1960-04-04

Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling herewith in English and in French the report on patents of invention of the royal commission on patents, copyright and industrial designs.
The royal commission was appointed pursuant to order in council P.C. 1954-852 of June 10, 1954, to inquire into and make recommendations upon the legislation of Canada relating to patents of invention, copyright, trade marks and industrial designs. The commission's report on copyright was tabled in the house in June, 1958, and its report on industrial designs in August, 1958.
Since the present Trade Marks Act, which resulted from approximately five years' study and discussion by a committee of experts in the light of representations from interested organizations and individuals, is relatively new; since the statute appears to have been well received in Canada and abroad; since the commission, in its report on industrial designs, recommended one amendment to the Trade Marks Act on the basis of its recommendations with respect to industrial designs; and since, finally, the commissions's membership and staff have become depleted and it would be impossible for it to undertake an inquiry into trade marks, it was decided that the commission's terms of reference be amended by the deletion of the reference to trade marks. By order in council P.C. 19591340, dated October 16, 1959, the commission's terms of reference were so amended. There will, therefore, be no report on trade marks, and with this report on patents of invention the commission has now completed its assignment. This report on patents is being made available to the press and for sale to the public today.
Since this report contains matters of a highly technical nature, the government does not intend to introduce the necessary legislation to bring a new act into force at the present session. We intend to give to all those who are interested time to study this report and submit their suggestions before introducing appropriate legislation at the next session of this parliament.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Pickersgill (for Mr. Hellyer): For a copy of each regular or special questionnaire used by the bureau of statistics during the months of January and February I960, in respect to its sampling of the Canadian labour force, including its without jobs component.
Motion agreed to.



WHARF RECONSTRUCTION, MALARTIC RIVER, QUE.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 83-Mr. Dumas:
For a copy of all payrolls showing the names of those employed, the period of employment nnrf the amount paid to each person, in connection with the reconstruction, during 1959, of a wharf located on the west bank of the Malartlc river, range 4, in the township of Malartic, Quebec.
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are conducting an investigation at the present time, and I would appreciate it very much if the motion could stand until their report is received.
Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member is agreeable, the motion stands.
Motion stands.



SOUTH STUKELY, QUE., UNDERPASS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 84-Mr. Leduc (for Mr. Boivin):
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the board of transport commissioners for Canada and the government of the province of Quebec, from 1948 to date, regarding the underpass at South Stukely, Quebec.
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to passing this motion with the usual reservation regarding the requirement to obtain the permission of the province.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitation expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 85-Mr. Carter:
For a copy of any agreement or arrangement entered into since July 1. 1959. between the Minister of Public Works or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on the one hand, and the Royal Bank of Canada on the other, to guarantee payment of
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry the provincial or municipal share of a proposed land assembly and slum clearance project on the eastern outskirts of St. John's, Newfoundland.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 86-Mr. Carter:
For a copy of all correspondence since July 1, 1959, between the mayor or any other official of the city of St. John's, Newfoundland, and the Minister of Public Works or any official of his department or of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation regarding a proposed land assembly and slum clearance project on the eastern outskirts of the city of St. John's, Newfoundland together with a copy of any agreement or agreements or arrangement or arrangements with the city respecting such project.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister, apropos of the decision of the government made last year not to allow a general freight rate increase for a period of one year pending an inquiry into the railway rate structure and other matters affecting railway transportation. Has the government decided to continue this policy for a further period?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: As the hon. gentleman will recognize, this question deals with a matter of government policy which will be announced in due course. I should further point out that the order of the board of railway commissioners in connection with this matter does not lapse until July 31.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question and state that my recollection is that the policy announced by the Prime Minister was for a period of one year. My purpose in asking the question was that the year expires on April 10, which is Sunday next, and I wondered whether the Prime Minister would not give consideration to making a statement prior to that time.


John George Diefenbaker: I know the interest of the hon. gentleman in this matter, and I will certainly give consideration to his suggestion, but I will not undertake to say anything prior to that date.



RULING OF TRANSPORT COMMISSION RESPECTING EQUALIZATION ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask whether he has seen a report of a

ruling on Saturday by the board of transport commissioners to the effect that it will issue no further equalization orders while the federal government is paying the subsidy to reduce the impact of the 17 per cent general freight rate increase authorized in 1958? I just sent the minister notice of this question prior to my coming into the house. I do not expect he will be able to give an answer today, but perhaps he will take it as notice.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have seen the report.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister comment on the report made by the board in connection with this ruling?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: Then may I ask the minister whether it is his intention, or that of his government, to renew the application of the Freight Rates Reduction Act, referred to in the ruling?


George Harris Hees: The Prime Minister has already answered that question very adequately.


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not dealt with that question at all.


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


Lionel Chevrier: I am rising on a point of order to say that the question I put to the Minister of Transport and the question I addressed to the Prime Minister are two entirely different questions. One deals with the royal commission on freight rates and the other deals with the Freight Rates Reduction Act passed in 1959. These are different matters entirely.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a matter of argument rather than a point of order. The hon. member has had his reply from the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: Then in view of his reply I should like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, to ask him whether it is the intention of the government to renew the application of the Freight Rates Reduction Act in the year 1960?


John George Diefenbaker: May I give the answer which I gave to the hon. gentleman earlier, which is that this being a matter of government policy, an announcement will be made in due course.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Since the board of transport commissioners has postponed the equalization of freight rates until the royal commission report is made, can the Prime Minister give the house some idea as to when the royal commission report may be completed, what the target date is at the present time?


John George Diefenbaker: On one previous occasion I did set a target date, and because it turned out to be an incorrect prognostication I heard about it on a number of occasions. I do not intend to make that mistake again.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am pleased that the Prime Minister is learning, but is it not correct that the objective was to have this matter looked into and a report completed this year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has had his answer. It seems to me the supplementary is merely for the purpose of explaining something that was said. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


Hazen Robert Argue: But my question is this. Is it not correct-*


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have recognized the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Assiniboia may raise his point of order, but I have just now recognized the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and he has not had a chance to say a word.


Hazen Robert Argue: I had risen on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My understanding of the rules of the house is that a point of order should be taken up immediately it is raised. I was claiming the floor because I wished to raise a point of order. My point of order is that I do not feel that my second supplementary question went beyond the rules of the house, and that while the Prime Minister is not required to, in fact he did not, answer the question I had asked.
On this point of order I was about to say that my understanding was that there was a time limit with regard to the report of the royal commission on freight rates. I was merely going to ask the Prime Minister, as a further supplementary question, whether there was not a time limit or a target limit, shall we say, for the royal commission on
Inquiries of the Ministry freight rates, in that its inquiry was hoped and expected to be made before the subsidy went out of existence?


Mr. Speaker:: Dealing with the point of order, I had just recognized the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, although he had not yet had a chance to say anything. In those circumstances I think any hon. member who wishes to rise on a point of order should at least wait until the hon. member who has been recognized has taken the floor.
The point of order the hon. member raises with regard to the supplementary question, which he has now repeated, seems to me to leave the question as one asking for information which is readily available to anyone. The Prime Minister had twice answered to the effect that he did not wish to venture an opinion as to when the report would be given. The second question, the supplementary, it seemed to me was not really a supplementary question but was asking for information which could be ascertained by anyone who looked up the facts.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's answer, as I recall it, was not on this point at all but was on the subject of another royal commission, which had absolutely nothing to do with my question.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member objects to my decision with regard to his question asking for information which is open to anyone, I would be glad to hear him further; but it seems to me that is the type of question it is.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Now that the first quarter of the year has been completed in the government's program for support prices for eggs, can the minister inform the house whether deficiency payments are necessary to bring the national average of producer prices up to the level of the support price? If so, when will these deficiency payments be made?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: On January 111 announced that the agricultural stabilization board would make an interim payment to producers for eggs marketed during the period January 1 to March 31. I also pointed out that at that time egg marketings were at a relatively high level, and that this interim payment was being made to provide assistance to producers during the period of adjustment.

Inquiries of the Ministry
The national weighted average price lor grade A large eggs during the period January 1 to March 31 was 25.4 cents per dozen, or 7.6 cents below the prescribed national weighted average support price of 33 cents per dozen.
In establishing the exact amount of the deficiency payment, the agricultural stabilization board took into account the fact that the national weighted average price of grade A large eggs during the last quarter of 1959 was slightly below the prescribed price, and will accordingly pay an interim deficiency payment of 8 cents per dozen. This payment will be made for all grade A large and extra large eggs up to a total of 1,000 dozen, marketed in the period January 1 to March 31, 1960, by producers registered with the agricultural stabilization board. Cheques will be mailed to producers as soon as marketing records for this quarter are completed, which is expected to be within the next few days.
During the period January 1 to March 26, 1960, egg marketings were 7 per cent below marketings for the same period in 1959, and for the week ending March 26 marketings were 12 per cent below the same week a year ago.
The reduction in egg marketings is now reflected in improving price levels. Egg marketings are now in a more realistic balance with domestic requirements, and except for seasonal variations prices may be expected to remain at or above the support level. During the week of March 26 the national weighted average price for all grades of eggs in Canada was 34.9 cents per dozen, or 1.9 cents above the support price, as compared to the national weighted average price for the same week a year ago of 31.9 cents when the board was purchasing eggs to support the price.
The deficiency payments of 8 cents per dozen on grade A large eggs, which will be paid to all producers regardless of location, is 0.4 cents per dozen higher than producers in Alberta and Saskatchewan would have received under a regional average basis, and 0.4 cents less than the producers in Manitoba would have received.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman because he was making a statement of considerable importance. However, I suggest to you that the minister was not in order in giving this reply; that it should have been made on motions, when a spokesman for the opposition would have had the first opportunity of commenting on this important statement of government policy. Instead, the minister has circumvented the rights of the house by the

device of giving a member of the government party an opportunity of asking a question and thereby seemingly getting credit for something which obviously neither he nor the government deserve.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On this so-called point of order raised by the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that hon. members opposite are constantly asking me and other members of the government to make statements of this sort in reply to their questions.


Mr. Speaker:: The answer the minister gave was in length beyond that which it is customary to expect or to receive at this stage of oral questions before the orders of the day are called, and could certainly have been made appropriately as a statement, by reason of its length and its being in the nature of an announcement. Where one draws the line between one answer and another is up to the good sense of the house. I recognize the objection taken by the hon. member.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Agriculture yet been able to obtain the consent of the province of Nova Scotia with regard to the tabling in this house, as requested, of correspondence between the premier of that province and the government of Canada in the matter of deficiency payments?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe the material was tabled either Friday afternoon or today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the minister.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question based on a Canadian Press report in today's Montreal Gazette in which the following appears:
Mr. Green was critical of the bigger powers of NATO for excluding middle power Canada and smaller nations from certain consultations.
This was part of a speech made by the minister in Hamilton on Saturday night. Will the minister tell the house what were these certain consultations from which Canada was excluded by certain of the great powers in NATO?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I do not think that is a proper question on orders of the day, Mr. Speaker. However, there is a very good illustration in this very report which the hon. member for Essex East has; if he reads the next paragraph or two, he will find an answer to his question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, of course I will not comment on the minister's reply. This is an important question, and I am sorry the minister feels he cannot give the details to parliament which he obviously gave outside this house. May I ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Essex East is doing nothing more than commenting upon the answer. If he rises it should be on a supplementary or a new question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the kind of consultation he had in mind was the failure of the government of the United States to consult Canada with regard to the substantial modification it made and is making in the production of Bomarc missiles.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Essex East could not have heard the same speech I heard, because I got the impression that there was adequate consultation.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Could I ask a supplementary question. In the extract just read by the hon. gentleman, was the minister referring to supermen?



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. My question is based on a letter addressed to the Prime Minister by Mr. Douglas T. Kenny, secretary of the University of British Columbia faculty association, in which he informed the Prime Minister of the contribution being made to the educational work of the university by Miss Irene Rebrin and the need for keeping such persons in Canada.
My question is, in view of the resolution adopted by the University of British Columbia faculty association on Thursday, March 31, and in view of their representation to you, Mr. Prime Minister, earnestly requesting that a faculty member, Miss Irene Rebrin, be permitted to remain in Canada, would the Prime Minister inform the house whether, 79951-0-181
Inquiries of the Ministry in the light of this representation from the University of British Columbia faculty association, the government is giving further consideration to this case.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have received the representations made by the faculty group of the University of British Columbia and intend to discuss the matter with the appropriate ministers, including the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, at the earliest opportunity.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. The civil service commission has requested applications for the post of electrical maintenance man at the air service branch, Department of Transport, Ottawa. However, the announcement is written this way: "Open to qualified residents of the Toronto air service region". This region consists of the province of Ontario as far west as the 88th meridian.
Can the minister tell us how it is that residents in Hull and the whole of the Quebec region are not permitted to compete in this competition?


George Harris Hees: Details of these competitions are matters which I do not carry around in my head. I shall be glad to consult my officials and give the hon. member an answer later.



EXTENSION OF SALARY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance, and ask him whether the salary increases for government employees to which he referred in his budget address on Thursday will be extended to that overworked group, the secretaries of members of parliament?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minisler of Finance):: The increase recommended will be extended to the secretaries attached to the House of Commons, but of course it will require action on the part of the house to make them applicable.
May I add, Mr. Speaker, that I do not think the hon. gentleman ought to overwork his secretary.

Inquiries of the Ministry BRIDGES



JACQUES CARTIER BRIDGE, MONTREAL  REPORTED ARRESTS BY R.C.M.P.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Have arrests been made today by the R.C.M.P. consequent on the investigation into the Jacques Cartier bridge situation. If so, can the minister give us some indication of the scope and nature of the charges?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether the Minister of Justice considers that to be a matter under his jurisdiction. If he does, he will answer; but it seems to me that this is a question of the enforcement of criminal law, which is the responsibility of the attorneys general of the provinces.


Hon. E. D. Fulion (Minister of Justice):: Perhaps because of the interest in this matter, and the fact that there is an inquiry before one of the committees of this house, Your Honour would permit me to answer in so far as it is proper for me to do so. I am not able to say at the moment whether any arrests have actually been made. I have only a report that the inquiry is proceeding satisfactorily. Only if and when arrests are made would it be proper for me to comment, or to report to the house as to exactly what has happened. At the moment, in the absence of specific information I do not think I should answer any further.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
pilots' grievances
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether he has had an opportunity to consider the question I asked on Friday, which reads:
Has the minister received a telegram from the Quebec river pilots setting out their grievances and requesting a settlement thereof prior to the opening of navigation. Can the minister tell the house whether those grievances have been studied by the department and what decision has been reached?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was just on the point of rising to give an answer to the hon. member's question.
The points at issue relate to the special pilot system, the relocation of the pilotage station, and a number of lesser issues. These have been under study by my department during the winter and have been discussed with the pilots on more than one occasion.


Communications setting forth our views were sent forward a few days ago, and I am in fact receiving a delegation of the Quebec pilots this afternoon to discuss the matter further.



REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO RESEARCH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister care to comment on the report that the United States department of health, education and welfare has awarded a research grant of close to $300,000 to a group in Toronto working under the auspices of the Ontario cancer treatment and research foundation? In view of this recognition, is the federal government giving consideration to an increase in our own assistance to cancer research in Canada?


Hon. J. W. Monteilh (Minisier of National Healih and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for having intimated that he was going to ask this question. I have seen reports of this grant, and I feel it indicates the high standard of cancer research in Canada. The foundation in question is the official agent of the province of Ontario in this field, and as such is free to encourage and receive support from any source.
Under the cancer control grant, any province may submit research projects for consideration of federal assistance, and I am always pleased to receive these. Last year my department made available to the province of Ontario, on behalf of the foundation's program, a total of almost $1,225,000.



REPORTED VISIT OF CANADIAN OFFICIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it a fact that an official of the government of Canada has been sent to the Soviet union for the purpose of examining certain aspects of the importation of Russian automobiles into Canada?
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minisier of Trade
and Commerce): No sir, that is not the subject of the inquiry whatsoever.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question. Do I understand the minister to say that no official from the public service has gone for that purpose?


Mr. Churchill:: I said that was not the subject of the inquiry, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister explain? What is the subject of the inquiry that has prompted the sending of an official of the government of Canada to the Soviet union to examine some aspects of Russian-made automobiles and their importation into Canada?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Two answers to that question should be sufficient, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, notice of which I have sent to him. In view of the report that unemployed uranium miners at Bancroft are having an extremely difficult time obtaining employment because employers believe they are a health risk and could become a burden on pension benefits, would the minister care to comment on this report and would he use his good offices to the end that these unemployed miners will be given every opportunity to obtain employment.


Hon. Michael Slarr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave me notice of this question. I immediately got in touch with the officials of the national employment service, who informed me they had not encountered this problem in securing alternative employment for miners of Bancroft or Elliott Lake. I have also asked them to look further into this matter, thoroughly, and they have promised to do that and will see that no discrimination takes place.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank the minister for his reply. I wonder whether he will report to me privately or to the house at a later date as to whether there is any foundation for the report.


Michael Starr: If there is any foundation for this report I shall be glad to report to the hon. member.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming 79951-0-181*
The Budget-Mr. Benidickson (Eglinton) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I would be the first one to admit that the Minister of Finance is not easy to follow in debate. I was interested to read of a delegation that visited the Prime Minister during the middle of last month, inviting him to a summit meeting of the chiefs of the Six Nations Indian reserves, an invitation which was, by the way, declined. None the less the delegation afterwards reported:
We have had a lot of promises in the past that have never been kept.
But the spokesman said, after an hour with the Prime Minister:
He is a great talker. He can almost make you forget what you came here for.
I think that was about the position of those in the gallery the other night because, next to the Prime Minister, I would certainly give full marks to the Minister of Finance for being this house's greatest illusionist.
We have some sympathy for the Minister of Finance. Admittedly he has had difficult circumstances to contend with, but we would have more sympathy were it not for our feeling that many of the difficult circumstances have been of his own making. I said the other night-and I think a number of other commentators are confirming the view-that the presentation was really a do nothing budget. Someone amended that by saying, "Well, if it was not a do-nothing budget it was then perhaps doing just the same as was done last year." I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is not good enough.
One has to do quite a bit of searching through ore to try to find a bit of sparkle in this budget. I have been prepared to do that, and I have, of course, every desire to approve of some of the good new items, however slender, that appear there. I think most hon. members will approve of the minister's announcement that the double impact of income and estate taxes on pension and annuity rights inherited by widows and others will be avoided.
I remind the minister, of course, that when the new estate tax was being examined in the committee on banking and commerce, sitting when the house was sitting, I stood alone and indicated that the women's organizations of Canada, including the university women and the national council of women, even trust companies and others who were familiar with these matters, urged that this particular amendment be taken care of at that time. I was voted down, of course, by the

The Budget-Mr. Benidickson overwhelming majority of government supporters in that committee. I think too there will be universal approval of the minister's proposal to increase the exemption with respect to medical expenses, for the benefit of those who are faced with abnormally high expenses these days when such expenses admittedly are rising very noticeably.
It was the Winnipeg Free Press, as the minister might imagine, that made the statement last year that it is not realistic to expect an opposition to penetrate all the deceptions of an often deceptive government. I, of course, would not hope to be able to do that today. However, in reading the resolutions over the week end I did notice some items that have not had adequate attention perhaps to date by the taxpayers. I think, for instance, of resolution No. 7 with respect to the sales tax. This is the way that resolution reads:
That portrait photographs of individuals be exempt from sales tax.
I suppose the uninformed may have taken a little glow from the thought that in getting portraits next Christmas they may be able to benefit from what looks like a reduction in tax. Without any explanation, as is usual in these matters, it would appear that this is not a reduction in taxation. Portraits have been exempt from the sales tax. On the contrary, this vehicle is being used to impose new taxation that has not been imposed hitherto. I think this is a very regrettable, back door and sly method of introducing a new tax. I suppose the minister is following the slogan of the popular song; he is simply "emphasizing the positive". But what is actually happening here is that for the first time it seems it is the intention of the minister to impose a tax on developing the films used in our amateur photography, which you and I take to have developed in the ordinary photographer's shop. So I came to the realization that quite contrary-


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman is quite wrong.


William Moore Benidickson: Will the minister deny that portraits have always been exempt from tax?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will deny that there is any suggestion of putting a tax on films that are being developed for people, as the hon. member has indicated.


William Moore Benidickson: I am glad, we shall watch for developments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Darkroom tactics.


William Moore Benidickson: I do know that the minister's colleague the Minister of National


Revenue advised photo developers that it was the intention to impose this tax for the first time, effective in January of this year, without any change by means of a budget resolution but simply relying on what the department thought was permissive power in the present law. They took the matter to the Department of Justice. It is my submission that we have here a clear exemption of one type of portrait photography with the intention of going ahead with the proposal to impose a sales tax for the first time on the ordinary development of films. If I am wrong I will be very pleased to hear so from the minister.
Before we proceed too far with the budget debate, and in view of the fact that in the city of Ottawa the civil service pension plan covers more people than any other such plan elsewhere, I suggest that the effects of income tax resolution No. 12 be considered by taxpayers very carefully. As most of us know, under certain circumstances a person can withdraw from the civil service pension plan and receive a lump sum payment. This provision is utilized particularly by single female employees upon marriage. The intent of the resolution may be simplification for the tax collector, but we must examine very carefully the effect upon the taxpayer himself.
Apart from some of these items, I do not see that it is useful at this stage, or until we come to debate the resolutions, to refer very much to some of the other items because not very many people are interested in cuttlefish, fish bait, pretzels, instant potatoes and the like, which are prominent in the resolutions this year. At another stage I do, of course, propose to examine very carefully the changes in the tariff. For three budgets we have seen the Minister of Finance come before us as he does, warming his coat tails before the glow of his professed virtue in tariff matters, but with each budget that has been presented we know we have had certain complaints from our best customers. I refer to Britain, Italy, Japan and so on. I suggest that again this year these items will require very careful consideration when we have the bill before us amending the Customs Tariff.
When I spoke briefly the other night, Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of oh's and ah's when I made the statement that the Minister of Finance had been 50 per cent wrong in his forecast of the gross national product, because he had made his forecast on the assumption that no increases in prices would be involved. Over the week end I think most of us have seen that this view has been shared by those



I960

[Stage Direction]
with prominent positions in financial journalism. I find that in the April 2 issue the Financial Post had this to say:
Business planners got an unwanted and unexpected surprise this week: 1959's gross national product made only a bare 3.5 per cent gain in volume. At budget time last year, finance minister Fleming had assumed that prices would be stable and a "real" 7 per cent advance would be achieved in the production of goods and services ...
These G.N.P. trends add to the evidence pointing to slower paced growth in 1960.
I hope the Minister of Finance will comment on this as we proceed. I hope the Financial Post is equally right when it goes on to say:
But it's probably all to the good, say most business analysts. The fewer the excesses this year, the milder any subsequent recession.
However, that was not the minister's forecast last year and, as I indicated, it was just 50 per cent out with respect to volume and an assumption of no increases in prices. When we examined the minister's comments the other night we were greatly disappointed with regard to some of the important matters other than finance lightly dealt with that have a great effect upon our economy and' our financial future. There was certainly cavalier treatment with respect to the problem of unemployment. It was certainly brushed under the rug. In the budget of the Minister of Finance we seemed to have quite a departure from the philosophy of the Prime Minister that "no man is going to suffer". There is nothing new for the unemployed. In fact one could hardly find anything more fatuous than this brief reference to unemployment in the minister's statement, as found at page 2670 of Hansard:
I am confident... that employment will rise as the coming of spring opens up new job opportunities and as the economy continues its upward trend.
Mr. Deschateleis:: What a shame.


William Moore Benidickson: If that is all that can be expected, if that is all the minister was prepared to tell us in his budget speech about the pressing problem of unemployment, I say it is cavalier treatment indeed. About agriculture there was nothing at all said. The silence was deafening with respect to our agricultural industry. Notwithstanding the fact that the net income of Canadian farmers as reported, last month, has declined 7 per cent in 1959, did the minister make any comment about that very vital industry in his report to the nation the other night? He did not.
Well, Mr. Speaker, at this stage in our proceedings it is always monotonous-it is monotonous to us as it must be to those on
The Budget-Mr. Benidickson the other side-and indeed depressing to recite even a partial list of the broken promises of this administration. I believe those promises were made not with the feeling that they would ever have to be redeemed, but were made in an election campaign simply from the point of view of embarrassment.
I shall refer to some very briefly. There was the promise to reduce expenditures, and then what happened? They were increased. There was the promise to lower taxes, but they were raised; the denunciation of high interest rates, and they were pushed higher; the promise to provincial governments of benefits which the government find afterwards they seemingly cannot concede; the promise to divert trade from the United States and then they concentrate trade more in the single basket; the promise to cure unemployment, and in the year which our financial treasurer says is a prosperous year we find unemployment worse than last year and rising. There was the promise to reorganize and rationalize national defence. Now, there is almost universal agreement across the country that national defence is in an incomprehensible mess.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that in this picture two things have come into focus. It has become abundantly clear that the Prime Minister is, after all, mortal; and second, that the taxpayers' purse is limited. The taxpayers had begun to wonder if the vision was something they could actually afford or was merely an illusion. What are some of the results? We find that the Minister of Finance today is the one being cheered, mostly, as the strong man of the day. The "no person will suffer" philosophy, as I have said, seems to have been jettisoned as being incompatible with the green light that, at some stage, apparently was given to the Minister of Finance to make our finances more sound. Even the government itself now appears to be reaping the whirlwind of the iniquitous promise seed which it sowed in two elections.
At some point last fall-I think this is very interesting-even the Prime Minister seems to have got green around the gills in connection with our financial distress and must have decided on something new because, after all, a change did take place. The Minister of Finance has given us a review of the past year, but it seems to me that the white paper and his report to the house last Thursday night have left out a great portion of the real bases for some of the changes that have taken place.
I want to ask the house to reflect upon the climate, financial and political, across this country last year, particularly in the

The Budget-Mr. Benidickson fall. I have a little review to show just what the thinking was of people not only in this country, of those likely to be biased in favour of the government, but of onlookers outside of the country. What were they saying six months ago? The Economist of London, an outstanding United Kingdom journal, described Canada as in a financial mess.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon.
gentleman read some of the articles from those English papers that came out about six weeks or two months later, and which corrected those erroneous statements?


William Moore Benidickson: That was doubtless after the visit by the minister of the United Kingdom, when he said that Canada's finances were as sound as a bell. But it was also after the time that radical changes were made in the direction of our finances in this country.
The Globe and Mail of Toronto has never been particularly unfriendly to this government. Its financial editor, after hearing the speech of the Prime Minister on our financial policy which was delivered to the Lethbridge chamber of commerce, said this:
As to the cause of tight money, this may clearly be attributed to official policy.
The Montreal Star commented as follows:
We wish that someone he would listen to. would tell the Prime Minister that no one cares whether tight money is due to the Liberals, the Conservatives or hurricane Gracie. Very tight money is here.
Tight money is due to a combination of factors for some of which the government has responsibility. Why not tell what government policy is? Mr. Diefenbaker could. Instead we have to go on guessing.
This was the climate of last fall. The money market certainly told the government that something was wrong and not sound as a bell. I think you and I as individuals, if we had found it so difficult to borrow money, certainly would have thought something was wrong with our operations and would be rather concerned. At the beginning of October the president of the investment dealers of Canada had this to say:
The underlying issue is the absence of leadership by the government in monetary matters.
The financial editor of the Montreal Gazette, commenting on that statement by the representative of the investment dealers, said this-


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Will the hon. gentleman give the date of the quotations?


William Moore Benidickson: October 1, 1959 was the date of the first one. Commenting on that statement the following day the financial

editor of the Montreal Gazette, not unfriendly to this government either, said if that statement of the I.D.B. is to be criticized, the criticism is that the statement has not gone far enough.
Within about a week, in this kind of climate -and I am giving only a few illustrations of what was being said about the financial policy of the government-it is true that the Minister of Finance broke a long silence, something which is unusual for him, and made a statement to the Empire club of Toronto. This followed within a few days that famous television broadcast of the Prime Minister when he delved into financial policy and pouted that the banks were to blame for our situation and said that nobody was going to stampede him.
Within a week we certainly did get from the Minister of Finance something quite different and more positive in connection with financial policy. It appeared that at long last the Minister of Finance had been given by his Prime Minister something in the way of a brighter light with respect to financial leadership in the country. We certainly had been in quite a bit of uncertainty previously. I should like to give an illustration of what the House of Commons was told in the previous session by the Minister of Finance as to financial policy, and the kind of muddled explanation that we obtained. As reported at page 3746 of Hansard of May 18, a question was put to the Minister of Finance and these were his words in reply:
If the banks find they have not an ample amount of money to meet the extraordinary demands for credit that are made upon them today as a result of the upsurge in the Canadian economy, then certainly it is not the intention of the Canadian government to inflict on the people of Canada a repetition of the tight money policy of our Liberal predecessors.
Then the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate asked this question: "What are you going to do to stop it?" To that question there was no answer. There was no answer after the adjournment of the house until the minister started in October to make statements as he has been doing, as I said the other night, every month since. What is the policy? Is the policy that the budget is to be balanced at any cost, or is it the policy enunciated previously by the Prime Minister, namely that no person will suffer-presumably economically-in this country?
The Minister of Finance the other night had quite a bit to say about debt management. There was a striking absence of comment on unemployment and agriculture. However, he had a great deal to say about debt management. I think some of the statements made



[Stage Direction]
the other night are certainly worthy of a review. As reported at page 2677 of Hansard the minister said this:
-the total volume of direct government of Canada marketable issues outstanding at the end of the year is only $28 million higher than at the beginning.
What is the unsophisticated person going to think about that statement? I suggest to the Minister of Finance that no matter how he may twist or squirm, all he requires to do is look at the statistics in the weekly report of the Bank of Canada-and I refer to the latest one, dated March 31 of this year- and he will find that the total of government of Canada direct and guaranteed securities outstanding is up $756 million from a year ago. This is the sum that was taken by the government from the market, and taking this sum diminished accordingly the amounts which investors would otherwise have had available for other undertakings, for other governments, for the commerce of the country and so on. I say, Mr. Speaker, what lubricity there is in this kind of statement.
The finance minister's remarks on the debt management activities of the government in the past 12 months just glossed over the tremendous damage that his borrowings have caused to junior governments and to individual commercial borrowers. The course of the treasury bill rates during the year 1959 reflects these repeated demands made by the government on the money market. The Minister of Finance suggests that these rates really, in their rise, reflected particularly the heavy demands that were made by ordinary commerce through the banks. It was the earlier demands of this government for money, made through and after the conversion loan, that demoralized the interest rates of this country and made it no longer possible for the Minister of Finance to say, "look what we as a government have done to bring down interest rates". Once they started to rise, of course, it was somebody else's fault. First of all it was said it was that of the Bank of Canada; then it was said it was the fault of the chartered banks of the land. But the course of the rise is evident. It stemmed and originated from that unfortunate conversion loan.
Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: Give the most recent Bank of Canada rate.


William Moore Benidickson: I am going to refer to that matter. I suggest that the hon. member, like the Minister of Finance, may claim credit that it is going down. You are taking great credit for it going down, but refused to accept any responsibility for financial policy when it was going up to heights never experienced in a generation. I want to say something about what this has resulted in. Let us look at what
The Budget-Mr. Benidickson the cost of interest has meant to this government-and we are examining the accounts of our government for the past year-quite irrespective of the calamity that its policies have caused in pushing out other governments and pushing out the legitimate commerce of the land.
The main estimates for 1960-61 provide for interest in a staggering sum, but this is not all the story. The amount of interest actually provided in the book of estimates for the forthcoming year is less than was spent by the government last year. The amount is $594 million. The actual interest charges last year amounted to $632 million. I pointed out the other night that there is an allowance of only $140 million for extra charges for the remainder of this new year if he is actually to produce a balanced budget. The other night he provided $15 million for the civil servants. But here is a difference of $39 million between what was actually spent last year on interest and what is provided for in the estimates for interest for the coming year.
The question that naturally arises is this. Can the minister, with an item of this kind and many others that I could mention, hold the line to this margin of $140 million in the large budget that is involved for this country? We know this government has indicated that as far as freight rates are concerned, an increase cannot be allowed. They have said that the line must be held. Indeed, the president of the Canadian National Railways said to our committee the other day that if freight rates went up he thought there would perhaps be a diminishing return to the railroads. In competition with other carriers the freight carried would become less. We have at the present time a board of conciliation with respect to the wage demands of 100,000 of our railway employees. If freight rates are to be held as they are and subsidies are to be continued in order to provide wage increases commensurate with increases in wages to workers in other segments of the economy, what is that going to do to the budget of the Minister of Finance?
The minister always has a desire to relate the national debt to per capita debt. We are sorry that we have not in the house these days the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan). We hope, however, that he will be back with us after an operation after the Easter recess, at which time he will doubtless be participating in later stages of this debate. But I am surprised the Minister of Finance would repeat this old tale after the excellent way in which it was presented to the house last year, when the hon. member for Welland pointed out that what the minister was really saying was that every baby

The Budget-Mr. Benidickson born and every immigrant arriving into the country is simply being handed and assuming a share of the debt. The member for Welland also pointed out that this does not in any way reduce the debt by one dollar. It is simply a matter of transferring to a new baby a share of the public debt.
The net debt as it stands today is $12.1 billion. The Liberals, so much attacked by the Minister of Finance in the past when he sat in opposition for reaching large surpluses, as a result reduced the net debt over a period of 11 years from $13.4 billion to just over $11 billion. In two years this new administration has managed to wipe out half the savings achieved by their predecessors over a period of 11 years.
The cost of servicing the public debt, as a result of the high interest rates and unprecedented deficits in peacetime, now stands at $786 million. This is the second largest item in our budget, being second only to that for national defence. Let us look at the cost of servicing this debt today per wage earner. If we take the figure for the total labour force as approximately 6,200,000, I calculate that the cost would be $126 per year or about $10.50 per month for each wage earner in this country to service the debt. This, of course, is a tremendous obligation, and it has been rising to great proportions.
Mr. Speaker, in connection with debt management, I want to look at another angle. In examining the Bank of Canada report I have found there set out the details of the various forms of loans obtained last year by this administration. We have features that have never been prominent in requests for money over many years of this country's history. Loan after loan seems to have coupled with it a new gimmick and I suggest something which one would almost regard as a new give-away, so far as the taxpayers are concerned, in order to get money.
I refer to such things as the non-callable feature. We have had non-callable features in our public debt in the past, it is true; but I pointed out in the budget debate last year, when referring to the conversion loan which was made, that it would be a financial tragedy of great magnitude when the youth of this land, when they became taxpayers, found there were no callable features as far as. the government was concerned respecting that massive conversion involving $6.4 billion.
This has continued. In the past there were occasionally times under the previous administration when the callable feature was omitted, but I suggest there is a very big difference between the elimination of a callable feature when interest rates are 3 per cent and 3J per cent and when they are 6J per cent or 5J per cent, at all time high levels.


This is what the Minister of Finance is denying to his successors in the way of financial adjustment in the future if interest rates go down.
I refer to the debate of last year of March 18, when I said there was another very dangerous gimmick which the minister was apparently introducing. That was the gimmick of a very substantial discount offered with respect to a very short term loan. I do not know whether the minister was as naive as he suggested, whether he actually did not realize the implication of this, or whether he was endeavouring to mislead me or put me and the hon. member for Welland off. Also the Leader of the Opposition-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. gentleman wishes to leave that imputation on the record. It is not worthy of him to suggest that an hon. member of this house was endeavouring to mislead him.


William Moore Benidickson: I was suggesting an alternative, Mr. Speaker, which I thought the minister perhaps would less like to have, and that was that he did not realize the implication to the crown-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I must take objection to the imputation in the words used by the hon. gentleman. He has his opportunity to withdraw that expression, when he suggests I was misleading him.


William Moore Benidickson: I withdraw willingly, the words "misleading me," Mr. Speaker, and in doing so I will indicate that if one reads the remarks of the Minister of Finance as they appear in Hansard of March 18 of last year, it will be found that he said in reply to remarks made by the hon. member for Welland, "What difference does the length of the term make?" We had described the value to shrewd, sophisticated investors of getting a substantial discount on the purchase of a government bond and utilizing that, if they were not dealers, as a tax free capital gain. Indeed, one wonders why, if it were not deliberate tailoring, we had what would normally be called a treasury bill which would not be subject to a capital gain advantage, but by tailoring the loan for merely a period of one more month, 13 months, it was called a bond.
I pointed out last year that as a bond this was indeed a very expensive form of floating loans on the part of the Minister of Finance. He did not seem to realize that the discount portion of the loan extending over 12 of the 13 months was worth more to a person or a corporation paying income tax of 50 per cent than was the nominal rate advertised with respect to it across the country, the low and unrealistic

rate advertised at that time being 2f per cent. I said at that time that for a taxpayer who was paying an effective income tax rate of 50 per cent, and who was entitled to a capital gain, it was equivalent to a rate of 6.6 per cent for a bond sold at 100 cents for the dollar. I said in addition that I thought the Minister of Finance was suggesting in this form of procedure, providing short term bonds, a form of finance to the junior governments, and that as the collector of most of the income tax in this country he would regret it very keenly as time went on.
Some of the governments, following the example of course of the Minister of Finance, have been entering into this type of financing to a much bigger extent than ever before, and the sufferer is the treasury of Canada which does not get, on the difference between par and the discounted price, any income tax if the purchaser of the bonds is not a dealer and is thus entitled to have the discount regarded as a capital gain. I think this reached proportions of a dangerous nature. The Minister of Finance did not take that advice, and during the year we had subsequent floatings of loans with this important discount feature over a short term. I say this is going to prove very expensive indeed to the other side of the government, the tax collecting department, when they are seeking to collect income tax.
Then toward the fall we got into something which I think is particularly frightening to the young people of the land, if they just care to look at the type of financing which the minister has embarked upon. I have already said that most of his loan flotations do not give him the right, if interest rates go down substantially in the future, to call the debt, as used to be the practice when interest rates were nothing like as high as these. But here, time after time from September on we have had loan issues which have no call right and another feature called the right to convert. In other words, the sophisticated borrower sees that he has all the benefits of the present high rates of interest for bonds maturing over a short period of time, in 1962, 1963 and 1964, and then if rates of interest prevailing in this country in those years are substantially less he has the right to extend the term of those loans, in some cases up to an additional 13 years.
One can readily recognize this form of finance is certainly going to prove very costly indeed to the taxpayers of tomorrow, who are the youth of today; and this in spite of the fact we have indicated these dangers to the Minister of Finance in the past.
Then we come to Canada savings bonds. Even the Auditor General suggested that 79951-0-182
The Budget-Mr. Benidickson there seemed to be a lot of unnecessary and expensive run-around with respect to this form of finance. Canada savings bonds, when they were introduced by the previous administration, may have had some social benefit. They were tailored to encourage savings on the part of the small individual of the land. The maximum amount under the previous administration available to any individual was set at $5,000. Under the new administration there has developed another sales gimmick. The bonds formerly never available to other than the small man, are now available to estates and trusts. They are available to an amount of $20,000 in the name of any one individual, instead of being available to a total of $5,000. I do not think this can be called a small man's form of lending his savings to the government.
The minister's report shows that in the fiscal year just past he did, it is true, sell $1,455 million worth of Canada savings bonds at extraordinary high rates of interest. But the report also shows, at page 267 of Hansard -and this is also contained in the white paper-that the minister in the same year redeemed $1,170 million of Canada savings bonds. In other words he has just been rolling this debt over, and the net increase in borrowings of this nature was only $285 million during the year as shown by this report.
This has even provoked complaints from provincial treasurers. When it had some social merit, providing a vehicle for lending money in small amounts, as under the previous administration, up to a limit of $5,000, these complaints did not arise; but the minister will have noticed that the treasurer of his own province of Ontario has long since cried "ouch" and "foul" against this practice, and only last week these were the words used in the legislature by the premier of Ontario with respect to this type of federal financing:
I do not agree with what they are doing. I feel it is totally unfair. It is "hot'' money, and the turnover is tremendous.
I have indicated that the minister cannot have this both ways. I suggest to him that he is always criticizing the opposition and saying we are the prophets of doom and gloom. I say to him that the biggest prophet of doom today is the Minister of Finance if he thinks we shall have this tight money situation with us so long that in 1962, 1963 and 1964 he must be prepared to give lenders an option to renew their loans at 1959 and 1960 rates of interest for high interest rates such as are indicated in the Bank of Canada report; for another 13 years, seven years and
2870	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Benidickson so on. I say he is the pessimist if he thinks that interest rates at levels such as we are experiencing at the present time are to continue for 13 years or more.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made some comment on the fact that in the last month the rate being paid for treasury bills has fallen very substantially. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that this being so he might get in touch with the commercial arm of the Bank of Canada and see if something could not be done to reduce the rate of interest being charged by the industrial development bank to commercial oorrowers.
This would have a very healthy effect upon business in this country, and would provide a healthy stimulus. In March 1959 this government bank raised its charge to borrowers from 6 per cent to 6J per cent. Last October 1 it increased the rate again from 6| per cent to 7 per cent. I suggest that in view of this drop in the treasury bill rate from about 6 per cent last September to 3.26 per cent on March 30 last, the minister might consider carefully whether business would not be stimulated if borrowers who cannot go into the securities market or whose applications are turned down by the chartered banks were able to obtain a decent rate of interest from the government bank itself.
Now with respect to revenue and taxes, 1 have indicated what were some of the promises made by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister when they sought a mandate from the people of this country. What do the white paper and the speech of the minister the other night indicate? The minister, of course, compared taxes with the gross national product. Well, we all take pride in the growth of Canada, but most of us think that if a man is progressing in his business and taking in more money he should be expected to get out of debt rather than be complacent about staying in debt.
Apart from that, let us look at the following table. I think, as I have said, that the gross national debt is not being reduced but only being spread more widely; that it is being shared by a greater number of newborn babies. I submit that a more realistic table with respect to tax revenues would certainly have reference to the amount of taxes per capita which are being paid.
I should like to submit a table which I have prepared. It shows a comparative statement of revenues. The figures in each case are taken from the budget papers, and the table compares the revenues taken by this administration in respect of ordinary budgetary expenditures and the old age security fund in 1958-59 with the estimate given the


other night for 1960-61. This indicates that the tax revenues per capita in 1958-59 are $269.48 and in 1960-61, $326.72. That is a very substantial increase indeed, and this from an administration led by a gentleman who went up and down Canada saying taxation would be reduced.
I have here a headline taken from the Toronto Globe and Mail shortly after the present Prime Minister was elected to the leadership of his party. It reads, "Diefenbaker charges Liberals are Pickpockets". Now, when the tax take is considered, comparing revenues two years ago with the expectations for the coming year, I wonder what the people of this country will think of that kind of political propaganda. This was a speech made on a program of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation during a free-time period.
Indeed, it was in the same speech that the Prime Minister indicated that the Conservative party would have a commission set up to report on government economies which might be put into effect. It is almost three years since hon. gentlemen opposite took charge of the government, and this commission has yet to be established. We know that any inquiry as extensive as the one proposed would take several years to complete, and I say this is just a further indication of somersaulting with regard to promises made to the Canadian people in 1957 and 1958 elections.
When we come to consider expenditures we find something which is just as revealing. If we look at the budget papers we find the expenditure reported there for the last full year of the Liberal administration, 1956-57. The total, including old age security payments, amounted to $5,228 million. In the year just ended-and I am not taking the figures for the year ahead; that would show an even bigger disparity-in the year which was reported upon the other night by the Minister of Finance, we find that there is a billion dollar difference since this administration has been in office.
One thing which the Minister of Finance reported in his budget this year-and he did it in his budget speech last year-is the well worn claim, as it appears in Hansard on page 2679, to the effect that because of the very careful and exacting scrutiny of departmental estimates it is likely that there will not be the usual amount of government lapses, unspent moneys that are put into the budget.
The minister said exactly the same thing last year, as recorded at page 2413 of Hansard. These are, of course, good illustrations of the minister's usual modesty.

But bearing these remarks in mind and bearing in mind his suggestion that extraordinary scrutiny has been provided while he has been in charge of the Department of Finance, something presumably never equalled by his predecessors, let us examine the public accounts for 1958-59. We find there that the main estimates for 1958-59 indicated statutory expenditures of $1,788 million. But the accounts show that total budgetary expenditures under statutory authorization amounted to $1,970 million. In other words, the reality was worse than the prospect.
But these are statutory items. What unusual, extraordinary control has been proposed with respect to the items the minister sometimes describes as controllable? In other words, they are voted by parliament. In the main and various supplementary estimates submitted to parliament by the minister authority was given to him to spend $3,818 million in 1958-59. The actual expenditures for those same items amounted to only a difference of $424 million. Does anybody think that careful control, as indicated by the minister, was applied if we have lapsings of $424 million and if as he says, under his supervision presiding over treasury board these estimates of expenditures had received care and attention beyond that of any other of his well-known predecessors. I am afraid the minister is going to sprain his shoulder one of these days patting himself on the back. The trouble is, when one examines these lapsings one finds that it is so unnecessary.
At this stage it is very difficult for anybody examining the budget papers which were presented to us the other day to make a complete and accurate calculation to see how well the minister has carried out his boast in the next year 1959-60 with respect to the close control of the estimates so that lapsings would be minimal. However, by the use of the budget papers it is possible to make a calculation in this respect. Out of budgetary expenditures under statutory appropriations of $2,253 million I do admit that it is not readily possible to follow $21.3 million of expenditures, but with respect to the remainder of this large sum of $2,253 million it is possible to relate the expenditures reported in the 1960 white paper back to the book of estimates for 1959-60 which was prepared by the minister. When one does that he finds that it was proposed in the blue book that $2,056 million be spent on statutory items as appropriations for 1959-60. As I say, in both cases, I have deleted miscellaneous items of approximately $21 million. When this is examined we will find-and I think this is of interest when we consider the 79951-0-1824
The Budget-Mr. Benidickson narrow margin upon which the minister is basing his surplus for next year-that there was an increase of $196 million. I have indicated on how narrow a base the margin is for the minister's next year's surplus.
With respect to non-statutory authorizations voted in supply I find that there were lapsings of $288.6 million. When one examines the records of previous years, he finds this does not indicate to him that the minister has been better able to reduce lapsings under non-statutory appropriations and at times overexpenditures under statutory items than his predecessors.
It was rather amusing the other night to find that this was brought forward again by the minister despite this discrepancy, when one looks to the past two years' record. It is reported that the other night the Minister of Finance went up to the press gallery after delivering his budget address. One of the journalists asked him a question. It is reported in this way:
He fenced nimbly with a reporter who asked him if the modest $12 million surplus was over-taxation, a sin for which the one-time opposition critic used to castigate the Liberal government.
"That was different," said Mr. Fleming. ''The Liberals were guilty of inaccurate budgeting."
I have indicated the kind of lapsings and discrepancies between the estimates of the Minister of Finance in each of two years.
I indicated some kinds of promises that remain unfulfilled. In fact, what we are getting now demonstrates leadership diametrically opposite to what was indicated to the electorate would be their policy in the matter of finance.
However, the Minister of Finance last year spoke for the second time in the budget debate, as reported at page 2892 of Hansard of April 21, 1959. This shows the extreme length to which the minister can go in debate in the house. He was dealing with the opposition amendment at that time a year ago, and he said:
I have dealt with the terms of this extraordinary amendment, an amendment which has the temerity to accuse this government of having made promises which it did not make; of having been elected on the basis of promises which it did not give during the election campaign, and of having broken promises which it did not make.
I leave it to the country to decide whether any of the promises I have referred to today are not promises that were made well known across Canada as promises made by hon. members of the administration who now sit on the treasury benches. If that is not enough, let us look at some other promises, promises that related to likely changes in fiscal policy.
There are, of course we have been told, two kinds of promises. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) has indicated

The Budget-Mr. Benidickson that promises made outside the house are not entitled to the same respect and obligation as promises made in the house, and I must confess that some of these promises were made outside the house but by very prominent members of the Conservative party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just promises to the people.


William Moore Benidickson: Just promises to the
people. We remember that at the national convention at which the present Prime Minister was elected leader of his party they had a resolutions committee. It is true that they did draw up a number of items for the platform for the election that was expected to take place in six months or so afterwards. But after the election of the present Prime Minister as party leader it seems that these platform items were stifled. However, those of use who were here at that time know that no one had a better entree to the goings-on at that convention and to the activities of the Conservative party than that good friend of all of us, Mr. Blakely, representing the Montreal Gazette.
Before these plans in the platform were thrown out we had a report from Mr. Blakely as to the goings-on in the resolutions committee of the Conservative party. In the Montreal Gazette of December 12, 1956 he reported that the party had agreed, through its resolutions committee, on an extension of the housing act to cover existing homes in good condition. We have heard no more about that. It was agreed that they would encourage processing in Canada. What is there in this budget along these lines of fiscal policy. It was indicated that they would encourage national research by a more favourable tax climate. I see the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy): I have no doubt he is still trying to persuade the government to carry out this part of the platform. He probably had a great deal to with getting it in there in the first place. We find that they proposed the development of a deep sea fleet at an estimated cost for 35 ships of some $35 million. That has gone down the drain. Even what we had under the previous administration was sold by this administration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Sold to Batista.


William Moore Benidickson: They promised that they would eliminate the sales tax on purchases by school boards. This is the third budget presented by the minister and we have had nothing with respect to that yet. Then there is another matter which is of great concern to me because I have a bill on the order paper to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act with the same objective that the Conservative party had in 1956, that of providing aid to non-industrial small business through the industrial development bank.

When that bill comes up for consideration I hope that my friends, who in such large numbers form the governing party, will make sure of the passage of the bill.
Here is an amazing one. They proposed that they would withdraw from the taxation field with respect to alcoholic beverages and would leave that field entirely to the provinces. Some credit was given to individual sponsors of resolutions at that convention. The present member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith)-he was not a member then-said that he won his case before the 162 member policy and resolutions committee when he called for an amendment to provide for tax concessions for Canadian oil and gas operators equal to those obtained by United States operators from the United States government. We just heard the other day that the government, after almost three years of responsibility, were finally removing the road block that they themselves created instead of providing a green light for this very important industry in western Canada.
Here is another interesting one. The former member for Gloucester got his way too when he insisted that the word "distinctive" be used to describe the Canadian national flag to be adopted immediately.
We know that these planks in the platform were pigeonholed, but let us look at the matter from another angle.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about the excise tax on automobiles?


William Moore Benidickson: The excise tax on automobiles was another example. In the election campaign the Conservative party made no reference to the promises made at the national convention and in substitution therefor said that they would go by the commitments made to the Canadian people by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), then the party leader. It just happens that many matters having direct reference to fiscal policy were indeed referred to publicly and often by the Prime Minister. In his speech to the Montreal chamber of commerce shortly after his election as leader of the party he said that there would be tax changes if his party was elected to power to put Canadian companies on a basis of equality with foreign corporations or their subsidiaries operating in Canada. After three budgets what have we in the minister's financial proposals with respect to that matter?
Again, in his opening campaign speech in Toroto on April 25, 1957 the present Prime Minister said that there would be less discriminatory methods of taxing Canadian oil companies. This was the plank that the hon. member for Calgary South was instrumental

in selling to the 162-member convention resolutions committee. Again, as reported in the Vancouver Sun of March 10, 1958, the Prime Minister said that there would be drastic changes in the taxation treatment of all companies. He said that under the Income Tax Act further incentives would be provided for Canadians to invest in Canadian equity stocks. That was also in his opening campaign speech at Massey hall, Toronto, on April 25, 1957.
Then we come back to the project of the hon. member for Lambton West. Tax reductions to encourage Canadian research in every field, which was also referred to by the Prime Minister at Massey hall on the same date. At a Conservative rally at Campbell-ton, New Brunswick, on May 4, 1957 the Prime Minister promised tax inducements to persuade business firms to process raw materials in Canada.
As I say, these were promises made to the people of Canada outside the house and I think that most of us are disappointed to find little implementation of these well-known commitments made throughout the country in three budgets presented by the Minister of Finance.
I am not going to deal with this matter at any length. Not only in these monthly speeches of the Minister of Finance to chambers of commerce, empire clubs and others prior to presenting the budget but also in what he said to the House of Commons the other night, in which there was very little change from what he had been saying elsewhere, the minister closed his remarks by urging people, with that ring in his voice, to work and save. Of course, the poor unemployed would like to be able to work so that they could save. In past budget debates time after time the minister has used the Biblical reference about the mote and the beam and the eye. If the minister is trying to tell workers and people generally throughout the country that they should follow a policy of self-reliance and that there should be some forbearance and self-denial, I suggest that the minister simply look at the government telephone book of April, 1957 and the new directory and compare the number of staff for each of the ministers then with the number of personal, political staff now. I think the government is certainly not leading the way in forbearance, self-denial or, indeed, self-reliance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A 50 per cent increase.


William Moore Benidickson: In department after department we find no indication of ministers seeking assistance from the permanent professional staffs of the department but rather
The Budget-Mr. Benidickson the addition of publicists, associate private secretaries, executive assistants, and so on. As somebody has said, the number is almost double what it was in 1957.
So I say that if the administration really desires to follow a policy of economy the ministry would be better advised, if they are not practicing self-reliance, to look to the permanent civil service for advice and counsel and not to political advisers to the extent that a comparison of the two telephone books indicates has taken place, contrary to their professions about economy. I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud):
That all the words after the word "that" be deleted and the following be substituted therefor:
"this house regrets that the financial policies of the government will produce a fourth consecutive over-all deficit in a year of "so-called prosperity", while at the same time offering no solution to the problem of rising prices, rising trade deficits, a continued high premium on the Canadian dollar, increased pressure on provinces and municipalities to borrow outside Canada, declining farm income, and high and rising unemployment."


Mr. Speaker:: May I put the amendment with this reservation, that I am not certain that some of the details in the second part have not already been the subject of a decision of the house. Subject to inquiry into that matter, I will put the motion with that reservation.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to raise a point of order. I think that the Minister of Finance will recall that I referred to tabling two documents which I prepared myself and for which I take responsibility. One is a memorandum as to statutory authorizations and parliamentary votes for 1959-60 and the other is a memorandum as to the principal budgetary expenditures under statutory appropriations for 1959-60. The first table is a comparison of the estimates in the blue book, as I have indicated, with the white paper of the budget for 1960 showing expenditures for 1959-60. I wonder if these could be appended to Hansard.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member says he has prepared these tables and taken his information from government records I would urge on the house that it give permission to having the tables made part of the record of the hon. member's speech in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree that the tables just submitted by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) be made part of the record of his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The tables referred to are as follows:1

The Budget-Mr. Benidickson Memorandum as to Statutory Authorizations and
Parliamentary Votes-1959-60 (figures in millions of dollars)
l.Main estimates voted	 $3,517.7
Supplementary estimates	 54.1
Further supplementary	estimates	(1)	..	32.0Further supplementary	estimates	(2)	..	116.8
Total-Expenditures authorized by
parliament	 $3,720.6
Statutory items as per main estimates 2,078.1 Total	 $5,798.7
2.	Total expenditures as per budget papers $5,706.8 Deduct: estimated statutory
expenditures (1)		 2,274.8
Estimated expenditures under parliamentary authorizations	 $3,432.0
3.	Estimated statutory expenditures	 $2,274.8
Deduct:	statutory expenditures as set
forth in main estimates	 2,078.1
Over-expenditure	 $ 196.7
4.	Expenditures authorized by parliament $3,720.6 Deduct:	estimated expenditures under
parliamentary authorizations	 3,432.0
Estimated total lapsings	 $ 288.6
(1) See accompanying table prepared after a comparison of estimates blue book 1959-60 with white paper budget 1960 showing expenditures 1959-60.
Principal Budgetary Expenditures under Statutory Appropriations for 1959-60
(figures in millions of		dollars)	
	Blue	Increase or Budget Decrease	
Book	Papers	(-)Interest and other public debt charges 	680.1	786.1	106.0Family allowances	495.0	491.3	3.7 (-)Subsidies and tax sharing payments 	453.5	513.0	59.5Government contribution to superannuation accounts 	44.3	40.0	4.3<-)Unemployment insurance commission 	39.5	45.5	6.0Hospital insurance ....	160.0	149.8	10.2(-)Old age assistance, etc.	55.0	50.8	4.2 (-)Unemployment assistance	20.0	36.1	16.1Storage of grain 	37.9	42.3	4.4P. F. emergency fund ..	-	13.2	13.2Trans-Canada 	48.0	52.0	4.0Emergency gold mining	11.5	13.2	1.7Freight rate reduction act 	_	9.2	9.2Railway grade crossing	5.0	5.0	-Maintenance of trackage	7.0	7.0	-2056.8	2253.5	196.7Other statutory expenditures	21.3	21.3(1)	-TOTAL 	2078.1	2274.8(1) 196.7(1)	
(1) It is assumed that actual expenditures are the same as the estimates given in the blue book.


Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: 
as a result thereof, and they have used their taxation measures as one means by which to encourage industry to locate in regions of the country where it is desirable that more industrial development take place and yet: where, if the ordinary laws of economics were allowed to work, these industrial developments are not going to take place.
I had hoped that the minister would have undertaken some moves to plug the many loopholes existing in our income tax laws at the present time. I had hoped there would, be a review of the extremely generous depletion and depreciation allowances that exist. We all hoped there would be an increase. allowed in the exemptions for the average wage earner in Canada and that the exemption for single people would have been raised at least to $1,500 and for married people to at least $3,000, with a much greater allowance for dependants than exists at the present time.
I had hoped that the government would have given some consideration to the institution of a graduated corporation tax in Canada. I cannot see the logic of applying a graduated income tax to individuals in Canada and yet having a flat percentage rate of corporation income tax. I feel that a graduated corporation tax would serve many useful purposes. It would make it a little bit easier for the small businessman to survive as a small independent businessman. It would be a weapon that would help to discourage the development of monopolies and cartels. It would reduce foreign investments to more reasonable levels. It would encourage the sale of offerings of federal, provincial and municipal governments on the money markets.
We had hoped that the government would at long last have instituted a capital gains tax which would also bring in its wake many helpful solutions to the problems of the Canadian economy. We talked about the difficulties-the premium on the Canadian dollar and investment by people in the United States in Canadian industrial enterprise-and the institution of a capital gains tax would be another method whereby in an orderly and planned manner we could bring about desirable results to the benefit of the future welfare of Canadians.
The minister hardly mentioned the field of agriculture. I suppose in the opinion of the Conservatives agriculture is no longer very important; at least, their action henceforth have not shown that they pay much attention to the needs of agriculture. I would like to ask what has happened to the demand for parity prices, and what has happened to the demand for deficiency payments when goods

are exported? There is no planning in this budget to grant either parity prices on home consumed good's or deficiency payments on exported goods.
Neither is there anything contained in the budget which will bring any measure of hope to what the minister admits is an average figure of 350,000 unemployed persons. May I point out to the minister and the government, in seeking ways and means of adding to its revenues, that if we had 350,000 as an average level of unemployment we thereby lost over $1 billion worth of wealth which would have gone into the Canadian economy. The attitude of the government of the day toward the unemployed of Canada seems callous indeed.
This Conservative government has now introduced the means test in the application of the Unemployment Insurance Act, a most regrettable move. The Unemployment Insurance Act was passed on insurance principles, and the introduction of the means test and the denying to these people of the benefits of their severance and holiday pay is completely opposed to the original intent of the act.
The independent businessman of Canada will receive small comfort from the budget. Ever since the Conservatives took office we have only had one lousy, measly $30,000 vote in all the estimates specifically designed to help the small businessman. How they were going to help the small businessman of Canada before the government was elected. Interest rates are now so high that they are beyond the ability of Canadian enterprise to afford. They are also beyond the reach of those responsible for supplying us with our social needs. Our municipalities, hospital boards and school boards simply are not doing the necessary borrowing because they feel that our home owners, in turn, can no longer pay these high interest rates on such borrowings. Our businessmen, especially our independent businessmen, have ended their major borrowings for the very same reason. They can no longer operate when they have to pay these excessive rates.
The government is deliberately responsible for raising the interest rate, and when one looks back now to the speeches made both by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and by the Prime Minister at the time of the bond conversion deal, he will realize that practically every one of the predictions and forecasts as to the blessings of this deal has since been denied by the facts.
We were assured that this move had to be made in order to rid the market of an excessive supply of short term securities. Yet after the bond conversion deal was completed the government itself simply flooded
The Budget-Mr. Regier the market with its short term securities, and the provinces and municipalities were not helped to market their own securities. There were many other forecasts and predictions made as to the wonderful blessings of this move, and I cannot think of a single prediction made by the minister at that time which he would now be willing to repeat in this house.
The government is responsible for making tight money tighter still. Tight money became tighter because of the desperate moves of the minister in the money market, and the banks of Canada had to bail out the government in order to make the bond conversion deal a success. The weekly statistics released by the Bank of Canada show that the minister's bond conversion deal would have been a flop if the banks had not come to his aid on an emergency basis. Of course, that made tight money tighter still, and the ordinary man just was not able to borrow.
Then the bottom fell out of the bond market, and in the words of one of the heads of the Canadian banks, the banks had to put a sounder foundation under the bond market and around about August of last year again had to come to the aid of the government and increase their holdings of bonds. Because of the interest rates being pushed up, large corporations left the market and went to the chartered banks in order to meet their capital needs. As a result, the small man in Canada has certainly had to take a beating.
The budget indicates no action will be taken to reduce the premium on the Canadian dollar which harms Canadian exporters so much and also works such a hardship on Canadian manufacturers. No action is indicated to increase our exports so that they may be more even with our imports. There is no action taken on behalf of the veterans of Canada so that their relative purchasing power in relation to the average wage earner of Canada can be restored to what it was shortly after the first world war. There is nothing in the budget to give any hope to those of us who look forward to more federal aid for education. Our municipalities certainly have nothing at all to their benefit from this budget.
We see nothing in it which will enhance economic aid or reduce defence spending. We see nothing in the budget which will encourage greater Canadian ownership of Canadian resources. There is nothing in the budget to deal with the serious transportation mess we are getting ourselves into and which will take hundreds of millions of dollars of public money to get us out of so as adequately to serve the needs of the nation. There is nothing in the budget to indicate

The Budget-Mr. Regier any awareness of the serious economic difficulties in the Atlantic areas of Canada. There is nothing in the budget for the masses of the Canadian people.
Our many problems were realized by the Conservative party and the Canadian people at the time of the last election. After three years what do we get? We get a speech from the throne that ignores these matters, and we get a budget which again refuses to recognize our difficulties. The budget contained a little bit for some civil servants. It was a balanced budget and a glowing report. Resolving our problems will take a lot of money. However, the wrong steps have already been taken by this government-inflation and getting more deeply into debt. The Tories have done both these things. The new budget of the Tories is a negative one. The only efforts they have undertaken have resulted in higher taxes, higher tariffs and higher interest rates.
The budget should be balanced by raising the productivity of the Canadian economic scene. We need vastly expanded production and all our people at work. We need more intensified production. Our whole economy is becoming more and more vulnerable to what happens in the United States of America. The glowing reports, when analysed, reveal that our prosperity is very narrowly based indeed and that an ever smaller number of Canadians are being allowed to share in the growing production and prosperity that we are said to have.
Moneylenders and foreign investors are having a field day in Canada. The government is applying the brakes to the development of the Canadian economy, and it is applying the brakes to a rising standard of living for most Canadian people. I appeal to the government to recognize that in this day and age its first responsibility is to the broad mass of the Canadian people. The people expect that their difficulties will be recognized and that action will replace pious appeals, and because we feel that the government, in the budget, is not recognizing its responsibilities to the Canadian people, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West:
That the amendment be amended by striking out the period after the word "unemployment" and adding thereto the following words:
"and in the opinion of this house the solution of these problems requires amongst other things that the government give consideration to the following measures:
1.	The planned elimination of wasteful defence expenditures
2.	The provision of a self-liquidating public investment program
3.	The provision of an appropriate capital gains tax."


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, in what terms might I most appropriately describe the sallies and the sneers which have been launched against the budget this afternoon by opposition spokesmen? Having heard them, I thought that perhaps I should follow the example of the late Humphrey Mitchell, and speak in a kindly way. Is not what we have witnessed this afternoon a parade of the picayune, the piecemeal, the puerile and the perverse?
Have there been any objective, discriminating critiques of the budget, of fiscal or tax policy, or have we heard political harangues and abusive declamations? Have we heard constructive criticism, or churlish captiousness? The house and the country have a right to expect from the opposition's financial critics constructive, realistic, forthright and substantial criticisms. What they have received was a peddling of gloom, of pessimism, of despondency, of dejection. These qualities, however they may be a reflection of the political futures of the parties to which hon. gentlemen opposite belong, do not capture the mood of the Canadian people today and do not represent the reality of Canada's future, of her unprecedented and unparalleled development.
In what he had to say this afternoon about existing fiscal and taxation policies, did the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) propose any alternatives whatever? Did he give the house and the country any concept of the policies he would pursue in the unlikely and unhappy event of his becoming minister of finance? Carefully I listened to him, hoping for some clue. None did I gain, and none was there. With respect, may I say that his speech was in my opinion the most negative I have ever heard from a financial critic.
I am not one who believes that an opposition is under a duty to parade detailed policies on every issue. But I do affirm it has an obligation to assert its principles, to demonstrate on important fiscal matters where its principles and theories differ from those of the government. A hodge-podge of strictures is no alternative to statements of principle.
Presumably, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and others of the front bench of the group opposite-I adopt the word "group" to which they have been demoted by the hon. gentleman who represents Essex East (Mr. Martin)-will be speaking in this debate. Specifically and directly I invite them to state their fiscal principles, their economic tenets. Let them tell us what in this year 1960 would be their tax policy. Do

they believe in a balanced budget at this phase of our economy? What would they do about our deficit on international payments, except to talk about it? Would they stop the inflow of capital abruptly or gradually, completely or partially? Would they join their great expert Walter Gordon, who may become the minister of finance instead of the hon. gentleman from Kenora-Rainy River, and devalue the dollar, whatever that expression means? If it means something which technically it does not-merely reducing the value-how is that to be accomplished? Would foreign exchange control be reinstated? Would hon. gentlemen opposite peg a fixed rate of exchange and, if so, by what technique? Or would they go into the market and engage in a gigantic financial speculation in the purchase of foreign currencies? Have they, in fact, any cure which is not worse than the disease?
These are fair questions which I put to hon. members in the Liberal group. If we are to have an eight-day debate let it be a debate. Let us know where each party stands; let us get to grips with reality; let us thresh out the issues and the principles which are before us.
This amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River gives us no clues concerning Liberal policies. All it does is condemn; it does not assert. It is a warmed over version of the various amendments already proposed by the Liberal party to the address and on supply motions. I say to the hon. gentleman that the repetition of inaccurate assumptions-and that is all this amendment achieves-does not make them any more accurate or more palatable. I think I should add at once that the sophistical and unrealistic subamendment assuredly does not improve the amendment. In fact, I was thinking as I read through the text that both the amendment and the subamendment had obviously been drafted by experts, and I use the term "expert" in the sense in which Nicholas Murray Butler defined it, as one who knows more and more about less and less.
I do not propose at this time to spend any time replying to the speech of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). That speech reminded me simply of one which Disraeli characterized as "the harebrained chatter of irresponsible frivolity". The hon. gentleman succeeded only in demonstrating one thing, the validity of the epigram of Viscount Hailsham: "The Left can never be Right". If the hon. gentleman is the spokesman of the so-called new and unnamed party of the left, its future might well be that described by a United States
The Budget-Mr. R.A. Bell congressman who, speaking of another party, said it was "like a mule, without pride of ancestry or hope of posterity".


Hazen Robert Argue: How old is that one? Why not say what you think instead of quoting the views of other people?


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: The hon. member will hear plenty-


Hazen Robert Argue: Not from you.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I say to the hon.
member that nothing becomes him so much as silence, and I hope he will observe it for a little while.
Let me deal with some of the matters which have been raised by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. In his anxiety to score debating points he fell into many grave errors this afternoon. Last Thursday night, and indeed again this afternoon he alleged that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) had forecast for the last fiscal year an increase in the gross national product of 7 per cent, and in an imaginary horror he exclaimed that it was only 6 per cent. Let us test the validity of all his strictures by this one. What he forgot to tell the house was that the dominion bureau of statistics, after the last budget, revised upward the 1958 preliminary figure of gross national product, thereby involving a shift in the percentage by which 1959 could exceed it. What the Minister of Finance said in his budget speech of April 9, 1959-and I quote from Hansard at page 2409-was this:
I shall be basing my budgetary policy and my revenue forecasts on a gross national product of about $34) billion which is about 7 per cent above the average level achieved in 1958.
In other words the forecast was a dollar amount of $34J billion. What is the actual figure for 1959? It is $34,593 million, or $93 million more than the forecast figure. I ask this. Has the house ever seen closer estimating in respect of figures so astronomical? The margin of error is fantastically small.
Why, then, this talk of 6 per cent as opposed to 7 per cent? When the Minister of Finance brought down his budget on April 9, 1959 the preliminary estimate of the 1958 gross national product was $32,184 million. On this figure the forecast 1959 gross national product of $34J billion represented an increase of approximately 7 per cent. Later in 1959, the dominion bureau of statistics, on the basis of later information, adjusted the 1958 figure upwards from $32,184 million to $32,606 million, on which of course the percentage relationship was slightly less.
What my hon. friend failed to do was to compare the comparable. If you compare the
2880	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. R.A. Bell preliminary 1958 figure of $32,184 million with the preliminary 1959 figure of $34,593 million you will find a 7.48 per cent increase.
This increase compares with the post-war average increase of about 4 per cent. In other words, our rate of growth in 1959 was almost double the average of other years since 1945, and this despite the fact that our rate of expansion was subject to a temporary but very significant pause in the third quarter of 1959, due to the effects of some major labour disputes. These are the real facts. But, in one of his scattered jibes on this subject, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River claimed that the Minister of Finance was 50 per cent wrong and he repeated that this afternoon.


William Moore Benidickson: In volume.


Richard Albert Bell: My hon. friend was not 50 per cent wrong. He was 100 per cent wrong in this as in so many other subjects that he discussed.
For his forecast of the gross national product, his forecast of the budget deficit and other estimates, when compared with the actual, the Minister of Finance certainly need offer no apology. On the contrary, I believe he can proudly assert the smallest margins of error that there have been in history. Let hon. gentlemen opposite produce examples of any budget of recent Liberal ministers of finance where the forecast was so closely vindicated by actual performance, where the margin of error was less. All of us remember when time after time that very distinguished minister of finance, now Mr. Justice Abbott, would be $300 million and $400 million out in his forecast of budgetary balances. That was budgeting in those days by accident.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River attempted to find something sinister in the technique of dealing with the old age security fund. The Minister of Finance has loaned that fund $24 million, which amount will be repaid out of an anticipated $30 million surplus this year. Oh, said my hon. and genial friend from Kenora-Rainy River, if you had not done this your deficit would be $24 million greater. He cannot have it both ways although he tried to do just that very often this afternoon; he tried to have things both ways many times. Suppose he was right in the assertion which he makes; then, the inevitable concomitant would be that next year's surplus would be $30 million larger than that which has been forecast.
On many occasions this afternoon my hon. friend seemed to take great pleasure in playing with bookkeeping items. With great respect I would suggest to him that this hairsplitting brand of dialectics profits us not at all, and that he really should leave these


tactics to his colleague on the front bench who is an expert therein, namely the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith).
We heard some things this afternoon about unemployment. Not for a moment do I discount the individual problems which are involved. I could not do so, since it perhaps falls to my unfortunate lot to interview more persons seeking employment than perhaps any other hon. member of this house. But in their preachments of gloom, in their wal-lowings in pessimism these Jeremiahs opposite fail to tell us the whole story. It can be found in the white paper. There are more persons employed at better wages than at any time in our history. Total employment rose by 156,000 persons between 1958 and 1959. Labour income reached a record level of $17.7 billion, almost 8 per cent above 1958.. Since consumer prices roses only about 1 per cent, there was a substantial gain in real income.
A few weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition made a very realistic and I thought a surprisingly objective appraisal of some of the causes of unemployment and I think his example might be followed by some of his colleagues on the front bench opposite, particularly the hon. member for Essex East.
In all his declamatory rhetoric this afternoon, in his jibes the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River totally ignored the very substantial fiscal accomplishments of this government, the very genuine advances in fiscal and tax policy. I want to take a few moments to discuss ten of those highlights, adding the caution that this review and listing are not, of course, intended to be exhaustive or exclusive.
First, and at the top of my list, I put the successful financing of the greatest increases in social justice payments ever made in any period. What are the facts? Direct payments to individual Canadians by the federal government for social justice account have increased more than 50 per cent over the last year of Liberal government and that tremendous dollar increase has had to be financed from revenue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is all nonsense.


Richard Albert Bell: My hon. friend could find out if this is so by examining the record.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will you allow me to deal with that now?


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that is so. If he would only allow his statistical genius to have full sway he would discover the exact figures.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend permit me to point out that whatever benefits there are-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They do not like the truth.


Thomas Miller Bell: My time is limited. My hon. friend's skill in building up men of straw is exceeded only by his volubility and ability to create diversionary tactics. I do not intend to be diverted in this way.
In the last year of Liberal administration old age security payments were $379 million; last year they were $574 million, an increase of about 52 per cent, and this is the story generally across the board.
Second, the fiscal policy of the government provided the incentive for recovery from the recession. In June of 1957 Canada was tottering on the verge of a depression. Had we not reversed some of the policies of our predecessors, recession would have become all-out depression. The reductions in taxes in 1957 and 1958, together with the introduction of many hundreds of million of dollars into housing, transportation and resources development, were designed to augment investment, to stimulate recovery and to provide employment. These policies succeeded.
Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to have forgotten that housing in Canada was coming to a virtual standstill when this government took office. It was the tremendous stimulus given the industry under the imaginative direction of the then minister of public works, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), that saved the day. The flexible and adjustable fiscal policies adopted by this government enabled the country to emerge from recession into recovery and renewed growth, and in the last fiscal period to experience an expansion of major magnitude as well as soundness.
Third, and in due course, has been the achievement of a balanced budget in the forthcoming fiscal year. For sound reasons the Minister of Finance deliberately budgeted for a substantial deficit in 1958 and for a reduced deficit in 1959. Two years ago we were meeting the problems, as I have said, of a recession and were seeking to use fiscal measures to offset the decline in business activity and to stimulate recovery. In 1960 our position is different. Deliberately, in this period of expansion, the government has brought the budget into a surplus position, a position where the federal government ceases to be a net borrower, thus leaving the capital market free to the extent of some $700 million to the provinces and the municipalities and to business and industry. Let
The Budget-Mr. R.A. Bell no one think that this has been easily attained. Without the determination, the persistence and the tenacity of the Minister of Finance it could not have been accomplished. This balanced 1960 budget is a personal tribute to the hon. member for Eglinton.
The fourth major accomplishment of the government has been the achievement of relative price stability. No one can ever assert in a dynamic society the conquest of inflation. But we have accomplished an avoidance of disturbing fluctuations upwards or downwards in the general level of prices. In the last fiscal year of Liberal government the consumer price index rose 4.1 per cent. The first broken year of Liberal and Conservative government shows an increase of slightly less. Since that time, in two years the price index has risen 2.9 per cent or an average increase of less than 1.5 per cent a year. I say that ceaseless, unremitting vigilance to control inflationary pressures is essential to our progress, as the Minister of Finance so eloquently mentioned in his budget speech the other night.
Then I come to the fifth matter, the effective management of our public debt. On this matter an uncommon lot of nonsense has been talked, none more so than about the conversion loan, and we heard some of it this afternoon. This was the greatest financial operation in Canada's economic history. It was a major anti-inflationary step, it removed a heavy pressure on the bond market and it nearly doubled the average length of our debt.
Suppose there had been no conversion loan. What would have been the pressures upon the capital market with this heavy debt maturing? If such pressures had been added to the pressures which actually did develop in 1959, the result might well have been chaos. History, I believe, will prove that the conversion loan of 1958 has been one of the most farsighted acts of financial statesmanship ever undertaken.
Last Thursday evening and again this afternoon the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River engaged in some agile dialectics about the net debt. How it has risen, he exclaims. But he really did not tell the whole story in connection with it. It is true, of course, that our total net debt has risen but so has our ability to pay. The fact is that our per capita debt today is $681 as opposed to $849 in 1950 or $701 in 1956, the last full year of Liberal administration. Was the hon. gentleman heard in protest in those earlier years about the size of our per capita debt?

The Budget-Mr. R.A. Bell
Equally, what is not clear from what he said this afternoon is that our net debt as a percentage of the gross national product has declined. Back in 1950, in the heyday of Doug. Abbott, our net debt was 71 per cent of our gross national product. When the Liberals went out of power it was 36 per cent. Today it is 34.9 per cent, a lower figure than in any previous year except 1958. The best evidence of effective debt management is, first, that public holdings of dominion of Canada bonds are at the highest level in the last 10 years and, second, that public subscriptions for the last Canada savings bonds were the highest ever. The public of Canada, with their dollars, have voted for the debt management policy of the government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the high interest rates.


Richard Albert Bell: My sixth point is the question of dominion-provincial relations. There have been many things said by way of criticism but overlooked were the most significant and revealing facts. The first is that in the last full year of Liberal government total payments of all kinds to the provinces were $689.4 million. In this fiscal year they will be $1,300.9 million. That is an increase of $611.5 million or about 88 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Richard Albert Bell: My time is very limited, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then the hon. gentleman will not.


Richard Albert Bell: Actually unconditional payments have increased by 57 per cent and conditional payments by about 250 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Most of it Liberal legislation.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was the question I was going to ask the hon. gentleman. Tell the truth.


Richard Albert Bell: When the hon. gentleman interrupts like that it reminds me of what Bacon once said, that universities incline wits to sophistry and affectation, and if there ever could be proof of that it is found in the hon. gentleman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is in the hon. member's speech.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, the
Atlantic adjustment grants have been a major contribution of the government. The settlement of the university grants issue with the province of Quebec on a mutually satisfactory


basis is a magnificent contribution to national unity. It is one for which credit must go to our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), to the Minister of Finance, to the late premier and the present premier of the province of Quebec. What an act of constructive statesmanship. Let us give credit where it is due. And have hon. gentlemen opposite forgotten the 50 per cent increase in the amount of the grants? Let them give credit for that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who started them?


Richard Albert Bell: The seventh major contribution of the government is its effective tariff policy. Attempts of a rather childish nature are made to claim that this government is a high protectionist government and has departed from the principles of multilateral trading. Since the government came to power there has been a firm adherence to the principles of the GATT. Indeed, what we have tried to do is to give leadership in GATT, not just pay lip service to it as our predecessors did. We have tried, with success, to use GATT as an instrument in the removal of restrictive trade practices, and this we must continue.
Let those who criticize our tariff policy assess the success of the negotiations regarding fruits and vegetables and textiles. Let our Liberal friends tell us during this debate if they would have ignored the tariff board report on fruits and vegetables. If not, will they not admit our genuine success in concluding these delicate negotiations with the United States? No constituency will profit more by that than the constituency of the hon. member for Essex East.
Before this debate is finished we shall probably hear much on textiles. That the Liberal party will seek to face both ways, I have no doubt. But this house knows and the country knows that the Liberal party wholly ignored the plight of the textile industry. It sold the industry down the river and it has not relented-


Lionel Chevrier: What are you doing now?


Richard Albert Bell: -in its callous disregard of a great national industry, one of the largest employers of labour. When the Leader of the Opposition speaks in this debate let him tell us whether he would have accepted or rejected the tariff board reports on textiles. That is a specific and direct question that I put to him, and it should have a direct answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When do you want the answer?


Thomas Miller Bell: When the hon. gentleman speaks. He will have plenty of time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend
does not want an answer.


Thomas Miller Bell: I had not discovered that the hon. gentleman had taken over the role of the Leader of the Opposition. I know he has been most un-co-operative with the Leader of the Opposition and has been trying to take it over but I had not realized that he had succeeded.


William Moore Benidickson: That is not true.


Thomas Miller Bell: The amendments to the Customs Act which were so bitterly fought by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate (Mr. Pickersgill) and others have been a significant contribution to orderly trade. When he speaks perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would tell us directly whether the Liberal party would repeal them, amend them or retain them.
Coupled with this is my eighth point, namely effective leadership in commonwealth trade policy.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, my time is limited and I do not feel that I can accept questions.


Lionel Chevrier: Before the hon. gentleman leaves his point about textiles would he permit me to ask a question?


Thomas Miller Bell: Normally I am most happy to answer questions, but my time is exceedingly limited and I am endeavouring to cover a very broad field.
In this area there is a significant difference between hon. gentlemen opposite and this government. Hon. gentlemen opposite do not really believe in commonwealth trade though they give lip service to it. We do believe in it and we do not apologize for this belief. As a direct result of the commonwealth trade conference, sterling and other European currencies have become convertible, a major advance, and the great majority of discriminatory restrictions against dollar imports have been eliminated.
What are the other results? Our contribution to the Colombo plan in southeast Asia was raised 50 per cent. For the first time we sponsored aid programs for the British West Indies and for Africa. This technical and other assistance was and is an act of enlightened leadership. I will admit that these are not the last word in aid to underdeveloped countries. Indeed we are probably but on the threshold. So long as people anywhere in the world are hungry this wealthy nation cannot be complacent. Well
The Budget-Mr. R.A. Bell may it be that in this field will lie our greatest contribution to peace and the democratic way of life.
From the conference, as well, flowed the establishment of the commonwealth scholarship plan, a plan which in my view may prove ultimately to be a major beacon light of the 1950's.
I come to my ninth point, the major tax revisions. The replacement of the old dominion succession duty by the new Estate Tax Act was a major advance in tax legislation. But there have been other detailed and significant revisions of our tax structure. Take for example the new provision for a tax free gift of $10,000 between spouses respecting a jointly owned home, or in the case of a farm, between parent and child; the reduced sales tax on a wide range of municipal purchases; the inclusion of drugs, eyeglasses and many other categories in medical exemptions, as well as the raising of the exemption limits in this budget; the reduction in automobile excise tax; the very many tax reforms introduced, including in this budget two very significant proposals, first the relief from the impact of double taxation on pension benefits and, secondly, a new technique of tax deferment on profit sharing plans. Let it not be forgotten that for the lower and middle income groups income tax rates are lower than when this government was elected. The tax position of small corporations has also been greatly improved.
As my tenth point I wish to say a word about civil service matters. Controversy has obscured some of the major facts. Let me set the record straight. It was this government which put into effect the last civil service increase and which had to raise the funds for it. It was this government which proved itself the true friend of all civil servants by managing a change of government with the least upset of any change in Canadian history. There were literally no dismissals. Contrast that with the parade of firings which occurred when the Liberals came into power in 1935. What a scandalous and unconscionable display of political patronage occurred at that time including what Pierre Casgrain did in this very House of Commons, which was the worst of all.
It was this government which in its first year of office provided increases for superannuated civil servants, something which the former government for 10 years refused to do. It is this government which last session fully revised and improved the Defence Service Pension Act, the R.C.M.P. pension provisions and which at this session of parliament proposes a revision of the Public Service Superannuation Act. It is this government

The Budget-Mr. R.A. Bell which after Easter will introduce a complete revision and modernization of the Civil Service Act itself, to bring it up to date and to improve and assure for all time the true practice of the merit system.
It is this government which established the pay research bureau which the previous government had declined to do. It was established so that the pay data could be assembled on a scientific basis. This is the atmosphere in which the government at the first feasible opportunity had decided upon a class to class system of pay increases with increases for 50,000 civil servants effective at once and the balance before the end of summer. Oh, yes, I have neglected to mention the medical-surgical plan, one of the major advances in civil service matters.
Representing as I do more civil servants than perhaps any other hon. member of this house I am not unaware of the disappointment which existed at the decision not to approve a general pay increase last autumn. But I am satisfied that a class by class approach will enure in the very near future much more to the benefit of the average civil servant than a horizontal increase. We have seen how horizontal increases in freight rates have merely accentuated the existing discriminations. Continuous horizontal increases in salary perpetuate and intensify discriminations as between classes and help the high ranking civil servants to the detriment of the lower paid. That is why I believe this continuous class by class approach will prove much more effective and much more beneficial to those I represent than would a single horizontal increase. Under this approach, with the pay research bureau in action, review of salaries will be more regular, less discriminatory and more in the interests of the average civil servant. To my civil service friends in Carleton who have maintained a responsible and dignified attitude throughout this salary controversy I say-"give this new approach a real trial these next few months. I do not believe you will be disappointed."
I have taken the time to mention but 10 of the major accomplishments of a fiscal nature of this government but there are many others. If time permitted me to do so I would go on to enumerate them. I say, however, that this is a proud record of fiscal accomplishment. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) may justifiably take genuine satisfaction in the economic leadership they have given this country. The promotion of confidence in Canada's economic future, the encouragement and continuation of our unprecedented economic expansion, a continued

assault upon inflation, the maintenance of a sound dollar, the relief of the capital market thereby easing credit; these have been major objectives of this budget. These objectives have been achieved in the budget for 1960, I believe. In my opinion, in their accomplishment the Minister of Finance has earned the gratitude of the house and the country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. gentleman resumes his seat would he permit me a question.


Richard Albert Bell: I already have, but if I can improve the hon. gentleman's knowledge I will endeavour to answer his question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the hon. member if he is aware that in his speech he made the same misleading statement about payments to the provinces that the Prime Minister made on television and that has been corrected more than once in this house?


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, that statement which I made is entirely accurate. It was accurate when previously made and it is accurate now and can be proved by an examination of the white paper.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the amendment introduced earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Beni-dickson) I wish to say at the outset that I will deal with the main points referred to in the amendment together with the position of the government in relation to the civil servants of this country. I will leave to others the task of replying to the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) who just made another of those "What would you do?" speeches which we hear so frequently from hon. members opposite. It is a clear indication that the government still seeks advice from the opposition.
The hon. gentleman reminded me of an auctioneer in the approach he adopted. He could easily have said, "$12 million once, $12 million twice, $12 million three times, gone". That is just about what will happen to the meagre surplus which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) introduced in his budget, a surplus of which the hon. member for Carleton and other hon. members opposite are so proud, one which may be attained at the expense of the civil servants of this country including those residing in the constituency of the hon. member for Carleton. It was on March 27, 1956 that an hon. member of this house is reported, as can be found at page 2647 of Hansard of that day, to have said as follows:
Well, sir, it is in no personal sense that I must say to the Minister of Finance, in referring to the

budget effort on this occasion, that it was unquestionably the worst failure in Canadian history within living memory. In kitchen terms this budget is as dull as dishwater, and it fell as flat as a pancake.
Further on he said this:
Indeed, sir, if this represents the government's idea of a budget it might just as well have been dispensed with entirely.
Those were the words of the hon. member for Eglinton when sitting on the opposition side of the house. I could not resist repeating those same words today because at no time in Canadian history has a budget been introduced which did so little, offered so little and meant so little to the people of this country. It was indeed a "doing nothing" or a "doing just the same as last year" budget.
This is a case in which someone should have called out "dispense" because by avoiding the reading of this budget the Minister of Finance would have been saved from exposing once again the lack of leadership, the lack of policy and, indeed, the evidence of contradiction which has been so outstanding a feature with the government since it took office in June of 1957.
I know that for over one and a half hours on Thursday evening last the government members, the colleagues of the minister, 44 times burst into desk-thumping applause, notwithstanding the stand-pat aspect of the presentation. It would have been advisable for those hon. members to have reserved their enthusiasm, at least when the minister announced the meagre $15 million increase for one-third of the civil service force of this country.
In his hold the line policy announcement when he flatly refused to grant any general salary increase early last fall the Minister of Finance, in an inept and arrogant way, stated that such an increase would seriously upset the budget. In other words, the civil servants of this country were nothing else but the victims of the unrestrained extravagances of the present government. How could they upset a budget which was already badly disrupted? Now, six months later, the same minister comes back with what is being called too little and too late. The applause from government members-which provoked an ear to ear grin on the normally solemn face of the Minister of Finance-could well have been avoided when the minister referred to the degrees of disparity between civil service salary rates and those of private employers and ended up by selecting one third only of the civil service force for nonretroactive increases in salary.
What about the remaining two thirds of the civil service force? What about the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted
The Budget-Mr. Robichaud Police? In his budget speech the minister took great care to say that a review of all other classes in the public service will be carried out by the civil service commission forthwith and that it is expected to be completed before the end of the summer. What he did not say is that he already has in hand a complete report, an exhaustive study, prepared by the civil service commission and presented to him early in 1959. Not only did he refuse to act on the recommendations of the commission but he even refused to make this report public as requested by opposition members in this house.
In a post-budget press interview, the minister allowed himself to be understood to mean that there was a clear obligation in the budget speech to cover the salary levels of the rest of the civil service by the end of the summer. What is the Minister of Finance waiting for? As I have just said, he has on hand a recent civil service commission report on salaries and he is now attempting to cover up once more by delaying tactics which are uncalled for and unacceptable as the procedure is considered to be far too slow to keep up with changing conditions since the last increase was granted in 1957.
I want to make it clear that once again the civil servants are being victimized by the delaying tactics of the Minister of Finance and that the two thirds of the force not included in the present increase are being used to cover up so that it might be possible for the minister to be in a position to announce a balanced budget.
What a contradiction we find there. The minister could just as well have said: taking into consideration the degrees of disparity between civil service salary rates and those of private employers, the treasury board has now approved recommendations from the civil service commission involving the employees of the public service. In saying this, however, the minister would have had to say further: this will involve an increase in expenditure of about $45 million or maybe $50 million during the present fiscal year. But no, the minister could not do this, because he would have missed his meagre surplus of $12 million. He would have missed the desk-thumping applause of his supporters in the house. He would have ended up with a deficit of $25 million or $30 million.
How inconsistent can the minister be when within minutes of the presentation of his budget in a post-budget press conference he makes it rather clear that there was almost no possibility of stopping before the full civil service force was considered by the treasury board on a class by class basis. If this is so, why does the minister refuse to

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud admit now that the 1960-61 fiscal year, as we all well know, will show the fourth consecutive deficit of the present Conservative administration?
In dealing with the civil service increase the minister has been very open to say that there was no leak. In a post-budget press conference he is reported in the Ottawa Journal of April 1 as follows:
"I'll say quite flatly there was no leak" in the federal budget. Finance Minister Fleming told reporters at a post-budget conference last night.
I have here in front of me the Ottawa Journal for March 3. Under the heading "Fleming Replies to C.S." we find the following:
Civil service leaders were pondering the phrase "subject under continuing study"; was it just polite and non-committal acknowledgement of their renewed salaries plea or was it an indication that the government was actually considering a salary adjustment?
Later on the article states:
Replying today, Mr. Fleming wrote that the case the committee had made in its new submission was "largely a reiteration of previous arguments".
And further:
As to any commitments out of a budget priority for salaries, Mr. Fleming reminded the committee that comment on this subject "at this time"-
"At this time" were the minister's own words.
-with the budget under preparation-would be "improper".
Then he concluded his letter with the assurance the salaries question was "a subject under continuing study".
A few weeks later, on March 25, this same newspaper, namely the Ottawa Journal, in an article under the heading "New C.S. Pay Approach to Fleming", reported as follows:
In its announcement of plans for the new approach to the finance minister, the committee dropped a few hints of the points it would try to make with Mr. Fleming.
They included:
1. The finance minister's own "quite emphatic" statement on the last committee interview in October that his hold the line policy on government salaries "was intended for the 1959-60 fiscal year only;-
If this is not enough to let anyone believe that an increase was coming in the present budget, I do not know how it could be otherwise interpreted. It may be well and good for the minister to huddle together a series of wild guesses and figures which, for the time being at least, may temper down the disappointments and frustrations of his fellow members.
Let us look at the facts. Does the present budget come to grips with the economic problems facing the country today? This is a government which is well known for its promises. It has been a government


which has committed itself to defeating the problem of unemployment. "We are defeating the problem", said the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) at Prince Albert on February 14, 1958. At Cornwall ten days later on February 24, the Prime Minister said, "We have acted; we are meeting unemployment. We have given our young Canadians hope. We have given them the vision".
Our young Canadians, as I said before in this house, cannot live on hope and vision alone; they want work and employment. Our unemployed as they stand today deserve better consideration from the government than they are receiving from the present budget.
What were the words of the Minister of Finance in the presentation of his budget when he referred to unemployment? As reported on page 2670 of Hansard, he said:
I am confident, however, that employment will rise as the coming of spring opens up new job opportunities and as the economy continues its upward trend.
Here again is the minister hoping to be saved once more by luck, if ever luck comes his way.
Can we imagine the argument used by the minister when he said that as a result of an unusual increase in the number of persons estimated to be in the labour force, the estimate of the number without jobs and seeking work was 18,000 higher than a year ago? What would this increase in unemployment be today if the immigration influx into this country would have followed its normal course? The coming of spring, not government policy, will open new job opportunities, says the minister. This, at last, is a frank admission by the Minister of Finance himself of the lack of policy, lack of leadership, lack of planning by the present government. As our leader stated the other day in a "Nation's Business" broadcast, this government hopes that unemployment will go with the snow. It had better start moving fast, because the snow is pretty well gone, especially in the vicinity of Ottawa, but the number of unemployed is still rising. In fact, there were 814,241 live claims for unemployment insurance benefits as of February 29, and 827,512 unplaced applicants as of March 10 of this year. And while the economy continues its upward trend, according to the minister, the number of unemployed is increasing day by day and the government is hoping for spring to rush its course and come to its rescue. More sun, more rain, more mild weather, less snow, more jobs, hopes the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance has refused to recognize the urgent need to give direction to

the economy of this country. His attitude is typical of the present government's complacency; it is based on hope, on the hope that everything will come out right in the end. The gross national product, says the minister, will again increase by 6 per cent and on this assumption he believes that the unemployment problem will adjust itself accordingly. He seems to forget, however, that notwithstanding a 6 per cent increase in 1959 the number of unemployed at mid-February of this year had reached 8.9 per cent of the labour force against 8.8 per cent at the same date last year. It has adjusted itself, but in reverse. The snow is going down but unemployment is still going up.
This government refuses to meet the challenge of unemployment and chooses to stand pat on the tired assumption that everything will come right some day. It is a government without leadership, without definite policy. It is a government which in less than three years of office has already lost the overwhelming confidence with which it had been entrusted by the electors of this country. Here again let us listen to the minister. As reported on page 2670 of Hansard, he said:
The past year was notable for a welcome absence of speculative excesses in production, demand and inventories. I stress this because often in the past such excesses have provided a major cause of recession.
In other words, is the minister taking satisfaction in the fact that the 1958 and 1959 crop years were so much below the previous recent years that excesses or surpluses of inventories in wheat and other grains have been cut down? Is he taking satisfaction from the fact that the 1959 net income of farm operators is estimated at 7 per cent below the previous year's level? Is he welcoming the fact that as at December 31, 1959 storage holdings of fish products were over 63 million pounds as compared with holdings of 56 million pounds on December 31, 1958 and 52 million pounds on December 31, 1957? I sincerely hope that the minister is not welcoming the excess in the inventory of unemployed, which under the present administration has reached records unequalled in this country since the hungry thirties.
At the present rate of unemployment the Minister of Finance will soon be called upon to supply additional funds to the Department of Labour to secure or replenish the unemployment insurance fund, which since this government took office has been depleted by over $504 million. At the present rate of decline the entire fund will be practically exhausted, wiped out, by March 31, 1962.
The sum of $383 million standing to the credit of the unemployment insurance fund as at March 31 is a figure to be concerned
The Budget-Mr. Robichaud about. We are asking now, what does the government expect to do about this? Does it expect to save the situation by this discriminating position it has adopted toward the family employment or toward its unjust and unwarranted treatment in its determination of the insurability of relatives? Does it expect to save this fund by attempting to destroy this family relationship and family unity which is traditional among our French Canadian and French Acadian large families? Some of the recent decisions of the unemployment insurance commission in this regard are nothing else but unfortunate attempts to undermine this family unity and good understanding.
Very little was said in the present budget having to do with the records of the present administration. The records I have in mind are not the kind of records which one should be too proud of and which could draw the applause of hon. members opposite. A record debt increase of over $1 billion in two years is nothing to boast about on the part of a government who has committed itself to cut all unnecessary expenses and extravagances.
A record balance of payment trade deficit of $1,460 million in one year is other evidence of the failure to keep up with the Prime Minister's statement made at Brantford on February 17, 1958 when he said that the Conservative government's success in its trade promotion cannot be challenged. The 1959 record of the government shows success in reverse.
What about this other record where the government refuses to take any responsibility? Where is the mention in this budget about this crippling tight money and high interest rates? It is true that the minister has stated, as reported on page 2670, that in the financial sector 1959 was marked by some disturbances which, he says, subsided by the end of the year. What about interest rates on mortgage loans, which again have reached an all time high and have been crippling home construction in the last few months? It is true that the rate of interest of the Bank of Canada has declined somewhat. Does the government intend to take credit for that? If it does, are hon. gentlemen opposite going to take credit for the interest charged to municipalities or for interest rates charged on mortgages? When things are good, the government is responsible, but when things are going wrong, the government has nothing to do with it.
I would ask the minister: what is there for municipalities in this budget? The minister has ignored the plight of the municipalities in this country. I ask him, how can

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud he justify the statement he made at St. Hyacinthe on February 23, 1958, when he said:
We have eased the burdens of the municipal governments by bringing about easier credit and lower interest rates?
How can the minister justify the statement he made at Montmagny on September 28, 1958 when he said that the provinces and municipalities in their financial operations will derive much benefits from the conversion operation? The facts are here to show how far from the truth the minister could be in his assertions. Was it not the Prime Minister who said in Saskatoon, on May 27, 1957:
The Conservative government, if elected, would remove the crushing burden of municipal taxes.
Was it not the Prime Minister who said on May 20, 1957:
The tight money policy has struck a death blow to small business. They are going into bankruptcy at the fastest rate since depression; and municipalities have their back to the wall, forced to borrow money in the United States at high interest rates.
I would ask the Prime Minister these questions: when have bankruptcy rates been higher than in the last two years? When have municipal interest rates been higher than in the last two years? When have municipal taxes been higher than in the last two years? When have interest rates on borrowings for home building been higher than at the present time? When, finally, has a federal government done so little and accomplished so little in facing a problem which, according to the Prime Minister's own admission, was stultifying every part, every section of Canada.
Moreover, what is there in this budget to provide for the $100 million additional requested by Premier Frost of Ontario, a sum which we know the Minister of Finance will be asked to produce at the July federal-provincial conference on fiscal matters? What is there in this budget to provide for additional assistance which will be requested by Premier Roblin of Manitoba, when he will insist that Ottawa change its stand toward the provinces.
What is there in this stand-pat budget for the Atlantic provinces? What is there to indicate any measure of relief for the people of the maritimes who need, not restrictions but more credit and monetary expansion? What is there in the present budget which could even lead to an incentive to accelerate business in that particular area and bring about speedier maximum use of its natural wealth, thereby raising the standard of prosperity in that part of Canada?
Have the Atlantic provinces been forgotten because someone has dared call this budget


a "no-tax budget"? What a fallacy. How can one be so blind as not to realize that the Minister of Finance expects the present tax structure to yield $5,892 million, an increase of $591 million over and above the year before, and more than $1,120 million over and above the fiscal year 1958-59? In other words, the taxpayers of this country will be contributing to the federal treasury over $1 billion more than they were two years ago; over $3 million a day more than they were two years ago. Yet the present government, with all this extra cash at its disposal, cannot find one simple measure which could contribute to narrowing the gap which exists in the income of the people of the Atlantic provinces compared with those of other Canadians.
This, stand-pat, do-nothing budget offers absolutely nothing which could influence the establishment of secondary industries in the Atlantic provinces. The disability of the Atlantic provinces with regard to transportation remains as the main problem, the major obstruction which must be removed if our area is to share equally in the progress and prosperity which in the last decade or so have been so prevalent in other parts of the country. We have a right to know what this government intends to do about the various suggestions which we from time to time have offered in order to stimulate industry in the Atlantic provinces. What does the government intend to do about the idea of a capital grants program and the fiscal incentives which have been suggested both inside and outside this house for some time? Urgent consideration should be given to these proposals. Meanwhile, a solution to our transportation problems, or even the improvement of our transportation system could contribute to stimulating the growth of our secondary industry.
Might I call it six o'clock?


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask when you would find it convenient, Mr. Speaker, to hear a submission with respect to the amendment? I think I am bound to take the view that it is not in order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that might be done at the conclusion of the speech of the hon. member who now has the floor. That would be shortly after eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: When the house took recess at six o'clock I was referring to the numerous suggestions which had been made

from this side of the house to stimulate industry in the Atlantic provinces. I was saying that urgent consideration should be given to our proposals affecting the Atlantic provinces which, if implemented, would contribute to stimulating the growth of our secondary industry.
I deplore the fact that the present budget fails to recognize the plea of the Atlantic provinces. I deplore the fact also that when suggestions are made which could contribute toward raising the level of our economic activity, someone should come right out in the open and launch a controversy which has the effect of spilling cold water on the projects involved. Such controversial statements as have originated recently from Halifax, Charlottetown and Fredericton, involving the Chignecto canal and the Prince Edward Island causeway are most unwarranted and unworthy of anyone having at heart the task-and it should be a national task-of applying national policies for the common good and welfare of all Canadians.
Instead of amending the Excise Tax Act to remove sales tax on electric heating equipment to make it more competitive with maritime coal; instead of including the sales tax on materials used in the construction of ships over ten tons net registered tonnage, the minister could well have listened more favourably to the representations of the fisheries council of Canada on behalf of the fishing industry. The minor exemptions asked for by the fisheries council would have had very little effect on the over-all position of the present budget, but would have been of some assistance to the industry and to a large number of individual fishermen.
Not one single new measure has been introduced by the present government to help the fishing industry which is so vital to the economy of the maritimes. Canada cannot afford to allow the Atlantic fisheries to glide along as if it was to be abandoned to its own fate. There is an urgent need for a definite national plan and policy for the development of our Atlantic fisheries, and wide-scale government attention should be directed to the field of production. The present system of subsidies on the construction of vessels of the dragger and long-liner type is antiquated, outmoded and does not serve any more the purpose for which it was introduced.
Competition in the marketing of our fisheries products is getting keener and stiffer from year to year and this competition originates in countries which are exploiting our own fishing areas along our Atlantic coast. Our fishermen need protection to safeguard their rights and to maintain their source of
The Budget-Mr. Robichaud production. Our fishing industry needs protection to compete favourably with European countries in the traditional markets, and more so when we know that these European nations are subsidizing their own fishing industry. I intend to say more on this aspect of the fishing industry when the estimates of the Department of Fisheries are before this house for discussion.
Notwithstanding the admission by the present government that this country is now out of the recession and experiencing a period of boom, no one can deny that the serious unemployment situation, which is more evident since this government took office than at any time in Canadian history, is causing grave concern and disquietude among the labour class of our country.
The 820,000 unemployed want an explanation from the Prime Minister. They want to hear more about his promise to take the necessary steps to ease unemployment in addition to his billion dollar public works plan. They want to remind the Prime Minister today of his pledge to every man and woman in this nation who is unemployed, "So long as I am Prime Minister no one will be allowed to suffer in this nation." Was he then the leader of the Conservative party attempting to stultify the people of Canada in making such statements, just as he is trying to fool them today in his "Nation's Business" television appearances?
The Minister of Finance should tell us why in this period of high unemployment approved and urgent public works projects have been shelved and put aside for future consideration. Is this policy in line with the Prime Minister's promise that:
As long as I am Prime Minister, no man or woman is going to suffer from unemployment so long as public works will provide them the assistance they require.
Why delay-as is being done in my own constituency of Gloucester-the construction of public wharves which will provide facilities for fishermen, increase their production and supply additional shore help? Why cut down this year's public works projects by the amount of $31 million? In the harbour and engineering branch alone Nova Scotia is cut down by $2.5 million and New Brunswick by almost $3 million. The construction of a number of projects is economically justified. It would raise the economic level of many fishing communities and, as I have just said, it would increase production and provide additional shore help, thus cutting down on unemployment.
The population of Gloucester county learned with interest a few weeks ago that Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud and Sogemines Limited have reached agreement in principle for bringing into production Brunswick's lead-zinc property in the Bathurst area. An initial operation of 2,000 tons of ore a day is good and welcome news for the people of New Brunswick and particularly for the population of Gloucester county. The unfortunate part of it is that those concentrates will be sold to a group of Belgian base metal smelters and again a primary product, a raw material, will be exported to be processed outside of this country. This is not what the people of New Brunswick expected when the mining discoveries of the Bathurst area made history in the mining world in 1952 and 1953. This is not what the Prime Minister promised at Campbellton, New Brunswick, as was referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.
The least that could now be expected from the present government is the provision of adequate port facilities to allow shipments of the concentrates from the port of Bathurst at a distance of fewer than 20 miles from Brunswick's deposits. Such facilities would involve the construction of a spur line from the mine to Bathurst harbour, together with adequate loading accommodation and proper deep water channels to allow easy access for ocean-going ships. Such facilities must not be delayed indefinitely, and if Brunswick's mine is going to operate, as we are assured it is, the government should take the necessary steps now to provide proper planning in order to avoid any possible delay which could in any way jeopardize operation.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the minister that the people of Canada are not being fooled by the additional medical expense deduction which he has offered. We all know that last year-


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


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I tender you at this time my submission that the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidick-son) is not in order. An examination of the amendment itself will serve to emphasize the omnibus nature thereof. While it may be very inviting at times to tender omnibus amendments there are certain risks that are then taken, and in this particular case I think the hon. gentleman has taken risks that have the effect of making his amendment out of order.
May I draw your attention to the breadth of the subjects mentioned in the amendment.
This house regrets that the financial policies of the government will produce a fourth consecutive
tMr. Kobichaud.]

over-all deficit in a year of "so-called prosperity", while at the same time offering no solution to the problem-
Here we have this succession of matters cited.
-of rising prices, rising trade deficits, a continued high premium on the Canadian dollar, increased pressure on provinces and municipalities to borrow outside Canada, declining farm income, and high and rising unemployment.
There we have seven items mentioned. The rule, which I think is quite clear in this respect, is set forth in Beauchesne, fourth edition, page 126, citation 148. The first section reads as follows:
It is a wholesome restraint upon members that they cannot revive a debate already concluded; and it would be little use in preventing the same question from being offered twice in the same session if, without being offered, its merits might be discussed again and again.
The second and third clauses of the citation serve to emphasize the strength of the rule, Mr. Speaker. I think it is the course of decision in the house that two principles have been firmly established in the interpretation of this rule. The first is that it is the substance and not the mere form of the motion, amendment or resolution to which the Speaker has regard in applying this rule. In the second place, if the motion, amendment or resolution offends this rule in part, then the entire motion, amendment or resolution is out of order.
In my submission, Mr. Speaker, while some of the matters enumerated in the omnibus amendment have not been decided by the house at the present session, there are at least several which have, and even one of these would be quite enough to make the amendment out of order having regard to this rule, for if it were possible to support an amendment because part of it had not previously been the subject of a decision of the house in the same session then it would be a simple matter to defeat the rule by simply adding matters which had not yet been the subject of decision.
May I recall to your mind the several decisions the house has made earlier in the present session in relation to some of the matters mentioned in the omnibus amendment. On January 18 the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) introduced the following amendment on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is to be found on page 24 of Votes and Proceedings:
This house is of the opinion that the failure of the government to develop and enunciate clear and consistent policies or to provide full and accurate information, is a major cause of the confusion and uncertainty that prevails about national defence, public finance, agriculture, markets, employment and in other important areas of governmental responsibility.



[Stage Direction]
You will see, Mr. Speaker, that several of the matters mentioned in the omnibus amendment had already been introduced by way of an amendment that sought to condemn the government in the same sense as the present amendment seeks to condemn the government. The amendment to the amendment introduced on January 20 simply added certain words to that amendment. They are to be found at page 34 of the Votes and Proceedings of the session.
Then on February 22 an amendment was introduced on a motion to resolve the house into committee of supply. On this occasion the amendment was introduced by the same hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. It is to be found at page 182 of Votes and Proceedings. It sought to strike out certain words and to substitute the following:
This house is of the opinion that the government should give immediate consideration to the implementation of agricultural policies designed for the purpose of stabilizing the prices of agricultural commodities in order to assist the industry of agriculture to realize fair returns for its labour and investment, and to maintain a fair relationship between prices received by farmers and the costs of the goods and services that they buy, thus to provide farmers with a fair share of the national income.
The amendment to the amendment moved the same day by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) purported to add certain words to that. In all of these cases the house resolved the question in the negative.
Again on March 21, on a motion to resolve the house into committee of supply, the Leader of the Opposition introduced an amendment that was intended to strike out certain words and substitute the following:
This house expresses its grave concern at the deterioration in Canada's trading position as emphasized by an unfavourable balance of nearly $1.5 billion in Canada's total trade in 1959, and urges the government to deal with this serious problem by taking effective action, including the working out of proposals for the establishment on a gradual and progressive basis of an Atlantic free trade area.
On the same day an amendment to the amendment was introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) by which he sought to add certain words to the amendment in relation to trade contracts, export credit insurance, planned reduction of foreign investments in Canada so as to reduce the premium on our currency presently handicapping our export industry, greater economic aid to underdeveloped countries, and an expanded and intensified effort by the Department of Trade and Commerce to encourage orders for our goods in world markets.
The Budget-Mr. Robichaud
Mr. Speaker:: May I ask where that last one is found?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This last one is also to be found on page 296 of the Votes and Proceedings of the present session. It was an amendment to the amendment introduced on March 21.
I think it is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, from a reference to these amendments, all of which were negatived in the house and therefore are the subject of firm decision by the house at the present session, that a number of the matters included in the omnibus condemnation of the government in the present amendment have already been the subject of decisions by the house at the present session.
I mentioned the matter of the recent trade deficit. That clearly was the subject of the amendment on March 21. The premium on the Canadian dollar was the subject matter in part of the subamendment of March 21. Declining farm income was exhaustively dealt with by the amendment of February 22. High and rising unemployment was the subject matter in part of the amendment of January 18. Therefore I think it is quite clear that the amendment does offend the rule.
I emphasize again that it is the substance of the matter that counts and not mere form. I presume that hon. gentlemen opposite will say that you do not find the matter spelled out in exactly the same words in these earlier amendments which were the subjects of decisions of the house at the session. That is not necessary. That is not the rule. The rule is not so confined. It is the substance of the matter that counts and the fact is that the house has dealt in substance on these various occasions with four of the matters that are included in this omnibus amendment that has been submitted to the house this afternoon.
If it were open to hon. members to introduce amendments of this kind there would be no finality whatever to any decision of the house in a session. It would be relatively simple for any hon. member by exercising just a little bit of ingenuity and merely by changing a phrase or two to invite the house to debate the same matter over and over again.
I think with great respect that this is a situation that has been brought about by the hon. member including too many subjects in the scope of the amendment by which he seeks to condemn government policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member speaks may I indicate to him that I see a problem with respect to a couple of the items, as I perhaps indicated when the amendment

The Budget-Mr. Rohichaud was first presented. Since then I happened to have been looking at the previous motions which have been decided by the house and I find that there is substance to what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) says. I am particularly concerned about two of the items enumerated in the second part of the amendment, that is rising trade deficits which were the subject of supply motion No. 3 and declining farm income which was the subject of supply motion No. 1. Of course, if these items have been dealt with the whole amendment would fall apart unless the hon. member were prepared to withdraw the defective items.
I just mention that before the hon. member replies to the minister so that he will have that possibility in mind. Those two were the items which appeared to me to perhaps have been dealt with, although there is something to be said too about the question of the premium on the Canadian dollar having been discussed but I think that subject has not been dealt with so fully as the other two.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, following your remarks, I think perhaps at this stage it is possible to confine one's attention to the two subjects where you yourself said you have some thought that there may be a duplication of debate that is contrary to our rules.
I too, of course, have reviewed each of the motions to which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has referred. I would suggest to Your Honour that the minister is perfectly correct when he says it is not mere form but substance that we have here. I suggest to Your Honour that the substance of this amendment to the budget is contained in the opening phrase:
This house regrets that the financial policies-
Those are the financial policies, of course, as presented to us by the minister in the resolution which he asked this house to adopt in adopting his budget and it is with respect to the financial policies as outlined in the budget that I suggest to Your Honour we should consider the matter of rising trade deficits. With respect to agriculture the phrase, as Your Honour has indicated, is "declining farm income".
May I first of all say just a word with respect to declining farm income. Irrespective of my point that each of these topics relates to the absence of an adequate policy in the budget I wish to suggest to Your Honour that with respect to declining farm income in particular I can see very little similarity between the phrasing we have before us in
[Mr. Speaker.!

this amendment and the discussion on the supply motion of February 22. I think perhaps Your Honour will surely agree that both the amendment and the subamendment were designed so specifically that we were considering there the cost-price squeeze. We were, in the subamendment, dealing very specifically with what was particularly concerning the agricultural community at that time, namely the situation confronting the producers of hogs and eggs. I would say that the amendment which regrets that the financial policies as presented in this budget fail to deal with the question of declining farm income can scarcely be related to the supply motion of February 22.
With respect to the matter of rising trade deficits, the supply motion of March 21 did, of course, refer to a deterioration in balance of payments but surely the substance of this motion is that we have not in the budget proposals and policies that deal with these matters.
Your Honour has doubtless also reviewed the decision of Mr. Speaker Beaudoin on May 3, 1955 as recorded at page 3425 of Hansard. The then private hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), as has been done today, moved an amendment to the budget. On May 3 after, indeed, we were ready to take a vote Mr. Speaker Beaudoin had this to say:
Considering the fact that on the budget wide latitude is always given, and that the main reason the amendment could have been declared out of order was the fact that the amendments to the address in reply had covered a variety of subjects, I decided not to intervene.
I suggest that that is still valid. Our discussions of the items in this amendment relate to the absence of policies in the financial presentation of the budget itself and having reference to the substance of the amendment and not to some mere technicality of form they do not offend against the rule to which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has referred.
Citation 330 to which the Minister of Finance has referred in Beauchesne's third edition at page 134-and this is on the other point-reads as follows:
When a member hands a motion to the Speaker after having spoken in support of it, the Speaker may, before putting the question to the house, make such corrections as are necessary or advisable in order that it should conform with the usages of the house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the point of order raised by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and to your remarks. Members of this group are convinced that on two or three points there is some lapse on the part of the mover of the

amendment for the official opposition under the rules of the house. This is a surprising matter in view of their having had the opportunity of securing constitutional, legal and procedural advice and in view of the great experience of the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill).
Speaking on behalf of the hon. members behind me may I say this. Should you find the amendment out of order, in view of this rather incredible error on the part of the official opposition I think that the knowledge of the rules displayed by the C.C.F. should be rewarded by your giving consideration to our subamendment then becoming the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate what has been said to assist in dealing with this matter in order to assure that we observe the rules and practices of the house. In addition to the references given to me on both sides, I refer to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 234 which reads in part as follows:
234. The ancient doctrine that the redress of grievances should be considered before the grant of supplies is maintained in the House of Commons of Canada
(1) Whenever an order of the day has been read for the house to resolve itself into the committee of supply or the committee of ways and means-
That is what we are doing now.
-the motion "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair" must be proposed, except on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays as provided by standing orders 56 and 58. When such motion is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance; provided that the discussion shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and means, nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.
These four categories which are mentioned are excluded in order to avoid duplication of debate and waste of the time of the house in repeating a debate. It is true that we have dealt specifically, in the first and third supply amendments, with two of these matters. To say that they may now be discussed again in their aspects as subjects of financial policy, which is only one aspect of any problem, would be to permit the house to revive debates of which it has already disposed.
I had practically come to the conclusion before returning the house-and I am reinforced in it by the argument made by the minister and by what has been said elsewhere-that at least two of these items should be removed. In accordance with the authority of the Chair, as mentioned by the hon member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson), I think I might direct that two of the 79951-0-183
The Budget-Mr. Robichaud specified items be deleted from the resolution, namely rising trade deficits and declining farm income. Those are two specific items among the seven. I am in some doubt about another one, namely the high premium on the Canadian dollar. However, in view of the broad range of this debate, in any event, and the fact that the former motion on that item was somewhat limited, I think justice would be done and that the time of the house would be saved by avoiding unnecessary debate or duplication of debate if those two items were removed. Perhaps the hon. member who moved the motion would concur in the deletion of those two items.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I be heard on that point, Mr. Speaker? With great respect may I say this. I do not think the rule read by the hon. member concerning the correction of mistakes applies to a matter which vitiates an entire amendment of this kind. With great respect, I submit that power applies only to the correction of mistakes in minor matters such as clerical errors and that sort of thing. With great respect I submit that it does not apply in order to cure in an amendment a clear defect that makes it out of order. If this amendment is out of order in part under the provisions of the rule which I read then it is clearly out of order in its entirety. I therefore submit with great respect, Mr. Speaker, that the power to correct mistakes has no application here. I submit that the proper course is that the amendment be ruled out of order and that it be left to whoever chooses to do so to bring in an amendment that is in keeping with the rules of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I could say a word on the point which has just been raised by the Minister of Finance. I am sure Your Honour will recall previous occasions when, with the leave of the house and in circumstances of this kind, precisely the course that Your Honour has now suggested was taken by the house. My friend the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has indicated to me that he would be quite agreeable to the course that has been suggested.
However, if I might be permitted just to make this observation with the greatest possible respect, we feel that it would surely never be intended that in a budget debate, notwithstanding the fact that there had been a motion on a related topic, it would not be competent for either side of the house to discuss trade deficits and that it would not be competent for the house to discuss the declining farm income, both of which were discussed by the Minister of Finance himself in his budget speech. It seemed to us that anything that was debatable on the budget, so

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud long as our motion dealt entirely and exclusively with the minister's statement-as we believe this one does; it refers to financial policy-it would be in order. Perhaps we should have said "as set out in the budget speech", but it says that the statement the minister made the other day offers no solution to these problems. Since that statement was made only subsequent to the decision of the house on these other matters, it seemed to us that there was in fact no duplication.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Finance has taken objection to Your Honour's following the procedure of directing that the defects in the amendment be corrected. He has done so on the ground that the citation to which reference has been made had to do only with minor defects such as typographical errors et cetera. I think what we need at this time is a little bit of common sense applied to our proceedings. If the Minister of Finance objects and if Your Honour agrees with the minister's objections, I believe the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River would be quite willing to agree to the motion being amended in the way it has been suggested. On many occasions in the past, over a period of many years, when an amendment has been brought in which in general was in order but some parts of which, in the opinion of the Speaker of the day, were in error, those errors have been corrected at the time on the suggestion of the Speaker.
I should also like to make a further point which is a practical one. Since the official opposition has the right to bring in an amendment, a want of confidence motion and since we in this group have the same right or, if it is our only opportunity or alternative, to bring in a subamendment, I think we might just as well have the amendment settled now as wait until some other hon. member of the official opposition speaks and brings it in at that time.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: As seconder of the motion, Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to make a few observations?


Mr. Speaker:: I can assure the hon. member that it is unnecessary for him to do so in view of the course which I propose to take. This matter, of course, is a point of order which arose when the motion was made. If I had dealt with it then and if I had disposed of it at that time, it would have been open to the hon. member who had the floor to concur in the suggestion for an alteration, which I have now made at this rather later date instead of then in view of my having made the reservation at the time the motion was just presented. Particularly


as the hon. member who moved the motion and the seconder of it concur in the deletion of two of the seven items, which items I think might be taken as illustrative of the criticism of the financial policies but which nevertheless open the door for debates we have had, I feel that the proper course now is to direct that they be deleted from the amendment and that it stand with that change. It does not affect, then, the subamendment. I am not sure whether the Minister of Finance has any comment to make on the amendment to the amendment which was also reserved, if I am not mistaken, at the time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, do I take it from your ruling that you claim the power to do that, in the absence of consent in this matter? I wish to make it quite clear that there is no consent, and I submit with great respect that in a situation of this kind the Chair has no power to make an amendment or to direct an amendment even if there is consent on the part of the mover and seconder. We have here an amendment which is out of order in part, and under the rules, therefore, it is quite clear it is out of order in its entirety.
With very great respect there cannot be on the part of the Chair any curing of the error in the amendment, the vice which makes it out of order. With great respect, the only course open to the Chair is to rule the amendment out of order. As I said before, the power to cure mistakes is not a power that authorizes the Chair to cure defects, defects which of themselves are so serious as to make an amendment out of order. This is not a matter at all of correcting a word here or a word there which is obviously a mistake. This is something which goes to the very root and substance of this amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the force of what the minister says and undoubtedly it is true that, without the consent of the house, a motion which has been put and which is in possession of the house cannot very well be changed. But I take the view that this matter is not in the possession of the house because I reserved it when it was moved, and I now direct before it is put that it be amended and that those deletions be made in the motion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on that point, the amendment surely is in the

possession of the house. Once an amendment is introduced and read and then handed to the Chair, surely at that point, it being in possession of the house, it is not possible to deal with it in an ex parte manner. It is an amendment which belongs to the house, and being out of order there is no power to cure a defect in it which is as basic as the defect in this amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted, I might say that you have made a ruling and we respect it.


Mr. Speaker:: It is true I have expressed my view, but I do not want to force my views upon the house unless they commend themselves fully to the house. With respect to the last statement of the minister, I may be mistaken about my authority in this matter, but as I see it this motion was not in the possession of the house because when I read it I said I had doubts about some of these items on the very ground which the minister has taken and that I would reserve them and deal with them before the motion was formally put. The motion being in that state, I think it can be distinguished from one where the unanimous consent of the house would be necessary. Furthermore, the proposed course commends itself to me as one which will further the general interests of the debate. Accordingly I make that amendment with the concurrence of the mover and seconder, and I now put the motion before the house in its amended form.
Before proceeding, the amendment to the amendment was also dealt with in the same way by the Chair at the time, and if any hon. member wishes to say anything about the subamendment this would be the appropriate time. Otherwise I will consider it as having been disposed of at this time as well.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, will you clarify one point of the ruling you have made. When does an amendment come into the possession of the house? You say that you reserved judgment on the amendment, so when does it come into the possession of the house? Is it just before a division or when is it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might be permitted a word on that point. I listened very carefully to what Your Honour said when my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River made his motion, and I understood 79951-0-1831
The Budget-Mr. Deschatelets Your Honour to say that you were reserving the motion and not putting it. If you had not taken that position and had questioned anything in it I or one of my colleagues would have risen at once and asked for permission to argue the question right there and then. It seems to me that that makes it perfectly clear that we accepted in good faith what Your Honour obviously did in good faith; that is to say, reserved the motion.


George Clyde Nowlan: One other question of the hon. member, if I may. On what have hon. members been speaking since we reserved this matter? On the main motion or the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: On the main motion.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, it has been said of the budget speech made Thursday night by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) that it was a do-nothing, stand-pat budget. It was a neat way of saying that, on Thursday, March 31, 1960, Canada was in the position of a hard-pressed debtor offering its creditors a legal settlement and a moratorium.
During the last three years, the national debt has increased by more than a billion dollars. The unemployment insurance fund has decreased by more that $500 million. To finance its deficits, the government has drawn upon the savings of the people and in order to make its loans more attractive, it has raised the interest to such a point that the savings in our banks, which were used for the development of industry, of business and by the general public, are exhausted through the government's deficits. In this budget, there is no decrease in expenditures and the taxes which had been increased last year remain at the same level, while the rickety surplus expected for 1960-61 is based not only on a hope, but also on the theory that the national product will increase by 6 per cent in the next 12 months.
This budget was evidently devised by a government which as a result of its shortcomings and of its monetary and fiscal errors, has been placed at the mercy of financiers. This budget speech which the Minister of Finance read Thursday night for the public at large is as cold as a tombstone. It lacks humanity and, for the hundreds of thousands of Canadian families affected by unemployment, it is cruel and inhuman.

The Budget-Mr. Deschatelets
In fact there is not even the slightest reference in it to the most important domestic problem in Canada today, unemployment, as if the problem did not exist. To the provinces, which bear a substantial part of the consequences of the government's monetary and fiscal failure, the budget offers nothing that they did not have last year. They will have to fend for themselves. The municipalities which were recently claimed to be heavily in debt, whose taxes on real estate are at their highest level, will have to solve their problems alone; and next winter, I am sure, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) will again ask them to bear the same costs of the winter works program. The government trusts to Providence to take care of the 827,000 unemployed.
If I refer to page 2670 of Hansard of March 31, I find that the only consolation offered to the unemployed are these few lines, dedicated to them, in the tone of a prayer at the end of a sermon.
I am confident-
-said the Minister of Finance-
-however, that employment will rise as the coming of spring opens up new job opportunities and as the economy continues its upward trend.
That sentence, coming at a time when there are more than 827,000 unemployed in Canada, confirms what we already knew, that this government, in its stubbornness, continues to consider unemployment as seasonal and does not care a rap about it. From that angle, the budget of last Thursday evening is an insult to the unemployed of this country.
In the course of my remarks, I intend to make a brief outline of the unemployment problem and of the hypocritical attitude of the Conservative government towards it. But, before going any further, let us glance at the statistics of previous years, under the Liberal regime.
As recorded on page 1654 of Hansard, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) gave a complete statistical table of unemployment in Canada from 1946 to 1959. His conclusions were as follows:
If that table is carefully examined, it will be seen that from the period 1946 to 1956-10 years- the average annual percentage of the labour force without jobs in Canada was 2.8 per cent.
As everyone knows-
The experts in the field say that 3 per cent of the labour force without jobs is the equivalent of full employment.
Well, that magnificent result is not accidental. The Liberals did not trust to spring, as did the Minister of Finance, to provide jobs for our labour force.


In 1945, to ease the change from a wartime to a peacetime economy, the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, then minister of reconstruction and supply, tabled in the house what we call a white paper, outlining an eight point concrete program concerning income and employment in Canada for a given period.
If such a program was necessary, at the time, how much more would it be today, when unemployment has reached its highest level since the Conservative depression of 1930-1935?
On March 10, 1960, in fact, the latest figures we had at our disposal showed, according to the national employment service, that 827,512 persons looking for jobs were registered in our offices, and according to the dominion bureau of statistics, there were
555.000	unemployed.
According to the information I gathered,
620.000	persons would now be getting unemployment insurance benefits, after having registered at the end of January 1960.
After personal investigation and research, I am able to say that at present about a third of the above-mentioned unemployed are not registered in our unemployment insurance offices, which would add 200,000 more unemployed to the first group.
If we consider that most unemployed have dependents, it is safe to say that at this very moment, over a million Canadian citizens are suffering from unemployment in Canada. Over a million Canadians are undernourished, over a million Canadians cannot get the drugs they need to restore their health, and thousands of young people, boys and girls, are unable to go on to college because their father, the head of the family, cannot afford to pay for their tuition.
Generally speaking, these people do not share in Canada's high standard of living, which we all like to boast about. Every day, as hon. members may read in their papers, youths of 17, 18 and 20 tell magistrates that they have robbed because they were unemployed and could not find' a job.
In other words, unemployment is not only an economic matter, it is also a social problem. Through the fault of the government, we condone the fact that, in our midst, an imposing group of fellow-citizens are undernourished, that women and children are forgotten, neglected, rejected and deceived by the Conservative party, whose members were

mainly elected because of a formal and solemn promise of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), to the effect that, as long as he would be Prime Minister, nobody in Canada would suffer unemployment, whether there be a deficit or not.
Now, on the evening of March 31, it was time to carry out that promise, but the unemployed were in fact forgotten, and this government, and more particularly the Minister of Finance, preferred financiers to the unemployed.
Now, let us look at the Conservative record with regard to the unemployment question. First of all, there is the Prime Minister's responsibility. After promising so much, he became silent and as the unemployment figures rose from month to month, he became more and more silent.
In the speech from the throne, the Prime Minister and his cabinet undertook on January 15 to give a seasonal character to unemployment, whereas there were at the time at least 700,000 people without jobs.
In early March 1960, we discussed the unemployment question, for eight days, on an item providing for winter works. If I am not mistaken, the Prime Minister did not in that instance come down from his ivory tower. He remained silent.
In the face of growing unemployment, we submitted on March 1, 1960, as shown on page 1578 of Hansard, an amendment recommending "That the problem of unemployment be recommitted to the standing committee on industrial relations".
As soon as the amendment was moved, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) jumped to his feet with the fourth edition of Beauchesne in his hands, trying to discover fine points of procedure by which the amendment could be rejected.
Following rejection of the amendment, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) rose to direct a very plain question to the Prime Minister. May I quote from page 1582 of Hansard the conclusion of the question put by the Leader of the Opposition:
-I ask the Prime Minister whether he will not forget technicalities and ask the house to give unanimous consent in order that this matter may be debated as- a question of urgency by this particular committee.
And here is what the Prime Minister replied, as recorded on page 1582 of Hansard:
I do not really know what the hon. gentlemen means when he says this matter should be debated as a matter of urgency.
The Budget-Mr. Deschatelets
Mr. Speaker, this was on March 1, 1960, and the Prime Minister ended his reply as follows:
-if in that time they have not been able to produce anything, I see no benefit in the suggestion which is now put forward.
And now, perhaps we could put a few questions to the Prime Minister. What is he doing and what has he done about his election promise? Why has he refused to take part even once in the only debate we have had on unemployment in the course of this session? Why did he, on March 31 last, sell Canada's unemployed down the river. And why has he made no provisions for them in the budget, as he had promised to do?
Why did the Prime Minister refuse, on March 1 last, to refer the matter of unemployment to the industrial relations committee?
On February 15, 1954, the Prime Minister, who was then the private member for Prince Albert, made this statement, as recorded on page 2102 of Hansard:
A committee set up to study and report on unemployment would hear evidence of those who are warning this government and the country of the need for action now.
At that time, in 1954, we had only half as many unemployed as we have today.
Mr. Speaker, I leave it to Canada's people to draw the obvious conclusions. I do suggest, however, that after that solemn pledge made in March 1958, the arrogant and unyielding attitude of the government towards the unemployed is one of the most revolting about-faces ever recorded in Canada's political history.
Let us now turn to the responsibility of the Minister of Labour. I should like to recall two statements he made on unemployment, the first one on March 3, 1955, when he was sitting in the opposition. I quote from page 1693 of Hansard:
I think we are wasting time by quoting figures. What is needed is some drastic action on the part of the government rather than the quoting of any figures.
During the period of time that this unemployment situation has gradually increased, no visible effort has been made by the government to alleviate the condition or to provide safeguards against its increase. Consequently we find ourselves with unemployment on a scale of national emergency-
Mr. Speaker, I would remind hon. members who are now listening to me that the unemployment statistics were much less serious in 1955 than they are now. Now, if in 1955 the present Minister of Labour believed that it was a case of national emergency,
2898	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Deschatelets why, today, does he remain in agreement with a government that refers to seasonal unemployment, when the present unemployment problem is not only more serious than in 1955, but the most serious we ever had since the years 1930-35.
On March 3, 1955, as recorded on page 1694 of Hansard of that date, the present Minister of Labour also made this other suggestion:
It is obvious therefore that a conference on this particular subject should be called in order to arrive at some conclusive plan to deal with this serious problem.
Mr. Speaker, I now ask this question to the Minister of Labour. If he thought that a federal-provincial conference was needed in 1955 to deal with unemployment, does he not think that such a conference should have been called at the very beginning of last winter?
According to Hansard for February 15, 1957, the Conservative party, which used to sit in the opposition, moved that the whole question of unemployment be referred to the industrial relations committee, and the present Minister of Labour then favoured that suggestion. How can he explain now that, on Thursday February 25, 1960, the members of the Conservative party on the industrial relations committee rejected a motion from the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) for a full study of the unemployment situation? Those are facts no one can deny-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the bon. member is reflecting on a decision of a committee of the house. He is not within his rights in taking a course of that kind. He must assume that the house acted properly and if it made a decision it is not open to him now to criticize it.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I was of course referring to what had taken place in the committee. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I think your point is well taken and I might now pursue my remarks from another line.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, those are facts that cannot be denied, which clearly point to the inconsistency, confusion and irresponsibility of our Conservative friends.
The only remedial measure introduced by the Minister of Labour was the resolution concerning the winter works program which, at the time, we rightfully called a peanuts program. The latest statistics issued in March concerning unemployment are the


most significant proof that those incidental works were unsatisfactory and ridiculous, both in planning and scope.
We now come to the responsibility of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in that question of unemployment, but before proceeding any further, I should like to quote from only two editorials, the first of which was published in La Presse of Friday, April 1, 1960, which reads as follows:
Out of that no-change budget, a few outstanding facts emerge: Mr. Fleming is apparently unaware that there is unemployment in Canada-
Now, Mr. Speaker, turning to the Montreal Gazette for April 4, 1960, I should like to quote from an article under the heading-
(Text):
Budget's Challenge Not Recognized.
The budget would have given finance minister Fleming the opportunity to give direction to the economy had he recognized there was a need for direction. In standing pat on tax levels, he also stood pat on the tired assumptions that everything will come out right in the end. That posture is not one which can much longer be afforded.
Mr. Fleming's attitude toward unemployment is an instance.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, during his budget speech on Thursday last, as reported on page 2671 of Hansard, the Minister of Finance mentioned that the number of people holding a job was on the increase. I ask him now why he did not then mention the number of unemployed, according to the statistics provided by our two official sources.
He stated that more men are now at work in Canada than at the same time last year. I might ask him to except the province of Quebec where there are now less men working than last year.
The Minister of Finance devoted 16 lines of his extensive speech to unemployment and employment, he made no mention at all of the present unemployment situation, nor did he suggest any remedy, any plan, any measure likely to check it.
This year's budget does not grant one cent to the unemployed. The Minister of Finance stands out as a dealer in false hopes. He thinks that Canada's No. 1 problem has been solved when he says: "I am confident that spring will bring new opportunities." What a cruel disappointment this is for all the unemployed in this country and their families.
The deception is all the more cruel for the population of Quebec, considering that, on February 18, 1960, there were 259,885 people looking for jobs in that province, or 19,500 more than the previous month. At the

present time 100,000 unemployed are receiving unemployment insurance benefits in that province. Almost one third of the total number of unemployed in this country are in Quebec.
And the Prime Minister is still silent, the Minister of Labour has adopted a do-nothing attitude, while the Minister of Finance is hoping that spring will bring a solution to the problem.
When we think of this budget speech which ignores the problem of unemployment across the country and, consequently, in the province of Quebec; when we think that that budget speech was received with loud applause by all the Conservative members, including those from the province of Quebec, I say, Mr. Speaker, that I would hate to be in the boots of my hon. friends when the time comes for them to go to the people of the province of Quebec who will call upon them to account for their actions and their solemn promises.


An hon. Member:: Not in your boots either.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Did anybody want to ask a question?
Mr. Speaker, while our hon. friends opposite are sleeping, we have tried, week after week, perhaps day after day in this session, to wake them up. We have told them that this problem was becoming more and more important, and nothing was done. And now, we have an unemployment figure which really reaches the proportions of a national emergency. I say to my hon. friends that if nothing is done right away to find some solution, we shall sacrifice a whole generation of our young people. All the vital forces in this nation should be mustered in an attempt to solve this problem.
Everybody knows, that, if today we were faced not even with war but the threat of war, if we had to face some fearsome situation, if within a year, or a few months, there arose the danger of a conflict, we would immediately find enough money to start our plants and mobilize all our resources. Well, if we do nothing, we shall face a serious situation which the Canadian people will find difficult to understand.
Mr. Speaker, I have proved that the Conservative party failed to consider our unemployed and deceived them by not fulfilling their promises. I proved that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Labour did not submit anything constructive to deal with unemployment. I proved that the hon. member for Essex East on behalf of the Liberal party advanced ten suggestions, which the Minister of Labour put aside without even considering them. I also
The Budget-Mr. McBain proved that the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) put on the record 25 suggestions on ways to remedy those conditions.
We moved an amendment asking for a complete study of unemployment by the industrial relations committee, where we might have heard economists and experts, and received some advice. But the Prime Minister refused, and yet, some valuable suggestions would have been submitted to the government.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Finance, the whole cabinet and all the private members, in a word, all of them, have been hiding their heads in the sand like so many ostriches to avoid facing the problem.
In the speech from the throne, unemployment was described as being of a seasonal nature; in his budget speech, the Minister of Finance also referred to it as being of a seasonal nature.
Well, we have done all we could to try to awaken our hon. friends. Apparently, we have not been successful.
In closing, may I repeat the words spoken by the hon. member for Laurier, at the end of one of his speeches on the unemployment situation, and say to the Conservative government: "Face your responsibilities, honour your election promises, or resign."
(Text):


Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker,
may my first words be to compliment the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) upon the outstanding budget he produced last Thursday evening. To me it was very reassuring, as I know it must have been to many Canadians, to know that the minister was able to bring down a balanced budget optimistic enough for a small surplus without creating any major tax changes. I should like to commend the minister for making a considerable number of tariff changes, especially those pertaining to cottons as our cotton industry has long been suffering from importations from low wage countries.
This is a budget that seems to be accepted by the opposition parties very reluctantly, for so far they have found very little in it to criticize. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) the other evening and again this afternoon in his feeble attempt to criticize the budget mentioned that the government had a record expenditure, record taxation and record unemployment. I am sure he must have been ashamed of his colleagues when they apparently gloated and applauded as loudly as they did the other evening when he mentioned the high unemployment in this country.

The Budget-Mr. McBain
After listening to the last two speakers I wonder whether we are now debating the budget or are we back on the unemployment debate that we had some weeks ago? Commenting on this budget there was an editorial which appeared in the St. Thomas Times-Journal on Saturday last, April 2, which expresses the thoughts and feelings of a very large number of people across the length and breadth of Canada. The editorial is entitled "A Balanced Budget" and I now wish to quote from it. It begins with these words:
Blessed are they that expect not for they shall not be disappointed.
That probably represents the feelings of the people of Canada in regard to the budget brought down in the House of Commons Thursday night. Reports emanating from Ottawa throughout the past financial year have indicated that although the national economy was improving, no tax concessions could be expected. If hopes are to be entertained for next year much may depend on what happens at Geneva or some other city in regard to disarmament, nuclear agreements and the pacifist attitude in general, for the military part of the budget takes up one third of the expenditure.
However, the country is in a prosperous condition. The general output of production increased and continues to increase, but our prosperity is not sufficient to justify a tax reduction that would really be felt. There are hopes for next March.
The most interesting part of the budget is that the textile industry is to receive increased tariff protection against imported fabrics, and that the tariff board will examine the tariff structure on engineering and architects' plans, nails, china and glass imported for decoration, and mining and petroleum machinery.
The textile industry has been crying out for a long time; way back into the St. Laurent administrations, but then they mostly cried in vain. Factories have been shut or put on short time and textiles have probably contributed more to unemployment than any other business.
On the whole, not a bad budget under the circumstances. I
I think that editorial speaks for most of the people in Canada.
I wish now to discuss some problems that are relevant to southern and southwestern Ontario and portions of Quebec. I wish to refer to the tobacco industry from the production standpoint to the manufacturing process. My remarks will have reference mainly to flue-cured tobacco.
The production of flue-cured tobacco and its processing into a consumer product is an industry on which a great majority of the people in the tobacco growing districts depend for their livelihood. It is also the main support of numerous local industries and services which manufacture, sell or service materials and machines for the tobacco industry. Merchants, garages, service stations, banks, legal firms, insurance and real estate companies and other businesses have gained much from the tobacco industry. It is also the largest customer of the companion branches of agriculture in these same districts.


The tobacco industry may also be found to be the largest single source of tax revenue, if not in the country at least in many municipalities.
Tobacco is the hub of a great wheel of local industry which finds its earnings rising and falling according to the state of the tobacco industry. The general overhead for an Ontario flue-cured tobacco farm exceeds that of almost any other agricultural commodity. At the present time the province of Ontario has approximately 4,500 qualified farms growing flue-cured tobacco in 16 counties. The estimated capital invested in these farms approaches $300 million or an average of between $65,000 and $70,000 per farm. The farm buildings and equipment required to cultivate and cure tobacco cost upward of $40,000 depending on the size of the unit.
The outstanding cost in producing tobacco is the annual labour account. To harvest and prepare this annual crop for market requires up to 60,000 persons and their earnings paid by farmers amount to approximately $45 million. Much of this money is borrowed from the banks at fairly high interest rates. When you take into account the interest on the capital invested, the maintenance and depreciation on farm buildings and equipment together with the high labour costs and the money which farmers borrow annually from the banks, this makes tobacco one of the most costly agricultural crops to produce. An average production cost per acre under present conditions would be $650. This cost is dependent upon the producer being permitted to market his full basic acreage production. Practically all the tobacco farms are equipped to operate to full capacity and when they have to drop back to anything less their production costs per acre increase.
The amount of tobacco marketed each year in Ontario is set by the Ontario flue-cured tobacco growers marketing board before the beginning of the planting season and many factors have to be considered before acreage quotas are determined. The chief factor is not to set quotas at a level that would produce a serious surplus thus depressing prices to a point where producers could not repay their loans made from the banks to grow their crops. At the same time the board must take into consideration the dangers of producing too small a crop resulting in a great demand and a high price and loss of export trade.
The Ontario flue-cured tobacco marketing board is one agricultural marketing association that deserves a great deal of credit because besides negotiating with the buyers to establish a price they also maintain strict controls over their acreage production. In the year 1958 production was very high with a yield of

173,213,818 pounds of tobacco returning an average price of 47.57 cents per pound which brought to the producers $82,394,702.
To market this large 1958 crop the marketing board experienced serious difficulties so that the base acreage for 1959 was reduced by 25 per cent. This the board estimated would yield from 145 million to 150 million pounds. When the sale of the 1959 crop wound up on March 11, 145,220,668 pounds were sold bringing to the producers a gross return of $81,525,841 at an average price of 56.25 cents per pound. This indicates how closely the output was estimated. Despite this extra large return the gross return was some $750,000 less than for the large 1958 crop.
Although this agricultural product is restricted to areas where it can be grown the federal treasury collects more fax in proportion from tobacco than from any other product manufactured. At present a package of 20 cigarettes has a tax of 20 cents or one cent per cigarette; in other words, 209 per cent of the manufacturer's selling price. In Canada the average per capita cigarette consumption per annum is 1,949. For taxation purposes this means a revenue of $19.49 per person. For a family using two packages a day under our present tax they would pay $146 per year. Breaking this taxation down further, I might say that the treasury collects an estimated $3,200 from every acre of tobacco grown. Since the 1940 budget the excise tariff on cigarettes has been computed by the weight of two and a half pounds of tobacco per
4,	I960	2901
The Budget-Mr. McBain thousand cigarettes. This weight includes paper, paste and filter tip if it is a filter tip cigarette that is under consideration. As producers wish to see the demand for tobacco increase they have therefore requested the government to revert to the pre-war position, when three pounds of tobacco was the amount allowed per thousand cigarettes. I hope this request will be granted by the Minister of Finance.
I wonder whether I could have the consent of the house to place in Hansard as part of the text of my speech a table showing the total federal excise taxes paid by the consumers of manufactured tobacco products compared with other representative commodities.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member state the source of his table?


James Alexander McBain: It is from the brief presented by the flue-cured tobacco growers.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to insert this table at this point in his address?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What did the hon. gentleman say the table was about?


James Alexander McBain: This table shows federal excise taxes paid by the consumers of manufactured tobacco products compared with other representative commodities.
[Editor's note: The table referred to is as follows:]
Total Federal Excise Taxes (Excluding Sales Tax)* Paid by the Consumer or Manufactured Tobacco Products Compared with Other Representative Commodities (millions of dollars)
Manufactured tobacco products
As a ratio
Total	to total
Fiscal Year	Autos.	Beer	Spirits	Radios, T.V.'s., etc.	Chocolates, confectionery, etc.	Tires and tubes	All others	(excluding tobacco products)	Amount	(excluding tobacco products)1950-51	51.2	68.2	60.1	5.4	17.1	8.6	43.8	254.4	198.3	781952-52	77.9	77.6	45.9	7.9	30.0	11.7	57.3	308.3	205.1	671952-53	68.2	85.9	48.6	10.1	23.6	10.6	45.2	292.2	217.2	741953-54	82.1	83.5	69.2	15.9	23.4	10.4	30.2	314.7	207.6	661954-55	63.2	73.8	72.2	20.5	17.2	8.1	15.2	270.2	213.1	791955-56	62.5	80.7	77.5	21.6	17.0	.8	14.6	274.7	235.2	861956-57	69.3	83.1	86.2	17.8	17.9	-	15.9	290.2	251.5	871957-58	62.1	88.2	89.9	15.5	1.3	-	15.6	272.6	272.3	1001958-591	60.4	90.4	90.4	17.5	-	-	3.8	262.5	293.9	112
1 Estimated for final quarter of fiscal year.
* Comprised of Excise Tax and Excise Duty applicable to Domestic Products. 79951-0-184
2902	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. McBain
I have not placed these figures on the record to be critical of the Minister of Finance for not reducing the tax on tobacco in his present budget. But now that he has been able to balance the budget with a surplus I am sure we shall be expecting him to be in a position to reduce the tax in his next budget. I therefore expect him to give consideration to a considerable reduction of the tax on tobacco in his budget next year.
In 1957 when this government came into office, the sugar beet industry and growers were gradually being forced out of business and production. The Liberal government would always say no to a support price on sugar beets, and without a support price and import controls sugar beet acreage in Ontario had dropped from a high of 40,000 acres to
14.000	acres and one sugar beet processing plant was forced to close.
After the change of government in 1957, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his cabinet listened with an open ear to the producers' problems and eventually established a floor price under sugar beets. Since this floor price was implemented the acreage has increased from the low of 14,000 acres, in a two-year period, to 35,000 acres in 1959.
As Canada produces less than 25 per cent of her sugar requirements it appears to me to be a great opportunity to have this agricultural production of beets expanded not only in Ontario but in western Canada as well. I would suggest the government should consider the implementation of a long range sugar policy for Canada. At the present time I am informed that the price of Cuban refined sugar in Cuba is from $2.80 to $2.85 per hundred pounds. As the government of Cuba has a monopoly on sugar and as a result of its present instability I can foresee Cuba endeavouring to dump into Canada refined sugar at a price below the cost of production. If this should happen it would spell ruin for the sugar refinery in Toronto and the beet plants at Chatham and Wallaceburg.
If a long range policy could be brought into effect so that the producers would know where they are going I am sure it would be possible to increase acreage up to a possible 50,000 or
60.000	acres. It would take out of production acres that are now producing crops that at times create a surplus. It would also keep in circulation the $20 million that is now spent for growing, harvesting and processing the sugar beets. It would also create a need for a new sugar beet factory to be built and therefore would give employment to a large work force in construction operations and maintenance.

The present two plants at Wallaceburg and Chatham when operating at full capacity employ 1,500 people. The riding of Elgin which I represent produces a fairly substantial acreage of beets at the present time. If the producers could be assured of a long range return plus import quotas I am sure this acreage would definitely be increased.
In the riding of Elgin we have an excellent location for a new sugar beet factory at Port Stanley. As a sugar beet processing pflant requires a large amount of water for washing and processing the beets, a new plant situated at Port Stanley on lake Erie would have available all the water necessary. Furthermore, the farmers in this area are the producers of a large quantity of the flue-cured tobacco grown in Ontario. When this crop is harvested, usually about September 15, the surplus labour could be diverted to the harvesting and processing of sugar beets.
I wish to commend the government for the steps they have taken in the past to restore the sugar beet industry in Canada. I hope they will continue their interest and will continue to assist the sugar beet producers in 1960.
I think it is gratifying to see the optimism shown in this chamber by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill). It is unfortunate that the opposition parties can see no optimism and no future for Canada in this present year. These forecasters of gloom and depression remind me of the story of an Italian immigrant who came to Canada and established by the side of the highway a hot dog stand. In this venture he was extremely successful for he would stand out by the side of his stand and, although unable to read or write, he would spiel out the words "Come and buy a hot dog". It had its effect on the travelling public for Tony's Place became very favourably known far and wide. Tony was successful enough to put aside enough money to send his son to college.
After a year in college his son came home and said, "Dad, how is business?" His father replied, "Business is booming better than ever". "That is strange," said the son; "did you not know there is a depression on in Canada?" His father said, "No; I was not aware of it. I have no television, no radio and, as you know, I cannot read the papers; so as far as I am concerned business is as good as ever". But before the son left to go back to college he had convinced his father that things were not as good in the country as they had been.
Thereafter the father did not go out to the side of the road to ask people to stop and buy his hot dogs, and he took down

some of the advertising around his booth. The next time the son came home his father said to him, "Son, I know you are right. I am just beginning to realize that a depression is at hand".
My friends on the opposite side, in continuing to take this gloomy outlook are not only not doing themselves any good but are making other people in Canada gloomy as well.
It seems to me that each one of us has a particular job to do to sell Canada to our friends in other countries. We can do this only by pointing out that Canada maintains one of the highest standards of living in the world, with our manufactured products and agricultural products being the best produced anywhere.
Very recently we had in Canada for some four weeks an agricultural delegation from Roumania and this only happened because one of our boosters of Canada in the person of Mr. E. M. Warwick of Blenheim, Ontario, had paid a visit to Roumania late in 1957 for the purpose of seeing that country and introducing to Roumania new varieties of seed corn. He was so impressed with the country and its needs that he impressed upon the Roumanian department of agriculture that they should appoint a group to visit Canada and make purchases of our Canadian agricultural products. This came about early in 1958 and that year Roumania purchased its first Canadian cattle.
From this initial shipment the country was so impressed with the qualities of the cattle and other purchases, and by a further visit to Roumania by Mr. Warwick with the cooperation of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture, that they have negotiated what is to be hoped will be a continued trade with Canada. On their most recent visit they negotiated for the purchase of 1,100 head of cattle, some of these coming from western Canada; 400 hogs; seed corn to plant a million acres; 200 tons of soybean seed. In the previous shipment of cattle Mr. Warwick supplied them with two Holstein cows which have proved to be the best two cows in that country. Their present purchases have included some of the top producing Holsteins in Ontario. In all their total purchases will be over $1 million in agricultural products.
Of course, we cannot expect these purchases to be one sided. Eventually Canada will be expected to negotiate for some of the products that Roumania wishes to export. To follow this up, I would suggest that it would be advisable for a small delegation from Canada to be sponsored by the government to visit Roumania to secure their continued good will, and I am sure it would 79951-0-184J
The Budget-Mr. Bourdages promote the sale of more of our agricultural products. At the same time this small group would be in a position to evaluate the products they would wish to sell to Canada.
I was interested to find on picking up the Montreal Gazette for April 1 that one of the first boats to sail from the port of Montreal will be a vessel by the name of Cora which will take aboard 400 head of cattle bound for Roumania. The Gazette mentions that Canada today exports few cattle to Europe and that this will be the first time any have gone to that country. Actually it will be the second time.
If one man can go there and promote the sale of our products in a European country,
I am sure a delegation from Canada could do the same thing in many other countries in Europe.
(Translation):


Mr. Rodrigue Bourdages (Laval):: Mr
Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate our Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). He has given Canada a magnificent budget for the current fiscal year.
I very well understand, Mr. Speaker, that the previous fiscal year should have ended with a deficit, and I also understand very well that we have a great Minister of Finance who needed only two years to repair the damage done by the previous government during its twenty two years of administration.
I will frankly admit, Mr. Speaker, that having heard such a fine budget speech, if I were in the opposition, I would be so discouraged and dejected that I sincerely think I would resign.
The Minister of Finance has given us a balanced budget. He even managed to offer us a $12 million surplus. And yet, he did not increase taxation. Furthermore, he has managed to grant a salary increase to 50,000 civil service employees, who certainly deserved it.
If you will allow me to get at the heart of my subject matter, I will say that, contrary to the statements made by my hon. colleague for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets), and to the opposition generally, Canada is advancing economically.
According to a Montreal Star report of March 26, 1960, Mr. J. H. Goldsmith, a reputed financial editor, stated and I quote:
(Text):
Bonds continued to advance and stocks also rose. (Translation):
The stock market is therefore experiencing a revival. The stock market is more or less the economic pulse of a nation. If it is vigorous, everything else is.
2904	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Bourdages The paper industry stocks are showing a remarkable vigour.
Here is what Mr. Goldsmith said about that, on the same date:
(Text):
If the current trends continue, the industry as a whole should be able to make a very good showing in earnings for 1960.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, even the banks are optimistic. They are happy about the economic recovery in Canada. This means that the whole Canadian industry feels the effects of this economic recovery.
In the same newspaper, in its March 26, 1960 edition, we read the following by the same writer:
(Text):
The demand for bank stocks may be an indication of renewed confidence in the outlook for general business. It is axiomatic that banks, being closely linked to the country's business activities, are among those institutions which share directly when the economy is prosperous.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, it must be admitted that there has been progress in Canada. It must be recognized that there has been progress abroad. Our exports are better than ever. In fact, our export trade has made significant progress since last year. Still a little farther down, Mr. Goldsmith had this to say:
(Text):
Foreign trade figures for the first two months of 1960 are highly encouraging. Exports for the two-month period were up more than 27 per cent over the like period of last year.
(Translation):
On that same topic of exports the dominion bureau of statistics, whose figures the members of the opposition are so prone to quote, issues encouraging data. I should like to quote in that connection from a Star report of March 26, 1960 beginning with the following words:
(Text):
Exports up sharply over '59.
Ottawa, March 26-Recent strong gains in Canada's export business continued in February, keeping the 1960 trade ledger in the black.
Exports^ in February were 33.5 per cent above a year earlier, following a 21 per cent gain in January, a bureau of statistics preliminary report yesterday showed.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, opposition members want figures. If my hon. friends in the opposition want figures, I shall quote figures. In the Montreal Star for March 26, 1960, there is a report from the dominion bureau of statistics which says that exports rose from $322,200,000 in February 1959 to $430,100,000 in February 

1960, for a total of $852,000,000 for January and February 1960, as against $670,200,000 for the same months in 1959.
On the other hand, imports rose to $454,300,000 in February 1960, as against $381,600,000 in February 1959, for a total of $850,800,000 for January and February 1960, as against $784,900,000 for the same months of the previous year. There is therefore a net gain of 19 per cent of exports over imports in January and February as against last year's figures.
In La Presse for March 29, there was a feature by Roger Fontaine under the heading "Financial Talk", and I quote:
Referring to operations in Canada, the annual report of the S.S. Kresge company mentions that sales for 1959 have been higher than in any previous year.
Mr. Speaker, there has been some criticism levelled at the government's export policy in relation to non-commonwealth countries. Let me say to opposition members, on the basis of D.B.S. figures, that our trade relations with foreign countries have been promoted as never before. That takes care of some irresponsible remarks.
Here is something which appeared in the Montreal Star for March 26, 1960, and I quote:
(Text):
Almost as notable was the turn-around in trade with non-commonwealth countries overseas, with a two-month surplus of $41,100,000 emerging after the $13,700,000 deficit in January-February, 1959.
(Translation):
As you can see, this government has improved the economic situation of the country. In the field of industry, again there is progress. For the automobile industry, for instance, we have some revealing figures.
The Canadian automobile chamber of commerce says, in fact, that:
The Canadian automobile industry produced this week 10,450 vehicles as against 10,319 last week.
These figures come from the Canadian automobile chamber of commerce.
This year, production is estimated at 116,896 vehicles, compared to 109,063 at the corresponding date of 1959; it is distributed as follows; 95,571 automobiles as against 92,086 last year and 21,325 trucks, as compared to 17,007 a year earlier.
We have there more evidence of optimism based on facts.
So, Mr. Speaker, the automobile production is 7,000 units higher this year than last.
Now, I want to deal briefly with mines. In the province of Quebec, we are but one and a half million dollars away from the record reached in 1956.
Here is what La Presse said on this matter on March 26, 1960:
$1.5 million away from the 1956 record.

Mineral production in Quebec reached $461,979,700 in 1959. Mineral production increased by more than $72,000,000 in the province in 1959 to reach $461,979,700 as compared to $389,442,985 in 1958.
A word now to the pessimists-that is to the members of the opposition-about the textile industry.
Mr. J. D. Ritchie, president of the Canadian federation of textile, stated recently as reported in La Presse of March 26, 1960:
Canadian textiles gain prestige.
Mr. I. D. Ritchie, president of the Canadian federation of textiles, said yesterday that the Canadian industry has devoted a great deal of time and effort to promote its products and that the work done in the last few years is slowly debunking the overdone reputation of imported goods.
What has the government done for its part? Members of the opposition you are now singing small. We have the most sensational budget that we could hope for, as far as textiles are concerned.
This last budget has caused enthusiasm in cities where the textile industry will now become prosperous.
Members of the opposition have mentioned imbalance or something of the sort in the 1959 budget.
Well, the Canadian tax foundation said this on March 26:
The Canadian tax foundation forecasts a tax revenue surplus of $120 million over expenses for the year 1960-61.
Mr. Speaker, I think these people did not make a mistake, and that they were right on March 26.
Everybody knows that, from an international point of view, Canada occupies a choice position. This country is respected and I would be remiss if I failed to give credit to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), who is doing a magnificent job of which all Canadians can rightly be proud.
Canada meets its obligations. And the optimistic note we get in the speeches of the Secretary of State for External Affairs is based on facts.
The Budget-Mr. Bourdages
When we go abroad to take part in some international conference, we realize how much our country is held in high esteem.
This is what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) said here on this matter, as reported in the Montreal Star of May 26 last:
(Text):
Liberal party leader Pearson told the commons it was ''a very unhappy record from which no one can get any satisfaction" that some 40 nations were not meeting their financial obligations.
(Translation):
The statement of the Leader of the Opposition is quite right. Thus, he pays a tribute to the foresight and to the unequalled accounting sense of the Conservative party under the leadership of great men, one of whom is the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker). Canada meets its obligations at the international level. In short, this government is not trying to find excuses. It faces up to reality and meets its requirements.
The Conservative government meets its obligations. I would call it a creative government. We find in the Larousse dictionary that the word "create" means "to make something out of nothing".
Well, that is what the Conservative government has done: out of nothing-it succeeded to the Liberal government, of which everybody had had enough-the last election proved it,-this government presents a budget that is not only balanced but advantageous. To prove it, may I say that the Canadian stock market reacted favourably the day following the budget of the Minister of Finance.
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister whether there is any change in the plans?


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

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

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Does the government have a record of capital expenditures made in providing airport and terminal facilities at those airports used by commercial air lines?
2.	If so, what is the total capital expenditures made by the government in providing (a) runways; (b) radio and directional equipment; (c) meteorological services at the airports; (d) terminal facilities at such airports?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of
Transport):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Runways-$145,645,836.
(b)	Radio and directional equipment- $15,646,416.
(c)	Meteorological services at the airports -The meteorological services have stations at several airports which supply weather information to the air lines, and these facilities are also used for public forecasting. It is not possible to segregate these costs, as the accounting records are not maintained in this manner.
(d)	Terminal facilities-$37,339,496.
The above figures are cumulative to March 31, 1959.


CANSO CAUSEWAY CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Regier: 1.	What were the total contributions of the federal government to the building of the Canso causeway?
2.	Are any federal contributions still to be made? If so, what is the expected amount?
13. What is the total estimated cost of this causeway?
4.	Does the federal government receive any returns on this investment out of the tolls being collected?
5.	From whom was the rock needed for this causeway purchased?
6.	Has the rock been paid for? If so, how much was paid for the rock? If not, what is the cause of the delay in payment being made?
7.	If this rock was purchased from a company or a corporation, who are the officers of same?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier
of Transport):
1.	Expenditure by the federal government on the construction of the Canso causeway to March 1, 1960 amounted to $20,157,201. The above covers the total expenditure on the construction of the causeway to March 1, 1960, and under the agreement between the federal government and the government of the province of Nova Scotia the province will contribute $5,500,000 toward the capital cost subject to the provision that if the total capital cost is less than $22,760,000 the contribution of the province will be reduced proportionately.
2.	Yes. The amount cannot be determined until the full cost of the land from which the rock was obtained is available.
3.	Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.
4.	No.
5.	Rock obtained from land expropriated by the federal government. Owner of the land Hon. Alistair Fraser.
6.	A payment of $15,000 on account was made to the owner of the expropriated land pending a decision of the exchequer court of Canada as to the value of the parcel of land expropriated. The decision of the court was rendered under date of March 18, 1960 which is subject to appeal within 60 days from date of judgment.
7.	Answered by No. 5.


EAST-WEST EXPRESSWAY, MONTREAL  HOUSING CONSTRUCTION, ST. HENRI COUNTY
Mr. Lessard: 1.	Have there been any negotiations between officers of the Department of Public Works and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and representatives of the city of Montreal, regarding the east-west elevated expressway and its effect on the construction of low cost rental units in the county of St. Henri?
2.	If so, what stage have such negotiations reached?
3.	Have any officers of the department or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation examined this problem, and what are their findings?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of
Public Works):
1.	No.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	No.

Tuesday, April 5, I960


PATENT ACT
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling herewith in English and in French the report on patents of invention of the royal commission on patents, copyright and industrial designs.
The royal commission was appointed pursuant to order in council P.C. 1954-852 of June 10, 1954, to inquire into and make recommendations upon the legislation of Canada relating to patents of invention, copyright, trade marks and industrial designs. The commission's report on copyright was tabled in the house in June, 1958, and its report on industrial designs in August, 1958.
Since the present Trade Marks Act, which resulted from approximately five years' study and discussion by a committee of experts in the light of representations from interested organizations and individuals, is relatively new; since the statute appears to have been well received in Canada and abroad; since the commission, in its report on industrial designs, recommended one amendment to the Trade Marks Act on the basis of its recommendations with respect to industrial designs; and since, finally, the commissions's membership and staff have become depleted and it would be impossible for it to undertake an inquiry into trade marks, it was decided that the commission's terms of reference be amended by the deletion of the reference to trade marks. By order in council P.C. 19591340, dated October 16, 1959, the commission's terms of reference were so amended. There will, therefore, be no report on trade marks, and with this report on patents of invention the commission has now completed its assignment. This report on patents is being made available to the press and for sale to the public today.
Since this report contains matters of a highly technical nature, the government does not intend to introduce the necessary legislation to bring a new act into force at the present session. We intend to give to all those who are interested time to study this report and submit their suggestions before introducing appropriate legislation at the next session of this parliament.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Pickersgill (for Mr. Hellyer): For a copy of each regular or special questionnaire used by the bureau of statistics during the months of January and February I960, in respect to its sampling of the Canadian labour force, including its without jobs component.
Motion agreed to.


WHARF RECONSTRUCTION, MALARTIC RIVER, QUE.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 83-Mr. Dumas:
For a copy of all payrolls showing the names of those employed, the period of employment nnrf the amount paid to each person, in connection with the reconstruction, during 1959, of a wharf located on the west bank of the Malartlc river, range 4, in the township of Malartic, Quebec.
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are conducting an investigation at the present time, and I would appreciate it very much if the motion could stand until their report is received.
Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member is agreeable, the motion stands.
Motion stands.


SOUTH STUKELY, QUE., UNDERPASS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 84-Mr. Leduc (for Mr. Boivin):
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the board of transport commissioners for Canada and the government of the province of Quebec, from 1948 to date, regarding the underpass at South Stukely, Quebec.
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to passing this motion with the usual reservation regarding the requirement to obtain the permission of the province.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitation expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 85-Mr. Carter:
For a copy of any agreement or arrangement entered into since July 1. 1959. between the Minister of Public Works or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on the one hand, and the Royal Bank of Canada on the other, to guarantee payment of
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry the provincial or municipal share of a proposed land assembly and slum clearance project on the eastern outskirts of St. John's, Newfoundland.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 86-Mr. Carter:
For a copy of all correspondence since July 1, 1959, between the mayor or any other official of the city of St. John's, Newfoundland, and the Minister of Public Works or any official of his department or of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation regarding a proposed land assembly and slum clearance project on the eastern outskirts of the city of St. John's, Newfoundland together with a copy of any agreement or agreements or arrangement or arrangements with the city respecting such project.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister, apropos of the decision of the government made last year not to allow a general freight rate increase for a period of one year pending an inquiry into the railway rate structure and other matters affecting railway transportation. Has the government decided to continue this policy for a further period?


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. gentleman will recognize, this question deals with a matter of government policy which will be announced in due course. I should further point out that the order of the board of railway commissioners in connection with this matter does not lapse until July 31.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question and state that my recollection is that the policy announced by the Prime Minister was for a period of one year. My purpose in asking the question was that the year expires on April 10, which is Sunday next, and I wondered whether the Prime Minister would not give consideration to making a statement prior to that time.


John George Diefenbaker: I know the interest of the hon. gentleman in this matter, and I will certainly give consideration to his suggestion, but I will not undertake to say anything prior to that date.


RULING OF TRANSPORT COMMISSION RESPECTING EQUALIZATION ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask whether he has seen a report of a

ruling on Saturday by the board of transport commissioners to the effect that it will issue no further equalization orders while the federal government is paying the subsidy to reduce the impact of the 17 per cent general freight rate increase authorized in 1958? I just sent the minister notice of this question prior to my coming into the house. I do not expect he will be able to give an answer today, but perhaps he will take it as notice.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have seen the report.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister comment on the report made by the board in connection with this ruling?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: Then may I ask the minister whether it is his intention, or that of his government, to renew the application of the Freight Rates Reduction Act, referred to in the ruling?


George Harris Hees: The Prime Minister has already answered that question very adequately.


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not dealt with that question at all.


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


Lionel Chevrier: I am rising on a point of order to say that the question I put to the Minister of Transport and the question I addressed to the Prime Minister are two entirely different questions. One deals with the royal commission on freight rates and the other deals with the Freight Rates Reduction Act passed in 1959. These are different matters entirely.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a matter of argument rather than a point of order. The hon. member has had his reply from the minister.


Lionel Chevrier: Then in view of his reply I should like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, to ask him whether it is the intention of the government to renew the application of the Freight Rates Reduction Act in the year 1960?


John George Diefenbaker: May I give the answer which I gave to the hon. gentleman earlier, which is that this being a matter of government policy, an announcement will be made in due course.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Since the board of transport commissioners has postponed the equalization of freight rates until the royal commission report is made, can the Prime Minister give the house some idea as to when the royal commission report may be completed, what the target date is at the present time?


John George Diefenbaker: On one previous occasion I did set a target date, and because it turned out to be an incorrect prognostication I heard about it on a number of occasions. I do not intend to make that mistake again.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am pleased that the Prime Minister is learning, but is it not correct that the objective was to have this matter looked into and a report completed this year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has had his answer. It seems to me the supplementary is merely for the purpose of explaining something that was said. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


Hazen Robert Argue: But my question is this. Is it not correct-*


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have recognized the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Assiniboia may raise his point of order, but I have just now recognized the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and he has not had a chance to say a word.


Hazen Robert Argue: I had risen on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My understanding of the rules of the house is that a point of order should be taken up immediately it is raised. I was claiming the floor because I wished to raise a point of order. My point of order is that I do not feel that my second supplementary question went beyond the rules of the house, and that while the Prime Minister is not required to, in fact he did not, answer the question I had asked.
On this point of order I was about to say that my understanding was that there was a time limit with regard to the report of the royal commission on freight rates. I was merely going to ask the Prime Minister, as a further supplementary question, whether there was not a time limit or a target limit, shall we say, for the royal commission on
Inquiries of the Ministry freight rates, in that its inquiry was hoped and expected to be made before the subsidy went out of existence?


Mr. Speaker:: Dealing with the point of order, I had just recognized the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, although he had not yet had a chance to say anything. In those circumstances I think any hon. member who wishes to rise on a point of order should at least wait until the hon. member who has been recognized has taken the floor.
The point of order the hon. member raises with regard to the supplementary question, which he has now repeated, seems to me to leave the question as one asking for information which is readily available to anyone. The Prime Minister had twice answered to the effect that he did not wish to venture an opinion as to when the report would be given. The second question, the supplementary, it seemed to me was not really a supplementary question but was asking for information which could be ascertained by anyone who looked up the facts.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's answer, as I recall it, was not on this point at all but was on the subject of another royal commission, which had absolutely nothing to do with my question.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member objects to my decision with regard to his question asking for information which is open to anyone, I would be glad to hear him further; but it seems to me that is the type of question it is.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Ernest Pascoe: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Now that the first quarter of the year has been completed in the government's program for support prices for eggs, can the minister inform the house whether deficiency payments are necessary to bring the national average of producer prices up to the level of the support price? If so, when will these deficiency payments be made?


Douglas Scott Harkness: On January 111 announced that the agricultural stabilization board would make an interim payment to producers for eggs marketed during the period January 1 to March 31. I also pointed out that at that time egg marketings were at a relatively high level, and that this interim payment was being made to provide assistance to producers during the period of adjustment.

Inquiries of the Ministry
The national weighted average price lor grade A large eggs during the period January 1 to March 31 was 25.4 cents per dozen, or 7.6 cents below the prescribed national weighted average support price of 33 cents per dozen.
In establishing the exact amount of the deficiency payment, the agricultural stabilization board took into account the fact that the national weighted average price of grade A large eggs during the last quarter of 1959 was slightly below the prescribed price, and will accordingly pay an interim deficiency payment of 8 cents per dozen. This payment will be made for all grade A large and extra large eggs up to a total of 1,000 dozen, marketed in the period January 1 to March 31, 1960, by producers registered with the agricultural stabilization board. Cheques will be mailed to producers as soon as marketing records for this quarter are completed, which is expected to be within the next few days.
During the period January 1 to March 26, 1960, egg marketings were 7 per cent below marketings for the same period in 1959, and for the week ending March 26 marketings were 12 per cent below the same week a year ago.
The reduction in egg marketings is now reflected in improving price levels. Egg marketings are now in a more realistic balance with domestic requirements, and except for seasonal variations prices may be expected to remain at or above the support level. During the week of March 26 the national weighted average price for all grades of eggs in Canada was 34.9 cents per dozen, or 1.9 cents above the support price, as compared to the national weighted average price for the same week a year ago of 31.9 cents when the board was purchasing eggs to support the price.
The deficiency payments of 8 cents per dozen on grade A large eggs, which will be paid to all producers regardless of location, is
0.4 cents per dozen higher than producers in Alberta and Saskatchewan would have received under a regional average basis, and
0.4 cents less than the producers in Manitoba would have received.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman because he was making a statement of considerable importance. However, I suggest to you that the minister was not in order in giving this reply; that it should have been made on motions, when a spokesman for the opposition would have had the first opportunity of commenting on this important statement of government policy. Instead, the minister has circumvented the rights of the house by the

device of giving a member of the government party an opportunity of asking a question and thereby seemingly getting credit for something which obviously neither he nor the government deserve.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On this so-called point of order raised by the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that hon. members opposite are constantly asking me and other members of the government to make statements of this sort in reply to their questions.


Mr. Speaker:: The answer the minister gave was in length beyond that which it is customary to expect or to receive at this stage of oral questions before the orders of the day are called, and could certainly have been made appropriately as a statement, by reason of its length and its being in the nature of an announcement. Where one draws the line between one answer and another is up to the good sense of the house. I recognize the objection taken by the hon. member.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Agriculture yet been able to obtain the consent of the province of Nova Scotia with regard to the tabling in this house, as requested, of correspondence between the premier of that province and the government of Canada in the matter of deficiency payments?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe the material was tabled either Friday afternoon or today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the minister.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question based on a Canadian Press report in today's Montreal Gazette in which the following appears:
Mr. Green was critical of the bigger powers of NATO for excluding middle power Canada and smaller nations from certain consultations.
This was part of a speech made by the minister in Hamilton on Saturday night. Will the minister tell the house what were these certain consultations from which Canada was excluded by certain of the great powers in NATO?


Howard Charles Green: I do not think that is a proper question on orders of the day, Mr. Speaker. However, there is a very good illustration in this very report which the hon. member for Essex East has; if he reads the next paragraph or two, he will find an answer to his question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, of course I will not comment on the minister's reply. This is an important question, and I am sorry the minister feels he cannot give the details to parliament which he obviously gave outside this house. May I ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Essex East is doing nothing more than commenting upon the answer. If he rises it should be on a supplementary or a new question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the kind of consultation he had in mind was the failure of the government of the United States to consult Canada with regard to the substantial modification it made and is making in the production of Bomarc missiles.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Essex East could not have heard the same speech I heard, because I got the impression that there was adequate consultation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask a supplementary question. In the extract just read by the hon. gentleman, was the minister referring to supermen?



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. My question is based on a letter addressed to the Prime Minister by Mr. Douglas T. Kenny, secretary of the University of British Columbia faculty association, in which he informed the Prime Minister of the contribution being made to the educational work of the university by Miss Irene Rebrin and the need for keeping such persons in Canada.
My question is, in view of the resolution adopted by the University of British Columbia faculty association on Thursday, March 31, and in view of their representation to you, Mr. Prime Minister, earnestly requesting that a faculty member, Miss Irene Rebrin, be permitted to remain in Canada, would the Prime Minister inform the house whether, 79951-0-181
Inquiries of the Ministry in the light of this representation from the University of British Columbia faculty association, the government is giving further consideration to this case.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have received the representations made by the faculty group of the University of British Columbia and intend to discuss the matter with the appropriate ministers, including the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, at the earliest opportunity.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexis Pierre Caron: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. The civil service commission has requested applications for the post of electrical maintenance man at the air service branch, Department of Transport, Ottawa. However, the announcement is written this way: "Open to qualified residents of the Toronto air service region". This region consists of the province of Ontario as far west as the 88th meridian.
Can the minister tell us how it is that residents in Hull and the whole of the Quebec region are not permitted to compete in this competition?


George Harris Hees: Details of these competitions are matters which I do not carry around in my head. I shall be glad to consult my officials and give the hon. member an answer later.



EXTENSION OF SALARY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Murdo William Martin: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance, and ask him whether the salary increases for government employees to which he referred in his budget address on Thursday will be extended to that overworked group, the secretaries of members of parliament?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The increase recommended will be extended to the secretaries attached to the House of Commons, but of course it will require action on the part of the house to make them applicable.
May I add, Mr. Speaker, that I do not think the hon. gentleman ought to overwork his secretary.

Inquiries of the Ministry BRIDGES



JACQUES CARTIER BRIDGE, MONTREAL  REPORTED ARRESTS BY R.C.M.P.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Have arrests been made today by the R.C.M.P. consequent on the investigation into the Jacques Cartier bridge situation. If so, can the minister give us some indication of the scope and nature of the charges?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether the Minister of Justice considers that to be a matter under his jurisdiction. If he does, he will answer; but it seems to me that this is a question of the enforcement of criminal law, which is the responsibility of the attorneys general of the provinces.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps because of the interest in this matter, and the fact that there is an inquiry before one of the committees of this house, Your Honour would permit me to answer in so far as it is proper for me to do so. I am not able to say at the moment whether any arrests have actually been made. I have only a report that the inquiry is proceeding satisfactorily. Only if and when arrests are made would it be proper for me to comment, or to report to the house as to exactly what has happened. At the moment, in the absence of specific information I do not think I should answer any further.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
pilots' grievances
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether he has had an opportunity to consider the question I asked on Friday, which reads:
Has the minister received a telegram from the Quebec river pilots setting out their grievances and requesting a settlement thereof prior to the opening of navigation. Can the minister tell the house whether those grievances have been studied by the department and what decision has been reached?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was just on the point of rising to give an answer to the hon. member's question.
The points at issue relate to the special pilot system, the relocation of the pilotage station, and a number of lesser issues. These have been under study by my department during the winter and have been discussed with the pilots on more than one occasion.


Communications setting forth our views were sent forward a few days ago, and I am in fact receiving a delegation of the Quebec pilots this afternoon to discuss the matter further.



REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO RESEARCH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister care to comment on the report that the United States department of health, education and welfare has awarded a research grant of close to $300,000 to a group in Toronto working under the auspices of the Ontario cancer treatment and research foundation? In view of this recognition, is the federal government giving consideration to an increase in our own assistance to cancer research in Canada?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for having intimated that he was going to ask this question. I have seen reports of this grant, and I feel it indicates the high standard of cancer research in Canada. The foundation in question is the official agent of the province of Ontario in this field, and as such is free to encourage and receive support from any source.
Under the cancer control grant, any province may submit research projects for consideration of federal assistance, and I am always pleased to receive these. Last year my department made available to the province of Ontario, on behalf of the foundation's program, a total of almost $1,225,000.



REPORTED VISIT OF CANADIAN OFFICIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it a fact that an official of the government of Canada has been sent to the Soviet union for the purpose of examining certain aspects of the importation of Russian automobiles into Canada?
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minisier of Trade
and Commerce): No sir, that is not the subject of the inquiry whatsoever.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question. Do I understand the minister to say that no official from the public service has gone for that purpose?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I said that was not the subject of the inquiry, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister explain? What is the subject of the inquiry that has prompted the sending of an official of the government of Canada to the Soviet union to examine some aspects of Russian-made automobiles and their importation into Canada?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Two answers to that question should be sufficient, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, notice of which I have sent to him. In view of the report that unemployed uranium miners at Bancroft are having an extremely difficult time obtaining employment because employers believe they are a health risk and could become a burden on pension benefits, would the minister care to comment on this report and would he use his good offices to the end that these unemployed miners will be given every opportunity to obtain employment.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave me notice of this question. I immediately got in touch with the officials of the national employment service, who informed me they had not encountered this problem in securing alternative employment for miners of Bancroft or Elliott Lake. I have also asked them to look further into this matter, thoroughly, and they have promised to do that and will see that no discrimination takes place.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank the minister for his reply. I wonder whether he will report to me privately or to the house at a later date as to whether there is any foundation for the report.


Michael Starr: If there is any foundation for this report I shall be glad to report to the hon. member.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming 79951-0-181*
The Budget-Mr. Benidickson (Eglinton) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I would be the first one to admit that the Minister of Finance is not easy to follow in debate. I was interested to read of a delegation that visited the Prime Minister during the middle of last month, inviting him to a summit meeting of the chiefs of the Six Nations Indian reserves, an invitation which was, by the way, declined. None the less the delegation afterwards reported:
We have had a lot of promises in the past that have never been kept.
But the spokesman said, after an hour with the Prime Minister:
He is a great talker. He can almost make you forget what you came here for.
I think that was about the position of those in the gallery the other night because, next to the Prime Minister, I would certainly give full marks to the Minister of Finance for being this house's greatest illusionist.
We have some sympathy for the Minister of Finance. Admittedly he has had difficult circumstances to contend with, but we would have more sympathy were it not for our feeling that many of the difficult circumstances have been of his own making. I said the other night-and I think a number of other commentators are confirming the view-that the presentation was really a do nothing budget. Someone amended that by saying, "Well, if it was not a do-nothing budget it was then perhaps doing just the same as was done last year." I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is not good enough.
One has to do quite a bit of searching through ore to try to find a bit of sparkle in this budget. I have been prepared to do that, and I have, of course, every desire to approve of some of the good new items, however slender, that appear there. I think most hon. members will approve of the minister's announcement that the double impact of income and estate taxes on pension and annuity rights inherited by widows and others will be avoided.
I remind the minister, of course, that when the new estate tax was being examined in the committee on banking and commerce, sitting when the house was sitting, I stood alone and indicated that the women's organizations of Canada, including the university women and the national council of women, even trust companies and others who were familiar with these matters, urged that this particular amendment be taken care of at that time. I was voted down, of course, by the

The Budget-Mr. Benidickson overwhelming majority of government supporters in that committee. I think too there will be universal approval of the minister's proposal to increase the exemption with respect to medical expenses, for the benefit of those who are faced with abnormally high expenses these days when such expenses admittedly are rising very noticeably.
It was the Winnipeg Free Press, as the minister might imagine, that made the statement last year that it is not realistic to expect an opposition to penetrate all the deceptions of an often deceptive government. I, of course, would not hope to be able to do that today. However, in reading the resolutions over the week end I did notice some items that have not had adequate attention perhaps to date by the taxpayers. I think, for instance, of resolution No. 7 with respect to the sales tax. This is the way that resolution reads:
That portrait photographs of individuals be exempt from sales tax.
I suppose the uninformed may have taken a little glow from the thought that in getting portraits next Christmas they may be able to benefit from what looks like a reduction in tax. Without any explanation, as is usual in these matters, it would appear that this is not a reduction in taxation. Portraits have been exempt from the sales tax. On the contrary, this vehicle is being used to impose new taxation that has not been imposed hitherto. I think this is a very regrettable, back door and sly method of introducing a new tax. I suppose the minister is following the slogan of the popular song; he is simply "emphasizing the positive". But what is actually happening here is that for the first time it seems it is the intention of the minister to impose a tax on developing the films used in our amateur photography, which you and I take to have developed in the ordinary photographer's shop. So I came to the realization that quite contrary-


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman is quite wrong.


William Moore Benidickson: Will the minister deny that portraits have always been exempt from tax?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will deny that there is any suggestion of putting a tax on films that are being developed for people, as the hon. member has indicated.


William Moore Benidickson: I am glad, we shall watch for developments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Darkroom tactics.


William Moore Benidickson: I do know that the minister's colleague the Minister of National


Revenue advised photo developers that it was the intention to impose this tax for the first time, effective in January of this year, without any change by means of a budget resolution but simply relying on what the department thought was permissive power in the present law. They took the matter to the Department of Justice. It is my submission that we have here a clear exemption of one type of portrait photography with the intention of going ahead with the proposal to impose a sales tax for the first time on the ordinary development of films. If I am wrong I will be very pleased to hear so from the minister.
Before we proceed too far with the budget debate, and in view of the fact that in the city of Ottawa the civil service pension plan covers more people than any other such plan elsewhere, I suggest that the effects of income tax resolution No. 12 be considered by taxpayers very carefully. As most of us know, under certain circumstances a person can withdraw from the civil service pension plan and receive a lump sum payment. This provision is utilized particularly by single female employees upon marriage. The intent of the resolution may be simplification for the tax collector, but we must examine very carefully the effect upon the taxpayer himself.
Apart from some of these items, I do not see that it is useful at this stage, or until we come to debate the resolutions, to refer very much to some of the other items because not very many people are interested in cuttlefish, fish bait, pretzels, instant potatoes and the like, which are prominent in the resolutions this year. At another stage I do, of course, propose to examine very carefully the changes in the tariff. For three budgets we have seen the Minister of Finance come before us as he does, warming his coat tails before the glow of his professed virtue in tariff matters, but with each budget that has been presented we know we have had certain complaints from our best customers. I refer to Britain, Italy, Japan and so on. I suggest that again this year these items will require very careful consideration when we have the bill before us amending the Customs Tariff.
When I spoke briefly the other night, Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of oh's and ah's when I made the statement that the Minister of Finance had been 50 per cent wrong in his forecast of the gross national product, because he had made his forecast on the assumption that no increases in prices would be involved. Over the week end I think most of us have seen that this view has been shared by those



I960

[Stage Direction]
with prominent positions in financial journalism. I find that in the April 2 issue the Financial Post had this to say:
Business planners got an unwanted and unexpected surprise this week: 1959's gross national product made only a bare 3.5 per cent gain in volume. At budget time last year, finance minister Fleming had assumed that prices would be stable and a "real" 7 per cent advance would be achieved in the production of goods and services ...
These G.N.P. trends add to the evidence pointing to slower paced growth in 1960.
I hope the Minister of Finance will comment on this as we proceed. I hope the Financial Post is equally right when it goes on to say:
But it's probably all to the good, say most business analysts. The fewer the excesses this year, the milder any subsequent recession.
However, that was not the minister's forecast last year and, as I indicated, it was just 50 per cent out with respect to volume and an assumption of no increases in prices. When we examined the minister's comments the other night we were greatly disappointed with regard to some of the important matters other than finance lightly dealt with that have a great effect upon our economy and' our financial future. There was certainly cavalier treatment with respect to the problem of unemployment. It was certainly brushed under the rug. In the budget of the Minister of Finance we seemed to have quite a departure from the philosophy of the Prime Minister that "no man is going to suffer". There is nothing new for the unemployed. In fact one could hardly find anything more fatuous than this brief reference to unemployment in the minister's statement, as found at page 2670 of Hansard:
I am confident... that employment will rise as the coming of spring opens up new job opportunities and as the economy continues its upward trend.
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: What a shame.


William Moore Benidickson: If that is all that can be expected, if that is all the minister was prepared to tell us in his budget speech about the pressing problem of unemployment, I say it is cavalier treatment indeed. About agriculture there was nothing at all said. The silence was deafening with respect to our agricultural industry. Notwithstanding the fact that the net income of Canadian farmers as reported, last month, has declined 7 per cent in 1959, did the minister make any comment about that very vital industry in his report to the nation the other night? He did not.
Well, Mr. Speaker, at this stage in our proceedings it is always monotonous-it is monotonous to us as it must be to those on
The Budget-Mr. Benidickson the other side-and indeed depressing to recite even a partial list of the broken promises of this administration. I believe those promises were made not with the feeling that they would ever have to be redeemed, but were made in an election campaign simply from the point of view of embarrassment.
I shall refer to some very briefly. There was the promise to reduce expenditures, and then what happened? They were increased. There was the promise to lower taxes, but they were raised; the denunciation of high interest rates, and they were pushed higher; the promise to provincial governments of benefits which the government find afterwards they seemingly cannot concede; the promise to divert trade from the United States and then they concentrate trade more in the single basket; the promise to cure unemployment, and in the year which our financial treasurer says is a prosperous year we find unemployment worse than last year and rising. There was the promise to reorganize and rationalize national defence. Now, there is almost universal agreement across the country that national defence is in an incomprehensible mess.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that in this picture two things have come into focus. It has become abundantly clear that the Prime Minister is, after all, mortal; and second, that the taxpayers' purse is limited. The taxpayers had begun to wonder if the vision was something they could actually afford or was merely an illusion. What are some of the results? We find that the Minister of Finance today is the one being cheered, mostly, as the strong man of the day. The "no person will suffer" philosophy, as I have said, seems to have been jettisoned as being incompatible with the green light that, at some stage, apparently was given to the Minister of Finance to make our finances more sound. Even the government itself now appears to be reaping the whirlwind of the iniquitous promise seed which it sowed in two elections.
At some point last fall-I think this is very interesting-even the Prime Minister seems to have got green around the gills in connection with our financial distress and must have decided on something new because, after all, a change did take place. The Minister of Finance has given us a review of the past year, but it seems to me that the white paper and his report to the house last Thursday night have left out a great portion of the real bases for some of the changes that have taken place.
I want to ask the house to reflect upon the climate, financial and political, across this country last year, particularly in the

The Budget-Mr. Benidickson fall. I have a little review to show just what the thinking was of people not only in this country, of those likely to be biased in favour of the government, but of onlookers outside of the country. What were they saying six months ago? The Economist of London, an outstanding United Kingdom journal, described Canada as in a financial mess.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon.
gentleman read some of the articles from those English papers that came out about six weeks or two months later, and which corrected those erroneous statements?


William Moore Benidickson: That was doubtless after the visit by the minister of the United Kingdom, when he said that Canada's finances were as sound as a bell. But it was also after the time that radical changes were made in the direction of our finances in this country.
The Globe and Mail of Toronto has never been particularly unfriendly to this government. Its financial editor, after hearing the speech of the Prime Minister on our financial policy which was delivered to the Lethbridge chamber of commerce, said this:
As to the cause of tight money, this may clearly be attributed to official policy.
The Montreal Star commented as follows:
We wish that someone he would listen to. would tell the Prime Minister that no one cares whether tight money is due to the Liberals, the Conservatives or hurricane Gracie. Very tight money is here.
Tight money is due to a combination of factors for some of which the government has responsibility. Why not tell what government policy is? Mr. Diefenbaker could. Instead we have to go on guessing.
This was the climate of last fall. The money market certainly told the government that something was wrong and not sound as a bell. I think you and I as individuals, if we had found it so difficult to borrow money, certainly would have thought something was wrong with our operations and would be rather concerned. At the beginning of October the president of the investment dealers of Canada had this to say:
The underlying issue is the absence of leadership by the government in monetary matters.
The financial editor of the Montreal Gazette, commenting on that statement by the representative of the investment dealers, said this-


Richard Albert Bell: Will the hon. gentleman give the date of the quotations?


William Moore Benidickson: October 1, 1959 was the date of the first one. Commenting on that statement the following day the financial

editor of the Montreal Gazette, not unfriendly to this government either, said if that statement of the I.D.B. is to be criticized, the criticism is that the statement has not gone far enough.
Within about a week, in this kind of climate -and I am giving only a few illustrations of what was being said about the financial policy of the government-it is true that the Minister of Finance broke a long silence, something which is unusual for him, and made a statement to the Empire club of Toronto. This followed within a few days that famous television broadcast of the Prime Minister when he delved into financial policy and pouted that the banks were to blame for our situation and said that nobody was going to stampede him.
Within a week we certainly did get from the Minister of Finance something quite different and more positive in connection with financial policy. It appeared that at long last the Minister of Finance had been given by his Prime Minister something in the way of a brighter light with respect to financial leadership in the country. We certainly had been in quite a bit of uncertainty previously. I should like to give an illustration of what the House of Commons was told in the previous session by the Minister of Finance as to financial policy, and the kind of muddled explanation that we obtained. As reported at page 3746 of Hansard of May 18, a question was put to the Minister of Finance and these were his words in reply:
If the banks find they have not an ample amount of money to meet the extraordinary demands for credit that are made upon them today as a result of the upsurge in the Canadian economy, then certainly it is not the intention of the Canadian government to inflict on the people of Canada a repetition of the tight money policy of our Liberal predecessors.
Then the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate asked this question: "What are you going to do to stop it?" To that question there was no answer. There was no answer after the adjournment of the house until the minister started in October to make statements as he has been doing, as I said the other night, every month since. What is the policy? Is the policy that the budget is to be balanced at any cost, or is it the policy enunciated previously by the Prime Minister, namely that no person will suffer-presumably economically-in this country?
The Minister of Finance the other night had quite a bit to say about debt management. There was a striking absence of comment on unemployment and agriculture. However, he had a great deal to say about debt management. I think some of the statements made



[Stage Direction]
the other night are certainly worthy of a review. As reported at page 2677 of Hansard the minister said this:
-the total volume of direct government of Canada marketable issues outstanding at the end of the year is only $28 million higher than at the beginning.
What is the unsophisticated person going to think about that statement? I suggest to the Minister of Finance that no matter how he may twist or squirm, all he requires to do is look at the statistics in the weekly report of the Bank of Canada-and I refer to the latest one, dated March 31 of this year- and he will find that the total of government of Canada direct and guaranteed securities outstanding is up $756 million from a year ago. This is the sum that was taken by the government from the market, and taking this sum diminished accordingly the amounts which investors would otherwise have had available for other undertakings, for other governments, for the commerce of the country and so on. I say, Mr. Speaker, what lubricity there is in this kind of statement.
The finance minister's remarks on the debt management activities of the government in the past 12 months just glossed over the tremendous damage that his borrowings have caused to junior governments and to individual commercial borrowers. The course of the treasury bill rates during the year 1959 reflects these repeated demands made by the government on the money market. The Minister of Finance suggests that these rates really, in their rise, reflected particularly the heavy demands that were made by ordinary commerce through the banks. It was the earlier demands of this government for money, made through and after the conversion loan, that demoralized the interest rates of this country and made it no longer possible for the Minister of Finance to say, "look what we as a government have done to bring down interest rates". Once they started to rise, of course, it was somebody else's fault. First of all it was said it was that of the Bank of Canada; then it was said it was the fault of the chartered banks of the land. But the course of the rise is evident. It stemmed and originated from that unfortunate conversion loan.
John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Give the most recent Bank of Canada rate.


William Moore Benidickson: I am going to refer to that matter. I suggest that the hon. member, like the Minister of Finance, may claim credit that it is going down. You are taking great credit for it going down, but refused to accept any responsibility for financial policy when it was going up to heights never experienced in a generation. I want to say something about what this has resulted in. Let us look at what
The Budget-Mr. Benidickson the cost of interest has meant to this government-and we are examining the accounts of our government for the past year-quite irrespective of the calamity that its policies have caused in pushing out other governments and pushing out the legitimate commerce of the land.
The main estimates for 1960-61 provide for interest in a staggering sum, but this is not all the story. The amount of interest actually provided in the book of estimates for the forthcoming year is less than was spent by the government last year. The amount is $594 million. The actual interest charges last year amounted to $632 million. I pointed out the other night that there is an allowance of only $140 million for extra charges for the remainder of this new year if he is actually to produce a balanced budget. The other night he provided $15 million for the civil servants. But here is a difference of $39 million between what was actually spent last year on interest and what is provided for in the estimates for interest for the coming year.
The question that naturally arises is this. Can the minister, with an item of this kind and many others that I could mention, hold the line to this margin of $140 million in the large budget that is involved for this country? We know this government has indicated that as far as freight rates are concerned, an increase cannot be allowed. They have said that the line must be held. Indeed, the president of the Canadian National Railways said to our committee the other day that if freight rates went up he thought there would perhaps be a diminishing return to the railroads. In competition with other carriers the freight carried would become less. We have at the present time a board of conciliation with respect to the wage demands of 100,000 of our railway employees. If freight rates are to be held as they are and subsidies are to be continued in order to provide wage increases commensurate with increases in wages to workers in other segments of the economy, what is that going to do to the budget of the Minister of Finance?
The minister always has a desire to relate the national debt to per capita debt. We are sorry that we have not in the house these days the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan). We hope, however, that he will be back with us after an operation after the Easter recess, at which time he will doubtless be participating in later stages of this debate. But I am surprised the Minister of Finance would repeat this old tale after the excellent way in which it was presented to the house last year, when the hon. member for Welland pointed out that what the minister was really saying was that every baby

The Budget-Mr. Benidickson born and every immigrant arriving into the country is simply being handed and assuming a share of the debt. The member for Welland also pointed out that this does not in any way reduce the debt by one dollar. It is simply a matter of transferring to a new baby a share of the public debt.
The net debt as it stands today is $12.1 billion. The Liberals, so much attacked by the Minister of Finance in the past when he sat in opposition for reaching large surpluses, as a result reduced the net debt over a period of 11 years from $13.4 billion to just over $11 billion. In two years this new administration has managed to wipe out half the savings achieved by their predecessors over a period of 11 years.
The cost of servicing the public debt, as a result of the high interest rates and unprecedented deficits in peacetime, now stands at $786 million. This is the second largest item in our budget, being second only to that for national defence. Let us look at the cost of servicing this debt today per wage earner. If we take the figure for the total labour force as approximately 6,200,000, I calculate that the cost would be $126 per year or about $10.50 per month for each wage earner in this country to service the debt. This, of course, is a tremendous obligation, and it has been rising to great proportions.
Mr. Speaker, in connection with debt management, I want to look at another angle. In examining the Bank of Canada report I have found there set out the details of the various forms of loans obtained last year by this administration. We have features that have never been prominent in requests for money over many years of this country's history. Loan after loan seems to have coupled with it a new gimmick and I suggest something which one would almost regard as a new give-away, so far as the taxpayers are concerned, in order to get money.
I refer to such things as the non-callable feature. We have had non-callable features in our public debt in the past, it is true; but I pointed out in the budget debate last year, when referring to the conversion loan which was made, that it would be a financial tragedy of great magnitude when the youth of this land, when they became taxpayers, found there were no callable features as far as. the government was concerned respecting that massive conversion involving $6.4 billion.
This has continued. In the past there were occasionally times under the previous administration when the callable feature was omitted, but I suggest there is a very big difference between the elimination of a callable feature when interest rates are 3 per cent and 3J per cent and when they are 6J per cent or 5J per cent, at all time high levels.


This is what the Minister of Finance is denying to his successors in the way of financial adjustment in the future if interest rates go down.
I refer to the debate of last year of March 18, when I said there was another very dangerous gimmick which the minister was apparently introducing. That was the gimmick of a very substantial discount offered with respect to a very short term loan. I do not know whether the minister was as naive as he suggested, whether he actually did not realize the implication of this, or whether he was endeavouring to mislead me or put me and the hon. member for Welland off. Also the Leader of the Opposition-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. gentleman wishes to leave that imputation on the record. It is not worthy of him to suggest that an hon. member of this house was endeavouring to mislead him.


William Moore Benidickson: I was suggesting an alternative, Mr. Speaker, which I thought the minister perhaps would less like to have, and that was that he did not realize the implication to the crown-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I must take objection to the imputation in the words used by the hon. gentleman. He has his opportunity to withdraw that expression, when he suggests I was misleading him.


William Moore Benidickson: I withdraw willingly, the words "misleading me," Mr. Speaker, and in doing so I will indicate that if one reads the remarks of the Minister of Finance as they appear in Hansard of March 18 of last year, it will be found that he said in reply to remarks made by the hon. member for Welland, "What difference does the length of the term make?" We had described the value to shrewd, sophisticated investors of getting a substantial discount on the purchase of a government bond and utilizing that, if they were not dealers, as a tax free capital gain. Indeed, one wonders why, if it were not deliberate tailoring, we had what would normally be called a treasury bill which would not be subject to a capital gain advantage, but by tailoring the loan for merely a period of one more month, 13 months, it was called a bond.
I pointed out last year that as a bond this was indeed a very expensive form of floating loans on the part of the Minister of Finance. He did not seem to realize that the discount portion of the loan extending over 12 of the 13 months was worth more to a person or a corporation paying income tax of 50 per cent than was the nominal rate advertised with respect to it across the country, the low and unrealistic

rate advertised at that time being 2f per cent. I said at that time that for a taxpayer who was paying an effective income tax rate of 50 per cent, and who was entitled to a capital gain, it was equivalent to a rate of 6.6 per cent for a bond sold at 100 cents for the dollar. I said in addition that I thought the Minister of Finance was suggesting in this form of procedure, providing short term bonds, a form of finance to the junior governments, and that as the collector of most of the income tax in this country he would regret it very keenly as time went on.
Some of the governments, following the example of course of the Minister of Finance, have been entering into this type of financing to a much bigger extent than ever before, and the sufferer is the treasury of Canada which does not get, on the difference between par and the discounted price, any income tax if the purchaser of the bonds is not a dealer and is thus entitled to have the discount regarded as a capital gain. I think this reached proportions of a dangerous nature. The Minister of Finance did not take that advice, and during the year we had subsequent floatings of loans with this important discount feature over a short term. I say this is going to prove very expensive indeed to the other side of the government, the tax collecting department, when they are seeking to collect income tax.
Then toward the fall we got into something which I think is particularly frightening to the young people of the land, if they just care to look at the type of financing which the minister has embarked upon. I have already said that most of his loan flotations do not give him the right, if interest rates go down substantially in the future, to call the debt, as used to be the practice when interest rates were nothing like as high as these. But here, time after time from September on we have had loan issues which have no call right and another feature called the right to convert. In other words, the sophisticated borrower sees that he has all the benefits of the present high rates of interest for bonds maturing over a short period of time, in 1962, 1963 and 1964, and then if rates of interest prevailing in this country in those years are substantially less he has the right to extend the term of those loans, in some cases up to an additional 13 years.
One can readily recognize this form of finance is certainly going to prove very costly indeed to the taxpayers of tomorrow, who are the youth of today; and this in spite of the fact we have indicated these dangers to the Minister of Finance in the past.
Then we come to Canada savings bonds. Even the Auditor General suggested that 79951-0-182
The Budget-Mr. Benidickson there seemed to be a lot of unnecessary and expensive run-around with respect to this form of finance. Canada savings bonds, when they were introduced by the previous administration, may have had some social benefit. They were tailored to encourage savings on the part of the small individual of the land. The maximum amount under the previous administration available to any individual was set at $5,000. Under the new administration there has developed another sales gimmick. The bonds formerly never available to other than the small man, are now available to estates and trusts. They are available to an amount of $20,000 in the name of any one individual, instead of being available to a total of $5,000. I do not think this can be called a small man's form of lending his savings to the government.
The minister's report shows that in the fiscal year just past he did, it is true, sell $1,455 million worth of Canada savings bonds at extraordinary high rates of interest. But the report also shows, at page 267 of Hansard -and this is also contained in the white paper-that the minister in the same year redeemed $1,170 million of Canada savings bonds. In other words he has just been rolling this debt over, and the net increase in borrowings of this nature was only $285 million during the year as shown by this report.
This has even provoked complaints from provincial treasurers. When it had some social merit, providing a vehicle for lending money in small amounts, as under the previous administration, up to a limit of $5,000, these complaints did not arise; but the minister will have noticed that the treasurer of his own province of Ontario has long since cried "ouch" and "foul" against this practice, and only last week these were the words used in the legislature by the premier of Ontario with respect to this type of federal financing:
I do not agree with what they are doing. I feel it is totally unfair. It is "hot'' money, and the turnover is tremendous.
I have indicated that the minister cannot have this both ways. I suggest to him that he is always criticizing the opposition and saying we are the prophets of doom and gloom. I say to him that the biggest prophet of doom today is the Minister of Finance if he thinks we shall have this tight money situation with us so long that in 1962, 1963 and 1964 he must be prepared to give lenders an option to renew their loans at 1959 and 1960 rates of interest for high interest rates such as are indicated in the Bank of Canada report; for another 13 years, seven years and
2870	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Benidickson so on. I say he is the pessimist if he thinks that interest rates at levels such as we are experiencing at the present time are to continue for 13 years or more.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made some comment on the fact that in the last month the rate being paid for treasury bills has fallen very substantially. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that this being so he might get in touch with the commercial arm of the Bank of Canada and see if something could not be done to reduce the rate of interest being charged by the industrial development bank to commercial oorrowers.
This would have a very healthy effect upon business in this country, and would provide a healthy stimulus. In March 1959 this government bank raised its charge to borrowers from 6 per cent to 6J per cent. Last October 1 it increased the rate again from 6| per cent to 7 per cent. I suggest that in view of this drop in the treasury bill rate from about 6 per cent last September to 3.26 per cent on March 30 last, the minister might consider carefully whether business would not be stimulated if borrowers who cannot go into the securities market or whose applications are turned down by the chartered banks were able to obtain a decent rate of interest from the government bank itself.
Now with respect to revenue and taxes, 1 have indicated what were some of the promises made by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister when they sought a mandate from the people of this country. What do the white paper and the speech of the minister the other night indicate? The minister, of course, compared taxes with the gross national product. Well, we all take pride in the growth of Canada, but most of us think that if a man is progressing in his business and taking in more money he should be expected to get out of debt rather than be complacent about staying in debt.
Apart from that, let us look at the following table. I think, as I have said, that the gross national debt is not being reduced but only being spread more widely; that it is being shared by a greater number of newborn babies. I submit that a more realistic table with respect to tax revenues would certainly have reference to the amount of taxes per capita which are being paid.
I should like to submit a table which I have prepared. It shows a comparative statement of revenues. The figures in each case are taken from the budget papers, and the table compares the revenues taken by this administration in respect of ordinary budgetary expenditures and the old age security fund in 1958-59 with the estimate given the


other night for 1960-61. This indicates that the tax revenues per capita in 1958-59 are $269.48 and in 1960-61, $326.72. That is a very substantial increase indeed, and this from an administration led by a gentleman who went up and down Canada saying taxation would be reduced.
I have here a headline taken from the Toronto Globe and Mail shortly after the present Prime Minister was elected to the leadership of his party. It reads, "Diefenbaker charges Liberals are Pickpockets". Now, when the tax take is considered, comparing revenues two years ago with the expectations for the coming year, I wonder what the people of this country will think of that kind of political propaganda. This was a speech made on a program of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation during a free-time period.
Indeed, it was in the same speech that the Prime Minister indicated that the Conservative party would have a commission set up to report on government economies which might be put into effect. It is almost three years since hon. gentlemen opposite took charge of the government, and this commission has yet to be established. We know that any inquiry as extensive as the one proposed would take several years to complete, and I say this is just a further indication of somersaulting with regard to promises made to the Canadian people in 1957 and 1958 elections.
When we come to consider expenditures we find something which is just as revealing. If we look at the budget papers we find the expenditure reported there for the last full year of the Liberal administration, 1956-57. The total, including old age security payments, amounted to $5,228 million. In the year just ended-and I am not taking the figures for the year ahead; that would show an even bigger disparity-in the year which was reported upon the other night by the Minister of Finance, we find that there is a billion dollar difference since this administration has been in office.
One thing which the Minister of Finance reported in his budget this year-and he did it in his budget speech last year-is the well worn claim, as it appears in Hansard on page 2679, to the effect that because of the very careful and exacting scrutiny of departmental estimates it is likely that there will not be the usual amount of government lapses, unspent moneys that are put into the budget.
The minister said exactly the same thing last year, as recorded at page 2413 of Hansard. These are, of course, good illustrations of the minister's usual modesty.

But bearing these remarks in mind and bearing in mind his suggestion that extraordinary scrutiny has been provided while he has been in charge of the Department of Finance, something presumably never equalled by his predecessors, let us examine the public accounts for 1958-59. We find there that the main estimates for 1958-59 indicated statutory expenditures of $1,788 million. But the accounts show that total budgetary expenditures under statutory authorization amounted to $1,970 million. In other words, the reality was worse than the prospect.
But these are statutory items. What unusual, extraordinary control has been proposed with respect to the items the minister sometimes describes as controllable? In other words, they are voted by parliament. In the main and various supplementary estimates submitted to parliament by the minister authority was given to him to spend $3,818 million in 1958-59. The actual expenditures for those same items amounted to only a difference of $424 million. Does anybody think that careful control, as indicated by the minister, was applied if we have lapsings of $424 million and if as he says, under his supervision presiding over treasury board these estimates of expenditures had received care and attention beyond that of any other of his well-known predecessors. I am afraid the minister is going to sprain his shoulder one of these days patting himself on the back. The trouble is, when one examines these lapsings one finds that it is so unnecessary.
At this stage it is very difficult for anybody examining the budget papers which were presented to us the other day to make a complete and accurate calculation to see how well the minister has carried out his boast in the next year 1959-60 with respect to the close control of the estimates so that lapsings would be minimal. However, by the use of the budget papers it is possible to make a calculation in this respect. Out of budgetary expenditures under statutory appropriations of $2,253 million I do admit that it is not readily possible to follow $21.3 million of expenditures, but with respect to the remainder of this large sum of $2,253 million it is possible to relate the expenditures reported in the 1960 white paper back to the book of estimates for 1959-60 which was prepared by the minister. When one does that he finds that it was proposed in the blue book that $2,056 million be spent on statutory items as appropriations for 1959-60. As I say, in both cases, I have deleted miscellaneous items of approximately $21 million. When this is examined we will find-and I think this is of interest when we consider the 79951-0-1824
The Budget-Mr. Benidickson narrow margin upon which the minister is basing his surplus for next year-that there was an increase of $196 million. I have indicated on how narrow a base the margin is for the minister's next year's surplus.
With respect to non-statutory authorizations voted in supply I find that there were lapsings of $288.6 million. When one examines the records of previous years, he finds this does not indicate to him that the minister has been better able to reduce lapsings under non-statutory appropriations and at times overexpenditures under statutory items than his predecessors.
It was rather amusing the other night to find that this was brought forward again by the minister despite this discrepancy, when one looks to the past two years' record. It is reported that the other night the Minister of Finance went up to the press gallery after delivering his budget address. One of the journalists asked him a question. It is reported in this way:
He fenced nimbly with a reporter who asked him if the modest $12 million surplus was over-taxation, a sin for which the one-time opposition critic used to castigate the Liberal government.
"That was different," said Mr. Fleming. ''The Liberals were guilty of inaccurate budgeting."
I have indicated the kind of lapsings and discrepancies between the estimates of the Minister of Finance in each of two years.
I indicated some kinds of promises that remain unfulfilled. In fact, what we are getting now demonstrates leadership diametrically opposite to what was indicated to the electorate would be their policy in the matter of finance.
However, the Minister of Finance last year spoke for the second time in the budget debate, as reported at page 2892 of Hansard of April 21, 1959. This shows the extreme length to which the minister can go in debate in the house. He was dealing with the opposition amendment at that time a year ago, and he said:
I have dealt with the terms of this extraordinary amendment, an amendment which has the temerity to accuse this government of having made promises which it did not make; of having been elected on the basis of promises which it did not give during the election campaign, and of having broken promises which it did not make.
I leave it to the country to decide whether any of the promises I have referred to today are not promises that were made well known across Canada as promises made by hon. members of the administration who now sit on the treasury benches. If that is not enough, let us look at some other promises, promises that related to likely changes in fiscal policy.
There are, of course we have been told, two kinds of promises. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) has indicated

The Budget-Mr. Benidickson that promises made outside the house are not entitled to the same respect and obligation as promises made in the house, and I must confess that some of these promises were made outside the house but by very prominent members of the Conservative party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just promises to the people.


William Moore Benidickson: Just promises to the
people. We remember that at the national convention at which the present Prime Minister was elected leader of his party they had a resolutions committee. It is true that they did draw up a number of items for the platform for the election that was expected to take place in six months or so afterwards. But after the election of the present Prime Minister as party leader it seems that these platform items were stifled. However, those of use who were here at that time know that no one had a better entree to the goings-on at that convention and to the activities of the Conservative party than that good friend of all of us, Mr. Blakely, representing the Montreal Gazette.
Before these plans in the platform were thrown out we had a report from Mr. Blakely as to the goings-on in the resolutions committee of the Conservative party. In the Montreal Gazette of December 12, 1956 he reported that the party had agreed, through its resolutions committee, on an extension of the housing act to cover existing homes in good condition. We have heard no more about that. It was agreed that they would encourage processing in Canada. What is there in this budget along these lines of fiscal policy. It was indicated that they would encourage national research by a more favourable tax climate. I see the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy): I have no doubt he is still trying to persuade the government to carry out this part of the platform. He probably had a great deal to with getting it in there in the first place. We find that they proposed the development of a deep sea fleet at an estimated cost for 35 ships of some $35 million. That has gone down the drain. Even what we had under the previous administration was sold by this administration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Sold to Batista.


William Moore Benidickson: They promised that they would eliminate the sales tax on purchases by school boards. This is the third budget presented by the minister and we have had nothing with respect to that yet. Then there is another matter which is of great concern to me because I have a bill on the order paper to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act with the same objective that the Conservative party had in 1956, that of providing aid to non-industrial small business through the industrial development bank.

When that bill comes up for consideration I hope that my friends, who in such large numbers form the governing party, will make sure of the passage of the bill.
Here is an amazing one. They proposed that they would withdraw from the taxation field with respect to alcoholic beverages and would leave that field entirely to the provinces. Some credit was given to individual sponsors of resolutions at that convention. The present member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith)-he was not a member then-said that he won his case before the 162 member policy and resolutions committee when he called for an amendment to provide for tax concessions for Canadian oil and gas operators equal to those obtained by United States operators from the United States government. We just heard the other day that the government, after almost three years of responsibility, were finally removing the road block that they themselves created instead of providing a green light for this very important industry in western Canada.
Here is another interesting one. The former member for Gloucester got his way too when he insisted that the word "distinctive" be used to describe the Canadian national flag to be adopted immediately.
We know that these planks in the platform were pigeonholed, but let us look at the matter from another angle.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about the excise tax on automobiles?


William Moore Benidickson: The excise tax on automobiles was another example. In the election campaign the Conservative party made no reference to the promises made at the national convention and in substitution therefor said that they would go by the commitments made to the Canadian people by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), then the party leader. It just happens that many matters having direct reference to fiscal policy were indeed referred to publicly and often by the Prime Minister. In his speech to the Montreal chamber of commerce shortly after his election as leader of the party he said that there would be tax changes if his party was elected to power to put Canadian companies on a basis of equality with foreign corporations or their subsidiaries operating in Canada. After three budgets what have we in the minister's financial proposals with respect to that matter?
Again, in his opening campaign speech in Toroto on April 25, 1957 the present Prime Minister said that there would be less discriminatory methods of taxing Canadian oil companies. This was the plank that the hon. member for Calgary South was instrumental

in selling to the 162-member convention resolutions committee. Again, as reported in the Vancouver Sun of March 10, 1958, the Prime Minister said that there would be drastic changes in the taxation treatment of all companies. He said that under the Income Tax Act further incentives would be provided for Canadians to invest in Canadian equity stocks. That was also in his opening campaign speech at Massey hall, Toronto, on April 25, 1957.
Then we come back to the project of the hon. member for Lambton West. Tax reductions to encourage Canadian research in every field, which was also referred to by the Prime Minister at Massey hall on the same date. At a Conservative rally at Campbell-ton, New Brunswick, on May 4, 1957 the Prime Minister promised tax inducements to persuade business firms to process raw materials in Canada.
As I say, these were promises made to the people of Canada outside the house and I think that most of us are disappointed to find little implementation of these well-known commitments made throughout the country in three budgets presented by the Minister of Finance.
I am not going to deal with this matter at any length. Not only in these monthly speeches of the Minister of Finance to chambers of commerce, empire clubs and others prior to presenting the budget but also in what he said to the House of Commons the other night, in which there was very little change from what he had been saying elsewhere, the minister closed his remarks by urging people, with that ring in his voice, to work and save. Of course, the poor unemployed would like to be able to work so that they could save. In past budget debates time after time the minister has used the Biblical reference about the mote and the beam and the eye. If the minister is trying to tell workers and people generally throughout the country that they should follow a policy of self-reliance and that there should be some forbearance and self-denial, I suggest that the minister simply look at the government telephone book of April, 1957 and the new directory and compare the number of staff for each of the ministers then with the number of personal, political staff now. I think the government is certainly not leading the way in forbearance, self-denial or, indeed, self-reliance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A 50 per cent increase.


William Moore Benidickson: In department after department we find no indication of ministers seeking assistance from the permanent professional staffs of the department but rather
The Budget-Mr. Benidickson the addition of publicists, associate private secretaries, executive assistants, and so on. As somebody has said, the number is almost double what it was in 1957.
So I say that if the administration really desires to follow a policy of economy the ministry would be better advised, if they are not practicing self-reliance, to look to the permanent civil service for advice and counsel and not to political advisers to the extent that a comparison of the two telephone books indicates has taken place, contrary to their professions about economy. I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud):
That all the words after the word "that" be deleted and the following be substituted therefor:
"this house regrets that the financial policies of the government will produce a fourth consecutive over-all deficit in a year of "so-called prosperity", while at the same time offering no solution to the problem of rising prices, rising trade deficits, a continued high premium on the Canadian dollar, increased pressure on provinces and municipalities to borrow outside Canada, declining farm income, and high and rising unemployment."


Mr. Speaker:: May I put the amendment with this reservation, that I am not certain that some of the details in the second part have not already been the subject of a decision of the house. Subject to inquiry into that matter, I will put the motion with that reservation.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to raise a point of order. I think that the Minister of Finance will recall that I referred to tabling two documents which I prepared myself and for which I take responsibility. One is a memorandum as to statutory authorizations and parliamentary votes for 1959-60 and the other is a memorandum as to the principal budgetary expenditures under statutory appropriations for 1959-60. The first table is a comparison of the estimates in the blue book, as I have indicated, with the white paper of the budget for 1960 showing expenditures for 1959-60. I wonder if these could be appended to Hansard.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member says he has prepared these tables and taken his information from government records I would urge on the house that it give permission to having the tables made part of the record of the hon. member's speech in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree that the tables just submitted by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) be made part of the record of his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The tables referred to are as follows:1

The Budget-Mr. Benidickson Memorandum as to Statutory Authorizations and
Parliamentary Votes-1959-60 (figures in millions of dollars)
l.Main estimates voted	 $3,517.7
Supplementary estimates	 54.1
Further supplementary	estimates	(1)	..	32.0Further supplementary	estimates	(2)	..	116.8
Total-Expenditures authorized by
parliament	 $3,720.6
Statutory items as per main estimates 2,078.1 Total	 $5,798.7
2.	Total expenditures as per budget papers $5,706.8 Deduct: estimated statutory
expenditures (1)		 2,274.8
Estimated expenditures under parliamentary authorizations	 $3,432.0
3.	Estimated statutory expenditures	 $2,274.8
Deduct:	statutory expenditures as set
forth in main estimates	 2,078.1
Over-expenditure	 $ 196.7
4.	Expenditures authorized by parliament $3,720.6 Deduct:	estimated expenditures under
parliamentary authorizations	 3,432.0
Estimated total lapsings	 $ 288.6
(1) See accompanying table prepared after a comparison of estimates blue book 1959-60 with white paper budget 1960 showing expenditures 1959-60.
Principal Budgetary Expenditures under Statutory Appropriations for 1959-60
(figures in millions of		dollars)	
	Blue	Increase or Budget Decrease	
Book	Papers	(-)Interest and other public debt charges 	680.1	786.1	106.0Family allowances	495.0	491.3	3.7 (-)Subsidies and tax sharing payments 	453.5	513.0	59.5Government contribution to superannuation accounts 	44.3	40.0	4.3<-)Unemployment insurance commission 	39.5	45.5	6.0Hospital insurance ....	160.0	149.8	10.2(-)Old age assistance, etc.	55.0	50.8	4.2 (-)Unemployment assistance	20.0	36.1	16.1Storage of grain 	37.9	42.3	4.4P. F. emergency fund ..	-	13.2	13.2Trans-Canada 	48.0	52.0	4.0Emergency gold mining	11.5	13.2	1.7Freight rate reduction act 	_	9.2	9.2Railway grade crossing	5.0	5.0	-Maintenance of trackage	7.0	7.0	-2056.8	2253.5	196.7Other statutory expenditures	21.3	21.3(1)	-TOTAL 	2078.1	2274.8(1) 196.7(1)	
(1) It is assumed that actual expenditures are the same as the estimates given in the blue book.


Erhart Regier: 
as a result thereof, and they have used their taxation measures as one means by which to encourage industry to locate in regions of the country where it is desirable that more industrial development take place and yet: where, if the ordinary laws of economics were allowed to work, these industrial developments are not going to take place.
I had hoped that the minister would have undertaken some moves to plug the many loopholes existing in our income tax laws at the present time. I had hoped there would, be a review of the extremely generous depletion and depreciation allowances that exist. We all hoped there would be an increase. allowed in the exemptions for the average wage earner in Canada and that the exemption for single people would have been raised at least to $1,500 and for married people to at least $3,000, with a much greater allowance for dependants than exists at the present time.
I had hoped that the government would have given some consideration to the institution of a graduated corporation tax in Canada. I cannot see the logic of applying a graduated income tax to individuals in Canada and yet having a flat percentage rate of corporation income tax. I feel that a graduated corporation tax would serve many useful purposes. It would make it a little bit easier for the small businessman to survive as a small independent businessman. It would be a weapon that would help to discourage the development of monopolies and cartels. It would reduce foreign investments to more reasonable levels. It would encourage the sale of offerings of federal, provincial and municipal governments on the money markets.
We had hoped that the government would at long last have instituted a capital gains tax which would also bring in its wake many helpful solutions to the problems of the Canadian economy. We talked about the difficulties-the premium on the Canadian dollar and investment by people in the United States in Canadian industrial enterprise-and the institution of a capital gains tax would be another method whereby in an orderly and planned manner we could bring about desirable results to the benefit of the future welfare of Canadians.
The minister hardly mentioned the field of agriculture. I suppose in the opinion of the Conservatives agriculture is no longer very important; at least, their action henceforth have not shown that they pay much attention to the needs of agriculture. I would like to ask what has happened to the demand for parity prices, and what has happened to the demand for deficiency payments when goods

are exported? There is no planning in this budget to grant either parity prices on home consumed good's or deficiency payments on exported goods.
Neither is there anything contained in the budget which will bring any measure of hope to what the minister admits is an average figure of 350,000 unemployed persons. May I point out to the minister and the government, in seeking ways and means of adding to its revenues, that if we had 350,000 as an average level of unemployment we thereby lost over $1 billion worth of wealth which would have gone into the Canadian economy. The attitude of the government of the day toward the unemployed of Canada seems callous indeed.
This Conservative government has now introduced the means test in the application of the Unemployment Insurance Act, a most regrettable move. The Unemployment Insurance Act was passed on insurance principles, and the introduction of the means test and the denying to these people of the benefits of their severance and holiday pay is completely opposed to the original intent of the act.
The independent businessman of Canada will receive small comfort from the budget. Ever since the Conservatives took office we have only had one lousy, measly $30,000 vote in all the estimates specifically designed to help the small businessman. How they were going to help the small businessman of Canada before the government was elected. Interest rates are now so high that they are beyond the ability of Canadian enterprise to afford. They are also beyond the reach of those responsible for supplying us with our social needs. Our municipalities, hospital boards and school boards simply are not doing the necessary borrowing because they feel that our home owners, in turn, can no longer pay these high interest rates on such borrowings. Our businessmen, especially our independent businessmen, have ended their major borrowings for the very same reason. They can no longer operate when they have to pay these excessive rates.
The government is deliberately responsible for raising the interest rate, and when one looks back now to the speeches made both by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and by the Prime Minister at the time of the bond conversion deal, he will realize that practically every one of the predictions and forecasts as to the blessings of this deal has since been denied by the facts.
We were assured that this move had to be made in order to rid the market of an excessive supply of short term securities. Yet after the bond conversion deal was completed the government itself simply flooded
The Budget-Mr. Regier the market with its short term securities, and the provinces and municipalities were not helped to market their own securities. There were many other forecasts and predictions made as to the wonderful blessings of this move, and I cannot think of a single prediction made by the minister at that time which he would now be willing to repeat in this house.
The government is responsible for making tight money tighter still. Tight money became tighter because of the desperate moves of the minister in the money market, and the banks of Canada had to bail out the government in order to make the bond conversion deal a success. The weekly statistics released by the Bank of Canada show that the minister's bond conversion deal would have been a flop if the banks had not come to his aid on an emergency basis. Of course, that made tight money tighter still, and the ordinary man just was not able to borrow.
Then the bottom fell out of the bond market, and in the words of one of the heads of the Canadian banks, the banks had to put a sounder foundation under the bond market and around about August of last year again had to come to the aid of the government and increase their holdings of bonds. Because of the interest rates being pushed up, large corporations left the market and went to the chartered banks in order to meet their capital needs. As a result, the small man in Canada has certainly had to take a beating.
The budget indicates no action will be taken to reduce the premium on the Canadian dollar which harms Canadian exporters so much and also works such a hardship on Canadian manufacturers. No action is indicated to increase our exports so that they may be more even with our imports. There is no action taken on behalf of the veterans of Canada so that their relative purchasing power in relation to the average wage earner of Canada can be restored to what it was shortly after the first world war. There is nothing in the budget to give any hope to those of us who look forward to more federal aid for education. Our municipalities certainly have nothing at all to their benefit from this budget.
We see nothing in it which will enhance economic aid or reduce defence spending. We see nothing in the budget which will encourage greater Canadian ownership of Canadian resources. There is nothing in the budget to deal with the serious transportation mess we are getting ourselves into and which will take hundreds of millions of dollars of public money to get us out of so as adequately to serve the needs of the nation. There is nothing in the budget to indicate

The Budget-Mr. Regier any awareness of the serious economic difficulties in the Atlantic areas of Canada. There is nothing in the budget for the masses of the Canadian people.
Our many problems were realized by the Conservative party and the Canadian people at the time of the last election. After three years what do we get? We get a speech from the throne that ignores these matters, and we get a budget which again refuses to recognize our difficulties. The budget contained a little bit for some civil servants. It was a balanced budget and a glowing report. Resolving our problems will take a lot of money. However, the wrong steps have already been taken by this government-inflation and getting more deeply into debt. The Tories have done both these things. The new budget of the Tories is a negative one. The only efforts they have undertaken have resulted in higher taxes, higher tariffs and higher interest rates.
The budget should be balanced by raising the productivity of the Canadian economic scene. We need vastly expanded production and all our people at work. We need more intensified production. Our whole economy is becoming more and more vulnerable to what happens in the United States of America. The glowing reports, when analysed, reveal that our prosperity is very narrowly based indeed and that an ever smaller number of Canadians are being allowed to share in the growing production and prosperity that we are said to have.
Moneylenders and foreign investors are having a field day in Canada. The government is applying the brakes to the development of the Canadian economy, and it is applying the brakes to a rising standard of living for most Canadian people. I appeal to the government to recognize that in this day and age its first responsibility is to the broad mass of the Canadian people. The people expect that their difficulties will be recognized and that action will replace pious appeals, and because we feel that the government, in the budget, is not recognizing its responsibilities to the Canadian people, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West:
That the amendment be amended by striking out the period after the word "unemployment" and adding thereto the following words:
"and in the opinion of this house the solution of these problems requires amongst other things that the government give consideration to the following measures:
1.	The planned elimination of wasteful defence expenditures
2.	The provision of a self-liquidating public investment program
3.	The provision of an appropriate capital gains tax."


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, in what terms might I most appropriately describe the sallies and the sneers which have been launched against the budget this afternoon by opposition spokesmen? Having heard them, I thought that perhaps I should follow the example of the late Humphrey Mitchell, and speak in a kindly way. Is not what we have witnessed this afternoon a parade of the picayune, the piecemeal, the puerile and the perverse?
Have there been any objective, discriminating critiques of the budget, of fiscal or tax policy, or have we heard political harangues and abusive declamations? Have we heard constructive criticism, or churlish captiousness? The house and the country have a right to expect from the opposition's financial critics constructive, realistic, forthright and substantial criticisms. What they have received was a peddling of gloom, of pessimism, of despondency, of dejection. These qualities, however they may be a reflection of the political futures of the parties to which hon. gentlemen opposite belong, do not capture the mood of the Canadian people today and do not represent the reality of Canada's future, of her unprecedented and unparalleled development.
In what he had to say this afternoon about existing fiscal and taxation policies, did the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) propose any alternatives whatever? Did he give the house and the country any concept of the policies he would pursue in the unlikely and unhappy event of his becoming minister of finance? Carefully I listened to him, hoping for some clue. None did I gain, and none was there. With respect, may I say that his speech was in my opinion the most negative I have ever heard from a financial critic.
I am not one who believes that an opposition is under a duty to parade detailed policies on every issue. But I do affirm it has an obligation to assert its principles, to demonstrate on important fiscal matters where its principles and theories differ from those of the government. A hodge-podge of strictures is no alternative to statements of principle.
Presumably, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and others of the front bench of the group opposite-I adopt the word "group" to which they have been demoted by the hon. gentleman who represents Essex East (Mr. Martin)-will be speaking in this debate. Specifically and directly I invite them to state their fiscal principles, their economic tenets. Let them tell us what in this year 1960 would be their tax policy. Do

they believe in a balanced budget at this phase of our economy? What would they do about our deficit on international payments, except to talk about it? Would they stop the inflow of capital abruptly or gradually, completely or partially? Would they join their great expert Walter Gordon, who may become the minister of finance instead of the hon. gentleman from Kenora-Rainy River, and devalue the dollar, whatever that expression means? If it means something which technically it does not-merely reducing the value-how is that to be accomplished? Would foreign exchange control be reinstated? Would hon. gentlemen opposite peg a fixed rate of exchange and, if so, by what technique? Or would they go into the market and engage in a gigantic financial speculation in the purchase of foreign currencies? Have they, in fact, any cure which is not worse than the disease?
These are fair questions which I put to hon. members in the Liberal group. If we are to have an eight-day debate let it be a debate. Let us know where each party stands; let us get to grips with reality; let us thresh out the issues and the principles which are before us.
This amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River gives us no clues concerning Liberal policies. All it does is condemn; it does not assert. It is a warmed over version of the various amendments already proposed by the Liberal party to the address and on supply motions. I say to the hon. gentleman that the repetition of inaccurate assumptions-and that is all this amendment achieves-does not make them any more accurate or more palatable. I think I should add at once that the sophistical and unrealistic subamendment assuredly does not improve the amendment. In fact, I was thinking as I read through the text that both the amendment and the subamendment had obviously been drafted by experts, and I use the term "expert" in the sense in which Nicholas Murray Butler defined it, as one who knows more and more about less and less.
I do not propose at this time to spend any time replying to the speech of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). That speech reminded me simply of one which Disraeli characterized as "the harebrained chatter of irresponsible frivolity". The hon. gentleman succeeded only in demonstrating one thing, the validity of the epigram of Viscount Hailsham: "The Left can never be Right". If the hon. gentleman is the spokesman of the so-called new and unnamed party of the left, its future might well be that described by a United States
The Budget-Mr. R.A. Bell congressman who, speaking of another party, said it was "like a mule, without pride of ancestry or hope of posterity".


Hazen Robert Argue: How old is that one? Why not say what you think instead of quoting the views of other people?


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. member will hear plenty-


Hazen Robert Argue: Not from you.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I say to the hon.
member that nothing becomes him so much as silence, and I hope he will observe it for a little while.
Let me deal with some of the matters which have been raised by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. In his anxiety to score debating points he fell into many grave errors this afternoon. Last Thursday night, and indeed again this afternoon he alleged that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) had forecast for the last fiscal year an increase in the gross national product of 7 per cent, and in an imaginary horror he exclaimed that it was only 6 per cent. Let us test the validity of all his strictures by this one. What he forgot to tell the house was that the dominion bureau of statistics, after the last budget, revised upward the 1958 preliminary figure of gross national product, thereby involving a shift in the percentage by which 1959 could exceed it. What the Minister of Finance said in his budget speech of April 9, 1959-and I quote from Hansard at page 2409-was this:
I shall be basing my budgetary policy and my revenue forecasts on a gross national product of about $34) billion which is about 7 per cent above the average level achieved in 1958.
In other words the forecast was a dollar amount of $34J billion. What is the actual figure for 1959? It is $34,593 million, or $93 million more than the forecast figure. I ask this. Has the house ever seen closer estimating in respect of figures so astronomical? The margin of error is fantastically small.
Why, then, this talk of 6 per cent as opposed to 7 per cent? When the Minister of Finance brought down his budget on April 9, 1959 the preliminary estimate of the 1958 gross national product was $32,184 million. On this figure the forecast 1959 gross national product of $34J billion represented an increase of approximately 7 per cent. Later in 1959, the dominion bureau of statistics, on the basis of later information, adjusted the 1958 figure upwards from $32,184 million to $32,606 million, on which of course the percentage relationship was slightly less.
What my hon. friend failed to do was to compare the comparable. If you compare the
2880	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. R.A. Bell preliminary 1958 figure of $32,184 million with the preliminary 1959 figure of $34,593 million you will find a 7.48 per cent increase.
This increase compares with the post-war average increase of about 4 per cent. In other words, our rate of growth in 1959 was almost double the average of other years since 1945, and this despite the fact that our rate of expansion was subject to a temporary but very significant pause in the third quarter of 1959, due to the effects of some major labour disputes. These are the real facts. But, in one of his scattered jibes on this subject, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River claimed that the Minister of Finance was 50 per cent wrong and he repeated that this afternoon.


William Moore Benidickson: In volume.


Richard Albert Bell: My hon. friend was not 50 per cent wrong. He was 100 per cent wrong in this as in so many other subjects that he discussed.
For his forecast of the gross national product, his forecast of the budget deficit and other estimates, when compared with the actual, the Minister of Finance certainly need offer no apology. On the contrary, I believe he can proudly assert the smallest margins of error that there have been in history. Let hon. gentlemen opposite produce examples of any budget of recent Liberal ministers of finance where the forecast was so closely vindicated by actual performance, where the margin of error was less. All of us remember when time after time that very distinguished minister of finance, now Mr. Justice Abbott, would be $300 million and $400 million out in his forecast of budgetary balances. That was budgeting in those days by accident.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River attempted to find something sinister in the technique of dealing with the old age security fund. The Minister of Finance has loaned that fund $24 million, which amount will be repaid out of an anticipated $30 million surplus this year. Oh, said my hon. and genial friend from Kenora-Rainy River, if you had not done this your deficit would be $24 million greater. He cannot have it both ways although he tried to do just that very often this afternoon; he tried to have things both ways many times. Suppose he was right in the assertion which he makes; then, the inevitable concomitant would be that next year's surplus would be $30 million larger than that which has been forecast.
On many occasions this afternoon my hon. friend seemed to take great pleasure in playing with bookkeeping items. With great respect I would suggest to him that this hairsplitting brand of dialectics profits us not at all, and that he really should leave these


tactics to his colleague on the front bench who is an expert therein, namely the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith).
We heard some things this afternoon about unemployment. Not for a moment do I discount the individual problems which are involved. I could not do so, since it perhaps falls to my unfortunate lot to interview more persons seeking employment than perhaps any other hon. member of this house. But in their preachments of gloom, in their wal-lowings in pessimism these Jeremiahs opposite fail to tell us the whole story. It can be found in the white paper. There are more persons employed at better wages than at any time in our history. Total employment rose by
156,000	persons between 1958 and 1959. Labour income reached a record level of $17.7 billion, almost 8 per cent above 1958.. Since consumer prices roses only about 1 per cent, there was a substantial gain in real income.
A few weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition made a very realistic and I thought a surprisingly objective appraisal of some of the causes of unemployment and I think his example might be followed by some of his colleagues on the front bench opposite, particularly the hon. member for Essex East.
In all his declamatory rhetoric this afternoon, in his jibes the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River totally ignored the very substantial fiscal accomplishments of this government, the very genuine advances in fiscal and tax policy. I want to take a few moments to discuss ten of those highlights, adding the caution that this review and listing are not, of course, intended to be exhaustive or exclusive.
First, and at the top of my list, I put the successful financing of the greatest increases in social justice payments ever made in any period. What are the facts? Direct payments to individual Canadians by the federal government for social justice account have increased more than 50 per cent over the last year of Liberal government and that tremendous dollar increase has had to be financed from revenue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is all nonsense.


Richard Albert Bell: My hon. friend could find out if this is so by examining the record.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will you allow me to deal with that now?


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that is so. If he would only allow his statistical genius to have full sway he would discover the exact figures.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend permit me to point out that whatever benefits there are-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They do not like the truth.


Thomas Miller Bell: My time is limited. My hon. friend's skill in building up men of straw is exceeded only by his volubility and ability to create diversionary tactics. I do not intend to be diverted in this way.
In the last year of Liberal administration old age security payments were $379 million; last year they were $574 million, an increase of about 52 per cent, and this is the story generally across the board.
Second, the fiscal policy of the government provided the incentive for recovery from the recession. In June of 1957 Canada was tottering on the verge of a depression. Had we not reversed some of the policies of our predecessors, recession would have become all-out depression. The reductions in taxes in 1957 and 1958, together with the introduction of many hundreds of million of dollars into housing, transportation and resources development, were designed to augment investment, to stimulate recovery and to provide employment. These policies succeeded.
Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to have forgotten that housing in Canada was coming to a virtual standstill when this government took office. It was the tremendous stimulus given the industry under the imaginative direction of the then minister of public works, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), that saved the day. The flexible and adjustable fiscal policies adopted by this government enabled the country to emerge from recession into recovery and renewed growth, and in the last fiscal period to experience an expansion of major magnitude as well as soundness.
Third, and in due course, has been the achievement of a balanced budget in the forthcoming fiscal year. For sound reasons the Minister of Finance deliberately budgeted for a substantial deficit in 1958 and for a reduced deficit in 1959. Two years ago we were meeting the problems, as I have said, of a recession and were seeking to use fiscal measures to offset the decline in business activity and to stimulate recovery. In 1960 our position is different. Deliberately, in this period of expansion, the government has brought the budget into a surplus position, a position where the federal government ceases to be a net borrower, thus leaving the capital market free to the extent of some $700 million to the provinces and the municipalities and to business and industry. Let
The Budget-Mr. R.A. Bell no one think that this has been easily attained. Without the determination, the persistence and the tenacity of the Minister of Finance it could not have been accomplished. This balanced 1960 budget is a personal tribute to the hon. member for Eglinton.
The fourth major accomplishment of the government has been the achievement of relative price stability. No one can ever assert in a dynamic society the conquest of inflation. But we have accomplished an avoidance of disturbing fluctuations upwards or downwards in the general level of prices. In the last fiscal year of Liberal government the consumer price index rose 4.1 per cent. The first broken year of Liberal and Conservative government shows an increase of slightly less. Since that time, in two years the price index has risen 2.9 per cent or an average increase of less than 1.5 per cent a year. I say that ceaseless, unremitting vigilance to control inflationary pressures is essential to our progress, as the Minister of Finance so eloquently mentioned in his budget speech the other night.
Then I come to the fifth matter, the effective management of our public debt. On this matter an uncommon lot of nonsense has been talked, none more so than about the conversion loan, and we heard some of it this afternoon. This was the greatest financial operation in Canada's economic history. It was a major anti-inflationary step, it removed a heavy pressure on the bond market and it nearly doubled the average length of our debt.
Suppose there had been no conversion loan. What would have been the pressures upon the capital market with this heavy debt maturing? If such pressures had been added to the pressures which actually did develop in 1959, the result might well have been chaos. History, I believe, will prove that the conversion loan of 1958 has been one of the most farsighted acts of financial statesmanship ever undertaken.
Last Thursday evening and again this afternoon the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River engaged in some agile dialectics about the net debt. How it has risen, he exclaims. But he really did not tell the whole story in connection with it. It is true, of course, that our total net debt has risen but so has our ability to pay. The fact is that our per capita debt today is $681 as opposed to $849 in 1950 or $701 in 1956, the last full year of Liberal administration. Was the hon. gentleman heard in protest in those earlier years about the size of our per capita debt?

The Budget-Mr. R.A. Bell
Equally, what is not clear from what he said this afternoon is that our net debt as a percentage of the gross national product has declined. Back in 1950, in the heyday of Doug. Abbott, our net debt was 71 per cent of our gross national product. When the Liberals went out of power it was 36 per cent. Today it is 34.9 per cent, a lower figure than in any previous year except 1958. The best evidence of effective debt management is, first, that public holdings of dominion of Canada bonds are at the highest level in the last 10 years and, second, that public subscriptions for the last Canada savings bonds were the highest ever. The public of Canada, with their dollars, have voted for the debt management policy of the government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the high interest rates.


Richard Albert Bell: My sixth point is the question of dominion-provincial relations. There have been many things said by way of criticism but overlooked were the most significant and revealing facts. The first is that in the last full year of Liberal government total payments of all kinds to the provinces were $689.4 million. In this fiscal year they will be $1,300.9 million. That is an increase of $611.5 million or about 88 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Richard Albert Bell: My time is very limited, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then the hon. gentleman will not.


Richard Albert Bell: Actually unconditional payments have increased by 57 per cent and conditional payments by about 250 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Most of it Liberal legislation.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was the question I was going to ask the hon. gentleman. Tell the truth.


Richard Albert Bell: When the hon. gentleman interrupts like that it reminds me of what Bacon once said, that universities incline wits to sophistry and affectation, and if there ever could be proof of that it is found in the hon. gentleman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is in the hon. member's speech.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, the
Atlantic adjustment grants have been a major contribution of the government. The settlement of the university grants issue with the province of Quebec on a mutually satisfactory


basis is a magnificent contribution to national unity. It is one for which credit must go to our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), to the Minister of Finance, to the late premier and the present premier of the province of Quebec. What an act of constructive statesmanship. Let us give credit where it is due. And have hon. gentlemen opposite forgotten the 50 per cent increase in the amount of the grants? Let them give credit for that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who started them?


Richard Albert Bell: The seventh major contribution of the government is its effective tariff policy. Attempts of a rather childish nature are made to claim that this government is a high protectionist government and has departed from the principles of multilateral trading. Since the government came to power there has been a firm adherence to the principles of the GATT. Indeed, what we have tried to do is to give leadership in GATT, not just pay lip service to it as our predecessors did. We have tried, with success, to use GATT as an instrument in the removal of restrictive trade practices, and this we must continue.
Let those who criticize our tariff policy assess the success of the negotiations regarding fruits and vegetables and textiles. Let our Liberal friends tell us during this debate if they would have ignored the tariff board report on fruits and vegetables. If not, will they not admit our genuine success in concluding these delicate negotiations with the United States? No constituency will profit more by that than the constituency of the hon. member for Essex East.
Before this debate is finished we shall probably hear much on textiles. That the Liberal party will seek to face both ways, I have no doubt. But this house knows and the country knows that the Liberal party wholly ignored the plight of the textile industry. It sold the industry down the river and it has not relented-


Lionel Chevrier: What are you doing now?


Richard Albert Bell: -in its callous disregard of a great national industry, one of the largest employers of labour. When the Leader of the Opposition speaks in this debate let him tell us whether he would have accepted or rejected the tariff board reports on textiles. That is a specific and direct question that I put to him, and it should have a direct answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When do you want the answer?


Thomas Miller Bell: When the hon. gentleman speaks. He will have plenty of time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend
does not want an answer.


Thomas Miller Bell: I had not discovered that the hon. gentleman had taken over the role of the Leader of the Opposition. I know he has been most un-co-operative with the Leader of the Opposition and has been trying to take it over but I had not realized that he had succeeded.


William Moore Benidickson: That is not true.


Thomas Miller Bell: The amendments to the Customs Act which were so bitterly fought by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate (Mr. Pickersgill) and others have been a significant contribution to orderly trade. When he speaks perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would tell us directly whether the Liberal party would repeal them, amend them or retain them.
Coupled with this is my eighth point, namely effective leadership in commonwealth trade policy.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, my time is limited and I do not feel that I can accept questions.


Lionel Chevrier: Before the hon. gentleman leaves his point about textiles would he permit me to ask a question?


Thomas Miller Bell: Normally I am most happy to answer questions, but my time is exceedingly limited and I am endeavouring to cover a very broad field.
In this area there is a significant difference between hon. gentlemen opposite and this government. Hon. gentlemen opposite do not really believe in commonwealth trade though they give lip service to it. We do believe in it and we do not apologize for this belief. As a direct result of the commonwealth trade conference, sterling and other European currencies have become convertible, a major advance, and the great majority of discriminatory restrictions against dollar imports have been eliminated.
What are the other results? Our contribution to the Colombo plan in southeast Asia was raised 50 per cent. For the first time we sponsored aid programs for the British West Indies and for Africa. This technical and other assistance was and is an act of enlightened leadership. I will admit that these are not the last word in aid to underdeveloped countries. Indeed we are probably but on the threshold. So long as people anywhere in the world are hungry this wealthy nation cannot be complacent. Well
The Budget-Mr. R.A. Bell may it be that in this field will lie our greatest contribution to peace and the democratic way of life.
From the conference, as well, flowed the establishment of the commonwealth scholarship plan, a plan which in my view may prove ultimately to be a major beacon light of the 1950's.
I come to my ninth point, the major tax revisions. The replacement of the old dominion succession duty by the new Estate Tax Act was a major advance in tax legislation. But there have been other detailed and significant revisions of our tax structure. Take for example the new provision for a tax free gift of $10,000 between spouses respecting a jointly owned home, or in the case of a farm, between parent and child; the reduced sales tax on a wide range of municipal purchases; the inclusion of drugs, eyeglasses and many other categories in medical exemptions, as well as the raising of the exemption limits in this budget; the reduction in automobile excise tax; the very many tax reforms introduced, including in this budget two very significant proposals, first the relief from the impact of double taxation on pension benefits and, secondly, a new technique of tax deferment on profit sharing plans. Let it not be forgotten that for the lower and middle income groups income tax rates are lower than when this government was elected. The tax position of small corporations has also been greatly improved.
As my tenth point I wish to say a word about civil service matters. Controversy has obscured some of the major facts. Let me set the record straight. It was this government which put into effect the last civil service increase and which had to raise the funds for it. It was this government which proved itself the true friend of all civil servants by managing a change of government with the least upset of any change in Canadian history. There were literally no dismissals. Contrast that with the parade of firings which occurred when the Liberals came into power in 1935. What a scandalous and unconscionable display of political patronage occurred at that time including what Pierre Casgrain did in this very House of Commons, which was the worst of all.
It was this government which in its first year of office provided increases for superannuated civil servants, something which the former government for 10 years refused to do. It is this government which last session fully revised and improved the Defence Service Pension Act, the R.C.M.P. pension provisions and which at this session of parliament proposes a revision of the Public Service Superannuation Act. It is this government

The Budget-Mr. R.A. Bell which after Easter will introduce a complete revision and modernization of the Civil Service Act itself, to bring it up to date and to improve and assure for all time the true practice of the merit system.
It is this government which established the pay research bureau which the previous government had declined to do. It was established so that the pay data could be assembled on a scientific basis. This is the atmosphere in which the government at the first feasible opportunity had decided upon a class to class system of pay increases with increases for
50,000	civil servants effective at once and the balance before the end of summer. Oh, yes, I have neglected to mention the medical-surgical plan, one of the major advances in civil service matters.
Representing as I do more civil servants than perhaps any other hon. member of this house I am not unaware of the disappointment which existed at the decision not to approve a general pay increase last autumn. But I am satisfied that a class by class approach will enure in the very near future much more to the benefit of the average civil servant than a horizontal increase. We have seen how horizontal increases in freight rates have merely accentuated the existing discriminations. Continuous horizontal increases in salary perpetuate and intensify discriminations as between classes and help the high ranking civil servants to the detriment of the lower paid. That is why I believe this continuous class by class approach will prove much more effective and much more beneficial to those I represent than would a single horizontal increase. Under this approach, with the pay research bureau in action, review of salaries will be more regular, less discriminatory and more in the interests of the average civil servant. To my civil service friends in Carleton who have maintained a responsible and dignified attitude throughout this salary controversy I say-"give this new approach a real trial these next few months. I do not believe you will be disappointed."
I have taken the time to mention but 10 of the major accomplishments of a fiscal nature of this government but there are many others. If time permitted me to do so I would go on to enumerate them. I say, however, that this is a proud record of fiscal accomplishment. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) may justifiably take genuine satisfaction in the economic leadership they have given this country. The promotion of confidence in Canada's economic future, the encouragement and continuation of our unprecedented economic expansion, a continued

assault upon inflation, the maintenance of a sound dollar, the relief of the capital market thereby easing credit; these have been major objectives of this budget. These objectives have been achieved in the budget for 1960, I believe. In my opinion, in their accomplishment the Minister of Finance has earned the gratitude of the house and the country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. gentleman resumes his seat would he permit me a question.


Richard Albert Bell: I already have, but if I can improve the hon. gentleman's knowledge I will endeavour to answer his question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the hon. member if he is aware that in his speech he made the same misleading statement about payments to the provinces that the Prime Minister made on television and that has been corrected more than once in this house?


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, that statement which I made is entirely accurate. It was accurate when previously made and it is accurate now and can be proved by an examination of the white paper.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the amendment introduced earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Beni-dickson) I wish to say at the outset that I will deal with the main points referred to in the amendment together with the position of the government in relation to the civil servants of this country. I will leave to others the task of replying to the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) who just made another of those "What would you do?" speeches which we hear so frequently from hon. members opposite. It is a clear indication that the government still seeks advice from the opposition.
The hon. gentleman reminded me of an auctioneer in the approach he adopted. He could easily have said, "$12 million once, $12 million twice, $12 million three times, gone". That is just about what will happen to the meagre surplus which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) introduced in his budget, a surplus of which the hon. member for Carleton and other hon. members opposite are so proud, one which may be attained at the expense of the civil servants of this country including those residing in the constituency of the hon. member for Carleton. It was on March 27, 1956 that an hon. member of this house is reported, as can be found at page 2647 of Hansard of that day, to have said as follows:
Well, sir, it is in no personal sense that I must say to the Minister of Finance, in referring to the

budget effort on this occasion, that it was unquestionably the worst failure in Canadian history within living memory. In kitchen terms this budget is as dull as dishwater, and it fell as flat as a pancake.
Further on he said this:
Indeed, sir, if this represents the government's idea of a budget it might just as well have been dispensed with entirely.
Those were the words of the hon. member for Eglinton when sitting on the opposition side of the house. I could not resist repeating those same words today because at no time in Canadian history has a budget been introduced which did so little, offered so little and meant so little to the people of this country. It was indeed a "doing nothing" or a "doing just the same as last year" budget.
This is a case in which someone should have called out "dispense" because by avoiding the reading of this budget the Minister of Finance would have been saved from exposing once again the lack of leadership, the lack of policy and, indeed, the evidence of contradiction which has been so outstanding a feature with the government since it took office in June of 1957.
I know that for over one and a half hours on Thursday evening last the government members, the colleagues of the minister, 44 times burst into desk-thumping applause, notwithstanding the stand-pat aspect of the presentation. It would have been advisable for those hon. members to have reserved their enthusiasm, at least when the minister announced the meagre $15 million increase for one-third of the civil service force of this country.
In his hold the line policy announcement when he flatly refused to grant any general salary increase early last fall the Minister of Finance, in an inept and arrogant way, stated that such an increase would seriously upset the budget. In other words, the civil servants of this country were nothing else but the victims of the unrestrained extravagances of the present government. How could they upset a budget which was already badly disrupted? Now, six months later, the same minister comes back with what is being called too little and too late. The applause from government members-which provoked an ear to ear grin on the normally solemn face of the Minister of Finance-could well have been avoided when the minister referred to the degrees of disparity between civil service salary rates and those of private employers and ended up by selecting one third only of the civil service force for nonretroactive increases in salary.
What about the remaining two thirds of the civil service force? What about the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted
The Budget-Mr. Robichaud Police? In his budget speech the minister took great care to say that a review of all other classes in the public service will be carried out by the civil service commission forthwith and that it is expected to be completed before the end of the summer. What he did not say is that he already has in hand a complete report, an exhaustive study, prepared by the civil service commission and presented to him early in 1959. Not only did he refuse to act on the recommendations of the commission but he even refused to make this report public as requested by opposition members in this house.
In a post-budget press interview, the minister allowed himself to be understood to mean that there was a clear obligation in the budget speech to cover the salary levels of the rest of the civil service by the end of the summer. What is the Minister of Finance waiting for? As I have just said, he has on hand a recent civil service commission report on salaries and he is now attempting to cover up once more by delaying tactics which are uncalled for and unacceptable as the procedure is considered to be far too slow to keep up with changing conditions since the last increase was granted in 1957.
I want to make it clear that once again the civil servants are being victimized by the delaying tactics of the Minister of Finance and that the two thirds of the force not included in the present increase are being used to cover up so that it might be possible for the minister to be in a position to announce a balanced budget.
What a contradiction we find there. The minister could just as well have said: taking into consideration the degrees of disparity between civil service salary rates and those of private employers, the treasury board has now approved recommendations from the civil service commission involving the employees of the public service. In saying this, however, the minister would have had to say further: this will involve an increase in expenditure of about $45 million or maybe $50 million during the present fiscal year. But no, the minister could not do this, because he would have missed his meagre surplus of $12 million. He would have missed the desk-thumping applause of his supporters in the house. He would have ended up with a deficit of $25 million or $30 million.
How inconsistent can the minister be when within minutes of the presentation of his budget in a post-budget press conference he makes it rather clear that there was almost no possibility of stopping before the full civil service force was considered by the treasury board on a class by class basis. If this is so, why does the minister refuse to

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud admit now that the 1960-61 fiscal year, as we all well know, will show the fourth consecutive deficit of the present Conservative administration?
In dealing with the civil service increase the minister has been very open to say that there was no leak. In a post-budget press conference he is reported in the Ottawa Journal of April 1 as follows:
"I'll say quite flatly there was no leak" in the federal budget. Finance Minister Fleming told reporters at a post-budget conference last night.
I have here in front of me the Ottawa Journal for March 3. Under the heading "Fleming Replies to C.S." we find the following:
Civil service leaders were pondering the phrase "subject under continuing study"; was it just polite and non-committal acknowledgement of their renewed salaries plea or was it an indication that the government was actually considering a salary adjustment?
Later on the article states:
Replying today, Mr. Fleming wrote that the case the committee had made in its new submission was "largely a reiteration of previous arguments".
And further:
As to any commitments out of a budget priority for salaries, Mr. Fleming reminded the committee that comment on this subject "at this time"-
"At this time" were the minister's own words.
-with the budget under preparation-would be "improper".
Then he concluded his letter with the assurance the salaries question was "a subject under continuing study".
A few weeks later, on March 25, this same newspaper, namely the Ottawa Journal, in an article under the heading "New C.S. Pay Approach to Fleming", reported as follows:
In its announcement of plans for the new approach to the finance minister, the committee dropped a few hints of the points it would try to make with Mr. Fleming.
They included:
1. The finance minister's own "quite emphatic" statement on the last committee interview in October that his hold the line policy on government salaries "was intended for the 1959-60 fiscal year only;-
If this is not enough to let anyone believe that an increase was coming in the present budget, I do not know how it could be otherwise interpreted. It may be well and good for the minister to huddle together a series of wild guesses and figures which, for the time being at least, may temper down the disappointments and frustrations of his fellow members.
Let us look at the facts. Does the present budget come to grips with the economic problems facing the country today? This is a government which is well known for its promises. It has been a government


which has committed itself to defeating the problem of unemployment. "We are defeating the problem", said the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) at Prince Albert on February 14, 1958. At Cornwall ten days later on February 24, the Prime Minister said, "We have acted; we are meeting unemployment. We have given our young Canadians hope. We have given them the vision".
Our young Canadians, as I said before in this house, cannot live on hope and vision alone; they want work and employment. Our unemployed as they stand today deserve better consideration from the government than they are receiving from the present budget.
What were the words of the Minister of Finance in the presentation of his budget when he referred to unemployment? As reported on page 2670 of Hansard, he said:
I am confident, however, that employment will rise as the coming of spring opens up new job opportunities and as the economy continues its upward trend.
Here again is the minister hoping to be saved once more by luck, if ever luck comes his way.
Can we imagine the argument used by the minister when he said that as a result of an unusual increase in the number of persons estimated to be in the labour force, the estimate of the number without jobs and seeking work was 18,000 higher than a year ago? What would this increase in unemployment be today if the immigration influx into this country would have followed its normal course? The coming of spring, not government policy, will open new job opportunities, says the minister. This, at last, is a frank admission by the Minister of Finance himself of the lack of policy, lack of leadership, lack of planning by the present government. As our leader stated the other day in a "Nation's Business" broadcast, this government hopes that unemployment will go with the snow. It had better start moving fast, because the snow is pretty well gone, especially in the vicinity of Ottawa, but the number of unemployed is still rising. In fact, there were 814,241 live claims for unemployment insurance benefits as of February 29, and 827,512 unplaced applicants as of March 10 of this year. And while the economy continues its upward trend, according to the minister, the number of unemployed is increasing day by day and the government is hoping for spring to rush its course and come to its rescue. More sun, more rain, more mild weather, less snow, more jobs, hopes the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance has refused to recognize the urgent need to give direction to

the economy of this country. His attitude is typical of the present government's complacency; it is based on hope, on the hope that everything will come out right in the end. The gross national product, says the minister, will again increase by 6 per cent and on this assumption he believes that the unemployment problem will adjust itself accordingly. He seems to forget, however, that notwithstanding a 6 per cent increase in 1959 the number of unemployed at mid-February of this year had reached 8.9 per cent of the labour force against 8.8 per cent at the same date last year. It has adjusted itself, but in reverse. The snow is going down but unemployment is still going up.
This government refuses to meet the challenge of unemployment and chooses to stand pat on the tired assumption that everything will come right some day. It is a government without leadership, without definite policy. It is a government which in less than three years of office has already lost the overwhelming confidence with which it had been entrusted by the electors of this country. Here again let us listen to the minister. As reported on page 2670 of Hansard, he said:
The past year was notable for a welcome absence of speculative excesses in production, demand and inventories. I stress this because often in the past such excesses have provided a major cause of recession.
In other words, is the minister taking satisfaction in the fact that the 1958 and 1959 crop years were so much below the previous recent years that excesses or surpluses of inventories in wheat and other grains have been cut down? Is he taking satisfaction from the fact that the 1959 net income of farm operators is estimated at 7 per cent below the previous year's level? Is he welcoming the fact that as at December 31, 1959 storage holdings of fish products were over 63 million pounds as compared with holdings of 56 million pounds on December 31, 1958 and 52 million pounds on December 31, 1957? I sincerely hope that the minister is not welcoming the excess in the inventory of unemployed, which under the present administration has reached records unequalled in this country since the hungry thirties.
At the present rate of unemployment the Minister of Finance will soon be called upon to supply additional funds to the Department of Labour to secure or replenish the unemployment insurance fund, which since this government took office has been depleted by over $504 million. At the present rate of decline the entire fund will be practically exhausted, wiped out, by March 31, 1962.
The sum of $383 million standing to the credit of the unemployment insurance fund as at March 31 is a figure to be concerned
The Budget-Mr. Robichaud about. We are asking now, what does the government expect to do about this? Does it expect to save the situation by this discriminating position it has adopted toward the family employment or toward its unjust and unwarranted treatment in its determination of the insurability of relatives? Does it expect to save this fund by attempting to destroy this family relationship and family unity which is traditional among our French Canadian and French Acadian large families? Some of the recent decisions of the unemployment insurance commission in this regard are nothing else but unfortunate attempts to undermine this family unity and good understanding.
Very little was said in the present budget having to do with the records of the present administration. The records I have in mind are not the kind of records which one should be too proud of and which could draw the applause of hon. members opposite. A record debt increase of over $1 billion in two years is nothing to boast about on the part of a government who has committed itself to cut all unnecessary expenses and extravagances.
A record balance of payment trade deficit of $1,460 million in one year is other evidence of the failure to keep up with the Prime Minister's statement made at Brantford on February 17, 1958 when he said that the Conservative government's success in its trade promotion cannot be challenged. The 1959 record of the government shows success in reverse.
What about this other record where the government refuses to take any responsibility? Where is the mention in this budget about this crippling tight money and high interest rates? It is true that the minister has stated, as reported on page 2670, that in the financial sector 1959 was marked by some disturbances which, he says, subsided by the end of the year. What about interest rates on mortgage loans, which again have reached an all time high and have been crippling home construction in the last few months? It is true that the rate of interest of the Bank of Canada has declined somewhat. Does the government intend to take credit for that? If it does, are hon. gentlemen opposite going to take credit for the interest charged to municipalities or for interest rates charged on mortgages? When things are good, the government is responsible, but when things are going wrong, the government has nothing to do with it.
I would ask the minister: what is there for municipalities in this budget? The minister has ignored the plight of the municipalities in this country. I ask him, how can

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud he justify the statement he made at St. Hyacinthe on February 23, 1958, when he said:
We have eased the burdens of the municipal governments by bringing about easier credit and lower interest rates?
How can the minister justify the statement he made at Montmagny on September 28, 1958 when he said that the provinces and municipalities in their financial operations will derive much benefits from the conversion operation? The facts are here to show how far from the truth the minister could be in his assertions. Was it not the Prime Minister who said in Saskatoon, on May 27, 1957:
The Conservative government, if elected, would remove the crushing burden of municipal taxes.
Was it not the Prime Minister who said on May 20, 1957:
The tight money policy has struck a death blow to small business. They are going into bankruptcy at the fastest rate since depression; and municipalities have their back to the wall, forced to borrow money in the United States at high interest rates.
I would ask the Prime Minister these questions: when have bankruptcy rates been higher than in the last two years? When have municipal interest rates been higher than in the last two years? When have municipal taxes been higher than in the last two years? When have interest rates on borrowings for home building been higher than at the present time? When, finally, has a federal government done so little and accomplished so little in facing a problem which, according to the Prime Minister's own admission, was stultifying every part, every section of Canada.
Moreover, what is there in this budget to provide for the $100 million additional requested by Premier Frost of Ontario, a sum which we know the Minister of Finance will be asked to produce at the July federal-provincial conference on fiscal matters? What is there in this budget to provide for additional assistance which will be requested by Premier Roblin of Manitoba, when he will insist that Ottawa change its stand toward the provinces.
What is there in this stand-pat budget for the Atlantic provinces? What is there to indicate any measure of relief for the people of the maritimes who need, not restrictions but more credit and monetary expansion? What is there in the present budget which could even lead to an incentive to accelerate business in that particular area and bring about speedier maximum use of its natural wealth, thereby raising the standard of prosperity in that part of Canada?
Have the Atlantic provinces been forgotten because someone has dared call this budget


a "no-tax budget"? What a fallacy. How can one be so blind as not to realize that the Minister of Finance expects the present tax structure to yield $5,892 million, an increase of $591 million over and above the year before, and more than $1,120 million over and above the fiscal year 1958-59? In other words, the taxpayers of this country will be contributing to the federal treasury over $1 billion more than they were two years ago; over $3 million a day more than they were two years ago. Yet the present government, with all this extra cash at its disposal, cannot find one simple measure which could contribute to narrowing the gap which exists in the income of the people of the Atlantic provinces compared with those of other Canadians.
This, stand-pat, do-nothing budget offers absolutely nothing which could influence the establishment of secondary industries in the Atlantic provinces. The disability of the Atlantic provinces with regard to transportation remains as the main problem, the major obstruction which must be removed if our area is to share equally in the progress and prosperity which in the last decade or so have been so prevalent in other parts of the country. We have a right to know what this government intends to do about the various suggestions which we from time to time have offered in order to stimulate industry in the Atlantic provinces. What does the government intend to do about the idea of a capital grants program and the fiscal incentives which have been suggested both inside and outside this house for some time? Urgent consideration should be given to these proposals. Meanwhile, a solution to our transportation problems, or even the improvement of our transportation system could contribute to stimulating the growth of our secondary industry.
Might I call it six o'clock?


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask when you would find it convenient, Mr. Speaker, to hear a submission with respect to the amendment? I think I am bound to take the view that it is not in order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that might be done at the conclusion of the speech of the hon. member who now has the floor. That would be shortly after eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: When the house took recess at six o'clock I was referring to the numerous suggestions which had been made

from this side of the house to stimulate industry in the Atlantic provinces. I was saying that urgent consideration should be given to our proposals affecting the Atlantic provinces which, if implemented, would contribute to stimulating the growth of our secondary industry.
I deplore the fact that the present budget fails to recognize the plea of the Atlantic provinces. I deplore the fact also that when suggestions are made which could contribute toward raising the level of our economic activity, someone should come right out in the open and launch a controversy which has the effect of spilling cold water on the projects involved. Such controversial statements as have originated recently from Halifax, Charlottetown and Fredericton, involving the Chignecto canal and the Prince Edward Island causeway are most unwarranted and unworthy of anyone having at heart the task-and it should be a national task-of applying national policies for the common good and welfare of all Canadians.
Instead of amending the Excise Tax Act to remove sales tax on electric heating equipment to make it more competitive with maritime coal; instead of including the sales tax on materials used in the construction of ships over ten tons net registered tonnage, the minister could well have listened more favourably to the representations of the fisheries council of Canada on behalf of the fishing industry. The minor exemptions asked for by the fisheries council would have had very little effect on the over-all position of the present budget, but would have been of some assistance to the industry and to a large number of individual fishermen.
Not one single new measure has been introduced by the present government to help the fishing industry which is so vital to the economy of the maritimes. Canada cannot afford to allow the Atlantic fisheries to glide along as if it was to be abandoned to its own fate. There is an urgent need for a definite national plan and policy for the development of our Atlantic fisheries, and wide-scale government attention should be directed to the field of production. The present system of subsidies on the construction of vessels of the dragger and long-liner type is antiquated, outmoded and does not serve any more the purpose for which it was introduced.
Competition in the marketing of our fisheries products is getting keener and stiffer from year to year and this competition originates in countries which are exploiting our own fishing areas along our Atlantic coast. Our fishermen need protection to safeguard their rights and to maintain their source of
The Budget-Mr. Robichaud production. Our fishing industry needs protection to compete favourably with European countries in the traditional markets, and more so when we know that these European nations are subsidizing their own fishing industry. I intend to say more on this aspect of the fishing industry when the estimates of the Department of Fisheries are before this house for discussion.
Notwithstanding the admission by the present government that this country is now out of the recession and experiencing a period of boom, no one can deny that the serious unemployment situation, which is more evident since this government took office than at any time in Canadian history, is causing grave concern and disquietude among the labour class of our country.
The 820,000 unemployed want an explanation from the Prime Minister. They want to hear more about his promise to take the necessary steps to ease unemployment in addition to his billion dollar public works plan. They want to remind the Prime Minister today of his pledge to every man and woman in this nation who is unemployed, "So long as I am Prime Minister no one will be allowed to suffer in this nation." Was he then the leader of the Conservative party attempting to stultify the people of Canada in making such statements, just as he is trying to fool them today in his "Nation's Business" television appearances?
The Minister of Finance should tell us why in this period of high unemployment approved and urgent public works projects have been shelved and put aside for future consideration. Is this policy in line with the Prime Minister's promise that:
As long as I am Prime Minister, no man or woman is going to suffer from unemployment so long as public works will provide them the assistance they require.
Why delay-as is being done in my own constituency of Gloucester-the construction of public wharves which will provide facilities for fishermen, increase their production and supply additional shore help? Why cut down this year's public works projects by the amount of $31 million? In the harbour and engineering branch alone Nova Scotia is cut down by $2.5 million and New Brunswick by almost $3 million. The construction of a number of projects is economically justified. It would raise the economic level of many fishing communities and, as I have just said, it would increase production and provide additional shore help, thus cutting down on unemployment.
The population of Gloucester county learned with interest a few weeks ago that Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud and Sogemines Limited have reached agreement in principle for bringing into production Brunswick's lead-zinc property in the Bathurst area. An initial operation of 2,000 tons of ore a day is good and welcome news for the people of New Brunswick and particularly for the population of Gloucester county. The unfortunate part of it is that those concentrates will be sold to a group of Belgian base metal smelters and again a primary product, a raw material, will be exported to be processed outside of this country. This is not what the people of New Brunswick expected when the mining discoveries of the Bathurst area made history in the mining world in 1952 and 1953. This is not what the Prime Minister promised at Campbellton, New Brunswick, as was referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.
The least that could now be expected from the present government is the provision of adequate port facilities to allow shipments of the concentrates from the port of Bathurst at a distance of fewer than 20 miles from Brunswick's deposits. Such facilities would involve the construction of a spur line from the mine to Bathurst harbour, together with adequate loading accommodation and proper deep water channels to allow easy access for ocean-going ships. Such facilities must not be delayed indefinitely, and if Brunswick's mine is going to operate, as we are assured it is, the government should take the necessary steps now to provide proper planning in order to avoid any possible delay which could in any way jeopardize operation.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the minister that the people of Canada are not being fooled by the additional medical expense deduction which he has offered. We all know that last year-


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


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I tender you at this time my submission that the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidick-son) is not in order. An examination of the amendment itself will serve to emphasize the omnibus nature thereof. While it may be very inviting at times to tender omnibus amendments there are certain risks that are then taken, and in this particular case I think the hon. gentleman has taken risks that have the effect of making his amendment out of order.
May I draw your attention to the breadth of the subjects mentioned in the amendment.
This house regrets that the financial policies of the government will produce a fourth consecutive
tMr. Kobichaud.]

over-all deficit in a year of "so-called prosperity", while at the same time offering no solution to the problem-
Here we have this succession of matters cited.
-of rising prices, rising trade deficits, a continued high premium on the Canadian dollar, increased pressure on provinces and municipalities to borrow outside Canada, declining farm income, and high and rising unemployment.
There we have seven items mentioned. The rule, which I think is quite clear in this respect, is set forth in Beauchesne, fourth edition, page 126, citation 148. The first section reads as follows:
It is a wholesome restraint upon members that they cannot revive a debate already concluded; and it would be little use in preventing the same question from being offered twice in the same session if, without being offered, its merits might be discussed again and again.
The second and third clauses of the citation serve to emphasize the strength of the rule, Mr. Speaker. I think it is the course of decision in the house that two principles have been firmly established in the interpretation of this rule. The first is that it is the substance and not the mere form of the motion, amendment or resolution to which the Speaker has regard in applying this rule. In the second place, if the motion, amendment or resolution offends this rule in part, then the entire motion, amendment or resolution is out of order.
In my submission, Mr. Speaker, while some of the matters enumerated in the omnibus amendment have not been decided by the house at the present session, there are at least several which have, and even one of these would be quite enough to make the amendment out of order having regard to this rule, for if it were possible to support an amendment because part of it had not previously been the subject of a decision of the house in the same session then it would be a simple matter to defeat the rule by simply adding matters which had not yet been the subject of decision.
May I recall to your mind the several decisions the house has made earlier in the present session in relation to some of the matters mentioned in the omnibus amendment. On January 18 the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) introduced the following amendment on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is to be found on page 24 of Votes and Proceedings:
This house is of the opinion that the failure of the government to develop and enunciate clear and consistent policies or to provide full and accurate information, is a major cause of the confusion and uncertainty that prevails about national defence, public finance, agriculture, markets, employment and in other important areas of governmental responsibility.



[Stage Direction]
You will see, Mr. Speaker, that several of the matters mentioned in the omnibus amendment had already been introduced by way of an amendment that sought to condemn the government in the same sense as the present amendment seeks to condemn the government. The amendment to the amendment introduced on January 20 simply added certain words to that amendment. They are to be found at page 34 of the Votes and Proceedings of the session.
Then on February 22 an amendment was introduced on a motion to resolve the house into committee of supply. On this occasion the amendment was introduced by the same hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. It is to be found at page 182 of Votes and Proceedings. It sought to strike out certain words and to substitute the following:
This house is of the opinion that the government should give immediate consideration to the implementation of agricultural policies designed for the purpose of stabilizing the prices of agricultural commodities in order to assist the industry of agriculture to realize fair returns for its labour and investment, and to maintain a fair relationship between prices received by farmers and the costs of the goods and services that they buy, thus to provide farmers with a fair share of the national income.
The amendment to the amendment moved the same day by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) purported to add certain words to that. In all of these cases the house resolved the question in the negative.
Again on March 21, on a motion to resolve the house into committee of supply, the Leader of the Opposition introduced an amendment that was intended to strike out certain words and substitute the following:
This house expresses its grave concern at the deterioration in Canada's trading position as emphasized by an unfavourable balance of nearly $1.5 billion in Canada's total trade in 1959, and urges the government to deal with this serious problem by taking effective action, including the working out of proposals for the establishment on a gradual and progressive basis of an Atlantic free trade area.
On the same day an amendment to the amendment was introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) by which he sought to add certain words to the amendment in relation to trade contracts, export credit insurance, planned reduction of foreign investments in Canada so as to reduce the premium on our currency presently handicapping our export industry, greater economic aid to underdeveloped countries, and an expanded and intensified effort by the Department of Trade and Commerce to encourage orders for our goods in world markets.
The Budget-Mr. Robichaud
Mr. Speaker:: May I ask where that last one is found?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This last one is also to be found on page 296 of the Votes and Proceedings of the present session. It was an amendment to the amendment introduced on March 21.
I think it is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, from a reference to these amendments, all of which were negatived in the house and therefore are the subject of firm decision by the house at the present session, that a number of the matters included in the omnibus condemnation of the government in the present amendment have already been the subject of decisions by the house at the present session.
I mentioned the matter of the recent trade deficit. That clearly was the subject of the amendment on March 21. The premium on the Canadian dollar was the subject matter in part of the subamendment of March 21. Declining farm income was exhaustively dealt with by the amendment of February 22. High and rising unemployment was the subject matter in part of the amendment of January 18. Therefore I think it is quite clear that the amendment does offend the rule.
I emphasize again that it is the substance of the matter that counts and not mere form. I presume that hon. gentlemen opposite will say that you do not find the matter spelled out in exactly the same words in these earlier amendments which were the subjects of decisions of the house at the session. That is not necessary. That is not the rule. The rule is not so confined. It is the substance of the matter that counts and the fact is that the house has dealt in substance on these various occasions with four of the matters that are included in this omnibus amendment that has been submitted to the house this afternoon.
If it were open to hon. members to introduce amendments of this kind there would be no finality whatever to any decision of the house in a session. It would be relatively simple for any hon. member by exercising just a little bit of ingenuity and merely by changing a phrase or two to invite the house to debate the same matter over and over again.
I think with great respect that this is a situation that has been brought about by the hon. member including too many subjects in the scope of the amendment by which he seeks to condemn government policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member speaks may I indicate to him that I see a problem with respect to a couple of the items, as I perhaps indicated when the amendment

The Budget-Mr. Rohichaud was first presented. Since then I happened to have been looking at the previous motions which have been decided by the house and I find that there is substance to what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) says. I am particularly concerned about two of the items enumerated in the second part of the amendment, that is rising trade deficits which were the subject of supply motion No. 3 and declining farm income which was the subject of supply motion No. 1. Of course, if these items have been dealt with the whole amendment would fall apart unless the hon. member were prepared to withdraw the defective items.
I just mention that before the hon. member replies to the minister so that he will have that possibility in mind. Those two were the items which appeared to me to perhaps have been dealt with, although there is something to be said too about the question of the premium on the Canadian dollar having been discussed but I think that subject has not been dealt with so fully as the other two.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, following your remarks, I think perhaps at this stage it is possible to confine one's attention to the two subjects where you yourself said you have some thought that there may be a duplication of debate that is contrary to our rules.
I too, of course, have reviewed each of the motions to which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has referred. I would suggest to Your Honour that the minister is perfectly correct when he says it is not mere form but substance that we have here. I suggest to Your Honour that the substance of this amendment to the budget is contained in the opening phrase:
This house regrets that the financial policies-
Those are the financial policies, of course, as presented to us by the minister in the resolution which he asked this house to adopt in adopting his budget and it is with respect to the financial policies as outlined in the budget that I suggest to Your Honour we should consider the matter of rising trade deficits. With respect to agriculture the phrase, as Your Honour has indicated, is "declining farm income".
May I first of all say just a word with respect to declining farm income. Irrespective of my point that each of these topics relates to the absence of an adequate policy in the budget I wish to suggest to Your Honour that with respect to declining farm income in particular I can see very little similarity between the phrasing we have before us in
[Mr. Speaker.!

this amendment and the discussion on the supply motion of February 22. I think perhaps Your Honour will surely agree that both the amendment and the subamendment were designed so specifically that we were considering there the cost-price squeeze. We were, in the subamendment, dealing very specifically with what was particularly concerning the agricultural community at that time, namely the situation confronting the producers of hogs and eggs. I would say that the amendment which regrets that the financial policies as presented in this budget fail to deal with the question of declining farm income can scarcely be related to the supply motion of February 22.
With respect to the matter of rising trade deficits, the supply motion of March 21 did, of course, refer to a deterioration in balance of payments but surely the substance of this motion is that we have not in the budget proposals and policies that deal with these matters.
Your Honour has doubtless also reviewed the decision of Mr. Speaker Beaudoin on May 3, 1955 as recorded at page 3425 of Hansard. The then private hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), as has been done today, moved an amendment to the budget. On May 3 after, indeed, we were ready to take a vote Mr. Speaker Beaudoin had this to say:
Considering the fact that on the budget wide latitude is always given, and that the main reason the amendment could have been declared out of order was the fact that the amendments to the address in reply had covered a variety of subjects, I decided not to intervene.
I suggest that that is still valid. Our discussions of the items in this amendment relate to the absence of policies in the financial presentation of the budget itself and having reference to the substance of the amendment and not to some mere technicality of form they do not offend against the rule to which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has referred.
Citation 330 to which the Minister of Finance has referred in Beauchesne's third edition at page 134-and this is on the other point-reads as follows:
When a member hands a motion to the Speaker after having spoken in support of it, the Speaker may, before putting the question to the house, make such corrections as are necessary or advisable in order that it should conform with the usages of the house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the point of order raised by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and to your remarks. Members of this group are convinced that on two or three points there is some lapse on the part of the mover of the

amendment for the official opposition under the rules of the house. This is a surprising matter in view of their having had the opportunity of securing constitutional, legal and procedural advice and in view of the great experience of the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill).
Speaking on behalf of the hon. members behind me may I say this. Should you find the amendment out of order, in view of this rather incredible error on the part of the official opposition I think that the knowledge of the rules displayed by the C.C.F. should be rewarded by your giving consideration to our subamendment then becoming the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate what has been said to assist in dealing with this matter in order to assure that we observe the rules and practices of the house. In addition to the references given to me on both sides, I refer to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 234 which reads in part as follows:
234. The ancient doctrine that the redress of grievances should be considered before the grant of supplies is maintained in the House of Commons of Canada
(1) Whenever an order of the day has been read for the house to resolve itself into the committee of supply or the committee of ways and means-
That is what we are doing now.
-the motion "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair" must be proposed, except on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays as provided by standing orders 56 and 58. When such motion is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance; provided that the discussion shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and means, nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.
These four categories which are mentioned are excluded in order to avoid duplication of debate and waste of the time of the house in repeating a debate. It is true that we have dealt specifically, in the first and third supply amendments, with two of these matters. To say that they may now be discussed again in their aspects as subjects of financial policy, which is only one aspect of any problem, would be to permit the house to revive debates of which it has already disposed.
I had practically come to the conclusion before returning the house-and I am reinforced in it by the argument made by the minister and by what has been said elsewhere-that at least two of these items should be removed. In accordance with the authority of the Chair, as mentioned by the hon member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson), I think I might direct that two of the 79951-0-183
The Budget-Mr. Robichaud specified items be deleted from the resolution, namely rising trade deficits and declining farm income. Those are two specific items among the seven. I am in some doubt about another one, namely the high premium on the Canadian dollar. However, in view of the broad range of this debate, in any event, and the fact that the former motion on that item was somewhat limited, I think justice would be done and that the time of the house would be saved by avoiding unnecessary debate or duplication of debate if those two items were removed. Perhaps the hon. member who moved the motion would concur in the deletion of those two items.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I be heard on that point, Mr. Speaker? With great respect may I say this. I do not think the rule read by the hon. member concerning the correction of mistakes applies to a matter which vitiates an entire amendment of this kind. With great respect, I submit that power applies only to the correction of mistakes in minor matters such as clerical errors and that sort of thing. With great respect I submit that it does not apply in order to cure in an amendment a clear defect that makes it out of order. If this amendment is out of order in part under the provisions of the rule which I read then it is clearly out of order in its entirety. I therefore submit with great respect, Mr. Speaker, that the power to correct mistakes has no application here. I submit that the proper course is that the amendment be ruled out of order and that it be left to whoever chooses to do so to bring in an amendment that is in keeping with the rules of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I could say a word on the point which has just been raised by the Minister of Finance. I am sure Your Honour will recall previous occasions when, with the leave of the house and in circumstances of this kind, precisely the course that Your Honour has now suggested was taken by the house. My friend the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has indicated to me that he would be quite agreeable to the course that has been suggested.
However, if I might be permitted just to make this observation with the greatest possible respect, we feel that it would surely never be intended that in a budget debate, notwithstanding the fact that there had been a motion on a related topic, it would not be competent for either side of the house to discuss trade deficits and that it would not be competent for the house to discuss the declining farm income, both of which were discussed by the Minister of Finance himself in his budget speech. It seemed to us that anything that was debatable on the budget, so

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud long as our motion dealt entirely and exclusively with the minister's statement-as we believe this one does; it refers to financial policy-it would be in order. Perhaps we should have said "as set out in the budget speech", but it says that the statement the minister made the other day offers no solution to these problems. Since that statement was made only subsequent to the decision of the house on these other matters, it seemed to us that there was in fact no duplication.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Finance has taken objection to Your Honour's following the procedure of directing that the defects in the amendment be corrected. He has done so on the ground that the citation to which reference has been made had to do only with minor defects such as typographical errors et cetera. I think what we need at this time is a little bit of common sense applied to our proceedings. If the Minister of Finance objects and if Your Honour agrees with the minister's objections, I believe the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River would be quite willing to agree to the motion being amended in the way it has been suggested. On many occasions in the past, over a period of many years, when an amendment has been brought in which in general was in order but some parts of which, in the opinion of the Speaker of the day, were in error, those errors have been corrected at the time on the suggestion of the Speaker.
I should also like to make a further point which is a practical one. Since the official opposition has the right to bring in an amendment, a want of confidence motion and since we in this group have the same right or, if it is our only opportunity or alternative, to bring in a subamendment, I think we might just as well have the amendment settled now as wait until some other hon. member of the official opposition speaks and brings it in at that time.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: As seconder of the motion, Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to make a few observations?


Mr. Speaker:: I can assure the hon. member that it is unnecessary for him to do so in view of the course which I propose to take. This matter, of course, is a point of order which arose when the motion was made. If I had dealt with it then and if I had disposed of it at that time, it would have been open to the hon. member who had the floor to concur in the suggestion for an alteration, which I have now made at this rather later date instead of then in view of my having made the reservation at the time the motion was just presented. Particularly


as the hon. member who moved the motion and the seconder of it concur in the deletion of two of the seven items, which items I think might be taken as illustrative of the criticism of the financial policies but which nevertheless open the door for debates we have had, I feel that the proper course now is to direct that they be deleted from the amendment and that it stand with that change. It does not affect, then, the subamendment. I am not sure whether the Minister of Finance has any comment to make on the amendment to the amendment which was also reserved, if I am not mistaken, at the time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, do I take it from your ruling that you claim the power to do that, in the absence of consent in this matter? I wish to make it quite clear that there is no consent, and I submit with great respect that in a situation of this kind the Chair has no power to make an amendment or to direct an amendment even if there is consent on the part of the mover and seconder. We have here an amendment which is out of order in part, and under the rules, therefore, it is quite clear it is out of order in its entirety.
With very great respect there cannot be on the part of the Chair any curing of the error in the amendment, the vice which makes it out of order. With great respect, the only course open to the Chair is to rule the amendment out of order. As I said before, the power to cure mistakes is not a power that authorizes the Chair to cure defects, defects which of themselves are so serious as to make an amendment out of order. This is not a matter at all of correcting a word here or a word there which is obviously a mistake. This is something which goes to the very root and substance of this amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the force of what the minister says and undoubtedly it is true that, without the consent of the house, a motion which has been put and which is in possession of the house cannot very well be changed. But I take the view that this matter is not in the possession of the house because I reserved it when it was moved, and I now direct before it is put that it be amended and that those deletions be made in the motion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on that point, the amendment surely is in the

possession of the house. Once an amendment is introduced and read and then handed to the Chair, surely at that point, it being in possession of the house, it is not possible to deal with it in an ex parte manner. It is an amendment which belongs to the house, and being out of order there is no power to cure a defect in it which is as basic as the defect in this amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted, I might say that you have made a ruling and we respect it.


Mr. Speaker:: It is true I have expressed my view, but I do not want to force my views upon the house unless they commend themselves fully to the house. With respect to the last statement of the minister, I may be mistaken about my authority in this matter, but as I see it this motion was not in the possession of the house because when I read it I said I had doubts about some of these items on the very ground which the minister has taken and that I would reserve them and deal with them before the motion was formally put. The motion being in that state, I think it can be distinguished from one where the unanimous consent of the house would be necessary. Furthermore, the proposed course commends itself to me as one which will further the general interests of the debate. Accordingly I make that amendment with the concurrence of the mover and seconder, and I now put the motion before the house in its amended form.
Before proceeding, the amendment to the amendment was also dealt with in the same way by the Chair at the time, and if any hon. member wishes to say anything about the subamendment this would be the appropriate time. Otherwise I will consider it as having been disposed of at this time as well.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, will you clarify one point of the ruling you have made. When does an amendment come into the possession of the house? You say that you reserved judgment on the amendment, so when does it come into the possession of the house? Is it just before a division or when is it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might be permitted a word on that point. I listened very carefully to what Your Honour said when my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River made his motion, and I understood 79951-0-1831
The Budget-Mr. Deschatelets Your Honour to say that you were reserving the motion and not putting it. If you had not taken that position and had questioned anything in it I or one of my colleagues would have risen at once and asked for permission to argue the question right there and then. It seems to me that that makes it perfectly clear that we accepted in good faith what Your Honour obviously did in good faith; that is to say, reserved the motion.


George Clyde Nowlan: One other question of the hon. member, if I may. On what have hon. members been speaking since we reserved this matter? On the main motion or the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: On the main motion.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, it has been said of the budget speech made Thursday night by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) that it was a do-nothing, stand-pat budget. It was a neat way of saying that, on Thursday, March 31, 1960, Canada was in the position of a hard-pressed debtor offering its creditors a legal settlement and a moratorium.
During the last three years, the national debt has increased by more than a billion dollars. The unemployment insurance fund has decreased by more that $500 million. To finance its deficits, the government has drawn upon the savings of the people and in order to make its loans more attractive, it has raised the interest to such a point that the savings in our banks, which were used for the development of industry, of business and by the general public, are exhausted through the government's deficits. In this budget, there is no decrease in expenditures and the taxes which had been increased last year remain at the same level, while the rickety surplus expected for 1960-61 is based not only on a hope, but also on the theory that the national product will increase by 6 per cent in the next 12 months.
This budget was evidently devised by a government which as a result of its shortcomings and of its monetary and fiscal errors, has been placed at the mercy of financiers. This budget speech which the Minister of Finance read Thursday night for the public at large is as cold as a tombstone. It lacks humanity and, for the hundreds of thousands of Canadian families affected by unemployment, it is cruel and inhuman.

The Budget-Mr. Deschatelets
In fact there is not even the slightest reference in it to the most important domestic problem in Canada today, unemployment, as if the problem did not exist. To the provinces, which bear a substantial part of the consequences of the government's monetary and fiscal failure, the budget offers nothing that they did not have last year. They will have to fend for themselves. The municipalities which were recently claimed to be heavily in debt, whose taxes on real estate are at their highest level, will have to solve their problems alone; and next winter, I am sure, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) will again ask them to bear the same costs of the winter works program. The government trusts to Providence to take care of the 827,000 unemployed.
If I refer to page 2670 of Hansard of March 31, I find that the only consolation offered to the unemployed are these few lines, dedicated to them, in the tone of a prayer at the end of a sermon.
I am confident-
-said the Minister of Finance-
-however, that employment will rise as the coming of spring opens up new job opportunities and as the economy continues its upward trend.
That sentence, coming at a time when there are more than 827,000 unemployed in Canada, confirms what we already knew, that this government, in its stubbornness, continues to consider unemployment as seasonal and does not care a rap about it. From that angle, the budget of last Thursday evening is an insult to the unemployed of this country.
In the course of my remarks, I intend to make a brief outline of the unemployment problem and of the hypocritical attitude of the Conservative government towards it. But, before going any further, let us glance at the statistics of previous years, under the Liberal regime.
As recorded on page 1654 of Hansard, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) gave a complete statistical table of unemployment in Canada from 1946 to 1959. His conclusions were as follows:
If that table is carefully examined, it will be seen that from the period 1946 to 1956-10 years- the average annual percentage of the labour force without jobs in Canada was 2.8 per cent.
As everyone knows-
The experts in the field say that 3 per cent of the labour force without jobs is the equivalent of full employment.
Well, that magnificent result is not accidental. The Liberals did not trust to spring, as did the Minister of Finance, to provide jobs for our labour force.


In 1945, to ease the change from a wartime to a peacetime economy, the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, then minister of reconstruction and supply, tabled in the house what we call a white paper, outlining an eight point concrete program concerning income and employment in Canada for a given period.
If such a program was necessary, at the time, how much more would it be today, when unemployment has reached its highest level since the Conservative depression of 1930-1935?
On March 10, 1960, in fact, the latest figures we had at our disposal showed, according to the national employment service, that 827,512 persons looking for jobs were registered in our offices, and according to the dominion bureau of statistics, there were
555.000	unemployed.
According to the information I gathered,
620.000	persons would now be getting unemployment insurance benefits, after having registered at the end of January 1960.
After personal investigation and research, I am able to say that at present about a third of the above-mentioned unemployed are not registered in our unemployment insurance offices, which would add 200,000 more unemployed to the first group.
If we consider that most unemployed have dependents, it is safe to say that at this very moment, over a million Canadian citizens are suffering from unemployment in Canada. Over a million Canadians are undernourished, over a million Canadians cannot get the drugs they need to restore their health, and thousands of young people, boys and girls, are unable to go on to college because their father, the head of the family, cannot afford to pay for their tuition.
Generally speaking, these people do not share in Canada's high standard of living, which we all like to boast about. Every day, as hon. members may read in their papers, youths of 17, 18 and 20 tell magistrates that they have robbed because they were unemployed and could not find' a job.
In other words, unemployment is not only an economic matter, it is also a social problem. Through the fault of the government, we condone the fact that, in our midst, an imposing group of fellow-citizens are undernourished, that women and children are forgotten, neglected, rejected and deceived by the Conservative party, whose members were

mainly elected because of a formal and solemn promise of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), to the effect that, as long as he would be Prime Minister, nobody in Canada would suffer unemployment, whether there be a deficit or not.
Now, on the evening of March 31, it was time to carry out that promise, but the unemployed were in fact forgotten, and this government, and more particularly the Minister of Finance, preferred financiers to the unemployed.
Now, let us look at the Conservative record with regard to the unemployment question. First of all, there is the Prime Minister's responsibility. After promising so much, he became silent and as the unemployment figures rose from month to month, he became more and more silent.
In the speech from the throne, the Prime Minister and his cabinet undertook on January 15 to give a seasonal character to unemployment, whereas there were at the time at least 700,000 people without jobs.
In early March 1960, we discussed the unemployment question, for eight days, on an item providing for winter works. If I am not mistaken, the Prime Minister did not in that instance come down from his ivory tower. He remained silent.
In the face of growing unemployment, we submitted on March 1, 1960, as shown on page 1578 of Hansard, an amendment recommending "That the problem of unemployment be recommitted to the standing committee on industrial relations".
As soon as the amendment was moved, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) jumped to his feet with the fourth edition of Beauchesne in his hands, trying to discover fine points of procedure by which the amendment could be rejected.
Following rejection of the amendment, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) rose to direct a very plain question to the Prime Minister. May I quote from page 1582 of Hansard the conclusion of the question put by the Leader of the Opposition:
-I ask the Prime Minister whether he will not forget technicalities and ask the house to give unanimous consent in order that this matter may be debated as- a question of urgency by this particular committee.
And here is what the Prime Minister replied, as recorded on page 1582 of Hansard:
I do not really know what the hon. gentlemen means when he says this matter should be debated as a matter of urgency.
The Budget-Mr. Deschatelets
Mr. Speaker, this was on March 1, 1960, and the Prime Minister ended his reply as follows:
-if in that time they have not been able to produce anything, I see no benefit in the suggestion which is now put forward.
And now, perhaps we could put a few questions to the Prime Minister. What is he doing and what has he done about his election promise? Why has he refused to take part even once in the only debate we have had on unemployment in the course of this session? Why did he, on March 31 last, sell Canada's unemployed down the river. And why has he made no provisions for them in the budget, as he had promised to do?
Why did the Prime Minister refuse, on March 1 last, to refer the matter of unemployment to the industrial relations committee?
On February 15, 1954, the Prime Minister, who was then the private member for Prince Albert, made this statement, as recorded on page 2102 of Hansard:
A committee set up to study and report on unemployment would hear evidence of those who are warning this government and the country of the need for action now.
At that time, in 1954, we had only half as many unemployed as we have today.
Mr. Speaker, I leave it to Canada's people to draw the obvious conclusions. I do suggest, however, that after that solemn pledge made in March 1958, the arrogant and unyielding attitude of the government towards the unemployed is one of the most revolting about-faces ever recorded in Canada's political history.
Let us now turn to the responsibility of the Minister of Labour. I should like to recall two statements he made on unemployment, the first one on March 3, 1955, when he was sitting in the opposition. I quote from page 1693 of Hansard:
I think we are wasting time by quoting figures. What is needed is some drastic action on the part of the government rather than the quoting of any figures.
During the period of time that this unemployment situation has gradually increased, no visible effort has been made by the government to alleviate the condition or to provide safeguards against its increase. Consequently we find ourselves with unemployment on a scale of national emergency-
Mr. Speaker, I would remind hon. members who are now listening to me that the unemployment statistics were much less serious in 1955 than they are now. Now, if in 1955 the present Minister of Labour believed that it was a case of national emergency,
2898	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Deschatelets why, today, does he remain in agreement with a government that refers to seasonal unemployment, when the present unemployment problem is not only more serious than in 1955, but the most serious we ever had since the years 1930-35.
On March 3, 1955, as recorded on page 1694 of Hansard of that date, the present Minister of Labour also made this other suggestion:
It is obvious therefore that a conference on this particular subject should be called in order to arrive at some conclusive plan to deal with this serious problem.
Mr. Speaker, I now ask this question to the Minister of Labour. If he thought that a federal-provincial conference was needed in 1955 to deal with unemployment, does he not think that such a conference should have been called at the very beginning of last winter?
According to Hansard for February 15, 1957, the Conservative party, which used to sit in the opposition, moved that the whole question of unemployment be referred to the industrial relations committee, and the present Minister of Labour then favoured that suggestion. How can he explain now that, on Thursday February 25, 1960, the members of the Conservative party on the industrial relations committee rejected a motion from the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) for a full study of the unemployment situation? Those are facts no one can deny-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the bon. member is reflecting on a decision of a committee of the house. He is not within his rights in taking a course of that kind. He must assume that the house acted properly and if it made a decision it is not open to him now to criticize it.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I was of course referring to what had taken place in the committee. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I think your point is well taken and I might now pursue my remarks from another line.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, those are facts that cannot be denied, which clearly point to the inconsistency, confusion and irresponsibility of our Conservative friends.
The only remedial measure introduced by the Minister of Labour was the resolution concerning the winter works program which, at the time, we rightfully called a peanuts program. The latest statistics issued in March concerning unemployment are the


most significant proof that those incidental works were unsatisfactory and ridiculous, both in planning and scope.
We now come to the responsibility of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in that question of unemployment, but before proceeding any further, I should like to quote from only two editorials, the first of which was published in La Presse of Friday, April 1, 1960, which reads as follows:
Out of that no-change budget, a few outstanding facts emerge: Mr. Fleming is apparently unaware that there is unemployment in Canada-
Now, Mr. Speaker, turning to the Montreal Gazette for April 4, 1960, I should like to quote from an article under the heading-
(Text):
Budget's Challenge Not Recognized.
The budget would have given finance minister Fleming the opportunity to give direction to the economy had he recognized there was a need for direction. In standing pat on tax levels, he also stood pat on the tired assumptions that everything will come out right in the end. That posture is not one which can much longer be afforded.
Mr. Fleming's attitude toward unemployment is an instance.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, during his budget speech on Thursday last, as reported on page 2671 of Hansard, the Minister of Finance mentioned that the number of people holding a job was on the increase. I ask him now why he did not then mention the number of unemployed, according to the statistics provided by our two official sources.
He stated that more men are now at work in Canada than at the same time last year. I might ask him to except the province of Quebec where there are now less men working than last year.
The Minister of Finance devoted 16 lines of his extensive speech to unemployment and employment, he made no mention at all of the present unemployment situation, nor did he suggest any remedy, any plan, any measure likely to check it.
This year's budget does not grant one cent to the unemployed. The Minister of Finance stands out as a dealer in false hopes. He thinks that Canada's No. 1 problem has been solved when he says: "I am confident that spring will bring new opportunities." What a cruel disappointment this is for all the unemployed in this country and their families.
The deception is all the more cruel for the population of Quebec, considering that, on February 18, 1960, there were 259,885 people looking for jobs in that province, or 19,500 more than the previous month. At the

present time 100,000 unemployed are receiving unemployment insurance benefits in that province. Almost one third of the total number of unemployed in this country are in Quebec.
And the Prime Minister is still silent, the Minister of Labour has adopted a do-nothing attitude, while the Minister of Finance is hoping that spring will bring a solution to the problem.
When we think of this budget speech which ignores the problem of unemployment across the country and, consequently, in the province of Quebec; when we think that that budget speech was received with loud applause by all the Conservative members, including those from the province of Quebec, I say, Mr. Speaker, that I would hate to be in the boots of my hon. friends when the time comes for them to go to the people of the province of Quebec who will call upon them to account for their actions and their solemn promises.


An hon. Member:: Not in your boots either.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Did anybody want to ask a question?
Mr. Speaker, while our hon. friends opposite are sleeping, we have tried, week after week, perhaps day after day in this session, to wake them up. We have told them that this problem was becoming more and more important, and nothing was done. And now, we have an unemployment figure which really reaches the proportions of a national emergency. I say to my hon. friends that if nothing is done right away to find some solution, we shall sacrifice a whole generation of our young people. All the vital forces in this nation should be mustered in an attempt to solve this problem.
Everybody knows, that, if today we were faced not even with war but the threat of war, if we had to face some fearsome situation, if within a year, or a few months, there arose the danger of a conflict, we would immediately find enough money to start our plants and mobilize all our resources. Well, if we do nothing, we shall face a serious situation which the Canadian people will find difficult to understand.
Mr. Speaker, I have proved that the Conservative party failed to consider our unemployed and deceived them by not fulfilling their promises. I proved that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Labour did not submit anything constructive to deal with unemployment. I proved that the hon. member for Essex East on behalf of the Liberal party advanced ten suggestions, which the Minister of Labour put aside without even considering them. I also
The Budget-Mr. McBain proved that the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) put on the record 25 suggestions on ways to remedy those conditions.
We moved an amendment asking for a complete study of unemployment by the industrial relations committee, where we might have heard economists and experts, and received some advice. But the Prime Minister refused, and yet, some valuable suggestions would have been submitted to the government.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Finance, the whole cabinet and all the private members, in a word, all of them, have been hiding their heads in the sand like so many ostriches to avoid facing the problem.
In the speech from the throne, unemployment was described as being of a seasonal nature; in his budget speech, the Minister of Finance also referred to it as being of a seasonal nature.
Well, we have done all we could to try to awaken our hon. friends. Apparently, we have not been successful.
In closing, may I repeat the words spoken by the hon. member for Laurier, at the end of one of his speeches on the unemployment situation, and say to the Conservative government: "Face your responsibilities, honour your election promises, or resign."
(Text):


James Alexander McBain: Mr. Speaker,
may my first words be to compliment the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) upon the outstanding budget he produced last Thursday evening. To me it was very reassuring, as I know it must have been to many Canadians, to know that the minister was able to bring down a balanced budget optimistic enough for a small surplus without creating any major tax changes. I should like to commend the minister for making a considerable number of tariff changes, especially those pertaining to cottons as our cotton industry has long been suffering from importations from low wage countries.
This is a budget that seems to be accepted by the opposition parties very reluctantly, for so far they have found very little in it to criticize. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) the other evening and again this afternoon in his feeble attempt to criticize the budget mentioned that the government had a record expenditure, record taxation and record unemployment. I am sure he must have been ashamed of his colleagues when they apparently gloated and applauded as loudly as they did the other evening when he mentioned the high unemployment in this country.

The Budget-Mr. McBain
After listening to the last two speakers I wonder whether we are now debating the budget or are we back on the unemployment debate that we had some weeks ago? Commenting on this budget there was an editorial which appeared in the St. Thomas Times-Journal on Saturday last, April 2, which expresses the thoughts and feelings of a very large number of people across the length and breadth of Canada. The editorial is entitled "A Balanced Budget" and I now wish to quote from it. It begins with these words:
Blessed are they that expect not for they shall not be disappointed.
That probably represents the feelings of the people of Canada in regard to the budget brought down in the House of Commons Thursday night. Reports emanating from Ottawa throughout the past financial year have indicated that although the national economy was improving, no tax concessions could be expected. If hopes are to be entertained for next year much may depend on what happens at Geneva or some other city in regard to disarmament, nuclear agreements and the pacifist attitude in general, for the military part of the budget takes up one third of the expenditure.
However, the country is in a prosperous condition. The general output of production increased and continues to increase, but our prosperity is not sufficient to justify a tax reduction that would really be felt. There are hopes for next March.
The most interesting part of the budget is that the textile industry is to receive increased tariff protection against imported fabrics, and that the tariff board will examine the tariff structure on engineering and architects' plans, nails, china and glass imported for decoration, and mining and petroleum machinery.
The textile industry has been crying out for a long time; way back into the St. Laurent administrations, but then they mostly cried in vain. Factories have been shut or put on short time and textiles have probably contributed more to unemployment than any other business.
On the whole, not a bad budget under the circumstances. I
I think that editorial speaks for most of the people in Canada.
I wish now to discuss some problems that are relevant to southern and southwestern Ontario and portions of Quebec. I wish to refer to the tobacco industry from the production standpoint to the manufacturing process. My remarks will have reference mainly to flue-cured tobacco.
The production of flue-cured tobacco and its processing into a consumer product is an industry on which a great majority of the people in the tobacco growing districts depend for their livelihood. It is also the main support of numerous local industries and services which manufacture, sell or service materials and machines for the tobacco industry. Merchants, garages, service stations, banks, legal firms, insurance and real estate companies and other businesses have gained much from the tobacco industry. It is also the largest customer of the companion branches of agriculture in these same districts.


The tobacco industry may also be found to be the largest single source of tax revenue, if not in the country at least in many municipalities.
Tobacco is the hub of a great wheel of local industry which finds its earnings rising and falling according to the state of the tobacco industry. The general overhead for an Ontario flue-cured tobacco farm exceeds that of almost any other agricultural commodity. At the present time the province of Ontario has approximately 4,500 qualified farms growing flue-cured tobacco in 16 counties. The estimated capital invested in these farms approaches $300 million or an average of between $65,000 and $70,000 per farm. The farm buildings and equipment required to cultivate and cure tobacco cost upward of $40,000 depending on the size of the unit.
The outstanding cost in producing tobacco is the annual labour account. To harvest and prepare this annual crop for market requires up to 60,000 persons and their earnings paid by farmers amount to approximately $45 million. Much of this money is borrowed from the banks at fairly high interest rates. When you take into account the interest on the capital invested, the maintenance and depreciation on farm buildings and equipment together with the high labour costs and the money which farmers borrow annually from the banks, this makes tobacco one of the most costly agricultural crops to produce. An average production cost per acre under present conditions would be $650. This cost is dependent upon the producer being permitted to market his full basic acreage production. Practically all the tobacco farms are equipped to operate to full capacity and when they have to drop back to anything less their production costs per acre increase.
The amount of tobacco marketed each year in Ontario is set by the Ontario flue-cured tobacco growers marketing board before the beginning of the planting season and many factors have to be considered before acreage quotas are determined. The chief factor is not to set quotas at a level that would produce a serious surplus thus depressing prices to a point where producers could not repay their loans made from the banks to grow their crops. At the same time the board must take into consideration the dangers of producing too small a crop resulting in a great demand and a high price and loss of export trade.
The Ontario flue-cured tobacco marketing board is one agricultural marketing association that deserves a great deal of credit because besides negotiating with the buyers to establish a price they also maintain strict controls over their acreage production. In the year 1958 production was very high with a yield of

173,213,818 pounds of tobacco returning an average price of 47.57 cents per pound which brought to the producers $82,394,702.
To market this large 1958 crop the marketing board experienced serious difficulties so that the base acreage for 1959 was reduced by 25 per cent. This the board estimated would yield from 145 million to 150 million pounds. When the sale of the 1959 crop wound up on March 11, 145,220,668 pounds were sold bringing to the producers a gross return of $81,525,841 at an average price of 56.25 cents per pound. This indicates how closely the output was estimated. Despite this extra large return the gross return was some $750,000 less than for the large 1958 crop.
Although this agricultural product is restricted to areas where it can be grown the federal treasury collects more fax in proportion from tobacco than from any other product manufactured. At present a package of 20 cigarettes has a tax of 20 cents or one cent per cigarette; in other words, 209 per cent of the manufacturer's selling price. In Canada the average per capita cigarette consumption per annum is 1,949. For taxation purposes this means a revenue of $19.49 per person. For a family using two packages a day under our present tax they would pay $146 per year. Breaking this taxation down further, I might say that the treasury collects an estimated $3,200 from every acre of tobacco grown. Since the 1940 budget the excise tariff on cigarettes has been computed by the weight of two and a half pounds of tobacco per
4, I960	2901
The Budget-Mr. McBain thousand cigarettes. This weight includes paper, paste and filter tip if it is a filter tip cigarette that is under consideration. As producers wish to see the demand for tobacco increase they have therefore requested the government to revert to the pre-war position, when three pounds of tobacco was the amount allowed per thousand cigarettes. I hope this request will be granted by the Minister of Finance.
I wonder whether I could have the consent of the house to place in Hansard as part of the text of my speech a table showing the total federal excise taxes paid by the consumers of manufactured tobacco products compared with other representative commodities.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member state the source of his table?


James Alexander McBain: It is from the brief presented by the flue-cured tobacco growers.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to insert this table at this point in his address?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What did the hon. gentleman say the table was about?


James Alexander McBain: This table shows federal excise taxes paid by the consumers of manufactured tobacco products compared with other representative commodities.
[Editor's note: The table referred to is as follows:]
Total Federal Excise Taxes (Excluding Sales Tax)* Paid by the Consumer or Manufactured Tobacco Products Compared with Other Representative Commodities (millions of dollars)
Manufactured tobacco products
As a ratio
Total	to total
Fiscal Year	Autos.	Beer	Spirits	Radios, T.V.'s., etc.	Chocolates, confectionery, etc.	Tires and tubes	All others	(excluding tobacco products)	Amount	(excluding tobacco products)1950-51	51.2	68.2	60.1	5.4	17.1	8.6	43.8	254.4	198.3	781952-52	77.9	77.6	45.9	7.9	30.0	11.7	57.3	308.3	205.1	671952-53	68.2	85.9	48.6	10.1	23.6	10.6	45.2	292.2	217.2	741953-54	82.1	83.5	69.2	15.9	23.4	10.4	30.2	314.7	207.6	661954-55	63.2	73.8	72.2	20.5	17.2	8.1	15.2	270.2	213.1	791955-56	62.5	80.7	77.5	21.6	17.0	.8	14.6	274.7	235.2	861956-57	69.3	83.1	86.2	17.8	17.9	-	15.9	290.2	251.5	871957-58	62.1	88.2	89.9	15.5	1.3	-	15.6	272.6	272.3	1001958-591	60.4	90.4	90.4	17.5	-	-	3.8	262.5	293.9	112
1 Estimated for final quarter of fiscal year.
* Comprised of Excise Tax and Excise Duty applicable to Domestic Products. 79951-0-184
2902	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. McBain
I have not placed these figures on the record to be critical of the Minister of Finance for not reducing the tax on tobacco in his present budget. But now that he has been able to balance the budget with a surplus I am sure we shall be expecting him to be in a position to reduce the tax in his next budget. I therefore expect him to give consideration to a considerable reduction of the tax on tobacco in his budget next year.
In 1957 when this government came into office, the sugar beet industry and growers were gradually being forced out of business and production. The Liberal government would always say no to a support price on sugar beets, and without a support price and import controls sugar beet acreage in Ontario had dropped from a high of 40,000 acres to
14.000	acres and one sugar beet processing plant was forced to close.
After the change of government in 1957, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his cabinet listened with an open ear to the producers' problems and eventually established a floor price under sugar beets. Since this floor price was implemented the acreage has increased from the low of 14,000 acres, in a two-year period, to 35,000 acres in 1959.
As Canada produces less than 25 per cent of her sugar requirements it appears to me to be a great opportunity to have this agricultural production of beets expanded not only in Ontario but in western Canada as well. I would suggest the government should consider the implementation of a long range sugar policy for Canada. At the present time I am informed that the price of Cuban refined sugar in Cuba is from $2.80 to $2.85 per hundred pounds. As the government of Cuba has a monopoly on sugar and as a result of its present instability I can foresee Cuba endeavouring to dump into Canada refined sugar at a price below the cost of production. If this should happen it would spell ruin for the sugar refinery in Toronto and the beet plants at Chatham and Wallaceburg.
If a long range policy could be brought into effect so that the producers would know where they are going I am sure it would be possible to increase acreage up to a possible 50,000 or
60.000	acres. It would take out of production acres that are now producing crops that at times create a surplus. It would also keep in circulation the $20 million that is now spent for growing, harvesting and processing the sugar beets. It would also create a need for a new sugar beet factory to be built and therefore would give employment to a large work force in construction operations and maintenance.

The present two plants at Wallaceburg and Chatham when operating at full capacity employ 1,500 people. The riding of Elgin which I represent produces a fairly substantial acreage of beets at the present time. If the producers could be assured of a long range return plus import quotas I am sure this acreage would definitely be increased.
In the riding of Elgin we have an excellent location for a new sugar beet factory at Port Stanley. As a sugar beet processing pflant requires a large amount of water for washing and processing the beets, a new plant situated at Port Stanley on lake Erie would have available all the water necessary. Furthermore, the farmers in this area are the producers of a large quantity of the flue-cured tobacco grown in Ontario. When this crop is harvested, usually about September 15, the surplus labour could be diverted to the harvesting and processing of sugar beets.
I wish to commend the government for the steps they have taken in the past to restore the sugar beet industry in Canada. I hope they will continue their interest and will continue to assist the sugar beet producers in 1960.
I think it is gratifying to see the optimism shown in this chamber by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill). It is unfortunate that the opposition parties can see no optimism and no future for Canada in this present year. These forecasters of gloom and depression remind me of the story of an Italian immigrant who came to Canada and established by the side of the highway a hot dog stand. In this venture he was extremely successful for he would stand out by the side of his stand and, although unable to read or write, he would spiel out the words "Come and buy a hot dog". It had its effect on the travelling public for Tony's Place became very favourably known far and wide. Tony was successful enough to put aside enough money to send his son to college.
After a year in college his son came home and said, "Dad, how is business?" His father replied, "Business is booming better than ever". "That is strange," said the son; "did you not know there is a depression on in Canada?" His father said, "No; I was not aware of it. I have no television, no radio and, as you know, I cannot read the papers; so as far as I am concerned business is as good as ever". But before the son left to go back to college he had convinced his father that things were not as good in the country as they had been.
Thereafter the father did not go out to the side of the road to ask people to stop and buy his hot dogs, and he took down

some of the advertising around his booth. The next time the son came home his father said to him, "Son, I know you are right. I am just beginning to realize that a depression is at hand".
My friends on the opposite side, in continuing to take this gloomy outlook are not only not doing themselves any good but are making other people in Canada gloomy as well.
It seems to me that each one of us has a particular job to do to sell Canada to our friends in other countries. We can do this only by pointing out that Canada maintains one of the highest standards of living in the world, with our manufactured products and agricultural products being the best produced anywhere.
Very recently we had in Canada for some four weeks an agricultural delegation from Roumania and this only happened because one of our boosters of Canada in the person of Mr. E. M. Warwick of Blenheim, Ontario, had paid a visit to Roumania late in 1957 for the purpose of seeing that country and introducing to Roumania new varieties of seed corn. He was so impressed with the country and its needs that he impressed upon the Roumanian department of agriculture that they should appoint a group to visit Canada and make purchases of our Canadian agricultural products. This came about early in 1958 and that year Roumania purchased its first Canadian cattle.
From this initial shipment the country was so impressed with the qualities of the cattle and other purchases, and by a further visit to Roumania by Mr. Warwick with the cooperation of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture, that they have negotiated what is to be hoped will be a continued trade with Canada. On their most recent visit they negotiated for the purchase of 1,100 head of cattle, some of these coming from western Canada; 400 hogs; seed corn to plant a million acres; 200 tons of soybean seed. In the previous shipment of cattle Mr. Warwick supplied them with two Holstein cows which have proved to be the best two cows in that country. Their present purchases have included some of the top producing Holsteins in Ontario. In all their total purchases will be over $1 million in agricultural products.
Of course, we cannot expect these purchases to be one sided. Eventually Canada will be expected to negotiate for some of the products that Roumania wishes to export. To follow this up, I would suggest that it would be advisable for a small delegation from Canada to be sponsored by the government to visit Roumania to secure their continued good will, and I am sure it would 79951-0-184J
The Budget-Mr. Bourdages promote the sale of more of our agricultural products. At the same time this small group would be in a position to evaluate the products they would wish to sell to Canada.
I was interested to find on picking up the Montreal Gazette for April 1 that one of the first boats to sail from the port of Montreal will be a vessel by the name of Cora which will take aboard 400 head of cattle bound for Roumania. The Gazette mentions that Canada today exports few cattle to Europe and that this will be the first time any have gone to that country. Actually it will be the second time.
If one man can go there and promote the sale of our products in a European country,
I am sure a delegation from Canada could do the same thing in many other countries in Europe.
(Translation):


Rodrigue Bourdages: Mr
Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate our Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). He has given Canada a magnificent budget for the current fiscal year.
I very well understand, Mr. Speaker, that the previous fiscal year should have ended with a deficit, and I also understand very well that we have a great Minister of Finance who needed only two years to repair the damage done by the previous government during its twenty two years of administration.
I will frankly admit, Mr. Speaker, that having heard such a fine budget speech, if I were in the opposition, I would be so discouraged and dejected that I sincerely think I would resign.
The Minister of Finance has given us a balanced budget. He even managed to offer us a $12 million surplus. And yet, he did not increase taxation. Furthermore, he has managed to grant a salary increase to 50,000 civil service employees, who certainly deserved it.
If you will allow me to get at the heart of my subject matter, I will say that, contrary to the statements made by my hon. colleague for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets), and to the opposition generally, Canada is advancing economically.
According to a Montreal Star report of March 26, 1960, Mr. J. H. Goldsmith, a reputed financial editor, stated and I quote:
(Text):
Bonds continued to advance and stocks also rose. (Translation):
The stock market is therefore experiencing a revival. The stock market is more or less the economic pulse of a nation. If it is vigorous, everything else is.
2904	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Bourdages The paper industry stocks are showing a remarkable vigour.
Here is what Mr. Goldsmith said about that, on the same date:
(Text):
If the current trends continue, the industry as a whole should be able to make a very good showing in earnings for 1960.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, even the banks are optimistic. They are happy about the economic recovery in Canada. This means that the whole Canadian industry feels the effects of this economic recovery.
In the same newspaper, in its March 26, 1960 edition, we read the following by the same writer:
(Text):
The demand for bank stocks may be an indication of renewed confidence in the outlook for general business. It is axiomatic that banks, being closely linked to the country's business activities, are among those institutions which share directly when the economy is prosperous.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, it must be admitted that there has been progress in Canada. It must be recognized that there has been progress abroad. Our exports are better than ever. In fact, our export trade has made significant progress since last year. Still a little farther down, Mr. Goldsmith had this to say:
(Text):
Foreign trade figures for the first two months of 1960 are highly encouraging. Exports for the two-month period were up more than 27 per cent over the like period of last year.
(Translation):
On that same topic of exports the dominion bureau of statistics, whose figures the members of the opposition are so prone to quote, issues encouraging data. I should like to quote in that connection from a Star report of March 26, 1960 beginning with the following words:
(Text):
Exports up sharply over '59.
Ottawa, March 26-Recent strong gains in Canada's export business continued in February, keeping the 1960 trade ledger in the black.
Exports^ in February were 33.5 per cent above a year earlier, following a 21 per cent gain in January, a bureau of statistics preliminary report yesterday showed.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, opposition members want figures. If my hon. friends in the opposition want figures, I shall quote figures. In the Montreal Star for March 26, 1960, there is a report from the dominion bureau of statistics which says that exports rose from $322,200,000 in February 1959 to $430,100,000 in February 

1960, for a total of $852,000,000 for January and February 1960, as against $670,200,000 for the same months in 1959.
On the other hand, imports rose to $454,300,000 in February 1960, as against $381,600,000 in February 1959, for a total of $850,800,000 for January and February 1960, as against $784,900,000 for the same months of the previous year. There is therefore a net gain of 19 per cent of exports over imports in January and February as against last year's figures.
In La Presse for March 29, there was a feature by Roger Fontaine under the heading "Financial Talk", and I quote:
Referring to operations in Canada, the annual report of the S.S. Kresge company mentions that sales for 1959 have been higher than in any previous year.
Mr. Speaker, there has been some criticism levelled at the government's export policy in relation to non-commonwealth countries. Let me say to opposition members, on the basis of D.B.S. figures, that our trade relations with foreign countries have been promoted as never before. That takes care of some irresponsible remarks.
Here is something which appeared in the Montreal Star for March 26, 1960, and I quote:
(Text):
Almost as notable was the turn-around in trade with non-commonwealth countries overseas, with a two-month surplus of $41,100,000 emerging after the $13,700,000 deficit in January-February, 1959.
(Translation):
As you can see, this government has improved the economic situation of the country. In the field of industry, again there is progress. For the automobile industry, for instance, we have some revealing figures.
The Canadian automobile chamber of commerce says, in fact, that:
The Canadian automobile industry produced this week 10,450 vehicles as against 10,319 last week.
These figures come from the Canadian automobile chamber of commerce.
This year, production is estimated at 116,896 vehicles, compared to 109,063 at the corresponding date of 1959; it is distributed as follows; 95,571 automobiles as against 92,086 last year and 21,325 trucks, as compared to 17,007 a year earlier.
We have there more evidence of optimism based on facts.
So, Mr. Speaker, the automobile production is 7,000 units higher this year than last.
Now, I want to deal briefly with mines. In the province of Quebec, we are but one and a half million dollars away from the record reached in 1956.
Here is what La Presse said on this matter on March 26, 1960:
$1.5 million away from the 1956 record.

Mineral production in Quebec reached $461,979,700 in 1959. Mineral production increased by more than $72,000,000 in the province in 1959 to reach $461,979,700 as compared to $389,442,985 in 1958.
A word now to the pessimists-that is to the members of the opposition-about the textile industry.
Mr. J. D. Ritchie, president of the Canadian federation of textile, stated recently as reported in La Presse of March 26, 1960:
Canadian textiles gain prestige.
Mr. I. D. Ritchie, president of the Canadian federation of textiles, said yesterday that the Canadian industry has devoted a great deal of time and effort to promote its products and that the work done in the last few years is slowly debunking the overdone reputation of imported goods.
What has the government done for its part? Members of the opposition you are now singing small. We have the most sensational budget that we could hope for, as far as textiles are concerned.
This last budget has caused enthusiasm in cities where the textile industry will now become prosperous.
Members of the opposition have mentioned imbalance or something of the sort in the 1959 budget.
Well, the Canadian tax foundation said this on March 26:
The Canadian tax foundation forecasts a tax revenue surplus of $120 million over expenses for the year 1960-61.
Mr. Speaker, I think these people did not make a mistake, and that they were right on March 26.
Everybody knows that, from an international point of view, Canada occupies a choice position. This country is respected and I would be remiss if I failed to give credit to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), who is doing a magnificent job of which all Canadians can rightly be proud.
Canada meets its obligations. And the optimistic note we get in the speeches of the Secretary of State for External Affairs is based on facts.
The Budget-Mr. Bourdages
When we go abroad to take part in some international conference, we realize how much our country is held in high esteem.
This is what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) said here on this matter, as reported in the Montreal Star of May 26 last:
(Text):
Liberal party leader Pearson told the commons it was ''a very unhappy record from which no one can get any satisfaction" that some 40 nations were not meeting their financial obligations.
(Translation):
The statement of the Leader of the Opposition is quite right. Thus, he pays a tribute to the foresight and to the unequalled accounting sense of the Conservative party under the leadership of great men, one of whom is the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker). Canada meets its obligations at the international level. In short, this government is not trying to find excuses. It faces up to reality and meets its requirements.
The Conservative government meets its obligations. I would call it a creative government. We find in the Larousse dictionary that the word "create" means "to make something out of nothing".
Well, that is what the Conservative government has done: out of nothing-it succeeded to the Liberal government, of which everybody had had enough-the last election proved it,-this government presents a budget that is not only balanced but advantageous. To prove it, may I say that the Canadian stock market reacted favourably the day following the budget of the Minister of Finance.
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister whether there is any change in the plans?


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

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

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Does the government have a record of capital expenditures made in providing airport and terminal facilities at those airports used by commercial air lines?
2.	If so, what is the total capital expenditures made by the government in providing (a) runways; (b) radio and directional equipment; (c) meteorological services at the airports; (d) terminal facilities at such airports?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of
Transport):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Runways-$145,645,836.
(b)	Radio and directional equipment- $15,646,416.
(c)	Meteorological services at the airports -The meteorological services have stations at several airports which supply weather information to the air lines, and these facilities are also used for public forecasting. It is not possible to segregate these costs, as the accounting records are not maintained in this manner.
(d)	Terminal facilities-$37,339,496.
The above figures are cumulative to March 31, 1959.


CANSO CAUSEWAY CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Regier: 1.	What were the total contributions of the federal government to the building of the Canso causeway?
2.	Are any federal contributions still to be made? If so, what is the expected amount?
13. What is the total estimated cost of this causeway?
4.	Does the federal government receive any returns on this investment out of the tolls being collected?
5.	From whom was the rock needed for this causeway purchased?
6.	Has the rock been paid for? If so, how much was paid for the rock? If not, what is the cause of the delay in payment being made?
7.	If this rock was purchased from a company or a corporation, who are the officers of same?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier
of Transport):
1.	Expenditure by the federal government on the construction of the Canso causeway to March 1, 1960 amounted to $20,157,201. The above covers the total expenditure on the construction of the causeway to March 1, 1960, and under the agreement between the federal government and the government of the province of Nova Scotia the province will contribute $5,500,000 toward the capital cost subject to the provision that if the total capital cost is less than $22,760,000 the contribution of the province will be reduced proportionately.
2.	Yes. The amount cannot be determined until the full cost of the land from which the rock was obtained is available.
3.	Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.
4.	No.
5.	Rock obtained from land expropriated by the federal government. Owner of the land Hon. Alistair Fraser.
6.	A payment of $15,000 on account was made to the owner of the expropriated land pending a decision of the exchequer court of Canada as to the value of the parcel of land expropriated. The decision of the court was rendered under date of March 18, 1960 which is subject to appeal within 60 days from date of judgment.
7.	Answered by No. 5.


EAST-WEST EXPRESSWAY, MONTREAL  HOUSING CONSTRUCTION, ST. HENRI COUNTY
Mr. Lessard: 1.	Have there been any negotiations between officers of the Department of Public Works and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and representatives of the city of Montreal, regarding the east-west elevated expressway and its effect on the construction of low cost rental units in the county of St. Henri?
2.	If so, what stage have such negotiations reached?
3.	Have any officers of the department or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation examined this problem, and what are their findings?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of
Public Works):
1.	No.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	No.

Tuesday, April 5, I960