1959-04-15

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. W. Kucherepa (High Park) presented the fourth report of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, members of the house will have heard the announcement this morning by the President of the United States to the effect that due to the state of health of Hon. John Foster Dulles, his resignation has been necessitated as Secretary of State of the United States of America. While I realize that this is not an occasion to give an evaluation of his services to the free world, it will be generally agreed that in the six years or more that Mr. Dulles has been in the position of secretary of state he has given direction to the foreign policy of his country with dedicated purpose, with superb courage and with unchallengeable integrity, and that his views and judgments have left their imprint on the history of these postwar years and the history of all peoples of the world who believe in freedom and its maintenance.
Canadians will honour him for the understanding and sympathy he has shown at all times in the solution of the problems which arise from time to time between our country and the United States. I believe I express the sentiments of Canadians as a whole when I say that we hope Mr. Dulles will continue to be associated in some less onerous way with the formulation of the foreign policy of the United States, particularly in view of the fact that one and probably two major conferences will take place in the months ahead, at which mankind hopes new milestones will be achieved to the peace and freedom to which Mr. Dulles gave so unstintingly of his outstanding qualities of mind and heart.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in common I
think with other members of the House of Commons I learned with very great regret this morning that reasons of health had compelled the resignation of Mr. Dulles as Secretary of State of the United States. His work in building up the forces of collective resistance in free democracies against aggression has been of immense value. He never spared himself in that work, which he carried on with energy and determination which at times seemed almost superhuman and which undoubtedly was the main reason for the breakdown in his health which has now led to his resignation. If any man was ever a casualty in battle for the things in which he believed, Mr. Dulles is that man.
When I worked with him, Mr. Speaker, I did not always find myself in complete agreement with all his plans or policies, but I was always in agreement with his objectives. I deeply respected his devotion to his ideals and I admired his indomitable courage, the almost religious zeal which he displayed in pursuit of the purposes in which he believed. In Mr. Dulles' resignation the United States has lost a towering and dedicated public servant, and the cause of freedom has lost a great champion.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: We in the C.C.F. regret very much this further indication of the continued deterioration in the health of Mr. John Foster Dulles. Our position in regard to his policies has been made known from time to time. We think it is better at this time to make no detailed or particular comment, but merely say that history itself will judge John Foster Dulles and his policies. We recognize his strong character and the great fight he is waging against this dreadful disease. We regret very much that his health has made it impossible for him to continue the active life that has been his for so many years.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPENING OF NAVIGATION ON APRIL 25
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, following the ice reconnaissance survey which was made over the whole area yesterday, I am pleased to be

Inquiries of the Ministry able to announce that navigation in the St. Lawrence seaway system will open on April 25.
LLater;]
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Marcel Bourbonnais (Vaudreuil-Soulan-ges):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Since the icebreaker d'Iberville will be the first boat to pass through the St. Lawrence seaway on the opening day, which I presume will be April 25, would it be possible for the minister to arrange matters so the members of the House of Commons could be invited on board the d'Iberville on its first trip through the St. Lawrence seaway?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to report to the hon. member and to this house that invitations are in the process of being prepared inviting all hon. members and all hon. senators to be aboard the d'Iberville, and it is my sincere hope that a goodly number will find it possible to be aboard.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that, according to the Montreal press this morning, shipping men in the Montreal area do not know to whom to apply for permission to transit the new St. Lambert lock?


George Harris Hees: I will draw that to the direction of the president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority.



STARRED QUESTIONS


SUMMIT CONFERENCE


Mr. Mariin (Essex East): 1.	Were invitations extended to any countries for the proposed summit conference to meet in Quebec?
2.	If so, to what countries, and in what form were the invitations sent?
3.	What replies, if any, have been received?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer to the first two questions is as follows.
1. and 2. The governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the U.S.S.R. have been informed through diplomatic channels that Canada would welcome the holding of a summit conference in this country and that there are facilities in the city of Quebec which would render such a conference in that city not only feasible but appropriate.
[Mr. Hees.l
3. The French have informed us through diplomatic channels that the Canadian invitation will be kept in mind.
As hon. members are aware, the arrangements proposed by the western powers and agreed to by the Soviet government are that the time and place for the summit meeting will be decided during the foreign ministers' conference which commences in Geneva on May 11. If indications are that the four powers would welcome holding the summit meeting in Canada, formal invitations will be sent at that time.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Hardie: 1.	Have any members of the government travelled outside Canada since taking office?
2.	If so. which members, to what countries, for what duration, for what purpose and at what cost?


AIR TRANSPORT FOR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT, EASTER RECESS
Mr. Hardie: 1.	Was transportation provided by government aircraft for any members of parliament to and from their constituencies during the Easter recess?
2.	If so, for what members of parliament and for what members of their families, if any?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 30-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and each provincial government since April 1, 1958, regarding the roads to resources program.
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Stand.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This motion has been on the order paper now, I imagine, for months and the minister keeps requesting that it stand. I have no objection to that procedure even today, but it would seem to me that the action the house should take is to pass this motion and await the return in the normal fashion.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I should be quite agreeable to that procedure. I am waiting for the signing of the agreements, and I will be glad to bring them forward.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If I may, I ihould like to revert to the previous motions, Nos. 5, 23 and 25. The same explanation would apply.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreeable to the house to take these motions together?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROADS TO RESOURCES PROGRAM, NORTHERN ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 5-Mr. Fisher:
For a copy of all correspondence, since September 1, 1958, exchanged between the federal government and the province of Ontario respecting the roads to resources program in the districts of Kenora, Patricia, Thunder Bay, and Algoma.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 23-Mr. Benidickson:
For a copy of all correspondence, and any agreements entered into between the federal government and the government of Ontario since January 1, 1958, relating to the roads to resources program.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 25-Mr. Robichaud:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government or any official thereof, and the provincial government of New Brunswick, or the New Brunswick electric power commission, with respect to the signing of an agreement for the construction of the East St. John thermo plant, for the period June 1, 1958, to date.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 64-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the agricultural prices support board, the agricultural stabilization board, and officers of farm organizations, since January 1, 1957, referring to the question of deficiency payments and support prices on agricultural products.
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I have discussed this matter and have agreed that in the third line the words "officers of" shall be followed by "dominion and provincial", so it will then read, "officers of dominion and provincial farm organizations". This means it will not be necessary to search thousands of files in order to present communications from locals all over Canada. Subject to that change I am agreeable to the motion being passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to the amendment to this motion suggested by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion as amended agreed to.
Inquiries of the Ministry



HOUSING RENTALS, ARMED FORCES, SUMMERSIDE, P.E.I.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 87-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of all communications between Hill-crest Housing Company of Summerside, Prince Edward Island or any solicitor or agent on behalf of that company on the one hand, and the Minister of National Defence or any official of his department or any other department of government since June 21. 1957, respecting the rental of housing units for personnel of the armed forces.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Acting Minister of Justice if he could give the reason for the delay in calling the conference between the Minister of Justice and the attorneys general regarding the R.C.M.P. contracts with the provinces, and the minister said the Minister of Justice would answer this question on his return. I wonder if the minister is in a position to give that reply now.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A conference had been arranged with the attorneys general of the provinces for late this month to discuss the contracts between this government and the provinces for the services of the R.C.M. Police. This conference had been arranged a number of months ago; I think it may have been late last year or at the very beginning of this year. We then considered that it would be advisable to have a meeting of officials prior to the meeting of the ministers to discuss and isolate those points which it was desired to revise. That meeting was set for, I think April 8.
Following that, upon the resignation of the commissioner and the appointment March 31, of a new commissioner, and two or three other changes in senior personnel, it was considered that it would not be convenient to have those meetings at the time they were arranged, namely the first meeting on April 8 and the other toward the end of this month. Therefore I asked the attorneys general of the provinces whether they would agree to a postponement of the conferences until the new commissioner could effectively take control of his task and the provinces, I think without exception, readily agreed to a postponement of the conferences.
2706	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry DEFENCE PRODUCTION



CONTRACTS FOR PURCHASES OF FUEL OIL FOR NAVY SHIPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister noted press reports relating to protests that fuel oil which could be produced in Vancouver refineries is being bought from the United States for use in Canadian navy ships? Can he inform the house if the contracts for the new contract year stipulate the use of Canadian fuel oil?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Contracts for the Department of National Defence are let by the Department of Defence Production. I suggest that the hon. member address his question to the Minister of Defence Production.


Harold Edward Winch: May I so do, and redirect my question?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the hon. member's first question is yes. In reply to the second question, "Can the minister inform the house if the contracts for the new contract year stipulate the use of Canadian fuel oil" the answer is again yes.
I wish to say, with regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver East, that two new contracts have been placed for the current fiscal year. The first contract covers the supply of 1,750,000 gallons of diesel fuel oil, awarded to Standard Oil Company of British Columbia, Limited, which firm maintains a refinery at Burrard Inlet, British Columbia, and Alberta crude oil will be used. The second contract covers the supply of 250,000 barrels of oil boiler fuel, naval, awarded to the British American Oil Company Limited, Toronto, which firm maintains a refinery at Port Moody, British Columbia, and again the source of the crude is Alberta.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa Wesi):: Could the minister tell us the difference in price between the low bidder and the successful contractor in each of the two cases mentioned?


Mr. O'Hurley:: I do not have that information, but I will procure it for the hon. gentleman.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Grant Campbell (Stormont):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.


Has the minister's attention been drawn to a report in last night's Ottawa Journal concerning a certain Constable Campbell of the R.C.M.P. and an alleged assault by him upon a Mr. Jones? If so, has the minister made any investigation, and would he care to make any comment thereon?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, I have seen the press report, and I have obtained preliminary reports from the officers of the R.C.M.P. I am advised that as soon as oral word was received on Saturday night from the solicitor acting for Mr. Jones, alleging this assault, the R.C.M.P. authorities made an investigation. This inquiry resulted in a vigorous and complete denial by Constable Campbell-and this was confirmed by the two other policemen who were with him -that he had in any way assaulted Mr. Jones.
Following the publication in yesterday's newspaper of a repetition of the accusation, the police had planned to make a further inquiry, which, on this occasion, was to take the form of an inquiry under oath. Before this could be commenced, however, word was received that Constable Campbell has himself started a civil action for libel against, I believe, both the newspaper and the solicitor who, I understand, made the allegation. After we received word that a civil action had been started we, of course, deferred the further inquiry under oath. That inquiry will be deferred pending the outcome of the civil litigation.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. F. Kennedy (Colchesier-Hanis):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister give the house any information regarding the recent discussions between representatives of the Canadian National Railways and those of the union?


George Harris Hees: Yes. I am informed that a lengthy meeting took place yesterday afternoon between Mr. Donald Gordon, president of the Canadian National Railways, with other senior officials of the railway, and Mr. W. E. Gamble, vice president of the brotherhood of locomotive firemen and enginemen, accompanied by the general chairman of the union. After detailed discussion the union representatives refused to consider an agreement which would implement the recommendations of the recent federal conciliation board concerning wages and working conditions of the C.N.R. firemen.
Prior to this and other meetings the railway company had relinquished its claim for

complete managerial discretion in the employment of firemen helpers and had accepted the recommendations of the board of conciliation, which were based on the principles of the Kellock commission report. In these circumstances the company has therefore informed the union representatives that it has no responsible alternative but to implement the recommendations of the board of conciliation, and a notice is being prepared outlining the amendments to existing conditions of service to take effect as from May 1, 1959.
This notice will be delivered to the union representatives today over the signature of Mr. S. F. Dingle, vice president, operations, and concurrently a personal letter is being sent, over the signature of the president, to all C.N.R. firemen and hostlers enclosing a copy of the notice and explaining its effect.
I am further informed that Mr. Gamble has announced that authorization to strike has been given by the membership of two regions, and that strike authorization is being sought in the third. Management has made it clear to the union that they intend to operate the railway even if this membership withdraws from service.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask
the Minister of Labour a supplementary question. In view of this statement, does the minister propose to take any action to avert this strike?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, we in the labour department are watching the situation very closely and will take appropriate action at the appropriate time.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he feels that it is in the national interest that there should be a delay in the appointment of a new secretary of state for external affairs until after all matters in this house having to do with the budget have been completed?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the overwhelming interest of my hon. friend in the question of the filling of this position, an interest which he had in earlier days when he was a member of the government of the day. I shall go no further than that in answering the question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Habel:: Skating around as usual.



POLYMER CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister anything further to add to the statement he made in this house on April 9 in connection with the dispute at Polymer, and can he say whether the Polymer Corporation has now agreed to the very commendable offer of the minister, namely to agree to mediation in this dispute as the union has already done.


Michael Starr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Polymer Corporation has agreed to mediation services as offered by the Department of Labour. We are now in the process of appointing a mediator.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether, in view of our friendly exchange yesterday in the matter of the Polymer strike, he can advise the house when that strike actually did begin?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the order given by the union was for the strike to begin on March 25. However, this was not observed since the company began laying off men on March 18 and the men went out on strike on March 19.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister tell the house what progress is being made by those responsible for the preparation of plans and specifications for one or other of the two new ships which the government intends to give to the British West Indies federation? The minister will remember that I asked this question some two months ago, and I think he said the matter was under negotiation and about to be terminated. I would like to know where it stands at this date.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, rather lengthy negotiations have been carried on with representatives of the West Indies with regard to the type of ship they require. I will have to report to the hon. member the progress of those negotiations.

Inquiries of the Ministry COAL



STATEMENT ON APPLICATION OF DOMINION COAL COMPANY FOR LOAN OF $6 MILLION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Comlois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). An application for a loan was received from the Dominion Coal Company, and the matter was dealt with on February 18 last by the dominion coal board. The decision taken was the following:
Whereas the future operations and markets of the Dominion Coal Company are, in the opinion of the board, too uncertain to justify an expenditure of $5,846,810 for a wash plant, the board recommends that the requested loan for this purpose be not granted.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour following my question to him on April 8 regarding amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. At that time he said the bill was being printed and as soon as it came off the press it would be introduced. Is he now in a position to state whether or not it has in fact been printed, whether it is off the press, or can he give us any further information?


Michael Starr: As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, the last investigation into this situation showed that it was still being printed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of statements which have appeared in the press, which seem to know far more about this matter than the House of Commons, can the Prime Minister now tell the house who will form the ministerial delegation to the forthcoming food for peace conference in Washington on May 4?


John George Diefenbaker: As I said to the hon. gentleman
yesterday, in a day or two I will give a full report on the matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
Minister of National Defence-perhaps he would prefer to take this question as notice -whether he is in a position to make a report to the house on the food bank proposal which he made to the NATO council a year ago, and which he said was under consideration by the council?


George Randolph Pearkes: I have nothing further to report
at the present moment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Further than what?


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of a serious situation in northeastern Saskatchewan, where large quantities of tough and damp grain on farms are in danger of spoiling. Will the minister consider asking the wheat board to institute additional emergency quotas for tough and damp grain only, particularly in view of the unanimous resolution of the Saskatchewan legislature requesting that this be done?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, this question was raised on March 3 by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), who has a greater interest in this problem than even the hon. member for Assiniboia. It was also drawn to my attention by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Rapp). Neither of those gentlemen depended upon a resolution passed by the provincial legislature of Saskatchewan in order to draw attention to this serious problem.
Now that the hon. member for Assiniboia is aware of the problem I do not mind repeating and enlarging on the answer I gave on March 3, if it is in accordance with the rules of the house. The problem at this time is not so much one of higher quotas but rather one of sufficient storage facilities at terminal positions to accommodate the volume of grain which must be moved.
The board has been making every effort during the winter months to move high moisture grain out of country positions as rapidly as possible, and for several weeks shipments to the lakehead have been confined largely to this type of grain. As a result quotas in the northeastern area of Saskatchewan are at a generally higher level than in other parts of the west. However, storage facilities at the lakehead have been congested for a considerable period of time, and

no large volume of grain can be moved to this destination until after the opening of navigation.
I am assured by the board that immediately space becomes available with the opening of navigation, priority in shipments will continue to be given to high moisture grain, and the railways and handling companies have been so instructed. The railways, in anticipation of the opening of navigation, have already commenced to load grain in volume for the lakehead, and as a result a heavier movement of this out of condition grain is already under way.
Within a very short period of time I am confident that producers in the northeastern area of Saskatchewan with high moisture grain will be provided with additional delivery opportunity in an effort to alleviate the danger of such grain going out of condition.


Hazen Robert Argue: Since the minister's assurance early in March that adequate action was being taken has not been fulfilled and therefore this further question was necessary, can the minister say whether upon the opening of navigation additional quotas will be granted in this area to take care of tough and damp grain so there will not be enormous losses to farmers?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member is just repeating a question he has asked before. He is attempting to state an opinion to the house rather than seeking information.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am trying to get an answer to this question. Will consideration be given to special emergency quotas after the opening of navigation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times an answer has to be repeated in this house, but I will do it again for the hon. member. The problem at this time is not so much one of higher quotas but rather one of sufficient storage facilities at terminal positions-the lakehead, in this instance-to accommodate the volume of grain which must be moved.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister of no answers.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can inform the house when a chairman of the civil service commission will be appointed.


John George Diefenbaker: The answer is no, not yet.
The Budget-Mr. Pickersgill THE BUDGET



ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 14, consideration of the motion of Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Benidickson, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Regier.
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-ingate):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak today on the budget I am sure that all those who listened to the news broadcast at eight o'clock this morning would think me remiss if I did not offer my congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) on having been selected by the press as the next secretary of state for external affairs. I may say that I join with the press in this tribute to the urbanity of the hon. gentleman and to the tact and diplomacy with which he has always conducted himself in the house.
I may say I do so with even more satisfaction because the post, for reasons which we all so much regret, had scarcely become vacant before I suggested to my colleagues that the most likely successor was the Minister of Finance. I am sure the Prime Minister knowing that was my judgment, will not hesitate to make my prediction come true, though I knew a prime minister in the past who took a certain satisfaction in disappointing the press and even at times, in disappointing the opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: Do you remember one who disappointed you very recently?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I know of no prime minister, except one, who has disappointed me recently and that is the right hon. gentleman who sits opposite. I was only one of about a million people who have a close interest in the province of Newfoundland who were disappointed by his announcement.
Now, sir, a budget is after all only a reflection of housekeeping. It is a reflection of good housekeeping, or of bad. It does seem to me that the test of a budget is perhaps not so much in what that budget contains, about which I feel there are many of my colleagues on this side of the house more competent to speak than I am-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -such as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) and the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan), to mention only two who have

The Budget-Mr. Pickersgill already dealt very effectively with the presentation made by the minister the other evening.
I intend to speak on the general theme of good faith and good management, which seem to me to be the two tests that should be applied and which in fact are applied in the long run and sometimes in a quite short run to any government. I want to recall to the minds of hon. members, particularly to hon. members in the Conservative party to my left who perhaps were not here at the time, a few words that were uttered in this house from a seat very close to the one I now occupy, by Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent on the only occasion when he spoke on the address in reply to the speech from the throne as leader of the opposition. His remarks will be found at page 43 of Hansard for October 16, 1957. Mr. St. Laurent said:
It is over 22 years since the Liberal party was last in opposition. In the 22 years Canada has enjoyed-I use a word that I believe will become more widely used in that connection as time passes -I say in the 22 years that Canada has enjoyed a Liberal government we as Liberals have prided ourselves on the fact that every item on the program placed before the public in each successive campaign has been implemented in full whenever it was possible for the government or for the parliament of Canada acting alone to implement it.
He went on to say:
This is a record of which we are justly proud. We are also proud of the fact that in these past 20 years the people of Canada have come to take it for granted that the government of Canada acts in good faith and carries out its undertakings to the people. I believe that the good faith in fulfilling undertakings that the public has received from the Liberal government they will now expect to receive from a Conservative government.
I propose to examine a few highlights because, with the record of this government, I will only have time for that, and apply to them the test that Mr. St. Laurent suggested at the very opening of the first parliament after this government took office. I also want, before doing that, to draw to the attention of the house something else Mr. St. Laurent said in that speech at page 45 of Hansard, because it seems to me it is very relevant to what we are considering here now. He said:
We are all looking forward to the presentation of this budget-
That was in the last parliament.
-and to a full debate on the case the Minister of Finance will present at that time.
Then I would ask hon. members, particularly those who were here at the time, to mark these words:
From time to time I have noticed from press rumours that the government intends to make important changes in the fiscal policy of this country without giving the elected representatives of the Canadian people an opportunity for a full debate

which, under our parliamentary system, is afforded by the presentation of a budget.
This is Mr. St. Laurent speaking.
I refuse to believe that a government whose leading members made so much of their attachment to the rights of parliament would seriously propose, both to alter the tax structure of the country and to increase expenditures substantially without giving parliament every opportunity afforded by the rules to consider the whole financial picture and to debate fully the benefits of proposed changes upon the economy.
But that, sir, is precisely what this government did. It is true that the Minister of Finance told us before that parliament met that he was going to bring down a budget. But then he got a message from "le grand chef", who had gone to London, telling him he had made a mistake. "Le grand chef" was not presenting a budget, so there was no budget. The result, of course, gave "le grand chef" an opportunity which he would not otherwise have had; because if we had had a budget in December, 1957 the Prime Minister would not have been able to come into this house with that document which, in the most dishonest performance I have ever seen in this house, on January 20-


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -of 1958-


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member will reconsider the adjective he used.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinion):: And withdraw it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not going to waste my time by considerations of that sort. I will say the most incredible performance I have ever seen in this house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, I withdraw the word. The minister can sit down and not waste my time by trying to prevent me from saying what I want to say.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I was saying when I was so rudely interrupted by the new secretary of state for external affairs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will take my seat at all times when the hon. gentleman does not give cause to members to rise on questions of privilege when he violates the privileges and rules of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister, on that occasion that we all remember, read bits and pieces out of their context from a document which was not intended for publication and which was refuted in a most complete way by the Minister of Finance

himself on June 17 last in his previous budget speech, as one of my colleagues will show later in this debate. We had the same old straw threshed over again and the same old tiresome story by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) the other night. He said the Minister of Finance might not have brought down such a budget as he did if they had only known the truth, if Mr. Harris had not concealed it.
Now, sir, when the Prime Minister spoke on January 20, 1958 this government had been in office for seven months, and they stand convicted out of the mouth of the Minister of National Revenue of being so stupid, so incompetent that in seven months they could not find out for themselves what they claim Mr. Harris knew and hid three months before that. This is what the Prime Minister asked the people to believe. With that capacity for making black seem white, which no doubt convinced many juries in the past, he perhaps convinced his last jury; because I do not think he will ever convince another.


An hon. Member:: Neither will you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We will see about that. I certainly do not hesitate to appear before the jury that passes on me. If the Prime Minister would like to come and contest my seat with me, it would not give me a bit of worry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to deal first of all with the most recent example we have had of bad management and bad faith, both at once, by the present government. I refer to the recent amendment to the immigration regulations. Now, sir, as a prelude to what I have to say I want to admit that no sensible person would urge the government at this time, when they have the economy in such a deplorable state, when there is such a level of unemployment, to open wide the floodgates of immigration. No one is suggesting that. But we did have an unnecessary and cruel act performed the other day.
I should like to draw attention to what was said about that act by the Prime Minister on April 7 last in answer to a question by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Morton). He suggested that if there was any discrimination in that order, that discrimination was not in the order itself but was in an order in council that was passed on May 24, 1956.
Now, sir, there is always discrimination in the selection of immigrants. Everyone knows there are only two ways to avoid discrimination. One is to let everybody in and the other is to let nobody in. What we want to avoid is improper, unfair and cruel discrimination. I am not suggesting it was the discriminatory
The Budget

Mr. Pickersgill character, but it was the restrictive character of this recent order that was at fault. What is really more extraordinary, sir, is that here was a law-because this order in council is part of the law of Canada until it is changed -enacted by the governor in council on March 19, though it was not published for quite some time after that, and here is what the Prime Minister said about it on April 7, as recorded at page 2296 of Hansard:
I, for one, intend to have this looked into-
He says on April 7 he intends to have it looked into.
-because the section indicates that the one passed in 1956 had whatever objections can be raised against the present amendment.
Any of us who served under Mr. St. Laurent when he was prime minister know that he would not have had to come to the house two weeks later and admit that he had not taken the trouble to read a document that was before the cabinet and that was to be made a law affecting the lives of people. That was not the way he presided over the government of this country, and it seems to me that no more shocking example of the mismanagement of the Prime Minister could be found than that which the Prime Minister himself gave by that statement.
We are told by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, or by some so-called spokesman for that department, that the reason they made this unnecessary, cruel and inhuman order was to give preference to skilled workers. Of course that is the most unadulterated camouflage; there is not the slightest intention on the part of the government of doing anything about that at all. This order was just a restriction. It was an unnecessary and inhuman restriction, and it was aimed at one community in this country; it was aimed at those people of Italian origin.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The reason it was done, sir, was that when the government realized that more people of Italian origin than people from the United Kingdom came in last year, they got in a panic. They were afraid of many of their political supporters, and they felt they had to do something about it. Then they did this stupid, cruel, silly and inhuman thing.


An hon. Member:: That is pure nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman can make his speech on his own time and it will, no doubt, be pure nonsense.
By restricting the number and relationship of the persons who can be sponsored the government has worked the greatest hardship upon many other communities, particularly
2712	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Pickersgill those people from Poland who for the first time in many years are in some small numbers able to get out of their country, and who, at a time when they can get out, are being met with a slam of the door by this country.
What is more, Mr. Speaker, this was a grave affront to parliament. This order was passed on March 19. We were considering the estimates up until March 18. I happen to know something about the way in which cabinets are run. I know perfectly well that an order in council is not passed on March 19 unless a recommendation has been in the privy council office some days previously. In other words, the government knew perfectly well and the minister knew perfectly well that this recommendation was before parliament at the time when we were considering the estimates. Every member who spoke on both sides of the house complained that the minister was too tough and too restrictive in her treatment of sponsored immigrants. Not a word did she breathe about this restrictive order that she intended to have passed the very day we were denied, under the rules, the opportunity to debate it in the normal course. Then the moment parliament disposed of the estimates the order was passed and, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) admitted, without any consideration.
Also, when I suggested that this was a rather dubious procedure, the Prime Minister took it upon himself to say, as reported at page 2296 of Hansard:
-I am not sure that the hon. gentleman is strictly right in the lecture on procedure inherent in his question, because I seem to recollect that a similar situation arose when he was minister.
Even if that had been true, it is no excuse for the conduct of the government. If I did something wrong, that is not the slightest excuse for their doing something wrong. But that happens to be totally, completely and utterly untrue in every syllable. Every amendment which I proposed and which the governor in council made to the regulations was announced well before the estimates or during the estimates. One or two procedural changes which were not amendments to the law I announced in the house or in the estimates committee, as the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) will recall, while we were actually carrying on our proceedings, because in one case he took the most violent exception to what was suggested. Hence, whatever else may be said about any of these things, no one can say that I ever at any time attempted to make regulations or


to get the governor in council to make regulations at a time when there was not full opportunity given to parliament to deal with them.
There is no need for a long speech on the budget by the hon. lady in order to deal with this matter. All she needs to do is to come in here honestly and admit her mistake, say that this stupid and inhuman order has been revoked and that they have gone back to the situation which subsisted for four years and which for two years the government has had a chance to change, if there was anything wrong with it; and which they did nothing about. I would strongly suggest to the hon. lady, if she were here, that instead of getting the Tory machine to write her one of those essays to say "The Liberals did this and the Liberals did that", she just come in and deal with what she herself was responsible for, say it was a mistake, make the change and get on with the business of the house.
I can deal only briefly with each of these points, but I come now to what I regard as the most shocking example of bad management we have had from the present government. I refer, of course, to the handling of the Arrow.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Your ammunition is all wet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hon. gentleman will not expect me to pose as a military expert, and I am not going to do so.


An hon. Member:: Or any other kind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or any other kind, someone says. No, I am simply a representative of the people here in parliament representing some of the taxpayers of this country.
The Prime Minister came in here and told us on February 20, as reported at page 1222 of Hansard, as follows:
-frankness demands that I advise that at present there Is no other work that the government can assign immediately to the companies that have been working on the Arrow and its engine . . . We must not abdicate our responsibility to assure that the huge sums which it is our duty to ask parliament to provide for defence are being expended in the most effective way to achieve that purpose.
Everyone would agree with that second statement. But if that was the case, Mr. Speaker, surely one of two things should have happened after that announcement by the Prime Minister in September. Surely the Prime Minister and the government should have given their attention to putting something in place of the Arrow. There was no possible shadow of excuse for carrying on this program one day after September when the

Prime Minister now says he reached the conclusion that this machine was obsolete, except the determination to find something else to put in its place. The government did absolutely nothing about trying to find anything else to put in its place. Instead of that, the Prime Minister made this statement which is like the Delphic oracle which was interpreted in two different ways according to the desires of the people who interpreted it. Then he went off on a trip around the world.
I am going to suggest what would have happened if Mr. St. Laurent or Mr. C. D. Howe had had to deal with this problem. In the first place, I suggest that no speech would have been made in September at all. When they realized, if they had, that this was no longer a proper military program and that we had to have the kind of co-operation with the United States about which the Prime Minister talked so much, I suggest that instead of going thousands and thousands of miles in another direction they would have gone to Washington and they would have stayed in Washington until they got results, just as Mr. St. Laurent did with regard to the St. Lawrence seaway within three months of becoming prime minister. The St. Lawrence seaway would not have been built today if Mr. St. Laurent had not gone to Washington on February 7, 1949 and had that conference with Mr. Truman which my friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) will recall.
The other thing, of course, that was absolutely incredible about the management of the Arrow was this statement which the Prime Minister made about the dismissal of the employees, and I think I should read it. It is to be found at page 1306 of Hansard of February 23. He said:
Was there any justification to say to everybody, "You are out", and today announce, if the press is correct, that some 2,500 are called hack? What was the reason for that precipitate action? Was it necessary? In the estimates it was shown that a further amount of some $50 million, was to be expended . . . Why rush them out on Friday afternoon if it was not for some purpose other than the benefit of those employees?
Some days later after that insinuation had gone all over the country and could never be caught up with the government produced the telegrams that were sent from the Department of Defence Production ordering the company to stop work immediately and dispose of its employees. That is why the company had to do it. I am sure they did not do it out of any choice. They did it because they were ordered to do it by the government and because they could not have received another cent out of the contract, as the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) demonstrated in the house, in order to pay
The Budget-Mr. Pickersgill wages. It is true they could pay severance pay but severance pay is not wages.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) and I have searched carefully through the estimates and we cannot And that elusive $50 million. Of course, $50 million is apparently a very small sum for this government, but for the taxpayers it is still a large sum of money. The casual way in which the Prime Minister was tossing about $50 million was, I suggest, characteristic of this whole business. It seems to me there was one of two things that could have been done last September about this matter. I may say that I am merely talking about mismanagement and about the budget and about financial responsibilities. One was to stop the production then if the government were not going to do anything whatever about it, as in the event happened-they did nothing -and save that money for the taxpayers. The other was-and I think it would have been a far better course-for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley) and anyone else who might have any influence in Washington, to go to Washington and try to do something about it. But that is not the kind of management of the affairs of this country that we get nowadays.
The other thing about the Arrow which was a very great shock to us was this. Nobody could understand for a long time why February 20 was chosen by the Prime Minister as the date to cancel the contract. Then on March 3 the Prime Minister's supporter and friend, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker), got up and told us why suddenly on February 20, without any warning of any kind or preparation of the employees of any sort, this order was issued. This statement was made in the house. Here are the words of the hon. member for Rosedale. He said, as reported on page 1566 of Hansard for March 3 last:
-a high priced film which was intended to show, subtly, that the Arrow was going strong. Ostensibly the film was supposed to mark the 50th anniversary of flight in Canada but it was mostly about the Arrow. It was offered free to TV stations across the land-


John George Diefenbaker: What is the hon. gentleman reading from?


John Whitney Pickersgill: From Hansard, the speech of the hon. member for Rosedale.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to interfere with the hon. member's prepared speech, but I think even the hon. member knows that reference to a previous debate is not allowed at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the Prime Minister does not want me to read it I can paraphrase it
2714	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Pickersgill very well. What the hon. member for Rose-dale said was that the reason the Prime Minister acted on February 20 to throw 14,000 men out of work was to ruin a T.Y. show.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, no one knows better than the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate how ridiculous that is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a point of order I will hear him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then we had a lot of real or synthetic indignation about lobbies and how a government which really had the interests of the public at heart would resist all lobbies. I will quote the Prime Minister on the subject of lobbies when he was not Prime Minister, in another session, so I do not think the Prime Minister can prevent these words from going on Hansard. On July 24, 1956 the Prime Minister was speaking on the tax-sharing arrangements in the debate on Mr. Harris' bill, and this is what he said as reported on page 6368:
I do not want to involve myself in any maritime argument-
He has changed from that too since then!
-but I would say this. There is one difference between the members from the maritimes and those from the western provinces, and it is this. While we from the western provinces do disagree, sometimes on the basis of partisanship, none the less when the welfare of the western provinces is being discussed and in particular when our major subject, agricultural production, is being discussed, we bury our disagreements and unite for the common benefit of the western provinces. Sometimes, as I listened to my hon. friends from the maritimes upholding those things which they themselves assuredly cannot support other than vocally, 1 wonder whether a similar united front analogous to that being formed today by the premiers of the maritime provinces would not have a most beneficial effect upon the economy of the maritimes, especially if that analogy were continued and extended into the House of Commons.
In other words, what the Prime Minister advocated when he was over on this side was that we should have regional lobbies right here in the house itself. Now he objects to other Canadians elsewhere seeking by legitimate means to protect their interests.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We can see, of course, how terrified the followers of the hon. gentleman are, because when we on this side of the house have attempted to describe the coal crisis in Nova Scotia and seek to get something done about it we have seen how frightened the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) was-I am sorry he is not here now-to have it discussed. He was so


afraid that somebody might say something which might hurt the feelings of the Prime Minister and might indispose him to the Nova Scotian coal miners, with the result that nothing would be done about it. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have reached the stage where if you open your mouth and say something on behalf of your constituents it is a lobby, and nothing can be done about the problem; if you keep quiet and say nothing, then there is no problem and nothing needs to be done. Well, that is a wonderful way of carrying on government!
I would have liked to have had the time to deal with those Atlantic resolutions of the Conservative party about which so much was made before the 1957 election. We all remember that great advertisement which appeared with the pictures of all the candidates, and all those points that they were going to bring about, but I forbear to deal with that for this reason. The other day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in a burst of cynicism, which was unusual for him, said as reported on page 1838, column 1, of Hansard for March 11:
That is two elections ago.
I repeat. He said:
That is two elections ago.
In other words, with regard to anything promised before 1957, there has been another election since, so it does not count. That was the attitude and the position taken by the Minister of Finance the other day in the debate to which I referred.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Are you taking into account the change in circumstances over the years?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was no change in circumstances. The promise the hon. gentleman was dealing with at that time was the promise to call a federal-provincial conference, and I know of no change in circumstances-


Donald Methuen Fleming: You know of no change?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -except the inconvenience and uncomfortable character of such a meeting for the government.
I have many other things which I had planned to say but I have perhaps been more exuberant than I would have wished and I notice my time is running out. I would like very much to go over many of these other promises made two elections ago about which nothing apparently is going to be done. I do say that no more cynical observation was ever made than that made the other day by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) in attempting to put a face upon this volte-face

in this budget, and a pretty poor face it was. But I do say that confidence is a plant of slow growth. It is a structure which can be built up only very slowly. Unhappily, confidence is always fragile. It is a most fragile thing, particularly in public life. I am glad that I could stand on this side of the house behind Mr. St. Laurent when he made that proud boast with which I opened my remarks. But this government will not be able to do it. Indeed, the confidence in this government is such that the only thing I can think of with which to compare it is Humpty-Dumpty. You remember that Humpty-Dumpty sat on a wall, and Humpty-Dumpty had a great fall; and I do not think that all MeKim's horses and all McKim's men will ever put the Humpty-Dumpty of confidence in this government together again.
In a provincial election in the province where I spent 30 years of my life the premier of that province is giving promises to the people that the Prime Minister has given him the assurance that the proposed $80 million Manitoba flood control scheme will be supported financially by the federal government.


John George Diefenbaker: How does it look out there?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has looked very different since the budget from the feelings they had before the budget. Out there you have an exact duplication of the situation we had here. You have a spending spree of incredible proportions. But they have seen the morning after, here, and surely that will have some effect. But what I want to say is this: I do not think, after the record of broken promises that we have had from this government, anybody in Manitoba, even a Tory, is going to believe that there will be any contribution to Manitoba. Maybe if it was Saskatchewan it might be different. They cannot feel any confidence that there will be any contribution for them under this scheme unless an act of parliament is passed, and I do not mean just printed in the budget papers; I mean passed by parliament.
But the ultimate in bad faith is what we have seen in recent days. We have seen the Prime Minister take it upon himself to alter or seek to alter the terms of the agreement upon which two nations were joined together into one nation, and there will be other opportunities to debate this question. It will never be forgotten. I said to the Prime Minister just after he made his announcement on March 25 that every Newfoundlander would regard this as a betrayal, and he suggested that I could not speak for the Newfoundlanders. Well, I have been in Newfoundland, and I am speaking for the
The Budget-Mr. Rowe Newfoundlanders, all of them but one. And then there is the extraordinary attitude taken by the Prime Minister about the supreme court. Here is a court which for three months has been unable to function properly because it has only two judges, and the Prime Minister has the impertinence-and I use the word in its proper sense-to obtrude himself into provincial affairs and say that he will not make an appointment to that court until-


John George Diefenbaker: I never said that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman was quoted in the press as having said it. If the Prime Minister wants to deny it he can do so afterwards, but not in my time. The hon. gentleman was quoted as having said that he would not appoint a third judge until the province had provided for a fourth.


John George Diefenbaker: That is incorrect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Imagine what would have happened if the Prime Minister had said that to Quebec or to Ontario. It is just because this is a small province. Why does he not say that to Prince Edward Island? They have three judges. They have never had more than three. We have had three judges in Newfoundland-


John George Diefenbaker: We?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Newfoundland is a part of Canada, and I think I can say "we" when referring to Newfoundland, even if the Prime Minister cannot.
I can tell the Prime Minister that there is one other question about which not only the people of Newfoundland but the people of all Canada are concerned. When the Prime Minister came into this house on that black Monday and took the side of the law breakers against those who were maintaining law and order he did more to destroy confidence in his government than by any other act he has done or is likely to do, and it seems to me that of all the acts of bad faith which will be remembered against this government that will, for all time, be the worst.


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the presentation of the budget now before parliament by the Minister of Finance, I could not help but think that no one in the house within sound of his voice could help but realize his outstanding ability and his untiring industry and devotion to any task with which he has ever been confronted. I have always enjoyed listening to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill): He and I have been friends here for a long time.

The Budget-Mr. Rowe
We are proud in the rest of Canada to have Newfoundland join in confederation. It has great possibilities. It is the youngest province, but recently it has not been conspicuous for a child-like silence, and I know the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pick-ersgill) must have realized that during these last several weeks. It has certainly caused some concern on the part of the government, but that concern was far exceeded by the distress and the excitement that it caused among that old and at one time happy family of Liberals across Canada. I am sure there must have been times when former cabinet members who now sit to your left, Mr. Speaker, must feel the tattered remnants of a once great party-have a gigantic task ahead of them.
I am afraid the hon. member who has just resumed his seat cannot be better described than by the words used of Lord Ronald when he said nothing, he flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse and rode madly off in all directions. I think that those who listen to his speech will have realized that he is still riding fast and furious, and still in all directions. I was listening carefully in case there might be something he had to say that I could follow, but I feel it would be unnecessary for me to try, along with him, to resurrect and fight two elections all over again in such rapid succession after such a serious defeat for his party.
The budget now before parliament is a difficult budget. I have listened to a great many budgets in this house. Canada is only 92 years of age. We are a young country. We have a tremendous structure, a tremendous setup of transportation facilities, and high costs to meet, but in the 92 years of our existence we have reason to have pride though it may be mingled with a certain degree of concern about high taxes, deficits and so forth. There is no reason for despair. I have seen great changes here. As a matter of fact, I have listened to substantially more than one-third of all the budgets presented since Canada was born.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And most of the good ones.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, but I have listened to just about as many from one party as from the other and I am amazed at the way Canada has survived the absence of the policies that your party did not have. Again I emphasize that this is a young country. If I may be ultra-personal, I might say that my mother and father both lived longer than Canada is old. So there is still hope yet for the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and his leader.


The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) was faced with a difficult problem. He had a heritage left on his doorstep because of the smug complacency of a government which was too big and which had been too long in power and which was sitting on the side lines, like Micawber, waiting for something to turn up. They told the people of Canada that there was great prosperity before them. It was a prosperity that was born of defence production; a prosperity into which they had poured $15 billion of the taxpayers' money in 15 years.
The opposition talk about the A. V. Roe situation, or any other situation in which they made such reckless and extravagant expenditures. It is true that it was perhaps difficult for them to understand matters of this kind. They were trying to keep pace with the demands which were being made during the hot war, the post war and the cold war. Had it not been for the hot war, the postwar period and the cold war period, this country, under the lack of policy of the former government, might well have lost its economic independence entirely. More than anything else it was the $15 billion that the taxpayers of Canada poured into our economy of that day that averted that situation. As I listened to the hon. member today and those who are quibbling about dollars and cents and as to whether there are 500,000 unemployed, 499,000 or 507,000, or whether it is so many millions of dollars or not, I ask this question. Do hon. members mean to tell me that this has all developed because the public changed the guard, because the public were tired of a government that had no policy and put in a new government? If you let a country drift for two or three decades, at least over two decades, you cannot repair the destruction in two years.
The party that sits to your left now, or the remnants of that one-time great party-it looks smaller to me than ever before-was very complacent. I have sat in opposition and watched them when they were so large that they did not know what to do with themselves, when they were so complacent that they left everything as it was.
I have great admiration for the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I have known him for many years. He was trained in political technique. I am not so sure, in fact, whether he was trained by the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King or whether he trained the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King, but at any rate between them they kept the public more or less fooled for a long time. I certainly have great regard for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). I have known him also for many years. The older I grow the more mellow I become. The more

experience I have the more tolerant I am of the other fellow's problems, and I see his. I do not envy him, but I do suggest to him- since he is not in the house I hope the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will tell him-that I have nothing but the warmest regard for him, and while I cannot from over here do much to help him I would like to ask him to take a suggestion.
I suggest that the crafty attitude adopted by the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King would be an excellent one for him to follow, namely that when things look the darkest, no matter what the problem or no matter how difficult it may be, just wait and see, something will turn up. That has been more or less the policy of the Liberal party down through the years. We have seen a trend, Mr. Speaker- I am not exaggerating when I say this-over the last two decades, as I have said, in this country that had it not been for the $15 billion that was poured into defence expenditures this country might well have ended up, as far as economic dependence is concerned, as a satellite of the United States of America.
I remember how those who are now in the opposition used to come back from Washington and tell us what they told those fellows in Washington. They would say, "We told them that if they put tariffs against this or that what it would mean to us". Oh, how vigorous and loud were they. They were so loud they almost ripped the heather of the bloom in order to emphasize what they were doing. They were doing nothing more than emphasizing their own smug complacency, criticizing the other country's policy when they had none of their own.
The people of the United States are proud; they are great business gentlemen. It has been my experience in years past to do a great deal of business with leading citizens of the United States of America. I was once responsible for a company which did many millions of dollars worth of business over a period of 16 to 18 years. There are no finer business gentlemen in the world. They appreciate you far more if you run your own business and do not tell them how to run theirs. They are shrewd operators and they have much more respect for you if you shrewdly operate your own interests. They have their own economic survival to look after; they have done a good job at it and they do not object to you looking after yours.
No, Mr. Speaker, we had a government in power for many years, as you know very well-that was before you divorced yourself from politics-that always said, "We must not do anything that will be considered provocative by the United States of America".
The Budget-Mr. Rowe Oh, how those words must ring in the ears of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, because I do not know whether he wrote them or whether Mackenzie King wrote them. Oh, no, we must not do anything to provoke them. Down through the years that has been their attitude.
I say this for the benefit of those younger members. I know some of those older men over there who have been around nearly as long as I have been. Some of them have been around longer, by the look of their faces, I know those men. I am sure they would appreciate the fact that there has been a change of the guard and that we have a new government. They appreciate the fact that we have the most dynamic leadership in the person of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) that we have had in this country for years. They must appreciate that. If they have not met some of our younger members I will introduce them to them. We have right here in this parliament a great number of young men with the greatest amount of latent ability and background of education and experience for their age that has ever sat in any party in this house since confederation. There is a great future for many of these younger men.
The present Minister of Finance, it is true, had to raise taxes. He had the unemployment problem. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, or any hon. member on the other side of the house, whether that was merely because there was a change in government in the last year or two? It was caused more by the lack of appreciation of our problems in this country by the previous government. We have problems which are purely Canadian. Our forefathers thought of them many years ago. The first leader of our party thought of them. He knew this country was large; he knew we had few people. He knew we were to have transportation carrying charges which would be higher than those that any similar number of people had. He knew we had a frigid and cold climate. He knew that we would have to protect agricultural interests and that we would have to protect industry in this country in order to provide employment for our people.
Those who are sitting to your left, Mr. Speaker, in those days were saying the same thing as an hon. member in another place said not long ago. He is one of the leaders of the Liberal party in another place. He said a few weeks ago that the only hope for Canada was the wholesale development of our own resources. May I say to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate through you, Mr. Speaker, that had that policy been followed and if that policy is followed in the future they will not be criticizing the

The Budget-Mr. Rowe immigration department; there will be no immigration department. What we will have will be an emigration department because under that kind of government more university graduates and scholars will be trying to find jobs in the United States than will stay in Canada.
These are things that distinguish this party from this old, torn, worn, dusty group which is now almost extinct. We must look to the future, Mr. Speaker; we must plan for the future.
My hon. friend talks about high taxes. He criticized this government for high expenditures. He seems to forget the fact that the former government continued a tight money policy, but at the same time they were taking $600 to $700 million more than they needed. Out of the other side of their mouths they were criticizing Canadians for not investing enough money in our development. At the same time they took $600 to $700 million a year more than they needed and they wondered why we had no money to invest in the development of this country. Had we followed that trend, where would we have been?
I remember many of those finance ministers. I remember the Robbs, the Ilsleys, the Dunnings, the Abbotts and how each of them would change their policy from time to time as often as they changed ministers. I remember how each of them would say, "Why, this is cyclical budgeting. We are going to take the money from you now because we think we can spend it and take care of it better than you can." I remember them criticizing Canadians for not investing in our great resources like the Americans do. Would there be another depression? No, they said, we would never have a depression like we had in the 30's, a depression for which many on the other side blamed the Conservative party as being responsible even though the depression prevailed throughout the whole world.
Mr. Speaker, after taking $700 million a year more than they needed they now turn around and criticize the Minister of Finance because he found the gross national product at the highest level in the history of our country and still 10 per cent of our people are unemployed. Does not that spell a warning to everyone in the house? I say that nobody realizes more than the able Minister of Finance and the colourful and distinguished Prime Minister that there must be something wrong when you have a gross national product of that magnitude and 500,000 people unemployed.
The former government sat there smugly and complacently and disregarded the greatest

market we had. They were flying all over the world to find markets in the lowest cost countries in the world and neglecting with reckless disregard and abandon the best market the farmers have had right here in Canada, the home market.
I have had experience in several enterprises connected with raw resources, especially farming. Believe it or not, I am still a farmer. My friend from Twillingate laughs. I will take him up to my farm some day. But, Mr. Speaker, every hon. member within the sound of my voice from Quebec, Ontario or western Canada knows that it only takes about half as many people today to produce the same amount of agricultural products as it did when I entered the house first. From being connected with it I know that with modern machinery it takes only half as many people today to produce as it did a quarter of a century ago. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate nods approval because he knows that problem.
Where then is this country going to find employment for the increased population, a population increasing by per cent each year through new births and per cent through immigration? Where is the employment going to come from? Years ago you had to be a farmer to get into Canada but today it is a reason for being kept out of Canada because we do not need farmers. You do not need people in forestry. I remember sending a man to Europe 15 years ago to get 300 men. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate remembers that well because he was the minister of immigration at the time and assisted in bringing them in to work in the bush. Today half as many men will do the job.
Mr. Speaker, then we have the situation with respect to manufactured products. In that regard keep in mind the general advancement we have had in science, technology and automation. Think of the utensils that are used in the kitchen now. Our grandmothers used to wash their clothes on a washboard. Our grandfathers used to grind corn by hand for feed for the cattle. Now you press an electric button. One man today can look after as many cattle, whether dairy or beef, as 10 men did 30 years ago.
So we have all these new things coming into use. As old as some of you may think I am, I am not one of those who believe for a moment that the new machinery is going to ruin employment for the people. There will be more employment available than we have people to take advantage of it if we have a vigorous policy, if we follow the

government's policy and develop our raw resources and process more of our own requirements at home in the future, which has been the distinctive policy of the Conservative party since confederation.
The Liberal party has neglected that phase of our development. They have supported a lopsided development in this country down through the years. The result is that they hoodwinked themselves by believing that defence production would ensure permanent prosperity, and they hoodwinked the whole of Canada unconsciously. I know they would not do it seriously. These apostles of world trade have been suggesting for a quarter of a century that you have got to buy before you sell. I do not know of any business I have been connected with where that ever worked out. It has never worked out. They say that you have got to buy before you sell. What has been the result? From early days we have been buying before selling. No other country in the world buys so much per capita as Canada. We buy $273 per capita, the United States of America buys $26 to $28 per capita and Britain buys $48 per capita. We think we can buy ourselves into prosperity. We think we can buy from everybody so we can sell to somebody.
Business is not one-sided. May I say again that I have great respect for the United States government and I do not want to say anything today that would reflect on our international relations. I have many friends in that country. But I say again that we cannot follow such a policy. I remember being in this house when my friend from Twillingate was secretary to the Right Hon. Mackenzie King. When he came to Ottawa first he was a nice looking young fellow. I remember well that when I came here first we were buying about $400 million more from the United States than we were selling them. I remember that in 1930 we were still buying over $3 million a day more. Then, after the 22 long and awful years, which Canada must have been strong to endure, with the Liberal party in power, we wind up buying from the United States $3 million to $4 million a day or over $1 billion more than we sold per year. Did that make the United States take any of our surplus wheat? Did it prompt them to buy any of the stuff we want to sell? No, politics are not run that way. Kissing may go by favours in politics but it does not do so in business.
I know there are some men in this house who have tried hard to mix business and politics but my view after some years in the house is that it is easier to mix politics into business than to put business into politics. It does not seem to me that under our democratic system there is an opportunity to get 66968-9-173
The Budget-Mr. Rowe down to cold facts. We not only have a country of tremendous size but we have built up the strongest social security and welfare state that any similar number of people have ever enjoyed, and we live beside the United States of America. Our labour unions are controlled by heads of unions in the United States. We have no hope of bringing about reductions in wages. I have listened to bank managers from coast to coast telling government to cut down wages, to cut down expenditures and you would think it was as easy as cutting Black Diamond cheese. Can we maintain this welfare state and high standard of living while at the same time accepting any reduction in our net production? No, Mr. Speaker, the only hope for this country to maintain this excessively high standard of social security compared with any similar number of people in the world is to broaden our basis of taxation, more people, more jobs, more industry and more taxpayers. That must be done if this country is to survive.
May I be pardoned for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, if I look back a little bit into the shades of the past. I know the policy of the Liberal party of those years. I have watched a lot of it and I have read about the rest of it. The part that I watched was even worse than the part about which I read.
We know their policy down through the ages, at a time when the United States put a tariff against everything from this country except our raw products. One of the leaders of our party, and the prime minister of Canada at that time, saw a vision. He saw that this country had to do something to keep our own people employed if we were ever going to become a nation. He brought in the national policy which became the fiscal trading policy of this country. Might I say that this is a policy which has never been diverted from and this party is in power today because they told the people of Canada they intended to change the policy then in force and give employment to our own people by processing our own resources. This is the reason we are here, and the reason we will stay here for some time. This is the reason Canada will grow and prosper as our pioneering leaders expected.
I know there are those on the other side because I have heard old quiet Liberals pleading in their ridings and pleading in this house for support for tariff changes. I heard one in this house plead for tariff protection on bones, bottles and rubbers, and he was from Waterloo North. He is not here now; he did not get the protection. But we have watched this down through the years.

The Budget-Mr. Rowe The United States of America did not retaliate. They had more respect for our prime minister of that day than any other leader in Canada. In those days the Liberal party was shilly-shallying between commercial union and political absorption by that country.
A few years later the Liberals ran an election on commercial union, and thank the Lord they were defeated. A few years later they suggested reciprocity. The United States, in the meantime, had wanted our raw products. It is true that there is always a joker in the thing. Afterwards it became known that there never was a reciprocity agreement for the Canadian people for all products. There is not an hon. member within the hearing of my voice who can deny that. It was proven two months after the 1911 election that we never had been offered reciprocity except on some raw products. All we had been offered was an open door in the United States for all our raw products. Two years afterwards the new tariff that came in under the Wilson government gave us free entry for more of our products than had ever been proposed in the reciprocity agreement. We, as Conservatives, have been condemned all through the years for turning that down. It was as empty as anything could be.
Then, following that we had the Fordney-McCumber tariff. I remember that well. It resulted in an open door for our raw products. I had been selling cattle on my farm. Overnight livestock prices dropped from 22 cents a pound to 12 cents and hog prices dropped from about 18 cents per pound to 7 cents. The Fordney-McCumber tariff resulted from the fact that the farmers of the western United States saw a little depression coming up and they did not want our cattle coming into the country so they closed us out overnight. This is no discredit to them because they are running their own business. We did not howl about it or run as cry babies to Washington.
Then in 1928 or 1929 they brought in the Hawley-Smoot tariff. They needed cattle again and we sold cattle to them at 28 cents a pound. Then they closed that overnight, too, just when they saw a world depression coming. I, myself, later sold cattle for a nickel a pound. There is an old adage that there is no sentiment in business. I cannot even sell you a race horse if you do not want one, no matter how friendly we are. Do not let us kid ourselves. This goes on down through the years.
The Right Hon. Jimmy Gardiner, who was a great friend of mine and must have been a great friend of many across the way- I am not going to say he was any better than what I see over there, but he was just as good-was a marvellous politician. He never


missed a trick. Now, my dear Jimmy, since he is in the twilight of his better judgment, since he knows he is not going to return for another parliament at least, said the other day that there was no use going on with our tinkering experiments for agriculture. He told the members of the federation of agriculture that irrespective of deficiency payments on wheat, floor prices or subsidies, the only long term solution for agriculture is the development of our home markets by decentralized industry across this dominion. Oh, what a difference a few years makes. I said that 25 years ago, and he laughed at me.
Then, I should like to say a word or two about the imperial trade agreements. They were brought about by another revenue tariff brought in by the United States of America. I was here at that time. When the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett saw that he said that our only answer was to call an imperial trade conference. May I make it short, because I see my time is going. The imperial trade agreements that were brought in in 1930 have been the most misunderstood, the most underrated, the most misrepresented by the Liberal party, every one of whom condemned them, of any trade agreements that have ever been entered into by this dominion. What did they do? They fixed the situation in Europe and in England where, for instance, we were selling only five per cent of British Columbia fir timber. At that time the United States was selling over 65 per cent of the British requirements. A year after the imperial trade agreements we sold over 93 per cent and the United States sold only 6.3 per cent.
In so far as our agricultural and other products were concerned, we sold over 43 million pounds sterling during those depression years. During the next two years, with a world depression, that market increased to 71 million pounds. We saw more United States factories built in Canada in a time of depression than have ever been built in Canada by the United States even in the most lush times. This is the history, gentlemen, of this situation that we dare not ignore.
We know that the United States suffered a great body blow so far as her markets in Britain were concerned. They knew it. The result was that in 1937, after Africa had been supplying the British with oranges and grapefruit and Australia had been supplying them with other fruits, wheat, barley and other products, the United States was so desperate that the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King and his party sacrificed many of our advantages under the British preferential agreements in order to please the United States of America and make a deal by which they could draw up an Anglo-American

treaty. They were so complementary to each other that they were both signed on the same day, November 17, 1938. We surrendered the advantages that we got and left the door open for more competition in our home market.
What is the result today? In 1955, one of the last years of the Liberal government, just as they were quietly slipping out of office, we were buying $3.5 billion worth from the United States of America, and about $900 million worth of stuff that we could have manufactured here at home. United States statisticians and economists brag about the fact that they had about 700,000 people employed in the United States producing products for consumption in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it is almost too late. It is later than we think. Canada cannot afford this any more than we can afford to compete in this cold climate with the tropical production of agricultural products. In Canada in our manufacturing industry you can take your coat off and work in your shirt sleeves when it is 50 degrees below zero. But if you try shovelling snow behind the barn when it is 40 degrees below zero and try to compete with Australia or New Zealand in the dairy industry, then you will find that we have a difficult situation.
The GATT agreements were drawn up ten years ago by the former government. Hon. C. D. Howe at that time said, "We have lowered our trade barriers; we have done more to make it possible for people to sell in Canada than has any other country in the world". When he went into the trade agreement it was like going into a gun battle after you have thrown away your gun. What happened? Is there an hon. member who can rise in his place and tell me that the general agreement on tariffs and trade has helped industry and development in this country? It has not helped one iota. The situation is similar to that in 1930 when the Liberal party wanted to have a countervailing situation. They became tired of their free trade doctrine. They wanted to have countervailing duties. The late Mr. Dunning said, "We will have a countervailing situation. If Washington raises tariffs, we will raise ours." In other words, we delegated our responsibility in fiscal matters to Washington. Then they go to Geneva.
Mr. Speaker, these problems are purely Canadian problems. This climate is purely Canadian. Our geographical situation is purely Canadian. I just want to say this. With the great forthcoming Russian competition, with Japan selling today for 40 per cent less than the United States with her mass production can supply goods in Europe, and with China selling for one-third or 30 per
66968-9-173J
The Budget-Mr. Rowe cent of the cost of our product, do you mean to tell me that the European bloc is going to solve our problems? The only place where these problems can be solved is here. They are Canadian problems and can only be solved by Canadian policies.
Whether we like it or not, I am satisfied that we are living in a different age. I have long since awakened from dreaming about the federation of the world. Some day when we are all one family, with NATO and all the rest combining in technical matters, in science and military affairs, and everybody being his brother's keeper, everything will be fine. That sounds fine and it will be fine. But when it happens, certainly some of us older ones are going to be upstairs looking down. It is going to take a long time.
But in the interval, Mr. Speaker, let us not fool ourselves. These problems are purely Canadian. We have the highest rate of cost of any people in the world per capita. We bring in more from outside the country than any other people in the world. We are recklessly extravagant because we have the greatest resources of any similar people in the world. The great St. Lawrence development, the great two systems of railways and all that they mean cost money. The only hope for lower taxes, for Canada's long term solvency and security, whether in war or in peace, is more people; and in order to get them we need more jobs and more industries. We need encouragement for those industries just as much as we need it for the farmer.
Agriculture is extremely important. When I entered this house first, 45 per cent of the people were employed in agriculture. Agriculture was the backbone of the country. I worked that "backbone" idea until everybody got tired hearing it. Today the manufacturing industry produces more national wealth and gives more employment than all of the primary industries combined, including agriculture, mining, oil wells, fishing and lumbering. I recall reading the other day a C.N.R. survey report in which it was stated that they had studied industrial centres like Joliette, Three Rivers, Stratford, Ontario, and other places-seven or eight of them-and had found on the average that 100 men employed in a plant gave 427 other jobs and meant a million dollars of retail business. Mr. Speaker, just stop and think of what we could do in our democracy.
In my closing remarks, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that these problems are unique to Canada and must be solved in Canada. Do not let anybody tell you that during the regime of my hon. friend who just preceded me and who is temporarily at least leading the party, you led the world

The Budget-Mr. Dupuis because you did not. In ten years following the war old England-and many in their party thought that she was all through-increased her industrial activity by 48 per cent. Australia increased hers by 40 per cent. West Germany increased hers by 53 per cent. The United States increased hers by 37 per cent. We increased ours by only 25 per cent. We have fallen down. We have lagged behind the world. It is a wonder some of their friends in the other place cling to the old dusty doctrine that we have nothing to sell but our resources, that we do not know how to make things out of them.
In conclusion I would just say this, Mr. Speaker; when I see you rise I will sit down. I say this to the government in all sincerity. I have absolute confidence in this government, in the leadership and in the great battalions that is behind them with their youth and ability. But, Mr. Speaker, these are purely Canadian problems and they cannot be solved by policies fashioned in Washington or anchored in Geneva. (Translation):


Mr. Yvon Dupuis (SI. Jean-Iberville-Na-pierville):: Mr. Speaker, you have no doubt noticed the prolonged applause that followed the speech of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). Our friends opposite probably meant this as an expression of their great joy, because the representative who just sat down made them forget for a few minutes the intense blackness of the budget submitted last week by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). I can understand their rejoicing and hardly blame them for it.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just sat down again recalled the years of deep darkness which, according to him, marked the period during which the Liberal party was in power. Well, as I looked at him a moment ago, standing there tall and erect, pinkcheeked, firm of voice, dapper, in a freshly-pressed suit, with a handsome tie, white silk shirt and gold watch, I said to myself: "Well those 22 years of Liberal rule were not so hard on him, after all!" Judging by his looks, I would be very very much surprised if the hon. member had suffered any hardship during those years of Liberal administration. He certainly was not brought up on dishwater and blueing.
And now, Mr. Speaker, to get back to the matter we should be considering, the budget speech. I hope the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe will bear me no grudge if I do not continue in the same vein as he did, harking back to remote antiquity. Before I go on, may I express the wish that he remain as healthy and jovial during the years of Conservative government that lie ahead, as he was during those of the last Liberal regime.
Mr. Speaker, last year, the hon. Minister of Finance introduced his first budget to the country; it was the first budget of his parliamentary career. When he announced small tax reductions, we said that they smacked of funerals. In fact, they had to do with cut flowers, rat poison and ambulances. Today we readily realize that, in fact, he was preparing a first class burial of all those promises and illusions which the Tories had advertised in the last election campaign.
Mr. Speaker, the budget introduced by the hon. Minister of Finance last week is one which is worthy of the last Conservative regimes, worthy of Mr. Borden, of Mr. Bennett and, 30 years hence, history will record that it was worthy of Mr. Diefenbaker. No one will escape its effects. All classes of citizens, small, medium or big, wage earners, individuals, corporations, all are affected. There is a general tax increase in all fields. And the hon. Minister of Finance, who is well known for his poise, came into the house the other night, without a quiver, and announced with a smile on his lips that the deficit was not very high, only $600 million. What a piece of news! What a great joy for the people of Canada!
However, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Finance could not help looking a bit crestfallen and his smile was a bit strained, because he introduced that evening an unprecedented peacetime deficit, a peacetime increase in taxation which we had never seen since the Borden and Bennett regimes.
Mr. Speaker, what cannot be overlooked,- and what our friends opposite forget to tell us-is that not a single promise made in the course of the last election campaign has been fulfilled. The government was elected on false promises and, today, coming as they do here to violate their promises, I say, like the whole Canadian people at present, that they do not deserve our confidence. They distorted the facts, they ignored their promises: they should then resign at once, before it is too late.
And that, Mr. Speaker, is but one instance of two years of Conservative government. What will be the situation two years hence?


An hon. Member:: The finish!


Yvon Dupuis: In all parts of the country, people say that they want a change of government. Everywhere in the streets we hear people say: "Just wait, as usual, they won't be there for long."
Yesterday evening, the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Courtemanche) made a surprising speech. He who had promised to all and sundry that a Conservative government would mean prosperity and lower taxation, told us that in his view the Minister

of Finance's decision to boost taxes was a very wise one. Drawing a comparison, he said:	Look at France, General de Gaulle is
popular. Everything is shipshape over there and yet he has increased taxes. Therefore we are also right in raising them.
Mr. Speaker, the situation in France, when General de Gaulle took over, was different. He came at a time when that country was in a deplorable state, without a stable budget, whereas, when our friends opposite came into power, they found the country in a state of prosperity never before reached in the course of our history. And in order to make the hard pill of taxation easier to swallow, the Minister from Quebec pointed out that during his budget speech the hon. Minister of Finance had spoken in French for one minute out of two hours. That is a fine effort on his part! That is grand! We appreciate it very much, but you may be assured, Mr. Speaker, that the French population of Canada would have preferred to hear him speak English during that minute or two, if it could have served to announce lower instead of higher taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to recall the promises made by our friends opposite. Oh, I know they do not like being reminded of those fine promises, advertised in the weeklies of the various constituencies they represent here, extraordinary, fantastic, astounding promises. "We shall reduce income tax." "We shall abolish the sales tax." "Under the Conservative government, nobody will suffer from unemployment." "We shall undertake huge public works projects." "We shall call at once a federal-provincial conference to solve fiscal problems." Two years have elapsed since then, and the conference has not yet been called. We are still waiting. "We shall appoint an ambassador to the Vatican." It is about time to do so. "We shall abolish the wastage of people's money." "We shall reduce the wastage in the Colombo plan." "We shall see to it that the provinces regain their autonomy in the field of education." "We shall abolish federal help to universities." "We shall increase family allowances." "We shall grant old-age pensions to people at 60." "We shall introduce an emergency measure to protect our textile industry against dumping." "We shall introduce, at the very first session, a vast farmers' assistance program." Ora pro nobis.
Mr. Speaker, all that was vision. All that was but idle promises. All that was but a joke. And, as an illustration of the monumental blunder of our friends opposite, here is a cartoon which appeared in the Toronto Star. You can see it as well as I do, since you are not very far, Mr. Speaker, just look how fine this is. Here is the Prime
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis Minister; he looks very natural. And, standing by his side, is Mr. Fleming, the present Minister of Finance. And then, you can see John Q. Public in front of both.


Mr. Pigeon:: I hope it is not Smallwood?


Yvon Dupuis: No, he is not as "small" as the hon. member who has interrupted me. And then, we have the Prime Minister of Canada inviting John Q. Public to look through a telescope, and telling him "Come and see the fine vision". Unfortunately, John Q. Public is being shown the telescope by the wrong end. And, while John Q. Public is peering through the telescope, there is a certain Mr. Fleming coming behind to tell him, while he is snatching John Q. Public's wallet: "Now, come here my child." And John Q. Public is standing before the Minister of Finance who says to him:
(Text):
Come and see the nice vision.
(Translation):
And, Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that we may not copy that cartoon, because, frankly, more than one Canadian would find it singularly timely. May I put it on the record, Mr. Speaker?
A few moments ago I referred to some fantastic promises made by our friends opposite, but we should not forget that in addition to not fulfilling those promises, they took the same action they had condemned in the past.
Last winter, I was listening to a French television program, and I had the pleasure of seeing the Minister of Finance with the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Martel) sitting on his right and the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Drouin) on his left. It was really something to see! The hon. member for Dorchester had in his hand a small sheet of paper and, turning towards the minister, as we used to do at school during the rhetoric class, he said: "Mr. Fleming, is it not true that the country is going through a period of amazing development?" And Mr. Fleming replied: "Yes indeed, we will restore the nation's prestige." Then the hon. member for Chapleau asked. "Is it not true, Mr. Finance Minister, that the country has been waiting a long time for the return to power of the Conservatives?" "Indeed", replied the Minister of Finance, "Canada will be going through years of prosperity such as it has never known."
Well, Mr. Speaker, that was a program for political meetings, a monumental hoax, a television program, a huge joke, all lies and false promises.

The Budget-Mr. Dupuis
The other night, the Minister of Finance recalled in this house a little story which, he thought, was most original. This is what the Minister of Finance told us on March 30, 1953:
I speak as one who does not smoke and who is not personally affected by this present bill.
We were considering the excise tax bill on cigarettes, and the hon. member went on to say:
But as a non-smoker, I wish to say that I think the taxes on cigarettes and tobacco are still too high. I wish to say also that, if we have a smuggling problem at the border today with respect to cigarettes it is largely the creation of this government by its boosting sky-high of excise taxes and other impositions on cigarettes, particularly the large advances in taxes that were made two years ago.
Now, when the Minister of Finance was just an opposition backbencher, he used to attack the Liberal government which was then having budgetary surpluses, saying that, when the government wanted to raise the excise tax on cigarettes, it was contributing to inflation.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the same Minister of Finance came to us the other evening, well groomed, with a nice Fleming smile, to announce that he proposed to increase the excise tax on cigarettes. What promises! What results! What disappointment! And, just do not try to tell the Minister of Finance that he was wrong! Oh! no, his budget is a fine one, the deficit is only $600 million. He will not accept any comments, nor any criticism. He knows where he is going.
He reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of the Pharisee in the Gospel who exclaims: "I thank Thee, Lord, that I am not like other men. I do not smoke, I do not drink, nor am I the same type of minister of finance as my predecessor, having never indulged in too many surpluses."
Mr. Speaker, there is also another member, now a minister in the cabinet of our friends opposite, who made the following statement, as reported on page 492 of Hansard for October 29, 1951. Here is the statement made at the time by the hon. member for Three Rivers, who is now the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer):
Finally, another means the government has found to meet the rising cost of living is the setting up of an additional cigarette tax-truly an unduly high tax. I submit that the government is now inducing the Canadian people to become the greatest smugglers in the world.
Mr. Speaker, not only is the present Conservative government driving Canadians to become the greatest smugglers in the world, -when people are starving, you never know what they can do-but it is driving the country back into the dark days of the former Conservative government.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the Minister of Finance that, when he was in the opposition, he blamed the Liberal government for daring to increase the 4 per cent tax levied by Bennett, namely the federal sales tax. And here we have, as Minister of Finance the same man who, in the past, would shout and rant against an increase in the sales tax and declare that if the Conservatives were elected to office, they would remove that evil tax which was creating inflation in Canada.
Here is part of a remarkable speech made by the Minister of Finance when he was in the opposition. Discussing the sales tax, he said this:
(Text):
This tax still applies on clothing, boots and shoes, furniture, some processed foods, all of which are basic necessities of life. Is it any wonder that today we are not very far away from the danger of recurring inflation? X do not believe even the minister will stand up in this house and say that the danger of inflation has passed. Then why does the minister insist on heaping up these indirect taxes which have such an inflationary effect. They boost the cost of living; they reduce the value of savings and insurance and make more difficult the lot of those who are trying to procure housing for themselves. This budget lost a great opportunity to do something for the people with small means or small incomes in neglecting to reduce the sales tax.
(Translation) :
Well, Mr. Speaker, last week, despite all the promises that he had made, the same Minister of Finance who was then opposed to sales tax informed us without flinching, that he was now increasing the sales tax which he condemned in the past.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I have here a quotation of the man who is the present Prime Minister. Here is what he said on February 15, 1954, about the new sales tax:
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: Sir, there is a move the government might make, the removal or reduction of the sales tax that in considerable measure acts as a detriment to the expansion of trade through competition.

(Translation):
And they dare today raise the sales tax!
When the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Courtemanche) made a speech last night, did he refer to the appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican, he who had so insistently urged the Liberal government to take such a step? Did he refer to that matter, he who, during the last election campaign in the province of Quebec used to blame the Liberal government for not having appointed one while all recognized countries in the world have their ambassador there? If last night the Secretary of State had been consistent, he would have repeated what he said in the House of Commons at the time the Liberals were governing the country. I quote from page 553 of Hansard of March 18, 1952, where I find what he said then:


Mr. Courtemanche:: But X wonder why Canada goes on ignoring the existence of the Vatican, where the other great nations of the world, nations which sometimes count an infinitely small minority of Catholics make a point of being represented by an ambassador or other official envoy.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do say this to the Secretary of State, to the Minister of Finance, and to the Prime Minister: You promised to reduce taxes, but you did nothing; you promised to balance the budget and you give us a budget showing a deficit of $600 million; you promised to abolish taxes on cigarettes and you increased them; you promised to abolish the sales tax, and you increased it; you promised to name an ambassador to the Vatican and you do not talk about it any more; you have repeatedly deceived all the people of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, as far as corporation tax is concerned, the Minister of Finance, when he used to sit on this side of the house, had this to say:
(Text):
What were the effects of the increases last year in the corporation taxes? They were passed on wherever possible and the effect was inflationary, as it added to the cost of living.
(Translation) :
And, Mr. Speaker, during the discussion of the budget in 1952, and still in the same speech, Mr. Fleming told us as we can see on page 1535 of the official record of April 23, that the increase in corporation taxes automatically brought about a raise in rail and telephone rates.
Well, Mr. Speaker, even before the present hon. Minister of Finance announced an increase in corporation taxes, the Bell Telephone Company has been allowed-under a Conservative government and without consulting Parliament-to increase its rates while railway companies are increasing their freight rates.
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis
And, Mr. Speaker, there are still people in the province, in this country and even here, who attempt to discredit a government that was a thousand times better than the present administration of this country.
I now refer to another page of Hansard where I find a statement made by the present Minister of Finance on March 12, 1952, as may be seen on page 375:
(Text):
I may say that the time has come-and this is my final word-
(Translation):
It seems, Mr. Speaker, that his last word has not been spoken yet.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker-when this government should be told to let the people handle their own money. We want to develop the resources of this country. We have to have capital. That capital must come from the savings of the people and from profits. We must have that kind of capital. We must have savings. We cannot have them if the government is going to go on fleecing the people of this country by gouging them with these heavy taxes. We are depending today far too heavily on foreign capital for the development of these resources. We want to see more Canadian capital going into the development of our own Canadian resources. We must have increased savings. We must have increased earnings in Canada. We cannot have those as long as the weight of federal taxation in this country is so seriously retarding Canadian enterprises.
(Translation):
And the same Minister of Finance has completely changed his mind since he has been in office. Not only does he not abolish the corporation income tax, which helps increase the cost of living and creates inflation, but the Minister of Finance, solemn and unflinching, stands there proudly to announce that his Conservative government is increasing that tax which he had previously denounced.
There are other passages which I could quote, and which show what he thought of the then government, for instance his statement of March 3, 1955, but which he now denies.
Mr. Speaker, need I recall all those things? There is not a single Canadian who does not know how the Conservatives betrayed their good faith during the general election. How many promises were made which remained a dead letter? The hon. member for Three Rivers who is now the Solicitor General, rose in the house in 1956 and blamed the Liberal government for its failure to raise family allowances. It was the same minister who travelled through the province of Quebec in the last elections, making speeches in favour of our friends opposite. He would say: "We Conservatives have some consideration
2726	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis for large families, and we will increase family allowances." Have they been raised? No.
The only increases we have seen since the budget was laid down have been tax increases, in short increases of every kind, but never an increase in social welfare benefits. Those were false promises, misleading words to hoodwink the electorate.
Mr. Speaker, a while ago I heard my friend the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe claim that the Liberals had done nothing for this country. I suppose they did nothing in the field of social welfare! No social legislation was passed by the Conservatives. The legislation concerning old age pension, the blind, the disabled, unemployment insurance, family allowances, was enacted by the Liberals and gave something to the people.
In regard to the sovereignty of this country, did the Liberal party not go forward? Under the able guidance of the Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent, did the Liberal party not give Canada a sovereignty which was unknown before? At this stage, I only want to mention some of the measures passed by the Liberal government, which have brought about the recognition of the sovereignty of this country: the Canadian Citizenship Act, a Liberal achievement; the abolition of appeals to the London Privy Council, a Liberal achievement; the repatriation of the Canadian constitution, a Liberal achievement; the appointment of a Canadian governor general, the establishment of a Royal Military College in the province of Quebec, the setting up of an autonomous Canadian military force, all those were Liberal achievements.
In the administrative field, the Liberal party has given this country the finest years of prosperity ever enjoyed by Canada. Under the administration of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, whose policy we are proud to continue; under the guidance of the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King whom we respect and venerate as a great Canadian leader; under the guidance also of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, this little French Canadian from Compton, who made this country famous throughout the world, the Liberal party has endowed Canada with a prosperous administration. It is claimed in this house that the Liberal party did nothing for 22 years. Everything the Liberal party did has been of benefit to those very people who, today, talk with indescribable ingratitude.
Mr. Speaker, through the fault of those same people who misled us and abused the Canadian voters, with the help of the Duplessis administration which our friends hold in such high esteem, every year, in the province of Quebec we are losing-I am referring to the
[Mr. Dupuis.1

federal field-millions of dollars we should be receiving from the federal treasury. The citizens of Quebec pay taxes just as the rest of the country, and they too contribute to the country's development, but when the time comes to receive their fair share of the money they have paid out, and which should be distributed to all Canadian provinces, it is another matter. This through the fault of those very people who are now facing us from the opposite side of the house, and who lied shamelessly in the last elections, saying to the people: "Vote for us, the Duplessist candidates, and when we get to Ottawa, things will change. You want an ambassador to the Vatican? He will be leaving the next morning." Apparently, he has not yet taken the boat.
The same people also declared: "We will abolish grants to universities". What a farce! Have the grants been abolished? On the contrary, they were rapidly increased. What a bunch of jokers!
They also promised to put an end to contributions to the Colombo plan. And, Mr. Speaker, it was quite a sight to see the publicity we were subjected to in Quebec, with full pages in daily and weekly newspapers: "The Liberals give to the Colombo plan; Mr. Duplessis gives to his province". Those same people travelled throughout the province making this statement:	"Vote for us,
send us to Ottawa, we will straighten things out and bring back the taxpayers' money given away to the Colombo plan". Once in power, they do not get the taxpayers' money back from the Colombo plan; instead of that, they allocate even more of the taxpayers' money toward the Canadian contribution to the Colombo plan. Liars! Whited sepulchres! Pharisees!
Every year the province of Quebec loses millions of dollars by refusing to accept federal grants for the building of the trans-Canada highway and help to universities and other federal grants in different fields, when taxpayers in my province are paying the same taxes as any other Canadian taxpayer.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we, the Liberals, want to live as Canadians, we are proud of being Canadians and I will point out the great difference between the Conservative party and the Liberal party. The Liberal party is a national party with a single concept, a single thought and a single national philosophy.
Chameleon-like, the Conservative party changes its color or philosophy according to its environment. Go out west, you would hear a speech prepared for people of that part of our country. But, in Quebec, the speech is altogether different.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would rather be a member of a truly Canadian party, such as the Liberal party. We, Liberals, are in favour of the Colombo plan and we never said otherwise.
We also hold that the rights of the French language should be respected. You will never be able to quote a Liberal member as saying anything in this house against the French language. However, we have heard an Ontario member, on the Conservative or Tory side, remind us that it was one of the privileges we owed the Freemasons to be able to speak French in this country.
Such statements are vicious and unfortunate and they undermine national unity.
Mr. Speaker, you have never heard any Liberal member come out against "O Canada" as the national anthem. However, within the Conservative party, two ministers-quite candidly, suddenly, without thinking it over, and without any question having been asked- said that they were against "O Canada" as a national anthem.
Mr. Speaker, before closing, I might say that the Liberal party has given Canada a solid doctrine, and a Canadian citizenship that is recognized everywhere. And this brings back to my mind the trip made abroad by the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent. I recall that when he walked into Notre Dame cathedral in Paris-the story was reported at length in all newspapers-when this grand old man with silver hair walked down the central aisle, the grand organ of the cathedral broke into "O Canada, our Home and Native Land", That, Mr. Speaker, was a great day in our history.
We are now living in troubled times, that of the Conservative regime, which take us back to the dark years of the Bennetts and Bordens. Two years in power, and all promises broken. I shall now take them one by one, and you will note that all of them were broken. Instead of administering the country, they will joke about the whole thing.
The Conservatives had promised to reduce the income tax; they increased it. They have promised to abolish the sales tax; they increased it.
They also said that nobody would suffer from unemployment. I need not say more on this count.
They said they would undertake huge public works projects. Those are still to come.
They had promised-that was in 1957- to call a federal-provincial conference at once. I feel they are not very anxious to do so, lest they be criticized by the provincial delegates.
66968-9-174
The Budget-Mr. Nasserden
They had promised to appoint an ambassador to the Vatican. As I said a few moments ago, he hasn't taken the boat yet.
There was also a promise with regard to restricting the waste of the people's money, comprising aid under the Colombo plan; now the Canadian contribution has been raised.
We had been promised provincial autonomy in matters of education; our friends from the province of Quebec just voted an increase in the assistance given to the universities.
We had also been promised a raise of family allowances; we are still waiting for the Solicitor General, that fatherly minister, to do so.
There had been a promise of old age pensions from age 60; there are now citizens who are 62, 63 and even 64, but they are still waiting.
We had also been promised an emergency act to protect the textile industry against dumping; we are still waiting for that.
We were also told of plans to launch a vast program to help our farmers; that is still to come.
Mr. Speaker, all hon. members have the duty to denounce that phantom budget which has deceived the good faith of our voters and to tell this country right out: "The Conservatives have made promises which they did not keep, they have mentioned a vision for which you are paying dearly today. Wake up before it is too late."
(Text):


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to have this opportunity to take part in the budget debate. I remember having my name on the list last year and the debate concluding before I had the opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) on his budget. Almost a year has passed since then and we are now in a good position to assess his achievement in last year's budget. I recall the expenditures it provided for such things as home building, a program that took approximately $550 million out of the treasury of Canada last year; the millions of dollars approved to improve the condition of the aged, the blind and the incapacitated; the supplementary payments to the maritime provinces to support their recovery after 22 years of Liberal rule; and the grain assistance payments to the farm people of the prairie provinces.
As the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) indicated on budget night,

The Budget-Mr. Nasserden the present budget is a record-breaking one for peacetime or wartime expenditures. Last year his criticism of the budget was that it was not planned. This year his criticism of the budget is that it was not planned. Last year he said it "growed". This year he said that "it only happened". He has not changed his tune very much, though he was somewhat subdued in his criticism this year and his whole attitude indicated that he was not eager to indicate that there would be a million unemployed this year or that there would be a billion dollar deficit as he indicated last year.
When all arguments of logic failed him he drew on the reconversion loan of last summer, garnished it with the bond market weakness in the United States of America and came up with the significant question as to why the government is not undertaking a study as is being undertaken in the United States with regard to the outstanding bond market weakness there. Any third grade student could have told him that the government foresaw conditions and launched the reconversion loan drive rather opportunely to protect the refinancing of Canada's war loan maturities which were products of the Liberal government during wartime.
When the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and his colleagues mentioned bad faith, lower taxes and increased expenditures for services they display some of that old spirit of degenerate Liberalism that convinced the Canadian people it was time for a change. When the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate (Mr. Pickersgill) referred to the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent's remarks with regard to how they kept their pledges, which the hon. member said were implemented in full, he even went so far as to say that he was proud of that proud boast. He called that kind of record the ultimate in good faith. He indeed has my sympathy; indeed, all his colleagues have my sympathy. It must be humiliating to them to see many of their favorite election pledges being brought into being by a Tory government. I think of such things as the South Saskatchewan river dam, not endorsed by Louis St. Laurent but long a promise of Liberal members of the House of Commons at election time. The reality of this project now taking shape must certainly take on the aspect of a vision to many of those who were in the front benches of the Liberal party. It is not the kind of vision that the Liberals scoffed at so scornfully last year but one which brings vividly to their minds thoughts of opportunities lost and dreams shattered but not entirely forgotten.
I think of health insurance, long a plank in Liberal platforms but today a living thing


put in force by a government that tries to keep its promises, and in this instance a Liberal platform promise also that goes back to 1919. I would have mentioned the history of the old age pension fund but the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) took the Liberals down a path that they hoped had been forgotten as he traced the utterances of the Hon. Douglas Abbott on the financing of that fund.
No wonder the financial critic of the opposition was subdued in his criticism. He knows that the government is today proposing expenditures of $1,212 million for the municipalities and the provinces compared with an expenditure of $689 million in the year 1956-57. When he complains that almost every pocket is hit let him remember that the main increases in the budget fall on purchases of tobacco and whisky, plus the increases in corporation taxes. Would he care to offer any alternative sources of revenue? To be perfectly frank, he did not attempt to perform the good offices of an opposition critic. He went back to defend the 1954 Liberal budget and well he might, for Canadians remember that that was about the time that things began to get difficult for them.
The C.C.F. critic has not learned much since a year ago. Like the rest of his colleagues, he labels everything under consideration as misleading if it does not give him the opportunity and cause to criticize the government. The C.C.F. have always hated the man who leaves a good estate and once again they have expressed that hatred by calling for a capital gains tax and lower interest rates. Anyone who is interested in the history of economics knows that the greatest benefactors of capital gains are widows and orphans and the retired men and women of a country. The C.C.F. would deny these people the benefits of a decent rate of interest on their sole source of income in many cases, an odd way to practise, "humanity first."
I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) recall the by-election in the province of Quebec. We on this side of the house are thankful to the people of that riding for the confidence they expressed in last year's activity by sending to the house the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Fortin). On several occasions the hon. member for Hull has expressed fear of the guillotine being used in the civil service. His friends in the civil service remember the ruthlessness of the Liberal axe which in many cases brought them to their positions in the employment of this government. The hon. member is really

disappointed because he cannot go out and point to the guillotine as a weapon used by this government on the civil service of this country. You know, sir, if we wanted to solve unemployment the way the Liberals would do had they come to power as we came to power, we would fire half a million civil servants and hire those who are unemployed today. The civil service employees in Canada never had a better champion than John Diefenbaker and this government. In so far as appointments are concerned, no one can say that this government has taken what could be called anything approaching a partisan stand. To be quite frank, I think this 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.
The hon. member for Hull has a well-known theme song. "I blame the Tory government", he says. He says the national debt has gone up, but he failed to mention that the per capita debt is down. He estimated that we would have a million unemployed last year, but we had only half a million. He said we are trying to get by with impossible promises. Impossible they may have been to the Liberals, but this government is fulfilling the very promises the Liberal government reneged upon. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) is a real Liberal. He asked the question, what real and significant changes in government have taken place? He answered the question in the negative and then proceeded to cite everything that this government has done. He drew a picture of large surpluses of primary products, and then retreated from that statement by saying that time did not allow him to elaborate upon it.
The hon. member was so bold as to say that this government had failed to show waste and extravagance in the departments of government, forgetting the printing bureau in Hull. He asserted that this government had refused to meet the provinces and municipalities to discuss their problems. Where has the hon. member been during the last several months? The fact of the matter is that we have not any opposition in the opposition today. Every last one of them admires the government and the courageous action it has been taking since coming to office. They admire the Minister of Finance and his budget. They know Canadians were expecting a balanced budget and the taxes involved. They know that this budget struck a happy balance in meeting the problems of unemployment and inflation. They have my sympathy I assure you, Mr. Speaker, 66968-9-1744
The Budget-Mr. Nasserden and they will need more than that to recapture the imagination of the Canadian people.
In weak, subdued voices they say this budget was not planned, it only happened. Let us take a look at the record. It only happened to provide the greatest home building program in the history of this nation. This program provided homes on convenient terms and provided employment to the construction and allied trades of Canada. Second, unemployment benefits were provided on a scale and in a measure hitherto unequalled in the history of this country-not planned, it only happened. There is no $6 Harris in this government, but pensions are provided to meet the needs of Canadians.
The refinancing of Canada's wartime bonds was a measure that restored individual interest in these transactions. Hospital insurance, the dream of Liberals since 1919, was enacted under a Conservative government. It was certainly not planned, it only happened under a Conservative government. The $25 million in supplementary payments to the maritimes was certainly not planned by the Liberals. It only happened under a Diefenbaker government. The $13.5 million to Newfoundland was certainly not planned, but it is certainly happening. The university grants were raised from $16 million to $26 million, and that was not planned by the Liberals. It only happened under a Tory government. The $41,300,000 for prairie grain growers was not planned, it only happened under a Conservative government.
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) has insinuated that the new members from Saskatchewan and western Canada did not even know where to hang their hats when they arrived in Ottawa last May. I am willing to admit that that may have been so. When we came to Ottawa last May we were so green that we threw our hats down in the centre of the map of Saskatchewan, and when we picked them up the people of Saskatchewan found $100 million voted so that there would be a dam across the South Saskatchewan river at Outlook. This was the first step taken in recent years to correct the inequities of those policies of the Liberal party which had resulted in giving everything to the people of other provinces and making the people of Saskatchewan the poor relations of those other parts of Canada.
We knew so little about where to hang our hats that we threw them in a pile over the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and when we reached for them that act was amended to provide benefits to more people who needed those benefits than at any time before in our history. We were so green that we thought a man who contributed to the 1 per cent
2730	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Nasser den levy should be able to benefit, and today many who were denied payments under the former regulations are now eligible for payments in the event of crop failure. There are still some improvements that could be made in that act.
As I intimated earlier, one of the great needs in all areas of Canada is better housing. When we came to parliament a year ago we found the National Housing Act on the table, and it looked like a good place to hang our hats. When we picked up our hats we found that the government of Canada had voted $300 million to be repaid on convenient terms. This legislation has been of great help to people in all parts of Canada; in the cities and towns as well as the farm areas. There has been one notable exception, and that is in Saskatchewan where farmers are denied the use of this legislation because of the so-called farm security act introduced by the C.C.F. in Saskatchewan. If the hon. member for Assiniboia knew where to hang his hat he would hang it on the farm security act and give Saskatchewan farmers the same benefits as are available to farmers in other provinces. At the beginning of this session we voted another $250 million for housing, and these programs have been of great help to those engaged in carpentry and other seasonal trades.
When we came to Ottawa we found the table covered with the promises of the government of Canada to repay those millions of dollars borrowed from the people of Canada during wartime. We threw our hats over those promises and when we picked them up the people who had put their money into bonds to finance the war effort were able to get a little better return on their investment, in keeping with the increased cost of living since these bonds were first purchased. It has been said by the C.C.F. that some companies and banks have benefited from this action. I ask you, sir, is there anything we can do that will benefit those who should benefit that will not, in some way, benefit those who may not need the benefits?
We threw our hats over the excise tax and tariff regulations. We did not like trade restrictions any better than anyone else, and we removed the excise tax on a number of items, including rat poison. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickers-gill) has not yet told us in this house how it came about that a Liberal government had been in power for 22 years and still had an excise tax on rat poison.
On many occasions industry has come to ask for protection from the government of Canada and the people of Canada and they are usually accompanied by labour. That so-called free trader, Stanley Knowles, has often


pressed the case for protection for those engaged in labour in the factories of our country. We thought that we should protect those jobs and granted some of the requests made. When the Prime Minister (Mx. Diefenbaker) asked labour to hold the line, what was the answer that Stanley Knowles gave? It was that labour must continue to ask for increased wages and benefits. Instead of hanging his hat on that one, the hon. member for Assiniboia has sought to build for himself a free trade reputation among farmers while giving labour encouragement to continue the upward spiral of costs of everything that the farmer must buy.
There are a number of towns in Canada which are wholly dependent upon the gold mining industry for their existence. For several years now the government of Canada has been subsidizing the price of gold. It appeared that all parties were agreed on the need of some action along this line last session in order to protect these people from the disaster of shutdowns. Why does the hon. member for Assiniboia go to the farm people in the province of Saskatchewan and criticize the subsidy to the gold mining communities while he was content to see it passed here in the House of Commons? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what his criticism would have been if we had abandoned those people and let them be shut out. He would have called us the enemy of labour and the enemy of mankind.
We hung our hats on pensions of one kind or another and voted money that belonged to the people of Canada so that some of our citizens could enjoy their retired years, their blind years or handicapped years with a little bit less anxiety. The C.C.F. say that we should have voted more. But in this debate they have criticized the budget for taxing in order to secure these revenues.
Up to the time we came to office freight rates had increased by 120 per cent during the preceding ten-year period. The government of those days allowed those increases without once assuring the Canadian people and the western farmer in particular that the Crowsnest pass rates would be protected. Last fall everyone seemed to be agreed that the non-operating employees needed an increase in wages and benefits. This government allowed that increase and we hung our hats on it too with the assurance of a subsidy to alleviate the full burden of that increase. The question of freight rates was placed under study in order to seek a solution that would eliminate the inequities of today and the Prime Minister assured parliament and the people of Canada that the Crowsnest pass rates would be protected.

When we came to Ottawa we found the biggest surplus of wheat in our entire history, a surplus that had accumulated during 12 years of Liberal rule. We threw our hats on that pile of wheat and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) sold more wheat than anyone in this house thought could be sold. He did this at a time when every other exporting country in the entire world was unable to maintain its volume of sales. The Minister of Trade and Commerce did not wait for the customers to call. He went out and sold wheat, and when he could not sell it he gave it away to those who could not pay for it. He did this after the treasury of Canada had secured the consent of parliament to pay for this western wheat which was to be given away.
When the delegation from western Canada was here about a month ago they reminded us that when the Liberals had been in power they had given wheat to Britain at less than cost for two years, and that the government of that day had been unable to secure anything in return for this concession. Those people from western Canada estimated that this Liberal policy had cost the western grain grower something less than $600 million at that time. We voted $45 million to move wheat to underdeveloped countries during the next three years. Most of this surplus wheat is in the province of Saskatchewan. Hence even the C.C.F. must admit that we did not forget the western wheat grower when we went out and sold his surplus so that at the end of this crop year we hope to be in the position of having cleaned up stocks on farms across the prairies.
When we came down to Ottawa last spring we found a bill for over $2 million on the table to complete the payments to those who had delivered oats to the Canadian wheat board. We threw our hats on the table and voted the money. But we left our hats on that table and the government of Canada today does not have to pick up a bill for $2 million on the sale of oats. The final payment will come through in the amount of anywhere from three cents to seven cents per bushel. Where would the Liberal party hang their hats on that one, when they remember reducing the initial payment on oats by five cents a bushel at a time when farm costs were rising as they had never risen previously.
When we came to Ottawa we found on the table the representations of farm organizations in western Canada for an equitable share of the national income. We hung our hats on that problem and we searched out the causes which had led to wheat being surplus in such quantities that farmers for many years had to bear the cost of carrying
The Budget-Mr. Nasserden that wheat, which cost amounted to 12 cents per bushel. We saw how the failure of the former government to use its price support legislation for livestock products had driven many of our farmers into straight grain growing on increasingly larger acreages, because for eight years wheat and coarse grains were practically the only products in Canada that had a steady guaranteed initial price. We saw how failure to attend to markets had gradually forced many of those in the grain growing industry into other crops in order to secure cash on which to live.
We knew that farmers in western Canada were in a difficult position since 1953. There was every indication that we would be unable to bring our long term legislation before parliament soon enough last year to touch their position. We believe that these farmers wanted the causes dealt with, so that a program could be built for those who will farm in the future. We did not go back to pay for the inequities that were suffered under a Liberal administration. Instead, we sought to bring before parliament with all haste, compatible with good, sound legislation, those things which farm organizations had been asking for over a long period of years.
We took a good, long, hard look at the report of the royal commission on rural life which had been authorized by the provincial government in Saskatchewan. We were influenced by its study of farm problems. When we hung our hats on the federal treasury and secured over $40 million we made sure that those who needed it most would not be forgotten when the cheques were put in the mail. We paid it out on an acreage basis. We believed that this was a sound way to help the income position of western farmers, without aggravating the trend toward larger grain farms and the encouragement of wheat production. The delegation which came to Ottawa rejected acreage payments as charity and a handout, as something they did not want. The C.C.F. down the last two years encouraged them in that stand. They asked for an expenditure of an estimated $300 million. I do not hesitate at all in saying that if we were to spend $300 million I would feel compelled, from my knowledge of the problems in my constituency and in the province from which I come, to support payments on an acreage basis. Payments under that system would give $1,500 to the average farmer, instead of giving the larger producer $4,500 and letting the smaller farmer shift for himself. The acreage payment, whatever the amount of money involved, will benefit the smaller and average sized farmer a great deal and will still be of some help to the larger producer.
2732	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Nasserden
There is a clear cut issue at stake here as between ourselves and the C.C.F. They have come out supporting bushel payments. That can mean only one thing: They support the idea of paying $4,500 to some and practically nothing to others. I urge this government and those on the treasury benches to complete the task which was begun 12 months ago to build a truly national policy for those engaged in agriculture, a policy which will encourage the production of livestock and diversified crops on those farms where the family type of operation makes this possible. A policy such as this will give those who must of necessity produce grain, a market for that grain, and a market that will absorb their production a little more readily than has been the case during the last 13 years.
To accomplish these things I feel we must get our long term legislation dealing with credit and crop insurance passed by parliament in this session. In addition, we will need short term help, such as the acreage payment was last year. I therefore urge another acreage payment this year. I also want to emphasize how disturbed and disappointed I was when the delegation came to Ottawa and rejected acreage payments as unwanted and unappreciated by those who farm in western Canada. I am convinced from my trip during the Easter recess and from the letters which I have received that those who have made these assertions do not speak for the majority of the farmers of my constituency or for the majority of the farmers in the province of Saskatchewan. Together with those from Alberta and Manitoba I urge this government to endorse and put into operation a two-price system to cover domestically consumed wheat, the basis of which we sought to lay last year during the debates and the caucuses. Then there is the subsidy on export flour which I feel should be borne by the treasury of Canada.
The speaker who preceded me had some very interesting things to say. He said among other things that the most beautiful years of prosperity that Canada ever knew had been given to Canada by the Liberal party. There is only one thing wrong with that statement, and that is the picture of war in all its horror. The hon. member should study humility when he makes such statements. He also went on to say that the Liberal party was the only national party. I ask hon. members of the Liberal party, how many provinces do they draw their support from today in this House of Commons?
In conclusion I may say that I could not possibly support the amendment or the subamendment. These appear to be the product of confused thinking. These members of the opposition who have been hoping against


hope for a million unemployed and a billion dollar deficit have expressed their frustrations in these weak, meek and mediocre terms. They will go through the motions of proposing these amendments, but their hearts are not in them at all, and I extend to the hon. Minister of Finance and through him to the government and the Prime Minister my confidence in the main motion.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker made some remarks about farm matters about which I am not an expert and cannot contradict, but he intimated, I gathered, that this particular group, in speaking in support of deficiency payments and the delegation headed by the interprovincial farm council, the Saskatchewan wheat pool and other associations connected with the march, came out strongly for $4,500 a farmer. As I understand it, we supported the position taken in the brief, which would be a maximum of $1,500.


Mr. Horner (The Balllefords):: For one year.


Douglas Mason Fisher: But to isolate our position as being something special or unusual seems to me a little unfair. All we did throughout was to identify ourselves, as I understand it, with the justice of the presentation, and of course we have nothing to be ashamed of in that particular regard.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) made the most interesting remarks in so far as his budget speech debate is concerned. I only wish he had not spoiled them by bringing in something at the end in connection with a point which has always rather bothered me, and that was the tremendous concern of politicians to hold other politicians to election promises. With a cavalier air which is quite suited to his manner, he tended to dismiss this and say, I take it, that under the exigencies of power you could not always carry out your election promises. This would have been fine, I think, if he had stopped at that rather frank admission, but of course he had to go on and ride the Grits and we got dragged into the thing, as did the hidden report. The hidden report type of argument seems to me to confuse the issue. I think if this government has not lived up to its election promises, as the Minister of National Revenue indicated it had not, it might be better if one of the cabinet ministers, especially the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), indicated where it did not live up to its election promises.
I know that a small matter about which we have had an explanation which satisfies me is this. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker), in speaking in Quebec during the last election, was all for support prices for farm

cut pulp wood. We have also had an explanation from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) about the difficulties of applying this particular policy, and certainly in this particular case it seemed quite logical and reasonable. But I have never really heard the candid admission that this was one election promise which was over-extended and perhaps one which should not have been made.
One of the interesting points about the budget presentation was the indication that the Minister of Finance expects that the financial picture of the Canadian National Railways is going to improve in the next year. It seems to me that this is one of the most important organizations which has any link with the government. We have all noticed reports in the press today which indicate that Canadian National Railways have incurred a deficit of over $50 million, and in addition we have all received copies of the latest annual report. This deficit represents a sharp increase compared with last year. It is a very serious situation, most of all, I think, because one of the consequences is going to be more and more mud-slinging at the C.N.R. as being a typically inefficient public enterprise not able to hold up its end in competition with a private enterprise organization, the Canadian Pacific Railway.
It seems to me that we never recognize sufficiently that the particular burdens placed upon the C.N.R. prevent it operating in the way the C.P.R. is able to operate. That is a point which I hope all hon. members will keep in mind during the coming year, because this is a subject which is going to be very much to the fore, with discussions on freight rates and a royal commission on transportation or some other kind of inquiry into transportation going on. It seems to me that we should be well advised to do something which I suggested we should do some time ago, namely make up our minds whether we ought to go on any longer with the anachronism of one railway system operating under private enterprise within a legal framework which extends to another railroad which we cannot expect to operate on such a basis because it is saddled with so many services and so many lines which have probably never been profitable or never will be paying in any competitive sense. It seems to me that this is one of the key places where we shall need to do some thinking, and that is one of the key places where we can expect or hope for leadership.
One of the disappointing features of this budget as far as a large group in our area, or their representatives, are concerned, was the failure of the minister to make any change in the income tax rates in so far as they apply to workers in the woods. We have still
The Budget-Mr. Fisher not been able to devise any satisfactory way by means of which workers in the woods can take advantage of the amendment brought in to bring relief to those engaged in the building industry, and the fact remains that the amendment which was brought in applies only to a very small section of people actually engaged in construction work in this country. They are getting relief, whereas those who worked in the logging industry have been excluded from the benefits of this provision. I firmly believe that if the basis of good taxation law is equity, if the minister will not extend the benefit that he is giving to the construction workers to the loggers he should take it away from the construction workers. That may seem a little revolutionary, but the situation which exists at the present time is certainly not good in equity.
I was very interested when this budget came down to note the increases which had been made in corporate taxes, increases with which I have no quarrel. However, I was disappointed in one respect. Hon. members may recall that some time ago a very vocal statement was made by a pulp and paper concern which is, perhaps, the largest pulp and paper group in Ontario-the Abitibi Company-through its president when he presented his annual report. It was a continuation of a charge he had made previously about the burden of corporate taxation on the pulp and paper industry.
I should like to reiterate that in this particular field the minister is not being fair to two groups-one is the group of people who are trying to introduce proper silvicultural management into this country, and the other is the workers who are engaged in this industry, particularly in my area. We have often been faced in Ontario with the argument that we have the highest cost wood in the world because we have the highest wages. In the arguments between the workers and the company it is always being said that the company cannot pay any more, that a ceiling has been reached. I was interested the other day in reading the figures put out by the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company with regard to their wood costs which appear in a letter in the last issue of the periodical Saturday Night from an Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company official, indicating that the per cord cost at the mill runs between $22 and $23. Anyone who is familiar with wood costs in so far as pulp is concerned will recognize that our costs in Ontario are $10 or $15 above those faced by the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company.
One of the arguments used by the forest corporations-and they have tended to make it stick-is that unless there is a different attitude in so far as corporate taxation is

The Budget-Mr. Fisher concerned they cannot afford to assume heavier burdens with regard to silviculture, particularly relatively expensive regeneration measures. They take the position that they cannot do this until the tax position has been cleared up by the only people who are able to do it, the federal government. And until this is done, then for just so long will they be able to use this as an excuse, if it is an excuse.
So from this point of view, in particular, I am disappointed that the minister did not announce measures which the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) indicated he intended to carry out, namely arrangements for a study of the taxation position of this very important industry.
As far as this point is concerned, it seems to me that the whole future of our forests is not so much in jeopardy as that it has reached a turning point. I think there is a growing sensitivity on the part of these very large organizations about their responsibilities, and it seems to me also that many professional foresters, the people who have some indication as to where we should go, feel that if we could just get over this particular argument we might get somewhere. That is why I voice this somewhat out of the way disappointment with this budget.
May I call it six o'clock?


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

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

Mr. McMillan: In connection with the Canada conversion loan of 1958:
1.	What was the aggregate amount of commissions paid to the chartered banks?
2.	Were issuing fees paid to the chartered banks, and if so, what was the amount thereof?
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
1.	$8,085,064.01.
2.	Yes. $4,769,579.88.
Note: These amounts include payments to Montreal City and District Savings Bank and The Quebec Savings Bank. Figures are preliminary.


FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF FOOD PRODUCTS
Mr. Regier: 1.	Does the government of Canada have ownership of any food products purchased under federal legislation?
2.	If so, what is the value of government holdings, in regard to the above?
3.	How much has the government paid for storage of such food for each of the last 12 months?
4.	Has the government ever conducted a survey of the practice in the United States of America, whereby such surplus food products are being made available to various welfare organizations?
5.	If so, what consideration has been given to implementing a similar policy in Canada?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of
Agriculture):
1.	Yes.
2.	At February 28, 1959, the book value, including storage and handling costs and any merchandising losses incurred in the fiscal year to date, for food products owned by the agricultural stabilization board was $75,150,344.01.
3.	The book figures for storage which may or may not apply directly to the month in which they are invoiced and also may apply in earlier months to greater or lesser quantities of products than those included in the total figure given in question 2 are as follows:
March 1958, $129,992.09; April 1958, $114,803.16; May 1958, $184,820.17; June 1958, $91,218.03; July 1958, $163,673.02; August 1958, $212,242.77; September 1958,	$240,435.64;
October 1958, $258,077.19; November 1958, $278,656.08; December 1958, $365,054.95; January 1959, $444,887.29; February 1959, $450,766.40.
4.	While no over-all special study of all programs has been made with respect to the United States, most of the United States
Questions
programs relating to school lunches, sales to foreign agencies, etc., have been reviewed individually for administrative consideration from time to time.
5.	Canada has at different times given food products for international and domestic relief and has entered into such other programs as might seem appropriate based on the apparent desirability, both from the standpoint of requests and need for assistance and from the standpoint of whether or not there was a real surplus which could not be sold at a reasonable commercial value.
Examples of substantial activity in this regard are recent donations of dry skimmed milk to international relief agencies and a year or so ago the provision of butter on a national scale to approved institutions at a substantially reduced price.


FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT, QUE.  NATIONAL DEFENCE DEPARTMENT PAYMENT
Mr. Bourgel: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence receive, during the fiscal year 1957-58, an amount of $5,000 from the fish and game department of the province of Quebec?
2.	If so, on what account?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):
1.	Yes.
2.	For the rental of a hangar at the Gaspe naval base.


BELLIVEAU COVE, N.S.  POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Has a vacancy occurred recently in the postmastership of the Belliveau Cove, Nova Scotia, post office?
2.	If so, has a successor been appointed?
3.	What is the name of the appointee?
4.	What are the names of the persons who made applications for this position?
5.	Was the appointment made based on the results of competitive examination, or by recommendation?
6.	If made by recommendation, what procedure was followed?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Fidele Theriault.
4.	Joseph Philip Belliveau, Fidele Theriault, John Edward Theriault, Joseph Hilarion S. Comeau.
5.	Made by the Postmaster General.
6.	See 5 above.


C.B.C. VIEWER RATINGS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's audience research division viewer and listener ratings for the television and radio program "The Nation's Business" for 1959?

Questions
2.	If so, how do these viewer ratings compare
with the ratings at the same weekly period for the following programs:	Citizen's Forum, This
Week, Tabloid, Folio, Press Conference, Fighting Words, Viewpoint, the Ed Sullivan show, the Perry Como show, and the 11 p.m. news?
3.	If so, for radio how do the ratings at the same weekly period compare with Citizen's Forum, Week-end Review, Capital Report, Critically Speaking, Project '59, University of the Air, and 10 p.m. national news?
Answer by: Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister
of National Revenue):
1.	No.
2.	and 3. See No. 1.


HALIFAX AIRPORT
Mr. Carter: 1.	Were tenders recently called by the Department of Transport in connection with the construction of a security fence at the Halifax International airport?
2.	If so, how many tenders were received?
3.	What are the names and addresses of those who submitted tenders and the amount of each tender?
4.	What is the name and address of the firm receiving the contract?
5.	On what date was the contract awarded?
6.	What is the completion date of contract?
7.	Has the firm ever done any similar work for the Department of Transport?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	Yes.
2.	Eight.
3.	Ted B. Blackburn Ltd., Lower Sack-ville, N.S., $16,140; Dominion Steel & Coal Corp. Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $17,133.35; Frost Steel & Wire Co. Quebec Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $22,942.76; The Steel Company of Canada Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $22,942.76; The N.B. Wire Fence Co. Ltd., Moncton, N.B., $25,940.25; Watkinson Limited, Berwick, N.S., $29,288.44; Diamond Construction (1955) Ltd., Fredericton, N.B., $30,760; Laurie W. Ledwidge, Enfield, N.S., $45,400.
4.	Ted B. Blackburn Ltd., Lower Sack-ville, N.S.
5.	March 12, 1959.
6.	July 31, 1959.
7.	No.


MAIL SERVICE TENDERS, LUNENBURG COUNTY, N.S.
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Were tenders called for the performance of mail service for Blockhouse, Maitland, Northfield, Pine Grove, Lunenburg county, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, who submitted tenders and in what amounts?
3.	On whose recommendation and for what purpose were such tenders called?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):
1.	Yes, for a service known as Blockhouse rural route No. 1.
2.	Randall Raymond Aulenback, Blockhouse, $2,375; Albert Victor Barry, R.R. No. 1, Blockhouse, $2,400; Aubrey Reginald Bal-come, Blockhouse, $2,476.80.
3.	Contract expires March 31, 1959 and tenders were invited to secure a new contract on the recommendation of the member for Queens-Lunenburg.


TENDERS FOR SORTING CASES, POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Were public tenders called for an order of sorting cases and tables for the Post Office Department from November 1, 1958 to February 15, 1959?
2.	If so, what were the names of the tenderers, and the amount in each case?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):
1.	Yes; November 28, 1958; SE-376 Newspaper cases and tables; SE-481 Parcel shelving.
2.	Parkdale Woodworkers Ltd., Ottawa 3, Ont., $18,404; Canadian Public Booth Co. Ltd., Arnprior, Ont., $19,127; Canadian Office and School Furniture, Preston, Ont., $21,240; Canada Crate Co. Ltd., St. Jean, P.Q., $24,301; The Singer Manufacturing Co., St. Jean, P.Q., $25,681; Office Specialty Mfg. Co. Ltd., Ottawa, Ont., $26,400; Beaver Woodcraft and Display, Hull, P.Q., $28,360; The Globe Furniture Co. Ltd., Waterloo, Ont., $43,000.

Thursday, April 16, 1959


STANDING ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. W. Kucherepa (High Park) presented the fourth report of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.