1960-04-06

STARRED QUESTIONS


HEALTH INSURANCE


Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has the Minister of National Health and Welfare received any communication or representations, since March 1, 1960, from any member of the government of Saskatchewan urging the federal government to include depreciation as a shareable cost item under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act?
2.	If so, from whom have such representations been received?
3.	If so, what reply, if any, has been made?


Hon. J. W. Monleiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The answer to question No. 1 is no. As a consequence, questions Nos. 2 and 3 are not applicable.



COLUMBIA RIVER DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Mcllraiih: 1.	Has the Minister of Finance offered to loan to British Columbia one-half the cost of the development of the Columbia river?
2.	Is the federal government making any grant toward the cost of this project?
3.	Has the federal government offered to share directly in the financing of the project?


Mr. Richard A. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: The answers are as follows:
1. The federal government has made an offer to participate in the financing of a satisfactory arrangement for the development of Columbia river power. It is not in the public interest to discuss or disclose the details of this offer while the matter is still mder discussion.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.



EXPORT CREDIT INSURANCE EXTENSION

Mr. Badanai: Will the Minister of Finance give consideration to expanding the operations of the export credit insurance corporation, in particular, widening the basis on which direct guarantee could be issued on negotiable instruments given to Canadian exporters by foreign buyers in respect of export transactions?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this comes under my jurisdiction. With regard to the hon. member's suggestion that the basis on which direct guarantees could be issued be widened,
it should be understood that direct guarantees are available to assist financing. They are to be issued in connection with contracts involving the export of goods or services for an amount of not less than $250,000 and involving a payment period of at least two years. The question of financing smaller transactions on shorter terms is not a problem, since financing for such transactions is readily available from the chartered banks.



TOXIC NERVE GAS

Mr. Argue: 1.	Is toxic nerve gas produced in Canada?
2.	If so, (a) where; (b) since when; (c) for what purpose; (d) under what authority; (e) under whose jurisdiction; (f) to whom is it supplied; (g) on what scale?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, this question should stand as an order for return, as it involves more than one department.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



MUNICIPAL TAXES, KINGS COUNTY, N.S.   SERVICE PERSONNEL

Mr. Hellyer: 1.	Are some service personnel living in permanent married quarters at Greenwood, Nova Scotia, required to pay direct taxes to the kings county municipal council?
2.	If so, what is the purpose of the tax?
3.	Does the Department of National Defence make a grant to the municipality in lieu of taxes in respect to educational costs, etc.?
4.	If so, do the grants by the federal government exempt service personnel from payment of direct municipal taxes?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: The answer to question 1 is, yes.
The answer to question 2 is that the purpose of the tax is to provide a general fund for internal financing from which the municipality sets aside certain amounts for charitable purposes and expenditures not covered by the mill rate struck for taxation on the assessment of real property.
The answer to question 3 is no; municipal grants are made by the Department of Finance. However, the Department of National Defence made a capital assistance grant toward construction of the western Kings county high school and pays a proportional share of operating costs. In addition an

Starred Questions
agreement exists between the Department of National Defence and the municipality for mutual assistance in fire protection.
The answer to question 4 is, no.



INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS, HOSPITAL COSTS

Mr. Michaud: 1.	Are the basic costs of hospital treatment in a province participating in the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act deductible from income for federal income tax purposes?
2.	If so, to what extent?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 1 refers to the basic costs. There might be some discussion as to what that term means in view of the interpretation of the act, and I wonder if the hon. member would let this stand until I have had a chance to discuss it fully.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Question stands.



LAND ASSEMBLY PROJECT, ST. JOHN'S, NFLD.

Mr. Carter: 1.	Has the government approved an investigation into a proposed land assembly project on the eastern outskirts of St. John's, Newfoundland?
2.	If so, at what date was approval given and who is conducting the investigation?
3.	By whom is the cost of the investigation being defrayed?
4.	Has any arrangement or tentative arrangement been made in the city of St. John's to undertake a housing project under section 36 of the National Housing Act, and if so, on what date?
5.	In any such project has an arrangement been made with the Royal Bank to guarantee the payment for which the province would be responsible and for which the city of St. John's would be responsible?
6.	Is the city of St. John's authorized to act as agent for the province of Newfoundland in such project?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: The answer to question 1 is, yes.
The answer to question 2, is February 25, 1960. The investigation is being conducted by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the city of St. John's, acting as agent for the province of Newfoundland.
The answer to number 3 is Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the city of St. John's, acting as agent for the province of Newfoundland.
The answer to question 4 is, no.
The answer to question 5 is, with respect to the proposed land assembly project, I understand that the city of St. John's has made banking arrangements to cover the amount of the provincial 25 per cent share of the costs which the city will be obliged to bear if the project is proceeded with.
The answer to question 6 is, yes.
[Mr. Sevigny.j



SURPLUS LABOUR TRANSFERS TO ELLIOT LAKE, ONT.

Mr. Pearson: 1.	Were any workers transferred by the Department of Labour to Elliot Lake, Ontario from areas of surplus labour in fiscal year 1959-60?
2.	If so, how many workers were involved and on what dates were any such transfers effected?
3.	Has Elliot Lake been declared an area of surplus labour since this transfer?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: The answer to the first question is, yes.
The answer to the second question is, 21 workers transferred to Elliot Lake on May 26, 1959.
The answer to the third question is, yes.



COAL SUBVENTION PAYMENTS TO UTILITIES, N.B.

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Have any payments of coal subventions been made to utilities in New Brunswick under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act?
2.	If so, what are the names of utilities to which such payments have been made, in what amounts and on what dates?
3.	Are any such payments made pursuant to an agreement with the province of New Brunswick?
4.	If so, when was such an agreement signed?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: The answer to question 1 is, yes.
No. 2: All payments in respect to utilities in New Brunswick have been made to the New Brunswick electric power commission as agent of the government of the province of New Brunswick. A list of payments and dates on which they were made follows. Mr. Speaker, there are some 15 dates with amounts, and to save the time of the house I would ask that the rest of this answer be printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave for the printing in Hansard of the rest of the answer?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table referred to above is as follows:]
$ 96,215.46 on August 25, 1958 50,660.83 on October 23, 1958 16,556.64 on December 17, 1958 54,159.51 on February 24, 1959 132,002.20 on February 24, 1959 132,830.94 on March 19, 1959 79,731.48 on April 20, 1959 83,439.50 on May 20, 1959 31,678.54 on June 25, 1959 25,693.16 on July 29, 1959 35,433.90 on December 17, 1959 189,978.77 on December 22, 1959 41,599.46 on January 21, 1960 39,087.29 on February 24, 1960 47,946.68 on March 16, 1960


Douglas Scott Harkness: The answer to question 3 is, yes; the answer to question 4, February 14, 1958.



THERMAL PLANT, NOVA SCOTIA  FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Has the federal government made any contribution under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act for a thermal plant in the province of Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, what was the amount of any such contribution?
3.	Was any such contribution made toward (a) the construction of a new plant; (b) the modernization of an existing plant; (c) the increase of capacity of an existing plant?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The answer to question 1 is, yes.
The answer to question 2 is that contributions totalling $2,489,972.87 have been paid with respect to increasing the capacity of the Trenton thermal electric generating plant, Nova Scotia.
The answer to question 3: Answered by number 2.



CUSTOMS OFFICE CLOSING, PENETAN GUISHENE, ONT.

Mr. Macnaughion: 1.	Has the Department of National Revenue received a request from the town of Penetan-guishene for a postponement in the closing of the local customs office?
2.	If so. has this request received consideration?
3.	Has any decision been reached?
4.	If so, what is the nature of the decision?
5.	What reply, if any, has been made to the people of Penetanguishene?


George Clyde Nowlan: The answer to the first question is, yes; the answer to the second is, yes; and the answer to the third question is, yes. In reply to question No. 4, the decision was maintained to keep the customs office closed despite the representations made on the subject by the town council and by Dr. Rynard. In answer to question No. 5, the town council was advised of the reason for the closing of the office, and was also assured that the question would be kept under constant review. In doing so the department was following the principle laid down by my predecessor in office when he transferred the excise office to Midland as a preliminary step to closing the customs office.



&quot;CANADIAN ECONOMIC OUTLOOK FOR 1959&quot;

Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Did the Department of Trade and Commerce prepare a document entitled The Canadian Economic Outlook for 1959?
2.	If so, did this document forecast a continuing high level of unemployment throughout 1959?
Starred Questions
3.	Did this document forecast a level of gross national product which was lower in volume than that actually realized?
4.	To whom were copies of this document made available and on what dates?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is a question which attempts to deal indirectly with what was settled during the session by a vote of the house. On February 15, on a motion for the production of this document, the house decided that it should not be produced.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: On the point of order which has been raised by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I would draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that the only question which was settled by the house was whether or not such a document should be produced. Surely the settling of the question whether it should be produced in public does not preclude us from asking whether such a document exists.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that a valid point of order is raised. The question has been put on the order paper and asked. The minister, as I understand it, objects to answering on the basis of a prior decision of the house. There is no precedent for ordering that an answer be given.



PRESS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF LEADER OF OPPOSITION

Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Is there a position in the office of the Leader of the Opposition for a press secretary, or public relations officer, or some similar official, the salary for which position is provided from public funds?
2.	If so, what is the precise description of the position, when was it created, and by whom is it now filled?
3.	Was there any such position between December 14, 1956 and June 21, 1957, and if so, by whom was it filled?
4.	Is or was any such official paid a salary from public funds, and if so, how much, and under what precise authority?


Richard Albert Bell: The answer to the first question is no; the second question is covered by the answer I have just given. The answer to the third question is no, and consequently question No. 4 does not apply.



LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION


Mr. Pigeon: 1.	What is the total of the annual salaries paid out of public funds to the staff of the Leader of the Opposition today?
2.	What was the total of the annual salaries paid to the staff of the then leader of the opposition on January 8, 1957?


Richard Albert Bell: The answer to question No. 1 is $48,870. The answer to question No. 2 is $34,402.

Inquiries of the Ministry



LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION-OFFICE EMPLOYEES

Mr. Pigeon: 1.	How many persons, including parliamentary receptionists and messengers, if any, are now employed in the offices of the Leader of the Opposition?
2.	How many persons were employed in the offices of the then leader of the opposition on January 8, 19S7?


Richard Albert Bell: The answer to question No. 1 is 10. The answer to question No. 2 is 9.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Argue: 1.	Is toxic nerve gas produced in Canada?
2.	If so, (a) where; (b) since when; (c) for what purpose; (d) under what authority; (e) under whose jurisdiction; (f) to whom is it supplied; (g) on what scale?


FEDERAL LEGAL SERVICES, N.B.
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	What are the names of the lawyers in the province of New Brunswick who performed legal services for the federal government since June, 1957 to date?
2.	What was the total amount paid to each of these lawyers for such services?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 88-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of the air transport board order denying the application of Autair Helicopter Services Limited for the removal of restrictions limiting that firm to the use of small category helicopters.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has any comment to make on the reported rejection, point by point, by the western delegates to the disarmament conference of Premier Khrushchev's proposals for complete disarmament as a basis for any disarmament compromise.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The discussions in the ten nation committee are, of course, private. Nevertheless I think I am revealing no secrets if I say that so far progress in that committee has been retarded 
because of the Soviet insistence on acceptance of the Khrushchev proposals as the basis of negotiations. In an effort to pave the way for discussions on concrete disarmament measures the western side has thought it desirable to clarify why it is that the Soviet plan is unacceptable as the sole basis for negotiations. The Leader of the Opposition will recognize that this is a normal process of negotiation.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and ask whether the hon. lady saw a delegation from Montreal this morning in connection with immigration clearances at Quebec for Montreal-bound passengers. Can the minister answer the question I put to her earlier as to whether any undue delay will be caused such passengers? Can the minister say what was the result of her interview with the Montreal delegation this morning?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I saw no delegation this morning, but I understand that officials of my department saw a delegation which was in Ottawa. I have not yet had a report of that meeting.
With regard to undue delay, I can assure my hon. friend that my department at all times seeks to co-operate with the shipping companies toward obviating any delay. I am sure that if the co-operation is mutual there will be no difficulty.


BEAUCEVILLE, QUE.-REPORTED DELAY IN DYNAMITING OF ICE IN RIVER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay Wesf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. My question will clearly indicate the national scope and interest in public affairs of our group.
In view of the fact that the Associate Minister of National Defence reported to the house on March 9 that an army report recommended the use of explosives to weaken the ice on the Chaudiere river two or three weeks before the anticipated date of the spring break-up, would the associate minister explain why, as reported in the Montreal Gazette of April 5, the army is only now being sent on this annual dynamiting task

when the waters have already risen five to six feet, and the break-up is imminent?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. It is quite true, as I said on March 9, that action by the Canadian army would follow a request from the provincial authorities.
Subsequent to blasting operations on the Chaudiere river at Beauceville last year it was recommended that preparations for such an operation should be made two or three weeks before the expected date of the ice run. However, it was not until Monday, April 4 that a request for assistance from the provincial government was received by headquarters, Quebec command. A group of army personnel were immediately sent from Valcartier to Beauceville, arriving there on Monday evening. Blasting operations on the river commenced at five o'clock the next morning and by six o'clock the ice was moving slowly.
It is hoped that this prompt action by the army will eliminate the danger of flooding at Beauceville.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since this is the third consecutive spring that the army has been called upon to dynamite the ice of the Chaudiere river at Beauceville, does the associate minister not think the time has come to treat this as a normal operation instead of as a recurrent, last minute emergency?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: On this particular matter, Mr. Speaker, it is the policy to send the army upon the request of the provincial authorities. To date this policy has been followed.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration what progress has been made with regard to the establishment of the Canadian citizenship court at the city of Winnipeg?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, there is provision in the current estimates for the cost of the establishment of this court. I am told that premises are now available and the civil service commission is proceeding to recruit staff.
79951-0-187
Inquiries of the Ministry COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS



SOUTH AFRICA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can the minister tell the house whether any request has been made by any group, organization or individual for consideration by the government of Canada of the admission of refugees subject to racial discrimination, from South Africa, regardless of their colour?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No such proposal has been made to the department so far as I know.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. lady a supplementary question. Can she say whether her department or any other department has any staff in South Africa capable of dealing with such applications if they were made?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I can only speak for my own department; the answer is no.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that under the world refugee year program refugees who are suffering from tuberculosis are being admitted to Canada, would the minister be prepared to consider a reappraisal of the practice of regarding tubercular cases as being in a prohibited class for admission until the disease has been inactive for two years? I am thinking particularly of dependants of Canadian citizens who find themselves in this situation?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been under study for some time, and I am pleased to announce that it has now been agreed to reduce to one year the waiting period for persons suffering from tuberculosis that is considered to be inactive.



WORLD REFUGEE YEAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State

Inquiries of the Ministry for External Affairs. I wonder if the minister could indicate to the house the number of additional refugees who are going to be brought to Canada under the world refugee year plan?


Howard Charles Green: I take it that the hon. member means under the tuberculosis plan?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: I am not in a position to say as yet how many more will be covered by the extension.



REPRESENTATIONS BY CANADIAN WELFARE COUNCIL RESPECTING REFUGEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the Prime Minister has yet reached a decision on the representations of the Canadian welfare council, about which he was not able to announce a decision when he made a statement on the other points the other day, that is with respect to liability for health and welfare care.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I do not think I can add anything to what has already been said. When there is anything further to announce, an announcement will be made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the Prime Minister could say whether the matter is still under active consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: I said that on the last occasion the question was asked.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the meeting held between the Canadian and United States sections of the international joint commission on Tuesday, April 5 to discuss the draft of a final recommendation to the two governments on the control of water levels in lake Ontario and flows and levels in the St. Lawrence river, can the minister tell the house whether agreement was reached by the international joint commission and what formula will be established to control the level of the river, which will have a bearing on down-river interests?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that the international joint commission has reached agreement on this matter and that it will make its recommendations to both the United States and Canadian governments in the next few days. It will not be possible, of course, to comment further until the recommendations have been received.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister say whether the two provinces involved, namely Quebec and Ontario, have been consulted and whether they gave their consent to those recommendations?


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid it will not be proper for me to make any comment on the recommendations until we have actually received them and have had an opportunity to study them.


Lionel Chevrier: I can understand that, but can the minister say whether the provinces were consulted?


Howard Charles Green: I think there have been consultations before now, but I do not know that there have been any as yet about these recommendations.
(Translation) :



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, of which I have already sent him notice. Following the minister's reply to my question on March 30 last, a number of farmers in my area and in the province have been sending me telegrams and letters-I have a sheaf of them here in my hand-asking if the minister might now be more encouraging and indicate whether the government will maintain price supports on butter and cheese and reestablish a support price or a deficiency price on milk powder.
(Text):
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture:) Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this is a matter in which there is a very high degree of interest not only in Quebec but in other provinces of Canada. However, I can add nothing to the reply I gave on March 30, that this is a matter of government policy which will be announced in due course.



I960

[Stage Direction]
(Translation):
Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister kindly have his department consider granting Quebec producers the same support prices on their cheese delivered to Montreal, as are given to Ontario cheese producers for cheese delivered to Toronto?
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, this question really relates back to the terms of the stabilization act. Under that act the support price set for agricultural commodities is a percentage of the base price for the previous 10 years. The price of cheese for the previous 10 years in Quebec was less than the price in Ontario, and that is the reason the support price in Quebec is half a cent less than the support price in Ontario. The same situation prevails in so far as the support price for hogs is concerned in my home city of Calgary. It is $3.50 less per hundred than in the city of Toronto.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Have the personnel recruited for the customs division of the minister's department for the purpose of policing dumping practices generally completed their training?


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, although we are continuing to recruit others. Hon. members may have seen in the press last week advertisements of the civil service commission seeking further recruits.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the house leader, and 1 ask it because of the current public interest in broadcasting regulations and licensing. Has the government altered its intention, as outlined at the commencement of the session, to re-establish the special committee on broadcasting? If no, could he give 79951-0-187i
Inquiries of the Ministry us some indication of when the government intends to call this committee?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member's question will be taken into consideration, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question arising out of a press report in the Manchester Guardian of April 1, 1960 dealing with the recent NATO discussions in Paris, which read:
The only two countries with no objection to German bases in Spain were Canada and Portugal.
I should like to ask the minister whether he would comment on the accuracy of that statement.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: The question of bases in Spain was not brought up at the NATO meeting. There was no mention at any time of the country of Spain; therefore the report is quite inaccurate.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: May I ask
a supplementary question. Can the minister say whether the government is opposed to bases in Spain?


George Randolph Pearkes: Government policy in that respect has already been stated.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Macdonald (Kings):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that Don Messer and his Islanders, from Prince Edward Island, are in Ottawa for an engagement at the Coliseum today and tomorrow, could the minister inform the house: (a) what their rating is among Canadian produced programs? (b) how wide an audience do they have in Canada?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, it has not been the policy of the C.B.C. at any time to announce individual ratings of the various programs. However, I am sure the applause signifies that to some persons in the gallery at least it is a very popular program indeed. It was on the maritime network for many

The Budget-Mr. Roberge years and is now on the national network, and is one of the best received programs on the C.B.C.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: On March 31 the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked me a question with respect to taxation policies respecting contributions to Moral Re-Armament. I am advised that the records of the Department of National Revenue indicate that the Oxford group or Moral Re-Armament, also known as the Oxford group and Moral ReArmament, was incorporated without share capital under the Dominion Companies Act under letters patent in 1944 and amended by supplementary letters patent in 1956. The main purpose of the organization is said to be the advancement of the Christian religion. It has been recognized as a charitable organization since 1956, and donations to that organization are deductible as charitable gifts in accordance with, and to the extent provided by, section 27, subsection 1 of the Income Tax Act.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Benidickson, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Regier.
(Translation):
Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at ten o'clock last night, I had just completed the few preliminary remarks I had to make on the budget speech for the fiscal year 1960-61.
I shall now deal with certain particular aspects. Like several observers, I was surprised at the enthusiasm shown by some hon. members who support the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), when he brought down his budget. That enthusiasm, indeed, has also surprised the Montreal Gazette correspondent, Mr. Arthur Blakely. Here is what he wrote in the Gazette for April 4, 1960:
(Text):
All the same, it isn't easy to account for the frequence with which applause-one burst every

120 seconds-greeted Mr. Fleming. Encouragement on this scale is over and above the line of duty.
(Translation):
But Mr. Blakely does not stop there. A few lines down, he adds:
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must remind him that it is against the rules to quote from newspaper editorial and articles which reflect upon the actions of hon. members in this house. This is for his guidance as he proceeds.


Gabriel Roberge: I am sorry if I have offended in this respect, and I will try not to do so again.
(Translation):
I shall nevertheless continue my remarks and say, without, I am sure, being out of order, that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) was right to call this a do-nothing budget.
I noted in the minister's budget speech the advice he gives and the recommendations he makes to the Canadian people so that the government may succeed in balancing this country's financial position.
It is well known that the government itself has been the largest borrower of modern times in Canada.
Today, the Minister of Finance warns Canadians that they will have to cut down on their spending if they want to make both ends meet. The house will no doubt remember the fairly scathing criticism directed in the house by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm against the governor of the Bank of Canada with regard to his annual report.
In various public statements, Mr. Coyne had asked or advised Canadians to cut down on their spending. He repeated that warning in his annual report, and I shall now quote a few excerpts of the Bank of Canada annual report for 1959 to the Minister of Finance, and more particularly a paragraph appearing on page 9 of the English text.
Mr. Coyne says the following:
We must In the end learn as a nation to live within our means, and exhibit the strength and will to do so. It would, in my view, be the path of realism to move firmly in that direction on a broad front without delay.
Further on he says:
For the purpose of maintaining full employment, economic growth and a rising standard of living, we do not need to stimulate a temporarily high but unsustainable rate of consumer spending by means of more and more consumer credit, or of

capital expenditures on a scale greater than our own capacity and willingness to save out of annual production for that purpose. We would benefit more from greater diversification of our production, which could provide a higher average level of employment and one less exposed to the hazard of sudden changes.
And I shall add one of the last sentences in this chapter of the Bank of Canada report, which may be found on page 10, where Mr. Coyne states:
The adoption of sound and balanced programs for future development, the avoidance of excess in spending and borrowing, and the promotion of a more stable and diversified structure of economic activity, have never been so essential to the continued growth and stability of the Canadian economy.
It seems that last Thursday the Minister of Finance finally decided to agree with the governor of the Bank of Canada and, in his budget speech, to give himself and Canadians at large some advice on the art of saving.
In this regard, I should like to quote a few sentences from the budget speech delivered by the Minister of Finance, on March 31, 1960, as recorded on page 2672 of Hansard:
We must place emphasis on greater productivity and efficiency rather than on sheer size, on cost control rather than on price increases, on greater saving rather than on excessive consumption.
A little further, he added:
In saying this, I am fully aware of the role of leadership that falls to the federal government. It is the responsibility of the government to try to establish the conditions of financial balance within which the endeavours of others can be carried out successfully. Let me assure hon. members that the government is discharging this responsibility.
A little farther on, the Minister of Finance again referred to the matter of saving when he said:
Saving-voluntary, purposeful, constructive saving-is essential in an economic system dedicated to freedom and progress.
In his budget speech, the Minister of Finance also announced salary increases for federal civil servants. His statement was hedged with oratorical precautions, as though he wanted to apologize for his failure to grant such adjustments earlier, in spite of pressing demands from civil servants' associations across the country.
Recalling the statement he had made on October 13, 1959, when he explained why he did not want to grant salary increases to federal civil servants, he said, as reported on page 2679 of Hansard of Thursday last:
The decision taken by the government, in the light of its financial position, will not preclude consideration being given to the special position of certain categories of civil servants as the government's financial circumstances permit.
The Budget-Mr. Roberge
A little farther, he added:
It is now nearly three years since there has been a general increase in civil service salaries. The last general increase was authorized by the present government in July 1957, and made retroactive to May 1, 1957.
With regard to this matter, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a slight correction in order to remove any doubts in the minds of hon. members and of the general public.
When the estimates of the Department of Labour were being considered during the session of 1958, my hon. friend, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) insisted on that matter of salary increases for federal civil servants. Here is what he said, and I quote from page 3678 of Hansard for August 16, 1958:


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not want to get into a quarrel with the minister, for whom I have the greatest possible esteem. I think we really do understand one another. I will repeat what I said. I said that this matter was considered by the treasury board of the old government at its last meeting and was recommended, but that final approval was left to the incoming government. That is what I said, and if that is what the minister agrees with, then we are in complete agreement.


Michael Starr: That is right.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that a salary adjustment had been considered by the previous government, by the treasury board at the time, but that in view of the change which was about to occur, the St. Laurent government thought it wise to leave to this government the care of taking a final decision and of adopting also the treasury board's recommendation.
Less than a third of the total number of civil servants throughout Canada, 50,000 out of 180,000, will benefit from this government largesse, if I may apply that word to something which had been impatiently awaited- and justly so-for so long.
The classes of civil servants which stand to benefit from those increases in the immediate future are clerks and stenographers, as well as meteorologists and veterinarians. In that regard, I should like to quote from page 2680 of Hansard, what the minister had to say on March 31, 1960:
I am happy to report that the treasury board- has now approved recommendations from the civil service commission involving some 50,000 employees of the public service, principally in the clerical and stenographic classes but also including some of the professional classes such as meteorologists and veterinarians, where recruitment and retention of the essential number of qualified officers have become increasingly difficult.
Besides the civil servants properly so-called, there are at least two other classes

The Budget-Mr. Roberge of Canadians who are regular employees of the state, men whose work is also of immense value to the country and who, on occasion, even risk their lives on its behalf. I refer to the members of Canada's armed forces and of the R.C.M.P. So far, the government has made no announcement regarding those people, and that is too bad. This fact was noted by the Canadian Press correspondent, who referred to it in an article which appeared in the Gazette for April 1, 1960. I quote:
(Text):
There was no mention in the speech of members of the armed forces and of the R.C.M.P.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, we who sit on this side of the house hope that the government will look into the situation of those government employees and will see to it that they get a raise proportionate to the risks involved in their type of work and also to the present cost of living.
The minister also indicates that the government has been guided mainly by considerations of personnel recruiting, thereby implying that it has become difficult to recruit certain classes of civil servants precisely because of salary levels.
It is not my intention to quote any further from the minister's speech, but I should like to refer briefly to the opinions expressed by civil service associations in that respect. I have here a clipping from the Ottawa Journal of April 1, 1960 from which I will quote a few excerpts for the record. The report appears under the following heading:
(Text):
Says CS will "Hit the roof".
The joint action committee of the civil service said today it is "disappointed" the salary increases announced in the budget last night are not retroactive, and apply to only 50,000 employees, roughly one third of the civil service.
A stronger statement came from the professional institute of the public service, which slammed the boosts as "too little and too late"-
(Translation):
And farther down in the same item, I read: (Text):
Today, the joint action committee made these points:
1.	It has "consistently" pointed out the justification for an effective date in salary boosts of October 1, 1958-
2.	The joint action committee also expresses concern at the "emphasis" placed by the finance minister on the recruitment factor in relation to further adjustments for other classes.
The committee holds that this approach to pay revision will cause "much anxiety" among employees not included in early announcements.
The PIPSC lays emphasis on the lack of pay boosts for senior civil servants, "a realm in which the institute's research has revealed a crying need".
It also fears the rate of rotation will be "far too slow" to keep up with changing conditions.
[Mr. Hoberge.l
(Translation):
It may cause some surprise that the hon. member for Megantic should have something to say on the position of this country's civil servants. It is true that I am not a representative of an Ottawa riding; but it is also true that there are public servants in my own. And even if I only represent a single constituency, I am, like all my hon. friends here, spokesman for the nation as a whole.
Some people in my riding are employed in various post offices, some in the unemployment insurance offices, others in customs offices. Most of them are neither clerks, nor secretaries, nor meteorologists nor veter-inaries, which means that only very few civil servants in our district will benefit from the budget increases. Those Canadians do, however, expect their position to be reconsidered, like the various classes of employees elsewhere. It is obvious that the classes of civil servants in my part of the country are the same or, at least, similar to those in other districts, in cities and towns of similar size. Those people too are entitled to the salaries provided for their jobs and their responsibilities.
I pointed out before, in a quotation, that recruiting needs had guided the minister in his decision.
I know personally that, in our district, some young people who would have all qualifications for certain jobs, positions in the unemployment insurance office, for instance, even refused to submit to the various examinations, because of the insufficient salary provided and also to a certain extent, because of their small prospects of getting higher pay. Such conditions are unfortunate, because the country is thus being deprived of the services of well qualified citizens.
There is another field that the minister failed to deal with and I would like to offer a few remarks about it.
But this state has other servants than those who work in the federal civil service, either internal or external. There are also provincial employees, and employees of municipalities and school boards. I should like to say a word on the latter two classes.
Most mayors and aldermen of cities and towns and councillors of rural municipalities, as well as members of school boards, ordinarily work without remuneration. Some of those devoted public men go to some personal expense, often more than would appear to be either fair or necessary.
This anomaly has been recognized by some municipalities, and in some cases provincial

legislatures have granted them authority to remunerate their elected officials.
The federal government, under statute 1-2 Elizabeth II, chapter 40, entitled: "An act to amend the Income Tax Act", has recognized that fact. And the then Liberal government enacted paragraph 3 of section 10, which I will not read. I have it here, it is a bit long and couched in legal phraseology, the chief merit of which is certainly not clarity.
I am informed that, in many cases, those elected municipal officials cannot benefit from the provisions of the act, because their allowance is not considered as expenses, and that it must be added to their income. It will be agreed that the St. Laurent government took a step in the right direction, and it will be agreed also that after eight years, it is now necessary to take a further step.
In the last eight years, the expenses of mayors and aldermen, and of school trustees, have increased for all kinds of reasons, and it does not seem fair to me that those citizens should be called upon to pay a double tax, that is, both on their income and on the expenses they incur in the fulfilment of their duties.
Must school or municipal boards provide that part of the remuneration shall be considered as a salary and the other part as expenses? On reading over the section I referred to earlier, it seems that this is the case.
However, since it is a matter of income, I do not believe the federal government would be going beyond its jurisdiction if it were at least to investigate the position in which mayors and aldermen of our cities and municipalities, and school trustees, find themselves in this respect.
I believe the government would lose very little in the way of income if a minimum remuneration were made exempt from taxation for these people.
I urge the Minister of Finance to study this aspect of the matter and take corrective action as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I now want to conclude my remarks by talking about confectionery and chocolate manufacturing establishments, and also soft drink bottling plants, in respect of the sales tax. This tax is levied to the extent of 11 per cent, of which 8 per cent goes into general revenue and 3 per cent into the
The Budget-Mr. Roberge old age security fund. It will be recalled that in 1957, the Liberal government had removed the excise tax on soft drinks. The minister has no doubt received the briefs submitted by the association of confectioners and chocolate makers in 1959 and also in 1960. Those briefs are quite explicit and are worthy of consideration.
There have been situations in the past that made such sales taxes necessary, but it does seem that those situations no longer exist and that taxes on chocolate and soft drinks should now be removed.
The brief emphasizes the fact that at least 10,000 people are employed in the chocolate industry with total earnings of over $25 million. A certain number of people are living from the sale and distribution of those products. Research made on the subject definitely shows that sales of those products are reduced as a result of taxation. The tax also cuts down purchases of commodities used in connection with those products, and this in turn prevents any development of national production in that field. There seems to be no doubt that complete removal or at least a material reduction of the tax, would result in increased production.
A proper promotion campaign could boost consumption and therefore create new jobs at both the production and the distribution levels. The general outcome of such action, as far as revenue is concerned, would probably be increased returns from that tax in relation to the number of sales. I think that in this case the old saying: "The sales make the profit", is particularly applicable.
At all events, people employed in that industry would pay income tax since they would hold jobs, and unemployment would be relieved accordingly.
What I have just said about the chocolate industry also applies to the soft drinks industry. I have here a short brief prepared by the manufacturers and I should like to put a few excerpts on the record. I quote:
Removal of the sales tax on soft drinks will enable bottlers to:
(a)	Employ several hundreds additional workers,
(b)	Compete on an adequate basis with tea, coffee, chocolate drinks, canned and non-aerated fruit juices, popsicles, ice cream, soft drink powders, etc.-
(c)	Develop their business and provide many local advantages.
The brief goes on to show that removal of the tax would likely enable 573 bottling plants to supply jobs to 1,600 and even 2,200

The Budget-Mr. Rowe more men, not including salesmen. To complete this quotation, I should like to put on record the last paragraph of this brief:
From 1,600 to 2,100 men will no longer be unemployed and the government will not have to pay unemployment insurance on their behalf. Instead, they will promote the local economy with the money they will spend; they will be paying taxes as well as contributing to unemployment insurance.
Those were the remarks I wanted to make in this house about the third Conservative budget.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform him that his time has expired.


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to deviate for a few moments from the subject now under debate in order to extend the sympathy of, I am sure, everybody in the house to the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel), chief whip of the opposition party, in the sad bereavement which he and his family suffered yesterday in the death of Mrs. Habel.
I realize that the annual budget is always an issue of keen national concern. This large budget is no exception, and before dealing with some of the implications may I extend my congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) on the able presentation he made the other day. It has been my privilege to observe at close range eight different ministers of finance in this parliament, and I may say that I think Canada has been very fortunate in having the outstanding talent, the high type of character, the devotion to duty and the distinguished service given by all these gentlemen. I feel we are still fortunate in having the hon. member for Eglinton as our present Minister of Finance. In native ability, in culture, in devotion to duty and industry I think he is unexcelled by any of his illustrious predecessors.
I know we all have a sense of pride stirred within us when we read that our gross national product has exceeded $35 billion. I must say, however, that as long as we have an unemployment problem and huge deficits on international payments and trade, I think we should beware of taking the size of the gross national product as a sound yardstick of our progress as the former government did. It is true that it indicates the vastness and variety of our resources and the native ability of our people. It is true that it emphasizes that no matter what may lie ahead we as Canadians hold the blue chips in terms of natural resources. We have more resources than any country with a similar number of people has ever enjoyed and we have need


of a farsighted, vigorous, energetic population characteristic of this northern climate.
With respect to those totalitarian people with whom we are forced to compete we must be wary of following the pattern of smug complacency followed by the previous government and of failing to recognize that we are meeting a new form of international competition from another type of society altogether. We have to stop and take stock of the totalitarian dictatorship which now controls half the world. They think they can outdo us, as it were, and gain economic supremacy over us. They believe we have grown soft as a result of our high standard of living and what they regard more or less as our reckless extravagance, short working hours and so forth. They believe we have grown soft and as a result shall fall like ripened fruit into their hands.
I think they underestimate us in holding that view but at the same time I suggest that we must avoid the pride and complacency that seemed to characterize those who ruled this country over a long period of time. We can rejoice in the fact that we have vast resources and a high standard of living but despite this we should at this period in our development tighten our belts a little and go to work in an effort to face the challenge of this problem.
It has been my privilege to watch the progress of this young country for some time both from the fields of agriculture and the factories of industry. I have been privileged by the sufferage of Dufferin-Simcoe to listen to more than one third of all the annual budgets that reported the progress of this dominion in this house and therefore I would feel unworthy of the responsibility that my experience imposes if I hesitated to draw attention to trends that I believe have been and are dangerous to the security and progress of this country. It may be somewhat unpopular to refer to these trends but may I suggest it might be economically disastrous to ignore them.
We must face these issues. We cannot avoid them and we do not desire to. One trend that has been dangerous in my opinion has taken the form of a surrender by all parties to what I might describe as popular or political clamour to have governments do so much for so many. I am not so reactionary as to suggest-indeed, I do not admit that I am reactionary at all, but I do not suggest- that there is not a need for social welfare legislation-I am not unmindful of the fact that while on one hand we talk about our high cost of production and our high cost economy we are, on the other hand, handing out to the people in many cases assistance to

provide things which they should earn for themselves and which falls within individual responsibility to provide. We have a great free enterprise system but it is overburdened with all these costs that must come from the production of that system.
One of the chief reasons why the remnants of the one third great Liberal party are now sitting in the shades of opposition is because approximately one half of our industrial enterprises and three quarters of our raw ore resources are controlled by foreign interests. The people of Canada are anxious to have our economic independence restored before it is too late. That is why we have had the change of government.
With regard to the increasing responsibilities in the field of so-called social welfare, I realize it is probably of little use referring to the value of the dollar in 1925 and the value of the dollar today, but surely it makes us stop and think when we realize that the cost of the welfare aspect to our economy today is more than four times greater than the total cost of all government administration when I first entered this parliament. Surely we should stop and take stock at this stage in our development.
As a consequence of the trend to which I just referred it is probably difficult to reconcile such a highly burdened economy with the economies of other countries with whom we compete in the production of finished goods and where wages are less per day than our costs are per hour.
May I venture to suggest to industry that they must lower their costs to meet this type of competition. That is their chief duty. That is a primary function of business management. Management must devote itself to this daily task in order to survive. The management of Canadian industry today is I believe among the best in the world. It operates with a high standard of employment and maintains the highest wages and shortest working hours and more frequent coffee breaks than business management in any country of the world except the United States, and yet we try to meet the additional burden that confronts us.
It is obvious that industrial management in this country is good or it could not survive under these conditions and pay all the fringe benefits it does and still pay to the government in the form of other charges over 50 per cent of all it makes.
In every branch of our primary industries we have witnessed a revolution in the production of goods with a corresponding reduction in manpower. In agriculture we have witnessed the same thing. We see today that twice as much can be produced as was 79951-0-188
The Budget-Mr. Rowe produced 25 years ago employing one-third as many people. It is estimated that inside of a very few years agricultural production employing only 10 per cent our people will produce more than is produced today.
During this period of transition it is important that we be alert to these changing conditions. When the opposition were in power they seemed almost to have fallen asleep. They ignored these changes which screamed for attention before their very eyes. They did little to provide for employment in other fields of enterprise. They dismally failed to give the necessary encouragement for the establishment of secondary industries and employment therein which industries would process finished products in this country. Indeed, clinging to their old free trade doctrines they encouraged the importation from low wage foreign countries of finished products with a high labour content and apologized for it by expressing the need to buy finished goods everywhere so they could sell our raw products with a low wage content in the markets of the world. It is not difficult to sell goods to someone who wants them or to someone who cannot do without them. This form of economic appeasement has been unsound.
As a result of the policies of the previous administration the expansion of industry and the creation of jobs in Canada was only about half as good as it has been in the same period in West Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. It is important to remember that three of those countries, as all hon. members know, underwent destruction during the war. Despite that their industries have been rebuilt. They have increased their industrial activity and employed people just twice as fast, percentage-wise, as Canada has.
Do not let us fall into the old Liberal habit of believing in that kind of optimism where you say that everything is fine as long as it does not happen to me. This country is strong and virile. Indeed, it has to be to stand that type of complacency. It has also, to the extent to which I have referred, failed to maintain its place in probably the most active industrial expansion period of the world. Like the lost minute, those days are gone forever. Had we not failed in that period the immigration policy would be different today. We would not be having a curtailment to less than one third of the immigrants we brought in in 1913. We would not have had the situation where 510,000 of our educated boys and girls were going to the United States to find employment in the last five years of the former regime.

The Budget-Mr. Rowe
These things should be studied, Mr. Speaker. There was a time when they should have been taken at the flood. There was a time in world prosperity when we should have been alerted in a business way rather than stay in this smug complacency. The result of it is we find ourselves today with international deficit payments of $1,500 million and a trade deficit of over $500 million, and dividends going out of this country to those who control half our industry and three quarters of our raw resources. At the end of last year it amounted to $500 million. That did not come about because this government was elected; that did not come about overnight; that was established and left, with the consequent growing unemployment, on the doorstep of the present government. For the second time in my years in this house we have had that heritage from the Liberal champions of free trade.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we have a lack of population. My hon. friend is mumbling something but I hope he is thinking more than he is talking. We find that the lack of population is closely associated with the unemployment problem. I am sure that it is recognized by every hon. member within the sound of my voice as the chief problem and as the chief challenge of this government today. What does the opposition suggest as a solution? The only solution I have heard is that of enlarging the free trade pattern which did so much to create the problem itself. The opposition has suggested free trade with the United States. Then, they suggested free trade with the United Kingdom, but they backed away from that one very fast. Now they have gone farther afield and out into the Atlantic and they say, "We want free trade within NATO. We do not know what we are going to do with the inner six; we do not care what happens to the outer seven, but we will take them all, let the chips fall where they may."
This old doctrine of free trade was outmoded 50 years ago. This reckless trend which has been developed and followed under such complacency, the habit of using our gross national product as the only yardstick, disregarding, as they did, trade deficits every year but one in 10 years before this government came to power, measuring prosperity as they have, exporting our raw products as a specialty and importing finished products as a political expediency, has been as unfair to labour as it has been unsound and extravagant to our economy.
For over 30 years I have sat here and listened to vigorous debates on the unemployment problem, only to see it temporarily


relieved from time to time by the grim necessities of wartime. That is not good enough and I do not believe we have to endure it. I think it can be improved and under this dynamic government that we have elected it will be improved. It has become almost chronic.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, may I pay a tribute to my old friend and colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), for his untiring and capable influence with other countries toward disarmament. I mention it because we all hope and pray that he may be successful and that we shall have a substantial measure of success. Here let us pause and realize that if he is successful, and if we accomplish the goal we are all striving for, there will be a change in the economic picture. We will have to find a place for those who have been toiling in the extravagant and wasteful work of producing the defence equipment that we have all felt was so necessary. These men must be placed somewhere else; we must find some form of employment for them. Owing to our swiftly changing labour conditions, opportunities for increased employment are not going to be found in agriculture or in the production and exportation of other raw products.
May I again emphasize what I believe has been a tragic misapprehension indulged in by many in this house, namely that we must accept finished goods, with a high labour content, from other countries before we can sell our raw products in other countries. I have repeatedly said this in this house. I am speaking about the manufacturing industry because I am interested in the labouring man. I have probably less manufacturing in my riding than many others. I have no personal interest in management, and I am not connected in any other way at the present time with the manufacturing industry, but I am conscious of the fact, as I believe every hon. member is, that that is the only avenue in which we can find employment to absorb the boys and girls we are now educating. They must be employed by the manufacturing enterprises in this country.
I do suggest that so far as having to buy the finished goods from the countries where we sell our raw products is concerned, as everyone knows, while we hold those blue chips in raw resources and the United States is depleting hers we have a market for those products there and in many countries of the world. Does anyone suggest for a moment, in saying that we have to buy the finished products before we can sell our raw products, that a steel plant that buys the raw ore from Labrador or from Steep Rock will go to the textile people in the United States and say,

"We want to get another load of iron ore. How about the Canadian home market? Have you been able to absorb it all? You are selling twice as much as they are producing for themselves. You are getting in on their textiles, but do you think you are getting enough of them?" Does anyone for a moment think that is the situation? No, Mr. Speaker. It might happen in a country under a dictatorship, but it does not happen in those countries where we hope to develop our greatest trade.
Do not let us forget, that the United States and other countries buy raw products from us as and when they need them. If it were otherwise, we might achieve a favourable trade balance. We buy more finished products from the United States than any other country, and this has been true for the last half-century. We have been buying more every year during the last 10 years except one, and that was during the Korean war. If that theory is sound, then why does the United States of America not take our uranium when we want to sell it so badly? Stop and think about it, gentlemen.
I can well recall the days when the Liberal party was in power, and twice in the history of their government the United States closed us out of their market for western cattle and other agricultural products. There was the Fordney-McCumber tariff in the late 1920's and the Hawley-Smoot tariff in 1929. The late Right Hon. Mr. King warned us to be careful not to provoke the United States with any trade proposals because of our raw products going to the United States. We were buying a million dollars worth of products per day more from them than we were selling and yet overnight, Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, they closed their market to our western cattle and agricultural products.
I mention these things to remind this house and to remind the country that we do not need to take the finished products of these foreign countries to the exorbitant extent we are today merely for the sake of selling raw products which have less workmanship content in them. This policy is unfair to labour. It is extravagant and unsound to our economy. Surely, if we learn slowly, we learn by experience that this condition is not as it has been represented.
No, Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that after all when we need markets so badly the only market in the world over which we have any control is our own. It is one of the greatest markets in the world. No similar number of people buy so much in the way of manufactured goods and consumer goods. We buy as many automobiles, frigidaires, 79951-0-1881
The Budget-Mr. Rowe radios and television sets as many countries that have over 100 million people. This is a great potential market that will give increased employment and will do more to solve the problem of markets for agricultural products in the long term than all the parity prices and novel ideas that we have had presented as solutions for agricultural problems. No other development is as necessary as the development of that home market.
The possibilities for development of that market are illustrated by the fact that we are paying about $270 per capita for products from outside the country. Just stop and think of it; that is 10 times per capita more than any other important industrial country in the world ever bought from outside its borders. Should we wonder that we have unemployment, that we have to build post offices, give handouts, enact social legislation and so forth? I have always known that you cannot put much politics into business, but let us try in this time of challenge to put a little business into politics. Let us observe these facts that are screaming for solution. I think the United States of America buys about $28 per capita of products from outside the country.
I am glad to observe that our government has taken into account the difficult conditions in the textile and other manufacturing industries. I am glad they are taking a step in the right direction in that regard. I am glad to observe that they are trying to get away from that free trade pattern that was set by their predecessors. This is a change for which the people of Canada voted; this is a change which the people of Canada expect from this government, led by a dynamic Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), who is supported by one of the ablest cabinets we have had in Canada since confederation. This government has more numbers behind them, and more youth and clean-cut ability than I have experienced in my time. This is a great opportunity to put into effect the policies for which this party stands, the traditional policies for the development of our own resources within our own country. I am sure that is what this government is trying to do. Despite the handicaps that manufacturing industry has had, the high taxes, stubborn competition, they certainly employ more people, pay more of our taxes and give needed freight tonnage and freight revenues to our railways to a greater extent than all the other industries of Canada combined except mining.
I can only suggest that it is rather amusing to me that those who are struggling to hold together the tattered remnants of the Liberal party, are feebly drawing attention to the related problems of unemployment. You

The Budget-Mr. Rowe would imagine this problem had only developed since the election. It has been said that Rome was not built in a day. These issues have not developed overnight. We find that unemployment has been almost chronic for some time in this country. They tell us now that the unemployment situation is bad and that our per capita debt is terrible. You would think these conditions only arrived overnight. They do not tell you that the debt more than doubled in the last five years of their regime. They say the international balance of payments situation is bad, but they do not tell you that during the last five years of their government our deficit in goods and services totalled over $6 billion. This heritage has again been dropped on the doorstep of the incoming government.
These are some of the reasons the opposition gives for having no confidence in the present government. May I suggest it is very amusing because it just emphasizes why the public has not any confidence in them. In the interest of enlarging our home market for farm products, employment for an increasing population and strenghtening our national economy, I urge the government to restore confidence and stability in our manufacturing industries. Changes must be made in that old free trade pattern that has already threatened our economic independence. Had it not been for the extravagant stimulus of defence production, this dangerous trend would have been far more conspicuous.
The manufacturing industry is indigenous to a sound economy. Its encouragement and expansion are now as equally challenging to the government as are the agricultural problems. These two industries are complementary and neither needs to be sacrificed in the interest of the other. The employment in the factories of industry is as vital to this country as the work in the fields of agriculture.
I say again, and this may be politically unpopular, that it is economically dangerous to avoid this problem. The future of our industrial growth is unlikely to be confined to either the St. Lawrence or great lakes areas. Indeed, Winnipeg now challenges the record of Hamilton, as we see the smokestacks rising in the wheat fields of Saskatchewan. Edmonton and Calgary seem to hold happy arguments as to their greatness in their rich and lucky province. Indeed, the hope of the maritime provinces as well as the great prosperity of British Columbia depends on the steady growth to which I have referred. We are facing a new age in these swiftly changing times in a world that is becoming industrialized more rapidly all the time.

I do not believe our customs and tariff structures in this country have changed much in 50 years. I think it is high time that we streamlined and modernized our approach to these gigantic problems as we face days of possible economic adversity such as we have never experienced previously. As you know, Mr. Speaker, our tariff structure has been kicked around all during these years as a political football. I have had a couple of passes at it myself. It has been nicknamed to suit the season and to suit the occasion. It has been called "reciprocity" sometimes. At others it has been called in debate "brick for brick", "don't provoke the U.S.". At other times it has been called a "counter-vailling duty plan". Sometimes the policies have been fixed more in Washington than in Ottawa. It is about time that we took a straight or new look and did a little bit of a face-lifting job on our whole customs and tariff structure which has not had an investigation since 1907. I think we must modernize and streamline this approach.
In this regard may I suggest and urge upon the government the necessity of giving consideration to the enlargement of our tariff board so that it might give hearings to direct appeals and submissions from producer and consumer organizations that might expedite its findings and recommendations accordingly to the government.
Before closing may I again mention the general agreement on tariffs and trade, commonly known as GATT. This is another child of the former government left, for better or worse, on the doorstep of the present government. We were told by the former government that before they went over to negotiate this treaty, "we lowered our tariffs more than anybody else before we entered negotiations, and that is why they liked us so much". They made the agreement. Strange as it may seem, the present government has adhered to it more diligently probably than many of the other signatories. However, if our industrial employment is going to be unduly endangered by adherence to GATT, I think we had better consider the advisability of having a more practical fiscal policy made in Ottawa rather than in Geneva. Even in these days of such great international tension and uncertainty we cannot afford to sacrifice our economic independence on the altar of world diplomacy.
In closing I wish to pay a compliment to our dynamic Prime Minister for his efforts, during election time and since then, to bring to this great young country of Canada a greater degree of national unity. In that regard I believe we can all say that this government has succeeded to no small degree. In our provincial and dominion relations, and

in all classes, races and creeds are more closely united than they have ever been at any time since I entered parliament. I believe a great deal of credit is due to this vigorous new government in Ottawa. Despite these challenges and despite our troubles the future is not as dark as some might think it to be. I believe it will be a brighter future if our people are encouraged to face realities. I believe we need that same type of unity that marked the habits and practices of our people in this country when our survival was at stake, at that time their achievements surprised the world. I believe that type of unity between the west and the east, the farmer and the manufacturer, industry and labour, the capitalist and the shareholder, and between provincial and dominion governments must be re-established. Our people will then guarantee a sound economic future that can maintain a way of life that no other people have ever approached.


Mr, Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I shall like to associate myself and the C.C.F. party with the opening remarks of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (M. Rowe) in which he expressed the great sorrow of all of us on learning of the passing of the wife of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel), the Liberal chief whip. To our colleague and to the family we extend our utmost sympathy at this time in their bereavement.
It was like old times, Mr. Speaker, to listen to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe. He has played a distinguished part in the public life of this country for many years. Sitting now on the government side of the house he has shown today something of the old fire and talent in debate that we have had displayed so often in the house. As a friend for some considerable length of time I want to tell him sincerely that I hope he will in the future avail himself of the opportunity to speak more frequently than he has in the recent past. I am sure he would receive the same kind of attentive hearing he was given this afternoon.
The hon. member started out by pointing out some of the great issues facing the people of this country. No one could have pointed them out more ably than did the hon. gentleman. As a matter of fact, during his opening remarks I was wondering whether he thought he was still on this side of the house because he was pointing out the great deficit in international payments that faces this country, the greatest deficit in history. He was pointing out the tremendous amount of unemployment in this country.


Mr. Pallell:: That is not accurate.
The Budget-Mr. Argue


Hazen Robert Argue: That is correct.


John Cameron Pallett: No. Look at the statistics.


Hazen Robert Argue: He was pointing out the tremendous amount of unemployment in this country that has not yet ben dealt with. He went on further to say that these were at least two of the problems that is was necessary for our country to solve, particularly in view of the great challenge to this nation and to other nations in the western world from Soviet competition at this time. However, when the hon. gentleman came to his solutions I think he showed that the Conservative party, particularly if it should follow his advice, is not likely to deal-certainly not in a satisfactory manner-with these great problems that face our country today.
I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) made a very basic decision many months ago and that was that no matter what happened as far as other questions are concerned, no matter what the degree of unemployment in the country, no matter what the condition of the agricultural industry and no matter what the position of the old age pensioners, the budget would be balanced with as little increase as possible in expenditures. That purpose the Minister of Finance has accomplished and he seems to be highly satisfied with the state of affairs in our country today. In his budget speech, amongst other things, he said this as reported at page 2669 of Hansard:
Twelve months ago when I introduced the last budget we were emerging from a recession.
As reported on the next page he went on to say this:
Last year we emerged from a recession-
As far as the Minister of Finance is concerned, he feels that we are out of the recession and that everything is going well He went on to say this:
We can look forward optimistically to another year of solid expansion and balanced growth.
I do not agree that we have had a year of solid expansion. 1 do not agree that we have had a year of the kind of balanced growth that should commend itself to the minister. I think we have witnessed a year just ended in which Canadians were not doing as well, either by way of production or by way of consumption, as they are capable of doing. There are many great problems facing our nation at this time. These problems have not been dealt with and have not been solved. The Minister of Finance was frank enough to point out that there are more unemployed today than there were a year ago. There are 18,000 more persons out of work and looking for jobs than a year ago. The latest figure

The Budget-Mr. Argue is 555,000; a year ago it was 537,000. Yet the minister is prepared by his statements in the budget to allow this situation to continue. He is making a forecast of the same type of general increase in the gross national product for the coming year as he made in the past year. And very obviously the government has decided that it is going to live with unemployment and it is perfectly prepared to allow unemployment to continue at its very high level.
The government has not brought forward a policy to deal with farm income. The government is reverting to the open market system. It is pulling the props out from under the supports for many agricultural products. It is using the technique of deficiency payments. It announced the other day a small payment by way of deficiency payment on one grade of eggs, and still the producers who brought to market eggs of other grades will receive no payment whatsoever. In the meantime they have lost the benefit of the support for purchase prices that helped maintain a somewhat higher price for those other grades.
The government announced a few weeks ago-I was not in the house at the time; had I been I would not under the rules of the house have had an opportunity to make any comment at that time-that it was saying "No" to the western agricultural delegation. This came as a very distinct shock and great disappointment to the producers of western Canada who had placed so much faith in this government. They had come to Ottawa asking the government to fulfil its promise of providing parity prices. They had asked the government to consider the price-cost squeeze. They had asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) to go at least part way toward fulfilling his promise of providing deficiency payments.
But what have they received? I think they received very bad treatment from the Prime Minister. I think they received rather insulting treatment when they had to wait for almost a full calendar year before the Prime Minister finally made up his mind, although ostensibly he was considering it all this time, and said "No, there is nothing for you". We are hoping that this does not close the door for the duration of this parliament on the very important and well documented case of western producers for some assistance. The budget was a disappointment in that no mention was made of any improvement of the position of our agricultural producers.
So there is widespread unemployment. The agricultural industry is being placed more


and more at the mercy of the open, unregulated market against which organized agriculture has complained for so many years. We have seen in 1959 Canada's net indebtedness on international payments reach the highest figure in Canadian history. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) pointed out this afternoon, very properly, that this means our country is in hock to this extent to foreign investors, mainly investors to the United States, and that to the extent signified by these figures our industry is coming more and more under the control and domination of United States capital. The hon. member went on to point out that it was not just a case of an adverse balance of payments on merchandise trade, but that to the extent of $600 million or more we had to pay out obligations as a result of investment of outside capital in Canadian industry.
This raises once more the whole question of our independent control and management of our own industries. How often did government members when they were on this side of the house point out the great dangers that flow from an excessive control of Canadian industries by outside capital? Here, then, is the third great problem facing the Canadian people at this time and about which this budget said little except to accept, in the words of the Minister of Finance, this inflow of capital; and he went on to say that in his opinion it was in the best interests of this country.
There are other problems facing our nation, and I think these problems must be solved in the interest of a higher standard of living for Canadians as well as in the interest of greater control of our industry by Canadians.
The other problem I refer to is the growing number of legalized rackets in the country that result in an exorbitant cost of living for Canadian consumers. I have made some study of the drug industry and I think there is ample evidence to show that Canadians today are paying exorbitant prices in this country for drugs. Canadians' health needs for drugs are being exploited, and I suggest this is a field in which this government and other governments should take immediate and appropriate action.
I have a number of examples of cases where prices charged for certain drugs are, I think exorbitant. The publication "Gilbert Surgical News" of Toronto lists the cost of terramycin hydrochloric capsules at 100 for $42.08, whereas sold under the generic name of oxytetracycline hydrochloric the price for 100 capsules is $28. Similarly, with the brand name Pen-Vee tablets 100 are sold for $50.62,

and under the generic name of phenoxymethyl penicillin 100 are sold for $18. It has been reported that in the city of Toronto hydrocortisone acetate tablets in the 20 milligram size are laid down at a cost of $40 per thousand. Under the brand name of Hydro-cortune acetate they retail at $295 per thousand. It is reported that Largactil, the brand name for a drug known as chlorpromazine hydrochloride in the 25 milligram tablet which is laid down in Toronto at a cost of $2.75 per thousand, is being retailed at $80 per thousand, almost a 3,000 per cent markup.
Here is an instance where appropriate action should be taken, action which would result not only in preventing inflation to some extent but also in rolling back the cost of drugs, a very important item in the budgets of a great many Canadians. I have advocated the placing of this whole question before a committee of this house for study and investigation. Although I am a member of a movement which is very much in favour of public ownership and public development, we are not advocating public ownership for the sake of public ownership. However, the production of drugs is one field where a crown corporation producing essential drugs -not gobbling up the market; not establishing itself as a monopoly, but setting itself up as a pilot production plant-could be very instrumental in controlling the price of drugs.


Mr. Rynard:: I wonder if I could ask the hon. member through you, Mr. Speaker, if he realizes that the system of imposing controls upon the production of drugs such as, perhaps, he is advocating-I am not too clear- has resulted in a situation where during the years the Russians have been working under it not one new drug has been produced under that system, whereas in Canada and the United States hundreds of new drugs have been produced, leading to the saving of millions of lives.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member may know more about what is coming out of the Soviet union than I do, but I have read about the vast array of new drugs which are being produced in this country, and in the words of those who are authorities in this field even the minds of some of our medical doctors are being brainwashed by the amount of advertising of certain brand names.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker-


Hazen Robert Argue: I am prepared to answer the hon. member's questions when I sit down, but my time is limited.
I think there are many examples of exceedingly efficient public enterprises. I might mention, for example, the Polymer Corporation, which in another field has done much
The Budget-Mr. Argue to keep down the price of rubber. I am not suggesting wide-open public ownership in this area, but I am suggesting that now is the time when parliament should take action in the interest of the health and welfare of Canadians.
There are other rackets in which prices are charged which are altogether exorbitant. In addition to an inquiry into the drug industry I should like to see an inquiry undertaken into the cost of the basic material used in the production of dental plates. There was a report of the combines investigation commission in 1947 which showed that the manufacturing cost of a set of blanks at that time was 15 cents, while the cost to the dentist was $4. Here is another case where there should be a public inquiry.
There is another racket which is widespread in this country to which the government has closed its eyes, and that is the racket in interest rates. Small loan companies, moneylenders, those who provide money for second and third mortgages, are charging interest rates of 15 per cent, 20 per cent, 25 per cent, 30 per cent or more. Here is a whole area in which action should be taken to reduce the cost to consumers of essential goods, thereby reducing the general cost of living and, perhaps, even resulting in a general reduction in the price level in this country.
I feel that the budget should be a plan that it should set forth the government's program to increase production, to increase the welfare of Canadians. I have pointed out some of the problems. I want to make it abundantly clear that in approaching these problems we feel solutions should be found in an atmosphere of the fullest freedom and public discussion. Freedom in this country is not just a question of maintaining parliamentary democracy, though that is essential. It is also a matter of making certain that we have a free press and freedom of discussion; freedom for the dissemination of information.
We feel that in so far as it can be avoided we should resist any growing monopoly in the field of mass media; the field of newspapers, radio and television. Royal commissions have studied this important question in the past. Recommendations have been made that outlets in this field should be separated and independent as far as possible. I believe that the growing concentration of newspapers in Canada has now reached a point which would indicate the desirability of a parliamentary committee inquiring into the degree to which this concentration exists, the rate at which it is being accelerated and to what extent this process impairs the free
2972	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Argue and frank reporting and discussion of public questions. That is why I have on the order paper a resolution asking that a parliamentary committee be set up to look into this whole matter. We are disturbed about the situation which is arising in this country. We are disturbed by what we feel is a potential threat to freedom of discussion in our nation.
We know that the board of broadcast governors decided the other day to recommend the award of a television outlet in Toronto to the Telegram, a newspaper in that city. We question the desirability of newspapers owning or controlling television outlets. We question this development, and we say, along with the royal commission, that whenever possible it is better to have independent outlets and that as far as possible there should be a separation of control as between newspapers, television and radio.
We are looking to the day when there can be a much more rapid development of the Canadian economy. We wish the government would take action as proposed in our subamendment to encourage the accumulation and investment of Canadian capital in Canadian industry, and we think that in all the actions taken by the government everything should be done to protect our resources in the interest of our country. I have been reading in recent days some of the documents which were presented before the energy board, some of the evidence which was provided in connection with the applications for the export of natural gas from our country. I have noticed that with the minister's announcement the government is making provision for the export of vast quantities of Canadian natural gas to United States markets over a period of 25 years at varying prices to a number of companies. We feel strongly that Canadian resources should be developed in the interests of Canadians.
We participated in the pipe line debate in this house in which the government of the day was accused of providing from the substance of this country the material and resources that would result in creating new millionaires and in a greater control of Canadian resources by Texas buccaneers. We have been exceedingly disappointed in that this government since it took office has done nothing to ensure that the resources of Canada are developed more in the interests of Canadians and that no action has been taken to ensure that no more millionaires will be created and that there will be a reduction in the control of these resources outside our nation.


I anticipate much discussion this session of the award made involving the export of gas to these various companies. The people of British Columbia have a particular complaint in that they are being charged a higher rate for Canadian gas than is being paid by United States citizens. I am not satisfied that the energy board obtained the best price for this gas. There seems to be much evidence that the United States market is so large and the demand by United States consumers so high that a higher price could have been obtained for our natural gas. The gas in the southern part of Alberta should to a greater extent be used for Canadians. Since it is our gas it should be Canadians and not the people of the United States who should pay the lower price for bringing gas from the more northerly part of Canada.
There is no indication that I can see that the government through approving the recommendations of the board has not approved everything it comdemned when in opposition. It has gone along with the trans-Canada pipe lines setup. The export of gas is being provided for that company. Even with the development of the export of Alberta gas to California, United States interests are obviously in control of this great operation to the extent, we are convinced, that Canadians are getting less than they deserve from this natural resource.
The figures placed before the board by the government estimate that for the first year of operation Pacific Gas Transmission Company will make a net return on its investment of 12.6 per cent. The Alberta Natural Gas Company will make a net return on its share capital of 14.5 per cent. These are high profits. There is little by way of risk. The market is there and all that has to be done to assure a large profit is to provide marketing facilities.
The whole question of leverage was gone into. In the days ahead I believe it will be seen that this government like the former one has played an undesirable role in making new millionaires and in providing additional millions to present millionaires. It has continued to allow the exploitation of our natural resources without giving the necessary consideration to the welfare of the Canadian people whose property these natural resources happens to be.
As the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe has said, our society faces a great challenge today. Many Canadians are disappointed in the budget. I am certain that unemployed Canadians are disappointed that the government has no program to remove unemployment. I am certain that the agricultural producers who look to this government for

help are disappointed. I am certain that some hon. members of the Conservative party are disappointed. The hon. member for Duf-ferin-Simcoe is disappointed that unemployment remains at a high level. I think there are some in the world who are probably pleased with the budget. I would think the occupants of the Kremlin must look with satisfaction at the fact that Canada has unemployment, regional poverty, and that racketeers in the country are exploiting the welfare of ordinary Canadians. They will be pleased that Canada which as the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe said is endowed with more natural resources for its population than any other nation in the world is just limping along. We will have to do something about these problems not only in the interest of Canadians but in the interest of maintaining Canadian freedom and maintaining Canada as a leader among middle powers.
I am not prepared to admit we cannot solve the great problems that face us but the government does not know the problems exist. The Minister of Finance has closed his eyes to them. He has talked about a balanced growth and has forecast for the coming year the same increase in the gross national product he referred to in the last budget. All these great problems are going unsolved and apparently the government is happy that they are not being solved.
There are a number of principles which should govern our action as a nation in the days ahead. First, we should not be satisfied with our degree of freedom but should increase it. This government should be concerned, as it has not been, with the abrogation of freedom in Newfoundland. The government failed to raise its voice with respect to racial discrimination in South Africa and has side-stepped the issue when questions have been raised on orders of the day. Humans in that nation were whipped to work just as they were on this continent many years ago under slavery and yet the voice of Canada is soft when it comes to this world issue. We should speak out firmly for the protection and preservation of freedom in Canada and anywhere in the world where it is threatened. If we want to have respect in the councils of the nations we cannot have one standard for nations in the commonwealth and another standard for those outside the commonwealth.
The second principle is that as a nation we should invest more in our resources so we can develop them in the interest of the nation. The third principle is that we should embark on a full employment program in Canada, with greater production, and we should
The Budget-Mr. Argue not have the smug satisfaction of the Minister of Finance who shuts his eyes to the suffering of half a million Canadians out of work.
Fourth, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that action should be taken to increase efficiency, to reduce prices, to eliminate waste. One of the places to start is here. We should eliminate excessive prices of essential commodities in our country.
Fifth, I am suggesting that we take appropriate action within our constitution to provide educational opportunities for every Canadian, irrespective of the pocket book of the individual wanting that education, or the parents of our young people looking for an education.
Sixth, contrary to the view of the government that now is the time to hold on, that now is the time to resist any extension of welfare services, I suggest that now is the time to embark on a program of old age pensions for retired persons in Canada which will maintain a pension in keeping with the great productive wealth of our nation. In other words, now is the time to increase old age pensions and social security benefits. I suggest that now is the time for an increase in the health benefits available to Canadians.
Why should Canadians who are sick and need medical attention have to face the tremendous cost of that medical attention? We have a hospitalization program. It is a good program. It will soon be available in every part of Canada. Let us not be satisfied. Let us increase the program. Instead of it being a net liability to Canadians, which apparently is the view of the government, it would be a tremendous asset to our nation to have a program that would remove the fear of heavy medical expenses in time of ill health.
The seventh principle I advance is that we must do everything we can at all times to maintain the integrity and the independence of the Canadian nation. I am not against the people who live in any other country. I feel that citizens of the United States, of the United Kingdom or of other countries in the world have within their jurisdiction the development of the resources of their own nation. We should have the same jurisdiction in Canada. I submit that if we adopt the kind of principles I have put forward we shall improve our standard of living, we shall improve our democratic machinery, we shall improve life in our nation and, above all, we shall make certain that this great development of Canada is for Canadians.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member for Assiniboia would answer a few questions? One of the things we have to consider and one of the things we have

The Budget-Mr. Argue to be very careful about is that we do not set back the manufacturing of and the bringing out of those new drugs. One of the things that I want to say to him is that about 80 per cent of all drugs-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to ask one question.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I have a question I was leading up to. Eighty per cent of all new drugs used today were produced in the last 20 years. The hon. member talked about the cost of prescriptions. One third of the prescriptions issued cost from $1 to $1.99. I ask the hon. member where the high cost comes in there? And only 7 per cent are for $5 and over.
I ask the hon. gentleman another question. He spoke about an investigation into this. Is he going to stop the import of those drugs from Japan and from those other countries that buy the raw material and do no research whatever in the production of new drugs? In other words, would he be instrumental in denying the tremendous cures that we have had in the last 20 years through the production of those new drugs simply because the firms have been allowed a little profit which they can plow back into research?


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank the hon. member for his important questions. I would not wish to do anything that would stop the development of new drugs.


Philip Bernard Rynard: That is what the hon. member is suggesting.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would think the development of new drugs is not so much the result of the fabulous profits that are made by some of these drug manufacturing companies but in the main is the result of the company having put together a very large and talented research team, and a research department where people in the main are working on salaries. It is through their research department that they have developed their new drugs. They have not been developed because of the profit motive.
Of course, I would do nothing to discourage drugs coming into our country, needed drugs that have been developed in other nations. I would encourage those drugs being brought into our country by encouraging a lower price that people can afford to pay. I am not talking about reasonable profits. I said I felt there should be some public development; that the production of some of those drugs should be carried on as a pilot operation, not to control the market. If the manufacture of those drugs, in proportion of the instances, was done at a low price I believe the manufacturers would control

some of these mark-ups. I do not think my hon. friend would agree that a mark-up of 3,000 per cent is quite necessary.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my words of sympathy to the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel) upon the loss of his wife. I think all hon. members of parliament, irrespective of which side of the house they sit on, realize that the whole foundation of our society rests in the home and that the loss of the wife breaks up the home and disrupts the individual. I know I speak for all backbenchers in that regard.
I am also very happy to follow the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). We backbenchers, we newcomers to the House of Commons, feel that the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe is a sort of father of this party, one of the elder members. We remember him in our early days. He used to come out to speak in Saskatchewan and Alberta on behalf of the party. When he speaks we all look to him for wisdom.
I am also very happy to follow the hon. member for Assiniboia, the house leader of the C.C.F., because I may say to him personally that we graduated from the same university. I remember him in those days when we used to debate together. I did not think or realize at that time at the university that he was a socialist. I doubt that very much today.


Hazen Robert Argue: I sat with the C.C.F. in the students parliament in 1940.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not know whether you did.


Hazen Robert Argue: I did.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will not answer that now.
My first words are words of congratulation to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). I cannot help but believe that all hon. members, irrespective of where they sit, appreciate and will accept the premise that the personal prestige and stock of the Minister of Finance are greater and have surely increased since his call to the all-important position of Minister of Finance. He has piloted this country through an economic recession which this government inherited in 1957. On budget night he was able to prophesy a surplus for the coming year. I think great credit is due the Minister of Finance for his policies, recommended to the government, which enabled him to bring in a budget in 1960 which indicates that there will be a surplus next year.
It is always most astonishing for me, as a backbencher, to listen to the inconsistencies



I960

[Stage Direction]
of the members of the opposition. We had some good examples of them today. This is the type of inconsistency that bothers me as a backbencher. Some days the hon. member for Assiniboia gets up and says that this government is financing on a deficit, and is this not terrible? This will lead to nothing but bankruptcy. Then on another day when he is speaking on estimates or some other subject he says, spend more money for the farmers; more money for the pensioners; more money for this and that. This is the type of inconsistency that is very difficult to follow so far as the opposition is concerned.
Hazen Robert Argue: It can still be balanced at a higher level.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: After all, when we took office we inherited a recession in this country and through the efforts of this government, the spending of $1 billion on housing, the increasing of subventions for the coal industry, pouring more money into the unemployment insurance fund, we were able to bring the economy of Canada into a state where we can now see we are moving out of recession and into prosperity. For example, we have spent millions of dollars on a farm support program.
I should like to come now to inconsistencies that are exhibited by an opposition group that does not now sit in this House of Commons- they used to sit here-and I refer to the Social Credit group. Many of the members of that group who sat in this house are now members of the legislature at Edmonton. As this house knows, the Social Credit party has the largest majority in the legislature at Edmonton in the history of Alberta. If they were to criticize themselves, therefore, they would destroy their own house. They have taken on a new function in the province of Alberta and that is the criticism of federal policies. I do not believe any Conservative member of parliament would be disturbed about people going to the polls and defeating him on the basis of principles for which he stood. I am sure he would accept that defeat with good grace. However, I would hate to be a candidate in the constituency of Bow River and realize that I had been defeated by false statements, statements which misrepresent the policies of this government.
I want to come now to a problem that concerns the province of Alberta, and concerns particularly the Bow River constituency. I refer to the coal industry. I might say that, so far as Bow River is concerned, there are two particular parts that mine coal. The first is Canmore and the second is Drum-heller. Farther south in the Macleod riding is the Crowsnest pass area. These false statements and these misrepresentations to which
The Budget-Mr. Woolliams I refer this afternoon have been made in the legislature with regard to this industry during the last five or six weeks. I believe it is my duty and my privilege as a member of parliament here to answer this new opposition who, by the way, have seen fit, because they are the critics of the federal members of parliament from Alberta, to increase their remuneration in order to compensate them for these new responsibilities.
I refer to an article published about a month ago in the Herald which says, "Get off fanny and aid coal industry". This is a criticism directed toward this particular government. I should like to refer also to a statement made in the legislature by the hon. member for Pincher Creek, to which reference is made in the press as follows:
Mr. Kovach said he has heard a lot of talk about Japan emerging as a market for Canadian coal, but so far not one ton from southern Alberta has been exported to that country.
This is the kind of misrepresentation about which I am talking. What has been the policy of this government in so far as the coal industry of western Canada is concerned, and I want to deal with western Canada because I am not one who knows the problems of Nova Scotia and the other coal mining areas in Canada. Let us just look at the record for a few minutes. When this government took office we immediately started a program of sales for coal to Japan and, in 1957, the first contract was entered into. As a result of that 40,486 tons of coal were sold. In 1958, 21,505 tons of coal were sold. In 1959, 192,857 tons of coal were sold. I am told by companies with which I have contact in Japan now that Mitsui Busan and Company Limited and Marada Steel Company are negotiating for another contract for 470,000 tons of western coal to be shipped to Japan. When you read statements made by the Hon. Gordon Taylor, minister of highways for Alberta, and other members of the legislature to the effect that there has been no coal shipped out of Alberta to Japan, and realize they are setting themselves up as critics of the federal government, then the record must be set straight. These are the people whom we must meet and with whom we must deal so far as our political future is concerned in Alberta.
Let us look at the truth about the coal industry so far as southern Alberta is concerned. What are the main criticisms they make? They say there is coal being imported into Canada from the United States. I think we will accept that. Coal was coming into Canada during the time of the Liberals, and we are prepared to say there has been coal coming in from the United States during the term of this government. Let us look at the

The Budget-Mr. Woolliams facts. There are three types of coal mined in southern Alberta. In Canmore, which is a town nestled in the Rockies on No. 1 highway between Calgary and Banff, they mine anthracite coal. This particular coal is used for coking coal, industrial coal, and that is the type of coal which Japan has been buying for its industries.
Then, the Crowsnest pass has coal. The members from Nova Scotia will know exactly what I am talking about when I say that this is a high bituminous coal. The coal in the Crowsnest pass area is on the border between British Columbia and Alberta and is the type of coal that is used in industry. It was the type of coal that was used by Canadian National and Canadian Pacific to create steam for their locomotives. This market was lost when the railways changed from steam power to diesel power. The railways, of course, did that for reasons of economics.
Then, last but not least, we come to the coal that is mined in Drumheller. The valley town of Drumheller is a good, prosperous town in that part of Alberta which is one of the best farming areas anywhere in the province. But as you drive from the town of Drumheller you drop into what might be categorized as a canyon, and there in the valley are the various coal mines that have been operating since the early 1900's. It was from these mines that the domestic fuel was obtained to keep the farm homes warm, to keep the homes warm in the villages, towns and cities of many areas. This coal is not bituminous coal, nor is it anthracite coal. This coal is sub-bituminous domestic fuel.
Let us look at these arguments. For years, the Social Credit party has been telling the coal miners and operators in Drumheller that this coal coming in from the United States is the reason the miners are out of work. By the way, for the last 15 years there has been a great problem in the Drumheller valley in so far as the coal miner keeping his shifts going in the summer months is concerned. They say that this coal is coming in from the United States, and that is the problem. Let me make myself very clear in this regard. The coal that is mined in Drumheller is not bituminous coal. The coal that comes from Pennsylvania is bituminous coal and is used in the industrial centres of Ontario. It is an entirely different type of coal from that which is mined in Drumheller. It would not matter whether one lump of coal came in from the United States or 20 million tons, it would not affect the Drumheller area because the coal that is mined in Drumheller is a domestic fuel which has been used for that purpose for the past 60 years, the Drumheller coal could not and cannot be used in this class of industry.

Something new has appeared on the horizon in Canada. Our newspapers are full of it now. I refer to the competition between fuels such as oil and natural gas. Mr. Manning who heads that party and is prime minister of Alberta honestly admits that the reason there is a labour problem in the Drumheller valley is the competition of oil, propane and natural gas. Today when we go on farms in western Canada, the same as in eastern Canada, we find that these homes are heated in the winter by oil or propane. We need only to go to places like Calgary, Edmonton and other urban centres in Alberta or places in Saskatchewan or Manitoba in order to find that natural gas which is clean and convenient is the new domestic fuel.
It is because of the development of the petroleum industry in Alberta-and I am one who stands in my place and endorses it- that the onus by the provincial government has been put on the coal operators and these men have been put out of work who live in Wayne, East Coulee and other places, to which I could take you this afternoon. While the Social Credit party have wanted to take credit for the development of the petroleum industry, they will not take the blame for the adversity of the coal industry. There we have the inconsistency. There we have the misrepresentation. There we have the false position in which they stand today as far as this industry is concerned.
I might say that when you read on in this article you find that Hon. Gordon Taylor minister of highways, places the full onus of the problem of unemployment in the Drumheller valley on the federal government, he places it not only on this government but on the Liberal government. Surely a province that has received $1 billion from the petroleum and natural gas industry, and which by the development of this industry has seen this change-over from the energy of coal to the energy of petroleum, has some responsibility to these people in the province of Alberta who are unemployed owing to that new industry.
Last but not least, the province of Alberta, since the Social Credit party took over has received millions of dollars in royalties from the coal industry but not one of those dollars has been put back into the industry either to help the operators or the coal miners. That is the reason why I brought in provincial politics this afternoon. They are playing federal politics and I suggest it is up to members of parliament from Alberta to answer these misrepresentations concerning the coal industry and other industries about which they care to speak in their legislature. The Social Credit government instead of giving the facts actually preach falsehoods.

I should like to direct the remainder of my remarks to the natural gas industry of Alberta. The recent announcement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce approving the decision of the energy board in granting licences to four companies, namely Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited; Alberta and Southern Gas Company; Canadian-Montana Pipe Line Company and Westcoast Transmission Company Limited, to export natural gas from western Canada will mean three real benefits economically to this country. First, it will create an industrial expansion in Alberta and the rest of Canada beyond the vision of the greatest visionary. Second, it will assist Canada in correcting its unbalanced and unfavourable trade with the United States. Third, it will create top flight jobs for Canadians and full employment in the province of Alberta and in other parts of western Canada.
We have heard from the Liberal party some criticism in this chamber of late of the delay in the export of gas. I should like to answer that criticism this afternoon. But before doing so I should like to refer to an article which appeared in Saturday Night of February 6, 1960. It was written by Edwin Copps and it was headed "The Energetic Energy Board". This is what he said:
If all its performances are as good as its premiere-
He was speaking of the board.
-the national energy board may stand as one of the Diefenbaker government's best acomplish-ments to date. At its first public hearing in Ottawa this month, the new five-man board put on a show of efficiency and expertness-
In brief he said that of all the things we have accomplished this one may go down as the greatest of the Diefenbaker government. What does he say about the situation if these licences to export gas were approved and as to what it would mean? I am going to deal with that matter in a few moments but first I want to read further from the same article at page 22 of the magazine:
If all these permits are granted, the revenue to Canada from the gas sales alone will be upwards of $170 million a year. The resulting expansion in Canada's natural gas industry will create some 40,000 new jobs, yield a livelihood for some 200,000 Canadian citizens. It will trigger a $500 million program of new industrial development in the country-pipe lines, gathering systems, processing plants and all the other elaborate installations the natural gas industry needs.
What a contrast that is to what the hon. member for Assiniboia had to say. In one breath he speaks about unemployment and in the next breath he is opposed to the export of gas. This article states that the resulting expansion will create 40,000 new jobs in Alberta, will create 200,000 new jobs throughout Canada and will bring each year
The Budget-Mr. Woolliams $170 million into Canada from the United States in order to help, as I said previously, to balance our unfavourable trade relations with that country. I say this personally; I have said it outside of this house and I say it here today. I think this will be the greatest boon for western Canada since the early days when agriculture began to boom in the early 1900's.
What has been our stand in this regard? The Liberals have accused us of delay. Let us see where the Liberal party stood in the province of Alberta. Since 1951-and I can speak with some authority in this regard- the provincial Liberal leader at that time, namely Mr. Prowse-he gave up the leadership in 1957 to Mr. Grant McEwan-was opposed to any export of gas in Alberta. Mr. Grant McEwan, speaking in the Bow River riding during the provincial election in 1958 and in the Thorncliffe area in the city of Calgary made the definite statement that he too was opposed to the export of natural gas from Alberta to the United States. Both these leaders have stood out against the export of natural gas from the province of Alberta. How can the Liberal party here in the opposition say that we are responsible for the delay when their party took the stand in western Canada that they were against any export whatsoever? We also have the record of another member of their party, a senior member of the legislature for many years. I refer to Mr. Hugh John MacDonald. He is still against the export of gas.
What has been this government's stand? When this government took office-and I have said this previously but I should like to repeat it-this government set up the Borden commission. Why was the Borden commission set up? It was set up so that the facts would be obtained and determined with regard to how much natural gas we have for the foreseeable future needs of Canada and how much surplus we have to export. What was their report in that regard? Their report was quite simple. They said there were proven reserves in the province of Alberta of 23.7 trillion cubic feet and an estimated reserve of 300 trillion cubic feet. Then when the energy board was set up they revised the figures and said there are actually proven reserves of 30.5 trillion cubic feet. Those figures do not mean much unless you take a look at what Canada needs for its foreseeable future requirements.
Before I read these figures out, let me just say something more about the board. How can you ever come to a decision or how can the energy board ever come to a decision without the proper facts before them? How

The Budget-Mr. Woolliams can a judge come to a decision when he is judging a case unless he has the evidence before him? Hence the energy board was set up. This energy board should have been set up five years ago or ten years ago. These facts should have been before the proper department so that the export of gas could have gone forward two, three of four years ago from the province of Alberta because the figures now show that we had necessary surplus reserves.
To come back to the question of what are Canada's needs in the foreseeable future, keeping in mind the fact that we have in the province of Alberta proven reserves of 30 trillion cubic feet, may I say this? We will use in 1960 an estimated amount of natural gas of 344.15 billion cubic feet, and by 1989 we will need 1,608.63 billion cubic feet. If you add up all our needs from 1960 to 1989 you will find we will need approximately 29,765 billion cubic feet, which is approximately 30 trillion cubic feet.
In other words, we have proven reserves in Alberta for the needs of Canada for the next 30 years. That was stated in the report of the energy board. Even at a conservative estimate, if we find 2.5 trillion cubic feet of gas each year by normal exploration-this is set out in both the Borden report and the energy board report-we will probably have to drill between 360 to 400 new wells a year. It is estimated that by 1989 we will have in this country proven reserves of 92 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. So not only can we take care of our foreseeable needs in the future of Canada but we can take care of those export commitments and have a reserve of some 40 trillion cubic feet at the end of that time.
Therefore I say without any reservation, and I have taken this stand in the house and outside, that I am in favour and always have been of exporting natural gas from western Canada. Today we have the proof and I want to congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) for recommending and approving on behalf of this government the export of gas to the United States.
Now I want to answer some criticisms offered to this government by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) when he talked about millionaires. I take this position. Since when was it a sin to make a dollar out of farming? Since when was it a sin to make a dollar out of natural gas? Since when was it a sin to make a dollar out of any business? The labourer has come a long way since the day I dug manholes in the streets of Moose Jaw in 1938 to work myself through university. Labour realizes today that when business makes a dollar, they, too,

can make a dollar and their standard of living goes up accordingly. How can labour earn higher wages if the industry which employs them is insolvent? That is something which I feel is a lesson that the leader of the C.C.F. party would do well to learn. I repeat; when business does well, so does the labourer because, as the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe said today, we in Canada have the highest standard of living in the world.
Now I come to one last point, and that is the reference to some criticism which has been offered of our leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). During this session in particular there have been some personal attacks made against him. Often they referred to his statement that as long as he was Prime Minister of Canada he would see no man or woman would suffer. I think it depends on what definition you put on the word "suffer". I think in my day when I was unemployed as a young man if I could have enjoyed unemployment insurance I would not have suffered. But I do know this, and I know everyone will agree with me, that there is no place in the world where we have a greater opportunity than right here in Canada.
When I was in Japan I listened to their problems, and when I told them of our problems they laughed. I said our problem is that we have too much butter, that we have too much beef, that we have too much wheat, too much uranium, too much natural gas and too much petroleum. What a problem. But what an opportunity for 18 million people if those people today will go out and work-and I think they will because I have confidence in Canadians -with the same vision of the pioneers who developed this country. I think that is the type of vision that our leader the Prime Minister has in reference to Canada.
I learned my lesson well when I listened to the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). He said the members of parliament should take home a bag of books every night. So I started taking home a bag of books every night, and by good fortune I picked up an article written on January 21, 1947 about a distinguished member of parliament, and at that time he himself was just an ordinary M.P. This is what this writer had to say. He is a distinguished writer for the Ottawa Citizen, Austin F. Cross, who was writing in "Western Business and Industry", volume 21, January 1947, page 54. He wrote:
John Diefenbaker is no ordinary member but a national figure. It was he who was making himself heard in the councils of the great, it was the member for Lake Centre putting Lake Centre on the map. That's why this Saskatchewan riding returned him by the astounding majority of 1,009 on June

11, 1945. With every other Progressive Conservative candidate in Saskatchewan beaten, even with the Liberals ending up with a mere two members of parliament, John Diefenbaker came through as easily as if the had been running in Toronto.
Last but not least he says this:
What about tomorrow?
He was talking about his characteristics.
I'd say that John could go as far as they want him to go. In parliamentary debate he is as good as the best, most of the time. Buttressed by the authority that being in the government lends you he would make a superb cabinet minister. He could fill any one of half a dozen portfolios with distinction. If, by the long arm of circumstance-
This is certainly looking into the future.
-he some day was given the party leadership, he could make not only a great but inspired prime minister.
Nothing that needs ability, nothing that calls for ambition, nothing that demands enterprise, would stop John Diefenbaker on his climb to the top. All he wants is the call. When or if it comes, John's ready.
I would say to those critics who personally attack our Prime Minister that I, as a man of western Canada who has seen the development of his character, am confident as I stand in my place that I speak for every member on the back benches, and I am sure they have full confidence in the leader of this party and the Prime Minister of this country.
(Translation):


Mr. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to associate myself with those who, this afternoon, offered their condolences to the Liberal opposition whip in this house, (Mr. Habel) on the death of his wife. I wish to tender him my deeply felt sympathy in his cruel bereavement.
Mr. Speaker, during the few remaining minutes before adjournment, I propose to speak of the budget, but in another way than is usually heard in this house.
First of all, I must commend the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Beni-dickson) for the brilliant manner in which he outlined the situation, in reply to the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). He put his finger right on the problems now facing the Canadian public, contrary to the Minister of Finance who, wearing a wide grin, complacently stated in this house that everything was for the best under Conservative rule.
Mr. Speaker, I want briefly to point out to hon. members that everything is not as perfect as the Minister of Finance said it was. As a matter of fact, I wonder whether the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis (Mr. Diefenbaker) and all the friends of the Conservative party who are in this house, do not feel a bit awkward when rising before the Canadian people to say that all goes well, when everyone in Canada knows that we have now over 800,000 unemployed in this country. How could they help being embarrassed, especially after the Conservative leader formally promised throughout this country that "if he was returned to power, no one would suffer in Canada".
Mr. Speaker, there are people who suffer in Canada, but the Prime Minister offers no excuse for not keeping his promises. Furthermore, there was the other promise to the effect that the day after the elections he was to launch "a famous billion dollar public works program". We are still looking for the projects that would come out of that promise. A tax reduction had also been promised as soon as the Conservatives returned to power. We have had tax increases instead. The end of budget surpluses had also been promised, since taxes would be lowered. That promise, Mr. Speaker, has indeed been kept because instead of surpluses we have had deplorable deficits, three of them in a row, since our friends opposite were returned to power.
And, today Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, all smiles, is announcing that he foresees a $12 million surplus for the coming fiscal year. Well, this prospect of a $12 million surplus, take it with a grain of salt, because we recall the promises made by the Conservative party during election time, and which were never kept at any time or in any way.
The Prime Minister had promised to find new markets all over the world for our manufactured products. Has he found any? Not at all, Mr. Speaker. We are now faced with an export deficit, the volume of our exports being lower than that of our imports.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said all sorts of things, but this is precisely what he forgot to tell us the other evening in his budget speech. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to go back over the record of the last two years and mention some points which the minister has omitted.
On the day of the Minister of Finance's speech, two years had elapsed since the Conservative party was elected to office, and on the occasion of that second anniversary, it is fitting to recall what our dear Conservative friends have given us since they took over this great country.
2980	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis
First, I should recall the C.B.C. strike, which was settled after unbelievable delays on the part of the government, not to mention the part played by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) who practised an ostrich policy and stuck his head in the sand to avoid looking at the problems. There is also that famous matter of winter navigation which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) had promised. As for agriculture, it is completely depressed. There is also the notorious feud between members of the government and the governor of the Bank of Canada. Then there was the fight over the "tight money policy", which was also covered by a definite promise by the Prime Minister who had declared that if he was returned to power he would do away with the tight money policy. Yet money was never so scarce as it has been since the Conservatives were returned to power.
Mr. Speaker, there is a deficit in exports, and a slow down in house building, where the situation is getting worse. Everything is known. We read it in the papers: there will be less house building this year than ever before.
While we are discussing problems of much interest, we, from the province of Quebec, note that the ministers from the province of Quebec never take part in the discussion, and merely keep silent when mention is made of problems of such importance as federal-provincial relations, the trans-Canada highway and unemployment.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a shame to see ministers remain in their seats and make no effort to take a stand in such important circumstances.
When the government is reminded of unemployment, the depression, the tight money policy, the conflict with the governor of the Bank of Canada, the confusion in national defence, the mess in agriculture, our friends opposite reply: "You are prophets of doom and gloom, you have no confidence in your country, you see nothing but blue ruin."
Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to be able to sing praises about the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance. I would like, as would all Canadian citizens, to be able to rejoice over the achiements of a Tory government. But like everyone else, I cannot help facing the fact and, in the face of those facts, I cannot help blaming the Conservative government.
[Mr. Dupuis.)

Mr. Speaker, a moment ago, I saw the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) enter the house. This reminds me that last year, during the debate on the budget, the hon. member for Bellechasse said that we in the opposition, reminded him of those thunder plagiarists who were talking as loud as they could in order to imitate the noise of thunder.
Allow me, in my turn, to make another comparison and to tell you, while looking at our friends opposite, something altogether different.
When I look at the Minister of Finance with his serene air, his grin, his tight lips, when I see him proudly introduce in this house a sorry budget, I cannot but think of that popular French song entitled:
"Tout va tres bien, madame la marquise". (All Is for the best, madam Marchioness.)
It is the story of a marchioness who was going out on a trip. Before leaving, she phoned her lackey and said:
Hello John, how are things going?
And John replied:
Oh don't worry, madame la marquise. Only, added John, I have a little something to deplore. I might as well tell you-the roof fell in, the house burned down, the stables are on fire; the poultry was destroyed, and your mare has run away.
Apart from this, madame la marquise, all is for the best-don't worry-for the best.
Mr. Speaker, thinking of my friend the Minister of Finance, who said that everything was for the best in the best of worlds, whereas everything is wrong and everybody tells him so, I prepared, as a counterpart to the remarks of the hon. member for Bellechasse, who spoke about the plagiarists of thunder, a small poem-which, though not in the grand manner, rather aptly points out present conditions in this country.
Now listen to this little piece, based on the song "Madame la marquise". As you will see, it concerns the budget and the administration and I shall not stray from the matter now under discussion. Here it is:
Hello, hello, John, what news-


Mr. Asselin:: Sing it.


Yvon Dupuis: No, I shall not sing it; but it will soon be heard on a record. The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) would sing it well.


Mr. Tremblay:: I prefer to sing duets.


Yvon Dupuis: The hon. member for Roberval-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: I would not sing such nonsense.


Yvon Dupuis: No, because you have a soprano voice and this should be sung by a bass.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: I'd rather have the voice of a soprano than that of a eunuch.


Yvon Dupuis: I know you never do it on your own.
Mr. Speaker, here is the beginning:
Hello, hello John, anything new?
You said that "No one will suffer"
Say, my dear John, that can't be true Under Mister Diefenbaker.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the chorus. It is Mr. Diefenbaker speaking; here is his reply:
Everything's well, madame l'electrice Everything's well, everything's well But I must say . .. There is a little twist A little twist of no import:
Hundreds of thousands unemployed Are suffering and seeking jobs But after all, madame l'electrice Everything's well, everything's well (Second verse)
Hello hello Bill-
This refers to the Postmaster General.
Hello hello Bill, anything new?
And what about the Post Office?
Tell us, have all your dreams come true, Have you done better than the Grits?
And here is the Postmaster General's reply: Everything's well, madame 1'electrice Everything's well, everything's well But I must say . .. There is a little twist A little twist of no import:
In post offices they used to steal They're stealing now our trucks and jeeps But after all, madame 1'electrice Everything's well, everything's well.
Hello Donald, anything new?
Tell us about your last budget Will it be gay, will it be blue?
Do you foresee a deficit?
Here is the Minister of Finance's naive reply:
(Chorus)
Everything's well, madame l'electrice Everything's well, everything's well But I must say ... There is a little twist A little twist of no import:
Added to all our promises Just put a twelve million surplus We are victims of a vision Making a little confusion We had to raise maybe too much The taxes that we were to cut A new sickness, a sorry mind Sends you to Senate for a lifetime In all the banks of our country Heigns the "tight-money-policy"
Our M.P. for L'Assomption
Flaps his wings like an old "pigeon"
On a BOMARC for a journey
General Pearkes left suddenly
The exports of our nation
Are smothered by importations
Clement Brown and Noel Dorion
Are expecting a promotion
The eggs, the hogs and the chickens
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my impression that house orders do not allow a member to refer by name to another member; he must refer to the constituency.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I am reading a poem.


Martial Asselin: Even if it is a poem, the standing orders of the house should be observed, and I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to rule on this point of order.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, may I point out to my colleague that I did not name any member of the house. What the rules forbid us to do, is to address an hon. member by name and telling him: "You are this and that". I am reading out a poem telling us that Mr. Dorion did something.
The previous speaker said several times: "John here and John there". He did not call him by name but he was speaking of the Prime Minister, quoting from a paper.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, still on a point of order, I shall point out that the representative who preceded the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville read out an item but did not call a member by name as did my hon. friend.


Yvon Dupuis: I am calling nobody by name. I am reading out an item referring to Mr. Noel Dorion-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, if you were in the chair this afternoon, you have doubtlessly noticed that on five different occasions at least, members were called by name. So I believe that if such practice was tolerated this afternoon, the same treatment should be granted the hon. member who now has the floor.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course, the standing orders of the house demand that we should refer to a colleague by mentioning the name of his constituency rather than his surname. However, I thought I understood the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville quote some work, whose author I do not know, so that, in the circumstances, he might perhaps be allowed to. conclude what he has to say.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised at my hon. friend's interjection. Of course, this hurts him, and I understand that very well.
So, as you have suggested, Mr. Speaker, I shall go on with my remarks.
Before I was interrupted, I was reading a poem by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville. I have also taken the

The Budget-Mr. Dupuis trouble to explain that it is not written in fine literary language. However, it does describe the conditions prevailing in Canada.


Mr. Pigeon:: Do you have a verse on the scandal of the Jacques Cartier bridge?


Yvon Dupuis: Frankly, I think the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) could tell you that. I saw his picture in a paper this morning, and I think it describes the situation fairly well. So, Mr. Speaker, may I go on-in any case, I am nearing the end:
The eggs, the hogs and the chickens Are crushed by Harnesses' ceilings


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: I knew that-


Yvon Dupuis: Now look at that. The hon. member for Roberval is piping up.
We realize a little late That we made a lot of mistakes But after all, Madame Telectrice, Everything's well, everything's well.
Well, Mr. Speaker, our friends opposite may interrupt and roar when the facts are being exposed, but not one of them could stand up at this time and deny that the Prime Minister had promised that there would not be one person out of work in Canada under his administration. Not one of our friends opposite could stand up and contend that there is not one Canadian citizen who has voted for the Conservatives and not been worse off since the change. Not one of our friends opposite could deny, despite the statements made by farmers' associations in this country, that our farming population is in serious danger. Not one Conservative member could deny having deceived us, or that the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) has failed to keep his promise of providing two mail deliveries a day when there still is but one delivery a day.
And the Postmaster General who had promised-that they cannot deny-to take measures likely to put a stop to post office robberies, has to cope today with robberies not only in post offices, but also of postal trucks.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party has deceived the voters in making promises it knew were impossible to fulfil. They did not keep their promises and it is our duty to call them to account.
And if the hon. member for Bellechasse, looking at the members of the opposition, is reminded of plagiarists of thunder, when I look at the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, I say: How wonderful. When everything comes crumbling down, they go up on the mountain and sing: "Everything's well, madame l'electrice."
[Mr. Dupuis.)
(Text):


Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I wish first to join with those hon. members of the house who have expressed condolences to the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel), the whip of the official opposition party, in his bereavement.
I should also like to add my words to those of previous participants in this debate in complimenting our Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) on bringing in a balanced budget designed for these troubled times and one that has been balanced without an increase in taxes. Despite this fact taxes are still lower than when the previous government was in power.
In the time at my disposal I should like to bring to the attention of the house some questions of vital concern not only to my constituency of St. John's East but also of concern to the constituencies of my genial and learned colleague the hon. member for Hum-ber-St. George's (Mr. Batten), the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Granger) and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) because in each of these constituencies there is located United States defence installations employing many thousands of Canadian citizens.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on April 15, 1959, replying to a question asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), stated that as of March 31, 1959 there were 4,324 Canadian citizens employed on United States bases in Newfoundland and Newfoundland-Labrador. This is a matter of interest and concern, as I said before, not only to my own constituency but to the constituencies of other hon. members in this house.
In my own riding of St. John's East there is located on the shores of Quidi Vidi lake a beautiful white city which was originally known as Fort Pepperrell and in later years as Pepperrell air force base. This is one of the four bases given to the United States by the United Kingdom in the early war years but not necessarily as part of the famous destroyers for bases deal, that deal in which the United Kingdom in our hour of need leased military bases to the United States government in return for 50 destroyers. On the contrary, bases in Newfoundland-Labrador and I believe those military installations in the colony of Bermuda were leased to the United States government on a gratis basis; there was no quid pro quo. I cannot speak with authority for the colony of Bermuda but I feel I can speak for the then colony of Newfoundland, which is now part of



[Stage Direction]
Canada. Newfoundland at that time had no elected government. Our constitution was suspended in 1933 because of a financial crisis in the then world-wide economic depression.
These bases were assigned to the United States government at various strategic locations in Newfoundland and in Newfound-land-Labrador territory on a 99-year lease basis. At that time nobody was in a position to argue and present the case of the government and the people of Newfoundland; for ours at that time was a colonial administration, governed directly by Westminster.
The folly of this course of action is now coming home to us. With the great changes in North American defence, the advent of the atomic age, the advent of the ballistic missile, no longer is it necessary for world powers to maintain fighter bases, not to mention bases strictly of a military nature. Pepperrell air force base was one of those bases which was leased in 1940. The people in Newfoundland had no say in the matter. They had no choice, no voice in their sovereign territory being leased to another power, yet a friendly power, for a period of 99 years without a dollar in exchange. Mind you, were I to say that those bases, those United States defence installations, were not a boon to our country and our province now would be to distort the facts, because I would say without qualification that United States defence spending in Newfoundland and Labrador, as an economic factor in our progress, ranks on an equal basis with the economic impact of confederation in 1949.
As I said a few minutes ago, the folly of the action in 1940 of the then imperial government could have had very serious and very tragic human consequences to the many thousands of Canadian citizens now employed on those bases. One thing can be said,
The Budget-Mr. McGrath namely that it was a very insecure position; nevertheless the fact remains that those people who did accept employment in 1941 did so with the realization that the bases were to remain for 99 years; consequently, it was logical for them to assume that their employment would be of a permanent nature.
Yet, it was not until a few years ago that those four or five thousand Canadian citizens were even enjoying the benefits of unemployment insurance. It was only a few days ago that it was announced in St. John's and in this house that the long fight those people have waged to be recognized as pensionable employees of the United States government in Canada has finally borne fruit. This is of prime importance to my constituents because it has been announced that the United States air force base in St. John's, beautiful Fort Pepperrell, on the shores of Quidi Vidi, is about to terminate its operations. It is with a little nostalgia, it is with a saddened heart, that we say goodbye to those friends whom we have cultivated over the past two decades. I am pleased to say they are leaving under good auspices, because, through the good offices of the United States government, in consultation with the government of Canada, the rights of those Canadian citizens to a pension, which is the least price that can be paid, has been recognized.
Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?

Lionel Chevrier: I ask whoever is leading the house whether there is any indication of what may be done early next week?


Mr. Brooks:: There is no change so far as the budget is concerned; we shall go on with that debate. The other business will be announced in due course.


[Stage Direction]
At six 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. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has the government, or the Prime Minister, received representations from the Windsor and district labour council, or any other labour organization (other than civil service staff organizations), protesting the action of the government in refusing salary increases to the civil service?
2.	If so, from what organizations have such representations been received?
3.	Has any reply been made to these representations, and of what nature?
Supplementary answer by: Right Hon. J. G.
Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):
1.	Yes.
2.	Local 234, bakery and confectionery workers international union of America, Fort William.
St. Thomas and district labour council.
Sault Ste. Marie and district labour council (two communications).
Fort William-Port Arthur and district labour council, Fort William.
Dryden and district labour council.
The Niagara Falls and district labour council.
Oshawa and district labour council.
Toronto and district labour council.
St. Catherines and district labour council.
Lindsay and district labour council.
Guelph labour council.
Windsor and district labour council.
Prince George and district labour council.
Vancouver and district labour council.
Amalgamated postal workers union of Australia, Sydney N.S.W., Australia.
Postal and telegraph association (Inc.) Wellington, New Zealand.
Federation syndicaliste des travailleurs des P.T.T. Paris, France.
Unione Italiana lavoratori postelegrafonici, Rome, Italy.
Postal telegraph and telephone international, Bern, Switzerland.
Postal office engineering union, London, England.
Societe Suisse des fonctionnaires postaux, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Verbana schieveizerischer telegraphen-und telephon-Beamter, Bern, Switzerland.
Federacion de sindicatos de trabazadores al servicio des estado, Lucerna No. 55 Mexico, D.F.
Local 546, united electrical, radio and machine workers of America, London.
Local	535,	united	electrical,	radio	and
machine workers of America, St. Catharines.
Local	525,	united	electrical,	radio	and
machine workers of America, New Toronto.
Local	512,	united	electrical,	radio	and
machine workers of America, New Toronto.
Local	536,	united	electrical,	radio	and
machine workers of America, Niagara Falls.
Local	505,	united	electrical,	radio	and
machine workers of America, Niagara Falls.
Local	523,	united	electrical,	radio	and
machine workers of America, Welland.
The Austrian federation of trade unions, trade union of postal and telegraph employees, Vienna, 1, Austria.
Communication workers, (Philippines alliance) Manila, Philippines.
Postal telegraph and telephone international, Washington, U.S.A.
Sindicato dos trabalhadores em empresas, telefonicas do estado de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Federation obreros y empleados de correos y telecomunicaciones, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
National postal transport association, Washington, U.S.A.
Local 1669, united brotherhood of carpenters and joiners of America, Port Arthur, Ontario.
Local 195, united auto workers, Windsor.
Local 23736, Canadian Labour Congress, Goderich, Ontario.
3.	Acknowledgments were sent stating that the representations were carefully noted.


CIVILIAN STAFF REDUCTION, RENOUS DEPOT, N.B.
Mr. McWilliam: 1. Has a recent reduction been made in the permanent civilian staff of the Renous naval ammunition depot, Renous, New Brunswick?
2.	When was the last reduction made and what was the number of workers involved?
Answer by: Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate
Minister of National Defence):
1 and 2, A staff reduction took place on April 1, 1959 when one clerk and two typist positions were deleted. On April 1, 1960, one position of painter was deleted.


CASUAL EMPLOYMENT, RENOUS DEPOT, N.B.
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	What is the estimated number of man hours, or man days, that will be required for casual employment for the fiscal year 1960-1961, at the Renous naval ammuntion depot, Renous, New Brunswick?
2.	What was the total number of man days expended for casual employment for the Renous naval ammunition depot, Renous, New Brunswick, for the fiscal year 1958-1959, and for the period April, 1959 to date?

Answer by: Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate
Minister of National Defence):
1.	It is not possible at this time to give an accurate and reliable forecast of the number of man hours or man days required for casual employment at the R.C.N. ammunition depot, Renous, New Brunswick, for the fiscal year 1960-61.
2.	The total number of man days expended for casual employment at this depot during the fiscal year 1958-59 was 2,651 man days and for the period April, 1959 to date was 780 man days.


CIVILIAN PERSONNEL, NAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOTS
Mr. McWilliams: 1. Has there been an increase or decrease in civilian personnel since June 30, 1953, to date, in
Questions
each of the four naval ammunition depots in Canada?
2. If so, what classifications were affected?
Answer by: Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):
1.	There have been changes in civilian complements since June 30, 1958 to date in each of the four naval ammunition depots in Canada.
2.	Reductions since June 30, 1958:
(a)	Kamloops: April 1, 1960, 2 ammunition workers.
(b)	Rocky Point: April 1, 1959, 1 technican 2, 2 typists, 1 chauffeur, 6 ammunition workers. April 1, 1960, 4 ammunition workers.
(c)	Renous: April 1, 1959, 1 clerk, 2 ammunition workers. April 1, 1960, 1 painter (spray).
(d)	Bedford: July 1, 1958, 2 ammunition workers. April 1, 1959, 2 carpenters.

Thursday, April 7, 1960



STARRED QUESTIONS