1959-04-22

STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Has the Hillerest Housing Company of Sum-merside, Prince Edward Island, made any arrangements with the Department of National Defence or any other department to provide rental housing for personnel of the armed forces?
2.	If so, what is the nature of these arrangements?
3.	Has the said company received a loan from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in respect of these housing units?


Hon. Henri Couriemanche (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the three parts of this question are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	From vote 732 of the 1956-57 supplementary estimates an amount not to exceed $870,015 was made available toward the construction of housing units. The terms and conditions relating to the financing of the construction and leasing of 100 housing units for personnel of the R.C.A.F. station at Summerside, Prince Edward Island, are set forth in orders in council P.C. 1958-29/1386 and P.C. 1956-2/1368.
3.	No Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loan has been made. However, the corporation as agent for the Department of National Defence under authority of order in council P.C. 1956-1495 of October 3, 1956, disburses and administers the Department of National Defence loan as set forth in order in council P.C. 1958-29/1386.


C.N.R.-REMOVAL OF FACILITIES FROM SMITHERS, B.C.
Mr. Howard: 1.	Are steps being taken by the Canadian National Railways to move any part of its facilities or equipment from the present location at Smithers, British Columbia, to some other place?
2.	If so, what specific facilities, equipment or machinery is to be moved, upon what date and to where?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the management of the Canadian National Railways advise me that the answer to part 1 is no, other than that the railway is contemplating moving from
Smithers to The Past the stationary boiler used for heating purposes and replacing it with an automatic furnace.
Part 2 is answered by the answer to part 1.


CANADIAN OBSERVER AT MEETING
Mr. Cardin: 1.	Is an observer in attendance for Canada at the 27th session of ECOSOC in Mexico City?
2.	If so, who is the observer and for what duration will he attend?
3.	Has any such observer any other person to assist him in his task?
4.	Has Canada had such persons in attendance on other occasions when Canada was not a member of ECOSOC?
5.	If so, who were they and at what sessions were they present?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 of this question is yes. The answer to part 2 is that Dr. R. P. Vivian, the hon. member for Durham, is attending the meetings for the period of the main discussions.
3.	Yes; Mr. John Hadwen, a member of the staff of the Canadian permanent mission to the United Nations in New York. Officials of our embassy in Mexico City are also available to assist if required.
4.	Canadian observers have been present at previous sessions of the economic and social council when Canada was not a member. All such sessions were held at United Nations headquarters either in New York or Geneva. The sessions were followed by the Canadian permanent representatives in New York and Geneva, and by members of their staffs.
5.	During the period that Canada was not a member of ECOSOC (1949, 1953-55 inclusive) the Canadian permanent representatives in New York and Geneva were as follows:
New York:	1949, General McNaughton;
1953-55, D. M. Johnson.
Geneva: 1949, Paul E. Renaud, (deputy representative); 1952-53, Bruce M. Williams, (acting permanent representative); 1953-55, Hector Allard, (permanent representative).


REPORT OF DR. CLARK-RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Marlin (Essex East): Has the government received from Professor Clark recommendations either verbally or in writing arising from the study into old age security?


Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

Starred Questions


CONSUMER PRICES ON DAIRY PRODUCTS
Mr. Mcllraiih: What was the average price to the Canadian consumer (basis Montreal market) for each of the following commodities, during period January 1, 1958 to March 12, 1959:	(i) cheese; (ii) skim milk
powder:	(a) spray process; (b) roller process;
(iii) egg powder; (iv) egg melange; (v) shell eggs?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: This question apparently is asking for the average retail prices in Montreal for a variety of agricultural products. This is a statistic which we do not have in the department. It would involve, of course, taking the daily prices in all the stores in Montreal in order to secure it, and I think it is apparent that this is the kind of thing we cannot produce. I think the hon. member could get this information for himself fairly well by looking over the pages of the Montreal newspapers, and looking at the advertising of the groceterias there, which would give the prices of those commodities from day to day. He could get the information perhaps better in that way than in any other way.
There is one thing I would point out, Mr. Speaker, namely that as far as egg melange is concerned, it is not sold to the retail trade; it is sold to bakeries.


R.C.M.P. REINFORCEMENTS, NFLD.-PROTESTS TO MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO
Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Has the Minister without Portfolio from Newfoundland received any communications protesting against the failure of the government to send Royal Canadian Mounted Police reinforcements to Newfoundland? If so, how many?
2.	What is the nature of reply, if any, made by the minister to such communications?


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will note that this question asks the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Browne) whether he has received communications protesting against the failure of the government to send Royal Canadian Mounted Police reinforcements to Newfoundland and, if so, how many. The second part of the question reads;
What is the nature of reply, if any, made by the minister to such communications?
Although the Minister without Portfolio might wish to reply, this question seems to me to be outside our practice and I would not like to have it put and create a precedent. I wish to give the house my views on the question by referring them to paragraph 1 of standing order 39, which provides that:
Questions may be placed on the order paper seeking information from ministers of the crown relating to public affairs; and from other members, relating to any bill, motion, or other puhlic matter connected with the business of the house, in which such members may be concerned.

In citation 178, in his fourth edition, Beau-chesne comments on this rule as follows:
Questions addressed to ministers should relate to the public affairs with which they are officially connected, to proceedings pending in parliament, or to any matter of administration for which the minister is responsible.
In citation 171, paragraph (x), the same author states:
A question oral or written must not deal with an action of a minister for which he is not responsible to parliament.
Then turning to May 16th edition, this is said at page 356 under "Questions to Ministers":
Questions addressed to ministers should relate to the public affairs with which they are officially connected, to proceedings pending in parliament, or to matters of administration for which they are responsible. Within these limits an explanation can be sought regarding the intentions of the government, but not an expression of their opinion upon matters of policy. A question should be addressed to the minister who is primarily responsible, and misdirected questions are -transferred by the clerks at the table on the notification of the departments concerned.
Then Campion at page 151, under the heading "Responsibility of Minister", observes as follows:
A question should be directed to a minister officially responsible for the subject matter with which it deals.
A little later on he says that one type of prohibited question is:
Putting to a minister a question for which another minister is more directly responsible or asking one minister to influence the action of another.
Finally Redlich, who is a very authoritative commentator, says in The Procedure of the House of Commons, volume 2, page 243:
A question must be precisely formulated and must be addressed to the minister who is officially connected with the matters to which it relates.
While this is perhaps not a serious matter, I feel we should keep our practice within the established limits rather than going beyond them, and it is therefore my view that a question relating to this subject matter of the R.C.M.P. ought to be addressed to the Minister of Justice. The question in this form does not appear to me to be appropriate.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Would
Your Honour allow me to make one observation? I would not, of course, want to challenge the decision or interpretation of the rule which Your Honour has given but, if I may, I should like to draw Your Honour's attention to citation 178 in Beauchesne, fourth edition, which I think can perhaps be interpreted in more than one way. It reads as follows:
Questions addressed to ministers should relate to the public affairs with which they are officially connected, to proceedings pending- in parliament-

I do not think there can be any doubt but that this question does relate to a public affair with which not only one minister but all ministers are officially connected, as well as to proceedings pending in parliament. It is true, sir, that the last part of the citation reads as follows:
-or to any matter of administration for which the minister is responsible.
Within that term the minister would not be called upon to answer the question. With that I agree, but in so far as the other two points are concerned it would seem to me that he does, and I think the "or" puts a different interpretation on it. I simply wanted to bring this to your attention.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: If I may
comment on the point that has been raised, I think Your Honour might give some consideration to where this ruling will inevitably lead, because I think we should give some thought to what responsibility a minister without portfolio in a cabinet may have. I agree with the hon. member for Laurier that if the hon. gentleman to whom he has referred has anything official to do in the cabinet it surely must be to represent the province from which he comes and to make representations about public matters affecting it. ,
I believe it is the right of parliament to ask for communications that have been sent to any minister of the crown. If a wide interpretation is to be given that a minister without portfolio does not have to produce communications sent to him, it would seem to me that this could abrogate the practice we have followed that parliament can ask for the production of such correspondence. Certainly parliament would not look kindly on any back-door method by which correspondence could take place with a member of the cabinet and for that reason outside the area within which parliament can ask for its production. I think parliament has a right to have the communications that are sent to any member of the government. The question is, how do you get them when they are sent to a minister without portfolio.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their views. It does not seem to me that any proper rights of parliament are restricted or abrogated by the view I have taken of this question. There is no difficulty in asking the Minister of Justice questions about the subject matter of this question, that is the sending of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police reinforcements, unless there is some other obstacle in the way of that being done by
Starred Questions
reason of pending litigation. Parliament is not precluded from seeking information on that question.
The effect of my view as to this question is that it is improper to ask the Minister without Portfolio for his personal correspondence. I take the view that the word "official" as it is used in the citation quoted by the hon. member for Laurier means official in the sense of being responsible for a department. The other citations make it clear that it is the Minister of Justice who is responsible for the department involved in this question. If the hon. member for Assiniboia were right, then personal correspondence would be involved in the question, and I do not think any member of the house would assert that the privilege of asking oral questions relating to a minister's responsibility extends that far, or that the asking of questions of private members extends to personal correspondence.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: I should like to make one comment, Mr. Speaker, upon what you have been good enough to say. It seems to me that if a narrow interpretation were to be given to this regulation it would mean that it would be difficult to secure any information from a minister without portfolio, and therefore that would be a violation of the principle of the collective responsibility of the cabinet. Furthermore, you will be aware that the practice in the past has been to give a wider interpretation to this rule than has been given this afternoon. I recall that when we were sitting on the treasury benches, every single member of the government was asked to stand up and answer oral questions regarding his personal or official communications, verbal or written, with the C.B.C., and no exception was taken to that procedure. There seems to have been a broader ruling then than you have given this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: I have indicated my views on this question. It seems to me, notwithstanding the comments I have had from members of the house, that it is the correct view. I am afraid, therefore, I cannot allow this question to proceed in this form.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gafe):: Under the circumstances, perhaps, as it is now recognized that the minister is without portfolio, without responsibility and without voice-


Some hon. Members:: Order.	'


John Whitney Pickersgill: -I might be permitted to remove the question from the order paper.

Orders for Returns


John George Diefenbaker: That remark, coming
from one who has no responsibility but who has much voice, is entirely out of order. Question withdrawn and order discharged.


MUNICIPAL WINTER WORKS PROJECTS
Mr. Carter: 1.	How many municipal winter works projects under the Department of Labour have actually been in operation up to date, in each province?
2.	What is the estimated cost of the federal treasury, in each province?
3.	What is the estimated number of additional jobs provided, in each province?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this question is in three parts, and I should like to give the answers in three
parts for each province.	They are as	follows:British Columbia	292	$1,191,000	3,059Alberta 	238	1,494,000	4,557Saskatchewan ..	123	481,000	2,050Manitoba	76	661,000	1,322Ontario 	641	3,565,000	10,486Quebec 	254	1,818,000	5,561New Brunswick .	208	242,000	2,324Nova Scotia .... Prince Edward	205	445,000	7,184Island	-	-	-Newfoundland .. Northwest	26	49,000	416Territories ...	8	12,000	96INDIAN RESERVE, WEST VANCOUVER


Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Was any part of the Indian reserve in west Vancouver sold or leased since June 21, 1957?
2.	If so, what is the description of the property, and what were the terms of the sale or lease?
3.	Was the sale or lease approved by the band, and, if so, by what means?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I presume this question refers to new leases and not renewals of leases.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is correct.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In that event the answer to the first part is no. The answers to the second and third parts do not apply.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD


Mr. Eudes: 1.	Have any representations been received by the government to appoint a woman member to the national parole board?
2.	If so, from whom have any such representations been received and what action, if any, is contemplated?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Since this question involves the necessity of

circularizing my colleagues I would ask that it be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



ARMED FORCES


Mr. Regier: 1.	For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1958, what was the cost to the government of Canada of education for dependants of members of the armed forces?
2.	How many dependants were thereby provided with educational services?
3.	How many of these dependants received their education (a) in Canada; (b) overseas?
4.	How much of this total expenditure was spent on behalf of dependants (a) in Canada; (b) overseas?
5.	What was the over-all cost per pupil of this program (a) in Canada; (b) overseas; (c) for all of them?
6.	How many of these dependants were supplied with educational services (a) in schools supplied by the federal government; (b) by way of grants to existing educational institutions?
7.	What was the average per pupil cost of grants made to existing educational institutions on behalf of the education of these dependants for each of the ten provinces of Canada?
8.	What is the estimated over-all cost per pupil in the regular school systems of other Canadian children in each of the ten provinces?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 92-Mr. Dumas:
For a copy of all communications exchanged since July 1, 1957, to date, between the Postmaster General or any officer of his department on the one hand, and any other person and organization on the other, regarding a contract for the carrying of mail between Halet and the railway station Malartic via Norrie and Malartic, province of Quebec.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 93-Mr. Dumas:
For a copy of all communications exchanged since July 1, 1957, to date, between the Minister of Labour or any officer of his department on the one hand, and any other person and organization on the other, regarding the chairmanship of the board of referees for the Quebec regional division (district of Rouyn, Quebec) under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, this motion is agreed to subject to the usual reservation with regard to confidential and privileged correspondence.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion subject to the reservation expressed by the minister?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 94-Mr. Carier:
For a copy of all communications received by the Minister of Transport and officers of his department, or any other minister or official, since January 1, 1954, regarding the proposal to establish a free port in Newfoundland, and the replies thereto.
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to the passing of this motion with the usual reservation regarding the consent of the province.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion subject to the limitation expressed by the minister?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he has any comment to make on reports which appear in the press today regarding the re-equipment of the Canadian air division?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the re-equipment of all our forces is constantly under review by the officers of the forces concerned, and the air force is now considering the replacement of the equipment of the first division of the R.C.A.F. in Europe when that equipment becomes obsolescent.



INQUIRY AS TO TABLING OF WHITE PAPER ON POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the white paper ready for distribution yet, and if so could it be distributed tomorrow?


George Randolph Pearkes: As I have announced several times in the house, the white paper will be distributed shortly before the estimates of the department are considered. The estimates of my department have not yet been called.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister could tell us if they are likely to be called soon?


George Randolph Pearkes: That question should be directed to the leader of the house.
Inquiries of the Ministry



FURTHER STATEMENT ON REPORTED BAN ON PHOTOGRAPHING DESTRUCTION OF PARTLY FINISHED PLANES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hen. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production): Mr. Speaker, I should like to correct a statement I made yesterday in answer to a question by the hon. member for Fort William regarding the dismantling and destruction of partly finished CF-105 aircraft, as reported at page 2880 of Hansard.
At that time I stated that no aircraft were being dismantled, but I am advised that in fact the operation of dismantling and reduction to scrap has already commenced.
The five partly finished aircraft on the assembly line are now being dismantled and those parts which can be used in other programs salvaged. Those items which can be sold at better than scrap prices are being removed and disposed of separately, and the remainder are being cut into pieces which can be handled and will be sold as scrap. As already announced, the five finished craft have not been touched but with respect to No.'s 6 to 10 inclusive, dismantling has commenced and the reduction to scrap got under way according to a report received at ten o'clock this morning.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Yesterday members of the House of Commons received an invitation from the St. Lawrence seaway authority of Canada and the St. Lawrence development corporation of the United States of America to attend the official opening of the seaway on Friday, June 26 by Her Majesty the Queen and the President of the United States.
In view of the fact that, according to the invitations, replies must be received in Montreal not later than May 10, would the Prime Minister assist the members of the House of Commons who might want to reply to this invitation by saying whether or not the House of Commons will be sitting that day? It does make a difference as to how we will be able to reply to this invitation. I am certain the Prime Minister will understand the reason for my question. We do not know how to reply unless we know whether the House of Commons is going to sit.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the co-operative spirit here in the house might give an answer to that

Inquiries of the Ministry question. If the hon. gentleman and those associated with him, together with the other members of the opposition and the members on this side of the house, are able to achieve the completion of our program by that date, then the question is answered. However, in the event that we do not do so, then if the house is agreeable-and all hon. members will naturally have the same anxiety to be present on this momentous occasion-no one would be particularly critical, providing there was unanimity, if the house should adjourn on that date.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of one I asked the other day. Can the minister tell the house whether the plans and specifications for the two new ships which are being given to the government of the West Indies are in preparation, or are ready?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I think I gave that answer last week in the absence of the hon. gentleman.


Lionel Chevrier: I will look up Hansard. INQUIRY FOR RETURN



RETAINING WALLS, QUEBEC PROVINCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works, and ask him when I may expect an answer to question 108, which I asked at the beginning of February, and which has been submitted as an order for return.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: I am not sure that comes under the Department of Public Works, but 1 shall be glad to make inquiries.


Yvon Dupuis: It refers to certain protection walls.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. C. Henderson (Cariboo):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister give the house a progress report on the construction of the bridge which is being built across

the Peace river to replace the one destroyed in October, 1957? Can the minister say when the bridge will be open for traffic?


George Randolph Pearkes: I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. I am informed that a contract for the construction of the substructure and approaches for the new bridge was awarded on July 29, 1958 and this work was completed within schedule on April 15 of this year.
A further contract for the construction and erection of the superstructure was awarded on October 20, 1958 and the completion date for this work is November 15, 1959.
In answer to the hon.. member's: second question, it is expected that, traffic should be moving freely across the new bridge by January, 1960.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, notice of which was sent to him earlier. Has the minister received any requests for an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act into the charge that price discrimination is being practised by certain oil companies during the present so-called gasoline war in southern Ontario and, if so, what action is contemplated?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. I find that a telegram dated April 21 has been received by the director of investigation, to which he has replied. I can advise the hon. member that in view of the request received from the Toronto area this matter is being carefully considered, and whatever facts the investigation discloses will be followed up in the usual way.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold Hicks (Fraser Valley):: I should like to inquire from the Solicitor General if a decision has yet been reached and, if not, when will it be reached, regarding the Bobbie Chapman case. I am sure that many people, hundreds of whom the minister has heard from, hope a decision will be announced as soon as possible. -	:* o) n -	,


Harold Edward Winch: You can say "thousands", not "hundreds".


Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicilor General):: I wish to thank the hon. member for the interest he has shown in this case all along. I know it is not the practice in this house to disclose the particulars of individual cases, but I think I can go as far as to say that the case is under study at the present time and that a decision will be announced in a day or two.


An hon. Member:: Don't go too far.


Mr. Speaker:: I think, if I am correct in my recollection, that it is not customary to ask questions of the ministry about the exercise of the prerogative of clemency. I did not object to the question at the time, but I do not think it would be proper to go into detail.


Harold Edward Winch: It
has been customary to ask questions provided the case was not before the courts. Is this matter still before the courts?


Mr. Speaker:: I am speaking from memory, but I think it is quite clear that the royal prerogative of clemency is not a subject for questions to the ministry.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct
a question to the Solicitor General. Can the Solicitor General tell us if any consideration is being given to announcing the commutation of sentences from death to life imprisonment earlier than a few hours or a couple of days before the time the death sentence is to go into effect as pronounced by the judge?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
for Vancouver East, I am sure, heard me state earlier that it was not a matter for the house to inquire into the exercise of the royal prerogative of clemency. I refer again to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 160, where he makes reference to the Canadian Commons Journal, volume 53, and states:
Parliament does not appear to have any part to1 play in the matter of clemency which is a prerogative of the crown that should not be interfered with by proceedings of the House of Commons while the subject is under consideration by His Excellency and his advisers.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I apologize for not sending him notice but it only came to me a few
Inquiries of the Ministry minutes ago because of some previous remarks made by the Prime Minister.
In view of the Prime Minister's previous statement regarding the value of a cooling off period on the Newfoundland issue, will the Prime Minister tell the house if he now considers the political temperature of this issue sufficiently tepid to warrant further action by his government?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to
engage in a controversy as to relative degrees of heat and the like, but I hope the legislation regarding Newfoundland will be before the house very soon.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister spoke about legislation concerning Newfoundland being before the house shortly, was he referring to the legislation concerning our financial relationship or the legislation concerning which disallowance has been asked?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly obvious, of course, that I was referring to the legislation affecting Newfoundland in reference to the amount of the grant and the like.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister now in a position to report what consideration has been given to the important proposal put forward by Canada, namely that the United Nations presence could be most helpful in solving the Berlin situation.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman asked a
similar question on Monday. The wording of his question at that time was as follows:
My question arises out of his statement-
That is, my statement.
-of April 17, as to Canada's position that the United Nations should be asked to play a useful role with regard to the Berlin problem. In view of the reported rejection of the United Kingdom's position, is the Prime Minister able to say whether the very useful and important proposal which he put forward has met with success?
With the indulgence of the house I wish to make a statement in this regard and in answer to the hon. gentleman's question. The newspaper story to which the hon. member referred-and there is a similar one to be found in the Montreal Gazette today, date-lined London, April 21-went further than

Inquiries of the Ministry the facts would justify. These stories came to the conclusion that final decisions on the western negotiating position have been taken, whereas in fact western policies are still very much under discussion. This was emphasized in the United Kingdom House of Commons by the foreign secretary, Mr. Lloyd, when similar questions were raised there last week. He replied, in part, as follows: "We are still in the process of preparation; no decisions have been made."
A committee of experts on which the United States, the United Kingdom, France and West Germany are represented is now meeting in London to prepare proposals for the western side. In its deliberations the committee will consider the suggestions of other member countries of NATO, including the suggestion regarding the role of the United Nations in Berlin which I mentioned in the house on March 19 and which was developed by the Minister of National Defence at the NATO ministerial meeting in Washington. The house was informed of the general content of this suggestion in statements by myself and the Minister of National Defence on April 7 and 8 respectively. When the committee of experts has finished its work in London it will report to the NATO council in Paris and subsequently to the foreign ministers of the four western powers.
As this process continues, the position of the western powers will take more definite shape and it is to be expected that speculation will increase. However, I think it would be more in the general interest and more helpful to the house if I were to withhold comment until we know finally what the western negotiating powers decide they can officially make public prior to the opening of the negotiations.
The western foreign ministers are scheduled to meet with the Soviet foreign minister in Geneva beginning May 11 and, depending on developments, a subsequent meeting of heads of government will take place. The Canadian suggestions regarding a possible role for the United Nations were intended, as hon. members are aware, to be complementary to a four power agreement on Berlin, and they cannot therefore be given practical application until such an agreement has been reached. I have no doubt, however, that in the meantime the four western governments are continuing to keep before them the possibility of a significant role for the United Nations in the solution of the Berlin problem.
I express the hope once more that it will be possible to achieve that degree of agreement which will permit of that role for the United Nations as suggested by Canada being implemented and carried into effect.



WEST BERLIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if in view of the fact that Canada as a member of NATO is now sharing responsibility for the defence of West Berlin, Canada was consulted by the United States government before the decision was taken in Washington to use the Berlin air corridor above the ceiling of 10,000 feet?


John George Diefenbaker: In regard to that question I think I had better look into the record very carefully before giving an answer, rather than depend on memory at the moment. I will, accordingly, let the hon. member and the house know as soon as I have examined the record in detail.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON ALLOCATION OF BOX CARS

[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 having to do with the Bracken royal commission which was to inquire into box car allocation and obtain a satisfactory formula for such allocation. As a result of his inquiries can the minister say when this report will be delivered to him by the queen's printer and when it may be tabled in the house?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the report will be tabled in the house tomorrow at 2.30.



INQUIRY AS TO FINAL PAYMENT ON

[Stage Direction]
1957-58 crop
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very welcome answer given to me a few moments ago by the Minister of Trade and Commerce I am encouraged to ask whether he can tell the house when the final payment on last year's wheat account may be announced. Has the wheat board yet recommended such a payment?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, one piece of good news per day should be sufficient for the hon. member for Assiniboia, but I will have an answer for him tomorrow on this question.



PETROLEUM PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I directed the following question to the Prime Minister:
-has the government received a request from the Canadian Petroleum Association to sponsor a meeting of the industry to consider present market problems? If such a request has been received, is it the intention of the government to sponsor such a meeting?
In reply the Prime Minister stated:
Mr. Speaker, I will bring this to the attention of the minister and have a reply as soon as he returns.
I wonder if I could have a reply to that question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the reply is that such a brief has been received from the Canadian Petroleum Association within the last few days, requesting that the government sponsor a meeting of the Canadian domestic oil industry in order to consider solutions to certain marketing problems. The implications of the proposal suggested in this brief appear to be both far reaching and complicated, and will be given appropriate consideration.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 21, 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.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to deal with a matter that has become somewhat controversial in the last little while, concerning recent changes made in the immigration regulations and various statements which have been made in this house and out of it with regard thereto.
At the very outset I should like to state that I have been very deeply disturbed about the misunderstanding which has gone abroad with respect to these regulations and the intent of the government in that regard. First of all I propose to deal with the remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), who had some rather harsh
The Budget-Mrs. Fairclough things to say in the house the other day during the course of this debate. Referring to the changes in regulations, he termed them at one point as cruel and inhuman. At another point he called them stupid, cruel, silly and inhuman. Mr. Speaker, I have sat in this house now for quite a few years, during which time changes have been made in the Immigration Act and in the regulations which pertain thereto. I should think hon. members would agree that if we are going to talk about cruelty and inhumanity we could very well look at some of the things that were done under the former administration.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Stupidity, too.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think the stupidity could be taken for granted with regard to the operations of the former government. I am sure hon. members will agree with me that nothing much could be more cruel-if we are going to deal with cruelty to immigrants and prospective immigrants-than to promise and not to fulfil. Yet this was the policy of the former Liberal government. If we need any testimony to that effect all we need to do is look at the mounting backlog which testifies to the cruel and inhuman policy which led to the acceptance of applications which could not be handled for two years or more.
The backlog, Mr. Speaker, has now grown from some 77,158 at December 31, 1955, to 131,785 at February 28, 1959. In Italy alone from some 12,000 at the end of 1954, and 23,000 at the end of 1955, to about 63,000 at February 28, 1959. I have a small table, Mr. Speaker, showing the backlog for five years. May I have the permission of the house to have this placed on Hansard'!


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. lady leave to have this table placed on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to follows]
Immigration-Backlog			
	(all countries)	Unspon-	
Sponsored	sored	TotalsDecember 31,1955	.. 26,332	50,826	77,158December 31, 1956	.. 47,178	69,957	117,135December 31,1957	.. 63,659	88,962	152,621December 31, 1958	.. 73,540	47,774	121,314February 28,1959	.. 75,847	55,938	131,785


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Probably because the
largest backlog was in Italy this country has been seized upon by the hon. member for special mention. I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the constituency I represent in the city of Hamilton has many thousands of people of many racial origins. The largest single group is of Italian origin, quite likely, I would think, the largest Italian group in any constituency in Canada. I have grown

The Budget-Mrs. Fairclough up with those people. Long before I was a member of the house I knew hundreds of them; they were my friends, and they are still my friends. What has happened to them and their applications for sponsorship of relatives has been just as frustrating for me as it has been for them in experiencing long delays and uncertainty, which has grown even greater and which has been the result of the increasing backlog.
I said I had known those people for a long time. 1 am sure anyone who has had the privilege of associating with people of Italian origin knows what a warm-hearted and loyal people they are. They have integrated well into our country and into our citizenship. I have great admiration for them, and the very last thing I would do, Mr. Speaker, would be to bring in any regulation which would injure them in any way. Therefore I must state as emphatically as I can that there is no truth whatever in the charges that this amendment was designed to curtail immigration from Italy. As a matter of fact it will eventually permit application to be accepted from a much broader range of persons in Italy and thus will achieve a more diversified and representative movement from that country, since it is the intention in any event to deal with all applications now on hand as conditions in the Rome office permit.
I may say that if we start now to deal with all the applications, or continue to deal with those applications which are now on hand, at a rough estimate it will take two and one half to three years to handle them. It is possible now to accept as unsponsored applications those which were formerly sponsored. Taking into account these two sets of circumstances I cannot see how the regulation can be called discriminatory, a word which has been bandied about quite a bit lately. I do believe though, Mr. Speaker, that discrimination existed in the past in that well qualified Italians who wished to migrate to this country had little or no chance of having their applications considered unless they were in the sponsored categories.
"Cruel", my hon. friend says. What is more cruel than deliberately to misconstrue and misrepresent the intention of the recent amendment? Yet that is precisely what the very highly efficient propaganda machine of the Liberal party is doing right now.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is working on the natural emotions of persons of various ethnic origins, exploiting their sorrows and increasing their heartaches. I said it would take two and one half to three years. These long delays, as the hon. member well knows, lead to a breakdown of sponsorship, because the

willingness to sponsor today may develop into the incapacity to do so in two or three years. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that if there is cruelty it is in bringing to this country strangers who have neither the means to sustain themselves nor the opportunity for employment within a reasonable length of time.
I think the hon. member has a fixation on cruelty, and probably with good reason. The previous government knew all about cruelty. I do not think anything could ever have been more cruel than the treatment accorded by the Liberal government to Canadians of Japanese origin during the last war.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was supported by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green).


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It was a blot on Canada's history which will never be completely erased. There is cruelty, also, Mr. Speaker, in the exaggeration which has gone into those reports, an exaggeration in the propaganda which has extended even to the point that the press has been led to believe that the entry of such close members of the family as husbands, wives and children is forbidden. Last week end I noted also that one paper said that mothers and fathers would now be forbidden to enter this country.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Who wrote that speech?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Who wrote the speech? I am wondering who wrote the speeches and disseminated the propaganda from the moment the order in council became public. Even more insidious, though, than the press reports is the whispered propaganda which has been reported to us as circulating among the various ethnic groups alleging discrimination and restrictions, alleging separation of families. I have had letters coming into my office asking me if under the circumstances their applications must now be abandoned for brothers, for sisters, for children, for wives and husbands, as a result of those whispers which have been circulated among persons from other countries.
I deny these allegations categorically. It is the policy of this government to re-unite families. It is the policy to encourage the entry of the immediate family first and it will be noticed that the amendment has not disturbed that. More . distant relatives, we believe, should follow as their capacity to sustain themselves is established. What the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr.s Pickersgill) had to say is very significant. Speaking of discrimination he said that it

must exist. Then he went on to say, as found on page 2711 of Hansard for April 15:
I am not suggesting it was the discriminatory character, but it was the restrictive character of this recent order that was at fault.
Of course he could not object to this discrimination. It was he who put it into the act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. lady does not want to be unfair.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I am rising on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member state his question of privilege?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is simply that I was not in parliament when any amendment was ever made to the Immigration Act so I could not possibly have been responsible for it.


John George Diefenbaker: The order in council in 1956.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, not any amendment to the Immigration Act.


An hon. Member:: You are wriggling out of that one, Jack.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member was not the minister on May 24, 1956, then I am in error.


Mr. Fraser:: He was the little man who wasn't there.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I maintain that this discrimination was put into the act by order in council P.C.-785 of May 24, 1956, to which I shall refer in a moment. It established the discriminations which he and his party propagandists are now attacking. It is evidence of the same kind of discrimination that prompted the utterances about Canadian babies. Oh yes, the hon. member has a lot to forget and plenty to cover up. The present propaganda smokescreen is specifically designed to achieve that purpose. The hon. member had good reason for hoping, as he said on April 15, that I would not come into the house and say "the Liberals did this" and "the Liberals did that." His record and the record of the Liberal party are not such that he is anxious to have them exposed to close scrutiny.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have no apology to make for it whatever.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am very pleased to hear that the hon. member still stands behind the discrimination he put into the regulations to the act.
The Budget-Mrs. Fairclough Mr. Pickersgill: I do.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The public have been led to think that this amendment established a new procedure or revoked rights and privileges which always existed under the former administration. This is not the case. With the permission of the house I should like to have inserted in Hansard at this point P.C.-2856 of June 9, 1950.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to me that the hon. lady should read this document because then it is easier to follow the argument.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Very well. If you wish me to read it I will. It reads as follows:



P.C. 2856

[Stage Direction]
At the Government House at Ottawa
Friday, the 9th day of June, 1950.
Present:
His Excellency the Governor General in Council:
His Excellency the Governor General in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and pursuant to the powers conferred by section thirty-eight of the Immigration Act, is pleased to revoke and doth hereby revoke order in council P.C. 2743 of 2nd June, 1949, prohibiting the landing in Canada of immigrants of all classes and occupations, with certain exceptions, and is pleased to make the following order which is hereby made in substitution for the order hereby revoked:
Order
From and after the 1st July 1950, and until such time as otherwise ordered, the landing in Canada of immigrants of all classes and occupations is prohibited, except as hereinafter provided:
The immigration officer-in-charge may permit any immigrant who otherwise complies with the provisions of the Immigration Act to land in Canada, if it is shown to the satisfaction of such officer-in-charge that such immigrant is:
1.	A British subject or a citizen of Ireland entering Canada, directly or indirectly, from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa or the United States of America who has sufficient means to maintain himself until he has secured employment; provided that for the purpose of this regulation the term "British subject" shall mean a person born or naturalized in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand or the Union of South Africa, or a citizen of Ireland who has become a citizen of the United Kingdom by registration under the British Nationality Act, 1948.
2.	A citizen of the United States of America entering Canada from the United States of America who has sufficient means to maintain himself until he has secured employment.
3.	A citizen of France, born therein, and entering Canada from France, who has sufficient means to maintain himself until he has secured employment.
4.	A person who satisfied the minister, whose decision shall be final, that:
(a)	he is a suitable immigrant having regard to the climatic, social, educational, industrial, labour, or other conditions or requirements of Canada; and
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mrs. Fairclough
(b)	is not undesirable owing to his peculiar customs, habits, modes of life, methods of holding property, or because of his probable inability to become readily adapted and integrated into the life of a Canadian community and to assume the duties of Canadian citizenship within a reasonable time after his entry.
5.	A person who, having entered Canada as a non-immigrant, enlisted in the Canadian armed forces and having served in such forces, has been honourably discharged.
Provided that the provisions hereinabove set out shall not apply to immigrants of any Asiatic race.
An hon. Member:: Who was the minister.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It does not say.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When was that order revoked?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It will be noted that in this order in council there is no reference whatsoever to the admission of any classes of close relatives. In fact, this order in council revoked the previous order in council which provided for the admission of close relatives. From July, 1950 to May, 1956 there were no provisions as such in the regulations then in force for the admission of close relatives. Of course this does not mean that close relatives were not admitted any more than the recent amendment means that relatives such as brothers and sisters will be prevented from being admitted to this country. The difference between what happened in 1950, what happened in 1956 and what is being done today is that the admission of relatives under the former regulations was controlled administratively, which means that the department itself established the admissible classes of close relatives, while by the recent amendment this was done by regulation as provided in the Immigration Act.
It is interesting to note how the Liberal government curtailed the immigration of certain close relatives. In 1952, despite the fact that the administrative regulations provided for the entry of a fairly broad range of close relatives from most countries in Europe, the government of that day curtailed the entry of close relatives from Italy to such relatives as husband, wife, unmarried children under 21 years of age, father and mother. Because this change was accomplished administratively without a formal order in council there was relatively little publicity.
Judging from the sequence of events which occurred in 1956, I believe that one can properly conclude that if it had not been for the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Brent case the regulations which had been in force from July 15, 1950 would not have been changed and admission of close relatives would not have been provided for by the order in council of May, 1956 and the then government would have continued its

secret policy of discrimination, "cruel, inhuman and stupid" though it was, to quote the hon. gentleman.
I come now to the next order in council and with the permission of the house I should like to have it inserted in Hansard at this point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. lady read it too, please.


An hon. Member:: A waste of time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We lose the context otherwise.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: This is P.C.-785 of May 24, 1956. Since the hon. member is determined to have me use up my time by reading orders in council, I will read only the amendment to section 20 which has created the controversy. Section 20, which was then amended by this order in council, reads:
20. Landing in Canada of any person is prohibited except where the person falls within one of the following classes of persons who may be landed in Canada if such person meets the requirements of the act and of these regulations:
(a)	a person who is a British subject by birth or by naturalization in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, or the Union of South Africa, a citizen of Ireland, a citizen of France born or naturalized in France or in St. Pierre and Miquelon islands, or a citizen of the United States of America if such person has sufficient means to maintain himself in Canada until he has secured employment therein;
(b)	a person who is a citizen by birth or by naturalization of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden or Switzerland or who is a refugee from a country of Europe, if such person undertakes to come to Canada for placement under the auspices of the department or, if the department has given its approval thereto, for establishment in a business, trade or profession or in agriculture;
(c)	a person who is a citizen by birth or by naturalization of Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, or of any country of Europe or of a country of North America, Central America or South America if such person is the husband, wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, as well as the husband or wife and the unmarried children under 21 years of age of any such son, daughter, brother or sister, as the case may be, the father, the mother, the grandparent, the unmarried orphan nephew or niece under 21 years of age, the fiance or fiancee, of a Canadian citizen or of a person legally admitted to Canada for permanent residence who is residing in Canada and who has applied for any such person and is in a position to receive and care for any such person; or
(d)	a person who is a citizen of a country other than a country referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) or in section 21, if such person is the husband, the wife or the unmarried child under 21 years of age, the father where he is over 65 years of age, or the mother where she is over 60 years of age, of a Canadian citizen residing in Canada who has applied for and is in a position to receive and care for any such person, but no such child shall be landed in Canada unless his father or his mother, as the case may be, is landed in Canada concurrently with him.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to the attention of the members especially section 20 of this order in council which I have just read, and have them compare that order in council with the one I have previously read into Hansard, P.C. 2856 of June 9, 1950. I should like to invite hon. members to read carefully the text of subparagraph (c) of this section 20. A reading of this subparagraph may lead one to believe that all the classes of persons therein mentioned were admitted so long as they were of good character and in good health. Hon. members know that this was not the case. For instance, according to subparagraph (c) of the regulations of 1956, brothers and sisters from Israel were said to be admissible, but in fact a person in Canada who applied for his brother was promptly told that the department did not have the necessary facilities in Israel and therefore could not deal with such an application.
As hon. members know, this situation was corrected on August 22, 1958. Applications then on file with the department and since received have been processed or are being processed. Israel was not the only country where the facilities were not available. There are many of the countries listed in subparagraph (c) from which immigrants cannot be admitted because of lack of complete facilities. I might have time to read them. They are Spain, Malta, Cyprus, Andorra, Iceland, Monaco, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Vatican City, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Mexico and the countries of Central and South America.
By the wording of subparagraph (c), the country was led to believe that the former Liberal administration was generous, but persons with relatives in certain countries have learned since that notwithstanding this apparent generosity in the regulations they could not bring forward their relatives. In other words, Mr. Speaker, though the Liberal government turned on the tap, no water came out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising again on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope it is a question of privilege and not just a question of disagreement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that the minister is misrepresenting the facts, but if the hon. lady would prefer me to reserve my remarks until she has concluded, I would be very glad to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it would be better if the hon. member made his statement at the end of the minister's remarks.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: So, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is against restrictions.
22, 1959
The Budget-Mrs. Fairclough I should like to ask him what he was doing when he laid the foundations for the backlog which is today so frustrating to prospective immigrants. I should like to know, and perhaps he can tell us when he makes his speech, what he was doing when he pretended there would be entry for immigrants where there were no facilities for examination? Apparently the only restriction he is against is the honest one. He does not mind restrictions if they are hidden in administrative detail and subterfuge. He does not mind the hidden, dishonest restriction.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member will withdraw that word "dishonest".


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I did not apply it to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, but to the spirit of the restrictions.


Mr. Speaker:: The inference was very clear. I hope the hon. member would be good enough to withdraw it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I was referring to the restrictions, but if Your Honour thinks there is an inference I can assure you and the hon. member that the inference was not directed to him, personally.
There are many things in this act that I do not like. Since this government has taken office, Mr. Speaker, we have initiated a thorough review of the Immigration Act, the regulations, the procedure and the policy. We are still hopeful that from certain countries it may be possible to facilitate the admission of relatives of persons who cannot now come to Canada, but whatever will be the result of these efforts I can assure the house that it is not the intention of the government to deceive the people of Canada by making them believe that their close relatives are admissible if, in fact, this is not possible.
When the proposals are drafted it is my intention to consult with the representatives of the various ethnic groups, with the ethnic press, which is an important line of communication to those of ethnic origin, and I hope to have the advice of the immigrant aid agencies. In fact, I have long felt that there is not a sufficiently close liaison between my department and the agencies whose help is of such inestimable value to the newcomer. I hope we will have the advice and co-operation of labour, of business and of the church and welfare groups. I think it goes without saying that close examination of the proposed revisions will be made, and also I expect that the broad experience of hon. members of this house who, themselves, are of ethnic origins will prove invaluable.
Out of all this it is my hope that we can produce a new deal in immigration matters;

The Budget-Mrs. Fairclough positive approaches, democratic programming, raising of standards, flexible practices for selective immigration to replace rigid restrictions in the present act and regulations. In the meantime I had hoped to establish a more orderly procedure by reason of the regulation which has become so controversial. I could not see that anyone would be hurt because all applications now on hand would be dealt with in any event. If immigration is to be properly planned, and if immigrants are to be successful, it is necessary to maintain broader selection in the classes of immigrants admitted to Canada, in terms of skill, training, personal qualifications, and the needs of the country. The recent amendment was designed to make possible this broader selection without affecting the majority of those who formerly came under the sponsorship procedure.
As I said, I hoped I could achieve this. Unfortunately, I have not succeeded; not because the result would not have been achieved; not because prospective immigrants and their sponsors would not have been in a more advantageous position; but because the propagandists of the Liberal party have created an atmosphere of distrust and apprehension in which it is impossible to work.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How childish can you get.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is interesting to note that the members of the Liberal party in this house think that is very funny. Since their laughter cannot be reproduced in Hansard, I think I must draw attention to it. This is a highly sensitive department, as hon. members know, and the reaction of human beings to any proposal is always unpredictable. Without co-operation of all concerned, no plan of procedure can be completely successful. I want to say once more how deeply I regret the misunderstanding of the intention of these regulations.
I would like to say something else of a personal nature. When I accepted the Prime Minister's (Mr. Diefenbaker) invitation to this portfolio I hoped my tenure of office would be classified as humane and sympathetic. I have no aversion to changing my mind if circumstances make such action advisable. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that I hope to suggest revisions to the act in a few months' time in any event, I am asking my colleagues to rescind order in council 1959-310 until such time as the discriminatory section 20 placed into the regulations by those now in opposition can be replaced. I trust the revisions which I will then propose will be understood and will have the approval of all those interested in immigration.


Now, Mr. Speaker, I feel I should say one word about the Prime Minister's remarks in the house on April 7 last. At that time, unfortunately, I was not in the house and the Prime Minister answered for me a question which was put with regard to these regulations. Towards the end of his remarks at the top of page 2296 of Hansard for that date he said:
I, for one, intend to have this looked into, because the section indicates that the one passed in 1956 had whatever objections can be raised against the present amendment.
I think that that has been amply demonstrated in the remarks I have made today and in the portions of these orders in council which I have read into Hansard. But I do want to take this opportunity to thank publicly those representatives of the ethnic press and the ethnic groups who got in touch with the Prime Minister, with myself and with other members of the government, and whose representations were responsible for the investigation which the Prime Minister indicated in his remarks in the house on April 7. I would just like to say that their thoughtfulness and co-operation is greatly appreciated, and I hope as time goes on we shall continue to have their help in matters affecting this department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I did promise the hon. member an opportunity to make a correction, if the hon. member felt one was necessary, to correct something which had been said by the hon. minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do feel
there is one correction, and only one, which is necessary, but perhaps the hon. lady would permit me to say that I am very pleased she has taken my advice and rescinded the order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. lady said, according to the copy of the press release I have which she gave to the press before she started to speak, that there were many of these countries specified in section 20, subsection (c) of the regulation of May 24, 1956, in which there were no facilities. Now, in a very limited, narrow, restricted sense that statement is perhaps not exactly incorrect. There are no immigration officers in those countries, but we, are represented either by representatives of the Department of External Affairs or, where there are no Canadian missions, by the British consulates. I would like to express my appreciation of the help they gave me when I was minister-and I am sure they are

still giving this help today-and the hon. lady is quite wrong in saying that there were not facilities commensurate with the very small number of applications which there were from those countries.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think possibly I need only cite Israel and what has happened there to show the difference between a country in which we do have complete facilities and one in which we do not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the hon. lady-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. lady has made an even grosser mistake, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: This process of correction
cannot be carried on to a debate. I think I should terminate it here.
(Translation):


Mr. Maurice Bourgei (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, before I go on with the few remarks I should like to make about the budget, I want to point out that this house made a fine gesture last night when allowing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) to leave the sitting before the end. Indeed we were thus afforded another opportunity to witness the minister's ability to answer the interesting questions tossed to him by distinguished members of the press gallery, and particularly to parry any question that proved embarrassing. On the whole, sir, he gave, as we say back home, a fine display of fancy skating.
When, on Thursday evening April 9 I listened to his review of the economic situation and heard him announce a tax boost and a third consecutive deficit, I couldn't help thinking what a disappointment it would be to Canadians in general, and particularly to those who, temporarily attracted by glittering promises, had put their trust in the Conservatives. Then too, and this is characteristic of the Minister of Finance whenever he finds it hard to introduce or to defend a case which, in his heart of hearts he knows to be wrong, he waves his arms, bangs on his desk and shouts at the top of his voice. I am making this remark in the hope that, if he takes it in good part, he will profit by it and, in future, will not let his opponents see through his game; this might help him defend his case with greater conviction, and without impairing his health considering that, as he said a while back, he has to work sixteen or eighteen hours a day.
I was just saying, Mr. Speaker, that people have been sadly diisappointed. I do not wonder, because throughout the 19 years that I have been sitting in this house, our
The Budget-Mr. Bourget friends now occupying the government benches and their friends regularly and solemnly promised on the hustings that, if they were elected, they would put a stop to waste and extravagance, that they would decrease taxation and extend social security, while introducing a balanced budget. Well, as in 1930, people unfortunately were taken in by those glittering Conservative promises. During the October 1957 session, taxes did come down, but only by a third of the amount promised by the Conservative party. They were increased-and the minister shakes his head in denial, but if he cares to go over the figures, he will see what was being promised at the time, when it was stated that the Liberal government of the day was overtaxing the people of Canada by 500 million dollars which, therefore, added up to $120 per family.
Now, the tax reductions in December 1957 meant only $47 or $48. That is why we are right in saying today that taxes at the time were reduced by only one third. Old age pensions, pensions for the blind and pensions for disabled persons were increased, but family allowances were not, even if Conservative speakers, particularly in the province of Quebec, and I think that nobody can deny it-


Some hon. Members:: Yes, yes.


Maurice Bourget: -were out-promising one another.
Well, it was a fine thing at the time, Mr. Speaker; it was the honeymoon. The members sitting on the government side, as well as their friends, waxed vocal, proclaiming all over the place, especially during the 1958 election, that the Conservatives had done more in seven months than the Liberals in 22 years. They had finally found, they said-


Some hon. Members:: And they had!


Maurice Bourget: They had? Let me finish my speech and you will see that they had not.
Their contention was that they had found the magic formula that would solve all problems, minimize all troubles. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the picture today is quite different. The people now realize they were misled and that the honeymoon is over. It took the government only a year, to the day, that is from March 31, 1958 to April 9, 1959 to prove that it had misled the people.
In fact, in his budget speech of the 9th instant, the hon. Minister of Finance shattered the fine dream and, to quote his own words,- he must remember them,

it was an icy

The Budget-Mr. Bourget and depressing wind that he caused to blow on the taxpayers this year. To the tax cuts he had granted in 1958, amounting to about $204 million, he now substituted new higher taxes whereby the government was going to take away from the taxpayers $245 million for this fiscal year and $352 million for a whole year. Moreover, according to the minister's forecasts, despite this tax boost, the deficit he anticipates for the end of the fiscal year will reach $393 million, which will mean another record-breaking deficit after the $617 million deficit we had last year.
Mr. Speaker, in his budget speech of April 9, the Minister of Finance made the following statement, and I quote from page 2415 of Hansard:
I have already referred to the important results achieved by the government in providing increased security, including old age security and hospital insurance. These programs have been well received. They cost money and must be paid for. We have also, as I have previously indicated, spent large sums to meet the problem of unemployment.
As far as I can judge our Canadian public has been well informed about the underlying facts of the situation. Evidently most people have been expecting some tax increases this year. Many may be not unpleasantly surprised that the increases I shall be proposing are as moderate as they are.
Well, sir, everybody agrees with him that those programs cost a lot of money and have to be paid for.
But what the people won't accept and what I for one do not admit, is to have him say that the underlying causes of the situation had been explained to the Canadian public. The Minister of Finance never talked along those lines during the last electoral campaign. Neither did the present Prime Minister when, in a broadcast from Vancouver on May 24 1957, he said:
The Liberals tell you it is not possible to lower taxes and raise pensions at the same time. Give us a chance-we'll show you.
Well Mr. Speaker, the government was given that chance but we realize today that this chance served only to prove the claims of the Liberals. After a single year in office, the government takes more from the taxpayers than it gave them.
Under this budget taxes are to be increased in the following manner: first, the contributions to the old age security fund will be increased by changing the present 2-2-2 formula to 3-3-3. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, may I say that that is a 50 per cent increase which will be paid by the commercial corporations and the individuals, regardless of


their income. That increase will add $196 million to the old age security fund and you will remember that in 1957 the increases in the old age security did not cost $196 million, but some $100 million.
In the second place, there will be a 2 per cent personal income tax increase for those with a $3,000 taxable income, which, in the estimation of the Minister of Finance, will produce $54 million a year.
In the third place, the income tax rate for corporations with an income over $25,000 will be boosted from 45 per cent to 47 per cent, which will bring in $56 million.
In the fourth place, the excise tax increase on cigarettes, spirits and other items will amount to $46 million.
All those new taxes, Mr. Speaker, represent a total increase of $352 million for a full year.
In some quarters, it has been indicated that the new taxes will not affect people of small or modest income. I would be only too happy if this were the case, Mr. Speaker, but when you analyse table 8, supplied by the Minister of Finance on the evening of his budget speech, as recorded on page 2425 of Hansard for April 9, you find that such a statement is entirely untrue. Indeed, revenue forecasts after tax changes reach the figure of $352 million. Of this amount, over $214 million will be paid by all private taxpayers, whatever their income, because $75 million will be levied on the basis of the 3-3-3 formula for the old age security fund, while $93 million will be provided by the increase in the sales tax and $46 million by the increase in the excise tax on cigars, cigarettes and spirits.
This means, Mr. Speaker, that 60 per cent of the total tax increase will be shouldered by the general public, with the lower income class paying like everyone else. Moreover, it is known that in practice-as the Minister of Finance will recall if he refers to the speech he made in April 1954, in which he mentioned invisible taxes, or hidden taxes as they are called-such taxes are always higher than the budget indicates. Let us take cigarettes as an example. We find today, Mr. Speaker, that the tax increase on a package of cigarettes is not 2 cents, but in fact 3 cents. In my view, this shows that citizens in the low income brackets are spared no more than other classes of society.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention certain examples the Minister of Finance gave us in order to give the people an idea of the increase or the reduction in taxes-mostly an increase-which could be expected, I quote from page 2417 of Hansard for April 9:
For purposes of comparison, let us consider the position of a typical married man who is the father of two children of family allowance age.
At an income level of $3,000 a year, under the new rates this man will pay a total of income tax and social security contribution of $56, an increase of $4 from the 1958 level. He will, however, be paying $34 less-
And I wish to stress this part of his remarks, Mr. Speaker.
He will, however, be paying $34 less than he paid before the reductions were introduced in 1957.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Minister of Finance wanted the people to believe that, as a result of the new tax increases, the taxpayers would pay even less taxes in 1959 than they used to pay under the Liberal administration in 1957. However, in saying that the Canadians, even after the tax increase, would pay $34 less, he forgot to add other taxes-


Mr. Asselin:: Which ones?


Maurice Bourget: Which ones? Here they are: the excise tax, the tax on cigarettes-


Martial Asselin: Luxury.


Maurice Bourget: Luxury taxes! When you spoke of taxes during the 1957 and 1958 election, you did not talk about luxury taxes
and yet, you boasted about abolishing taxes without mentioning any increase. That is what you were talking about.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be disturbed by the interruptions of my good friend from Charlevoix. Nevertheless, I would like to show that as a result of the tax increases, taxpayers will pay more taxes in 1959 than in 1957, and I explain. We must not forget to add here the increase in the tax on cigarettes, and I want to be conservative-not for long, however-


Mr. Denis:: Shame!


Maurice Bourget: -and say that from now
on, if a man buys a package of cigarettes every day, he will pay 4 cents more a day, or close to $15 in a year.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assompiion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker-
The Budget-Mr. Bourget Mr. Bourgel: If the hon. member would let me-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The government has not increased the price of cigarettes by 4 cents a package. The companies have taken advantage of the tax increase to raise the price by 4 cents, and the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) should be more accurate in his statements.


Mr. Habel:: Why don't you say something about Mr. Duplessis' tax?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We are not concerned here with provincial politics.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the brilliant member for Joliette-l'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) I would ask him to read over what I have quoted a moment ago, to read over the speech made by the Minister of Finance who, when he was in the opposition, spoke of hidden taxes. Just read over what he said, as recorded in the 1954 Hansard.


An hon. Member:: He cannot do that, since he is spending his time preparing speeches.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The former government levied taxes to subsidize the public, to please the Americans.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, there are too many members speaking at the same time at present. I believe it would be preferable for hon. members to speak just one at a time. An hon. member has risen on a point of order and I would ask the house to allow him to repeat what he said. It rests with the Speaker to determine if the point of order is justified or not. For the time being, I suggest that the hon. members allow the hon. member for Levis to proceed with his remarks.


Maurice Bourget: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to prove that we Canadians are going to pay more taxes in 1959 than in 1957.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Levis. In fact, I allowed him to speak and he was quite justified in proceeding with his observations. But, so that we may proceed in an orderly fashion. I think that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm had already risen on a point of order. Therefore,

The Budget-Mr. Bourget it would perhaps be better to allow the hon. member to state his point of order before permitting the hon. member for Levis to proceed with his remarks. This is strictly a matter of procedure.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Levis did not quote the exact figures.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member for Levis said that, because of the higher government tax, cigarettes had gone up 4 cents a package. I submit it is due mostly to the rash ambition of certain companies. In my opinion, he should have mentioned that. The responsibility for such an increase does not lie at the door of the government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Again I point out to the hon. members that there are too many speakers in this house. In my opinion, the point of order raised by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is rather a matter of disagreement and, therefore, the hon. member for Levis has the floor.


Maurice Bourget: In my opinion, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is a little bit mixed up. I can understand his position, he is a bit jittery, since the parliamentary secretaries have not been appointed yet. At any rate, I shall go on with my remarks.
If we assume, Mr. Speaker, as I said, that a man smokes a package of cigarettes a day, he would be paying $15 a year in additional taxes.
As far as alcoholic beverages are concerned, well, I would not like to take the case of someone who overindulges, but rather the case of a man who buys two 25 ounce bottles a month. In his case, it would mean 50 cents a month, or $6 a year.
Now, the sales tax is supposed to bring in this year $93 million, which means, according to the instance I chose, an average of $18 per year. If we add up all those taxes that the minister forgot to mention in the example he gave, we realize that instead of paying $34 less in 1959, we are going to pay $5 more. In this case, the taxpayer has an annual income of $3,000.
Let us take now the other example, example No. 4. Here the taxpayer has an income of $7,500 a year and he said he would have $2 less to pay than in 1957. Well let us add,


in this case too, $15 for cigarettes, $12 more for liquor, which is not excessive, since one who earns $7,500 a year can certainly afford two more bottles a month. There is also the sales tax; this taxpayer would naturally buy a lot more than the one with the $3,000 income. Let us add then a sum of $30 to be paid in 1959. Thus, owing to this increase, the taxpayer will be paying $55 more in 1959 than he had to pay in 1957.
According to Hansard of April 9, page 2415, the Minister of Finance says that our tax policy for 1959-1960 will be based on two principles and I quote:
(a)	To provide a broadly based source of revenues to meet the new and additional forms of universally available social welfare benefits and
(b)	To reduce the budgetary gap in a degree that will not interfere with the desired rate of recovery, but will hold out a prospect of a balanced budget at the appropriate time.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I might call the minister's attention to the fact that his principles are as unstable and varying as the weather; they change according to time, place and circumstance.
He probably remembers that, during the election, he was not speaking the same language. He and his friends, throughout the country, in the province of Quebec, as everywhere else, promised to improve social security legislation without a tax increase. They were very definite on that point, because they knew they ivould not get so many votes if they told honestly and frankly to the people that if they wanted increases in social security, they would then have to pay more. That is what everybody realizes following the budget introduced in April.
I remember very well, Mr. Speaker, that during the last election, the Conservatives based their publicity on the following slogan, which was reproduced in a small newspaper in my constituency in a headline which read as follows: "Let us vote Conservative for a happier Canada with lower taxes for Canadians." Well, we find now that Canada is less happy and that Canadians face heavier taxes. Canadians realize that because of the poor administration we have had since June 1957, a tax increase was necessary, but they will not forgive the government for having deceived them during the last election. As I said a few moments ago, the hon. minister stated in his speech that the increase in social security benefits had been welcome, but that we now had to pay for it, People

will generally admit, I think, particularly since the last budget, that we must logically pay for what we get. But I want to point out to the minister, and more particularly to my honourable colleagues in the Quebec Conservative party, that in this year's estimates there is an amount of $160 million for hospital insurance a large proportion of which will have to be paid for by Quebec taxpayers, while not a single one of them will benefit from it.
In fact, you no doubt heard, Mr. Speaker, that, not very long ago, our premier in Quebec stated flatly that he could not agree to participate in that program. In that case it might be a good thing to ask the honourable federal ministers from the province of Quebec to arrange a meeting with the head of the Union Nationale, i.e. the premier of our province, and ask him whether he would not change his mind so that Quebec people might benefit from this legislation when they need it. Mr. Speaker, as a member of this house, you probably have had people come to you, as they do to me, who cannot pay their hospital bills. Unfortunately, in my case I have to tell them: "Well, you know that in the province of Quebec hospital bills are paid only during election time."
In the course of his remarks, the hon. minister said the following words, as reported on page 2416 of Hansard of April 9. I quote:
The measures which I propose are designed to safeguard the credit of the country-
Mr. Speaker, a lot could be said on the subject, because I think I am right in stating that the credit of our country has never been as unsteady as it is today. As I said on television on the night of the budget speech, because of his financial irresponsibility, the present Conservative administration has broken an impressive number of records that it would be advisable to have printed in Hansard. In fact, government expenditures have reached their highest level since Confederation. The deficit is the second highest in peacetime after last year's. It is the third consecutive deficit of the present Conservative administration. We now have the highest interest rate ever recorded in Canada. Unemployment is at its highest level since statistics were compiled. It is also, I must point out, the first time taxes have been raised in peacetime since the days of another Conservative government, that of Mr. Bennett.
With regard to Canada's credit position, allow me to quote the following article which appeared in the financial page of Le Devoir on April 20, 1959:
Canada's rising interest rates make borrowing an expensive proposition.
66968-9-187
The Budget-Mr. Bourget
Then we find:
Investors reluctant.
I have been told, Mr. Speaker, that the word "investisseur" is not very good French, so I shall use the French word "acheteurs" instead. I quote:
Is Canada ready for an increase in its money supply?
The Bank of Canada discount rate has been rising for five consecutive weeks, reaching a record peak of 4.86 per cent last week, or four times the rate of 1.12 per cent recorded nine months ago. It was 4.67 per cent last week.
This means that the government has to pay more to borrow money, a factor which increases the interest on the national debt. The cost of money has generally risen to such a point that a large proportion of the people and of Canada's business community now have to shoulder the heavier cost of servicing the national debt.
The budget brought down last week by the Finance Minister Fleming, which involves heavier taxes, apparently has hardly led people to invest more money into government bonds.
The prices of bonds, which registered a drop last year, show no evidence of recovery. An investment broker has indicated that investors feel sure the government, despite its intention to reduce the deficit for 1959-60, will need considerable funds to finance its operations this year.
Well, I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Minister of Finance, with the new measures he has proposed, will be more successful.
I see that my time is running out; I will then refrain from making certain remarks that I would have liked to make on that matter.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer briefly to the financial position of our municipalities. Hon. members no doubt remember that, during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in particular, showed fatherly compassion over the fate of municipalities. May I quote from Le Droit of February 25, 1958:
Mr. Diefenbaker said that the government realizes the difficult financial position in which the municipalities of this country find themselves. "We will see-
And these words are between quotation marks.
"We will see that they are granted a reasonable share of taxes, said the Prime Minister, so that they can meet the new needs created by their rapid growth." According to Mr. Diefenbaker, this sharing will be carefully discussed between the governments concerned. The federal government is prepared to adopt a program of assistance to municipalities based on that study and on the recommendations of the provincial governments.
That statement, sir was made during the March 1958 election campaign. It was a nice promise to make during an election campaign. But, actually, what has happened since then?

The Budget-Mr. Bourget
Are municipalities better off financially? Has the Conservative government increased the incomes of the municipalities across the country? I have no hesitation in saying no, because the financial situation of our municipalities today is perhaps worse than it was under the Conservative regime of Mr. Bennett in 1930.
Last October the executive of the federation of mayors and municipalities met with the Prime Minister here in Ottawa, and explained their predicament. The Prime Minister merely said: "We cannot do anything".
Such was the help given to municipalities. It will perhaps be argued that an attempt was made to do something when, in October, $15 million were voted for unemployment work projects. But, the federal government, far from helping the municipalities, was laying on their shoulders the heavy burden of expenses required to implement those projects. This has been proven. I myself have referred in this house to the case of the city of Quebec which had to pay over 100 per cent of the cost of those projects. I hope we will not be given as an example this $15 million voted to the municipalities in order to relieve unemployment.
It will be said, in any case, that the Conservative government helped the municipalities. Far from it! They have been thrown into deeper debts, to solve a problem which, according to what our friends said when they were in the opposition comes under the federal government.
What has been done about it? Municipalities were given the difficult task of solving the problem and, ran deeper into debt. That was the assistance given to municipalities.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that, as far as the financial situation of our country, and more particularly its credit, are concerned, the discount rate of the Bank of Canada, which can be considered as a yardstick, has increased sharply since last year. In fact, from 1.12 per cent on July 31, 1958, it now stands at 4.86 per cent, while it is only 3.07 per cent in the United States.
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that, far from improving under the Conservative administration, the financial position of our municipalities is getting worse from day to day. Besides, I am not the only one to note this state of affairs, because I had the opportunity recently to read an article entitled "Financing Handicapped" in the Winnipeg Free Press. I quote:
[Mr. Bourget.l

(Text):
The criticism has attracted attention here ior two reasons. In the first place, Mr. Gardiner has no party axe to grind. He is a prominent Ontario Conservative considered to be very close to Premier Leslie Frost.
(Translation):
I shall only quote the final paragraph of the article, where Mr. Gardiner refers to the present position of the greater Toronto council, and to the position of Canadian municipalities in general. This is what he said:
(Text):
But Toronto Metro is experiencing great difficulties in financing municipal projects. Federal policy, says Mr. Gardiner, has had the effect of increasing interest rates on financing while, at the same time, reducing the amount of money available for borrowing purposes. In 1954 Metro was able to borrow at 3.5 per cent. In March of this year the rate was 5.4 per cent.
(Translation):
There, sir, is further evidence of the plight of Canadian municipalities who would borrow to carry out their projects.
Mr. Speaker, I have to hasten, because my time is almost up, and I would be grateful if you allow me a few more minutes.
It has been said that the Minister of Finance has shown a lot of courage-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must tell him that his time is up. I even allowed him two additional minutes.


Mr. Noel Dorion (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to offer my humble congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). His task is both thankless and complex. In a country as varied and as diversified as ours, where finance is conditioned by a great number of factors on which the governing authorities are far from having complete control, where trade, agriculture and industry depend not only on the domestic market but also and mostly on the international market, it is not easy to hold the strings of the nation's purse. Consequently it was often and rightly said that the budget is the expression, if not the most truthful and the most accurate, at least the most tangible and the most palpable expression of the conditions prevailing in a country.
Indeed, you can trace back in the budget, through financial results everyone can see, the mistakes and errors of the past, as well as the justification of the hopes one may entertain for the future. It can be said that there

is no legislation, no institution, no event which would not have an impact on the budget, however little importance they may have in the national life.
The opposition members who took part in this debate mostly dealt with the budget as if it were a separate, artificial operation which can be isolated from its context. That may be a smart move bringing a temporary success, but it is above all a move which does not take into account the consistent and inevitable sequence of facts and events preceding it, facts and events for which they are responsible for the most part, since they took place while they themselves were entrusted with the administration of the nation's business.
Instead of the opinion of those so-called economists, who anyway have not been able to present a really positive criticism, I would rather accept the opinion of generally well-qualified and well-informed people who agree that the Minister of Finance acted with wisdom, know-how and ability. Thus, for Mr. Harvey Perry, director of the Canadian tax foundation the budget is:
Just about perfect for this period of adjustment.
Mr. David B. Archer, president of the Ontario federation of labour, said that this budget is:
Prosaic and orthodox.
Mr. John S. Proctor, president of The Imperial Bank of Canada said that this was:
A sensible budget, aiming definitely at reducing the deficit.
And Mr. Allan T. Lambert, general manager of The Bank of Toronto and M. J. R. Wadsworth, general manager of the Canadian Bank of Commerce said about the same thing.
At this stage, I would like to say a word about an argument which has particularly impressed me and which has not yet received an answer from our opponents. It was expounded very eloquently and in a very informed manner by my excellent friend, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette).
Comparing the economic situation in the United States and that prevailing in Canada under nearly identical conditions, he pointed out that the	way we managed our
affairs had brought results much more tangible and	concrete than in	the
United States, and at less cost.
66968-9-1874
The Budget-Mr. Dorion
What impressed me more in the speech of the Minister of Finance is the fact that 22 per cent of the money coming from the taxpayers will be redistributed to the provinces, that is a sum of $1,212 million out of $5,660 million, which is the estimate of expenditures for 1959-60. In other words, were it not for those payments to the provinces, instead of a deficit of $393 million expected, we would have a surplus of $819 million. Those are figures which give us cause for reflection and which call for a close examination of the fiscal relations between the federal government and the provinces. Of course, out of that amount of $1,212 million, there are certain payments which the government cannot forgo, either because it is bound by the constitution or by amendments thereto, or because it has concurrent jurisdiction with the provinces, or again because it has signed agreements with most provinces for the rental of some of their taxation fields. Such payments account for a total of over $774.3 million.
In a country such as Canada, which differs so markedly from one section to another, and where natural wealth is unequally distributed, efforts must be made to ensure that the national income is spread over the various provinces, without affecting the fiscal freedom of any province, a freedom that is a requisite for the exercise of their constitutional powers. On this score, the $25 million paid to the Atlantic provinces in the form of economic adjustment subsidies, and the funds provided for tax equalization and for the financial stabilization of the less richly endowed provinces, which amount to a total of $166.7 million, are, in my view, justified. The same applies to the $22.5 million paid to municipalities in lieu of property taxes on federal properties.
There are a number of other grants that could be questioned, and indeed are so, with respect to the distribution-as defined in the constitution of 1867,-of the legislative powers as between the provinces and the central government. While some of those grants can take on a legal character on the basis of section 92 paragraph 10, which applies especially to works which are declared by the federal parliament to be to the advantage of two or more provinces or to the general advantage of Canada, there are others, such as grants to university education which, in my opinion, definitely go beyond the constitutional powers of the central government and constitute interference in an essentially provincial field.

The Budget-Mr. Dorion
Of course I am fully aware that the preamble of section 91 which empowers federal legislators to pass laws for peace, order and good government has developed into a blanket formula most convenient to those who would justify the craving for centralization, which tends to grow within any federal government. In this connection, let me quote an argument in point, namely the opinion stated on page 57 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations, Book I. While considering this construction put on the said preamble, the commissioners remarked, and rightly so:
The exclusive sphere ensured to the provinces by section 92 might, it the Dominion so desired, become very small indeed.
the bare assertion by the federal parliament of a general or national aspect in the subject matter of the legislation would, of itself, justify the legislation under the "peace, order and good government" clause. That clause would then confer tremendous power on the federal parliament ... The power of the dominion parliament under the "peace, order and good government" clause would become so overwhelming that the federal character of the constitution would be open to grave doubt.
Indeed, under these conditions, the constitution in its working, would approach the legislative union which some of the fathers desired but which, as they recognized, they could not secure by agreement.
Mr Speaker, from time to time also, an argument is predicated on the power which rests with the federal government to resort to any taxation system, and the inference is made that it can, on that basis, levy monies even for purposes beyond its field of action. I had the opportunity last year to probe the matter from that particular angle and I do not want to be repetitious. No doubt, the remarks made by the commissioners I just quoted, apply to the same extent, if not to a greater extent, to this argument which is all the more specious for its failure to take into account the function of the tax which, far from being a purpose in itself, is but a means entrusted to the government to carry out the tasks in its own realm. That education, at every level, should come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces; that, by inference, it should remain with them to look after it and to provide grants to that effect, that is obvious to me. In 1938, when some legislation passed by the Ontario government was referred to the Supreme Court, Hon. Justice Lyman Duff, who was unquestionably one of the most brilliant minds on the Canadian bench, said as follows:
(Text):
; It is well not to forget, in examining the constitutionality of enactments of the character of those before us, that by section 93 (subject to provisions having for their purpose the protec-

tion of religious minorities) education is committed exclusively to the responsibility of the legislatures; and that, as regards that subject, the powers of legislatures are not affected by the clause at the end of section 91. We should perhaps also recall that section 93 (as is well known) embodies one of the cardinal terms of the confederation arrangement. Education, I may add, is. as I conceive it, employed in this section in its most comprehensive sense.
(Translation):
For the information of my hon. colleagues opposite, it is interesting to note that the leading figures of the Liberal party around 1920, spoke in a similar vein. One instance will be enough: when taking part in the debate on federal grants to provinces for their technical schools, as found on page 3795 of Hansard, volume IV, for the year 1919,
Hon. Ernest Lapointe made an argument in point, as follows:
The question of education is a very delicate question in this country. Suppose this government does in the matter of national schools what it proposes to do in the matter of technical schools, and grants subsidies to the provinces, provided those moneys shall be spent on the establishment of national schools, would that be fair? Some of the provinces would refuse to accept the money. Would it be fair for this parliament to ask the citizens of those provinces to pay for education in other provinces, when education is a matter of exclusive provincial concern?
Now, Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that those grants to industrial and technical education came in the wake of a report made by the commission of inquiry set up in 1910 by the federal minister of labour with the explicit agreement of every province.
How this doctrine has changed as time went on. To realize it, it is enough to remember the comments made by Hon. Jean Lesage, then member for Montmagny-L'Islet, the day before the Liberal convention in January 1958. He said:
I am positive that the Liberal party as such is prepared to endorse the principle of free education at every level.
And he went on to say:
I think that all governments, federal, provincial and even municipal, could all together take steps to achieve this desirable objective.
As compared with grants to industrial and technical grants, grants to university education have a much more questionable background. They date back to the recommendations made by an investigation commission appointed and set up by the federal government alone, without the co-operation of the provinces.
Let us see the language used in the recommendations as found on page 355 of the report:
We therefore recommend;

(a)	That in addition to the help already given for research and other purposes the federal government make annual contributions to support the work of the universities on the basis of the population of each of the provinces of Canada.
(b)	that those contributions be made after consultation between the government and the universities in each of the provinces, and that they be distributed to each university in proportion to the number of students registered.
(c)	that those contributions be such as to allow universities in Canada to carry on their work according to the nation's needs.
(d)	that all institutions that are members of the national conference of Canadian universities may have access to the above-mentioned federal grants.
As will be noted, Mr. Speaker, the members of the commission toned down their recommendations by making a significant reservation: the contributions were to be made only after consultation with the government of each province. Why such reservation, if it did not mean an implicit recognition, in such a serious matter, of the provinces' right to say the last word? Otherwise, what could have been the purpose of a previous consultation? Alas! That advice was to be ignored, pushed aside, and the federal government was to take action, without considering the likely results in a province like Quebec, which for reasons of an ethnical and cultural nature, looks upon its own education as the essential condition for the preservation and survival of a group that the province has the responsibility to defend and protect.
It is true, that, later on, one of the commissioners tried to justify the federal government's unilateral attitude by making a singularly specious distinction between education and culture, a distinction which might well cover every abuse of power. In 1956, in a lecture entitled "The dilemma of contemporary education", delivered before the Canadian Institute for public affairs at Ste. Adele, the French historian Irenee Maron referred in this connection to the meaning and the order of those two words: education and culture. I quote:
The problem of education cannot be separated from that of culture, culture being the purpose of education.
The fact that nine out of ten provinces have accepted those grants does not change the basic principle in any way. But some one is sure to say, by way of objection: "Why did the Conservative government persist and still persists in that course traced by the Liberal party? Why did you not
The Budget-Mr. Dorion yourselves, last year, voice your opposition?" To that, as far as I am concerned, I reply that, being a federal member, I could not afford to ignore the nine other provinces which had raised no objection in principle and felt no inconvenience of a regional nature in accepting the grants. I could not afford to ignore the fact that the universities and colleges of those provinces had drawn up their budget and their development projects in the light of the precedent of 1952, which has been firmly established ever since. Nor could I afford to ignore that, in those provinces and within those colleges and universities there are fellow compatriots of mine, of the same origin as my own, who have derived and still are deriving from those grants, unquestionable benefits without which their institutions of higher learning would have found it difficult to survive. Nor could I afford to ignore that, among the ten provinces of the confederation, there are some which, unfortunately, are not financially in a position to provide for the maintenance and development of their own institutions of higher learning.
I know that nothing is harder to uproot than a precedent. Let me, in that connection, quote a remark made by the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux when, in 1917, during a debate here in the House of Commons, he recalled this page from the history of England:
The minister states, however-at least, that is what I gathered from his remarks this afternoon -that this income tax is only temporary, that when the war is over it will be either revised or wiped out. Personally, I do not share the optimism of my hon. friend on this point because as a student of history, I remember that when the first income tax was introduced in England by the younger Pitt at the time of the Napoleonic wars, a distinct pledge was given that it was only for the duration of the war, but Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Gladstone, and all the other great chancellors of England had to admit that the thin edge had been introduced into the taxation system of the United Kingdom, and the income tax was there to remain. In spite of the hopes of my hon-, friend, bright as he thinks they are, I really believe that the income tax has to-day entered into the politico-economic system of Canada, to stay there for many generations.
Whatever may be the value and strength of the precedent, in a federated country such as ours, the rights and powers conferred by the constitution are not subject to prescript tion. They never lapse. And this tenet is all the more to the point since the province

The Budget-Mr. Dorion of Quebec has never failed to abide by section 93 in its entirety. Therefore its position is absolutely unassailable and every effort of this government, in co-operation with the government of Quebec, should aim at finding as soon as possible a way to settle this thorny problem and to make it easier for the province to exercise its powers most freely in this field.
What could be that solution: to change the equalization formula so that it might include amounts meant for university education in the province? Increase the 13 per cent exemption for provinces that would like to collect on their own the amounts needed for that purpose? It is certainly not my responsibility to find a concrete and definite solution; the responsibility is solely that of the authorities concerned. However, those are proposals that could be looked into and discussed in a spirit of fairness and good will in order to insure peace and harmony, those essential conditions to sound national unity.
Soon there will be, Mr. Speaker, a federal-provincial conference of provincial and federal treasurers. In my opinion, it is an excellent way to collect data on the fiscal problem in Canada, to get a detailed knowledge of the various factors and thus, to pave the way to broader discussion. It is indeed, I believe, the first step to a conference between the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers, a conference which would be beneficial and which, we trust, would be the preliminary to a larger and more comprehensive agreement between various authorities which, under our constitution, must participate in their own fields, to the administration of the future of our country.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, that the conference will discuss every aspect of that problem of federal grants to university education. I know there can be no doubt of the right hon. Prime Minister's intention to find a solution in keeping with the spirit of the constitution. Last May, speaking to the Canadian Teachers Federation, whose members had come here to ask the federal government for additional help, he rejected their request in strong and accurate terms which deserve to be quoted:
The sections of the British North America Act, -said the right hon. Prime Minister-which grant to the provinces the exclusive jurisdiction in the field of education must be kept unchanged. Such constitutional rights are not to be amended.
Then, in the same line of thought, he continued by giving this remarkable advice which all hon. members, of whatever party, may well follow:
All Canadians must agree on the necessity of respecting the constitution in that field.
Those remarks are sufficiently clear and definite to eliminate any doubt on the intentions of the present chief of the government on that point. As far as his co-operation is concerned, I only have to refer to the following portion of his opening speech at the 1957 conference, which reads:
(Text):
The purpose of each of us here today is to come together in a spirit of amity to endeavour, while maintaining the spirit of the federal and provincial governments, to discharge their respective constitutional functions. The spirit of confederation requires that provincial governments by their demands upon the federal treasury shall not undermine the strength it requires to sustain its own proper burdens, and that the dominion government shall not take advantage of the legitimate needs of the provinces to undermine the essentially federal nature of our constitution. We are here at this time primarily to listen and to learn. We want to learn about your problems, those problems that bear upon ours. We want to hear your suggestions. We, of course, know something from the public record of the past. We wish to hear directly from you of things "as they now are and as you see them."
(Translation):
Under the circumstances, it was not surprising to read in the January 1958 number of the review Relations, the following observations by the Reverend Father Ares, whom an opposition member quoted the other day:
For the last fifteen years, fiscal conferences have practically all followed the same pattern:	the
federal government drew up a plan, called the provinces to Ottawa and submitted this plan to them, saying that, under the circumstances, it was the best for everyone. After some attempts at resistance, the provinces mostly resigned themselves to comply with the wishes of the federal government. Five years later, the same thing happens again.
Later on, the same writer, drawing conclusions from that 1957 conference, added:
During that meeting, the government thoroughly practised the art of making friends. It was all kindness, prepared to go to any length of generosity, it kept the provinces in the limelight, treating them as equals, urging them to talk freely, to outline their grievances and submit their plans; it listened to them with sympathy, without missing any opportunity of trying to convince them of its goodwill, with the result that the conference went on in an atmosphere of utter cordiality. The first lesson to be drawn from this is that in a federative regime, the democratic methods, more concerned with men than with things, are still those that lead to the best and most lasting results.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker-and I close my remarks with that statement-that, faced with the importance of that problem of federal grants to university teaching; faced with the

conflicts of opinions which they arouse in the province of Quebec; faced with the resistance shown by the Quebec government, in order to fully retain the exercise of a right all its own; faced with the deep-seated reasons motivating its attachment to that right, its will to defend and maintain it, I do hope the problem will be on the agenda of the next federal-provincial conference; that it will be approached and discussed with frankness and in a spirit of co-operation and, above all, I do hope it will be solved through some agreement, that will take into account the very basis of federalism, which may be summed up in two words: unity in diversity.


Mr. Cardin:: May I put a question to the hon. member for Bellechasse?


Noël Dorion: Surely.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I did not want to interrupt the hon. member during his interesting and significant speech. I believe the hon. member is probably the best qualified person to answer a question that I consider objective and quite important. Does the hon. member think that this government is justified in considering, as indicated by table No. 1 at page 2410 of Hansard, that the collection of direct taxes by the province of Quebec is a federal contribution to the provinces?


Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the problem put by my excellent colleague for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) is complicated.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Noël Dorion: The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) may laugh, but I have heard him say certain things that should have been thought over before they were said. Now, as I am in the habit of thinking before replying, I regret being unable to give an immediate and exact reply to the question asked by my good friend, particularly since I am unable to remember what the budget speech said on this particular point.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I note that the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) has been reading his speech throughout. Does he have to have a prepared speech in order to answer a question? Perhaps his speech has been written by Mr. Duplessis?


Mr. Johnson:: Do not answer that, it is not worth answering.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We have no Maurice Lamon-tagne in our party.
(Text):


Mr. D. R. Mitchell (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate I am not going to take up too much of the time of the
The Budget-Mr. Mitchell house and of course you can verify that by looking at the clock. In the few moments at my disposal I should like to comment on a part of the sales and excise tax regulations which were just brought in by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and which I feel discriminates against a group of our citizens, in this case the small retailers or small business men. In saying this, of course, I put myself in the same position because I am a small business man. Surely it was not the intention of the minister to deliberately discriminate against this group but as I understand the implications of the regulations they do just that. I propose to read from the minister's budget speech and then the actual wording of the regulations to which I have reference.
In dealing with this subject in his budget address on April 9 as reported at page 2422 of Hansard the minister said:
I am proposing some technical amendments which will affect the application of the Excise Tax Act to toilet goods and pharmaceuticals. These amendments will go some way toward implementing one of the recommendations contained in the report of the sales tax committee of 1956.
Briefly, they will extend the definition of manufacturing to the packaging of toilet preparations and pharmaceuticals except where this is done in a retail store for sale directly to consumers and will also extend the definition of manufacturer to any person who markets private brand toilet preparations and pharmaceuticals except a retailer who sells directly and exclusively to consumers.
This amendment will apply to both the sales tax and the special 10 per cent excise tax.
After careful consideration, I am convinced that a serious degree of inequity exists at present in the application of the excise tax to toilet goods and pharmaceuticals. This is why I am proposing these amendments. In some instances, one domestic manufacturer is being treated unfairly in comparison with another, merely because of the way his business is organized. In other important instances products of domestic manufacture are being taxed more stringently than comparable imported products. The amendments I am bringing forward are designed to rectify situations.
The proposed amendment to the Excise Tax Act as recorded at page 2426 of Hansard of April 9 is as follows:
4.	That the definition of "producer or manufacturer" be extended to include any person who packages toilet articles, preparations, cosmetics or pharmaceuticals for sale except where they are packaged by a retailer in his retail premises for sale therefrom directly to consumers or users.
5.	That the definition of "manufacturer or producer" be extended to include any person who markets, except by sale at retail directly to consumers or users, toilet articles, preparations, cosmetics or pharmaceuticals manufactured under his own brand.
I shall attempt to analyse the import of these regulations as I understand them and try to show where they work a hardship on small retailers and their customers and thus play into the hands of the large retailers to

The Budget-Mr. Mitchell their benefit. These regulations pertain for the most part to the cosmetic and pharmaceutical field but as I am more closely concerned with pharmaceuticals I shall deal with them more fully.
Let me take a concrete example of what I mean and show how this can take place in two different situations. A retail pharmacist could buy from a manufacturer a quantity of a pharmaceutical preparation for repackaging in his own store and for resale directly to his customers. Let us say this preparation is a vitamin formula. He would pay the sales tax at the manufacturer's level and bottle the pills in quantities of 50 or 100 for resale. According to the act he, being a retailer, would not pay this extra tax as a packager. However, very few drug retailers can afford to buy in the quantity required by the manufacturer and most prefer to buy the same preparation from the wholesale jobber already packaged in much smaller quantities. This is where the catch comes in as I shall attempt to illustrate.
The wholesaler in order to supply his many retail customers buys a larger quantity of the same preparation, bottles it in smaller quantities and then sells it to his retail outlet. The wholesaler would pay the sales tax to the manufacturer in his purchase price but as the packager he is regarded under these regulations as a manufacturer and therefore would be forced to levy a tax at his wholesale level which would be passed on to the small retailer at an increased price, due to the added tax. This, I feel, is a double tax or a tax on a tax which is a disadvantage to the small man.
Let us now take the other side of the picture to illustrate how, under somewhat different circumstances, the extra tax would not be applicable. If some large chain retail organizations with stores from coast to coast, whose names are probably familiar to all hon. members, could through their drug departments buy the same pharmaceutical preparation, repackage it either in their own warehouse or their own retail stores and sell it directly to consumers, they would not be liable to the extra tax. It would be the same organization and would have its own retail stores and therefore would not be liable for the tax which would put the merchandise in its retail outlets at a lower price than that which could be offered by the small business man. This permits them to sell at a lower price because of the lower cost to them. This would allow them to sell at a lower retail price to consumers and thereby create an advantage to the detriment of their smaller competitors.

If I am correct in my contention I can see that this is a disadvantage to the small business. It is a cause of further concern and adds to the already large fortunes of vast businesses. I contend this is another slap at the small business man who is already faced with enough competition without further advantage being given to the already vast operators.
Even if I am only partly correct in my observations, this to me is an outstanding form of inflation. The increase in sales tax reflects not only on his buying but also on his selling price. Every article he buys now is increased by the tax and he, therefore, must pass this on to get the same profit as previously, and the consumer is the one who pays in the increased cost of merchandise which is reflected in the purchasing power of the dollar.
The hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) in an appealing speech before the budget was presented, asked for a reduction in taxes on cosmetics particularly in the field of lipsticks. I am afraid this legislation works in the opposite way from what she wanted, as it actually increases the tax on those articles instead of reducing them in price as she had requested. I do not know whether I agree with the hon. member in her remarks with respect to lipsticks but I do agree that her remarks had no effect on the Minister of Finance.
Inflation is an evil everyone is conscious of and is attempting to defeat, but the government is adding to this problem by automatically increasing costs which are at the same time increasing selling prices to the consumer. Any machinery, bottles, cartons, labels, and so forth, bought by the packager are increased by the tax and eventually this increase is passed on all along the line until it reaches the consumer at an increased cost to him. This is adding to inflation which this government says it is trying to control.
Let me deal with another subject for a few minutes. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken before and will continue to speak on the plight of small business. I hold in my hand a clipping from the St. John's News of January 28, 1959. I will read it in toto:
Best Solution: Employment
There is little to he gained by paying any workman unemployment insurance, or any other form of dole, for unemployment relief. The best possible solution for unemployment is employment.
Winter always brings us a peak of unemployment and the federal government annually sponsors a campaign to encourage home owners and industry to improve the employment picture by choosing the winter season for structural repairs and alterations.

In addition to this campaign, the government engages in the time-honoured practice of starting large public works projects at times of greatest unemployment.
Bridges, highways, post offices and other works are necessary and admirable yet their value to the economy often ends with their completion, when the jobs they created are terminated.
There is another way in which jobs could be created and the economy strengthened to increase and maintain employment. With only a modest financial commitment, according to the Canadian retail merchants' association, the government could implement capital expansions, totalling as much as $8 million annually, throughout Canadian communities.
For more than two years, the association and the Canadian wholesale council have been urging the government to sponsor facilities for the loans, through the chartered banks, available to small business concerns, for capital expansion and modernization made necessary by the changing times. A large number of parliamentarians have spoken strongly in favour of such a move and those engaged in the business of Canadian distribution are hoping that this session of parliament will implement the necessary action.
Many small businesses are in difficulties even though they are operated efficiently, Mr. Gilbert says. Times change quickly. Many retailers find their customers are moving away from them into the suburbs, but cannot get the finances to follow. Others face competition from large chain stores and shopping plazas and, though their personalized service may be far better, they must have refrigeration for frozen foods and other modern facilities to match those available in the larger stores if they are to compete.
The difficulty is not that these businesses are unsound or poorly operated, he says, but that store buildings and equipment, good will and demonstrated ability are not acceptable collateral for loans. And without some form of suitable loan facility, an enormous number of small retailers will be forced to vacate the field, leaving the retail trade to a few large corporations.
The retail merchants' association and supporting retail and wholesale trade associations recommend that the government set up loan facilities b,y guaranteeing 10 per cent of approved long-term loans with a possible limit of $25,000, repayable over five years. There would be no expensive organization to set up, and losses would be negligible -loans would be made through the chartered banks, and bankers in each community would make loans according to their own business judgment.
The idea is not new, for similar assistance already is available for home improvement, national housing, farm improvement, fisheries improvement, and some other activities.
Small business is the backbone of Canadian economy, employing approximately 700,000 persons in 250,000 establishments and accounting for a turnover in dollar sales of more than $14 billions each year. They guarantee the competition on which our economy is based and are essential to smaller communities, where the turnover is not sufficient to attract the larger companies.
Statistics indicate that more than 14,500 retailers and more than 8,000 service stores in Canada need capital assistance. Taking an average of $15,000 with approximately 550 loans a year, an annual amount of $8 million would be involved. Over a five-year period loans would total $20 million, with government involvement at $2 million.
I might add to this statement that the Department of Labour could well include this idea of guaranteed loans in their "Do It Now"
66968-9-188
The Budget-Mr. Mitchell program which they advertised during the winter months. So far this has applied only to the renovating or repairing of homes, but, in view of what I have just read, many a storekeeper would take advantage of this loan arrangement and do much remodelling in the winter months, which would further employ this type of labour when the slack season is in evidence. Also, if the Department of National Revenue would approve, these renovations could be allowed accelerated depreciation which would permit the retailer to save a few more tax dollars which he could deduct from his annual return.
In an address in Vancouver on June 10 last, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) had this to say in speaking to the retail merchants' association of Canada:
The federal government is proceeding at once to set up a small business section in government aimed at helping small businesses solve their problems, Justice Minister Fulton said tonight.
He said his department's combines branch is carrying out investigations in two fields: an inquiry into loss-leader selling in cigarettes, electrical appliances and the hardware and jewelry trades, and a study of whether some types of grocery stores receive unfair price preferences from suppliers.
In an address to the retail merchants association of Canada, Mr. Fulton said these steps are being taken to remove artificial obstacles to small business in Canada.
The small business section mentioned by the minister was promised by the Progressive Conservative party in 1957 and 1958 election campaigns, and was announced in the speech from the throne.
Mr. Fulton said the section will study problems of small business, provide a government-business liaison and recommend measures to help small business including the terms of a loan fund.
He urged retail merchants to co-operate in presenting their case, bolstered with plenty of facts.
"One of the problems is the insufficiency of accurate information at the moment on which to base policies."
The government wanted to know how a small business should be defined, and whether there should be variations in the definition for various types of business. About half of Canada's entire domestic trade is in the small business field, he said. "A segment of the economy of this size and importance should not be dealt with on the basis of inadequate information or snap decisions."
Mr. Fulton's speech indicated the government is considering possible changes in the law against loss-leader selling and discrimination among businesses in the supply of goods. There have been repeated complaints to the government against loss-leader selling of goods, especially cigarettes, to attract customers, and claims that large retail grocery outlets get preferential price treatment from food suppliers.
Mr. Fulton said the law against loss-leader selling forbids selling goods at unreasonably low prices with the aim of substantially lessening competition or eliminating competitors. But there were difficulties in determining whether a certain price is unreasonably low and what its effect is on competitors. He said he hopes the current investigations will show whether the present law is an effective weapon or whether other remedies must be sought.

The Budget-Mr. Gundlock
"In the latter event, I may say, we have one or two alternatives under study."
He goes as far as to say that a loan fund should be established for this purpose. In the speech from the throne this sort of study and assistance was announced but I am sorry to say that the committee set up has not made any momentous decision to date and cannot be expected to function very efficiently when just $30,000 was allotted to it. I should like to see more action from the government in this direction as the small retailers are appealing for help.
Hon. members will also have noticed that in the report I just read the Minister of Justice mentioned legislation to prevent loss-leader selling, which is very prevalent at present and becoming more so, and he has assured the house that this legislation will come down this session. It is certainly not the intention of his combines branch to allow such haphazard merchandising which in turn is causing unlimited concern to small business. I urge the Minister of Justice to implement this legislation as soon as possible and try to bring about some form of orderly merchandising for the benefit of all concerned. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) outline the legislation he intends to introduce this session, one item of which is amendments to the Combines Investigation Act. I hope these include loss-leader selling and will cure this evil.


Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great humility that I rise to take part in the debate on the budget, fully aware of the great privilege that has been accorded me by the citizens of Lethbridge constituency, and at this time I wish to put my thanks to them on the record of the house. I am a farmer, Mr. Speaker, and I may say that to be rising to speak in the house for the first time amid such a goodly company is, as I stated before, a wonderful feeling. Suddenly to climb off a tractor as I did last spring and come to Ottawa as a member of parliament was almost unnerving, and now I find my first opportunity to speak. If I may, I should like to take a moment to say how much I have appreciated the help you and other members of the house have given me, particularly the older members, some of whom have gone on before us.
To take advantage of this opportunity I must at this time bring before hon. members some of the hopes and prayers of the people of Lethbridge constituency as well as the rest of Canada. I will be brief, Mr. Speaker, but I feel that in order for hon. members to understand some of the problems I wish to mention I must describe the area to some extent. Lethbridge constituency encompasses


Waterton lakes national park, nestling in the southwest corner of the province amid the matchless beauty of the Canadian rockies, adjoining the wonderful Glacier park of Montana and combining to form the international Waterton-Glacier peace park.
We have the Blood Indian reserve with a population of some 2,500 of our first citizens of the highest order and, I might add, also with problems of the first magnitude. The Indians on the Blood reserve are a very fine and proud people, particularly proud of one of their own, Senator James Gladstone. This appointment did a great deal for the Indians of Canada, giving them a renewed interest in the government of Canada and a new zeal to become more useful, better informed and respected members of the Canadian family.
The Indians of the Blood reserve have many problems, as I mentioned before, and I should like to take a moment to point out some of the troubles of this band. With these people, as with most of us, the chief social interest, of course, is the education of their young people and the need of increased facilities for improvement and refinement in the manner in which this is carried out. In my maiden speech in the House of Commons I should like to point out something that is now and has been for some time of great concern to our friends on the reservations in Canada, namely that educational standards are almost completely and entirely those of the white man, neglecting to consider the fact that these people on the reservations have a certain culture and way of life that is very important to them to retain, and for us to aid them to do so would be most welcome.
We also have the greatest concentration of Hutterian Brethren, commonly known as Hut-terites, in the province and probably in Canada. It is one of the few groups in Canada with special privileges allowed by a written contract with the Dominion of Canada. Some hon. members may wonder why I make mention of the Hutterian Brethren in my area. I do so simply because these Hutterite communities have become a problem in Alberta and I wish to mention the problem here and call the attention of the house to the matter. Twelve years ago, some of you will recall, the province of Alberta enacted legislation making it mandatory that a new colony must be set up no closer than 40 miles from another colony and, furthermore, may not have more than an established number of acres in certain areas. This was necessary to preserve certain small communities in southern Alberta, and needless to say there has been much resistance from some sources, the sect itself in particular.

If hon. members will visualize for a moment a map of Alberta showing a large concentration of colonies in the southwestern portion, which was the case only a few years ago and, incidentally, the land was undoubtedly the best land in Alberta and probably in Canada, and then look again at the map of today showing the same concentration plus the added colonies that saturate the provincial map at the 40-mile intervals, you can see what the map would look like in our area if the 40-mile restriction had not been put in effect. You can very well see that our small communities just would not be there. There would not be room.
You may ask, "Why, is anything wrong with that?" This is a free country and there are many objections to regulation of minority groups. But I must say, as I have on many occasions, that this is necessary to preserve our small communities and some of our best land for ourselves. We cannot meet the competition that the colonies give for several reasons, some of which I wish to mention at this time.
The Hutterites enjoy almost if not complete freedom from income tax because of their many exemptions and, believe me, they love and cultivate their exemptions. They contribute no time, and almost no financial aid to community enterprises such as the Elks club, the Lions, Kiwanis, Rotary and many other organizations that devote a great deal of time and energy to improvements within their community. The Hutterites sacrifice almost no time or effort toward educating their young people to take any part in our society in the capacity of teacher, doctor, lawyer, dentist, councillor, M.L.A. or M.'P. There is not one of these people sharing these responsibilities of maintaining our Canadian way of life, either outside or inside a colony, for that matter.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if we have to live that sort of life to accumulate enough money to look after our young people and start them on the road in their chosen life work, I shudder to think to what our nation would revert. In the opinion of a great many people, a point it would be well to consider is this: When the Canadian government accepted these people many years ago it was expected, generally speaking, that these people would become Canadians in every sense of the word. However, after 60 years it is apparent they have little intention of doing so. I do not believe, therefore, that a method of zoning, if you like, to allow us to save at least some of the land we love and cherish is out of line.
66968-9-188i
The Budget-Division
In my constituency, too, will be found one of the oldest, if not the oldest, irrigation companies in Canada, founded by the early Mormon settlers. Our immense ranches and farms are located in probably one of the richest agricultural areas in Canada. In the heart of this district we have the fair city of Lethbridge, which is well known as the irrigation capital of Canada.
The great sugar beet area of Lethbridge and Medicine Hat constituencies contains three large sugar factories and nearly half a million acres of the finest irrigated land in Canada. These two constituencies, I might add, are the only two constituencies in Canada that are primarily interested in irrigated agricultural industry. I will not at this time try to describe the many ramifications of irrigated farming as compared to dry land farming, because I know you will shortly interrupt me, Mr. Speaker. I hope I may have permission to continue discussion of this subject at another time.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, particularly on his maiden speech. I hope he will have an opportunity of concluding his remarks at another time.
It being 5.45 o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to section 6 of standing order 58, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on the main motion.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Rea in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: It being after six o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of this house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business is to be for the rest of the week?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall resume consideration of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture and then take the estimates of the Department of Transport.
It being 6.05 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Questions



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

[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. Mcllrailh: 1.	What is the total value of defence production contracts placed by the United States in Canada during the year 1958?
2.	What was the nature and value of each contract comprising such total?
Answer by:	Hon. Raymond O'Hurley
(Minister of Defence Production):
1.	The net value of United States prime defence contracts placed in Canada through the Canadian Commercial Corporation and Defence Construction (1951) Limited in 1958 was $68,180,000. This value includes increasing and decreasing amendments to contracts placed prior to 1958 as well as new contracts issued in 1958.
2.	A large number of these contracts fall in the classified and restricted categories. Regarding the remainder, it is not the practice to make public the details of such contracts, but the breakdown of the over-all total, by programs, is as follows:
Aircraft	 $26,990,000,
Ammunition and explosives 757,000, Electronics and
communication equipment 12,756,000.
Construction	 25,631,000.
Other	 2,045,000.


$68,180,000. AVRO LIMITED, TORONTO  CONTRACTS AWARDED
Mr. Rouleau: 1.	Have any contracts been awarded to Avro Aircraft Limited, Toronto, Ontario, since August 10, 1953?
2.	If so, how many, what is the nature of each contract and what was the amount of each such contract?
Answer by:	Hon. Raymond O'Hurley
(Minister of Defence Production):
1.	Yes. Prior to August 1, 1954, Avro Aircraft Limited was the aircraft division of A. V. Roe (Canada) Limited.
2.	The Department of Defence Production awarded 209 contracts having a value of $317,705,442.46 from August 10, 1953, to February 28, 1959. The nature and value of each contract of $10,000 or more are shown in the attached lists.
Formerly Classified Procurement Contracts for $10,000 or more awarded to Avro AirCraft Limited (formerly the Aircraft Division of A. V. Roe Canada Limited) Toronto, Ontario, by the Department of Defence Production from August 10, 1953, to February
28, 1959.
Value
Date of	(per latest
Contract	Item	amendment)Feb. 26, 1954 Modification of aircraft instruments	,,$	16,747.50May 3,	1954	Design study of vertical take-off aircraft	
212,508.57July 7,	1954	Wing tip rocket pods	
2,861,500.00Sept. 15,	1954	Engineering evaluation, etc., of armament and ancillary installations on CF-100 Mk.4 aircraft	
2,177,250.00
Mar. 29, 1955 Production of CF-105 aircraft, spares, ground handling
equipment and publications	 56,056,278.00*
Mar. 30, 1955	Tooling for CF-105 aircraft	
29,136,350.00*May 30,	1955	Wing tip rocket pods for CF-100 aircraft	
949^522.00Aug. 17, 1955	Design and development of	CF-105 aircraft	
57,723i368.00*Mar. 29, 1956	Production of CF-100 Mk.5	aircraft	
50,000,000.00Aug. 7, 1956 Publications for CF-100 Mk.5 aircraft	
' 42*637.75Dec. 10,	1956	CF-100 Mk.5 aircraft spares	
3,500'000.00Feb. 19,	1957	CF-100 engineering program in support of development '	'
and evaluation of Sparrow II for CF-105 aircraft .. 20,000,000.001
May 15,	1957	Wing tip rocket pods, training type	
2,268,800.00Oct. 28, 1957	Wing tip rocket pods	
721 098.00Dec. 3,	1957	Wing tip rocket pods	
88^704.00Feb. 4, 1958	Technical assistance for project "K"	
10 000.00Mar. 25, 1958	Production of CF-105 Mk.II aircraft	
33,933^894.00*July 4,	1958	Wing tip rocket pods for CF-100 aircraft	
105^446.00Sept. 18,	1958	Wing tip rocket pods for CF-100 aircraft	
1,248*750.00Dec. 4, 1958	Engineering assistants for	office of assistant	arrow	'weapon system (DND)	
26,972.42*
* contracts terminated February 20, 1959. t contracts terminated September 23, 1958.


ACCIDENTS, ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Argue: 1.	Has there been more than one accident at the same place on construction sites of the St. Lawrence seaway at Beauharnois, Cote Ste. Catherine and St. Lambert, caused by the same or similar hazards, since work started on the seaway?
2.	If so, who were the persons involved in each accident?
3.	What steps were taken in the interval between each accident to eliminate the hazards involved at the accident location and at other locations where similar hazards existed?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Information regarding contractors' and St. Lawrence seaway authority employees is only available in respect to accidents which resulted in grave or fatal injuries.
The following are the persons who received grave or fatal injuries in accidents caused by the same or similar hazards:
(i)	G. Lippe and L. Laflamme fell into openings on the Cote Ste. Catherine lock.
(ii)	W. Bedard and Howard Roach were drowned at St. Lambert. F. Belanger and
J.	Bilodeau were drowned at Cote Ste. Catherine.
(iii)	The following persons were crushed by either a truck, tractor or bulldozer while working at St. Lambert: G. Sauvageau, P. Dumaine, R. Decarie, V. Ferracane.
(iv)	Armand Leduc and G. Labonte fell from heights of over 75 feet while working at Beauharnois.
3.	Remedial action was taken to protect the lock openings at Cote Ste. Catherine, St. Lambert and Beauharnois. The openings were either covered or a form of guards was placed around the openings.


ACCIDENTS, SOUTH SHORE CONSTRUCTION, ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY
Mr. Argue: 1.	Have there been any fatal accidents at south shore construction sites of the St. Lawrence Seaway since work started on the seaway?
2.	If so, what are the names of the men killed, and the site of the accident?
3.	Was an inquest held in any of these cases?
4.	If so, (a) in which cases? (b) on what date was each held and where? (c) what were the findings reported at the inquest in each case?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	W. Bedard, St. Lambert; V. Ferracane, St. Lambert; G. Sauvageau, St. Lambert; R. Decarie, St. Lambert; P. Dumaine, St. Lambert; K. Wallace, St. Lambert; H. Roach, St. Lambert; F. Belanger, Cote Ste. Catherine;
F.	Tremblay, Cote Ste. Catherine; R. Gou-rioux, Cote Ste. Catherine; J. Bilodeau, Cote Ste. Catherine; G. Hemlock (child), Cote Ste. Catherine; G. Lippe, Cote Ste. Catharine;
A.	Leduc, Beauharnois; G. Labonte, Beauharnois; Y. Ethier, Missing in lake St. Louis.
3.	Yes.
4.
Questions

Cases	Date and Location	FindingsW. Bedard	
Sept. 23/55 Montreal	Accidental	drowningV. Ferracane	
Sept. 29/55 Montreal	Accidental	death
crushed by bulldozer
G.	Sauvageau	 June 6/56 Montreal	Accidental	death
crushed by tractor
F. Belanger	 July 11/56 Montreal	Accidental	death
by drowning
R. Decarie	 October 24/56 Montreal	Accidental	death
crushed by truck
F.	Tremblay	 December 15/56 Montreal	Accidental	death
crushed by truck
P. Dumaine	 May 18/57 Montreal	Accidental	death
crushed by truck
R. Gourioux	 August 29/57 Montreal	Accidental	death
by electrocution
A. Leduc	 August 13/57 Beauharnois	Accidental	death
by falling 75 ft.
J.	Bilodeau	 October 29/57 Montreal	Accidental	death
by drowning
K.	Wallace	 August 1/58 Montreal	Accidental	death
by falling 75 ft.
G.	Hemlock	 September 8/58 Montreal	Accidental	death
by falling 100 ft.
G.	Labonte	 February 6/59 Valleyfield	Accidental	death
by falling 80 ft.
H.	Roach	 February 1/57 Montreal	Accidental	death
by drowning
G. Lippe	 October 3/58 Montreal	Accidental	death
by falling in opening in locks


AMBULANCE SERVICE, SOUTH SHORE, ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY
Mr. Argue: 1.	Were specific arrangements ever made since the start of work on the St. Lawrence seaway for ambulance service at south shore locations in case of serious accidents?
2.	If so, what was the nature of the arrangements, and on what dates were they made?
3.	Were ambulance services required at any time since the start of work on the seaway as a result of accidents at the south shore location?
4.	If so, (a) what was the date on which each such service was requested? (b) at what specific site was each ambulance required? (c) what was the nature of the accident and the name of the man injured, and the extent of injuries? (d) from what place did the ambulance have to come to reach the site and how many miles? (e) what length of time elapsed between the occurrence of the accident, the time the ambulance was ordered, and the time it actually arrived at the scene of the accident?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:-
1.	No.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	Yes.
4.	Information is only available in respect to accidents which involved authority employees as follows:-
(i)	(a) 6th August 1956 (b) St. Lambert (c) fall-T. Parks-fracture of left leg and left elbow and a back injury (d) Montreal-7.5 miles (e) The ambulance arrived at the scene approximately one half hour from the time of the accidents.
(ii)	(a) 8th July 1958 (b) St. Lambert (c) explosion - M. Arsenault - second degree burns (d) Montreal South-3 miles (e) The ambulance arrived at the scene approximately one half hour after the accident occurred.
(iii) (a) 18th August 1958 (b) Cote Ste. Catherine (c) fall-L. Laflamme-back injury, broken leg and lacerations (d) Montreal-21 miles (e) The ambulance arrived at the scene approximately one hour after the accident occurred.
(iv) (a) 3rd October 1958 (b) Cote Ste. Catherine (c) death-G. Lippe (d) unknown (e) The ambulance arrived one hour and ten minutes after the time of the accident.
(v)	(a) 1st November 1958 (b) Beauharnois (c) fall-R. MacLean-fractured pelvis (d) Beauharnois-2 miles (e) The ambulance arrived at the scene approximately 15 minutes after the time of the accident.


INJURIES AND FATALITIES, ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY
Mr. Argue: 1.	Have any men employed on construction work on the St. Lawrence seaway been injured or killed by falls into unprotected openings at Beauharnois. Cote Ste. Catherine and St. Lambert since work started on the seaway?
2. If so: (a) what was the name of each man? (b) what position did he hold? (c) at what place did the accident happen and on what date? (d) what was the nature of the hazard which caused the accident? (e) what was the extent of each man's injuries? (f) which men have returned to work? (g) which men are still incapacitated and what medical treatment are they receiving? (h) which men are receiving workmen's compensation, and what is the amount awarded to each? (i) how long will it be before each of these men will be able to resume work?
3.	Are any of the men involved in any of these accidents so badly injured that it is expected they will be unable to work again?
4.	If so, which of the men are so affected?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
Questions
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Lippe, G. (b) electrician foreman
(c)	Cote Ste. Catherine lock, October 3, 1958
(d)	hatch opening in top lock wall (e) death (f) (g) (h) (i) answered by (e).
(a) Laflamme, L. (b) instrument man (c) Cote Ste. Catherine lock August 18, 1958 (d) hatch opening in top lock wall (e) has not returned to work (g) still incapacitated (h) full salary paid to January 31, 1959. Workman's compensation payments are 75 per cent of salary from that time, (i) Unknown. Not stated by attending physician.
3.	No medical opinion available.
4.	Answered by 3.


IMMIGRATION STATISTICS, 1949-59
Mr. Denis: 1.	How many immigrants entered Canada, and from what countries, during each of the last ten years?
2.	How many, by countries, during each of these years?
Answer by: Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1 and 2. See table.
COUNTRY OP LAST PERMANENT RESIDENCE OF IMMIGRANTS Calendar Years 1949 to 1958
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956	1957	1958	TotalAlbania	51	24	45	11	2	1	1	135Algeria	a)	483	132	615Arabia, Saudi	-	-	2	-	4	3	2	5	4	12	32Australia	354	352	465	761	1,013	1,365	1,400	1,578	2,772	1,898	11,958Austria	775	619	4,315	3,878	6,842	5,967	2,871	4,330	5,714	4,544	39,855Belgium	863	956	5,783	2,848	2,286	2,177	1,751	3,080	3,909	1,776	25,429Bermuda	44	52	54	64	65	60	78	118	157	08	766Bulgaria	83	86	325	47	7	5	6	12	23	10	604Ceylon	(3)	3	28	65	12	39	147China	855	1,814	2,994	2,678	1,901	1,754	1,918	1,516	856	894	17,189Czechoslovakia	2,815	1,698	3,385	514	27	16	30	30	20	42	8,577Denmark	884	932	4,737	2,004	1,519	1,395	1,339	3,573	7,683	1,746	25,812Egypt	(2)	68	194	421	116	799Estonia	2,484	1,630	3,871	397	19	11	6	5	4	4	8,431Finland	182	445	3,877	2,199	1,179	632	581	1,031	2,684	1,177	13,987France	1,163	1,399	8,279	5,395	4,045	3,672	2,869	3,809	5,869	2,727	39,227Germany	2,941	3,815	29,196	25,716	34,193	28,479	17,630	26,061	28,430	13,888	210,349Greece	680	815	2,745	1,521	1,954	2,819	2,856	4,986	5,460	5,190	29,026Hong Kong	182	117	99	89	167	283	710	615	866	1,752	4,880Hungary	2,006	1,777	4,129	722	56	42	187	4,010	31,643	2,362	46,934Iceland	8	17	33	42	52	29	27	40	59	54	361India	113	97	120	226	169	208	224	254	186	325	1,922Iran	(2)	2	16	5	23Ireland (Republic)	927	452	640	947	2,121	2,059	1,038	2,229	5,358	1,226	16,997Israel	67	147	901	2,616	1,927	374	233	309	482	531	7,587Italy	7,728	8,993	23,426	20,651	23,704	23,780	19,139	27,939	27,740	27,043	210,143Japan	18	14	15	25	81	91	120	155	223	199	941Latvia	2,711	1,629	2,300	702	15	5	2	2	11	7,377Lebanon	(2)	335	454	401	312	1,502Lithuania	2,077	900	1,097	367	7	2	4	4	6	1	4,465Luxemburg	(2)	61	245	205	56	567Malta	251	856	1,595	671	724	892	336	363	586	447	6,721Mexico	42	16	43	115	125	92	78	71	124	104	810Morocco	(1)	920	414	1,334Netherlands, The	6,828	7,169	19,266	21,068	20,341	16,182	6,759	7,792	11,934	7,420	124,759New Zealand	232	201	203	196	255	344	300	346	573	446	3,096Norway	355	234	920	1,205	925	1,040	714	839	1,340	482	8,054Pakistan	(3)	67	50	50	83	62	312Poland	20,091	9,747	14,245	3,358	136	45	113	186	690	2,292	50,903Portugal	16	16	18	57	238	546	1,136	1,697	4,423	1,938	10,085Rhodesia and Nyasaland	(2)	139	103	242Rou mania	1,344	1,034	1,842	347	24	3	21	53	49	53	4,770St. Pierre and Miquelon	31	16	20	44	14	12	37	9	24	31	238Spain	14	20	426	80	51	69	116	214	613	318	1,9212960	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
Sweden	742	589	1,839	884	982	627	464	605	1,093	442	8,267Switzerland	403	533	1,388	1,706	1,120	1,235	879	1,514	1,800	1,024	11,602Syria	
Tunisia	106	90	245	256	183	98	23	13	18	11	1,0430)	109	123	232Turkey	6	13	41	56	27	19	17	40	129	227	575United Kingdom	20,780	12,695	31,652	45,255	46,789	43,381	29,382	50,390	108,989	24,777	414,090England	14,414	9,077	21,155	31,776	31,929	29,618	21,813	36,422	79,811	18,011	294,026Ireland, Northern	1,058	626	1,154	2,671	4,253	2,889	1,397	2,967	4,988	1,140	23,143Scotland	4,926	2,802	8,885	10,025	9,683	9,919	5,472	10,055	22,180	5,060	89,007Wales	339	164	365	588	707	694	546	802	1,724	456	6,385Lesser British Isles	43	26	93	195	217	261	154	144	286	110	1,529Union of South Africa	(2)	464	367	831U.S.S.R	2,306	1,308	2,884	483	3	6	4	14	19	18	7,045United States	7,756	7,821	7,755	9,333	9,407	10,131	10,395	9,777	11,008	10,846	94,229Yugoslavia	2,110	1,489	4,908	1,617	472	447	367	453	1,048	984	13,895Africa, Br. n.e.s	150	128	162	460	685	636	410	461	80	70	3,242Africa, not Br. n.e.s	82	85	151	238	217	119	70	424	354	30	1,770Asia, n.e.s	10	-	3	98	113	175	64	65	97	81	706Central America	23	25	42	36	36	14	31	21	24	24	276Europe, n.e.s	38	40	100	85	41	111	5	5	9	7	441South America	474	498	875	1,266	1,327	1,133	1,654	1,354	2,376	2,168	13,125West Indies, Br. n.e.s	404	364	661	710	896	849	793	1,058	1,162	1,192	8,089West Indies, not Br. n.e.s	59	83	141	141	109	83	85	69	95	100	965Other Countries, Br	526	18	42	101	47	57	46	283	53	65	1,238Other Countries, not Br	27	43	87	212	215	574	83	39	41	55	1,376Born at Sea	-	1	4	-	2	3	-	-	1	1	12TOTAL	95,217	73,912	194,391	164,498	168,868	154,227	109,946	164,857	282,164	124,851	1,532,931(1)	Before 1957 Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia were included with "Africa not British".(2)	Before 1955 Egypt was included with "Africa not British"; Iran with "Asia"; Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Union of South Africa with "Africa British"; Lebanon with "Syria"; Luxemburg with "Europe not British".(3)	Before 1954 Ceylon was included with "Other Countries British"; Pakistan with "India".
Questions

Questions


JEAN GABUS
Mr. Argue: 1.	For what purpose was Mr. Jean Gabus employed by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources between March 25, 1958 and March 24. 1959?
2.	Has Mr. Gabus yet submitted a final report on his recommendations?
3.	If so, on what date was this submitted and to whom was it presented?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton of Northern Affairs and Resources):
1.	See report tabled in response No. 71.
2.	No.	.
3.	Not applicable.
(Minister
National
to motion

Thursday, April 23, 1959