have indicated, not $617 million but $835 million. Every effort to conceal the true budget by accounting manipulation in the defence equipment account I suggest to my hon. friend was both improper and unconvincing. His use of the defence equipment account to finance expenditures for which he had asked approval was, I think, very misleading.
In that connection, I know what the Minister of National Revenue said about my estimate of a $1 billion deficit last year, an estimate which was based on suggestions that had been made by the Canadian tax foundation. The fact is-and I say this in reply to the Minister of National Revenue-that on the basis of the estimates submitted to this house last year the budgetary deficit would have been $950 million. Two things happened to reduce this deficit. First, as I just indicated, the use of the special defence account; and, second, increases in revenue. On the basis of the estimates submitted to parliament by the Minister of Finance the budgetary deficit, I say, would have been $950 million, since the expenditures authorized were $5,605 million, while the minister estimated revenues at $4,650 million. The budgetary expenditures, as finally estimated, amount to $5,387 million. The difference between this figure and the amount of $5,605 million is explained and accounted for by the fact, as I have noted, that the minister had used $218 million from the special defence account so as to make his budgetary expenditures appear less than they actually were.

This accounting device does not, however, change the fact, so that the actual deficit I say is $835 million and not $617 million as claimed by the minister.
But the minister took some pride in the fact that by this accounting device he was able to say that there was a deficit of only $617 million. Well do I remember the day when he rose in the house before he delivered the budget, without having previously gone through the usual courtesy of advising the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) of the figure which he proposed to give, and said that the deficit was not a billion dollars. He said, "Oh, no, my deficit is not a billion dollars; my deficit is not $800 million; my deficit is only $617 million," as though that in itself did not seriously reflect upon the financial policies of this government.
When my hon. friend took office in June of 1957 Mr. Harris had presented him and this nation with a budget which contained a surplus of $500 million at least, and now within 18 months-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was all gone.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -my friend, the Minister of Finance, rises in his place the day before the budget and says, "I am not going to have a deficit of $800 million or $1 billion, I am going to have a deficit of only $617 million". He did not tell us at the same time that that was a violation of an election promise; he did not tell us that it was the highest peacetime deficit in the history of our country.
Now, the other factor-and I want to come back to the Minister of National Revenue and I then will return to my dear friend, the Minister of Finance-accounting for the reduction in the anticipated deficit is the increase of $120 million in revenue, $4,770 million as compared with the minister's original estimate of $4,650 million. This increase in revenue is attributable to four factors, namely customs duties, $36 million; profits of the Bank of Canada, $20 million; income from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, $12 million; and interest on the United Kingdom loan, $22 million. Only $30 million of this increase, Mr. Speaker, is attributable to higher tax yields. This is the situation and this is my reply and my answer to the Minister of National Revenue.
I now come back to the Minister of Finance. Not only has he produced the biggest deficit in the peacetime history of Canada, but he has achieved a record that no other minister of finance achieved because he has presented three successive budgetary deficits totalling $1.3 billion: in 1957-58, $38 million; in 1958-59, $835 million, I say; he says, $617 million;
66968-9-181i
20, 1959
The Budget-Hon. Paul Martin and in 1959-60 I say $435 million if my hon. friend will take into account the $42 million deficit in the old age security account.


Mr. McGee:: According to the Martin bureau of statistics.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say to my young friend it does not matter whether they are Martin or Fleming figures, the fact is that my young and honourable friend belongs to a party which has produced the biggest peacetime deficit in our history. But I want to give the hon. gentleman some more statistics; he loves them. This is not the only record of the Conservative party. The Conservative party has a great penchant for this sort of thing because since the Conservative party has been in office it has produced only four budgetary surplusses since confederation and, for my hon. friend's information, not one since 1913. And so we are confronted with a deficit. The government that was going to reduce taxes presents us with a tax burden of $350 million in extra taxes this year, wiping out entirely the minister's pre-election tax cuts and adding an extra $100 million in taxes. The heaviest burden, notwithstanding what my hon. friend sought to give, will be borne by the lower income groups-


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -who will pay a greater relative share of their income through increased sales taxes, sales taxes which my hon. friend said were iniquitous when he spoke in criticism of the last budget brought in by Mr. Harris.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was Mackenzie King who said that the sales tax was iniquitous.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When the Minister of Finance presented his budget he said little about the most serious problem that confronts Canada at this time. According to the bureau of statistics of my hon. friend, and not those of my own creation, when the minister delivered his budget there were 537,000 people out of work in Canada. In Britain there are 550,000 out of work. Canada, with a population of 17 million and a working force of 5J to 6 million has 537,000 out of work. Britain with a population of from 45 to 48 million with a working force of 22 million has 550,000 people out of work. Notwithstanding, these facts, the Minister of Finance, in a government which was going to see that no one suffered because of being out of work, had little to say in his budget about unemployment except that he looked for a recovery and an improvement.
He forecast an increase of 7 per cent in the gross national product. He did not

The Budget-Hon. Paul Martin indicate in his forecast how much of that would be as a result of a rise in prices. He certainly did not tell us that the 2 per cent increase last year or 95 per cent of it, was largely because of a rise in prices, nor did he tell us that if there is going to be a recovery, which we all certainly hope will take place, every indication, in so far as plant equipment is concerned, points to a continuation of a serious level of unemployment.
I ask the government, in the face of the situation that has confronted us this year, a situation that was allowed to arise in spite of our warnings last June and July, particularly those given by the Leader of the Opposition, to take preparatory steps now to meet a situation which we all trust will not be as serious as last fall and winter but which, in terms of unemployment, from most indications would seem to present this nation with a problem comparably as serious as that in the period we have just gone through. Now is the time for the government to anticipate that kind of a situation. I must say regretfully that from the statement of the Minister of Finance one would think that the situation was not one to be compared unfavourably with other western countries, that our situation was better than that in the United States, Sweden and other western countries. Of course this is not the case. There was very little reference to unemployment in the budget statement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Page 2409.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says "2409". One paragraph! He devoted more time to the commonwealth conference than he did to unemployment. The chancellor of the exchequer, speaking of the commonwealth conference in the budget he delivered a couple of weeks ago, only had one sentence about it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: One word.


Paul Joseph James Martin: One sentence or one word.


An hon. Member:: He has spoken on it many times though.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In this session my hon. friend has rightly spoken a great deal about these matters of great consequence like the commonwealth conference but he has not spoken very much nor has he given the house much detail about the problems that really do agitate us at this time, namely that there are still men and women out of work in their thousands and that the government is not addressing itself to the problems involved.
So I indict the government not only because of its failure to reduce taxes and to

carry out its promises, not only because it has not carried out its promise to present a balanced budget but because it has not addressed itself as it said it would to the problem of unemployment. The minister referred to the unemployment insurance fund. He did not tell us that he anticipates imposing further taxation on certain groups of people in Canada as a result of the maladministration by the government of the unemployment insurance fund, the deterioration of the fund's securities as a result of the bond conversion policy of my hon. friend. He did not tell the people of Canada these things which will present a picture of increased burden and increased taxation.
I wish my hon. friend everything that he wants but I do say to him, with all the sincerity I can command, that I regret that in the presentation of what may be his last budget he has not lived up to the high standards which I know he himself would have liked to set perhaps because of the reluctant attitude of those who sit with him in the ministerial benches and do not altogether share his financial policies. It may be for that reason that he will be moving upwards or downwards. In any event, all I can say about this budget is that I wish the Minister of Finance had moved.


Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, it is with real pleasure that I rise to take part in this debate and, of course, to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) on the realistic manner in which he has presented the budget. Truly it is difficult to analyse all the forces which contribute to our economic structure and if there has been some concern felt in the past we can gather encouragement from the inherent stability in our minister's purpose and from the cautious optimism of his forecasts.
Naturally we expect to find those who disagree but I believe sincerely that the government has made a tremendous effort to meet every challenge in solving our problems. Recently, in reading trade journals, financial forecasts and articles by responsible leaders of industry and finance, I have noticed that practically without exception they contain highly optimistic forecasts. These are the people who really know. They are planning their production and development to meet the needs they anticipate. Surely with the great expansion in industry and the development taking place all over the country today the value of our gross national product is bound to increase, and the Minister of Finance has indicated a figure which may prove to be very conservative.
Having dealt with expansion in generalities, may I say that I am fortunate enough to

witness in my own riding some of this industrial development which has been sadly lacking in the past in western Canada in general and Saskatchewan in particular. However, in keeping with the great development of natural resources in this country my constituency of Melville, which up to the present has been largely agricultural, will soon be playing a major role. In the southeastern part of the constituency, ten miles from the town of Esterhazy and 3,100 feet below the surface of the earth lie vast, untapped deposits of potash, probably richer in content and greater in abundance than any place else on earth.
In preparation for the removal of the potassium bearing ore, construction of the world's finest potash mine, to be operated by International Minerals and Chemical Corporation, commenced last year. The Utah Company of the Americas has the contract for this immense project, the cost of which will exceed $20 million. Development of the project has already brought an additional million dollar payroll to the area and there are further expectations for the future since 16 other companies are actively engaged in planning and exploration in the province. Surely this is an optimistic sign for further investment and development.
Areas such as I have mentioned are particularly fortunate, and while enterprises of the nature mentioned do stimulate the local economy the basic problems of agriculture still remain. While the farmer feels that the commodities that he sells do not bring him a return commensurate with what he has to pay for the goods he buys, he also has the added burden of increased costs for services, utilities and education. The only means local governments have of procuring revenue is from the taxation of real property and in the areas with which I am most vitally concerned taxes have more than doubled since the war while there has been a steady decrease in the prices of the farmers' primary products. The greatest costs have been those for education, which brings me to the point that there is a necessity for more consideration of the needs of education at the federal level.
Under the terms of the British North America Act education is solely a matter for provincial legislation. However, close to 100 years have passed since the B.N.A. Act came into being. With the passing of these years, times and conditions have changed to such an extent that some of our best educators are suggesting that the federal government should be giving consideration to the establishment of a federal department of education with a minister of the government at its head.
The Budget-Mr. Ormiston
The purpose of such a department would not be, of course, to take away any control of educational matters from the provinces but rather to assist in every way possible the existing provincial departments of education. I believe all political parties have acknowledged that the federal government has some responsibility for education but none has done too much about it. Quite possibly the reason for this lack of action is that no particular department or no particular individual has any definite responsibility for education.
Following the first world war the government of the day felt it should be doing more for education and, as a result, money was found for the establishment of technical schools in the larger cities across Canada. Then, education was promptly forgotten by the federal government until after the second world war when a federal-provincial agreement was drawn up to provide further technical education and the establishment of a number of composite schools across the country. This agreement has run its course and education has become dormant except in the minds of a few who are promoting its interests. Recently the great scientific advances made by the Russians have again stirred us to the point where we are giving more thought to advanced education.
It is suggested, that it would take something less than a world war or events of great significance to move us as a nation to thinking about education. The establishment of a federal department of education by the government would give official recognition to education. It would give us an official body with whom we could deal when making proposals about education. Up to the moment, no one has had any official status so far as education is concerned, and ideas about education have only been aired in this House of Commons.
A department of education such as I have mentioned could, among other things, do research in connection with education, even if that research were just to determine what the government's responsibility for education is. While the federal government's responsibility should extend to all levels of education, from elementary to university, a projected study by research personnel might come to other definite conclusions; in any event, such considerations should not be left to mere chance. Education merits intensive consideration by government and deserves something more than a passing opinion.
It is obvious that, especially in the rural areas of our country with sparse populations, any advances in education will be slow in coming if the financial burden is to be borne at the local level. It is true we have projects which will expand our industry and increase our population, thereby assisting in a great
2852	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Ormiston measure in distributing the burden of taxation. However, in the immediate future we must concentrate more on cutting costs than in promoting the ideas of "salvation by subsidy".
Whenever I think of cutting costs my thoughts invariably turn, in so far as agriculture is concerned, to our prairie port of Churchill which, with extended facilities, could do much more to produce a stable economy in the west. Even today prairie farmers save 12 cents per bushel on grain transported through Churchill and British buyers receive their purchases for 6J cents per bushel less via the Churchill route. However, it is unfortunate that of the 55 ships which visited Churchill last year practically all of them arrived in ballast. This, of course, offers some advantage in a quick turn around, but before any port can operate on a normal basis there must be at least some balance between import and export cargo. In so far as Churchill is concerned, the real difficulty is in finding a manner in which imports can be increased. The fact that so many ships arrived in ballast simply means that the Churchill hinterland is not importing from overseas. The area is not highly populated and naturally its buying power is limited. This condition may be attributed also to the fact that the purchasing habits are directed to other sources of supply.
In the west, as in other parts of Canada, our buying habits are influenced largely by the intense barrage of advertising propaganda directed at us through practically every medium of communication. This results in the demand by the consumer for goods from across the border being much greater than the demand for goods manufactured in Britain or continental Europe. However, it might be well to remember that only recently a contract was awarded in the United States to a British company bidding on a multimillion dollar project because the tender submitted underbid other competitors, largely from the United States, by $5 million. This is only used as an illustration, of course, to demonstrate that if price and quality are right, the supply which is nearest is not necessarily the best. Since it is not my intention to cast any unkind reflections on our neighbours to the south, or in any other direction, I think I might make progress in a somewhat different vein. (Translation):
Another type of progress is very evident in this house. I am referring to a simultaneous interpretation system, but I would point out that it is also a serious drawback. Several members who could be bilingual are limiting the extent and value of their contributions in this house by speaking only in


English. Let us hope that, in these times of great national unity, where there is greater cohesion among our members than any party has ever known, the results of this scientific age will not prevent these feelings of confidence and mutual understanding from being expressed verbally in both languages. (Text):
May I conclude, Mr. Speaker, on another note of progress which arises from events which have been taking place in my own constituency. I am able to draw the attention of the house to the "forward look" which is apparent in the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I refer to an important milestone which has been reached in the integration of the Indian into our modern society. Recently two treaty Indians were appointed to serve as assistant agents on the reserves in the File Hills-Qu'Appelle Indian agency. These appointments, I am sure, reflect the confidence of the department and its officials in the inherent capabilities of the Indians, and will act as an inspiration to other original Canadian citizens, as well as serving to prove that there are no strictions on ability and opportunity. May I suggest that these and other actions are further indications of the progressive nature of this government, and of the enterprise and initiatives of those devoted and able individuals who carry out its policies.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the budget introduced the other night by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) was something of an in-between budget. It was not a balanced budget, yet the forecast deficit was less than the forecast deficit of a year ago. It was a fence-sitting budget. It was a budget that was neither fish nor fowl and was directed mainly towards reducing the criticism in the press of this country without, at the same time, subjecting the Canadian people to the full tax burden necessary to bring about a balanced budget.
During this debate one is able to discuss a great many matters, and therefore I have the opportunity to refer to the same matter which was initially referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), namely the desirability of an immediate appointment to the post of minister of external affairs. There is disturbing news in today's press that United Kingdom Prime Minister, Right Hon. Harold Macmillan, in putting forward what I consider to be very important proposals which might have resulted in an easing of world tension, has been opposed by the United States, France and Germany. In this context I think it is more important than ever that Canada has at the earliest possible time a full time minister of external affairs, and that Canada should put

forward continuing proposals directed toward easing international tension. I am hopeful that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker), in the reply which he promised in the course of a few days in answer to a question of mine this afternoon, will support and strengthen the position taken by the prime minister of the United Kingdom.
This is no time in the history of the world to cling to inflexible positions which have been taken for many years. I believe, and the C.C.F. believe, that this is a time for negotiation, that this is a time for the putting forward of proposals directed at easing international tensions. I of course do not know who the Prime Minister may appoint to this very important portfolio, but I do hope that in considering the many able candidates, any one of whom might fulfil this post extremely well, the Prime Minister should not discount either youth or ability, that he should appoint the person who is likely to bring to this portfolio the best of judgment, tact and flexibility, keeping always in mind the necessity of achieving security and peace throughout the world.
I listened to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Ormiston) this afternoon, and I would like to say that I agree with his statement that the port of Churchill should be used to the greatest possible extent. This is a port which has assisted the economy of the prairie provinces. It is a port which is now just coming into its own. On the prairies we have been most happy to support the building of the St. Lawrence seaway, but in doing that and believing that it is in the best interests of this country, we submit that here also is a good case for an extension of and improvement in the storage facilities for grain at Churchill, and for greater use of this developing and important seaport.
We are now debating, Mr. Speaker, the amendment to this budget which was put forward by the official opposition. Basically we see in this debate at this time that there is little difference between the stand taken by the government and the stand taken by the official opposition. It has been said in the press that the budget debate lacks interest, that there has been little by way of keen debate. I think that is true, and the reason there has been so little interest taken in this debate is that the position of the Conservative party and the position of the Liberal party is almost identical.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: All that the Liberal party has been able to do is to say to the Conservative party, "You haven't kept your promises." While they have been talking for a balanced
The Budget-Mr. Argue budget, I have not heard them criticizing the government for a deficit. I have yet to hear them say what steps they would take at this time to balance the budget. Mr. Speaker, I am not so much interested in whether the budget is balanced at this time as I am in having that kind of budget which will bring about the greatest amount of production in Canada and the very best possible distribution of that production.
This is not a forward looking budget. This is not a budget with a plan. This is not a budget that is designed to give leadership to the country to bring about full employment and maximum prosperity. This is a budget of tax increases. This is a budget with a sales tax increase. This is a budget which says to people who have had certain tax exemptions in the past when they were hospitalized, "Your taxes because of reduced exemption will be greater, and this increased revenue will help us bring the budget more nearly in balance."
This, Mr. Speaker, is the budget of a tired old party. The government has not been in office long but it is exhibiting the same characteristics as the former Liberal administration which had been in office for 22 years. This government is prepared to mark time, to leave it to the great corporations, to leave it to so-called private enterprise to see whether or not there will be greater production and a greater measure of prosperity in the years to come. There is a place in our nation for a political party that is a real alternative to either of the two tired old capitalist parties. We submit that although the word "socialism" has been greatly criticized in days gone by, the philosophy which we represent provides the only answer to the great challenges which confront Canada both internally and externally.
There should have been presented to this house a budget which provided for greater development and increased social services. This is not the time for a fence-sitting budget. This is the time for a budget of expansion. I would suggest that the government should have a special department devoted to economic planning and development. I would not ask that there be an additional minister. After all, with a large number of cabinet ministers, soon to be strengthened by an almost equally large number of parliamentary secretaries, there should be no need for another minister. There are two ministers who are marking time without any portfolio, also the Secretary of State and the Solicitor General, both of whom I am certain are doing a very good job, are under-employed. There could be an amalgamation of these portfolios and thus the opportunity to provide
2854	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Argue a new department of government which would look to the expansion of this country.
Is there something that should be done now to provide for full employment? I would think so. The statistics with regard to unemployment are still disturbing. The Minister of Finance, in the best forecast he could make, did not predict anything approaching full employment. I suggest that one of the first things that should be done is to bring forward a greatly expanded winter works program which would provide opportunities for employment next winter when seasonal unemployment is likely to be on the increase. The C.C.F. believe in full employment at all times, but we realize that it is more difficult to provide employment in the winter time. Now is the time for planning; now is the time for consultation; now is the time for discussions with the provinces so that this useful program can be greatly extended so as to remove as far as may be possible seasonal unemployment.
The Minister of Finance has himself indicated that the budget does not provide for special accounting for capital funds, and I would suggest that there should be a separation of the main fields of expenditure into two general accounts, and that there should be a large capital fund established for the purpose of capital expansion. This fund, amounting, I suggest, to $2 billion, could be used by the government whenever it seemed necessary and desirable to supplement and complement private investment so as to assure full employment and greater prosperity in this country. There is plenty of scope for increases in capital works.
Another thing which such a department as I have proposed-a department of planning and development-should be doing is to survey the road and highway needs of this country. The government has clung to the single road policy of the former administration, namely the trans-Canada highway. This government should not be satisfied with maintaining that program; it should provide a program of co-operation with the provinces in order to construct a second trans-Canada highway, to build other main highways running north and south and, in short, to supply a modern highway system for this country. Such a program could not be considered as a hand-out or as frivolous expenditure. This would be a project which would return great dividends to the Canadian people in years to come.
There is another area of social investment which is crying out for action, and that is the field of education to which reference has already been made this afternoon. We are faced with a need for more schools, the


need for increased facilities at our universities and the need for capital assistance toward the building of educational institutions all across the country. I wish to commend expenditures such as this to hon. members and I submit that they constitute important uses to which a capital expansion fund could be put.
There is another important field of capital expansion which needs attention, and that is the provision of increased hospital facilities across our nation. It is true that the government and previous governments have been providing some money for hospital construction and expansion, but the amounts have been far too small. In addition to general hospitals, there is an urgent need for the expansion of hospitals designed to take care of the mentally sick people in our nation. Here is another important field of social investment which requires action at this time.
However it appears that the government intends to mark time for the next 12 months. This is a '-stand pat" budget-a status quo budget. In the submission of the C.C.F. group we should have a budget which would increase the productive facilities of our nation. I have never been one who has advocated government ownership merely for the sake of government ownership, but I do believe that public ownership has an increasingly important role to play in a modern society. The possibilities of public ownership have never been developed in this country as they should have been. Here is an area for expansion which if developed would greatly improve the standards of life in our nation.
No matter what has been stated to the contrary, the C.C.F. believes very much in private ownership of private property, the private ownership of small business, the private ownership of certain industries which are in fact, competitive and where the exploitation of employees does not exist. We also believe in supporting co-operative ownership, and in this respect I hope that the government will consider bringing to parliament a national co-operative act such as is being requested by the co-operative union and other co-operative organizations across this country. We think that co-operative ownership is one of the very best methods of ownership at any time. It is democratic ownership; it enables people to bring together large amounts of capital in order to do the jobs that only large amounts of capital are capable of doing, and at the same time it enables them to do this on a democratic basis and to return the profits, or

savings as they are usually termed, to the consumer or to the producer as the case may be.
The next form of ownership is corporate ownership which is very rapidly developing in our nation into monopoly ownership. We see the means of production in this country accumulating steadily in the hands of fewer and fewer people. We see one large industry after another concentrated either in a single company or in the hands of very few companies, and it is to offset this type of monopoly ownership that we suggest it is the duty of government to develop public ownership and co-operative ownership.
I think there are important fields where public ownership should be extended. For example, we should like to see future trans-Canada pipe lines, either for gas or oil, publicly owned. Indeed, we believe that the pipe lines now belonging to the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company should be brought under public ownership. We say that national trans-Canada pipe lines which are, in fact, a natural monopoly should be publicly owned. We feel, also, that the steel industry which, we submit, stands in need of great expansion in this country, is a field in which public ownership might be very appropriately developed. This is not to say that some segment of the present steel industry would not lend itself to public ownership, but certainly here is a place for some measure of public ownership in the future development of this industry.
The fertilizer, drug and chemical industries are more and more under monopoly control. Here is a place where the development of public ownership would, we believe, bring about a reduction in the price of the commodity to the consumers and make a good return on investment to our nation.
There are other areas in which public ownership could be usefully developed. We submit that although the Conservative and Liberal parties have turned their backs on public ownership and have in general opposed any expansion in this field, if our nation is to meet the challenges of unemployment, greater competition in export trade and the general challenges of the twentieth century, then the field of public ownership should be greatly expanded.
There is another area in which we feel there is room for the development of public ownership and that is in the field of credit. Interest rates in this country are becoming alarmingly high. The exorbitant interest rates that are being allowed and promoted by this government will endanger expansion and constitute such a serious threat that the trend toward expansion may be being reversed.
66968-9-182
The Budget-Mr. Argue I have spoken on other occasions in this house advocating a great reduction in certain interest rates and in certain controls. I believe the chartered banks in this country are doing an abominable job as far as developing loans in the small loans field is concerned and with respect to providing loans to people with low incomes. This has resulted in a great explosion of activity by small loans companies, moneylenders and loan sharks, as I call them. Although this government may wish the chartered banks in Canada to develop the field of small loans there is no indication that it does and even if there were there is no guarantee that the chartered banks would do that. Many of them apparently are quite happy to take the easy business that comes to them without having to bother with a large number of small loans. They merely pick off a few easy and lucrative loans in this field.
I suggest that we have here a field where public ownership could be developed. I do not intend to suggest that the federal government should immediately socialize the chartered banks but in all sincerity I say to the Minister of Finance that here is a wonderful opportunity for those who say they believe in competition and free enterprise to go to the chartered banks and give them a chance to compete by establishing in this field a publicly owned system under which small loans could be made by chartered banks.
I concede that the previous administration and other governments in the past have come close to this by one means and another. There has been established an industrial development bank for intermediate credit. A system of publicly owned chartered banks would provide credit at low cost to prospective borrowers and would provide real competition in this field for the chartered banks.
The policy of high interest and tight money followed by this government is just as badly conceived and is just as great a detriment to Canada and its national welfare as it was when it was inaugurated by the former administration. I do not always agree with the remarks of the Minister of Finance but I did concur in the strong statements he used to make condemning the former government for allowing the Bank of Canada interest rate to go higher and higher and in condemning the previous administration for its so-called tight money policy.
We now have a Conservative, high interest rate, government. This is a government that is saddling the ordinary people of this country through their private borrowings- and the municipalities and provincial governments along with them-with unnecessarily high interest rates. It is time this ill-conceived policy was reversed and I suggest
2856	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Argue that public ownership is one means of bringing about the desired reversal.
There is another field in which public ownership might be developed. As a matter of fact, I notice that some of the great corporations of this country are now beginning to say there is a need for some central credit organization to which they could go to obtain long term credit in order to compete in international trade with the Soviet union and eastern bloc countries. Here is an opportunity not just for an export-import credit insurance act which we now have and which guarantees loans made from the banks, but for a public organization with public funds which could ensure that Canada has an opportunity to expand her exports and to increase her overall trade.
Our trade is reaching a real crisis. Although we develop or expand new markets from time to time we soon find them in serious jeopardy because trade is so greatly unbalanced. In 1957 Poland purchased from us over $16 million worth of goods. In that year, we purchased from Poland just over $1 million worth of goods. In 1958 trade with Poland almost ceased. In 1958 we exported to the Soviet union almost $9 million worth of products and in the same year we imported from that country less than $6 million worth of products. We should not be surprised that the present trade negotiations with Poland and Russia are encountering great difficulties, not because these countries do not wish to purchase from us but because our trade is so greatly unbalanced. I believe these countries stand ready to purchase from us at least in volumes equal to their purchases in the past if we would buy from them.
I suggest that an international trade bank or trade organization be established with funds available to carry on a government program established by a department concerned with national development to bring about expanded trade and a much better balance of trade. These are some of the ways through which we could expand the productive capacity of our nation.
In expanding our productive capacity we should not overlook the need for a great advance in social security and welfare measures. At no time should we complacently say that we have gone far enough, that our old age pension is as high as it should be or that our health program is satisfactory. Instead we should develop and improve these programs year by year. I suggest that action should be taken this session to bring about a contributory system of old age pensions on a much higher level than at present and related to recent annual income. The C.C.F. program in this field is


well developed. We feel that such a program should carry with it a basic old age pension of not less than $75 a month and a contributory program providing pensions above that amount.	[DOT]
Some hon. members may throw up their hands in horror and say that this is a program the nation cannot afford. I can remember former ministers of finance telling us that old age pension programs, family allowance programs and health insurance schemes are not a real burden on the nation in the sense of expenditures for war or defence but rather are basically transferred payments for certain well defined social services.
I submit we can afford these services and I submit that this kind of improved services would be a beneficial investment for our nation. As a parliament we owe it to our elderly citizens to act to improve their income. This government promised action. What did we get? We got two voluminous volumes of the Clark report. You can go through that report with a fine tooth comb or a magnifying glass and you will not find on which side of the fence Dr. Clark stands, whether he is for an improvement in our system now, related to the system in the United States, or whether he thinks we have gone far enough.
I imagine it is just the kind of report that this government wanted; it is a report of confusion; it is a report without any exactness; and it is a report that will enable this government, if it wishes, to delay, to procrastinate and to forget its very important promise to the Canadian people.
We of the C.C.F. for many years have advocated a system of national health insurance. We are pleased that in recent years there has been some progress toward this end. As a member of the C.C.F. party I am very proud that the province of Saskatchewan, as far back as 1947, pioneered the field of public hospitalization in our country, not without difficulties, not without many problems. But with all of those problems we in Saskatchewan have developed a pattern for hospitalization that has been copied and is being copied both in Canada and in the United States.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would suggest that now is the time for a further great advancement in the field of health. Now is the time to bring into our health program, medical and dental coverage. Instead of a forward movement in the budget what has the government said? It has said that if somebody is unfortunate enough to be hospitalized, he will pay more taxes in the future than he has paid in the past. That might be an acceptable point of view, in the light of the contribution the

government is making for the present insurance program covering expenses. But by going to hospital one incurs only a part of the expenses which are brought on because of ill health. Surely, nothing is more important than the health of our nation and this is a field where, if the government acted, I am certain it would receive not only unanimous support in this house but the acclaim of the Canadian people.
This is no time for a fence-sitting budget, Mr. Speaker; this is no time for this inbetween, stand-pat budget, and this is no time to listen to nor to follow the suggestions and the criticisms of the official opposition because theirs has been a negative approach. Both in the amendment and in the statements that have been made all the Liberal party has done in essence is to say, "you promised a lot and you are not fulfilling your promises".


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, no.


Hazen Robert Argue: Whether it takes a minute or whether it takes 40 minutes to say it, it scarcely adds up to a policy worthy of the official opposition in this house. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that now is the time for action, now is the time for a great development program, now is the time to embark on a program of development in the field of social capital, in the field of production capital and in the field of necessary and improved social security measures. We ask the government to go forward in those fields and we shall support every measure introduced in this house to bring about that worthy objective.


Mr. E. L. Morris (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in the old days before the building of the lighthouses, the poor noddies of many a Newfoundland outport prayed for wrecks-aye, and with easy consciences. Only the few hundreds of them who took to deep sea voyaging in those days had any awareness of the outside world, or of its people. All the world, excepting their own outports, was either down north or up along. It was a grand, rich place where all men wore shirts and collars each day of the week and ate pure figgy-dufls. The folk up along, therefore, had the easy end of life and why should they not contribute something of their goods and gear to the honest Atlantic province's noddies?
In those days they used to say the wrecker's prayer, which hon. members will find, if they care to consult it again, in the Penguin volume of Canadian verse at page 109. I shall quote only a few verses from it before resuming my debate. The wrecker's prayer went like this:
Give us a wrack or two, good Lard,
For winter in Tops'il Tickle bes hard,
Wid grey frost creepin's like mortal sin And perishin' lack of bread in the bln.
66968-9-182J
The Budget-Mr. Morris
A grand rich wrack, us do humbly pray, Busted abroad at the break o' day
An' hove clear in 'crost Tops'il Reef,
Wid victuals an' gear to beguile our grief.
God of reefs an' tides an' sky,
Heed Ye our need an' hark to our cry!
Bread by the bag an' beef by the cask,
Ease for sore bellies bes all we ask.
One grand wrack-or maybe two?-
Wid gear an' victuals to see us through
Til spring starts up like the leap of day An' the fish strike back into Tops'il Bay.
One rich wrack-for Thy hand bes strong!
A barque or a brig from up along
Bemused by Thy twisty tides, O Lard!
For winter in Tops'il Tickle bes bard.
Loud an' long will us sing Yer praise,
Marciful Fadder, O Ancient of Days,
Master of fog an' tide an' reef!
Heave us a wrack to beguile our grief.
Many previous members of parliament have spoken in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, of the disabilities which the Atlantic provinces have incurred since confederation. Many speakers have asked in effect that the government of the day "Heave us a wrack to beguile our grief". Recently the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, in a series of ten editorial comments, pointed out some of the disabilities of the Atlantic region and suggested some possible cures. I have not the time in this debate to discuss this series of editorials in detail and I therefore took the liberty a few moments ago of placing a collection of these editorials in the boxes of hon. members at the House of Commons post office. In summary the recommendations, which were the result of considered editorial concern, can be broken down into six. The first was special tax concessions, either in the form of tax holidays or in the form of accelerated depreciation allowances, the latter not as attractive to us in the east because accelerated depreciation is only of benefit to those firms already operating at a profit.
The second major step would be a revision of the national freight rate structure to end the pattern of present horizontal per ton mile rate increases. In this regard there is a growing sentiment in the Atlantic provinces that we do not really want a national freight rate policy if that national policy means one policy right across the country. What we want in the Atlantic provinces is a national freight rate policy composed of separate regional policies, for what will do the job for other regions will not do the job for us.
The third recommendation of the editors of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald was special low rate capital loans. In this regard it is noteworthy that the United Kingdom government now has in operation a Distribution

The Budget-Mr. Morris of Industries Act which provides for low rate, long term capital loans to establish industries of benefit to the entire nation in those areas of the nation which have not in the past prospered from industrial expansion.
Fourth, the newspaper believed that special federal consideration should be given to the building of new highways and water transportation facilities. In this regard I believe that the Atlantic provinces members generally accept the proposition that the first phase of the trans-Canada highway project should be pursued with continuing vigour to completion on schedule but that it should then, and only then, be succeeded by a subsequent phase of highway development which we feel should take into account the incapacity of the Atlantic provinces to share fully on the present sharing basis. I have in mind that the province of Newfoundland finds it difficult to finance its share, and consideration should continue to be given to the possibility of equating its contribution to highway construction with that of other Canadians. In my province we shall continue to hope and to press that in the subsequent phase of the trans-Canada highway some of our larger centres now omitted in phase one, notably my own city of Halifax, will be linked to the trans-Canada highway to provide that freight may be moved by highway and thus contribute salutary effects on competitive transport charges and so that other Canadians may come to us and we may go to other Canadians.
The newspaper also advocated greater regional allocation of defence and other contracts for publicly financed undertakings. I shall have more to say about that in a few moments.
Finally, it advocated increased attention to certain sections of the United States tariff program having to do with the importation into that country of such unrefined Canadian resources as gypsum which is now shipped in bulk from my province for subsequent processing in the United States, therefore producing less prosperity for us than it might otherwise do.
In considering any budget speech, Mr. Speaker, we in this house are sometimes bound to be animated not only by partisan considerations but by regional considerations. In this regard it will be of interest to hon. members to recall the final report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, better known as the Gordon economic report. I want to say quite frankly that I am one of those who in the heat of election campaigns misused this report. The report has suffered a bad fate because it has been said sometimes that all it recommended for the maritime
provinces was the deportation of our skilled workers. Now that I am able to contemplate the report with more consideration, there is much more in it than simply sloughing it off for that one unfortunate wording. At page 404 of the final report the authors of the report state as follows:
An objective of economic policy should be to integrate and improve the basic economic framework of the Atlantic region, including in particular the transportation facilities of the area with a view to facilitating and encouraging economic growth within the region. This is not likely to be accomplished by a multiplicity of uncoordinated measures providing aid on an ad hoc basis.
It is this point, Mr. Speaker, which I shall try to expand in greater detail following the supper recess. It is in essence that we in the Atlantic provinces would like to see an early end to hand-out government. We want to be regarded as being Canadians on our own feet. We do not want to have to pray, sir, "good Lard, heave us a wrack."
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


George Harris Hees: I wonder if I could have the permission of the house to revert to motions to make an announcement regarding the Canada-Australia bilateral air agreement which has been under discussion in Canada and Australia at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to interrupt proceedings at this stage to revert to motions to make an announcement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Harris Hees: The civil aviation delegation from Canada and Australia, meeting in Melbourne to review the air agreement between the two countries, decided that the present agreement which was negotiated in 1946 was now inadequate to meet the needs of the coming jet era in world aviation. In particular, it did not fully recognize the very close political and commercial affinity of the two countries which was traditional in its origin and has been substantially developed in the postwar years. Since the matters involved were of a highly technical nature, the discussions could not be concluded in the time available at Melbourne, and the discussions have now been adjourned but are

expected to resume shortly, possibly in Canada. Meanwhile the existing air services between Canada and Australia will continue on a weekly basis. It is hoped that a new bilateral air transport agreement between Canada and Australia may be concluded before the end of the year.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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.
Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, there is a new spirit of buoyancy in the Atlantic provinces, a spirit of optimism that at long last we are, in the east, moving away from being backbenchers in a family of Canadian equals. We do not want to continue indefinitely in the Atlantic provinces living in an economy in which our livelihoods depend upon handouts from government. In the words of the premier of Nova Scotia, the Hon. Robert Stanfield-if I may borrow a phrase from that distinguished parliamentarian the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill); one of the really great Canadians of our time-we have been busy in Nova Scotia, too busy bailing to fix the boat. We want to stop bailing and get at the job of basic reform.
What do we hear from the opposition spokesmen, both in this house and in the local legislatures? Their hope for the Atlantic provinces continues to exist in the dream of the wreckers, "Give us a wrack or two, good Lard, For winter in Tops'il Tickle bes hard."
Everything is black, everything is wrong in the maritime provinces. It is not part of my business to advise hon. members of the opposition why it is they lost the election and will stay where they now are, but as long as they are out of tune with the youthful, vigorous, viable and vital optimism of the people of the maritimes and preach only wreckage, they will consistently stay out of touch with the thinking of the people. We know what it is to be backbenchers in the Canadian family. We want an end of it. There is a great deal of lip service paid to Canadianism and national unity. We believe in national unity. We maritimers were here when Canada was born. We want to be equals and we want to do a basic job of reforming our economy and not live by continued handouts.
The Budget-Mr. Morris
I quote from the Ottawa correspondent of the Times of London, who wrote in that distinguished world newspaper after a visit to the Atlantic area:
There is an unmistakable atmosphere of hope, much of it engendered by the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, coupled with a determination to fight against the tide of depression. This is particularly evident among the younger generation. They do not want their provinces to be perpetually responsible to federal aid as a bolster to their economy.
Mr. Speaker, I have the opportunity in this budget debate to address myself to only three specific subjects having to do with the economic well-being of the peoples of the Atlantic area. The first of these has to do with the impact of the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway upon us and upon the use of Atlantic ports. I am bound by the rules of this house not to address myself to a debate which takes place in the other place. I am not free to debate what has or is about to be said in the other chamber. I know, however, that on this Wednesday the other place is to debate a resolution having to do with the impact of the St. Lawrence seaway upon the ports of Halifax and Saint John.
Statements which have been made outside that assembly by the principal architects of this resolution indicate that they have only recently discovered that the St. Lawrence seaway will have an impact upon the Atlantic coast area. One of these two gentlemen is a former member for Halifax and the other is a former premier of Nova Scotia. On Wednesday they will debate this resolution, within two and one-half days of the first cargo moving through the St. Lawrence seaway. They now discover the seaway will have an effect on Halifax and Saint John.
After 90 years of waiting, and only 60 hours from the opening of the seaway, what are we told by them? We are told that the St. Lawrence seaway will cause a loss of business to the ports of Halifax and Saint John. We are told this by people who had the responsibility of putting forward that view when, in fact, they supported the federal administration of the day, indeed one of them as premier of Nova Scotia. However, not a word was uttered, not a word passed their lips, not a word from the lips of the surviving Liberal members in this house. I have been here since October, 1957 and I have not heard one Liberal member from the Atlantic area- there are precious few of them left-say a word about the St. Lawrence seaway. Why is this so? It is because they were committed to it by the last government. It was commenced by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), who I regret to note is not in his seat tonight. He started it; it was his

The Budget-Mr. Morris idea as minister of transport to put it through, and after having conceived it as a member of the cabinet he quit that job and moved into the seaway authority to make sure it got built. Then he moved back into politics, expecting a different result from that which accrued in June, 1957.
I will pass over this. The vicissitudes of political life come to young and old alike. He not only moved back and forth between a position of governmental responsibility and that of functionary in charge of construction, Mr. Speaker, but when he left he left the further construction of the seaway in the hands of a gentleman who is now the executive vice-president of the national Liberal federation. So we have a definite Liberal policy of building the seaway. All right, Mr. Speaker; the young sentiment in the east is not opposed to the St. Lawrence seaway because we do not feel we can seek to acquire greater justice for our people by denying it to others. Lest anybody think in other places that this is a discovery, two and one-half days before the opening of the seaway, which is now going to have a deleterious effect upon us, let me say these very people are the people who had the capacity to be meaningful in their representations to the government.
Mr. Speaker, what is the Liberal policy as regards transport through the St. Lawrence seaway? That policy was conceived by the hon. member for Laurier as minister of transport and then as head of the St. Lawrence seaway authority. But he is not satisfied. Nobody in the back benches of the Liberal party speaks about this in the house, only in the other place. But here we have to be beatified by public awareness every four or five years. On January 21, 1959 the hon. member for Laurier expanded the Liberal transportation policy in the St. Lawrence basin. He was not satisfied to put the seaway through and to build it. He now has another plan, and you will not hear about this in the other place. At page 155 of Hansard of January 21, 1959, asked by the government to give some idea of things which he might undertake to improve the economy he said:
The first is for the immediate appointment of a board of engineers for the purpose of studying and reporting upon the economic advantages of linking the St. Lawrence river with the port of New York via the Richelieu river, lake Champlain and the Hudson river.
Then the hon. member went on to say that he wished he had time to go into the matter more fully, and we all wish he had had more time. Then he went on:
All I can say at this time is this: If it were given consideration and put into effect by a recommendation, of course following a report of

a board of engineers, it would put to work thousands of people in an area where work is required.
Certainly it would put into employment thousands of people. Here we have a seaway which has been paid for by the taxes of all Canadians. The hon. member for Laurier initiated the seaway and put it through. Its first cargo will go through on Saturday, as the Toronto Telegram says, meaningfully enough "a cargo of politicians." We have already had enunciated for us a new Liberal transport policy. Now we are going to dig a ditch between Montreal and New York. This would mean the complete eradication of Atlantic coast ports.
I draw the attention of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) to the fact that when I spoke in the house last year I mentioned some quotations he had used in connection with regional projects. He asked me at that time where I had got these quotations. I said that I was paraphrasing, and he said, "If you must paraphrase, paraphrase accurately." Well, it turned out I was paraphasing accurately, and I have come tonight with the quotations. The Fredericton Gleaner of March 19, 1958, just twelve days before the election, quoted the hon. Leader of the Opposition as saying that "a policy of scattered, unco-ordinated projects would create jealousy harmful to national unity." The Montreal Star of March 18, 1958, quoted him as saying that regional projects create "regional jealousies which could affect Canadian unity." Mr. Speaker, at a time when the St.Lawrence seaway is about to come into operation for the benefit, as we in the east hope, of all Canadians, although we have our fears, for the Liberal party to now come along and advocate that we divert everything travelling east from Montreal south to New York, most of it through United States territory, is that not a regional project likely to create strains on national unity? I suggest that the hon. Leader of the Opposition get into the habit of sending copies of his speeches to his seatmate so that both of them know what each other is saying.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt that the hon. member quoted me quite correctly, of course, but I would ask if he objects to this kind of canal junction between the St. Lawrence and New York through Quebec province? Would he object to that?


Edmund Leverett Morris: Yes, absolutely, until the St. Lawrence seaway is reasonably well paid for. I have, as do many of my constituents, the highest respect for the hon. Leader of the Opposition. In fact, we think he is too good

to lead the bunch he does lead, but he is at perfect liberty to preside over a group of prayerful wreckers. He may smile at my answer, but it is more meaningful than some answers I have heard from the Liberal side of the house. I oppose the suggestion absolutely until the seaway is reasonably well paid for.
I would now like to give the hon. members of the house some idea of the antecedents to that opposition. Mr. Speaker, on September 12, 1864 a large dinner was held in the former Halifax Hotel in Halifax. The decision to advance to confederation was not taken in Charlottetown but in Halifax; but thereby hangs another tale. I doubt whether hon. members opposite consult the Creighton study of Sir John A. Macdonald, but if they do they will find the story there. At that meeting Sir Georges Etienne Cartier said this:
I have heard since I have been in Halifax the objection thrown out that there is much danger that you would be absorbed. It will be very easy for me to dispel such fears. I answer them by a question: Have you any objection to be absorbed by commerce? Halifax, through the Intercolonial railroad will be the recipient of trade which now benefits Portland, Boston and New York ... It is as evident as the sun shines at noon that when the Intercolonial railway is built-* and it must necessarily be built if confederation takes place-the consequence will be that between Halifax and Liverpool there will be steamers almost daily leaving and arriving at the former-in fact it will be a ferry between Halifax and Liverpool.
The Hon. George Brown said:
But far in advance of all other advantages would be this, that union of all the provinces would break down all trade barriers between us, and throw open at once to all a combined market of four millions of people. You in the east would send us your fish and your coals and your West India produce, while we would send you in return the flour and the grain and the meats you now buy in Boston and New York.
Sir John A. Macdonald said:
What will be the consequence to this city, prosperous as it is, from that communication? . . . Build this road and Halifax will soon become one of the great emporiums of the world. All the great resources of the west will come over the immense railways of Canada to the bosom of your harbour.
Let us be bipartisan in this series of promises to the Atlantic ports. Let us quote a Liberal prime minister, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who moved in the House of Commons on July 30, 1903 for leave to introduce a bill for the construction of a national transcontinental railway. On page 7671 of Hansard of that date he is reported as having said:
Let me observe that if we have used American ports, it is not because for five months in the year our own ports are ice-bound. Everybody knows that our ports in winter are just as open as the American harbours. Everybody knows that if we
The Budget-Mr. Morris have used American ports and the bonding privilege, it was not because our harbours were icebound in winter, but simply because we had no railways to reach them.
I should like to cite chapter 71 of the acts of 1903 authorizing aid in the construction of a railroad, and sections 42, 43 and 45. I should also like to cite section 13 of the acts of 1911, chapter 6; chapter 20 of the acts of 1914, section 6, and section 21 of chapter 29 of the statutes of 1955, the last of which says:
The board of directors of the Canadian National Railways shall so direct, provide and procure that all freight destined for export by sea that is consigned within Canada for carriage to National Railways either at point of origin or between that and the sea shall, unless it has been by its shippers specifically routed otherwise, be exported through Canadian seaports.
I draw the attention of the house to the ordering "shall" rather than the permissive "may", and I should like the government to give consideration to the manner in which the C.N.R. is complying with the statutory conditions and the earlier statutory citations all of which, I am advised, are still in force.
We in the Atlantic area have changed from an attitude of defeatism to one of buoyancy and optimism. We still have hard problems ahead, but we have had much experience in the handling of hard problems. I have here Thursday's edition of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald with the headline: "Record Investment for Atlantic Area this Year". This points out that the value of this year's investment spending in the Atlantic provinces will be increased by 10 per cent over spending last year despite the fact that the national investment intentions appear to be slightly lower than last year. In this regard it is interesting to note that in the investment intentions the manufacturing sector is particularly hopeful and that there are indications of a three-fold increase over 1958. Indeed, an accompanying statement from the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council says this indicates that "investors are aware of the manufacturing opportunities in the Atlantic provinces and are determined to take advantage of those opportunities by spending large sums to enlarge present enterprises and to establish new ones."
Despite all this, from both groups of the opposition we hear nothing but despondency and gloom. Nothing but gloom. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), another hon. member who is not in his seat tonight, has a solution for our seaway problems which may suggest itself to the hon. member for Laurier. The hon. member for Assiniboia possesses, not only knowledge about how to solve all problems but he has a solution before the problems even arise. Prior to

The Budget-Mr. Morris the announcement of St. Lawrence seaway tolls he said: I want to say this-not for myself, and not on behalf of the members of my group in the house, but for the C.C.F. party-that we are opposed to all tolls on the seaway. He wanted no tolls at all. Taxes would be taken from British Columbia and taxes would be taken from Newfoundland, but there would be no tolls on the seaway. And this is from a group in the house which is now composed almost entirely of agrarian protesters and former employees of the international woodworkers association. These are all that exist, but they have a solution for everything. I have said here on a previous occasion that if the hon. member for Assin-iboia were asked to express his opinion in connection with the international regulation of space I believe he would say: I cannot tell you exactly what form it will take, but it will not work unless you have deficiency payments.
We have now in this house two opposition groups, one of them dedicated to constructing yet another channel for diverting trade through United States ports, the other to no tolls. Hon. members will recall that on August 29, 1958, as reported in Hansard on pages 4311, 4312 and 4313, I showed that the total amount of exports of Canadian products leaving this country via United States ports for overseas destinations amounted to $154 million a year and that imports entering Canada from overseas points for Canadian destinations amounted to $239 million a year. And yet some hon. members wonder why the Atlantic provinces area has sometimes had to pray the good Lord to give us a wreck. It cannot be denied that our ports and our facilities have not been used to anything like the extent of which they are capable.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I speak briefly about one of the things which we in the Atlantic area think we can do, if it is to be done, as well and perhaps better than anybody else in the country? The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) paid our area a visit during the latter part of last week, and he announced in Halifax that if there was any contemplation of an atomic submarine program we would build the submarines in Canada, not for appearance's sake or for the sake of prestige but in terms of useability. This is a reasonable argument. Maritimers are well aware of what is to be said in favour of things being done on the basis of serviceability rather than prestige. I note there has been a subsequent announcement by a Montreal firm in this connection saying that they were prepared to go ahead with this work. But this is one job which Atlantic companies believe, with all respect, they can do better than anybody else. We build ships, and we have built


them for longer than other people. The Halifax Shipyards Limited, a division of A. V. Roe which is lineally directly related to Hawker Siddeley, the only United Kingdom firm now building nuclear submarines, is closer to more of the Royal Canadian Navy than any other shipyard; two-thirds of the ships and the officers and men are based on the Atlantic command at Halifax. This shipyard knows more than any other Canadian shipyard about the construction of atomic submarines or other vessels.
I say this because I am one of those who believe that Atlantic provinces rehabilitation depends in part at least upon the people themselves. We must not come here as whiners. We must come here prepared to exercise our own initiative and not only to point out our disabilities but to suggest ways in which they can be corrected. It has been estimated by competent economists that the lower level of economic activity in the Atlantic provinces area costs this country $300 million a year. No Canadian saves anything by subsidizing the maritimes. It will be better to help us up to our feet and let us make our own way.
One final word more, and I have finished. It has to do with Newfoundland. I am not the one and this is not the place to comment upon the recent controversies that have raged in the headlines between members of the federal government and the premier of Newfoundland but because I am a member from the Atlantic provinces-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am obliged to inform him that his time has expired.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Let the hon. gentleman continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Does the house give unanimous consent to permitting the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edmund Leverett Morris: I thank hon. members of the house and particularly hon. members of the opposition for that courtesy. I will not trespass long upon it. I simply wanted to say that hon. members from the Atlantic provinces are perhaps, because of geographic propinquity, more acutely aware of Newfoundland than are other hon. members of this house. While I do not feel that I am the one or that this is the time for comment upon recent controversies involving the federal government and the premier of Newfoundland I do say this. I believe and my people believe that the government of this country should rotate only between the Conservative and Liberal parties and not between

those parties and the socialists. There is this bond of affection between us. We believe that government exists for people, not people for government, and underlying all the controversies are the people of Newfoundland themselves and their disabilities. If they have disabilities I am the lesser as a fellow Canadian and I therefore suggest for the earnest consideration of the premier of Newfoundland that in this tenth anniversary year of confederation of his province with Canada he consider the efficacy of inviting a tripartisan group of parliamentarians to his province so we could effectively discharge our duties to the people of Newfoundland, which are as great but no greater than our duties to all other Canadians.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Speaker, as is customary during the budget debate we have heard speeches on a variety of subjects. I, however, would like to address myself to a subject that either by design or by accident has been scrupulously avoided by the members of the government in particular. The press of our country has made it no secret that it cannot understand why parliament and its members have not in any way at all debated the resignation of Commissioner Nicholson of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
As recently as two days ago on the national television program "Viewpoint", Mr. Blair Fraser, the alert and knowledgeable political observer-


Mr. Nesbiii:: A good Grit.


Leon David Crestohl: I will quote Conservatives as well because this is an impartial subject unless it be that hon. gentlemen opposite have already prejudged that it is not an impartial subject. I shall quote sources of all kinds because I believe it is a matter affecting every hon. member of this house regardless of where he sits.
As I was about to state, Mr. Fraser remarked that he considers Commissioner Nicholson's resignation one of the most important items before parliament. He expressed astonishment at the fact that not a word has yet been said about it during the present budget debate. A similar opinion was expressed as far back as March 19 by the Ottawa Citizen which published an article under a three-column headline entitled, "Members Strangely Silent on Nicholson Resignation." Permit me to read the two brief opening paragraphs of this article:
The strangest thing about the resignation of Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner Leonard Nicholson is the virtual silence that has reigned in Ottawa since it was announced on Monday.
The Budget-Mr. Crestohl
Members of all political parties seem unhappy that he quit but nobody seems anxious to talk about it or to try and blow it up into an issue.


An hon. Member:: So you are going to do it.


Leon David Crestohl: No, I shall not do it. Your party probably will be the one to make an issue of it. I am trying to suppress an issue.
At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to discuss directly the cause of the resignation itself but I consider it an act of the greatest importance to parliament and indeed to the country when a top civil servant of the standing of the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police suddenly resigns because, as he himself has put it, he had no option and, as Mr. Maurice Jefferies of the Windsor Daily Star described it in the March 17 issue, he resigned in protest.
I believe that parliament has been and is delinquent in remaining so strangely silent during all this time. Not only should we have debated the matter long before today but I consider it was our duty to probe much further into the cause of this resignation and the reasons that lay behind it. We should know just what the commissioner meant when he said he resigned because he had no option. What did the commissioner mean when he said he resigned in protest? What was it he resigned in protest against? Why should parliament remain silent in the face of these two statements made by the commissioner? I believe they are vital to the very existence of our security. The simple announcement of the resignation by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) is not sufficient. The resignation came as a distressing surprise to the house and indeed to the entire country. Because of the unusual suddenness of this event I had expected that the government would have at once and of its own volition set up a probe to inquire into the background of this vital matter.
The government is the only authority that has the power to establish an inquiry and ferret out the reasons for this resignation. Much to my surprise and certainly to the surprise of the entire country as evidenced by the press the government allowed the significance of this event to lapse into the background. Obviously the government is quite anxious for this issue to remain in the background. I fear that unfortunately many painful implications can flow from the unexpected resignation of any of our top civil servants and particularly that of the chief of the organization which is responsible for the internal security of the country.
When a resignation results from normal retirement or perhaps from illness or incapacity, it could be a sad event but when a
2864	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Crestohl man resigns in the prime of his life with many more useful years of valuable and important service to give to his country and when in fact his resignation involves even a personal sacrifice we are definitely remiss in our duty if we do not explore to the utmost the reasons for such a resignation. In this particular case especially parliament should be concerned. The commissioner had a very high record and he said in his resignation he had but one more year to complete in order to be entitled to his full pension but nevertheless he sacrificed the advantages of that and resigned.
He would not normally resign under those circumstances or under circumstances which touched the interest and security of everyone in Canada. Nevertheless, he says he is constrained to resign, and he explains why he was unable to follow the course indicated by the Minister of Justice, with which he could not agree and which he apparently found to be inconsistent with his sense of duty. For an attitude such as this a civil servant deserves to be applauded by all Canadians. This is an exemplary form of behaviour, and it maintains the high standard of all our civil servants.
As I see it, it is the duty of parliament to protect and to safeguard the integrity of all our civil servants, especially those at the top who carry the burdens of responsibility. Moreover, it is the duty of parliament to sustain their independence. We must not expose them to any form of partisan pressure or influence at any time. We must hold inviolate their courage to discharge their duties regardless of the change of government or regardless of the change of a minister. Parliament has frequently applauded the fearlessness with which the Auditor General of Canada, for example, submits his reports and his recommendations. He has always been courageous and at times, Mr. Speaker, even daring in the frankness of the observations which he makes in his annual report to parliament and in his testimony when he appears before parliamentary committees, be it the committee on estimates or the committee on public accounts. I am sure that everyone in this house, and indeed the entire country, recognize and appreciate this independence of our Auditor General.
In the same category of top civil servants and their staffs for whom parliament must or should preserve the same freedom and independence, and who must be liberated from any anxiety which often follows a change of government, I would include all our deputy ministers, the chairman of the civil service commission, the chairman of the national research council, the chairmen of all similar commissions and councils, the


governor of the Bank of Canada, the presidents of all crown corporations and most certainly, Mr. Speaker, the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We must spare them apprehension of how they might be affected by any change of government or by any change of a minister.


Mr. Graffley:: Like 1935.


Leon David Crestohl: I am not speaking of 1935; I am speaking of 1959, and you will soon hear why.


Mr. Montgomery:: The hon. member is the last one who should be talking about 1935 to 1945.


Leon David Crestohl: As a matter of fact, that lesson was learned in 1930 when the Conservative government came into power and we saw what happened. We realized the independence which we must preserve for our civil servants. I say, Mr. Speaker, we must relieve them of what might sometimes be terrorizing fears which can come from the fact, to use a biblical phrase, that there arose a new king in Egypt who knew not Joseph. I suppose if the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) were here he would say to himself he wished he were that king who did not know Joseph. The civil servant has a continuing responsibility and this responsibility must not be shaken by any change of government or political pressure, since the duties of civil servants must be discharged with the courage and impartiality which are characteristic of honest civil servants in contrast with those who for selfish reasons seek to curry favour with a new government or with a new minister.
Let me illustrate what I mean, Mr. Speaker. We heard a typical clarification of this entire problem in the house on April 15 last week. I refer to a speech delivered by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden), and I quote from page 2729 of Hansard. This is what the hon. member said:
I think this government-
He was referring to the present government.
-has been entirely too generous with many of the people in the public service of Canada who do not appreciate that there has been a change of government. Some of these people still think that orders come from Liberal headquarters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Leon David Crestohl: I am very pleased to hear that he is not the only one in the government party who still thinks that way and who still supports that statement.


Mr. Small:: The facts are there.


Leon David Crestohl: The facts are there? Let us look at the facts. What does the hon. gentleman mean when he says that the government is too generous with the civil servants? Does that generosity consist in the fact that they are not dismissed from their employment? In what does the generosity of the government consist toward the civil servants of Canada? Is that meant to be a subtle threat to all the civil servants who worked for this country before this government came into power or what else does the reference mean? What does the hon. member mean, for example, when he says that the civil servants do not appreciate that there has been a change of government? How does he want the civil servants to manifest their appreciation?


Mr. Anderson:: By being loyal.


Leon David Crestohl: Does he expect them to fall on their knees twice a day and sing hallelujahs for the new Prime Minister and the new government? Is that how these gentlemen would like to have the civil servants show their appreciation?


Mr. Ricard:: If you do not know why are you drawing conclusions?


Leon David Crestohl: Just be patient. I do not know, nobody has said or indicated.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are trying to insinuate things.


Leon David Crestohl: Nobody has indicated how the civil servants can show their humility, their appreciation, their thanks and their gratitude for being permitted to serve the country as they have done in the past. I should like to know also what the hon. gentleman means when he says:
Some of these people still think that orders come from Liberal headquarters.
Where does the hon. member or the government think orders should come from? Should they come from the Conservative headquarters. I say, that this is an issue that is not without some difficulty for civil servants. Their integrity must be maintained; their independence must be protected, and we should liberate them from such thoughts as were expressed by the hon. member for Rosthern and as indicated also by other hon. members in the government. I am sure, that the members of the government want that independence for all civil servants and it is to this matter that I am addressing myself.
I consider, Mr. Speaker, that the remarks of the hon. member for Rosthern are an undeserved and unwarranted reflection on the honesty and integrity of our civil servants. As I have indicated, it is precisely this and similar thinking against which we must protect our civil servants. Just look at what
The Budget-Mr. Crestohl happened in the house today. To me it was a very shocking thing. When the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) asked a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) the Speaker ruled that the question was not framed


Mr. McDonald (Hamilion South):: It was out
of order.


Leon David Crestohl: I will tell you what it was. Just wait and listen. The Speaker ruled

I agree with the Speaker's ruling if that will satisfy my friend-that the question was not framed in accordance with our standing orders. That is perfectly true, and the question was ruled out of order by the Speaker quite properly. But here is what I say happened. An accusation was read by the hon. member for Fort William and I should like to read it again. As found in the Toronto Telegram of April 16, it reads:
They charged that the order was drafted by the pro-Liberal civil servants merely to embarrass the government while Prime Minister Diefenbaker was absent.
The minister sat in her place, having read the accusation levelled against her employees -whether or not it is true is immaterial for the moment-saying that pro-Liberal civil servants drafted the regulation in order to embarrass the government. I respectfully submit that the minister should not have waited for a question to be asked. It is my submission that the moment she learned there was such an item in the press she should have risen in her place on a question of privilege and vigorously denied the accusation against civil servants in her department. Her failure to rise in her place and deny an accusation against old and tried civil servants is to me quite disturbing.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Are you trying to create a sacred cow?


Leon David Crestohl: I cannot hear the hon. member.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Are you trying to create a body above criticism or reproach?


Leon David Crestohl: I am making no accusation against the minister. I am making no accusation against civil servants. If the hon. member will follow me he will realize I am trying to point out that here was an occasion when the integrity of civil servants should have been upheld. The minister should have stood up in her place and said, "No, I will not permit this; I deny vigorously that my employees wrote this order in order to embarrass the government. That is not true." That is what I expected her to say. However, she

The Budget-Mr. Crestohl remained silent. This is something which supports the thesis I am trying to present this evening to hon. members.
When I referred a few moments ago to the importance of preserving the courage, integrity and honesty of our civil servants I must say that, without reflecting on any of them at all, I place the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in a category by himself.


Mr. Bigg:: Why?


Leon David Crestohl: I will tell you why. He above everyone else must be free from and unfettered by any political fears and influences.


An hon. Member:: Should he decide policy too?


Leon David Crestohl: The hon. member who interrupted me may not feel that he should be free from and unfettered by political influence but certainly there is no one else in the entire country who will agree with him. 'On the contrary, the people will agree with my statement. When there is interference, when attempts are made to encroach upon the independence of the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, every Canadian, every member of the house and every person elsewhere in the country is placed in jeopardy and our democratic institutions become weakened and exposed to danger. I therefore urge that because of the possibility, or even the slightest suspicion that someone in authority has, because of political expediency, attempted to disturb the great confidence which the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has always enjoyed-


William Heward Grafftey: What political expediency?


Leon David Crestohl: I said if there is the slightest suspicion it is a responsible duty of parliament to call on the government to dispel this suspicion and to set up as speedily as possible an objective and impartial inquiry into the matter. If there is nothing to be afraid of, why object to it, why oppose it? Why not go along with it?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Why defend it?


Leon David Crestohl: I am not defending it.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: What are you doing?


Leon David Crestohl: I am saying "if there is suspicion." The hon. member has not paid attention. The commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police resigns suddenly at personal sacrifice and hon. members opposite are willing to sit by and say that they are not interested as to why.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: How do you resign gradually?


Leon David Crestohl: The country is far more disturbed by the possibility of such interference than can be readily imagined. The impartiality and independence of the force which gives Canada its internal security must not be left in doubt. Let me indicate from only a few press editorials the degree to which this agitates and disturbs the entire country. I should like to read a brief opening paragraph from the Fundy Fisherman of March 25, 1959:
Canada has lost one of its most distinguished public servants in the resignation from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police of Commissioner L. H. Nicholson. This outstanding son of New Brunswick refused to allow the R.C.M.P. to be made use of to further the ends of political expediency. He chose the sterner path of duty, and resigned when it became clear that he would not be allowed to maintain law and order in the manner and form required by the oath of his office. He will be honoured by people across the country and his example will be applauded by citizens of his native province.
I should also like to read an excerpt from an editorial in the Edmonton Journal, the other end of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: What about British Columbia?


Leon David Crestohl: I am glad hon. members have caught the mistake. It was not intended at all. This editorial appeared in the issue of March 20, 1959, and reads in part as follows:
However, a larger question has been opened by justice minister Fulton's grave decision to interfere directly with the movements of the R.C.M.P. This question concerns the degree of political control over the police possible today. It deserves the serious consideration of parliament.
Further, Mr. Speaker, in an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen of March 17, 1959, headed "Commissioner Nicholson Resigns" I find the following:
The resignation of Commissioner L. H. Nicholson from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police raises questions of policy in the administration of the R.C.M.P. which deserve the most searching inquiry. In recent days, the cabinet has evidently gone over Commissioner Nicholson's head, on one occasion countermanding an order he had given, and on the other giving an order of which he knew nothing. In his own words, this made his position untenable.
The result can only be confusion and some loss of morale in the R.C.M.P., which has had to meet enough difficulties in the past few days without this added trouble.
Another editorial, Mr. Speaker, appeared in the Financial Post of March 21, 1959, entitled, "The Man of Principle."
Decent people everywhere instinctively respect the man of principle, and particularly the man who is willing to suffer because of his principles.
Such a man is Commissioner L. H. Nicholson of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, just resigned-

Nicholson was a conspicuous success in one of our country's toughest and loneliest jobs.
His decision to do what he believed to be right -without regard for the present government's popularity with the labour vote-ends a career in a way that brings lustre to him and to the finest traditions of the public service.
From these expressions of public opinion across Canada, it is clear that the country wants to know whether or not there has been political interference or political overtones which provoked Commissioner Nicholson's resignation. What the country wants to know is just that, and it is the duty of parliament to set up an inquiry to ferret out the truth so that the country may retain its confidence in our civil servants.


William Heward Grafftey: Would the hon. member
permit a question?


Leon David Crestohl: Yes.


William Heward Grafftey: Does the hon. member feel that ministers of the crown are duty bound, under all circumstances, to accept without question the recommendations of senior civil servants?


Leon David Crestohl: I cannot answer that question, but I certainly believe that the refusal to accept a civil servant's direction-


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Direction?


Leon David Crestohl: -or suggestions, has its consequences with the top civil servants.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You do not know what you are talking about.


Leon David Crestohl: This is something that you do not want to hear, but the country wants to hear about it. You will hear from the country when the country is told the facts. I feel that the inquiry which I suggest should be promptly set up. I cannot understand why there should be the slightest hesitancy to set up this inquiry. I cannot understand fears that anyone should have about setting it up, because the confidence of the top civil servants has been badly shaken and it should be restored.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: That is the most unmitigated nonsense I have ever heard in the House of Commons.


Leon David Crestohl: I am very much interested in hearing all these objections. I suggest an inquiry be set up in order to explain all the facts relating to this occurrence which shook the confidence of the entire civil service.
Commissioner Nicholson refused to be budged from what he saw his duty to be, notwithstanding any ingenious methods and specious arguments that were presented. I say, therefore, that one cannot help but admire Commissioner Nicholson all the more
The Budget-Mr. Crestohl for stating in his letter to the Minister of Justice, so frankly and so fearlessly, the following and I now quote:
I realize that other issues are before you which arose from this strike, but I feel most strongly that the matter of law enforcement should be isolated and dealt with on its own merits.
I underscore the words "on its own merits", Mr. Speaker. Then, he continues, and I quote:
This is the attitude the force has taken throughout. It has not concerned itself with the issues back of the strike, but has merely tried to maintain law and order in the area.
It appears that this is what the commissioner was desirous of doing; nothing more and nothing less. However, when he felt that his duty was being interfered with he took, as he himself describes it, the only course open to him. He resigned. I am sure the entire country will say to him, "Bravo". By his action he has sustained, if not even elevated, the high standards and traditions of this distinguished force for its courage and integrity, for which it is world renowned.
I respectfully urge the government to recognize this exemplary civil servant and not permit him to suffer, amongst other things, any financial loss because he did his duty with courage and with honour to himself and to the reputation of the men under his command. A most appropriate editorial on this subject appeared in the Montreal Star of March 18, 1959, which, in my opinion, effectively makes an appropriate recommendation to the government. I desire to read it into Hansard. It is entitled, "Colonel Nicholson Deserves well of his Country" and reads:
In his graceful tribute to Commissioner Nicholson, expressed in the correspondence surrounding the sending of R.C.M.P. reinforcements to Newfoundland, the Minister of Justice wrote: "You can rest assured that whatever may be the views as to the present situation, you have earned the respect and esteem of all those with whom you have served."
This respect and esteem is in no sense diminished by the fact that Commissioner Nicholson has disagreed with his minister and resigned on an issue of principle. It took courage to do this at a moment of public controversy. It took courage to do this more particularly because Commissioner Nicholson is within a year of his normal retirement from the R.C.M.P. after completing a full term of service. That service has been distinguished by a devotion to duty and a concern for the dignity and effectiveness of the force against a background of tradition that has made it a symbol of law enforcement tempered with mercy the world over.
It would be anomalous in the circumstances if Commissioner Nicholson should suffer a disability of any kind by reason of his resignation on grounds of principle. If his resignation is accepted now he will in fact suffer a financial disability. His pension will be lower than it would be if he completed his full term of service a year hence.

The Budget-Mr. Crestohl
A grateful Canadian people would support a move to grant him leave of absence for a year, when he could retire in the normal course on full pension. Such a course is commended to the government.
If this were the appropriate time or if it were possible for me now or at any other time to move a resolution to that effect or to introduce a bill to that effect, I would not hesitate to do so. However, procedure and standing orders being what they are, it is obvious that only the government can take the appropriate means for making this possible. I, therefore, call on the government to take the necessary steps and follow the suggestion contained in the editorial in the Montreal Star to see that the commissioner, who has rendered such loyal and faithful service and who resigned on a matter of principle-as I indicated it took courage to resign on a matter of principle-does not suffer as a result of his action. I would urge the government to take the necessary steps to avoid punishing a civil servant and to see that he does not suffer any financial loss because he has performed his duty. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the entire country would welcome such a suggestion.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Leon David Crestohl: Yes.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Would he explain exactly what the monetary loss would be if Commissioner Nichlson retires at this time as he wishes?


Leon David Crestohl: I have not checked the figures, but I am prepared to accept-


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Have you any idea what his pension will be?


Leon David Crestohl: I have not checked the figures, but even if it were only $10 the amount is not important. I do not see why the hon. member quibbles about this. I think it is a sensible suggestion by the Montreal Star. I think the entire country would accede to it, and I certainly feel that a bill or a resolution introduced by the government to restore the commissioner's pension would be well deserved.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Would the hon. member permit another question? Would he like this resolution put forward before he has this full inquiry he asks for?


Leon David Crestohl: If the hon. member suggests that such a resolution be considered after a full inquiry, I would go along with that. I would have no objection if the government waited before introducing such a resolution until after the inquiry. Mr. Speaker, I again submit that the proposition made by this newspaper should not be considered adversely

by any of the parties in this house, unless the inquiry discloses things which the country does not yet know. But if we are to accept what we now know, we have the splendid reputation of the commissioner himself and the courage which he showed in resigning one year before he became entitled to a full pension. All these facts in themselves are commendable and should certainly be accepted and considered by every hon. member in this house.


Mr. Speakman:: Does the hon. member from Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) think that the head of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which is in fact a semi-military force, is right in his decision to disagree publicly with his superiors?


Leon David Crestohl: I would love to answer that question, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has himself pointed out that there is some suspicion that the situation is not clear. Therefore I suggest this inquiry. Certainly if the commissioner resigned because he said, "I could not accept the decision of the minister"-


James Stanley Speakman: The decision of his superiors.


Leon David Crestohl: It was not a decision.


James Stanley Speakman: It was.


Leon David Crestohl: What he said was that he found that the minister's request was inconsistent with his duty.


James Stanley Speakman: But that was his decision.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member and those who would ask further questions that the hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with my remarks I wish to refer to a statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) concerning the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan). I was here in the chamber when the minister made his remarks which were referred to, as reported at page 2624 of Hansard of April 13, 1959. These remarks did not seem to me to carry the meaning attributed to them by the hon. member for Essex East and were in fact delivered in a jocular manner. I want to make it clear that I cannot subscribe to any double standard of public morality or different degrees of sanctity concerning promises. I am quite sure the hon. minister did not intend to give this impression, but since that has been inferred in statements made this afternoon I do not want to let it pass without stating that I do not subscribe to any such theory.

For the past several days we have heard discussions on all topics in connection with the budget. We have listened to discussions about taxation, inflation and other matters. I would like to take this opportunity to discuss a few matters which I believe deserve more serious attention by the government than has heretofore been given. The first subject I want to refer to concerns the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. I feel this department should be among the very first which requires attention. The work of the department, particularly the technical surveys, forms the very basis and beginning of our development program. It is and has been for many years a neglected department. We have been talking big for a long time about our resources in Canada, and I feel we must do something big. Mr. Speaker, scientific research must precede development. We must have geological surveys, magnetic surveys and gravity surveys to determine what is underneath the surface of this country. We must probe the depths of the ocean and find the continental shelf boundaries. We must translate our findings into maps. We must know what we have to develop before we can start to develop it.
What is the situation which we now find? First, the department in understaffed in all its scientific branches. Scientists are so underpaid that they are leaving the government service for industry, for other countries, and even for the universities which have long been classed as providing poorly paid jobs. Even our universities are stealing scientists from the government service. We need grants for scientific research. We need special assistance for those students who have shown some indication of being able to perform those services which are most essential to us if we are going to develop this country to its maximum degree. Mr. Speaker, accommodation is short in all the branches of this department, and although a large building project is under way the buildings not yet completed are now inadequate to serve as a preliminary foundation for the development of our resources in Canada. Even at the dominion observatory here in Ottawa there is such a shortage of space that the scientists are working in the basement of the residence occupied by the dominion astronomer. Too little attention has been given to this problem. More and more the eyes of the public have been directed to our great natural resources.
Our Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton), a great enthusiast for this national development, must have before him the surveys and the maps which will assist in such a development. We have to recognize that this department must
The Budget-Mr. Aiken be properly equipped in order to be able to carry out its researches. This has not been done, and it should be done to a much greater extent. It is realized that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has problems, and they are grave ones. He has brought forward a budget which has very well satisfied the problems that do exist. However, with regard to geological surveys, for example-surveys of the surface and what lies under the surface of our country-only $3,500,000 of the whole national budget is used for this purpose. That is only $1 in every $1,600.
I should now like to turn to a second subject which is always a favourite of mine and one which is related very much to the same type of thing. It concerns the tourist industry in Canada. This is another area where we could be making a great advance. As I have mentioned previously, there can be no argument about the fact that the tourist industry is one of the largest sources of foreign currency available to us. The Canadian government travel bureau is doing an excellent job on the funds which have been allotted to it, and these funds have, in fact, been increased, but I think this house should consider setting up immediately a joint committee on travel in co-operation with the other place, because this has become a neglected field in Canada. It is true that the provincial governments are doing their best, but I think that a greater push is needed from this government. Last session I brought forward a resolution with reference to loans to tourist operators. That subject was very well discussed and I do not intend to raise it again at this time except to say that any project or any idea which can be brought forward to further the encouragement of visitors to this country is one which might well engage the attention of the government.
Tourism should go hand in hand with the development of the country. This is well recognized by the fact that the Canadian government travel bureau is set up within the department of northern affairs. By and large, a lot of our neighbours to the south seem to have the feeling that Canada is the poor man's vacation land. We are somewhat modest in our publicity and careful in our expenditure. That is easy to understand. Mr. Leo Dolan, who was formerly head of the travel bureau, said recently that Canada lacks "snob appeal" for its visitors and suggested that we should rectify this. Just what he meant is hard to pin down, but the general idea is that we must get over the belief that we cannot compete with Europe in connection with our tourist industry.
Here in Canada we have some most interesting tours, and they are improving and increasing with the development of the northland.

The Budget-Mr. Aiken I feel that we must make an effort along these lines of a magnitude that has not heretofore been undertaken. In 1958 there was more travel in Canada than there was in the previous year but this travel was not undertaken by visitors; it was done by more Canadian people travelling between their own province and another province. The influx of tourists from the United States fell off last year, and a number of reasons are given for this-the recession in the United States, the weather, strikes and European competition.
I think the government is doing an excellent job in advertising Canada, but I think we should do more than put advertisements in newspapers and publications. I think we must have publicity agents, people who will bring to visitors from other countries details of the tours and other items that we can provide for them which are of interest and which will provide real competition to European centres.
I should like to speak on a third subject which is related to the other two. This has to do with the fantastic development in North America, and particularly in Canada, over the last few years of pleasure boating. In 1958 over three million Canadians took to the water in pleasure boats. Over 750,000 pleasure boats are now owned by Canadians. The reason for this is that there is a desire to get off the travelled highways and escape the overcrowded conditions that obtain on the highways. Many want to get off the highways and get to more quiet places where they can enjoy a vacation. I think this feeling has been best expressed in an article in Western Business and Industry in which a boating enthusiast has stated:
After being cooped up in an office or driving over jammed highways you discover a completely new world. There is sunshine, space, waves, wind and freedom from worry. I am a different man when I am out there. I am relaxed. I cannot even remember my phone number. A lot of pleasure boat owners agree with me. They have spent time on the open road. They have also spent an irritating portion of that time going ten yards every three minutes, breathing gas fumes and placating the children in the back seat.
Hon. members may wonder what this has to do with the budget, Mr. Speaker. It is just this: I think the government must recognize that facilities for this pleasure boating must be provided. It is a source of income. It is a commercial undertaking just as much as any other. The Department of Public Works, in providing navigation facilities, docks and so forth, and the Department of Transport are both responsible for navigation but I fear that in the past this work has been viewed from the standpoint of commercial navigation. I think we must not lose track of the fact that there is this great swing toward pleasure boating and that the departments


must now take into consideration the provision of facilities for small boats as well as for large ones. I hope that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) will take note of this important new water traffic. At this point I should like to mention the pamphlet "Safety Afloat" put out by the Department of Transport. This has provided an excellent service for those who engage in pleasure boating. It has been well received and well distributed throughout Canada.
In a riding such as mine which is mostly engaged in the tourist business the maintenance of water facilities is particularly important. Many of the standards now set up by the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport are those based on so-called commercial navigation. In fact, nothing is so commercially valuable to the country, I believe, as the pleasure boating traffic which is now developing.
I should like to ask the Department of Public Works to re-examine its policy in relation to the building of docks and navigation facilities. I have to admit that the Minister of Public Works has been extremely cooperative in this regard but always, of course, with a considerable amount of urging on the part of everyone concerned. The district engineer for my area who operates out of Toronto has been extremely understanding in the situation. In the area I represent it is now necessary to have a government official to look after the navigation facilities on behalf of the two departments of government.
Related closely to this is the next and final subject with which I shall deal. It is also connected with boating. I have reference to the Trent canal system. I should like for a few moments to read from a booklet published by the Department of Transport and entitled, "The Trent Canal System," because it is something not sufficiently publicized:
The term "Trent canal" is applied to that series of rivers and lakes which, by a system of dams, locks, short artificial channels and two marine railways, provides 8-foot navigation for 89 miles from lake Ontario to Peterborough and 6-foot navigation for an additional 135 miles to Swift Rapids as well as for 8 miles from Georgian Bay to Big Chute.
The canal began in a small way in 1833 with the construction of a few locks on the Trent and Otonabee rivers and on the Kawartha lakes in order to connect up the small pioneer settlements along their banks and shores. In addition to performing this vital service, these early locks and dams, assisted by an extensive system of log slides, contributed for many years to the flourishing lumber trade of the district. With the depletion of the forests, however, traffic began to settle down to a more prosaic freight-carrying trade. Good roads and motor transport made some inroads on this traffic during the nineteen twenties and thirties, but they have also brought about a

very extensive development of the route as a holiday and tourist playground in which the canal facilities play no inconsiderable part.
I understand that the Department of Transport is now after many years actually considering improving the facilities on the Trent canal. A great number of small craft from both the United States and Canada use the canal extensively for pleasure boating. This brings tourists right into the heart of Ontario with the attendant benefits of purchasing power, the purchases of supplies of fuel and food and other things. I am glad to see that the Department of Transport is now taking an interest in the canal and recognizes that there is an upsurge of interest in pleasure boating that will be with us for many years if highway traffic continues to expand as it has done over the past few years.
Related to the Trent canal system is a dream that has been in existence for fifty years. That is the dream of some day connecting the Trent canal system with the Muskoka lakes. These lakes provide a large inland waterway extending over many miles of lakes and rivers. If the Trent canal system were connected, which would be a comparatively easy and certainly a feasible operation, it would bring to the centre of this country large and small pleasure boats from all parts of the North American continent. There is an easily accessible route through the Morrison lakes and various other lakes leading into lake Muskoka itself. It is hoped that the planners in the Department of Transport will see the value of this dream and make it a reality, thereby providing in the very heart of this country boating facilities that will be equalled by none elsewhere in the world.
I had a number of other matters to mention in connection with the budget but not related to the subjects I have mentioned and for that reason I shall leave them for discussion on a later occasion.


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, if I may I should like to refer very briefly to something that was said a little earlier this evening by the shorter member for Halifax (Mr. Morris). I am sorry to observe that the hon. member was called from the chamber. I was rather surprised to hear the congenial and usually Canadian-minded hon. member object quite strenuously to a project which I have had very close to my heart for some considerable time. I refer to the construction of the Richelieu seaway which would join the St. Lawrence river at Sorel to permit travel up the Richelieu river to Lake Champlain and down the Hudson river to New York. I have had the
The Budget-Mr. Cardin opportunity of studying the effects of this project and am convinced that this seaway would be of invaluable economic use not only to the Richelieu valley or to the province of Quebec but to the country as a whole.
I feel sure the hon. member does not wish to impede or provide obstacles to economic improvement anywhere in the country just as other hon. members of this house are always pleased to learn of projects that are of assistance to the maritime provinces. Indeed, in this respect although hon. gentlemen opposite do not always agree with me I feel that at least some members of the Conservative party would agree that this seaway from the St. Lawrence to New York through the Richelieu river would be of invaluable economic assistance.
I should now like to come to a detailed consideration of the budget. I believe it is quite clear that the budget brought down some weeks ago is symptomatic of a very marked and serious lack of administrative responsibility. To my mind the record deficit with which the country is now burdened for the most part is due to the fact that political expediency and opportunism have replaced the objectivity and the realism which are essential in a government which intends to administer in the interest of the country's welfare. Because of the necessity of having in Canada responsible governmental administration if we are to achieve the highest summit of prosperity which our labour force, our industrial power and our natural resources warrant, and because we are now faced with this budget, with the staggering results of a most disquieting political philosophy, I think it would be extremely useful for us to reflect seriously on the often-quoted words of Thomas Jefferson on public spending. May I quote Thomas Jefferson as follows:
I place economy among the most Important virtues and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not allow our leaders to load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy with liberty, or profusion with servitude.
These words are as fundamentally true today as they were generations ago, and in spite of the Utopian promises and commitments of the Conservative party in 1957, the huge record deficit that we have in front of us today brings us back to the cold, hard realization that no one really gets anything for nothing. As a matter of fact there seems to be a natural law which inflicts the loss of independence, of pride and of liberty on all those who try to obtain something for nothing. In this case, along with those losses, Canada has been inflicted with a huge deficit, an increased national debt and increased taxation.

The Budget-Mr. Cardin
It might also be well to reflect on a paragraph which appears in the final edition of the Gordon commission report, found at page 14, and I quote:
There will be plenty of ways to spend our increasing national wealth. We will first have to meet the claims of defence and decide what we are prepared to pay as our contribution to the collective military force of the western world designed to deter an atomic attack. We may also want to round out our social security program and to increase the payments made under it. There will also be proposals for expenditures on projects to add ease and grace to our common life and on other projects that would contribute either directly or indirectly to our economic growth. But we must recognize that these claims are all competing. At any one time we may have to decide that some of them are beyond our present means and have to be deferred. For if they were accepted indiscriminately and all superimposed on the normal operations of the economy, the result might well be an inflation that would bear cruelly on some groups in the community and that would price us out of some of the world markets in which we must compete. If that were to happen, we might wake up to find that our prodigality had cost us dear.
Mr. Speaker, our prodigality has indeed cost us dearly, with the huge deficit of $617 million, and the people of Canada are now asked to pay for the lack of foresight and the lack of wisdom in this government's administration. No one, not even my socialist friends to my right, not having the responsibility of administration, claimed, as indeed did the Conservatives in 1957, that they had a magic formula that would make of Canada a Utopian paradise. There is no one, there is no government, who can return to the people more in the way of social or national security than is warranted by the moneys which the people themselves have contributed to the common fund and for a common good. I submit it is an irresponsible government which commits itself, as this government has done, to the expenditure of moneys which it knows surpasses the capacity of the people to pay and which in this case has resulted in a huge deficit and increased taxation for the people of Canada. And what for, Mr. Speaker? In order to create, and for the sole purpose of creating, the impression that this government was indeed fulfilling the irrational, exaggerated and contradictory promises it made in 1957.
While we study the deficit and note the deficit for this year as well as an estimated deficit of some $400 million for next year, in spite of the increased taxes across the board, I could not help and I still cannot help but hear ringing in my ears the echoes of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Diefenbaker) most theatrical voice when he shouted from one coast to the other of this country that the Liberals had a surplus of some $500 million;
[Mr. Cardin.1
that the Liberals were overtaxing the Canadian people by $150 per family per year; when he shouted from coast to coast that the government at Ottawa was rich and the provinces and the municipalities were poor. If those accusations were true, then I accuse the government of having within 20 months squandered all that wealth without having one trace of it in any of the government records. If the accusations were not true, then I accuse the government of having used electoral tactics which in fact undermined the very concept we have of our democratic form of government.
If we have come to the point in the evolution of our political life where the winning of elections is the sole consideration of a political party and where half-truths and untruths are asserted as facts, and where impossible and unrealizable projects are presented to the Canadian public not only as being desirable but as being economically and constitutionally sound when they are not, then I submit, that such tactics will destroy the country's faith in our parliamentary system. They will destroy the country's faith in our public men and in fact they will make out of our parliamentary system a veritable farce. They will keep away sincere, honest and independent young men from political life and leave the future generations of Canada a prey to the most unscrupulous and obnoxious form of dictatorship and government banditism.
Lest anyone should believe that the cause of my fears are unfounded I would ask hon. members to compare the speeches that were made by the Conservative party in the election of 1957 with this budget, the results of the administration of 20 months of Conservative rule. I would ask hon. members to take a look also at the statement which was made by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) the other evening, which is to be found at page 2624 of Hansard. In order to be fair to the minister I am going to quote the whole paragraph:
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that promises of any kind, whether pre-election promises or otherwise, should be honoured and respected so far as circumstances will possibly permit, but I would suggest to you, sir-and I think all hon. members on both sides of the house would accept this general principle-that promises made to this House of Commons and promises made to parliament stand in an even more favoured position in so far as sanctity and respect are concerned than promises made during an election campaign.
As the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) said this afternoon, we do not accept the general principle of the Minister of National Revenue. We feel very strongly that statements and promises made concerning

the administration of this country to the people of Canada by our public men must be as respected and as sacred as statements and promises made in this house. The statement of the Minister of National Revenue is not only an indescribable insult to the intelligence and dignity of the Canadian people but is a formal denial of the basic concept of democracy. How can the people of Canada have faith in our public men? How can they choose wisely the administrators of the country when in fact the Minister of National Revenue, a minister of this government, states that what is said in the house is more sacred than what is said elsewhere to the people who in fact chose those who sit in this house and who act on behalf of the people of Canada?
We have heard a great deal about the dignity, respect and rights of parliament, and they must be maintained. I submit they can be maintained only if first of all we respect and acknowledge the rights, privileges and prerogatives of the Canadian electorate. The Minister of National Revenue has indeed confirmed the dangers we have seen in the political attitude of the government and he has corroborated better than anyone else possibly could have the accusations we have been levelling against the government that it has indeed ignored the elementary rights of the Canadian electorate and that as a matter of fact it has trampled on the dignity of the Canadian people in its haste to achieve power.
Today the government's defence of this abominable budget is that under the circumstances the government had no other alternative but to increase taxes. Mr. Speaker, that is begging the question. The point of argument is that the government is responsible for the circumstances in which the country now finds itself. It is the attitude,
The Budget-Mr. Cardin policies and actions of the government which, in the space of 20 months, have brought about a deterioration in economic conditions and the financial position of the country whereby we have passed from a surplus of $257 million in 1957 to a deficit of $617 million in 1959 and an estimated deficit of $400 million in 1960.
If Canadians today are being burdened with increased taxation without seeing the possibility of relief in the immediate future, it is not only because the government has demonstrated the attitude of immaturity to be found in that type of person who continually over-tips without being able to afford it but also because the government is caught in the web of words and promises it wove in order to win the election. In order to save face as much as possible and in order not to be laughed right out of parliament the government has implemented a fraction of the irresponsible promises it made and as a result it has jeopardized our economic position and has imposed additional tax burdens on the Canadian people. As we look at the deficit and prepare to take additional money out of our pockets to pay increased taxes we may well ask ourselves, what has the government done, what has the government returned to the people to justify or even explain the huge deficit with which we are now confronted? What has the government to show for record peacetime expenditures?
I am entering on a new subject, Mr. Speaker, and I wonder whether I might call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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