March 30, 1957


The house resumed, from Thursday, March 28, consideration of the motion of Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell. The Budget-Mr. J. W. Murphy


PC

Joseph Warner Murphy

Progressive Conservative

Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):

Mr. Speaker, before discussing some items in the budget and some other items in particular which have interested me since I came to the House of Commons, I first wish to deal with a question that was asked by the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) on February 26, 1957 as reported at page 1650 of Hansard. The question was raised at that time when there was some possibility of a strike at the Polymer Corporation which I am proud to say is in my riding. The hon. member to whom I have referred was about to depart that evening for a visit to my riding where he planned to speak to a Liberal ladies' association meeting. These were his words:

Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister advise us what the present situation is with respect to the work of the commissioner on the Polymer strike at Sarnia?

As I have already pointed out the hon. member was leaving that evening for the city of Sarnia and I might remind him that during that period the Minister of Labour was kind enough to keep me informed about the situation at Polymer. I assured the minister that at no time during that period would I ask a question which might embarrass him or tend to affect the efforts of the conciliator or mediator with the hope of avoiding that strike.

Might I also remind the hon. member for Essex West that at that particular time there were some 10,000 unemployed persons in the city of Windsor and in spite of his concern about the welfare of the employees at Polymer may I point out to him that since I came into this house I have repeatedly spoken on behalf of the employees of that great corporation with the hope that their wage levels would be comparable to other industries, and I have reference to Imperial Oil.

Perhaps I might be permitted to make a kindly reference to the Minister of Trade and Commerce who on one occasion indicated in reply to my question that he too hoped and expected that the employees of that great crown corporation would receive wages commensurate with their responsibility and that their social security measures would be equal to those in any other industry and preferably the Imperial Oil at Sarnia. May I remind the hon. member for Essex West that on more than one occasion I said I hoped as well that the superannuation scheme for the employees of Polymer and their hospitalization schemes would be designed to better the welfare of the employees of this corporation and I hoped that the wages coupled with these benefits would induce these highly skilled technicians and valuable employees to remain in Canada

The Budget-Mr. J. W. Murphy instead of travelling to the United States where so many of our engineers, technicians and highly educated men have gone seeking better jobs. I make no apology for that, Mr. Speaker, and I do hope that the hon. member will consider that, after all, charity begins at home.

May I say this, Mr. Speaker. On March 27 the hon. member referred to the Unemployment Insurance Act and how beneficial it was to his particular riding. I certainly agree with him because that is one area in the Dominion of Canada in which unemployment has been too high for the good of the community and the welfare of the wage earners in that particular city. At page 2759 of Hansard for March 27, 1957, the hon. member said:

We are not crying about this, we are not complaining about our lot, we are going ahead to take steps to help ourselves.

Then he goes on to say that some departmental officials are going into the area to make a study of the situation. The hon. member happens to have been the representative of that particular riding since 1945, and during that period the unemployment situation in the city of Windsor has been very critical. I think I would be much concerned if I were he, about that unemployment situation. I am sure that it is not to the liking of those people that conditions in that particular city do not warrant a good wage for any one particular year. On March 28, 1957 the hon. member made a revision and the revised version reads as follows:

We are pursuing the matter and not complaining about our lot; we are going ahead along prearranged lines.

If he had inserted the word "bread" before the word "lines" he would have been speaking the truth.

It appears, Mr. Speaker, that we are not going to be able to discuss all the items of the estimates during this session, probably only one department. I do intend to mention briefly a couple of items which apply to my own riding, and one is the harbour improvement at Grand Bend and the other is the clearing of the sand from Perch creek. I am going to speak at some length about the low water levels in the Great Lakes. It may be that the time has come for us to take a long range view and give serious consideration to the treaty into which we entered in 1909 with the United States concerning boundary waters and lake Michigan. The situation in Grand Bend is simple. I have taken it up with the Minister of Public Works who has a sympathetic ear for this particular problem because of the plight of the fishermen there and because that is an area which concerns the tourist industry.

We are now in a cycle, if you may call it that, of low water on the Great Lakes.

It will require considerable dredging in places like Grand Bend in order to permit those fishermen to bring their boats into the river. It is also going to require an extension of the harbour. These things must be done. The government should make an effort to assist areas of this kind which depend on fishing as an industry and also the tourist industry in particular.

In view of the fact, as I said a moment ago, that we are facing low-water levels, whoever happens to be the minister of public works in the next two or three years, and even more, will have to find funds to take care of the harbour requirements because the streams and harbours are filling up with sand. Those improvemnts are required not only there but elsewhere in connection with great lakes harbour facilities. It will also help the tourist industry. I have mentioned the tourist industry on more than one occasion. As a matter of fact, I think the first speech I made in this house was on the tourist industry. I think the more we have spoken on it the less value we as Canadians have received from the travel bureau division of the department. No doubt that is because it has not had the support it should have had and merited.

Perch creek near my place will have to be deepened to permit fishermen to beach their boats. It will also help the tourist industry. It has been a handicap to the fishermen because the mouth of the creek has filled up with sand and it will help the drainage of farmlands. I draw this to the attention of the Minister of Public Works and the government. Even though there may be no appropriation this year to take care of these necessities, the improvements should be made without delay.

I am going to speak on the budget very briefly, Mr. Speaker. I do not think any old age pensioner in this country is satisfied with the budget. In fact, old age pensioners are disgusted because the government took a niggardly view of the situation and gave them a little increase of 20 cents a day as supplementary assistance to the small pension of $40 a month to which they have been entitled. I think the protests that hon. members in all parts of the house have been receiving will bear testimony to what I have said. I know that in my own area and in western Ontario the old age pensioners, because of the huge embarrassing surplus that the government has built up, were expecting an amount commensurate with their requirements.

I am indeed sorry, and I know they are, that this government did not see fit to grant them more than 20 cents a day. It could have been doubled at least.

I mentioned the tourist industry a moment ago, and I am going to deal with it briefly. I am going to do it because I am not satisfied and I am sure the people of this country are not satisfied with the reports we get from the dominion bureau of statistics of the revenue that is coming into. Canada from tourists from the United States and from other countries. The travel bureau was set up in 1934 by a prime minister of our party, and I think it has been under 14 or 15 different ministers of the Liberal party since they came into power in 1935. It seems that they are not very kindly disposed toward this bureau, which is an adjunct of government, probably because it was fathered by a Conservative prime minister. The records speak for themselves.

I am going to suggest in a moment that this bureau be wiped off the slate and that the money that is now being appropriated by the travel bureau be allocated to the provinces which will get more value for the money spent. When I came into this house the revenue from United States spending in this country was some $200-odd million a year. In the course of a few years I maintained it should be $1 billion a year. We have everything to offer the tourist from the United States and other countries who is seeking recreation within the borders of our country.

I have advocated that if a separate department could not be set up for this industry which should bring in $1,000 million a year, there at least should be a deputy minister in charge of our tourist business. I appreciate the work done through the years by Leo Dolan; I give him credit for all he has done; but he was working under a handicap. The present head of the travel bureau is going to be under a similar handicap. If this travel bureau could be operated with this gentleman as deputy minister, having some authority, and if this travel business is to be handled by the federal government it could be done on a businesslike basis.

Do not forget that about 90 per cent of the tourists who enter this country come in on rubber. I regret to say that no efforts have been made by this government to increase this tourist business. They have increased the appropriation for advertising, but I submit that this should be handled by the provinces. There is not a province in the country but knows where to get its revenue, where to do the advertising; any province knows a great deal more about this than does this government.

The Budget-Mr. J. W. Murphy

I mentioned a moment ago that these people come in on rubber. The first people they meet at our border are the customs and immigration officers. I think the ministers in charge of our customs and immigration services might well be proud of these men. I have entered Canada at many different points and I have always found a high degree of efficiency and courtesy among these men. They are most important to the tourist industry of this country.

Not so many years ago the salaries paid these people in the customs and immigration services were a disgrace to any government. Fortunately these salaries have been raised but they are still one-third lower than those paid in the United States. In the case of Sarnia their salaries are one-third less than the salaries paid to the men who sell tickets to the motorists to cross the bridge. Imagine immigration or customs officers with the responsibility he has receiving less than the man selling tickets.

I have some enlightening figures I should like to place on the record. In 1946 our revenue from the United States was $222 million. In 1947 we spent $768,000 on advertising. In 1948 our revenue was $280 million, and in 1949, $288 million. In 1949 we spent for advertising $918,913, and in 1950, $921,925. The revenue in 1952 amounted to $275 million. In 1952 we spent $852,911 and in 1953 the expenditure was over $900,000. In 1956 we spent $1,586,000 and our revenue was only $335 millions, only one-third of the billion dollars which we should be getting at this time.

For this coming year the amount we are going to spend is about $300,000 more than was spent last year, or approximately $2 million for advertising. This is to be spent through the same advertising agency which has obtained so few results over the past several years.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

Which advertising agency is that?

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PC

Joseph Warner Murphy

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Murphy (Lambton West):

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

The Budget-Mr. J. W. Murphy

It was not so many years ago that the tourist business meant more to this country than any other industry with the exception of gold mining, and that was around 1938. I submit that these figures are alarming. We heard the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) say the other day that the government was appropriating $300,000 extra this year to advertise the tourist business so that greater benefits would accrue to the maritime or Atlantic provinces. I submit that if the Atlantic provinces had that $300,000 plus what is being spent under other appropriations they would get twice or three times the value for the money. The same goes for every other province.

As I have contended for years, unless this travel bureau is elevated to its proper position in our Canadian way of life we are going to have deficits in our tourist spending. If our travel bureau continues to be operated as it has been operated in the past these deficits will occur even though the particular minister in charge decides that more money should be appropriated for advertising.

What we are receiving is small compared with what we should be receiving. In the United States they estimate a revenue of $20 billion from the tourist industry; the revenue in Canada is one-third of a billion. There are states in the United States that have a tourist revenue of over $1 billion; this country is larger than the United States and yet we are only getting one-third of that billion. I submit that if we cannot do any better than that we should scrap the travel bureau and give this money to the provinces in proportion to their population. If that is done I will guarantee-and I know the provinces will also-that we will have a far more prosperous tourist industry than we have today.

There is another item I should like to speak about. I have asked many questions from my place here about the lake levels and the boundary waters between Canada and the United States. No doubt many hon. members were like myself and were not acquainted with the treaty which was signed in 1909 and under which the international joint commission was set up. As a matter of fact that treaty was signed by the United Kingdom on behalf of Canada.

I had the idea that all the great lakes and the rivers between the United States and Canada were under the jurisdiction of the international joint commission, and it was only recently that I found out that lake Michigan, which is wholly within the boundaries of the United States, does not come under the jurisdiction of that commission. As a result they can take any amount of

water they require provided they are able to get the permission of the United States supreme court.

When this treaty was signed, Mr. Speaker, Canada got the short end of the stick, as is usually the case when we enter into agreements with the United States, it appears to me. Under this agreement Canada has nothing to say with regard to the amount of water that can be taken out of lake Michigan for the purpose of the Chicago drainage scheme and for other purposes which I am going to mention in a moment. The agreement says that if we suffer damage we can sue in the United States supreme court, but there is another clause which states that if use has been made of that water before the signing of the treaty there can be no recourse in the United States or anywhere else.

That is an alarming position, Mr. Speaker. The situation is not so critical at the moment with regard to power, since more water is flowing over Niagara falls than we can actually use, as a result of the United States power plant having been dumped into the river. As a matter of fact, we are now selling power back to the New York power commission. Nevertheless I contend, Mr. Speaker, that lake Michigan should be considered as within the great lakes boundary waters and should not be treated separately. After all, it and lake Huron have the same level. What concerns me is that while the authorities at Chicago, Illinois, will say we can make application to the United States supreme court, they could just order an extra 35,000 cubic feet or more per second to go through that Chicago drainage scheme without our having anything to say about it. We would not be consulted.

Taking a long range view, I think we must decide to ask for a revision of the treaty. I think the time has come when Canada should make representations to the United States to have this treaty revised so that lake Michigan is included in the boundary waters. If through the taking of a great deal of water the lake levels are lowered, what is going to happen to navigation on the great lakes, and what is going to happen to our harbours? No doubt it will mean that millions of extra dollars will be required to be spent by this country in order to keep these harbours in shape. The same will apply in the case of navigation.

There is one more point about which I am alarmed. I think if a larger amount of water is permitted to go through that Chicago drainage scheme, in years to come we will be short of water at Niagara. In addition, the extra water going through the Chicago drainage scheme is going to permit barge

transportation from Chicago down through to the gulf. This is bound to lead to interference with the success of the St. Lawrence seaway.

I would like at this moment, Mr. Speaker, to refer to an editorial in the Detroit News of February 3 of this year. Several states of the United States have been very critical of this water diversion, but at a meeting of the great lakes harbour association held recently for the purpose of studying the effect of this Chicago drainage scheme it was pointed out in discussion that the increase from 1,500 cubic feet per second to 8,500 cubic feet per second was not only for a drainage scheme but was also to assist barge transportation. In fact the mayor of Milwaukee, Wisconsin was very much concerned about the situation, because his city hopes to benefit from the St. Lawrence seaway project. As he said there, the main plea was that drought and low water had disrupted barge navigation. That was his contention. I submit, Mr. Speaker, it should be our contention, if this scheme is going to deprive the St. Lawrence seaway of some hundreds of millions of dollars worth of freight most of which would otherwise be passing through the seaway.

Mr. Speaker, I have ncrticed considerable other editorial advice that we should be on our toes-whether our little toes or not I don't know-with regard to the critical situation we shall likely face unless this treaty is revised, and I submit that the states and the cities along the great lakes and the St. Lawrence seaway project should concern themselves about it now, not in five or ten years from now when this diversion will have become a threat to our harbour facilities, our navigation and to the volume of shipping going through the St. Lawrence seaway, part of which will be diverted through the Ohio and through the Mississippi.

Let me repeat; it is not only the drainage that Chicago wants now. It is the water transportation. The Sarnia Observer, published in my own city of Sarnia, had an editorial article a few days ago supporting the contention I have asked the government to consider. This article points out with very sound arguments that though this may not be of critical importance at this moment it is of very real importance if we take a long range view; and it is a situation which we must one day face, whether we face it now or later.

There is another matter, Mr. Speaker, which I would like to discuss in connection with the tourist industry, though I did not refer to it when I first mentioned that subject. During the last year or year and a half

The Budget-Mr. J. W. Murphy we have been very much concerned along the great lakes about the lamprey menace. We were disturbed because of its effect on the commercial fishing industry, which has lost around $5 million annually in the great lakes because of this pest, but it is not only the commercial fishing which is imperilled. As hon. members know, many rivers flow into the great lakes through Ontario, rivers which in turn have their sources in other bodies of water. Many of these rivers and lakes have been a source of revenue because they have been stocked with game fish, and unless this menace is eliminated, sooner or later lampreys will penetrate these Ontario rivers and lakes and eliminate the trout with severe consequences to the tourist industry. That in itself is going to be a very serious blow to our tourist industry.

Many of us have spoken on the budget and have indicated how unfair it is to the small taxpayer and how thinly the Liberal government has spread its picayune benefits. I was much interested in an article written not long ago by a correspondent for the Thompson newspapers in this country which called attention to the earner having a wife and two small children and making some $3,500 a year and indicated that his taxes were much higher than those for a man in a similar position in the United States. We have advocated over the years that municipal taxes should be deductible for income tax purposes, and I think it is a very sound argument.

Today the federal government Is taking a high proportion of the tax dollar. The figures have been placed on the record on more than one occasion. I put them on the record in the debate on the speech from the throne. As a result the municipalities find themselves in a plight never before experienced since coming into being, and their plight seems to be getting worse and worse. They are getting less and less of the tax dollar. The burden of the home owner is becoming greater and greater each year because the federal government is taking so much more of the tax dollar as time goes by.

Dealing with a United States citizen with a wife and two children and a salary of $3,500 we find that he can deduct personal property taxes for income tax purposes and also real estate taxes, state income taxes, state or local retail sales taxes, automobile licence fees, state capitation or poll taxes and state gasoline taxes. As is so ably pointed out by the observer to whom I have referred, in our country the tax on such an individual would be $178 whereas in the United States his tax would be in the neighbourhood of $40 odd.

From time to time tables have been put on the record by government spokesmen showing how much lower our taxes are than those of

The Budget-Mr. Maltais the United States. You may be able to take a particular bracket, possibly a very high income bracket or some other bracket, and show that taxes in Canada are lower than in the United States for persons with the same income, but I submit that by far the greater number of taxpayers are found in the group earning around $3,500 a year and that we should accept that group as the basis for a fair comparison. I do not think it is fair that the man earning that amount of income in a year should have to pay such a high tax.

In the past we have advocated that tax exemptions should be higher for single men and women as well as married people, but to no avail. It seems that we have to keep on arguing as we did in the case of taxation of crown companies. We had to continue our arguments over the years in that regard in order to get the government to adopt a taxation formula. Today that formula means that the city of Sarnia gets over $300,000 a year, which is about one-tenth of the total taxation of the city. That is fair, and I think that in the budget the government should have considered the plight of the small home owner as well as the pensioner.

Finally, I say that my own city of Sarnia and all other municipalities across the country are in a plight that is getting worse and worse each year. They are dependent on provincial governments for additional revenues and the provincial governments are finding it very difficult to provide such revenues without increased taxes. The city of Sarnia is obliged to construct a sewage disposal plant because Sarnia is on boundary water, and it is going to cost some $3i million. Our taxpayers cannot afford that sum in the light of all the additional expenses the municipality has for schools and other municipal requirements.

I hope that some alleviation will be provided not only for Sarnia but for other border municipalities that may be required to build sewage disposal plants and that when they have to build them some help may be given to them by the federal government if it cannot be provided by the provincial government. I suggest a loan or a guarantee at a small interest rate. There is one thing that is most apparent in the policy of this government. They have not seemed to care about the plight of the municipalities, and the same applies to our old age pensioners and those on small fixed incomes.

(Translation):

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Auguste Maltais

Liberal

Mr. Auguste Maltais (Charlevoix):

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

I was happy to learn if not officially, at least in an informal way, that these regulations will be modified as of July 1, 1957.

May I express the hope that some changes will be brought to the medical requirements so as to extend the benefits of the act to far more people and that there will also be changes in the amount of allowable income under the means test.

I am sure that several of my colleagues have received a great many representations about the stringency of the present legislation. I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will now entertain applications which, because of the stringency of the act, had been turned down, and let the people involved submit new applications, as these people might now qualify under the changes which are to come into effect on the first of July.

Before going into the main part of my remarks, which will concern the means of transportation in the constituency of Charlevoix which I have the honour of representing, there are a few other observations which I would like to make at this point about the unemployment insurance act.

We were all quite happy when, in the last few years, the act was amended to increase benefits payable to the unemployed and to extend these benefits to certain categories of workers which until then had not been covered. Nevertheless, another improvement would be in order. There is a provision in the act stating that it does not apply to farmers, a fact which is unfair to farmers and constitutes discrimination which should not be allowed to continue.

At the present time the farmer who goes on the labour market to seek help for certain types of work, for instance for help in bringing in his crops or for occasional work such as wood cutting, etc., is faced with an insoluble difficulty, because the act does not let him make use of unemployment insurance stamps for his employees. Those who are asked to do farm work find a thousand and one reasons not to do so, since this work does not provide the same opportunities as industrial or other employment. Under the Unemployment Insurance Act, a worker employed on a farm not only loses the benefit of unemployment insurance stamps already accumulated, but also the benefit of those he would get if he were employed elsewhere. That is the obstacle facing the farmer on the labour market, which means that he does not have the same opportunity as industry, the day labourer and the woodcutter. The worker also faces that discrimination when he is directed to do farm work.

I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Labour will take that situation under serious consideration and that we will not have to deplore it much longer with respect to the Canadian farmers.

And now, my remarks concern the advisability and the need of improving the means of transportation in Charlevoix constituency.

Charlevoix constituency is situated below Quebec city and is bounded on the east by Saguenay county, which is usually called the north shore of the St. Lawrence, and on the west by Quebec city.

It will come as a surprise to no one if I repeat once again what each of us has learned, through the newspapers or by some other means, that an unparalleled development far beyond the imagination is taking place on the north shore. There has been talk for the past few years of establishing winter harbours on the north shore of the St. Lawrence to accommodate all areas of the north shore for the transportation of freight.

For the past thirty years, freight shipments to points on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, in the winter months, have been carried by rail either from Montreal or Quebec up to Pointe-au-Pic and from there by ship to the various points of the north shore. However, in view of the tremendous development I referred to a moment ago, which is taking place in the areas of Bersimis, Baie Comeau, Seven Islands and, much further east, Blanc Sablon-areas where the population has practically doubled and where investments have increased from 500 to 600 per cent -it has been estimated that within two years the production of the north shore would exactly equal the whole budget of the province of Quebec, but the transportation facilities servicing that area of Quebec are taxed to capacity during the winter months. Of course, among the various means of transportation available in that area, besides ship transport, there is air transport.

I know that several municipal councils of my constituency are considering a plan with a view to establishing a municipal airport in the Charlevoix area. The difficulties encountered, I hope, will be settled in a satisfactory way. However, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) to the policy prevailing at this time to assist in the building of municipal airports.

For some years now, when the Department of Transport, after considering a particular project, decides to assist a municipality, the only subsidy that can be made available to that municipality without any strings attached has been an amount of $25,000. When it is realized how much it costs nowadays to build a modern airport, when the cost of property is considered, it is soon realized that the

The Budget-Mr. Maltais sum of $25,000 is no longer adequate. I would therefore ask the Minister of Transport, who surely must have received many representations, to consider the possibility of increasing that subsidy to municipalities requesting federal aid for the building of a municipal airport.

To return to my subject, Mr. Speaker, let me say that there is no doubt that transportation of freight by aircraft is rather costly and that when the freight to be carried is heavy, the costs are actually prohibitive. There is then only one other solution offered to the people of Charlevoix and of the north shore of the St. Lawrence, that is rail or water transport.

I might point out that below Baie Comeau the lack of roads does not admit of trucking, and even where roads are now under construction, I hardly believe they could accommodate even a tiny fraction of the freight now being shipped via the north shore.

I am not referring to shipping during the summer months when, the river being navigable, ships can touch at any port on the north or on the south shore of the St. Lawrence. However, during four winter months navigation is severely restricted because of the ice.

Only four years ago the north shore of the St. Lawrence was served by a single ship, the Nord Gaspe, which went out from Pointe-au-Pic and put in at different harbours along the Saguenay. A ship of 505 tons, it could cope with the work at the time, but these last two years, and more particularly this last year, the harbour of Pointe-au-Pic has been faced with a very abnormal situation. As a matter of fact, during the winter of 1956-57 four ships had to ply between the Charlevoix district and the different points on the north shore. They are the Nord Gaspe, which has been doing that service for the last four years, the Guard Maveline, the Keta and the Venesta, all ships of some 550 tons which carry an average of more than 1200 tons of goods per week.

So the Pointe-au-Pic wharf has been taxed beyond its capacity these last seasons.

Hon. members will have an idea of the goods that went through Charlevoix county, more precisely through the harbour of Pointe-au-Pic, when I tell them that an average of some 80 cars, spread out over a distance of some 40 miles along the Canadian National tracks, had to wait for a couple of weeks for ships to moor alongside the Pointe-au-Pic wharf and take on these goods. The bottleneck was such that a number of the cars had to be shunted out of the way on sidings.

Following the experience of these last two years, I think it would not be advisable to

The Budget-Mr. Maltais try other experiments elsewhere, but that it is imperative, necessary and very appropriate that the Department of Public Works improve the shipping facilities at Pointe-au-Pic, in Charlevoix county.

Another solution has been suggested i.e. the building of a new harbour with entirely new facilities at some place along the south bank of the St. Lawrence.

I shall now quote some of the views expressed by the Charlevoix chamber of commerce in the brief presented to the Departments of Public Works and Transport.

We are satisfied that the advantages of Pointe-au-Pic are far greater than anything one could adduce in favour of some other point along the south shore.

They are considering the position from a geographic, economic and military point of view.

The main channel of the St. Lawrence river is located a very short distance past the wharf at Pointe-au-Pic; at the end of the present wharf, there is enough water, even at the lowest tide, for 2,000-ton cargoes, and very deep water not far away. But the present wharf is not only too small to permit handling a large volume of goods; it is unsuited to that purpose and is ideally conducive to bottlenecks. After all, this structure was intended for passenger traffic and not for freight.

The winter winds all over the St. Lawrence estuary are the following (according to frequency): north (from west to north); northeast (from northeast to east); southwest (of short duration); and- very seldom-southeast. The north and northeast winds give navigation the greatest trouble. At Pointe-au-Pic, the coastal mountains form a perfect shelter from the first; Cap-4-l'Aigle cuts much of the second. The southeast wind never lasts long and is never violent in this season. And winter in Pointe-au-Pic is always fogless.

The threat of maritime accidents is then at its lowest and the fact is that for more than 50 years of winter navigation there never was any.

Moreover, there are, in the county of Charlevoix, along the north shore, other aids to navigation where ships can find shelter at any time.

There remains the question of ice, in the whole estuary of the St. Lawrence, only fresh water ice floats about on the salt water. In accordance with the laws of nature, these ice floes always travel on the right (going downstream). This natural drifting is enhanced by the prevailing winds (west to northeast) which push the ice southward and form ice barriers, often many miles wide, which stick to the reefs of the shore. Even ice-breakers often have trouble making their way through this ice accumulated on the south shore. On the other hand, ice drifts are seldom seen on the north shore.

The ice breaker McLean was caught in the ice floes on the south shore for several hours and when it finally broke free it was to come and rest at Pointe-au-Pic.

I would now like to deal with a few of the economic reasons for improving shipping facilities at Pointe-au-Pic, as I have been arguing.

The total distance between the north shore and Quebec via Pointe-au-Pic is slightly shorter than any other practicable route. The railway route

[Mr. Maltais.)

from Pointe-au-Pic to Quebec is also the shortest practicable route. It will therefore be seen that transportation rates via this route cannot be unfavourable.

Pointe-au-Pic is sheltered from storms and ice free at all times, a fact which allows a more assured and regular service through this port than through any other port on the south shore, provided, however, that the facilities at Pointe-au-Pic are always adequate for traffic.

From the point of view of the taxpayer Pointe-au-Pic has several great advantages. The fact that the railway skirts the shore and passes only a few feet from the present wharf and from any future wharf is in itself highly advantageous. On the other hand the property surrounding the wharf is entirely suitable for future construction and the necessary improvements and extensions may be brought about at minimum cost compared to the large investments required to construct a new harbour at any other point on the south shore.

Any such investment might moreover prove to be a total loss because it is quite possible that any winter service between the north and the south shores will prove to be quite impracticable. In any event, such a service cannot be assured without continuous help from an ice-breaker, an expense which is never necessary at Pointe-au-Pic.

The works which would be necessary to make a winter harbour out of Pointe-au-Pic will not be lost for the summer season. During that season the present wharf is very severely taxed by the passenger ships of the Canada Steamship Lines and the cargo vessels loading pulp and paper from the Clermont mills. If, at the same time two or three coasting vessels are moored, it will readily be understood how the traffic facilities can be overloaded. It has long been recognized that the county of Charlevoix has rich undeveloped mineral resources. Present indications are that these minerals have given rise to considerable interest. Any development of these resources, even on a very modest scale, would further congest the only deep water harbour facilities in the county, those of Pointe-au-Pic.

At any rate, a wharf extension at Pointe-au-Pic would be a boon to coastal shipping. Used in the summer as a warehouse to store the products of the Clermont mill, this wharf would eliminate the always awkward mix-up of trucks driving through milling crowds. It could even be used to promote the tourist industry, as it might encourage the visit of yachts, which are quite unwelcome now, and allow the mooring of bigger cruising ships having a wider range than the ships of the Canada Steamship Lines.

It is interesting to note that the construction of a new pilot station on the north shore of the St. Lawrence is now under consideration. Would not Pointe-au-Pic, with its means of rapid communication by air, highway and railroad be the ideal location for such an establishment?

I now wish to state the military reasons which would justify some important improvements to the transport facilities at Pointe-au-Pic.

We come here to a subject of extreme importance for the whole country. In wartime, Canada has always been handicapped by a dangerous bottleneck as far as facilities of navigation are concerned, especially in the winter time. Anything that would be justified in peacetime and which at the same time is liable to improve that situation should certainly be given priority.

As we have seen, the wharf at Pointe-au-Pic has just about the necessary depth. Located on a rugged coast, it is none the less well sheltered. In case of emergency, either in wartime or in peacetime, Pointe-au-Pic could be used as an

Atlantic harbour, linked as it is to Quebec city by a system of roads and railroads completely independent from the system serving Halifax and the maritimes.

It must be said incidentally that, if ever the new transcontinental line of Chibougamau (Beattyville-St. Felicien) needs a maritime outlet open the year round, Pointe-au-Pic will be the ideal location for it. The route between Chicoutimi and La Malbaie has already been laid out. It is a short distance and the ground to be covered is smoother than other possible routes. Such a road between Chicoutimi and La Malbaie would also provide Chicoutimi and Quebec with better rail services than the present facilities of the old Canadian Northern.

But from the military point of view Pointe-au-Pic is of strategic importance as a winter harbour. That harbour could not only serve the north shore and even a certain amount of transAtlantic traffic, but it could provide an outlet for the raw materials, of immeasurable strategic importance, of the north shore. And that without interfering in any way with the Quebec-Halifax systems. We do not have to point out that no future harbour on the south shore could provide as much.

Mr. Speaker, following these remarks, borrowed in a large measure from a brief submitted to the Department of Public Works by the Charlevoix chamber of commerce, I ask once more the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) to give these proposals his kind consideration, in order that we may get as soon as possible the improvements we have been asking for a number of years at Pointe-au-Pic.

While dealing with transportation, I want to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) to another problem which relates to administration rather than to the means of communication. For the past two or three years, ship operators in my constituency have sent me representations about the necessity of obtaining from the Department of Transport certain documents printed in French, or at least in both languages. It is impossible for the captain of a ship and for a sailor who applies to the Department of Transport for documents relating to the sale of a ship, the maritime mortgage and the declaration of ownership, to obtain any French form, or even bilingual forms.

Most of our ship operators and seamen have not had the privilege of associating with their English speaking fellow citizens or to attend schools where English is spoken fluently, and have to call upon experts to get a translation of the documents they need, which entails not only difficulties and delays, but even extra expense. I have been sent, for instance, some maritime hand-books they are required to have and which are entitled: "Continuous certificate of discharge for seamen." I have tried to obtain a French

The Budget-Mr. Maltais version of these books from the Department of Transport, but I have not received them yet.

We all know that such documents, couched in legal phraseology, are already fairly complicated, and this makes it all the harder for the seamen to get them translated. I trust I will not have to refer to the constitution to draw the immediate attention of the Minister of Transport to this matter and to get him to supply the seamen of Quebec with bilingual documents or at least documents in French, to improve the situation.

I believe this is the only department, in Ottawa, which provides the Quebec public exclusively with English documents. I am not blaming the Minister of Transport for this situation, because there is a whole story applying there. Some of the papers were printed following new treaties with Great Britain and other countries, and I think that the text which sometimes appears in those documents is only a repetition of part of the treaty. I would appreciate it if the Minister of Transport would put bilingual papers at the disposal of our navigators. If, because of the lengthy wording and technical terminology it were possible to turn them into a handbook, it would be important to have a translation made.

I wanted to draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to this situation, because I was discussing means of communication and thought I should say a few words with regard to the representations that were made to me.

Before concluding my remarks, I also want to draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works on the opportunity, or rather the necessity of better landing facilities in St. Bernard parish, on ile-aux-Coudres.

Situated in the St. Lawrence, opposite Les Eboulements, Ile-aux-Coudres is inhabited by 1,800 fellow-citizens of mine. Living on an island, these Canadians are completely isolated for three months. During the winter their only contact with the mainland is by air. But their air service is rather primitive and costly. There is little prospect of improvement because of the limitations of the local market.

I was very satisfied with the welcome extended by the maritime commission to a delegation which came to Ottawa this week to press their claims for a grant towards a winter ferry service between the ile-aux-Coudres and St. Joseph de la Rive. I would very much appreciate both the granting of this subsidy and immediate attention,

2874 HOUSE OF

The Budget-Mr. Hahn on the part of the Department of Public Works, to the advisability and possibility of improving dock facilities at St. Bernard, on ile-aux-Coudres.

(Text):

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
SC

Frederick George Hahn

Social Credit

Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):

Mr. Speaker, the budget this year is indeed an interesting document and it seems to me it has met with different reactions everywhere in the country. In checking those who have taken part in the discussion thus far I was particularly interested to note that only one Liberal member west of Ontario has spoken. I think that in itself speaks of what we find in the budget, because a good deal of the budget is devoted to what is being done, or will be done, in the maritimes. I might refer to what the hon. member for Inverness-Rich-mond (Mr. MacEachen) had to say. He made a very interesting comment on page 2596 of Hansard. He said:

A budget which announces a surplus cannot be taken as a sign of improvidence or imprudence.

Later he went on to say:

However, Mr. Speaker, my main remarks this morning will be directed to an appreciation of those parts of the budget having to do with the maritime provinces.

As I listened to the various speakers from the different parts of Canada speaking to the budget I wondered whether it was just an accident that most of the government supporters who have spoken have come either from the province of Ontario or the maritime provinces. The reaction I receive from the contents of the budget is that we are enjoying extremely good times.

I noticed in this morning's paper an announcement to the effect that while the Minister of Finance had expected a surplus of some $282 million, after eleven months' operation it appears we are going to have a surplus of $544,100,000. I am happy that we do have surpluses because, as the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond suggested, a budget which announces a surplus cannot be considered an improvident thing; rather it should be rejoiced at.

The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) was the first member to speak on the budget and I congratulate him upon so doing. He told us that while the budget was disappointing it had been greeted with enthusiasm and great joy. If he did not say that in so many words, what he did say indicated that that is exactly how it was received.

The Minister of Finance has announced a great surplus, something for which all Canadians should be grateful. However, it seems to be causing him something of a headache. He does not want to spend it as

[Mr. Maltais.l

the tight money policy he has announced would indicate that the government does not wish to build more public buildings. We have pressed hard all along that more money be made available for the building of homes. It was announced yesterday that more money would be forthcoming, but the minister has found it most difficult to dispose of this money.

Apparently he does not want to give it away in the form of tax cuts because so few have been announced in the budget. It is unfortunate that in the case of the tax cuts that are announced from time to time the public do not seem to get any benefit from them in the final analysis. The minister removed taxes on certain items which should give the children a certain amount of joy, items such as gum, chocolate bars, soda pop and so on, but we find the manufacturers saying that they were going to have to boost prices anyway and therefore they will have to take advantage of the reduction. Of course that is not the fault of the Minister of Finance, it is just an indication of the unfortunate position in which we find ourselves.

Then the question of giving money away in the form of pensions is a sorry subject especially to those people who had expected a little more from the budget. The minister decided that the best thing to do with a good portion of this surplus was to bury it, to take it out of circulation, and he has done that rather effectively. Now that he is going to have another $250 million to play around with I wonder whether he intends to bury that or just what he will do with it.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Walter Edward Harris (Minister of Finance and Receiver General; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Harris:

What $250 million is the hon. member referring to?

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
SC

Frederick George Hahn

Social Credit

Mr. Hahn:

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

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Walter Edward Harris (Minister of Finance and Receiver General; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Harris:

There is no surplus of $544 million.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
SC

Frederick George Hahn

Social Credit

Mr. Hahn:

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

the pensioner just has to pull in his belt a little tighter because of the increased cost of living.

As the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) indicated yesterday, the announced increase of $6 per month will be of little value to old age pensioners because the landlords are now asking for more in the way of rent for the space in their homes occupied by old age pensioners. As a result the old age pensioner is not going to be helped at all by this budget.

The Progressive Conservatives, the official opposition, brought in an amendment which seems to be at variance with the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond. I shall not read it as we are all familiar with the fact that there are several shortcomings in government policy as announced through the medium of the budget.

I referred earlier to what the hon. member for Kootenay East had to say. I found many of his thoughts quite interesting. During the course of his remarks on Thursday last he attempted to show that despite the fact the British Columbia government had increased its supplementary allowances by $10 per month since 1951; despite the fact that the population of that province had increased by 20 per cent since 1951-I would remind the house that at that time we suffered under a Liberal-Conservative coalition-despite all these things British Columbia is paying out less today than it did in that year in the way of supplementary allowances.

I do not argue with the figures as most likely they are quite accurate, but I would draw one conclusion with which I am sure the hon. member for Kootenay East, all his colleagues and the members of other political parties in this house will agree, and that is that since in British Columbia old age pensioners and those in receipt of old age assistance receive their supplementary allowances under a means test, it would indicate that the people in British Columbia are prospering more under a Social Credit government than they ever did before. We hope that that state of affairs will continue for a number of years to come.

However, the recognition of that fact is not sufficient. While there may be fewer people who are apparently in need to the same degree than there were before, nevertheless there is a large group of old age pensioners and other pensioners who are in great need. These people require more assistance. They cannot live as decently and respectably as they should be able to live in this country on an old age pension of $40 per month plus the $20 that British Columbia gives provided

The Budget-Mr. Hahn they are in need, nor will they be any better off with the suggested proposal of $46 per month.

Some provincial governments recognized this need for supplementary allowances considerably before the budget was brought down. I find that early in the fall of 1956 a Social Credit convention was held in Vancouver attended by some thousand persons at which the following resolution was passed:

Whereas the national government has implemented an old age pension plan that pays $40 monthly to all Canadians at age 70 years; and

Whereas the present pension payments are inadequate and provincial governments are compelled to augment these payments;

Therefore be it resolved that the national pensions be increased by at least $20 per month.

I suppose there are those who will say these are recommendations by a group which did not have the responsibility of finding the $20. However, I contend-and the people at the convention apparently agreed-that we do have the money available today in the form of this surplus, though, of course, the financial and fiscal policy which the government is now following prevent

advantage being taken of it.

No one will deny, I am sure, that the government of British Columbia has realized its responsibility in this matter by suggesting to the Minister of Finance and to the government that if the federal government saw fit to increase the old age pension by $20 a month, it in turn would continue to pay on the basis as formerly the $20 which is now being paid in that province.

I will call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to another article in the Vancouver Province. This is also dated considerably before the presentation of the budget-it is dated February 16, 1957-and it speaks of a larger share for the old folks. What inspired this article was, I think, an announcement-possibly from a not too responsible source- that the federal government intended to increase old age pensions by between $5 and $10 a month. The editorial is headed: "A Larger Share for the Old Folks" and it goes on to say:

Surely a country as prosperous as Canada can give the old people at least an extra $10 a month. That, of course, is nothing more than a crumb from the growing national prosperity.

But the governments have made a habit of dropping only crumbs for the aged and infirm. Something in the atmosphere of Ottawa seems to harden the heart and shrivel the cheque book when the question of OAPs comes up.

We hope that the government will not try to fob off the old people with an extra $5 a month and the plea that the nation cannot afford more.

A government embarrassed by a budget surplus running into hundreds of millions can hardly take refuge in the excuse of penury.

A government that generously offers $50 million of the taxpayers' money to cook up culture should

The Budget-Mr. Hahn not cavil at spending at least $100 million more to put more and better food into aged stomachs and some hope into stout old hearts.

If we can afford culture, surely we can afford enough bread for everyone.

I do not wish to extend the debate by dealing with this question of culture. We have already discussed that for some time in this house. But I would recall, in this connection, that the reason for our objection on that occasion to the government's proposal to make this $50 million grant was that we wanted some indication of exactly what the government was prepared to do for the old age pensioners before we endorsed the spending of this large sum for culture.

Along the same lines, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Eric Nicol, whom I am sure everybody knows as a renowned Canadian humourist, has this to say in his column of February 16, 1957, under the heading: "Pensioners planning feverishly now to spend federal windfall":

I see where the federal government is planning to increase the old-age pension by $5, maybe $10, a month.

This will be in addition to the $40 a month the old folk have been getting since 1952.

It is expected that an emergency meeting of the Senior Citizens Association will be called to discuss how to spend all this extra cash.

"We don't want members rushing out and squandering the extra five dollars a month," said one official, "on luxuries like bread and shoes."

Economists are also worried about the effect on inflation of all this additional money in the hands of the oldsters.

"We'll now have several hundred thousand people in a position to buy pork jowls once a week," said one expert. "The price of pork jowls is bound to be driven up, and there goes the price of hog feed."

That is the cynical fashion in which a columnist sees this whole situation. These people are in close touch with these affairs; they get letters from old people in the country-people who are in distress and who require help.

Is there not something wrong, Mr. Speaker, with the present method of conducting financial assistance? Here we have a huge surplus announced by the Minister of Finance, but we cannot feed the people. We know there are many who are in desperate need in this country, and yet we say we have to hide away a good portion of this money in order to stop inflation. Surely there must be some other way of stopping inflation than the orthodox way. I know that governments are usually controlled in orthodox fashion with regard to their financial undertakings. I also realize that there are no short cuts to proper financing. However, there are so-called unorthodox methods which might surely be instituted, and which would rectify the position to which I have called attention.

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

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Elmore Philpott

Liberal

Mr. Philpoti:

One hundred and seventy dollars to $200 disability pension.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
SC

Frederick George Hahn

Social Credit

Mr. Hahn:

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

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

So are the widows who receive only $60 under the act.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
SC

Frederick George Hahn

Social Credit

Mr. Hahn:

Yes. These veterans of the second world war are in a very difficult situation.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Colin Emerson Bennett (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Bennett:

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

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
SC

Frederick George Hahn

Social Credit

Mr. Hahn:

That is what I say, and that is what brings it to $960 a year. I contend that these people are in a difficult situation because expenses-rent and other things- cannot be shared in the same way as a married couple could share them. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) interjected a word about the widows.

I am very sorry indeed to see that the budget has failed to give us any reason to expect any modification in the act with respect to widows of war veterans who have not lived in this country for the necessary 20 years. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) and other hon. members as well as myself have brought this question up time after time in the war veterans committee, and I am satisfied everyone recognizes that this is a need which should be met and which must be met. At the present time we are saddling municipalities and charitable institutions with the responsibility for looking after these poor souls. If their husbands had lived, they would be citizens of 20 years standing of this country and the question of eligibility would have been taken care of; their husbands would have been receiving

war veterans allowances. But because they had the misfortune to lose their mates soon after they came here and despite the fact that they themselves have lived here for 20 years or more, they are being denied the war veterans allowance and the assistance it would give them.

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

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

Would the hon. member permit a question?

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
SC

Frederick George Hahn

Social Credit

Mr. Hahn:

Yes.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

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

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
SC

Frederick George Hahn

Social Credit

Mr. Hahn:

That is a point I had not taken into consideration.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink

March 30, 1957