1959-04-14

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron)
presented the third report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Third report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Cathers.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statements which have come out of Washington, can the Prime Minister inform the house whether a food for peace conference is to be held in that city on May 4? If so, will the Canadian government be represented by a minister, and can the Prime Minister perhaps give us a general indication of the principles which should govern Canadian policy at such an important conference?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman will agree that such a question might very well have had notice given in order to make it possible to give a very full report on the situation.
In so far as this conference is concerned, Canada will be represented at the meeting. The design of the conference was set forth in the state of the union speech of the President some weeks ago. The purpose is to bring together the various food-growing nations to the end that through discussion and consideration of their problems of distribution and also of the needs of other parts of the world, some policy applicable to all the food-producing nations might be arrived at. In point of fact I am hopeful that at that meeting consideration will be given to a proposition which I placed before the meeting of NATO in December, 1957. As the house will recall, 66968-9-169
I suggested the formation of a food bank to the end that by the establishment of such an institution surpluses would be stored against the probability of crop shortages or failures in the future. It would also constitute a storehouse for the assistance of those countries which And themselves and their populations short of necessary food.
I will make a further statement on this. If the Leader of the Opposition will agree, I shall go into some detail in a day or so.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether she is going to make a statement today or very soon on the changes in the immigration regulations, as seemed to be indicated by her remarks last week.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I hope to deal with this matter during the course of the current budget debate. I have given some consideration to it, and it occurs to me that the information I wish to give the house is probably a little more comprehensive than that which might be given in an answer on the orders of the day.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingate):: May I ask a supplementary question? Does the hon. lady not think that the simplest way to deal with the matter would be to withdraw this unnecessary and inhuman order?


John George Diefenbaker: The inhumanity goes back to the order in council passed on May 24, 1956.


An hon. Member:: Rubbish.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: He knows
all about inhumanity.


John Whitney Pickersgill: More of the Prime Minister's diversions.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If the hon. member is serious about that, I can say to him that all aspects of the problem are being considered.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am serious about it.
2656	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


HULA HOOPS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
I sent him notice early this morning, and I hope he received it in sufficient time. Has the minister's attention been drawn to an article in the November, 1958 edition of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture news and information bulletin to the effect that a manufacturer of hula hoops in Saskatchewan had engaged in a resale price maintenance practice and a refusal to supply hula hoops when the resale price level established by the manufacturer was not adhered to, which appears to be contrary to section 34 of the Combines Investigation Act? If so, is an inquiry under way or is one contemplated into this alleged contravention?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was kind enough to give me notice of his question. I note that it refers to a report which appeared in the press in November, 1958, and I am not quite certain whether I am in order in answering an inquiry relating to a matter occurring that long ago, on the orders of the day. But if I am in order I can inform the hon. gentleman that a reference to this matter appeared in the daily press early in October and at that time the director made some preliminary inquiries. In view of the fact, however, that there was a direct conflict of evidence as to what had transpired, and also in view of the fact that the manufacturer, who had been operating on a very small scale, advised that he had discontinued production of this article entirely, it was considered that further inquiry was not warranted.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I have a question I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It arises out of the commendable campaign being carried on in Saskatchewan to prevent accidents involving children, and particularly the announcement that Saskatchewan will observe May 3 as child safety day. Can the minister assure the house that his department will lend its co-operation and support to Saskatchewan and other interested provinces in this worth-while project?
[Mr. Pickersgill.l


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. My department's health grants include one directed to child maternal care, and I am always interested to hear of projects in this field. If there should be any move to sponsor child safety day on a national basis, my department would be prepared to lend any suitable support. If Saskatchewan or any other province submitted a project in this field within the terms of the national health grants we would always give it every consideration.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the minister or his department prepared to issue a statement supporting the efforts of the province of Saskatchewan in this regard?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have answered the question, in that I said we would give every suitable support to any of these projects.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY INQUIRY AS TO OPENING OF NAVIGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I have not given him notice, but the story to which I have reference appeared in this morning's press and perhaps he may have seen it. Can the minister tell the house when the seaway will be opened to navigation this year, and why there has been so much criticism of the department for its fumbling and bumbling of the opening, according to the story in this morning's Gazette?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Laurier knows very well, just about two weeks are necessary once the ice has been cleared in order to set up buoys for navigation. As I announced last winter, it was our hope that navigation could be opened on April 20. Since that time ice conditions have proven to be extremely severe, more severe than in most winters. I had expected to make an announcement today that navigation would open on April 25. However, I am not able to do so because, just before coming into the house, I received a report from my department that a number of attempts to set up buoys have not proven successful because of the severe ice conditions.
We are making a final ice survey this afternoon, and I will make an announcement in the house tomorrow. I can assure the hon. member, as I think he appreciates only

2S57
too well having been minister of this department and dealt with these matters, that there has been no fumbling or bumbling at all in connection with this matter.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Was a proposal made to the government by the Canadian association of physicists or by any other association, asking the government to participate in a project in the field of nuclear science involving the construction of an atom smasher? If such a request was made, what was the government's reply to it?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred to have notice of a question of this importance. Such a proposal did come forward and was discussed with the national research council. The matter was gone into very thoroughly and it seemed that at the present time we would be unable to accede to the request of the physicists, and they were so informed.


George James McIlraith: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask what was the main reason for the refusal to accede to the request?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would have to look back at the material I have with regard to this particular problem. I know that the amount of money involved was rather substantial, running into some $20 million.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if the Minister of Trade and Commerce is in a position to report to the house on a visit which, according to the press, he made to Washington yesterday to discuss with the United States government the very important matter of the renewal of the contract for uranium sales to the United States by Canada after 1962?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was in Washington yesterday. The main purpose of my visit was to meet with the members of the atomic energy commission. There have been some changes made on both sides during the last 12 months, and I thought it advisable to get acquainted
66968-9-169J
Inquiries of the Ministry with Mr. McCone, head of that commission at the present time. This is the first opportunity I have had to meet with him and with other members of the commission. We discussed matters of general interest with regard to the atomic energy program affecting our two countries. Further conversations with respect to the particular matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition will be held in the near future.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question on floriculture to the Minister of National Defence. I apologize for not giving him notice, but I was only prompted a few hours ago to ask this question by responsible citizens of the Trail district. In view of a recent visit by the minister to Trail when he promised a number of important citizens that he would have grass, flowers and shrubs planted around the armouries at Trail, and in view of the fact that nothing has been planted to date, will he inform the house when this work is going to be done.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: I have no knowledge of any planting to be done around the armouries at Trail.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister any comment to make on the reported decision of the Doukhobor Sons of Freedom sect to remain in Canada? Was their entry into Russia refused? Is there any objection to the admission to Canada from Uruguay of their spiritual leader, Stefan S. Sorokin?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the three questions in the order in which they were asked, may I say, first, that so far as I am aware no formal decision has been made by the Sons of Freedom sect to abandon their plan to return to Russia. I understand that press reports to that effect have been circulated, as a result of which we have had the Royal Canadian Mounted Police make inquiries. I also received a copy of a petition from the Sons of Freedom relating to the matter of the
2653	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry readmission of Stefan Sorokin. It was apparently as a result of the presentation of that petition that the impression was given that the Sons of Freedom had abandoned their intention to return to Russia. I am informed, however, that no such decision, in a formal sense at any rate, has been made by them.
With regard to the second question, which I think was "has their admission to Russia been refused?" the answer is that we have no knowledge of the attitude of the Russian government. Up to the time I left this city before Easter we had had no direct or indirect communication from the Russian government on this point. We have made it clear to the Sons of Freedom that so far as we are concerned, the Russians must indicate their readiness to accept the sect before we shall be in a position to proceed further.
In so far as the third question is concerned, namely the attitude of the government toward the readmission to Canada of Stefan Sorokin, may I say that to the best of my information no formal application for his readmission has been received. However, my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) would probably be in a better position to answer further questions in that regard.
1Later:1


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to supplement the information I gave a moment ago in answer to the hon. member for Welland, in case I may have left an incorrect impression. The petition to which I referred, a copy of which I have seen, which was submitted by or on behalf of the Sons of Freedom sect, refers to the possible readmission of Sorokin, but to my knowledge we have had no formal application for readmission from Sorokin himself. The contents of the petition are receiving our careful consideration.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On
this question I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I must say how much I appreciate the interest of the hon. member for Welland in some of my constituents. Has the minister any further information with respect to the question asked by the hon. member for Welland, namely with respect to the application for readmission?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Was that with reference to the re-entry of Sorokin?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: As far as I know there has been no formal application for re-entry on behalf of Sorokin.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct to the Prime Minister a question of which I have sent him notice. Can the Prime Minister give the house any detailed information regarding yesterday's announcement from Washington by the international joint commission to the effect that a mutually satisfactory basis for agreement had been reached between the United States and Canada regarding the development of the Columbia river?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the hon. member has reference to a press report that was issued by the co-chairmen of the international joint commission, namely Douglas McKay for the United States and Andrew McNaughton for Canada, in which were given the results of the commission's semiannual meeting which took place in Washington between April 7 and April 10. The only portion of the press release which deals with the matter in question is this:
Following its meeting with the Columbia board, the commission held further discussions concerning the formulation of principles for the determination of downstream benefits and their apportionment. The commission has now reached a mutually satisfactory basis for proceeding to a consideration of a first draft of principles. These principles will be discussed and further developed at the next meeting of the commission in Montreal on April 30.
The international joint commission, of course, is an independent international body which issues its own press releases. We have had no official communication by the commission with respect to the request made by the governments of the United States and Canada on January 29, 1959. However, I would point out to the hon. gentleman that the mutually satisfactory basis is not stated to be for an agreement between United States and Canada but for "proceeding to a consideration of a first draft of principles". In short, I assume that the commission is proceeding with the task assigned to it several months ago, and that in due course an official report will be made thereon to the two governments.



APPLICATION OF DOMINION COAL COMPANY FOR LOAN OF $6 MILLION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask
a question of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Can the minister say

what consideration has been given to the application of the Dominion Coal Company for a loan of $6 million under the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act in order to improve the lagging coal mining industry?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to consult the dominion coal board and get a report on this matter, which I will give to the house at the next sitting.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the suggestion made at the fisheries council meeting last week that the government place a floor price under salt cod fish, can the minister tell us when the government intends to carry out its promise made prior to March 31, 1958 by the Prime Minister at Charlottetown and elsewhere in the Atlantic provinces, that the government would place a floor price under their salt fish?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minisier of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. Unfortunately I received it only since coming into the house. I would say, however, that if the situation warrants it the government is prepared to apply price support to fish products at any time, and legislation is already in existence for such purpose. In applying such a program we must be careful not to act in a way which would expose our products to dumping duties or to embargoes by any of our best customers.
However, in the last year or so fish prices have been going up, and in the last fiscal year the industry had one of the best years it has had for some time. I might add that as far as Newfoundland products are concerned, through the efforts of my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce we succeeded in selling a quantity of salt fish to Brazil at a good price for the first time in a number of years.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member has in mind chiefly the problem which everyone admits existed in Newfoundland last year. The fisheries prices support board held special meetings last September in Halifax and St. John's to look into the problem of the income of the Newfoundland fishermen who fish cod to be processed into dried salt cod. The advice of the fisheries prices support board was that the problem in Newfoundland was one of catch failure rather than of prices,
Inquiries of the Ministry and that no action could be taken under the Fisheries Prices Support Act which would meet that problem. I want to say, however, that the whole matter is reviewed from time to time, and is under careful consideration by the fisheries prices support board.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Minister of Public Works if he would see to it that immediate action is taken to have the entrance to the Montreal river harbour, some 80 miles north of Sault Ste. Marie, opened as soon as possible so the fishermen may be able to make use of the harbour as soon as the ice leaves.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minisier of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to have the situation checked.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF SCHOLARSHIPS IN HONOUR OF THE LATE SIDNEY SMITH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government given serious consideration to the proposal of the national federation of Canadian university students for the establishment of a system of national scholarships in honour of the late Sidney Smith?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, no consideration has been given to that question.



POLYMER CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour if, in view of the long lapse of time since the strike at Polymer Corporation in Sarnia began, he has any report to make to the house.


Hon. Michael Siarr (Minisier of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I deny that there has been a long lapse of time such as the hon. member refers to. The strike has been going on for only a few days. I have now received notice of concurrence from the Polymer Corporation, and the processing of the appointment of a mediator to assist in this dispute is now going on.

The Budget-Mr. Dumas


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister of Labour, who is obviously very well disposed today toward constructive suggestions, advise the house what he means by "just a few days"?


Michael Starr: Just slightly over one week.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 13, consideration of the motion of Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Benidickson, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Regier.
(Translation):
Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, what are the outstanding facts arising out of the budget brought down last Thursday evening? In a speech which lasted almost two hours, and with his well-known aplomb, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) told us that, for the fiscal year ending March 31 last, his government had managed to come up with the largest peacetime deficit in our history. He confessed that his government had managed to reach an alltime record in regard to expenditures. He also pointed out that, by means of an entirely novel plan for the reconversion of part of the debt, his government had succeeded in raising to a more respectable level the interest rate on money. The minister of Finance also added that Canada's debt had increased considerably, that the Canadian standard of living is declining, that there are far too many unemployed, that the danger of inflation remains great, that production costs are too high, etc.
In fact no one could have done a better job of showing up the policy of bankruptcy which has been followed by the Conservative government since it took over in 1957. It was that policy of bankruptcy which prompted a Toronto paper to say last Saturday, with reference to the budget:
(Text):
No policy to guide it.
(Translation):
The newspaper went on to say that the Minister of Finance had been faced with a
difficult task. This we readily admit, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance did have to face a difficult task in preparing the estimates for 1959-60. His cabinet colleagues have spread money around rather casually, they have administered their departments in an easy-going way, they have promised favours right and left, with the result that the Minister of Finance had to ask the Canadian taxpayers to pay the piper.
The minister was therefore obliged to conclude his speech, on Thursday night, by saying that the deficit for the fiscal year 1959-60 would again be phenomenal, but that Canadians would get off, at least for the time being, by paying about $350 million a year in extra taxation. Nor did the minister fail to stress that of this increase of $2.3 billion in gross national revenue, he proposed to take in as his share no less than 23 per cent or to be more accurate an amount of $640 million.
The hon. minister took great pains to make it appear that the average Canadian would not be too much affected by this fiscal increase of $245 million for the current year and of $350 million for a full year. Now let us see how the matter stands. Here is what we note in table 8, page 2425 of Hansard. First, with regard to tax increases, in the field of budgetary levies, we note that personal income tax has increased by $54 million. We also note that corporation income tax has increased by $56 million. And we note further down the table that customs duties, sales tax and other duties and taxes, included in the budgetary levies, have increased by $46 million. And, in that field only, by a total of $156 million.
But, that is not all. As regards contributions to the old age security fund, we note that taxes have gone up by 50 per cent, since the personal income is being taxed by 1 percentage point with the result that instead of 2 per cent, each individual has to contribute 3 per cent to the old age security fund. And the corporation income tax has gone up also by 50 per cent. The same goes for the sales tax, with the result that in that field we note an annual increase of $196 million. And that table summarizes the increases in taxes as follows:
Personal income tax, $129 million; corporation income tax, $84 million; sales tax, $93 million; cigars, cigarettes and spirits, $46 million; and that, for an overall total of $352 million for a full year.



Now, who are those-and that is the interesting point-who will be called upon to pay this increase in taxation of $245 million for the current year or of $350 million for a complete year?
Mr. Speaker, here is the answer to that question: each and every one of the 4,600,000 Canadian taxpayers will be called upon to pay that increase in taxation. It will be the price of reality, as was so ably said by the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). Canadians now realize that the Prime Minister could not carry out his promises, as the people believed he would. The people are now being asked to pay the price of reality.
That is why, the day following the budget speech, the man in the street, wishing to express his opinion on the recent events, made the following remarks: "That is too much", "It is an excess"; "We've had it", said another one; another one added that it was the last drop overflowing the cup and still another one said: "The party in power is the party of one man only". And the wisest of them all said: "I did not vote Conservative in the last election, because I knew what was coming".
Mr. Speaker, why has there been such a forthright reaction from the man in the street? This government's liberalities to the Canadian taxpayer, in the taxation field, for 1957-58, though they amounted to only a small fraction of what had been promised, have now been washed away and engulfed by the 1959-60 tax increase. As evidence of this, I am going to use the very illustrations used by the minister last Thursday night. As quoted on page 2417 of Hansard, the minister, having briefly mentioned the liberalities of 1957, quoted the following examples to illustrate the efforts I was mentioning a moment ago:
Taxpayers in the lower and middle income brackets will find that their tax increases this year will cost them less than the relief granted to them by the reductions of 1957.
And for purposes of illustration, the minister made this statement:
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 than he paid before the reduction we introduced in 1957.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I say that so far as income tax is concerned, that is the true
The Budget-Mr. Dumas situation, but the minister forgot to add that in the course of the year, the taxpayer will have to buy certain things, and will therefore have to pay the increased sales tax when the time comes to purchase a refrigerator, an electric range, or perhaps even a car or some other commodity. It can therefore be readily seen that not only will the taxpayer not pay less than before the 1957 deductions, but will now have to disburse more to pay for the tax increase.
Now if you take the case of the three other classes of taxpayers, those earning $4,000, $5,000 and $7,500, it must be concluded that the minister was not telling the whole story when he stated that the taxpayers would be paying less taxes, because there are some among them who will be buying a car, and they will have to pay for the increased sales tax.
In fact, it was no later than Friday, or immediately after the budget speech, that we were told the tax on cars would be raised by at least $25 to $30. So the poor Canadian, in the coming year, not only will be forced to return the few favours he enjoyed in 1957, but will have to reach into his other pocket and pay the difference through the amounts he will have to pay in the current year because taxes have been raised.
Now, Mr. Speaker, with regard to federal-provincial relations, the minister noted that since the house had discussed the matter at least twice during this session, he did not intend to again deal with the matter in his remarks. However, with apparent satisfaction, the minister put on record certain remarks that I am pleased to recall to him, and that are of particular interest to the taxpayers and people of the province of Quebec. We find at page 2410 of Hansard, that the minister said:
Under the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act we are making unconditional payments to the provincial governments or unconditional tax abatements amounting to $684 million in the current year, of which $167 million is in the form of fiscal aid through equalization and stabilization payments.
It is to be noted, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has said:
We are making unconditional payments-
Have you ever heard of anyone paying back a sum of money to some one he really owes it to and saying: "I'm paying this back to you unconditionally"? Who ever heard of such a thing? In fact, if the Liberal government had dared to use such a phrase in a

The Budget-Mr. Dumas budget speech, I do not know what would have happened, but I doubt that somebody would have raised his voice and talked about centralization.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the minister also seems to rejoice over the fact that the total conditional grants now reach $460 million, instead of the $136 million reached in 1956-57.
There again I presume that Quebec taxpayers are taking a wide-eyed look at this figure because they will never see a good part of those $460 million, at least not for quite some time.
In hospital insurance, the federal government will be making conditional payments of $160 million, of which the province of Quebec will not get a single penny.
In conditional payments for highways and transportation, the government will spend $70.3 million. We might get part of this for railway crossings, but the province of Quebec will get mighty little of this $70,300,000.
However, as regards item 7, in paragraph B, providing for conditional payment of $23.8 million for resource development, I do not believe that we shall see a single penny of that amount.
University grants will amount to $26.2 million, of which, of course, we will not receive a penny. Quebec taxpayers must indeed be vastly impressed!
And what will be the reaction of those who heard our hon. friends opposite say, when they used to sit on this side of the house: "What a bunch of centralizers", with reference to those who were managing the country at the time? But today, where are the true centralizers? I ask you, Mr. Speaker: Where are they? They are sitting there, on the other side of this floor.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to say a few words about our trade and about our foreign trade relations, especially with our neighbours to the south.
While in his budget speech the Minister of Finance dealt fairly at length with our international trade and our foreign economic relations, he practically said nothing about what action his government proposes to remove the uneasiness which is now being felt in our trade with the United States.
After saying that much of the increase in European gold reserves came from the United States and that this country was continuing

to act as a "good creditor", he said, and I quote from page 2408 of Hansard:
But it is to be hoped that the people and the government of the United States will become less timid regarding imports, particularly imports from a country like Canada, which buys from them far more than it sells, and is linked with them by bounds of common continental defence.
This is fine, Mr. Speaker, and the minister goes on:
In particular the actions of the United States in imposing during the past year new import restrictions on lead and zinc and mandatory controls on petroleum have aroused strong resentment in this country. We shall continue to press for the removal of these and other unjustifiable impediments to our export trade.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is rather a hesitant and lukewarm statement, and we wonder if that is all the government means to do.
In last year's budget speech, the minister was much more categorical. Let me quote a few paragraphs of his remarks at that time. I have before me the French Hansard for he 1958 session and I quote from page 1237 of volume II. The minister said this:
While access to the United States market has been improved in the last decade, and its tariffs have been significantly reduced entry into that market remains difficult and uncertain for many classes of goods produced in Canada.
Further on the minister added:
Perhaps most troublesome of all are the uncertainties arising from the many escape clauses in United States legislation and administrative practices. Hon. members do not need to be reminded of the recent restrictions imposed against Canadian oil and the continuing threat to our exports of lead, zinc and copper-notwithstanding firm trade agreement obligations.
When he said this, the minister was right. And a little further he stated:
We find it difficult to understand why the United States should treat its best customer and friendly neighbour in this way. We have made it clear to the United States authorities that measures which add to our difficulties in selling in the United States market or in third countries cannot but impair our ability and willingness to import from them.
That was, so to speak, a kind of threat. And the minister added:
This brief examination of the nature of our trading problems with the United States points up the need for vigorous action of a constructive nature. We intend to press for wider access on reasonable terms to the United States market; and we will continue to oppose with all the means at our disposal any threat to impose greater obstacles against Canadian exports to that market.
There again, Mr. Speaker, the minister was right.
At the same time we will continue to foster the growth and diversification of efficient Canadian

industries so that a constantly larger supply of our requirements may be met economically from domestic production.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what the hon. minister was saying last year; he gave the appearance of being quite firm. He appeared determined to convince his colleagues of the necessity of making certain representations to our friends to the south-at least that is the impression we got-and that he would lose no time about it. However, the excerpt I have just read from this year's budget speech, sings a rather different tune. The minister is now using the soft pedal. He does not say that the United States should buy more of our products, nor does he say that the government will continue insisting that the United States purchase more of our goods.
Mr. Speaker, we should realize-and this is most important, that many of the difficulties and problems confronting both the Canadian people and our friends in the United States are rooted in our trade exchanges.
In this regard let me give an example. I refer to the present unquestionable uneasiness in Canada about the future development of a particular industry, mining.
In that industry, and in the economy as a whole, inflationary pressures continue unabated and constitute a serious danger. Competition for the conquest of world markets is keener right now than it was before the second World War. Other ore-producing countries are developing their resources at a fast pace. However, in many of those countries wages and production costs are but a fraction of what they are in Canada.
Let us not forget for a minute that the mining industry in Canada is geared to export trade and that ore resources are valuable only to the extent that they are developed, put into production and marketed. Otherwise, they are but worthless rock.
The widest market for our mining products and for many others is unmistakably the United States. The contracts we are able to obtain in that field are awarded under terms imposed by the American administration as a result of pressures by the producers exerted by American producers who look upon those measures or restrictions as increased protection for their products, and even the very survival of their own industry.
Canadian mining companies hope for and anticipate the possibility of remaining the greatest suppliers of copper, zinc, lead, uranium and iron ore and many other metals in 66968-9-170
The Budget-Mr. Dumas the United States, for many generations to come, on an ever increasing basis.
However, Mr. Speaker, Canadian producers are worried, and I would even say greatly worried. They naturally realize the difficulties we have to face at this time and which are caused by that protectionist policy of our neighbours to the south. But their concern goes further than this. Canadian producers are wondering whether the Canadian government is actually taking the necessary steps to avoid a still more detrimental policy on the part of the American administration.
We might get an answer to this question when we know the attitude the U.S. government proposes to take with regard to the options which the United States atomic energy commission is holding in respect of Canadian uranium production after 1962 and 1963.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian uranium industry is admittedly facing great difficulties, especially as regards the period following the years 1962 and 1963, when the sales contracts with the Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited will have expired and, hence, as regards arrangements between this corporation and the United States atomic energy commission.
The Canadian uranium industry has developed amazingly in the last three years. It now ranks first among metal and ore producers in Canada in dollar value of exports.
During 1958, the value of uranium exports was no less than 5 per cent of all Canadian commodity exports.
The following figures show how much that industry has advanced. In 1957, uranium exports reached a total of $131 million, as compared to $260 million in 1958. For the current year, and taking into consideration the number of mines and plants holding production contracts, our uranium exports will probably reach the $350 million mark.
We know that uranium producers have contracts with the Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited to the value of $1,500 million, and that the latter, in turn, has contracts for a similar value with the United States atomic energy commission. Therefore, it is evident that the United States is our main purchaser of Canadian uranium.
General opinion seems to indicate that in the next ten years the uranium market, for civilian purposes, will be fairly insignificant compared to the productive potential of mines.

The Budget-Mr. Dumas
So, for a period of six to eight years, that is from 1962 and 1963, after the contracts with the Eldorado Mining have expired, there will be a gap.
In addition to its existing contracts with the Eldorado Mining the United States atomic energy commission has options on a large portion of the uranium potential of Canadian mines for the period subsequent to the lapsing of its contracts, that is until December 31, 1966.
The commission will thus be in a position to take advantage of those options until March 31, 1961.
We all know that if that industry has reached its present development, it is because of the demands and representations of the United States government which wanted to provide for its own basic requirements of uranium oxide. Canadian uranium companies have therefore every reason to impress upon the Canadian government the necessity for the United States government to take up its options on Canadian production until December 1966, and to do so with the least possible delay.
That is most important, Mr. Speaker, and in this connection, I should like to refer to a brief submitted to the Canadian government about two or three months ago. In that brief the Canadian Metal and Mining Association outlined as follows the Canadian producers' approach to this matter:
(Text):
As the civilian market for uranium up to 1966 will be very limited, it is of vital importance to the Canadian uranium industry that these options be taken up. It is respectfully requested that the Canadian government examine this situation and bring to the attention of the United States government the importance its attaches to the taking up of the options before March 31, 1961, and the desirability of giving notification of its intention to do so at the earliest possible date.
(Translation):
Then, Mr. Speaker, we notice-


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the
date of the brief?


Armand Dumas: It is dated January 1959. This shows how important it is that the government make representations at the earliest possible moment.
I should like to say a few more words about our Canadian uranium industry. I would have liked to deal with the subject more extensively, but I notice that my time is fast running out.
Did the government take action on that recommendation of the Canadian Metal and Mining Association?
Is the Canadian government doing something to induce the United States government

to amend its apparently ever-expanding protectionist policy? Or will Canada's own trade policy turn to protectionism? That is the question raised by the budgets brought down in this house by the Conservative government since it gained power in 1957.
This afternoon, in reply to an inquiry from the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) stated-much to my surprise-that only on one occasion had he met with officials of the atomic energy commission in the United States. And yet, everyone knows how important it is to urge the U. S. government to let us know whether it intends to take up its options on Canadian uranium production after 1962 and 1963. This is of the greatest importance. If we fail to get a statement from the U. S. government as to its intention of instructing the A.E.C. to take up its option, there is grave danger that several mines located in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition will be forced to close down, and then, only the mines with very high grade ore will be in a position to continue production.
In the light of recent developments, Canada is more than ever in need of assurances so that large segments of the Canadian economy might not be adversely or seriously affected as result of certain decisions that might be taken in the United States. In the case of Canadian uranium purchases by the United States, American producers are exerting pressure to prevent the options I have mentioned from being taken up. And to think the Minister of Trade and Commerce has only just met with officials of the United States atomic energy commission! That is astonishing! Moreover, we expect and demand that the Canadian government take all necessary steps to insure that these options be taken up as soon as possible.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, we must resist any pressure tending to curtail future trade between Canada and the United States.
Besides, to the extent allowed under existing legislation and essential administrative principles of both countries, it is important that consideration be given to the possibility of easing certain restrictions which have already caused some misunderstanding and which are apt to give rise to more.
(Text):


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: same. We were both in a business recession causing acute unemployment, with the added complication in Canada of more rigorous climatic conditions severely restricting construction in the winter months. Yet despite this major handicap, because of government action our record is one of which we may well be proud.
This parliament has voted a further $250 million to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for housing purposes, bringing the total made available to date to an even billion dollars. Without in any way reducing the tempo of home building, I should like to see more emphasis placed on providing housing for old age pensioners and those in lower income brackets. In my opinion C.M.H.C. has not adequately promoted or publicized the use of the limited dividend section of the National Housing Act, whereby the government will loan up to 90 per cent of the cost of low rental housing. Limited dividend projects are usually sponsored by non-profit organizations such as churches, legion branches, service clubs and other public spirited bodies, but to date the number of such projects has been far too few in relation to the need. It is true that in 1958 more money was spent in this field than in any previous year but this amount, some $49 million, falls far short of satisfying the demand for this type of accommodation.
Limited dividend housing is relatively low-cost rental housing, but it is not subsidized housing. Subsidized housing is a joint municipal-provincial-federal project with the three governments sharing in the capital cost and in the subsidy required to cover any operating losses. In addition there is provision for the federal government to contribute 50 per cent of the cost to a municipality in acquiring and clearing slum areas for redevelopment programs.
It is in these three areas of slum clearance, subsidized rental housing and low-cost but non-subsidized rental housing that more activity is required because the need is so great. Present restrictive regulations, such as the one limiting old age pensioners to 20 per cent of the total accommodation of a subsidized housing project to prevent so-called "islands" of elderly citizens, prevent full utilization of provincial help designed to provide housing for senior citizens only. The financing of limited dividend projects by non-profit organizations should be made easier by allowing prospective tenants to

subscribe part of the initial capital if they wish and are able so to do. Above all, an intensive promotion program by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is required to acquaint services clubs, legion branches, churches and other possible sponsors as to how they can help to provide decent housing accommodation for families in need, at a price they can afford.
A peculiar feature of our Canadian economy is the effect our long and severe winter has on employment, particularly in the construction industry. Therefore we have each year our peak unemployment in winter months. This government has tried to combat this by extending unemployment seasonal benefits to make them payable from the first week in December to May 15, in place of from the first week in January to April 15 as was the case under the former government. It has often been said that the former Liberal government were out of touch with the Canadian people. I would suggest they were also out of touch with the reality and severity of the Canadian winter.
A second attack on the problem of winter unemployment was the joint municipal-federal winter work program. Under this program the government agreed to pay half the labour costs of approved municipal projects carried out in the winter months. Let me make it clear that this refers to paying half the cost of additional jobs; that is, for labour specifically hired for the approved project, labour which would not have had a job if the project had not been started. As of March 20, 1959, as we were informed by the Minister of Labour, a total of 32,000 jobs have been provided under this scheme, and of the total of 1,909 applications from municipalities across Canada, 1,838 applications or 96 per cent were approved.
The scheme was deliberately designed to give the greatest federal help to those projects which would have the highest new labour content and so help the most in combating seasonal unemployment. Parliament voted $15 million to cover the cost of the program, and it appears that the greater part of these funds will be expended when the program ends on May 31. I hope the program will be reinstated next winter, when the experience gained in this first year of operation will allow an even more successful program. Planning should be started as early as possible so that a well thought out program will be ready for implementation as soon as the proper time arrives.
The Budget-Mr. Broome
Mr. Speaker, from Canada's earliest history Canadian expansion has been geared to high levels of foreign trade and to massive capital inflows required to finance and stimulate the growth in our economy. Because the greatest part of our capital inflow now comes from the United States, and because the greatest part of our trade is with the United States, the Canadian economy is highly sensitive to United States business cycles. The current recession which had its birth in the United States was well under way when this government first took office. The financial critic for the Liberals, in commenting on the budget statement of the Minister of Finance, had this to say at page 2456 of Hansard:
He did not tell us that carloadings in the United States, compared with last year, are up almost six per cent but in this country our carloadings are down. The Financial Post of March 28 pointed out that the United States industrial production will likely get back to its boom-time peak within a matter of days but by contrast Canadian output is only one-half up to its low in recovery.
I suspect what is meant is only one-half up from its low in recovery.
Let us examine this statement to see what did happen. The complete story is that industrial production started to drop in Canada early in 1957 but did not start to drop in the United States until after August of that year. This drop in production in Canada was therefore well under way by the time the first Conservative administration was formed. Through government measures outlined by the Minister of Finance consumer expenditure, which is much the largest and most stable element of demand in our economy, was maintained at a high rate and the drop in industrial production was halted at a point 6.6 per cent below the previous record level. In contrast in the United States, though the drop in industrial production started eight months later than in Canada it fell twice as far, namely to 13.1 per cent below the previous record. The Financial Post article which the Liberal critic quotes states that United States production has regained all but 1.5 per cent of its decline. This may be true; indeed I hope it is. In regard to Canadian industrial production, however, according to dominion bureau of statistics figures the industrial production index as of January, 1959 was 157.2 as compared with the previous peak of 159.6, showing that we also are about 1.5 per cent below our all-time record.
In regard to carloadings, it is true we are down from last year. According to dominion bureau of statistics figures carloadings' for

The Budget-Mr. Broome the first three months of this year were 828,516, as compared with 829,079 last year. We are therefore down one-twentieth of one per cent. I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker that the ground for this criticism was not well chosen. If the Liberals wish to compare the effects of the recession in the United States and Canada I suggest they read the Bank of Montreal Business Review of February 24, 1959, or Labour Research of August, 1958, a bulletin published by the Canadian Labour Congress. Both these issues are devoted to a comparison of the recession in Canada and the United States. In almost every comparison both publications show that the recession in Canada was less severe than in the United States.
We are not trying to minimize the effect of the recession in Canada, with the resulting slow-down in business and employment and the hardships Canadians are suffering as a result. We do say that what a government can do to help, that we have done. We have been aided in this by helpful suggestions from labour, management, interested organizations and ordinary citizens. In fact we have received constructive ideas from almost every group except the opposition, who have given us a great deal of destructive criticism.
I have already indicated the close dependence of our economy on the United States and our sensitivity to business fluctuations in that country. We are the fourth largest trading nation of the world and are more dependent on export trade than any other nation, in that one out of every five Canadians is directly dependent on export trade to keep his job. The United States is our biggest customer and supplier, selling us 70 per cent of our imports and buying 60 per cent of our exports. Although our imports from the United States were down 11 per cent in 1958 compared with 1957, we still bought more from the United States last year than we did in the boom year of 1955. In fact we bought $660 million more from the United States than the United States bought from us.
In 1957, despite our position as one of the leading manufacturing nations of the world, we imported fully finished manufactured goods to the tune of $262 for every man, woman and child in the country. By comparison the British figure was $48 and the United States figure a mere $28. It is my conviction that the overwhelming ownership of Canadian manufacturing facilities by United States firms tends to restrict the natural expansion of these subsidiaries in serving both domestic and export markets. The


tendency is for the parent company to continue to supply fully manufactured products to its subsidiary long after the Canadian market has grown to a point where local manufacture is possible and profitable.
There are other problems in regard to United States-Canada relations, such as the United States wheat disposal program, restrictions on imports of Canadian oil and base metals, the imbalance in trade between our two countries, and of course the question of continental defence. We have been accused by the opposition on the one hand of having an ultra-nationalistic point of view and thus antagonizing the United States, and on the other hand we have been accused by the opposition of having a very subservient attitude in regard to defence problems.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that they cannot have it both ways. Our policy of bringing our problems with the United States into the open for frank discussion has resulted in a better understanding by the United States of Canadian economic conditions. We have stood up for Canadian rights and in so doing we have earned the respect of the American people. We are no longer taken for granted. At the same time we have been realistic enough to acknowledge that in matters of continental defence we must play a lesser role and merge our defence system with that of the United States. This is only common sense and it is in the interest of the preservation of both our countries and our common way of life. In both these attitudes, I submit, we are serving the best interests of Canada. We shall continue to press for more independence in the operation of foreign subsidiaries in Canada to the end that these subsidiaries shall be operated in the best interests of Canada and that they shall be, as far as possible, truly Canadian operations.
Much has been said about our overwhelming dependence on the United States market. We have frequently been told that we place all our trading eggs in one basket and that it would be the mark of common prudence to try and diversify our trade pattern. To this end the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) took the leadership in calling a commonwealth trade and economic conference in Montreal last September, the first such full scale commonwealth conference on trade and economic problems to be held since 1932. It was the largest commonwealth conference ever held and indeed one of the largest international conferences ever held in Canada.
The sterling bloc represents the greatest single trading area in the world today. Close to half the world's trade is conducted in sterling, but up to now we have had extreme

difficulty in penetrating this market primarily due to quotas and currency convertibility restrictions.
As a result of this conference there was an immediate freeing of trade channels between Canada and the United Kingdom, culminating in the decision of the United Kingdom government in December to make sterling convertible. An immediate result of the conference was the sale of the record British Columbia salmon pack to the United Kingdom. Another result is commented upon in a Financial Post article in the April 11, 1959 issue, stating that Australia has relaxed quota restrictions against Canadian goods for the third time since last fall when the conference was held. We had an expanding trade with Australia up to the second world war. The war broke this trade pattern and it was not restored because of Australian import restrictions. The Liberals in their preoccupation with trade with the United States, neglected commonwealth trade. We propose to build up this trade and I believe a good start has been made.
There is one thing certain and that is if we wish to sell we must be prepared to buy. In this regard it is interesting to note two recent announcements. The first was by International Harvester and said that in future heavy duty trucks would be manufactured in Hamilton, rather than imported from the United States. Also, in place of bringing in United States diesels to power these trucks they would use Rolls Royce engines imported from the United Kingdom. The second announcement was by Cummins Diesel, one of the largest diesel manufacturing companies in the world, which stated their Canadian organization would, in future, purchase diesels from the Cummins subsidiary in the United Kingdom rather than from the parent plant in the United States. It appears that private United States industry recognizes our need to diversify our trade pattern, to correct in part our imbalance of trade with the United States, even if the official opposition does not.
Mr. Speaker, high levels of employment are neither reached or maintained in automatic fashion. Inflation must be held in check if our standard of living is to be protected. The government must continue to be vigilant in holding down governmental costs and industry and labour, while each guarding its own special interests must work together in the overall interests of Canada. If this is done, we will be able to maintain high levels of employment in an expanding economy and with a constantly rising standard of living.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, on March 26, I received my copy of the local newspaper, the Timmins Press, and
The Budget-Mr. M. Martin I received a very rude shock when I glanced at the headline featured on the front page which read as follows:
Pensions May Cause Tax Boost
The first paragraph of that article stated:
Canadians may be in for a round of higher federal taxes aimed at making the old age pension fund pay its way-
That part of it is very true but the fact remains that there appears to be a deliberate attempt on the part of this newspaper which has always been extremely friendly toward the present government to create the impression that present tax increases announced in the budget presented to the house last week were caused by the poor old age pensioners. What a change from the impression which was given to us and to the old age pensioners by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the past.
We well recall when the last increase of $9 in old age pensions was authorized. The impression given to the house and to the Canadian people was that this was merely an interim measure to tide us over until the government could tidy up the affairs of the country and then the old age pensioners could really look forward to something much better. As the months went by nothing was done and the question was handed over to a royal commission. Finally, after many long months of waiting, the report of that commission was handed down. That was some time ago but to date we have not heard a word about what this government is going to do for the old age pensioner although, as I say, scare headlines now appear in Conservative newspapers across the country which seek to blame the old age pensioner for present tax increases. The old age pensioner has received no increase in his pension but has been the recipient of blame for present tax increases.
I ran across another very interesting item this morning in what is probably the leading Conservative newspaper of the host of such newspapers across the country. The article appeared on the editorial page and the first paragraph stated:
In the wake of last week's dominion budget, leading companies in two major industries-oil and rubber-have increased the price of gasoline and tires. Tax increases were the decisive factor in each case.
I refer, of course, to the Globe and Mail, issue of today's date. Here we have a deliberate, bald-faced statement by companies in two of our leading industries that they

The Budget-Mr. M. Martin simply will not be taxed because immediately upon the announcement of increased taxation they announced their intention of passing the tax on to the consumer. I do not have figures concerning the amount by which they increased their prices so I have been unable to compare the increase in price with the increase in tax. I do not know if the price was raised sufficiently to equal the tax, or if it was raised three times as much as we have seen in many cases in the past.
A favourite preoccupation of newspapers of this political flavour, and particularly the Globe and Mail, over the years has been to blame labour for everything. I wonder what would have happened if the Canadian Labour Congress had immediately announced, as these companies did, that it refused to accept the increased taxation and that the increase would be passed on to the consumer through the medium of the congress immediately seeking raises in pay across the country? Would the Globe and Mail have written an editorial in defence of its action as it did in the case of these companies to which I referred?
Certainly the working people have as much right to pass along increases in taxes as has any company. The editorial goes on to point out how justified these companies are in taking this action. Incidentally, the editorial also points out how foolish hon. members of this group are in attempting to tax corporations. The editorial states very clearly that as soon as corporations are taxed they pass the increase on to the consumer and therefore they ask what is the sense of taxing them. The suggestion is that one might as well tax the consumer in the first place and be done with it.
One thing this editorial has accomplished has been to explode the carefully prepared and promoted theory that obtained across Canada that this was the small man's or working man's budget that laid off the little man and went after the big fellow. Within a week of the bringing down of the budget the Globe and Mail, the leading Conservative newspaper in Canada, has come out with an editorial stating that this was not the case at all because even before the budget debate concluded in the house many companies have already taken action to pass the increases on to the consumer, the little man for whom the government was supposed to have shown consideration in this budget.
These tax increases and especially those that are passed on by the corporations to the Canadian consumer lead to nothing other than a further boost in the cost of living, a general rise in prices and an increase in the so-called danger of inflation that threatens us. The greatest criticism one could offer this government, a criticism it has justly deserved,


is that it is seeking to avoid facing up to the two most vital problems in the country. It presents them in a rosy hue and attempts to make believe they do not exist. I refer, of course, to the problems of inflation and unemployment which are closely interwoven. The combination of these two elements gives rise to an even greater danger to our way of life and that is the growing economic offensive of the Soviet union. A British economist of note, Barbara Ward, broadcasting on the C.B.C. T.V. on April 5, 1959, had this to say:
If the west could achieve stability along with economic growth we would have little to fear in the threat from soviet economic offensive. Indeed such an offensive would be a good thing not only for the world but for the west as well.
It is very obvious that we have not achieved any stability in the past and certainly the government is not taking any serious steps to try to achieve any stability in the future. With this lack of stability we see the hard fought gains in welfare and security measures falling by spurts over very short periods of time, with the whole situation leading to more and more unemployment.
This so-called inflation we have at the present time is a new phenomenon. It is no longer the old-fashioned inflation of too much money chasing too few goods. What we have in its place now is a case of sellers overcharging for their surplus products. There is only one reason for it and only one reason can exist in this country today. The reason is that today in this country we have price control by big business, with organized labour fighting for its life to maintain its position and by so doing giving big business an alibi to maintain its prices. The trade union movement in this country is tied to business just as the tail is tied to the dog.
The Prime Minister was supposed to have recognized this new situation when he spoke at the Canadian Labour Congress convention in the city of Winnipeg just about a year ago. At that time he made an appeal to labour and business to hold the line, and he was supposed to have recognized the new situation which is arising. If we find that our inflation is the old-fashioned type, then the Prime Minister's appeal last year would have no meaning whatsoever because the natural process of supply and demand would straighten out matters and would bring things back into equilibrium. But the Prime Minister made his appeal to labour and to business. The chief difficulty was there were no businessmen present; there were only labour representatives. That is why there has been no record of the Prime Minister giving the same speech to the Canadian Manufacturers Association. It is very similar, Mr. Speaker, to a referee stopping a fight by throwing one man into the penalty box and letting the other man go

free. It was recognized as such. Certainly business did not curtail itself in any way and as a result labour followed suit. We have just carried on in our own regular, merry way.
The most important thing is that prices are not rising because of the pressure of buyers. Prices are rising today because of the pressure of sellers. We have a sellers' inflation instead of a buyers' inflation. What we see is that each and every day sellers are engaging more and more in strenuous and furious activities and we find that business people are able to do everything except lower their prices. This situation was recognized by our Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in his remarks the other day, as reported at page 2408 of Hansard, when he said:
Advancing technology might have been expected to reduce the cost and selling price of many products to consumers. It is evident, however, that developments in corporation pricing policies, in labour organization and even in our political democracy are producing increased rigidities which inhibit the free play of competitive forces and thereby promote inflation and price increases.
I think the minister put his finger very close to the sore spot here, but we notice again that labour is brought in and given almost equal billing with business when actually, as I said before, the only thing that labour is trying to do is to hang on by the coat tails in this society of ours today. Labour is part of the cycle but labour is no more responsible for it than the tail is responsible for the mad dog which exists in our society today.
In the face of this phenomenon which we see rising, it is no wonder that the Liberal cure as applied to this situation was of no effect. I refer to the cure of high interest which the Tories like to refer to as the tight money policy. It did not work and it could not work because it was an old remedy for a new disease. It was trying to use a cold cure to cure pneumonia. The Canadian people realized that this scheme would not work and they got themselves a new physician, and they are now under the tender care of the Minister of Finance. When we look at it very closely we find that we still have a cold, we still have pneumonia, we have bronchitis along with it and the odd bit of flu. The result of all this treatment by the minister has not been a reduction in prices; it has not contributed to the general employment; in fact, it has retarded our economic growth.
In spite of all the fine words of the Minister of Finance, employment and inflation, or the high cost of living, whichever you prefer, still remain two of our biggest problems. Before any improvement can be hoped for
The Budget-Mr. M. Martin the government has first to recognize the problem which so far they have not done and, second, they have to do something about it. So far, I am sorry to say, the government obviously proposes to do neither.
The minister is very industrious. It took a very industrious man to dig out all of the statistics necessary to paint such a rosy picture as he painted the other night. Unfortunately, it has an ominous ring. This prosperity around the corner is something we heard about all during the 1930's. I hope we shall not have to listen to it again during the next 10 years.
There is another very important problem, Mr. Speaker, which apparently has been given no consideration whatsoever, namely the problem of education in this country. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Morton), and the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Stinson) during the throne speech debate outlined very clearly what we are facing with regard to our educational standards across the country as compared with those behind the iron curtain. This problem is confined, not only to secondary schools, which this special report dealt with, it applies also to our universities across the country which are finding it more and more difficult to make ends meet. If we go back to Hansard for March 4, 1959 we find that I asked the Minister of Finance the following question, as recorded at page 1596:
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance which arises out of an article on page 1 of the Vancouver Sun of February 24, 1959. The question is this. In view of reports that the University of British Columbia finds it necessary to increase its fees by $100 per student next year, and in view of the prospect that other universities may find it necessary to do likewise, has the government considered the necessity of increasing its grants to universities in order to ensure that Canadian youth have every opportunity to obtain an education commensurate with their ability?
Now, the minister's answer at that time was as follows:
Without taking the time to comment on some of the questionable assertions contained in this question, I can only say that no consideration has been given to the subject.
Apparently, Mr. Speaker, we are still in the same situation. There has been no consideration given to this subject. I do not know to what the minister was referring when he spoke of the questionable assertions in my question, but I have done a little checking since that time and I find that since this government took office the following universities have had to raise their fees: The University of British Columbia, McMaster University, Toronto University, Assumption University, Windsor, University of New Brunswick, Carleton and Ottawa universities. The increase in fees ranges from a low of $25 at Ottawa University, to a high of

The Budget-Mr. M. Martin $100 at the University of British Columbia or possibly the increase at McMaster and Toronto which was 10 per cent.
X think it is obvious to all hon. members that we are moving more swiftly all the time toward a technological age. The days, relatively speaking, of the pick and shovel are over. The wealth of tomorrow is going to be produced by brainpower rather than by manpower. I noticed that today the Prime Minister, in answer to a question from one hon. member, gave a similar answer to that which the Minister of Finance gave last month, that is that no consideration has been given to this problem. I would like to know why. There is no question but that the government knows about this problem. It has been pointed out very clearly by members from their own side. It certainly has been pointed out time after time by members of the opposition. It has been pointed out in newspapers across this country from coast to coast. When is this government going to realize that there is a problem in this field, or are they going to sit back and let the iron curtain countries outstrip us completely in this field?
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that this is government policy to ignore the problems, to paint rosy pictures and, possibly worst of all, to embark upon a deliberate policy of raising interest rates across this country. As we have seen, the government has no money for old age pensioners. They have no money for the civil servants. They have no money for the western farmers. They have no money, relatively speaking, to spend on unemployment. They have no money for education. They have no money for health insurance. I hear an -hon. member mention small business. There is another one that I left out. What is more, he is right; they have no money for these purposes. But it is no wonder they have no money, because all their money has gone to the money lenders of this country. There is nothing left for the essential services or to meet the serious problems of this country.
We had the example of the bond conversion last year. The terrifying costs of this conversion were outlined very well by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Beni-dickson). This subject was raised first, you may recall, by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) last year, and then by me, when we spoke in the budget debate. I well recall the contribution made to that debate by the Minister of Finance. All he could do was say "rubbish" and "poppycock".
What has been done as a result of this policy? Let us first of all take a look at

the treasury bills. I have here a weekly listing, starting with the week of January 7, 1959 and going up to the week of April 8, 1959. We see that treasury bills in Canada have risen in that time from 3.25 up to 4.42 as of April 8. Many questions were asked of the Minister of Finance during the last couple of years, and particularly in the last two months, concerning this problem. We heard various answers to the effect that this rate fluctuates from week to week; that it is dependent on the United States, and so forth. We have in this list a comparison of the spread on treasury bills between Canada and the United States over that same period of time. This spread has widened from 57 cents on January 7 to $1.47 on April 8. I should like, Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house, to include this table in Hansard for today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Has the hon. member leave to include the table?


Mr. Fleming (Eglinion):: May we ask the
source of the table?


Murdo William Martin: It is taken from the Bank of Canada weekly report.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Murdo William Martin: The table is as follows:
Treasury Bills
(The average rate of treasury bills Is shown for Canada and U.S.A.)
1959		Canada			
Week of		T.B.'s Redisc, rate U.S.A. T.B. spread			
Jan.	7	3.25	3.50	2.68	.5714	3.36	3.61	2.81	.5521	3.46	3.71	3.04	.4228	3.28	3.53	2.98	.30Feb.	4	3.37	3.62	2.72	.6511	3.57	3.82	2.81	.7618	3.78	4.03	2.73	1.0525	4.07	4.32	2.59	1.48Mar.	4	4.06	4.31	2.82	1.2411	4.05	4.30	3.06	.9918	4.22	4.47	2.76	1.4625	4.30	4.55	2.77	1.53Apr.	1	4.33	4.58	3.24	1.098	4.42	4.67	2.95	1.47Note:	Tenders for	treasury	bills	are called onMonday in the U.S.A.	and on	Thursday in Canada,	and	are	shown in this table	to the	nearest Wednesday of each week.
Previous high August 21, 1957
(Bills + diHerential=redlscount rate)
(4.08%+	.25%	=	4.33%)
I should like to move on to a consideration of the present bond situation in this country. I should like to deal with just two aspects of that matter. I am not going to deal with other moneys owed across this country, but I should like to stick specifically to the bonds. This information comes again from the statistical summary. We find that provincial bonds

total $5,708 million; municipal bonds, $3,318 million; corporation, $6,853 million; institutional and others, $170 million. This makes a total of $16,049 million. The government of Canada securities, direct market issues, amount to $10,993 million; treasury bills, $1,495 million; Canada savings bonds, $2,895 million; guaranteed issues, $1,023 million; making a total of $16,406 million or just about half of the complete total. We find that the two of these together reach a grand total of $32,455 million, which by chance is just approximately our total gross national product.
I should like to show just what a li per cent increase would do to this over-all picture, the same 1J per cent increase that the minister used last year with his conversion bonds. A li per cent increase on the total bonds owed by the various organizations that I have listed would amount to $496,825,000. I think that that shows where the money is going in this country today. I feel that is why it is horrible to see such headlines as these which try to put the blame for any increase in taxes in this country on the poor old age pensioner.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, in examining the budget, it would appear to me that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has done a very fine job in his method of taxation for the current year. He has made reductions where possible and has increased taxation where necessary. If one looks over the places in which he has increased taxes, one finds that he has increased from two per cent to three per cent the taxes on incomes, corporations and sales to meet the needs of the huge deficit in our old age security fund. Surely, there is no one in this house who will raise any objection to making this portion of our social security program self-supporting.
Then the minister has increased the excise tax on cigarettes by two cents per package of 20. I am not sure that this increase should not have been greater because it would serve as an added deterrent. I think this is a wise move in view of the great volume of medical evidence that has accumulated on cigarettes and the harm which is suspected as a result of smoking them. Surely no one will disagree with the increase of 12 cents per quart bottle of whisky. Personally, I would feel that this increase could have been doubled because 90 per cent of the liquor drinking is social or compulsive and less than 10 per cent has any medical basis. In many cases the use of alcohol results in a long line of social
The Budget-Mr. Rynard
expenditures by governments for the treatment of alcoholics. In many cases broken homes are the result, diseased bodies, loss of jobs and so forth.
The taxes on cigars have been increased by $1 per thousand and since most cigars are now 10 cents and up, I do not think this will work any hardship on the cigar smokers. Then there is the tax on corporation income. There is no increase in taxation on small businesses with incomes of less than $25,000. However, there is an increase on incomes over this amount from 45 per cent to 47 per cent.
Surely no one will disagree with those increases in taxes which will increase the grants under compensating payments to the provinces of something like $162 million over 1956-57. Surely there is no one in this house who will disagree with the $160 million that will be required for the health insurance scheme with the participating provinces which all parties in this house have agreed to.
Then we have for straight health alone an increase of almost $30 million over 1956-57. There is also an expenditure of almost $20 million more in our resources department which will help to develop Canada, this great country of ours. Trans-Canada highway transportation is up around $45 million. No one can quarrel with this. Therefore I see no alternative to what the Minister of Finance has proposed to this house. If we are going to have these social security programs, if we are going to carry our share of the defence burdens, we must be prepared to pay for the same.
The Minister of Finance's proposals will not only meet these problems but will cut the deficit very substantially. Yet it will not interfere with normal recovery from a condition that has gradually built up over a period of years and must be corrected. I refer to the fact that we are now paying off some of the obligations incurred unwisely over the last decade. Let us look in brief retrospect at what happened.
Canada, a young and virile country, came out of the last war untouched and unscathed as far as her lands and industries were concerned. She occupied the third exporting position in the world but what do we find ten years later under a Liberal administration? Great Britain with half her industrial capacity ruined at the war's end, today more than challenges us in the quality of the goods produced and the cost per man-hour. Germany, almost in rubble after the last war, today in most fields can outsell us and beat us with respect to the cost per man-hour. Japan, a defeated, conquered nation, an occupied country, also challenges us and, in many cases, in spite of high tariffs, can outsell us on the spot in our own country.

The Budget-Mr. Rynard
This did not happen today; it happened over the period since the last war. Textile mills across Canada, one after another, had to close down until in 1957 there remained only a shadow of what once represented a great Canadian industry, close to the hearts of the people, because those industries were mostly located in the small cities and towns across Canada.
We saw this happen in the rubber footwear industry and in many other industries that I could mention. In the forestry industry we find Japan laying down mahogany, although facing heavy duties, and challenging British Columbia fir right on the very ground on which it is growing.
All three nations that I have mentioned are members of the Colombo group, nations that are, in large part, short of the raw materials they need to manufacture the finished articles which they have to sell in the markets of the world. They are obliged to depend on the import of those raw products which carry the price tag of labour costs in primary industry of the country from which they are imported. We in Canada sit on an abundance of almost every known raw material. What a tremendous advantage we should have over those other countries.
I have not said anything of the challenge of the U.S.S.R. in the economic field. Today we must face the economic challenge of a people who are looking forward to the day when they can outproduce the nations of the west, when they can outsell in the markets of the world those same nations. In some scientific fields today Russia is out far ahead of the free nations of the world. For example, the United States alone has three times the potential capacity for manufacture that Russia has. Where then is Canada's potential capacity going? Is it going into the manufacture of cars, television sets, radios and electric gadgets of all sorts? In this economic challenge, this challenge of our free way of life, it may be that some of this productivity must be channelled into increased productivity of goods that are needed for our defence or that are needed to increase new sciences or new methods which in turn will manufacture or be the means of manufacturing new products to sell in the markets of the world.
We in Canada, with the second highest standard of living in the world, with a country having some of the greatest resources in the world-which we did not place there- have we not become a little bit too demanding in our "keeping up with the Joneses"? Is it not a fact that over the past ten years we have been depleting some of those God-given natural resources and shipping them in payment for manufactured goods brought

into this country when we could have, in many cases, bought in Canada to support the factories and manufacturers of this country or factories could have been built to produce in this line? Over the past ten years, do not let us forget that we have piled up the largest trade deficit ever before piled up by this country. In this period of time it would appear to me that more should have been done and could have been done to protect and nurture more industry in this country.
In the immigration field all of us can recall the severe prodding that the administration at Ottawa took right after the war to fill in the wide-open spaces of this country and how slow they were to get started. It was not until one of the provinces, namely the province of Ontario under a Conservative government, undertook on its own to bring in the immigrants they needed that the Liberal party at Ottawa adopted some semblance of an immigration policy. Just let me refer to one point. These newcomers brought with them, in addition to their skills, over $800 million in cash and securities; another $300 million was brought in in personal belongings. They have bought or commenced thousands of small businesses across Canada. They have settled on thousands of farms, many of which were semi-vacant. What a golden opportunity the previous administration had and what a loss we have now suffered as a result of what appears to me to have been an extremely short-sighted policy. Today we are paying the interest on those mistakes. However, we must face the future. Today there is no standing still. We must compete or perish. New sciences, new techniques, new machines must be developed by the scientists and utilized by management of this country so that our costs per man-hour will be on a competitive basis in the markets of the world. That means the utilization of all man-power and of all available brain-power. The challenge must be met in the schools and universities, in industry, in labour. In the common people of this country there must be a clearer understanding of this challenge. We all either pull together or sink separately.
I am one of those who believe that the boys or girls growing up in Canada should be given the opportunity and encouragement to go as far as their ability will carry them. I am not one of those who believe that only the top students should be given the opportunity for study. The opportunity should be given to all of them. I have lived long enough to have seen some great contributions made by students who were in the lower half of their class. We must also remember that the more education given in our schools today, the better understanding there will be of democracy, and how to make that

democracy function at its best. Time is of the essence. The challenge is here.
Have we, as Canadians-all of us, in whatever field we find ourselves-the moral, spiritual and economic dedication to meet this challenge and surmount the problems in a country blessed with some of the richest resources in the world today, a country whose ancestors wrote into the history of yesterday the freedom that we enjoy today.
In closing, may I say this. May we as parliamentarians accept this challenge and dedicate ourselves to our task as examples to our fellow Canadians.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Speaker, it is almost five o'clock but since I probably would not get the unanimous consent of the house to adjourn the debate until eight o'clock, I suppose it is necessary for me to go on now for the ten minutes.
In rising to speak in this debate I want to refer to a speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in Vancouver on May 24. He said this and I hope he said it sincerely:
The Liberals say they cannot increase pensions and reduce taxes. Give us a chance and we will show you.
In December, 1957, we had a prologue to a show which promised a happy ending, and on Thursday night last we had the full second act of that show, which I think has ended in tragedy. I am sure all the provinces and municipalities of Canada are interested. The stage was all set, and we in this house sat in the pit and applauded the hero of the evening, who we hoped would bring a rabbit out of the hat. The hero entered. He was smiling but was without the blue boutonniere that he usually wears. He reached great heights in a soliloquy in his heroic role against that two-headed monster of debt and inflation. Most, but not all, applauded him when he went on to tell how much better he now intended to deal with this beast; but some of us here realized that in order to carry out even a fraction of his election promises he had still to beat this beast. The provinces and the people of Canada wondered how long this show must go on. I was struck the other night by one sentence of the minister in his speech on page 2424 of Hansard of April 9. He said:
With a good response to our Canada savings bond campaign this year, our net market borrowings in 1959-60 should be less than one-half of the $1,220 million borrowed in the market in 1958-59.
This was a master stroke to lull the public. There was no mention of the $1.35 billion that is coming due this year between July 1 and December 1. This must be refunded or dealt with in some other way by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). These people have to be sold again the new bonds, if the bonds
The Budget-Mr. McMillan are refunded, and we know that the interest rate has now risen to 5.06 per cent, according to table 48 in the budget papers. The market is waiting to see what happens. I think that is one reason the bonds have not gone up and might go down; in fact they have gone down somewhat in the last day or so. The minister needs close to $2.2 billion made up of next year's deficit borrowing for capital account plus the refunding of maturities due this year between July 1 and December 1. I realize that the Prime Minister can speak on the radio and tell little stories about patriotism and that the Minister of Finance can get a more modern version of the 1958 Fleming hat and have it advertised in every newspaper across the country. I expect a lot of these people will refund their bonds, likely at a higher interest rate.
Over and above this the minister has to deal, and deal constantly, with an amount of $1.6 billion approximately, which he has borrowed from time to time from the Bank of Canada or other banks in treasury bills.
I	know this has always been the practice, and therefore at the present time the minister is dealing at least with an amount between $3.7 billion and $3.8 billion. This is serious, and I think our country is in some rather deep financial trouble. I hope that the stage is not being set for the second Fleming folly.
What was there in the budget speech that the colleagues of the minister applauded so heartily the other night? I would say they applauded an increase in our gross public debt of $1.8 billion to the amount of $20.2 billion. That is in Hansard at table 2A. This represents an increase in debt of over $420 for every family of four in Canada. The minister's colleagues applauded that deficit of $835 million, made up of $617 million announced by the minister, plus $212 million taken out of the national defence equipment account, plus $6 million taken in fancy bookkeeping from an account which under section
II	of the National Defence Act represents surpluses from sales of national defence material. This deficit alone adds up pretty close to a debt of $200 for every family of four in Canada. They also warmly applauded another whopping deficit, and a major tax increase in spite of the prophecy that we would have a 7 per cent increase in the gross national product.
After all, there was very little else to applaud unless it be the largest spending in history, our largest peacetime deficit in history, the highest interest since the days of the Bennett government, the largest number ever of unemployed and, according to the Minister of Finance, the conversion loan was the greatest transaction in the

Private Bills
history of our country. Then we have also the highest interest paid in respect to current borrowings of treasury bills. The Minister of Finance seems to revel in superlatives, and if I were to use a superlative I would say that this is rather a mess, the greatest mess in our history. On page 2413 of Hansard the minister said:
Our net debt per capita was $847 ten years ago, $725 five years ago and is reduced to $676 now.
Surely in these words the minister is not trying to give anybody in Canada the idea that he has ever had anything to do with the reduction of debt. Of course, every baby born in Canada helps to spread the debt, not to reduce it as the minister infers. What a heavy extra load of debt he is handing to every newly born Canadian! The only unsolicited comment which I heard given the following morning by a man in Montreal concerning the budget was, "It took the Grits 22 years to get as unpopular as the Tories have in two."


An hon. Member:: That is impossible.


William Hector McMillan: The government has got to the point where they simply cannot help our provinces and municipalities very much. They have reached the point where they cannot really help themselves very much.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to standing order No. 15, subsection 3. There are a number of private bills standing for consideration in committee of the whole. Is it agreed that in accordance with standing order 54 (1) they be referred to the committee of the whole in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax) moved: that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole on private bills appearing in today's order paper as orders Nos. 43 to 68 inclusive.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill S-13, respecting The Canadian General Council of The Boy Scouts Association.-Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke).
Bill SD-135, for the relief of Jan Roberti.- Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-137, for the relief of Marie Marguerite Louise Leclerc Andrews.-Mr. McCleave.

Bill SD-138, for the relief of Lorlotte Juliane Selma Wilhelmine Gude Hirtreiter.- Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-139, for the relief of Mary Alice Hadley Hutchison.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-140, for the relief of Flore Crevier Plamondon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-141, for the relief of Karl Efraim Hill.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-142, for the relief of Ina Charlotte Charleson Hyde.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-143, for the relief of Gisela Antonie Anita Popp Sainitzer.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-144, for the relief of Alfred Lali-berte.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-145, for the relief of Lawrence Crites.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-146, for the relief of Marie Jeanne Madeleine Saint-Pierre Pare.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-147, for the relief of Marie Louise Marguerite Therese Bernaquez Aubin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-148, for the relief of Jean Scott Bain Kunst.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-149, for the relief of Josef Libich. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-150, for the relief of Roger Desjardins.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-151, for the relief of James Alfred Keelty.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-152, for the relief of Agnes Forget Haymond.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-153, for the relief of Maurice William Bell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-154, for the relief of Robert William Stamp.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-155, for the relief of Tanya Burstein Yerzy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-156, for the relief of Yvonne Catherine Marie Vrancken Bruggemans.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-157, for the relief of Mary Friedman Nussenbaum.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-158, for the relief of Paul Rewoski. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-159, for the relief of Tibor Kadar. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-160, for the relief of Daniel Myer Glovinsky.-Mr. McCleave.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Boulanger for the second reading of Bill No. C-4, to amend the Financial Administration Act.
Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise at this time to speak to the bill before us which has been sponsored by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger), my neighbour in this house. I am eager to have a vote taken on it. The bill has been discussed on various occasions in this chamber and we were enlightened by the contributions made by those hon. members who participated in the debate.
Before I resume my seat and request a vote on this bill I wish to make a few comments concerning bilingualism in relation to the constitution of Canada. It has been stated that bilingualism is not constitutional outside the province of Quebec. I intend to make reference to statements on the subject of the constitution of Canada written by some of the leading authorities on constitutional law.
The constitution of Canada, like that of many other countries including Great Britain, is based on two sets of rules. First, there are the rules of law which form that part of the constitution enforced by the courts. Second, there are the conventions of the constitution. These form what is known by the specialists as the morality of the constitution. These are the conventions that have grown up through usage and form the understandings, habits or practices which, though they may regulate the conduct of the several members of the sovereign power, of the ministry or of other officials, are not in reality laws at all since they are not enforced by the courts and do not appear on the statute books.
It has sometimes been stated in this house that bilingualism is not constitutional in Canada and because it has been stated by public men, various people throughout the country accept this remark and repeat it. In order to clarify the situation I shall read an extract from the book on constitutional law written by Dr. McCrea, former professor at the University of Toronto, volume 1, page 2. In paragraph 6 we find the following:
Rules of law and rules of convention-Among the rules relating to function a distinction has to be made between "rules of law" and "rules of convention." Rules of law are simply those rules of constitutional law which are enforced by the courts. Rules of convention, on the other hand, are rules of the constitution which are not enforced by the courts. Though regarded as part of "constitutional law," they are not law in the strict sense, but merely rules of constitutional usage or understanding which are enforced by public opinion only. It is with the "rules of law" of the constitution that the lawyer is concerned. The conventions of the constitution are matters which concern those engaged in public affairs rather than those engaged in the practice of law.
He then refers to Mr. Maitland's volume on constitutional history at page 527:
Financial Administration Act
Now there is one use of the word constitutional which we must notice in order that we may put it on one side. Occasionally it is contrasted with legal; we are told for example that a minister's conduct was legal but not constitutional. We have seen that our rules of law touching public affairs are very intimately connected wih rules touching public affairs which are not rules of law, rules which are sometimes called rules of constitutional morality, or constitutional practice, the customs of the constitution, the conventions of the constitution, or again constitutional understandings.
The author then makes reference to a volume on the law of constitution by Mr. Dicey, 8th edition, at page 23 where two examples are given. One of these is that ministers of the crown resign office when they have ceased to command the confidence of the House of Commons. A second example is that a bill must be read a certain number of times before passing through the House of Commons. These requirements are not found in any statute but they are a part of our constitution and we must observe these conventions.
The author refers to the fact that Mr. Ridges in his volume on the history of the constitution, 5th edition, at pages 4 and 5, gives no less than 13 examples of these rules of convention that are constitutional and that should be adhered to by our parliament. (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, before I resume my seat, I would feel remiss if I did not to say a word in French to my friends and fellow citizens of the province of Quebec. I hope that, as a result of the thorough discussion touched off by the introduction of this bill, all members will be unanimous in suport of the second reading of the bill introduced by the honourable member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger).


Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I feel greatly honoured in having the opportunity, this afternoon, to deal with the matter of bilingual cheques in Canada.
I am pleased to say, as I have indeed quite often repeated in and outside the house, that I readily support this bill concerning bilingual cheques, because I represent a constituency whose voters perfectly realize that Canada is a great and young bilingual country. The people in Brome-Missisquoi constituency also realize that there are more than two great races contributing to the glory and to the strength of this great country. The spirit of Cartier and Macdonald, still with us In this year 1959, apparently makes Canadians realize that today Canada's population is composed of many racial groups.
2678	HOUSE OF
Financial Administration Act
Mr. Speaker, is there need to recall at this time the speeches made by Liberal members when a similar bill was introduced by Dr. Poulin?
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I should like to relate to hon. gentlemen an experience with which I am frequently confronted. Many hon. members of parliament from provinces other than the province of Quebec have in all sincerity asked me from time to time why bills of the nature of the one before us this afternoon are of seemingly great importance to French speaking hon. members of the house. I have endeavoured to explain that many bills analogous to the bill concerning the printing of cheques in both languages are of extreme importance in Quebec. I know that other hon. members of the house are not interested in hearing the personal political history of any one hon. gentleman in this chamber, but perhaps I may be permitted to make a brief reference to my own background.
I think it is known to some of my confreres in the opposition party that one of the real reasons why I personally left the Liberal party and switched my allegiance to the present Progressive-Conservative administration was that, as a citizen of the province of Quebec, I witnessed personally the divide and rule game that the Liberal party has always played and is continuing to play in the province of Quebec.
In spite of the sweet nothings whispered in this house by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), we still see that this party has not learned its lesson; we still see that they have one program for the rest of Canada and yet another for the province of Quebec. If I speak in such a general way on the subject I do so because I fully realize that the members in the opposition know full well that this subject has far greater and broader connotations than merely bilingual cheques. I say that if after years of being in power we did not have bilingual cheques under the Liberal administration the reason is this. After 22 years of divide and rule the Liberals were unable to present that spirit of unanimity and national unity which would enable a bill of this kind to be passed by the members of parliament in this Canadian House of Commons.
This is a subject, that I never wanted to bring up in this House of Commons and I was more than surprised in my first year as a member to see the numbers of bills of this type put on the order paper by the party opposite. One had to be only a candidate or a resident of the province of Quebec during the last two federal elections to


realize that the Liberals have not stopped playing the divide and rule game. I will never forget the orange cut-out dolls of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) which appeared in my district, and I would like all the members of the press gallery outside of the province of Quebec and all the members of the House of Commons outside the province of Quebec to make a point of obtaining one of these bits of literature and then realize exactly the significance of the bill which has been placed before this house today; if it is an attempt to divide us, an attempt, to show the people of my province that this present government is against the province of Quebec. But I will tell hon. members opposite that today, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, a spirit of pan-Canadianism and national unity exists which has never existed before in this country.


Osias.-J. Godin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I feel that the hon. member has strayed far from the principle of this bill. Unless he wishes to tell us what the Prime Minister has done or will do-


William Heward Grafftey: I am about to come to that point, Mr. Speaker.


Osias.-J. Godin: -I do not think he should bring in the problems of the province of Quebec or the hon. member for Laurier or Mr. St. Laurent.


Mr. Speaker:: I recall that the hon. member who raises the point of order dealt with the broad constitutional issue, and I think the hon. member is within the scope of the bill in trying to put it in its context.


William Heward Grafftey: At the outset of my remarks I believe I told the hon. member who has just spoken that I am entirely in accord with the constitutional interpretations which he offered the House of Commons. He mentioned Dicey. I agree with him. He mentioned several constitutional points of view. I agree with them. I simply want to say that while I agree with his constitutional point of view I do not agree with the method which his party has employed in order to pass such a bill. By explaining the general notions that I have attempted to explain to the House of Commons today I am trying to point out that under the present government and under the present spirit of national unity we are taking further and further steps in order, in my judgment, to make it easier for a bill of this kind to be passed.
I repeat, since I came to this House of Commons I have seen young and older members of parliament from all other provinces make a real attempt to speak the French

2S79
language. We have seen good-will tours by members outside the province of Quebec into the province of Quebec, and we have seen a real spirit of national unity in this house.
Last night the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard)-and I say this fits in to the general context of what we have to say because I think all hon. members from the province of Quebec know that this is the general subject which must be discussed- outlined to the house the attitude of this government with regard to dominion-provincial relations when he said that we are awaiting any suggestions which may emanate from the provinces with regard to educational matters.


Osias.-J. Godin: Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Heward Grafftey: Yes.


Osias.-J. Godin: Is the hon. member trying to indicate to the house that this bill pertains only to the province of Quebec?


William Heward Grafftey: I think I have already
answered this question of the hon. member when I repeated before that I am in accord with his constitutional point of view. As I understand it, his constitutional point of view recognizes the pan-Canadianism of bilingualism and it goes from coast to coast.
We have seen the installation of a simultaneous translation system in this House of Commons. On this point with regard to bilingualism under the present administration, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read into the record some of the remarks made by the right hon. Prime Minister at pages 3332 and 3333 of Hansard of August 11 last, when he was introducing the motion with regard to simultaneous translation:
There is general agreement that this assembly, now considering this motion, is under our constitution entirely bilingual in character.
There is, therefore, no reason why the presenting of this motion should have been so long delayed; and the adoption of this motion will be belated recognition of the equality of the two basic languages of this country as related to discussions in this chamber.
In concluding his remarks on the introduction of the motion the Prime Minister said:
Therefore on behalf of the government, and I hope with the support of hon. members in all parts of the house, I am placing this measure before the house to the end that by its achievement we will be actually symbolizing the constitutional provisions of the British North America Act and giving to them within this chamber the authority of this house.
In concluding the debate on this motion the Prime Minister said at page 3340 of Hansard of August 11, 1958:
I am not going to deal with other steps that may be taken in future to assure the complete
Financial Administration Act recognition of bilingualism under the constitution of our country, but I can say that in taking this step we in this government believe that while it is easy to talk about the subject of Canadian unity, in bringing in this motion a major step toward its achievement is assured.
I would simply like to state that under the leadership of remarks such as these and under the atmosphere which is generated by leadership of this kind, I am only too sure that bills of the sort presented in this house by an hon. member opposite will in the future be more easily passed than they were under the old regime.


Mr. John Pratt (Jacques Cartier-Lasalle):: Mr. Speaker, apparently the question of bilingual cheques and documents is one which has been brought many times before this house. In fact, this year I believe there are two bills introduced for this purpose.


An hon. Member:: No, three.


Robert John Pratt: I stand corrected, three bills. I am not a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, and therefore I do not feel qualified to deal with the constitutional aspects of this question. However, I am a Canadian and therefore I cannot see any real objection to the use of both languages on cheques and other documents. We already have bilingual stamps. We already have bilingual currency and recently, in this house, we installed a simultaneous translation system. I am sure all members will agree that it has been a great improvement. This move has resulted in improved attendance of English speaking members, at least, during French speeches.
I am sure that bilingual stamps and currency are accepted across the country today and go almost unnoticed by most Canadians because they are used to seeing these things. I think that bilingual cheques would be even less noticeable, except probably to tourists who may be intrigued and I feel that would be a good thing. These cheques would, of course, be noticeable to our fellow French speaking Canadians who would be very gratified at seeing their own language on government documents. Certainly, from the point of view of cost there can be no objection because the cost would not be too high.
Now I, personally, am from a bilingual riding. Everything is bilingual in the riding of Jacques Cartier-Lasalle. We have approximately 60 per cent to 70 per cent English speaking people and about 25 per cent or 30 per cent French speaking people. Our newspapers are bilingual, bus transfers and even parking tickets are bilingual. We accept all these things, as a matter of course. We accept these things as a matter of just plain, ordinary, everyday living. In fact, in the constituency

Financial Administration Act of Jacques Cartier-Lasalle French is so interchangeable with English that we almost speak a third language which you might describe as "Franglais".
There is just one other point I should like to mention, Mr. Speaker, and I feel very strongly about this. When documents are bilingual, they should be written in good English and in good French and not just in a poor, literal translation of either. When this is done, it is an insult to both languages and worse than using only one language. I would say this to any English speaking citizen of Canada who may feel a mental barrier upon seeing a document in a language foreign to his own. He should put himself in the place of his fellow citizen who speaks the French language and who never sees his own language on such a document, then imagine how he would feel under those conditions. I personally, believe that we should have bilingual cheques and other documents. If such documents were used generally across the country this might even encourage English speaking Canadians to learn our second language, as I feel they will all eventually do in any case.
In so far as cheques alone are concerned, I am sure that the numerals on those cheques are of much more importance to most people than the words. However, we Canadians have so much in common now, and this small gesture would mean so much to our fellow Canadians who speak the French language, that I say let us by all means have bilingual cheques. I am most heartily in favour of this measure for that reason.
(Translation):


Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resiigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
second the motion now before the house. Each time this bill comes up for consideration, several of my French speaking fellow-citizens in the maritimes ask me to emphasize the need for recognition of their right to have bilingual cheques.
Frankly, I wonder whether it is necessary to have a bill in order to carry out what all hon. members in this house want, i.e. that family allowance cheques be bilingual. Might not a simple order be enough to have these cheques printed in both languages. This would put an end to the discussion and eliminate all those motions that take up the time of the house, on various occasions, at each session.
Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe that not a single hon. member in this house is not in favour of bilingual family allowance cheques. It would be a simple recognition of a right provided by the constitution. As a matter of fact, if some government does
recognize this right it is this government, for our country's history clearly shows that, when it came to recognizing Canada's two official languages, this was done by a Conservative government.
It would be a pleasant task if, putting an immediate stop to this debate, we voted to pass this bill, thereby stressing our unanimity in the matter of bilingual cheques throughout this country.
(Text):


Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, in approaching this bill with its implications of bilingualism as introduced by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger), my mind carries me back to the origin of this country. It was nearly 92 years ago that the father of the fathers of confederation, John A. Macdonald, with his able lieutenant Georges Etienne Cartier united behind their leadership a group of men of differing views but common purpose. This group of men became known as the fathers of confederation. They were men of vision, dedication and of faith.
After years of outstanding leadership, and hard work, coupled with compromise and diplomacy, a new nation was conceived. This new nation united two languages and two creeds and was dedicated to the principles of equality, opportunity, unity and freedom. It is to that country, no longer new, that we in this chamber stand dedicated and loyal today. We the members of this House of Commons, subscribe to those principles which were embodied in the creation of this country. We are proud to serve those principles.
Today we are considering a bill to establish that negotiable instruments of the government be printed in both the English and French languages. I am proud to say that I am in favour of this bill. I would be proud if this bill were to pass under this Conservative administration, because it was under a Conservative government that this country was united and that these two great races were united. It was under a Conservative government in 1934 that bilingual currency was introduced. It was under the present Conservative administration that a simultaneous translation system was introduced into this house. It would only be fitting if we were to progress further in the recognition of the partnership of these two great languages and pass this bill today.
Now, I should like to quote from the explanatory notes to this bill as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to provide that every cheque, draft, traveller's cheque, bill of exchange, postal note, money order, postal remittance and any other similar remittance of any department as defined in paragraph (f) of section 2 of the Financial Administration Act or of any crown corporation

enumerated in schedules B, C and D of the same act shall be printed in both the English and the French languages.
This is in accordance with the principle established in the Bank of Canada Act where it is enacted (subsection (4) of section 21) that the notes payable to bearer on demand and intended for circulation in Canada issued by the bank shall be printed in both the official languages.
We can see that this principle has already been adopted and, as the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney) pointed out very ably, the principle of bilingualism is well established. It is questionable whether or not this legislation is necessary at all in order to enable the government to print these instruments in both French and English. We already have, as has been pointed out, bilingual currency, bilingual stamps, bilingual money orders and excise stamps. Certainly, bilingual cheques would be a natural progression.
I have a very great respect for bilingualism in this country. My only regret is that I am not more fluent myself in the French language. According to the 1951 census only 8.5 per cent of the population of Manitoba were of French origin. I would say that there is no higher percentage than that in my own constituency. However, this fact does not make my feelings any less strong. 1 can appreciate the strong feelings of the members from Quebec in connection with this matter. In this regard I might say that although the French feel strongly, they feel strongly as Canadians.
I know something of the feelings of the people who live in Quebec because I lived there myself for two years. In fact, the first school to which I went was a school in which no English was taught, just French. I have further learned to appreciate the French Canadian viewpoint from various conferences and contacts I have had in the province of Quebec. Indeed, the greatest appreciation of French has been inculcated by being a member of this house. Therefore as a member coming from an area which is remote from the province of Quebec and one that is not primarily French Canadian, I should like to add my strong support of this bill. I should also like to express the hope that perhaps this bill might be voted on and passed before six o'clock.
(Translation):


Mr. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: Mr. Speaker, I note that all the hon. members who are speaking on this bill are telling us nothing new. All they say has already been said by many of our colleagues. If our friends of the Conservative party are sincere, if they are really in favour of this bill, I would ask them to join with the Liberals and pass it immediately.
Financial Administration Act


Mr. Vincent Brassard (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I shall say but a few words on this bill. I represent, as you know, a constituency where 99 per cent of the people are French speaking, and yet, all municipal councils, all organizations do respect bilingualism; in fact, I may even say, like my colleague who spoke a moment ago, that parking tickets are printed in both English and French.
I am glad therefore to support the proposed legislation. I support it simply because bilingualism is the only thing which distinguishes Canada from the United States. Without the French language and culture in Canada, it is to be believed that with the passing of years, Canada would perhaps become the 51st or the 52nd state of the United States. That is why I am glad to support this bill, because it contributes to develop further this spirit of bilingualism in our country. I hope that, before long, the bill will be put into force.


Mr. V. F. Dubois (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 today under discussion, is a project that was submitted to this house on many occasions, under a Liberal government, but it never came to a vote.
Bilingual instruments have always been asked for by our various organizations. In fact, our chambers of commerce have more particularly asked that negotiable instruments, like cheques, travellers' cheques, and all those instruments payable to the bearer, should be bilingual.
When in 1867, the fathers of confederation wanted the recognition of the two official languages of our country to be written into the British North America Act, they intended them to be treated on equal footing. Indeed, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) paid great tribute to the fathers of confederation when he introduced simultaneous interpretation in this House of Commons. Simultaneous interpretation, Mr. Speaker, had already been asked for on many occasions in the past, but it needed a Conservative government to give it to the House of Commons.
That is why I am not afraid to state today that if we succeed in obtaining bilingual instruments throughout Canada, as mentioned in this bill, we shall owe it to the Conservative government and to a prime minister like Mr. John Diefenbaker.
We find in the 1951 census that there are in Canada 990,440 Canadians of French origin living outside the province of Quebec. Now, amongst those French-Canadians living in other provinces than Quebec, some do not

Financial Administration Act speak any English, and when negotiable instruments, cheques or travellers' cheques are presented to them, they are unable to understand what they have in hand, and they have to ask others for information. On the other hand, we have in the province of Quebec, some English people who are unable to speak French and when they receive documents written only in French from the government, they have to have them translated in order to know their contents. By printing all these instruments in both languages, the two groups in Canada would be fairly treated and each could thus read in his own language any document presented to him. We often find that government publications have a French and an English edition. When we write to the various departments, we find that, when we express ourselves in French, we receive a letter in French and that when we write in English, we get an answer in English. This shows that the present government is anxious to see both languages, well recognized in this country.
I recently read in a civil service publication that, as from April 1 last, applicants for civil service positions were required to be bilingual. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have there a commendable gesture by the government which is most anxious that both languages be officially recognized throughout Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of Bill C-4 and I hope that, in the near future, the whole of Canada will rejoice at the vote taken under a Conservative government.


Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. members who took part in the debate in the last few minutes have brought nothing new.
It looks to me as if our Conservative colleagues were claiming all the credit for introducing bilingual cheques. This is an approach that we consider unimportant. We are in favour of the bill, and we ask that it be put to a vote without further ado.


Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in strong support of this bill-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Frank Charles McGee: -whose purpose is to recognize bilingualism in our legislation.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, my pronunciation reflects something of my neglect of a certain subject as a child in this city. We have heard from

two members of the so-called Liberal party interjecting and demanding that further discussion on this matter cease forthwith. Some parties and some individuals never seem to learn. When I first came to this house and inquired among the more experienced members just what were the processes and procedures concerning private bills, the explanation given to me was this. I was told that for the day and for the time when a member was introducing a bill into the house he was at the same time a government almost to himself, his own whip and his own gatherer of support. Since the Canadian public, in their great wisdom, removed that group from office, there have been few opportunities since .then for them to behave in that small way I have suggested as a government. Yet when they do on those infrequent occasions, what do we observe? We observe immediately a demand that everybody else should cease discussion forthwith. I have one final comment on the behaviour of that group, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you stick to the point?


Frank Charles McGee: It seems more than passing strange that a member who pretended such a great interest in this bill did not see fit to be present in the house to participate in the discussion. On reflection, perhaps I do the hon. member a great disservice; if so, I apologize.


An hon. Member:: Stick to the point.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear some complaint,
although no formal objection is taken. However, I would advise the hon. member not to continue too long in that vein because it seems to me that it is far removed from the purpose of the bill.


Frank Charles McGee: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I presume that your remarks do not include the subject matter which has been discussed previously. I will not attempt to expand the remarks which were made by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) but will merely say that I agree substantially with everything he has said. The thinking of people in Canada-and in particular those in the city from which I come, namely the city of Toronto-has changed, altered and developed considerably in recent years. This matter was referred to, as hon. members will recall, on February 3 of this year most eloquently by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney). To what he said in that regard I should like to add that in the city of Toronto there is a new, extended and rejuvenated interest in the subject of the French language. In my particular town, namely Don Mills, there is afoot, as there is in many other

sections of Ontario, a move to have included the teaching of the French language in the early grades in school.
Mr. Speaker, I spent my early youth in this city, and just about half our gang, as we called ourselves, were French speaking. Unfortunately the modus operandi which we worked out was that those of us who spoke French spoke French, and those of us who spoke English spoke English. We all understood each other, but it seemed to me that very little effort was made, particularly on the part of those of us who spoke English, to acquire a fluency in the other language. As I said in the early part of my remarks, I neglected an opportunity at that time of which I am very conscious. It was an opportunity that I shall do everything in my power to see that my children do not neglect, and I will support any measure, including this one, which will take us along the road to further extension of bilingualism in this country.


Osias.-J. Godin: Vote it.


Frank Charles McGee: It is almost unnecessary to indicate the advantages which accrue to an individual who is bilingual, whether he pursue a business career, a political career, a professional career, or indeed almost any career in this country.


Osias.-J. Godin: You are not enough in favour to vote.


Frank Charles McGee: This measure, the discussion of which has been allowed to develop in many directions, actually touches on a larger issue, the issue of brotherhood, tolerance and understanding. That is an issue which cuts across many of the unhappy inheritances with which the pages of Canadian history unfortunately are soiled.
There are those, Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned in this house, who suggest that this type of bill extends bilingualism into yet other aspects of our national life. I read an argument recently in the Toronto Globe and Mail which developed along these lines, that once French is accepted then next will come other languages, and I think the term used by the writer of the letter to the Toronto Globe and Mail was that a situation approximating the tower of Babel would result. I think this is an argument based on an unsound and possibly uninformed premise, and certainly the extension of bilingualism as this bill, like others of Conservative members in this house, introduces would not result in the situation suggested both in this house and in letters and discussions which have taken place recently in educational conferences in the city of Toronto. I would like to express my support for this bill, the
14. 1959
Financial Administration Act principles on which it is founded, as well as the issue implied by the discussion which has taken place here today and on previous occasions.


Mr. E. L. Morris (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, the purposes sought to be achieved by the bill now before us will, if it is not passed today, be brought presumably before the attention of this house at a later date. There are other bills on the order paper which would achieve the same objective. There is obviously wide interest in this matter, and I for one am not going to share the ambition of all other hon. members that this bill must necessarily pass in its present form today. Indeed, I am not satisfied that the purposes sought to be achieved by this bill are not better achieved in Bill No. C-9, which stands in the name of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon).


Osias.-J. Godin: Order. Mr. Speaker, I think
some time ago you disallowed discussion of the other bill referred to, and to which the hon. member is wishing to draw a parallel.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope I did not say anything which would indicate that it would be improper to refer to the fact that there were other bills on the order paper, or that it would be improper to make comparisons between this bill and other methods of achieving a similar result.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, in debating the purposes sought to be achieved by legislation which would require the printing in the two main languages of Canada of all the negotiable instruments issued by the Canadian government and its agencies I believe that we as members of parliament must have regard to the spirit which reflects the desire to have this type of legislation put through, and it is to my mind a matter as much of the heart as it is of the head. My constituents are not directly affected by this proposed legislation. Not more than 50 of the 200,000 people in my constituency speak normally in the French language, yet I am one of those who believes that this country in the nationhood we now share achieved that nationhood and will continue to prosper and flower only as we have regard each to the other, and that without those things of the spirit and the heart there would have been no possibility of nationhood. Indeed, in its beginnings it might have taken the form of other nations, one of them not at all removed and which achieved the beginnings of nationhood in the fires of civil commotion. We in this country achieved nationhood by the joining together primarily of two great lingual and ethnic groups. I am one of those who believes that there is no

The Budget-Mr. McMillan such thing as a French Canadian, nor is there any such thing as an English Canadian. There are French speaking Canadians and English speaking Canadians.


Osias.-J. Godin: What is the difference?


Edmund Leverett Morris: What is the difference? There is a great difference. The difference comes in the adjectival use of "French speaking". A French Canadian is not the same thing as a French speaking Canadian. I would be delighted to have the hon. member join us at dinner when some of the 55 Conservative members from Quebec will be glad to enlighten him as to the difference.
This sense of spirit seems to me to inhabit the one objection which could legally be made to this legislation, and that is in section 133 of the British North America Act. It is sometimes said that section 133 places a proscription, a limit, upon the use in official communications and official assemblies of the two languages. Section 133 requires that English and French are equally usable in the parliament of Canada, in its journals and its papers, and in pleading before any court established under that act. But I believe that section 133 of the British North America Act was intended to set the minimal standard for the use of the two languages, and I, as an English speaking Canadian, think the criterion, whether the principle of this bill merits our support, must be decided in the first instance by the French speaking members. If they have perhaps a minority feeling toward this legislation, and if they ask parliament for this legislation, then I think that their request should be taken by us as a guide to our conduct, for certainly nothing that we do should be inclined to retard or diminish the sense of the spirit which was achieved by the mingling of these two ethnic groups.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Benidickson and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Regier.
William Hector McMillan: Mr. Speaker, when this debate was interrupted at five o'clock I was


proceeding to speak about how much this government has cost the people of Canada this year. Previously I had stated that this government, taking into consideration the depletion in the unemployment insurance fund, would cost the taxpayers of Canada over $1 billion this year. It has exceeded that amount; indeed, the figure of expenditure runs to $1.07 billion. This amount represents overspending. In the financial planning of the government it has built up increased charges which will be carried into future budgets and result in overspending in future years.
This overspending amounts to approximately $3 million a day, or $125,000 an hour. As I have stated before, that daily expenditure is about equivalent to the assessment of a town with a population of from 3,000 to 5,000. It means that the equivalent of the value of a $10,000 farm goes down the drain in overspending every 4J minutes.
I know that the government has saved a lot of money this year in cutting down defence expenditures. I also know that military leaders in Great Britain, the United States and even our own Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) have stated that we need manned interceptors. We were informed that the Arrow would go to 3 times as fast as the interceptors now in use, but we were also told that those now in use would suffice at the present time. Even at that the minister admitted they would not overtake the modern bombers. I should like to know what protection we in this country have with manned interceptors? In my opinion what we have does not amount to adequate protection. I hope that the safety of our people has not been jeopardized in order to meet election promises.
I am not sufficiently well informed to know whether our course in dispensing with the Arrow was a proper one or not but I do know there has been a saving of many millions of dollars in reduced defence expenditures. The former government spent a great deal more of the tax dollar in defence and certainly if this government were putting the same proportion of the tax dollar into defence its deficit would be considerably larger than it is. The Canadian air vice-marshal has said we need the Arrow. I have seen or heard no reasonable argument to the contrary. I am not saying this government made a wrong decision but it failed to present us with any technical reasons in support of the course it followed. The voice of the one man who should know was heard but once and never heard again. I cannot help but feel that a select committee made up of hon. members from all parties in this house should have had an opportunity to hear him and others giving

expert opinions. In that way the Canadian people would have had confidence in the safety of this country. They would know that the decision was made purely for military and not for political reasons.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in referring to the conversion loan described it as a huge success when in fact we on this side of the house think it was the biggest flop in the financial history of this country. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) said yesterday that we are paying about $345 million more in extra interest up to the time of the original due dates of the 6th to 9th victory loan series. The minister does not come by $345 million very easily. In fact, that would be a whopping deficit in a budget for one year.
In referring to the financial policy followed last year, as reported at page 2415 of Hansard of April 9, 1959, the Minister of Finance said:
I think nearly all informed observers have agreed that our policy last year was right in its direction and about right in its degree.
I believe that is utter trash. The people of Canada will not believe this. Nearly every daily paper, periodical, financial paper and other publications carried frequent articles written by bank presidents, heads of trust companies and other financial institutions, as well as statements by financial writers, giving advice to the minister, imploring him to set an example in government by sane financing and spending. Every hon. member of this house knows this to be true. Indeed, almost everybody in Canada knows this to be true and I do not need to verify it by quotations so many of which are available in the recent press.
In my opinion the Minister of Finance tries to smooth everything over to his own advantage. In referring to the conversion loan in the budget speech, as reported at page 2411 of Hansard, the minister had this to say:
But in so far as the market and the investor were concerned, this $61 billion was not spread over eight years, because the first four of the issues were callable in 1959 or earlier and the 1966 issue was callable at any time after September 1, 1961. From the investors' point of view, therefore, this $61 billion had to be considered as being spread over, not eight years but approximately three years.
Who is the minister trying to fool? The bonds were callable only at the option of the government. No bond holder would lie awake wondering where he might reinvest the money obtained from the redemption of any bonds this government, plunging into debt, might call in. I wonder if this gave the minister the idea of committing the Canadian taxpayer to long term non-callable loans? The foolish conversion loan contributed more than anything else to the unsettling of our bond
The Budget

Mr. McMillan market and served to push interest rates up. When people saw such inept financing many got their cash for converted victory bonds right away before the market started its precipitous decline. I personally know some who did that.
Even the Minister of Finance was prompted to say in the budget debate, as reported at page 2415:
But the fact remains that the Canadian bond market has not been accustomed to absorbing as large a volume of new government bonds of Canada as we have had to offer during the past year. The impact of our borrowings, which over the year as a whole have been achieved largely in a non-inflationary manner, has exerted an upward pressure on interest rates.
I think this is really a confession at last that what the Minister of Finance did was to push the bond interest upward. Members on this side of the house told him what would happen. I myself told him what would happen. We told him that he would be stopped in his tracks. On January 21, in the debate on the speech from the throne I said, as reported at page 168 of Hansard:
A banker lends money to a creditor if the manager thinks he is a good risk; but if he becomes a spendthrift or otherwise shows that he cannot handle his money wisely the credit is withdrawn. This is exactly what the people of Canada have done to the Minister of Finance. They have called a halt to his wild spending by refusing to bu,y his bonds at the fast rate he requires. It is just as simple as that, no matter how much the Minister of Finance confuses us with such terms as bank rate, bills of exchange rate, short and long term money rates, and so on.
It is quite evident from what I put on the record before five o'clock that a lot of the borrowing last year was only short term borrowing, and we know that nearly $1.35 billion comes due this year between July 1 and December 1. Hon. members will recall that between 1959 and 1966, $6.4 billion in the 5th to the 9th victory loans were to come due. Almost 55 per cent of those victory loans were sold in the long term issues, but slightly over 45 per cent of them were either not sold or else were sold as short term issues, and those two short term issues are due in 1961 and 1965 at an earlier date than many of the original victory loan bonds. For the latter bonds to which I have referred, namely the short term issues, the minister will pay an extra total interest bill of some $66.5 million, plus millions in bonuses and commissions for a very questionable advantage because one-half of them must again be dealt with by the Minister of Finance during this parliament. The minister again will have a big bill for refinancing the maturities over again, with another bil bill in commissions, advertising and what not. This is the same

The Budget-Mr. McMillan minister who used to talk about the former government and their waste and extravagance.
The main advantage in the conversion that we have got at the present time is that we have 55 per cent of the bonds for a longer term; but to get 55 per cent over to a longer term we have paid a terrible price. We paid $71 million in costs, plus increased yearly interest charges of $66 million a year. This latter figure includes $7 million the minister reported as a yearly amount to amortize the cost of the loan. Hon. members will see that the minister got rid of only a little over half of the victory loan bonds into longer maturities, and he has the rest of them very much with him at the present time.
If the minister had dealt with the 5th victory loan bonds as they came due in the normal way there would not have been the same upward pressure on interest rates, and certainly he could have sold them or could have refunded them, probably at a better price and certainly not at any higher price than the average of 4 per cent, the interest that he had to pay on the conversion issue. Had he done this he would have saved over $50 million this year alone. This amount is about double the increase in personal income tax, or at least $10 million more than the increased personal contributions to the old age pension fund for this year alone, and it would be many millions more than the increased taxes on cigars and cigarettes and the increased taxes on women's cosmetics which are being imposed by this budget. I think this Fleming folly will be felt by generations of Canadians probably yet unborn.
This promise that the conversion loan would make money more readily available to the municipalities and to the provinces at a cheaper rate is simply not true. Hon. members here have only to ask their bankers or their municipalities what they think of this and I do not think they would find anyone to agree with it.
At the present time many municipalities have money borrowed from the bank. There are municipalities in the Niagara district which have borrowed money and have loans at the bank which they cannot get out at a reasonable debenture rate. Canadian government bonds became a glut on the market. They fell in price and put the price of money up to everybody. The people in many of the remotest parts of Canada will be paying extra interest for their sewers, sidewalks and roads long after the minister has retired with his foolish and misguided fiscal policy.
Our bonds are lower and therefore money is costing us more than it is costing most other countries of the western free world, including such countries as Belgium, Norway,

Sweden and even revolutionary Cuba, whose long term bonds are selling well above ours right now. In fact, our bonds do not seem to be wanted in New York or in other world markets. Sometime ago I quoted that one Canadian bond was sold in New York when over $375,000 worth of Australian bonds were sold that week. In the week before last there was not one Canadian bond sold on that market, and last week all those that were sold were bonds that went down in price over their previous sale, while bonds of most other countries of the western free world were going up.
It was put on record in the British House of Commons and by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) here that Canada has the highest unemployment, along with Italy, percentage-wise in relation to working forces of most other countries of the western free world. I think our high interest rates go along with the high unemployment rate. I submit that the municipalities, the provinces and individuals cannot borrow money at those high rates and cannot proceed with projects that they would like to proceed with at this time, which would take up a lot of the slack of unemployment.
I do not think the minister is doing anything to lower interest rates. We all know that in February he sold $200 million worth of bonds in two issues, one was a 2} per cent issue and the other a 3 per cent issue, and they were sold in denominations of $1,000, $5,000, $25,000, $100,000 and $1 million. As I said before, those bonds were not for the little man and the minister rather took exception to that. I say that if any little man had $1,000 he had to be pretty nimble and agile to get one of those bonds in the 15 minutes in which the books were open.
How does the minister expect the ordinary people to buy bonds under such circumstances? If we refer to table 48 we will see it shows that the yield at the price to the government of the 3 per cent bonds due in December, 1960 was 5.06 per cent, the highest price since the days of the Bennett government. The other issue was a 2f per cent, 13-month bond, which cost the government 4.86 per cent. They both carried income tax gimmicks which cost our treasury well over 6 per cent net when sold to big corporations and others in the 50 per cent income tax bracket.
Instead of trying to cut expenditures the government is establishing a record of expenditures year after year. The minister used to blame the former government for waste and extravagance based on the number of civil servants employed. At the end

of the first year in office of the present government the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) said that there were 8,124 more civil servants on June 30, 1958 than the previous June, and with about two and a half months to go I suppose we will have another increase of the same size. According to the book of main estimates, the Minister of Finance has 143 more civil servants in his own department than his predecessor had. In that connection may I say that the only thing of greater magnitude with which they have to deal is debt.
I want to say again that a fundamental weakness in the Bank of Canada is the fact that the government has appointed some highly political men to the board of directors of that bank. They should be above reproach just like our judiciary as their decisions influence the lives of all Canadians. Are we assured that their decisions are free from political considerations and are for the good of Canada?
When I see our bonds selling on the world markets below those of Cuba which is in a state of revolution, I wonder, and so do many other Canadians wonder. No wonder our Canadian bonds are selling on a par with or lower than many of our provincial bonds including many provincial guaranteed bonds. I put that on the record in the house not long ago. The ordinary people will not buy long term government bonds unless they have a guarantee as to principal at all times. They have been jockeyed out of buying these high interest, short term bonds but they will be let in to pay for these bonds and to help pay for the mistakes of the government.
The minister is often evasive and we can only find the true figures in the statistical summary of the Bank of Canada and in other places or we have to work them out ourselves. He tells us regularly that our mathematics are wrong but in Toronto before the Canadian club he said:
The average coupon rate of the bonds converted is now 3.83 per cent.
He was referring to the conversion loan. Without taking into consideration the numbers of bonds sold in each category, the minister added together the percentages, 3 plus 3f plus 4J plus 4J and divided by 4. That seems like a childish way. He arrived at 3.83 but afterwards he admitted that it should be 4 per cent.
Again, when I asked him if the figures he gave in that address in Toronto were right he said that he did not know what figures I was referring to but if he gave them they were right. Here again, when pressed further he admitted he had understated the increased 66968-9-171
The Budget-Mr. McMillan interest as a result of conversion by $10 million. I regard these as mistakes but there are other errors in statements made by the minister, always made in favour of the government, that I regard more seriously.
On February 13, 1958, the minister spoke to the Empire club in Toronto about government bonds being immediately oversubscribed and went on to say:
The twelfth Canada savings bond campaign was Inaugurated in October and achieved a record response. The offering was discontinued at December 31. By that time a record of gross sales of $1,175 billion had been achieved, vastly exceeding the amount realized on any previous issue.
This seems to me a most spurious deception because the amount of Canada savings bonds in the hands of the public increased only by $436 million between October 1 and December 31 and not by $1,175 billion in that period as you might be led to expect. I understand that what happened was that people turned in some $700 million of less desirable Canada savings bonds for more desirable bonds, but on the other hand that is not what you are led to believe when you read the statement of the minister.
The minister said in his budget speech last year, concerning the government's cash requirements and the loan which it had floated in April, as found at page 1241 of Hansard for June 17, 1958:
We have already made a good beginning. Since April 1 we have sold issues totalling $950 million, of which $350 million was new cash.
You will get some idea about the minister's expression, "a good beginning," if you read the remarks of the governor of the Bank of Canada on page 5 of his annual report where he says:
There were two periods of large scale monetary expansion. The first took place at the time of the May 1 new issue of government securities when it appeared that a net increase in non-bank holdings could not be achieved.
I want you to mark those words, "could not be achieved," because we were certainly led to believe that these bonds were going over like hotcakes. When the minister tabled the 1959-60 estimates he said, as found at page 705 of Hansard of February 5:
The most noteworthy feature is that compared with those for the present year, 1958-59, these estimates provide for a decrease of $39.1 million in the non-statutory items.
I do not know whom the minister thinks he is fooling. This may read well in the press but the minister does not compare like with like. What he has done is to compare this year's main estimates with last year's main estimates plus supplementary estimates plus further supplementary estimates Nos. 1 and 2, and last year these supplementaries

The Budget-Mr. McMillan amounted to $427.5 million. The main estimates this year are $416 million greater than the main estimates last year and we are bound to have supplementary estimates this year as we have had every year since I have been a member of the house.
If we question the minister's figures we are told by him that we are irresponsible or that we are lacking in our knowledge of mathematics. The minister himself has not shown himself to be infallible in mathematics. The finding of the $10 million mistake in connection with the increased interest with respect to the conversion loan, together with many other mistakes with respect to statements made by the minister, all made to the advantage of the government and either planned or by misadventure, requires a good deal of laborious work. It involves going to statistical reports of the Bank of Canada and other publications, checking and crosschecking, and in some cases it requires endless calculations particularly in arriving at interest rates.
If the minister continues to give us information at variance with subsequent reports we will have no time to do this work since we have so many committee meetings to attend and we want to fulfil our responsibilities to the people of Canada. We are willing to overlook honest mistakes on the part of the minister and we have and we realize that the government has got to defend the decisions that are made. But we take serious objection to statements that mislead the country and mislead members of the house. Such statements may give the government temporary advantage but after a time all factual statements become suspect. I have given three examples and I have many more before me. I should like to think of all ministers of the crown as being straightforward and not misleading in their statements, and I should like to make an appeal to the Minister of Finance to be factual in his statements in the future. Is my time up?


Mr. Speaker:: One minute.


William Hector McMillan: I want to say a few words on trade. If we had more trade we would not have so much unemployment. Back in the good old days when we used to have nearly 100 per cent employment 20 per cent of our people depended for their livelihood on our foreign trade. This government seems to blow hot and cold with our best customer, the United States.
Now, at election time there were criticisms from almost every Tory platform and in the Tory press about certain aspects of United States capital coming into Canada. Then we had the great talk about the diversion of trade and again great pronouncements by the

Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) about preserving our sovereignty in the north, clearly directed against the United States forces situated along the D.E.W. line and other bases up there.
Now, what has happened? On March 9 our government sold gas and exploration rights on nearly three million acres in northern Canada. Who got these rights? Canadian corporations got 4 per cent; British, United States and Canadian corporations got 3 per cent and United States corporations got 93 per cent, of which Canadian subsidiaries of American companies got 25 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has now expired.
(Translation):


Hon. Henri Courtemanche (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in rising tonight I do not propose to sum up in my own language the salient points of the masterly budget submitted to us last Thursday by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming).


Yvon Dupuis: The bleeding points!


Henri Courtemanche: Salient points.


Mr. Pigeon:: Are you referring to the war?


Henri Courtemanche: At the end of my
remarks, my hon. friends opposite will realize that there is nothing bleeding about it.
I would be wrong, Mr. Speaker, if, like Sir Georges Etienne Cartier, I summed up the main points of that speech for the information of hon. members. There is a very simple reason for this. My hon. friend from Eglinton needs no help from me to express himself in French. I should however like to congratulate the Minister of Finance for giving part of his budget speech in French.


An hon. Member:: One minute out of two hours.


Henri Courtemanche: That historic precedent which he established last year is a tribute to his fine spirit of comprehension.


Mr. Denis:: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State just said that this is an historic precedent. Does he mean that-


An hon. Member:: He was not referring to Mr. Harris, in any case.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: People who are unprepared should not rise to ask questions.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The point the hon. member is raising is not so much a point of order as a point of disagreement.


Azellus Denis: It becomes about the same thing. (Translation):


Henri Courtemanche: I shall give my hon. friend from St. Denis (Mr. Denis) certain

explanations so that he might fully understand. The historic precedent does not lie so much in the fact that nobody on the other side of this house, or in any former governments, ever expressed themselves in French, as in the fact-and therein lies the precedent-that last year for the first time a Minister of Finance spoke in French.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The Liberals never did.


Henri Courtemanche: Mr. Speaker, indeed this is not the only precedent of this kind, and I do not hesitate to say that the development and recognition, from day to day, of full bilingualism is due to the example given by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) as well as by several members of his cabinet and a good many hon. members in this house.
(Text):


Yvon Dupuis: Why don't you speak English? (Translation):


Henri Courtemanche: I express myself better in French.
In submitting to the House of Commons a budget which is primarily in the best interests of the nation, this government preferred increased taxation to immediate prestige.


Mr. Habel:: What humility!


Henri Courtemanche: Without that increase, the future of this country would have been seriously jeopardized and we would have had to wage an even more bitter fight against inflation, that economic disease which we must face and check in the best interests of Canada.
The sole purpose of my remarks is to show how, with the problems facing the government, there could not be in a general way, a more effective solution to develop our trade relations and to meet existing problems.
All hon. members know that Canada is one of the great trading powers of the world, that our country, with its sparse population and its diversified natural wealth, has to seek foreign markets for many of its products. Farm and forest products would soon remind us of the fact if ever we were inclined to forget it. It is true that the manufactured products' sector of our economy has developed considerably in the last 15 years, but there again the need to export to foreign markets is being felt. Need I refer to our large sales of wheat, newsprint and lumber?
The danger which threatened our international trade was the exaggerated increase
66968-9-171J
The Budget-Mr. Courtemanche of our trade with our good neighbours to the south. Of course, they are our best customers and it would be wrong not to consider them as such. On the other hand it would be a great mistake on our part- and that is what the present government has fully realized-to neglect our commercial outlets within the commonwealth, and in other countries of the free world, which enable us to protect the stability of our trade and to ensure, as much as possible, a favourable trade balance with more countries.
This quest for a balance in our international trade, which was one of the main purposes of the commercial and economic commonwealth conference, held in Montreal last fall, proved to be most fruitful.
Hon. members will no doubt remember what the hon. Minister of Finance stated last Thursday, in that connection:
The results of the Conference fully justified its opening theme: "An expanding Commonwealth in an expanding world".
That policy is strictly a policy of the present government. Outlined on several occasions by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), it was summarized here in the house by the hon. Minister of Finance on June 17, 1958 as follows:
In brief, they may be described as follows:
1.	To achieve expansion, diversification, better balance and greater stability in our trade with all countries;
2.	To extend and strengthen Canada's trade and economic relationships with the commonwealth;
3.	To support and promote a regime of iaw, order and morality in the field of international trade; to respect the spirit and intent of international commitments; and to stand ready to defend our rights and interests if they are challenged or ignored;
4.	To recognize the legitimate needs of Canadian producers; and to safeguard them against unfair trading practices;
5.	To promote the balanced growth of all sectors of Canadian industry and agriculture.
Despite the government's efforts in the field of international trade, the economic slump, which spared none of the western powers, has had such an impact that Canada was faced with domestic difficulties, foremost of which, without doubt, was the shortage of jobs.
As you are well aware, Canada has great obligations, both on the international front and on the national front, which must be met. It has the obligation to protect its citizens in a world where scientific discoveries become obsolete overnight; it has to provide social security for Canadian citizens; it has to help provide a living for its people.

The Budget-Mr. Courtemanche
We are now enjoying a period of peace, a peace not altogether free from fear and anxiety, but peace none the less. And we have to remain prepared for any emergency. That is why the government is doing all it can to share in common defense with the western powers, so as to give Canada adequate protection.
Social security is costly, but within the limits set by justice and charity, it is a task of paramount importance. There is no need for me to mention here old age pensions, increased unemployment insurance benefits, and all the other social security measures that exist for the welfare of Canadians.
The government did not hesitate, despite increased unemployment insurance benefits and other legislative amendments, to set its sights as the hon. Minister of Finance stated last year, not on a balanced budget, but on providing jobs for the unemployed. That is why some $250 million were made available this year for housing construction, why the public works program was stepped up, why co-operation was extended to the provinces and municipalities for winter works, etc.
The economic recovery is gaining strength. Everywhere, business activity is picking up. Surely, the best yardstick of this is that mentioned by the hon. Minister of Finance when he drew attention in this house to the reduced number of unemployed as compared with last year, while indicating that the country's labour force has increased by 152,000 workers. Moreover, the economy of free countries is improving, which means that international trade stands to gain by this.
While it is true that universal consent, in itself, is not a valid argument, it is a strange thing that several countries of the world, with a free economy, have thought fit to resort to methods similar to those used by this government to solve their economic and financial problems. Thus in the grave crisis facing France, the drastic remedies applied by General de Gaulle's administration are apparently the only way to ensure economic recovery. Far be it from me to compare Canada's economy with that of France. Canada is going through a period of sustained economic development unequalled in its history.
If we take a look at a country whose economy is strangely similar to ours, namely the United States, we find that the Eisenhower administration has submitted a budget involving the extension of a special 52 per cent tax on corporate profits, as well as other taxes on such items as cars, alcoholic beverages and tobacco, which normally were to be withdrawn next June 30. Moreover, Mr. Eisenhower recommended an increase in the excise tax on automobile and aircraft fuels, as well as drastic measures to raise the yield of the tax on life insurance companies, so as to reach the co-operatives.
Many people feel that only an effort such as this, to balance in some degree the budget of the American nation, will ensure monetary stability. Otherwise, we might perhaps expect financial and economic chaos.
In the state of New York, the new governor, Mr. Rockefeller, inaugurated his term by imposing new taxation, including a tax on personal income, in order to put some order into government finance. The day after he brought down his budget, on February 3, 1959, the New York Times concluded its leading editorial with these words:
Governor Rockefeller chose an unpleasant and perhaps unpopular policy which, however, was certainly dictated by common sense. It would have been dangerous for us and for the economy of the state if he had not stopped the drifting of public finance towards bankruptcy. He could hardly do less if he wanted to put the state on a sound basis. He probably could not do any better in any case, politically speaking, at the present time. We congratulate him again for his courage.
Speaking generally about the problem of the public debt in The Canadian Banker (winter issue of 1958) E. P. Neufeld wrote the following:
While we must acknowledge that government expenditures are rather rigid and that the government has to be financed one way or another, successful management of the debt will only be possible, without inflationary prices, if the authorities allow the interest rate to develop freely toward high levels and if federal taxation is increased.
In other words, it is impossible to avoid inflation and its disastrous consequences without resorting to some rather drastic measures, and especially to increased taxation.
Besides, we have seen many instances recently of public administrations having to resort to increased taxation to ensure the development of the country without allowing inflation to jeopardize the future of the nation.
In this regard, the Minister of Finance had this to say, as found at page 2408 of Hansard of April 9, 1959:
I do not see any present evidence of overt inflation in the coming year, in fact the consumer

price index has declined for the past four consecutive months. We must, however, continue on guard against potential inflationary pressures. I believe that is well within the power of Canadians to achieve reasonable price stability without sacrificing either immediate recovery or balanced growth.
Can anyone seriously point an accusing finger at this government and charge it with failure to accept its responsibilities in the face of the complex problems of our trade and social security policies and of the economic recession?
We did all that could be done. Of course, our methods can be questioned, but who could say that the methods suggested by the opposition would have given better results? Unfounded assertions and theories offering no possibility of direct application are mere dreams and the fruit of questionable mental gymnastics.
During the last war, we had many budgets showing a deficit. We were in a state of emergency. We are now going through another rather difficult period. It takes money to ward off an economic slump and an employment crisis. Every Canadian citizen knows that the government has to take such action as is necessary to secure the revenues that will enable it to take care of those in greatest need, and to work toward the recovery of the Canadian economic life.
(Text):


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join those who have preceded me in this debate and offer a word of appreciation to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) for the monumental-with the help of his assistants-job of preparing and presenting the budget which in itself constitutes a project of major proportions.
I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Beni-dickson) for the very careful and critical analysis of the weak features of the budget. The minister's statement that the budget must be flexible to meet changing conditions and changes in the economic condition of the country is a statement with which I fully agree. His statement with regard to inflation, however, is a horse of another kind.
I am afraid inflation is still very much with us, although I wish it were not so. But the fact is that most commodities cost more. In the building of a small home the cost has gone up from 5 per cent to 10 per cent. The effect of the freight rate increases alone raised the price of an ordinary dwelling
The Budget-Mr. Badanai in Fort William by $200. If there are no adjustments made in this field the cost of every commodity, including food, will go up. The trend of rising costs will continue, which only means inflation. On this occasion I again appeal to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) to give serious consideration to the proposal which I made on April 7 last regarding the adjustment of freight rates throughout northwestern Ontario.
The Minister of Finance argued that inflation is not inevitable. Perhaps it could be curbed if the proper measures were applied at the right moment. I am not saying that this is an easy matter which can be resolved with a stroke of a pen. It is something which requires deep study and political courage. However, if we are faced with a choice of inflation or unemployment, of the two evils inflation would be the lesser. I have here a short quotation from the Labour Gazette. It states:
Nobody has a formula for dealing with inflation and unemployment at one and the same time. A number of business leaders seem to think inflation the graver threat of the two, perhaps they are right.
"But no cure is any good that tries to make inflation better by making unemployment worse, and treats a sound dollar as if it were more important than a sound man."
In order to combat both these evils it is necessary to overhaul government thinking on the matter of trade. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) mentioned trade but was unable to finish his speech because his time was up. But how can we hope to expand trade with other nations when the government is extending their protectionistic tendencies, which are traditional, of course, with the Conservative party?
Mr. Hector McKinnon, a recognized authority on tariffs, has recently stated that the time is now opportune for greater flexibility in GATT to provide for faster readjustment in fixed rates. He also urged a custom union or free trade pact with the United States.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think I ought to tell my hon. friend it he is going on to quote a press report attributing certain remarks to Mr. McKinnon, that Mr. McKinnon has informed me that there are serious errors in the newspaper report of what he is alleged to have said.


Hubert Badanai: I wish to thank the hon. minister for that information. However, if he made that statement it might be it is too drastic a step to take. But a more flexible free trade pact with a European free trade bloc would certainly be worth a trial and the same should apply to the British commonwealth of nations. The British offered us a


George James McIlraith: No, it was not.
Mr. Pallet!: That was in the original order in council in 1956.


George James McIlraith: No. You will withdraw this order in council before many weeks have passed.


Hubert Badanai: Regardless of who brought it in, this government or the previous government, the order is not in accordance with the principles of democracy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The original order in council allowed brothers and sisters. Anyone who says the contrary is not telling the truth.


Hubert Badanai: Those whose parents were born in the other countries of Europe do not qualify, of course, to fall in the same class. Yet the Prime Minister says there is no discrimination. I hope that the government, on the recommendation of Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fair-clough), will consider rescinding that feature of the order that sets up a barrier which keeps families apart.
In the constituency I represent there are some very fine dairy and truck garden farms. The district could not be classified as a prosperous agricultural area with the exception of the Slate river valley, the village of Murillo and a few townships scattered over a beautiful countryside. For the most part the farms are in a primitive state of development and these farmers need assistance in the form of long term loans at a low rate of interest. The government would perform a great service for these people, imbued with the pioneer spirit which opened up the greater part of our country in years gone by, by extending the farm loan board activities

The Budget-Mr. Jung to enable these farmers to obtain loans, for which purpose the board was established but from which very few people have been able to obtain assistance.
At the present time, unless a farmer has collateral assets to the extent that he does not need to borrow it is virtually impossible for him to receive any consideration whatever. Another important aspect of the difficulties encountered by the farmers in the district of Thunder bay is the lack of a meat grading station and cold storage facilities. The establishment of these facilities would stimulate not only the growth of our farm area but would create a prosperous climate which could have the effect of attracting more people to the land, the development of which would without a doubt be beneficial to our entire area of northwestern Ontario.
Last week the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities met again with the government and presented a comprehensive brief which should not be cast lightly aside. Their request for an extension of the present winter works program and for assistance to help municipalities pay for major capital works is sound and should receive favourable consideration. The establishment of a federal loan fund to enable municipalities to borrow at a lower rate of interest than they can now in the open market is definitely a desirable project which would not cost the government anything. It would simply provide funds for projects approved by provincial-municipal authorities and, in due course, these funds would be repaid with interest.
The mayors of Canada have asked for federal-provincial-municipal conference on several occasions, but their requests have always been sidestepped.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Douglas Jung (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the course of the debate which follows the presentation of the budget, hon. members are usually given great latitude in their choice of subjects. I, therefore, wish to place before this house tonight four subjects, three of which are domestic in nature and the fourth, while national in concept, has international ramifications.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) concluded his budget speech the other day with this statement, as found on page 2425 of Hansard for April, 1959:
Canada has no reason for fear. Blessed as she has been by a benign Providence above all other lands, she can face her shining future with utmost confidence.
[Mr. Badanai.l

As one who is part of a group of Canadians who have the greatest part of their lives still ahead of them, and as one who would, therefore, most benefit or suffer from the actions of our leaders, may I say I share that spirit of confidence. Looking into the future I can conceive that it is quite possible that Canada will develop into the most influential nation within the commonwealth. It is entirely possible that this development will take place within my lifetime. It is a prospect that is at once exciting and one which fires the imagination. So I am proud to have the privilege of serving Canada at a time when so much remains to be done.
However, because so much remains to be done I feel that at times we Canadians are too immersed with details and problems of our day-to-day existence that we sometimes forget to look at the over-all picture. I can think of no better time than now to pause and to consider our future position. Our country today is in a period of transition. We are experiencing a feeling of restlessness. These conditions have been brought about by national and international events of serious proportions. Nationally we have an economic situation that baffles the experts because, on the one hand, we have a level of high prosperity and, on the other, we have a level of high unemployment.
Internationally, the Berlin situation, the unrest in the countries of Africa and Asia, the challenge of communism and the threat of a nuclear war, all have given our leaders serious concern, as indeed they have to most men. These are common difficulties faced by almost every other country. But it is useless, I submit, to talk about what other countries are doing unless we ourselves are prepared to think about these problems. In this connection, I would remind the house that our leaders are engaged in trying to find solutions to these very vexing problems. They would be the first to admit that these are serious problems. While this party has done a great deal for this country in the short time it has formed the government, I know that this government will do even more in the future.
But how we develop and in what direction will depend upon what the people of Canada want. To say that we want Canada to develop into a great nation is trite. I suggest that our consideration should be, how much are we willing to sacrifice to help our country develop into a great nation. As in all things, without a clear knowledge of what we want, and without a desire and ambition to work for a common goal, all our dreams and hopes are for nothing. As a young person I have a great stake in the future of this country. As I said earlier, it is not

at all impossible that within my lifetime Canada will become the leading nation within the commonwealth. How are we going to achieve that position? One answer that I can give is the answer given by our leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker).
In the first place, there must be a vision of our future greatness. There is a biblical saying that without vision the people perish. In the second place, there must be confidence in our own ability and this confidence must spring from a realistic appraisal of our own capacities. Third, there must be a willingness to work hard. These three requirements imply that there must be an orderly and controlled development of our resources. We must guard against too rapid an expansion of our resources, otherwise there will not be the maximum and most efficient utilization of these resources. There must be a controlled development to ensure that it is our country, and every segment within our country, which receives the prime benefit of our resources. There must also be an increase in our population because an increased population means an increased demand for goods and services which, in turn, stimulates production. One result of our present small population is that our producers, in trying to reduce costs, must try to sell our goods overseas, and it is in this field of international trade that we have our most serious problem because we compete with countries who can produce the same goods at a lower cost.
The ramifications of that situation are obvious. None the less, Canada is taking her place industrially in the world. In taking our place we are facing the economic facts of life which industrial giants like the United States of America and Great Britain experienced long ago. We must now have an economic shakedown in which we will gradually gear our activities and our production to our resources.
Such a period of adaptation is difficult at the best of times, but it is aggravated by our high cost economy and by the entry of the U.S.S.R. and communist China into the field of international trade. The Prime Minister underlined the seriousness of the situation when he spoke in the house on January 19. As reported at page 55 of Hansard he said this:
-there is an offensive in trade that is bound to be one of the most challenging dangers of the days ahead.
The communists have declared economic war on us. Whether or not we can survive will depend upon our ability to meet their competition. All this calls for a mature and realistic appraisal of our obligations. In this connection I suggest that government, management 66968-9-1721
The Budget-Mr. Jung
and labour must take time for deliberation and co-operation. Failure to do this will result in our way of life being overwhelmed without one shot being fired.
I think that one of the greatest tasks facing government, business and labour is to embark upon a program of education so that everyone will clearly understand and appreciate the magnitude of the economic war which has been declared against us by the communist countries. In these communist countries there is a continuing process of education. You can call it propaganda or indoctrination or what you will; but there is a program aimed at telling their people again and again what is their goal. We must admit that they can see the results of their planning. We in the free world have nothing comparable because we have been brought up in an atmosphere of plenty. We cannot conceive that, materially at least, things could be better. The other countries have a sense of urgency because they see our material accomplishments and so their goal is not only to equal us but also to surpass us. This economic competition is competition in the fullest sense of the word, and there is no prize at the end but merely survival. This then is the responsibility facing Canadians. As for myself, I am confident that we can survive and prosper. We have the means and the technical knowledge, although in the light of sputnik I have some reservations even on that thought.
In meeting this challenge we must not forget to help the underdeveloped countries because in helping them we help ourselves. I have heard some people criticize the grants which we make to the Colombo plan because they say that charity should begin at home. Mr. Speaker, may I say that it does begin at home because practically all the money which we give to the Colombo plan in order to help these underdeveloped countries is used by them to buy Canadian goods and services. They do not use this money in order to buy things from other countries. So let there be no misunderstanding about the way in which that money is spent. Not only do we in Canada benefit from supplying goods and services to these countries but also we receive their friendship and good will. This friendship and good will is all important, because in the conflict of ideologies which faces us today we are trying to sell our way of life to other countries. However, the bargain counter days of democracy are over. No longer do we see countries rushing to embrace our way of life which is on display before highly critical buyers who are getting increasingly harder and harder to convince that our way of life is in fact the best way of life.
We seem to think that just because another country lives in the same century as we do

The Budget-Mr. Jung they should acknowledge the superiority of our way of life, and at times we are bewildered and even angered when our overtures to them are rebuffed. We fail to appreciate their culture and outlook which they have developed over many thousands of years, and in exasperation we throw up our hands and say "We cannot understand them". Of course we cannot understand them because we try to look at them through our own eyes and through our own experiences rather than through theirs. Only when we can look at them through their eyes can we begin to understand and appreciate the differences between us.
Earlier, Mr. Speaker, I spoke about the responsibilities of government, business and labour in co-operating to meet the economic challenge of the communists. How should we go about this task? I suggest the establishing of an organization which will include not only government, business and labour but also representatives of the press. In the economic education of the Canadian people I feel that the press, with all its related media, is the only way in which the man in the street can become acquainted with the facts of this economic struggle. We have as separate organizations government agencies, business groups and labour unions; but I feel that there should be even more cohesive groups working with and not against each other. These groups should be not merely concerned with getting an increase in salaries or in asking the workers to produce more. It is my opinion that once the facts of this economic struggle have been brought before the Canadian people they will be willing to make the necessary sacrifices. It is useless to ask people to do something unless you explain to them the reason why they do it.
Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, the example which the Prime Minister gave to this house after his visit to Asia. He said that cloth which is manufactured in Great Britain and which sells for $1 a yard in Asia is produced and sold by the Japanese for 60 cents a yard, but communist China produces and sells the same thing for 33 cents a yard. But according to other reports, underselling applies not only to cloth but also to things like sewing machines, cement, nails, bicycles, canned fruit, vacuum jugs, electric fans, typewriters, radios, caustic soda, paper, glass, ceramics and some machinery. Reflect for a moment, Mr. Speaker, and you will realize that these items, while insignificant in themselves, are in great demand in the countries of southeast Asia which are beginning to raise their standards of living.
In the composition of this organization which I propose to call the Canada trade council, for want of a better name, I should


like to see more rank and file members of labour organizations included because, in the final analysis, they are the ones who will have to produce more and make the most sacrifices. I would even suggest that the government arrange for such a group to visit communist countries in order to see for themselves what is our competition. The few industrialists who have visited communist China and the U.S.S.R., for axample, have returned deeply impressed and indeed deeply frightened by the great advances which they have seen in technology. It is the boast of Premier Krushchev that by 1967 Russia will be the world's greatest producer. From the information which is available that appears to be no idle boast. Only yesterday a United press item from Moscow said this:
Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev's drastic sevenyear plan for catching up with U.S. industrial output over-fulfilled ts first targets by 105 per cent, the government announced today.
This idea of a Canada trade council, is a subject which I said had international ramifications, even though it was national in concept, because this council could be expanded to include all members of the commonwealth. Hon. members will recall the commonwealth trade and economic conference which was held in Montreal last September. The theme was an expanding commonwealth in an expanding world. This theme was singularly appropriate, but I suggest that there should be greater continuity in thought and coordination in action beyond the commonwealth. The idea of a national trade council, designed to educate the people of each country within the commonwealth to the urgent necessity of meeting this communist trade offensive, could, if projected to the international level, provide the driving force to maintain the momentum of the decisions taken at the commonwealth trade and economic conference. Without a larger goal, without a more urgent purpose, trade conferences could become bogged down with national restrictions and considerations. I cannot express too strongly my concern for the need for this economic education, because in the end it is education for freedom.
I have already spoken about the need for an orderly and controlled development of our resources. One of the greatest resources of any country is its people, and so I wish to deal with my other three subjects. These are university students, old age pensioners and housing.
Under the British North America Act education is the responsibility of the provincial authorities. On the other hand, nine out of the ten provinces have received grants from the federal treasury for education. In spite of the efforts of provincial and federal authorities our school facilities and standards

are according to reports way behind those of the U.S.S.R. Universities are plagued by a shortage of money, and many are operating at large deficits. To offset these deficits fees have been increased, but these increases have added to the hardships of the students. I do not think everyone is entitled to a university education, even if he can afford it. My concern is for the deserving student who cannot afford to attend university. I know that local scholarships and grants are available, but many of these are insufficient in themselves for the undergraduates. I therefore urge the government to establish national scholarships. These scholarships would be awarded on a competitive basis and the recipient would be allowed to attend any accredited university in Canada. Such a system of scholarships would remove any fears a provincial government might have that the federal government was interfering in the field of education.
There is another suggestion, however, and this has to do with the university loan fund for students. I understand that the University of British Columbia holds promissory notes from students for some $200,000. I am also advised that these notes are 99.9 per cen' good, because while it may take the student a long time to repay them they are ultimately repaid. I have no knowledge as to the amount of the funds available at other universities, but I think the integrity of the Canadian university student is the same. That being so, in order to keep the loan funds circulating I would suggest that the federal treasury discount these notes. Thus the government might even make a small profit, and the universities would have more money to loan without having to wait a long time for the money to be repaid. If the government does not consider this suggestion feasible, then I would suggest that the Canada Council, with its huge endowment and its declared purpose of encouraging Canadian art and culture, should investigate this problem facing the universities.
I now wish to speak about old age pensioners, of whom I have a very large number in my constituency. Time and time again I receive letters from these pensioners asking why they cannot receive the pension if they go outside the country. I know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) has received many representations on this subject, and I assure him that I appreciate the administrative problems which make the payment of pensions outside of Canada difficult. Nonetheless, while the administrative problems present difficulties, I believe they can be overcome. One of the more minor problems is that of identification, and I would therefore offer to the government
The Budget-Mr. Jung this suggestion. Why not issue a small identification card to the pensioner when he first qualifies for his pension? This card might be similar to the small wallet-sized card issued on request by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and which has a picture of the applicant sealed between plastic covers. Such a card would be very satisfactory identification, because not only does the card bear his picture but it also bears his signature. I do not think that any bank would hesitate to accept or recognize such identification. If the government is concerned with the possibility of fraud or that the pension cheque might fall into the wrong hands, such an identification card might be one solution.
Mr. Speaker, I now come to my last subject, and that is the matter of housing. My constituency, Mr. Speaker, is a most unique riding. In recent years great changes have occurred, particularly in the residential area known as the west end. Old houses are being torn down daily and apartment blocks are springing up like mushrooms. One of the most urgent problems brought about by this rapid change is the need for space for stores. The west end has its own shopping district, but thee is a danger of the small stores disappearing because as more and more land is taken over for apartments it becomes correspondingly difficult to find space for stores. At present Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will not lend money on apartments it there are stores in those apartments. This might be a good time for the government to consider amending the National Housing Act to permit Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to lend money to build apartments which would have stores on the ground floor.
Hon. members will see that this plan might have some possibilities. Apartment blocks could be built to replace the present old business blocks and at the same time retain the small stores which are such an attraction and convenience to the apartment dwellers. I do not visualize huge supermarkets being built into these apartments but rather shops selling ladies' and men's wear, dry cleaners, drug stores, beauty parlours, small restaurants and other shops offering necessary services on a small scale. I am also convinced that this type of apartment can be designed so as to be functional and yet satisfy the aesthetic senses of those living in the apartment. For example, one might consider an arcade type of apartment. Again, these stores could form the perimeter of a court yard, or the stores could be built facing the street, with the apartment block set back a little and joined to the stores.

The Budget-Mr. Jung
I can get quite enthusiastic over the design possibilities, but what is more important is that I am convinced this type of apartment would fill a very useful and urgent need, particularly in areas like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. I know that the west end business association of my riding would be very grateful to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) if this scheme could be introduced. The Minister of Public Works has established an outstanding reputation for the highly competent way in which he has administered his department, and I believe that one reason for the minister's popularity is his readiness to listen to suggestions and his approachability. I therefore offer this suggestion to him in the hope that his department will explore the possibilities.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it is ten o'clock.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, could we not by unanimous consent allow the hon. member to proceed? I understand he has nearly finished.


Douglas Jung: If I may impose on the generosity of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Jung: Mr. Speaker, my remarks today have ranged over a wide field. In ranging from the need of further financial assistance to university students to the need for awakening every Canadian to the economic war which has been declared by the communists on us, I have done so with one object in mind, and that is the welfare of our country. Our country is recovering from a recession. Notwithstanding this recovery, serious doubts about our future welfare come to my mind when I see various groups acting only in their own interests and without regard for the consequences which some of their acts will have upon other innocent parties. Yet when some of these groups get into trouble because of their actions, they cry and run to the government for help.
Government has its obligations but so does every group within the state, be it business or labour. There appears to be no diminishing of this pattern of activity. Everywhere you turn you hear the question "Why does the government not do something about it?" or "Let the government do it". Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that what many call government assistance or intervention may turn out in the end to be discipline by the state. Phrased in that way, many of us might take a second look at our habit of running to the government for a cure when, as is so often the case, the solution lies within the means of the parties involved.
No one likes discipline and to avoid unnecessary discipline we must first learn how to discipline ourselves. This does not necessarily mean sacrifice but it does mean the practice of moderation in our demands and a more mature acceptance of our responsibilities to others. The Minister of Finance in his budget has given us our terms of reference. I hope that with this new awareness of our responsibilities Canadians everywhere will indeed face the future with confidence in our ability, courage in our actions and faith in our country.
On motion of Mr. Pickersgill the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may ask the leader of the house if it is proposed to go on with the budget tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the plan is to go right on with the budget debate until it is concluded.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

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


Mr. Winch: 1.	In the year 1958, how many persons in federal penitentiaries were sentenced to corporal punishment for disciplinary purposes and how many in each institution?
2.	In the year 1958, how many persons in federal penitentiaries were sentenced to disassociation cells (a) solitary for disciplinary purposes; (b) how many in each institution?
3.	In the year 1958, how many persons served a disciplinary sentence in a disassociation cell (solitary) (a) three months; (b) six months;
(c)	nine months; (d) twelve months, and how many in each institution?
4.	How many in federal penitentiaries have been in disassociation cells (solitary) for over a year for (a) disciplinary purposes; (b) ungovernable sexual pervert; (c) ungovernable violent temper;
(d)	strictly disciplinary purposes, and how many in each institution?
5.	Are there any federal penitentiaries where disassociation cells (solitary) are of such a nature that in addition to the barred door, there is an additional steel door cutting out all sight and voice to the inmate? If so, what penitentiaries?
6.	How many persons in federal penitentiaries in the year 1958 (a) attempted suicide; (b) com-mited suicide; (c) were in a disassociation cell at the time, and in what institutions did the aforementioned occur?
Answer by: Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of
Justice):
1.	Twelve; one at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary; eight at Kingston penitentiary; three at Collin's Bay penitentiary.
2.	(a) 971 cases; (b) Dorchester, 171, federal training centre, 148; St. Vincent de Paul, 344; Kingston, 57; Collin's Bay, 27; Manitoba, 32; Saskatchewan, 96; British Columbia, 96.
Average
Lock	lift
St. Lambert	 18'
Cote Ste. Catherine	 33'
Upper Beauharnois	 42'
Lower Beauharnois	 42'
Iroquois	 2'
""Between passing points for upbound and downbound vessels.
Questions
3.	(a) nil; (b) nil; (c) nil; (d) nil.
4.	(a) nil; (b) one at British Columbia penitentiary; (c) one at British Columbia penitentiary; (d) nil.
5.	Yes, Dorchester, Kingston and Manitoba penitentiaries.
6.	(a) Three (one at St. Vincent de Paul; one at Kingston; one at British Columbia);
(b)	One at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary;
(c)	None in disassociation cells.



LOCKAGE TIMES, ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY

Mr. Argue: 1.	What is the lockage time at each lock now being constructed on the St. Lawrence river by the St. Lawrence seaway authority?
2.	Is the lockage time the same at each lock?
3.	If not, (a) At what locks does the time differ and by how much? (b) For what reason was the difference in lockage time made? (c) How long will it take a vessel to pass through as compared with other locks? (d) What effect will this difference in lockage time have upon the rate of flow of up and down traffic at these particular points?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:-
1.	For purposes of economy in construction, operation and maintenance, the lock filling and emptying systems at St. Lambert, Cote Ste. Catherine and Beauharnois were standardized. The design, confirmed by model studies, provides for the raising or lowering of water level in a lock of the maximum lift of 45 feet (Beauharnois) in 8 minutes.
The time of raising or lowering the water level in a lock varies with the height of lift which, in turn, depends on the stage of the river. The average times for average conditions at the different locks are shown in tabular form in the answer to question 3, hereunder.
2.	No.
3.	(a) and (c)
Average time	""Average time
for raising	for vessel to
or lowering	pass through
6 min.	41 min.
7 "	42 "
8 "	43 "
8 "	43 "
4 "	39 "
(b) Answered by 1.
(d)	Virtually none.

Questions



LOCKS CONTRUCTION, ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY

Mr. Argue: 1.	Have any of the locks being constructed by the St. Lawrence seaway authority been completed yet?
2.	If so, which ones have been completed, and on what date was each completed?
3.	Have any of these completed locks been accepted by the Wamer-Hersey Company?
4.	If so, which ones have been so accepted, and on what dates were they accepted?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:-
1.	No, although all are virtually completed and are suitable for operation.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	No, it is not their function.
4.	Answered by 3.

Wednesday, April 15, 1959



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron)
presented the third report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Third report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Cathers.