1960-04-05

PRIVILEGE


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege. Yesterday a return was made to an order of the house respecting a question of mine which was passed on March 9, having reference to federal payments to provincial governments and the increase therein. The answer to the first part of this return shows the total amount as $208.8 million. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) when speaking in the house yesterday said that the same payments for the current year were $689 million. It is perfectly obvious that there has been a misinterpretation of or a misunderstanding about this return. What I think has happened is that only so-called conditional and not unconditional payments were included. I just wish to draw that to the attention of the house and ask that the return be made complete.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture said that he had tabled correspondence between the premier of Nova Scotia and the government of Canada relating to deficiency payments. I looked for that correspondence yesterday, and I could not find it.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday that I believed it had been sent in either Friday afternoon or yesterday morning. In checking up on it I found it was sent in yesterday. Maybe it was delayed in the mail, or something; I do not know, but it was mailed from my office in the Confederation building yesterday.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Noel Dorion (Bellechasse) presented the first report of the joint committee of the
Senate and House of Commons on Indian affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. E. D. Fullon (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the question asked yesterday, to which I was not in a position to reply fully, perhaps I may inform the house at this time that three former toll collectors on the Jacques Cartier bridge were arrested yesterday, arraigned this morning and released on bail of $200 each. Three other former toll collectors were arrested this morning and it is expected they will be arraigned this afternoon.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the news and television reports that there is a shortage of medical supplies at the Nyanga negro hospital in South Africa. Is the Canadian government prepared to make an offer of needed medical supplies in order to assist in the treatment of the wounded at this hospital?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: No report has been received by myself or by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I have been informed by the minister, with regard to this matter. When it is received, in the ordinary course of events, it will receive consideration. As we all know, assistance in situations such as this is given through the Red Cross and otherwise.



SOUTH AFRICA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question to direct either to the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the government prepared to consider doing as the United Kingdom government is reported as now doing, granting asylum in Canada to negro refugees or fugitives from South Africa?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: There is no suggestion of that, either, but we would give consideration to any request that might be made.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question. Will the government give consideration to this question since it has now been raised?


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member knows that government policy on questions of this kind would have to be announced in due course.



REPORTED VISIT OF CANADIAN OFFICIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Minister of National Revenue this question. Can he say whether it is a fact that an official from his department has gone to the Soviet union? If that is the case, will the minister say whether or not his visit has to do in any way with Soviet union made automobiles?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minisier of National Revenue):: I shall have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. It certainly has nothing to do with the proposed discussion about Russia-made automobiles.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT RESPECTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether the trade treaty with the Soviet union, which was on the verge of signature some time ago, is likely soon to be signed?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: That continues to be our hope, Mr. Speaker. There is presently in Moscow a delegation of officials headed by Mr. J. H. Warren, the assistant deputy minister of trade and commerce, and that delegation is there for the purpose of continuing the negotiations with the appropriate persons representing the government of that country.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will the minister advise the house whether or not loans to be granted to owner-applicants by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation can be amortized over a period of 30 years?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. I apologize for not sending him notice, but it was impossible to do so. My question is based on a very recent inquiry from Vancouver with respect to Miss Irene Rebrin's case. There has been a great deal of interest in this case in Vancouver.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the
Prime Minister this question. In view of the fact that this young lady's passport has been taken up by the immigration department, was it taken at his request? Second, has the Prime Minister been informed that Dag Hammarskjold, secretary general of the United Nations, has expressed interest in this case?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday a question was asked similar to the one asked a moment ago by the hon. gentleman. At that time I said the question would be discussed by me with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) and other appropriate ministers. That discussion has commenced, and the minister should be in a position very shortly to say something definite in this regard.
As to the second portion of the question, may I say that I have no information in that regard.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: May I ask the Minister of National Revenue whether he has now had time to look into the matter of the deduction for income tax of donations to Moral Re-Armament? He indicated last week that he would look into the matter.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have not as yet received a report on that matter. As I said, I believe, it has to do with a ruling on whether it is a charitable organization.

Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yesterday the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) inquired regarding an application for the position of electrical maintenance man at the Ottawa airport, which had been advertised by the civil service commission as open to residents of the Toronto air services region.
For purposes of efficient administration the air services branch of the Department of Transport operates through a series of regional headquarters which have extensive operational authority delegated to them. It is the custom of the civil service commission to advertise public competitions on an area basis related to these regional areas of administration.
The Ottawa river forms the boundary line between the Ontario and Quebec regions, so that the competition advertised for Ottawa airport through the Toronto headquarters would include the Ottawa area but not Hull. On the other hand, residents of Hull would be eligible for regional competitions in the Quebec area, which has its headquarters at Montreal.
This regional organization of our air services branch, including the present boundaries, and the civil service commission practice of advertising competitions on this regional basis, were established over 10 years ago under the previous administration. I am a little surprised, therefore, if the hon. member takes exception to the practice we are following, that he did not take the matter up with my predecessors under the previous government when they were in office.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Seeing that the airport of Ottawa is much nearer than the airport at Dorval and that the minister promised to change everything which was not going well in Canada, does he not think it is time to make a change?


George Harris Hees: I might say I am surprised that the hon. member had not shown such zeal during the past 10 years in his dealings with the hon. member for Laurier and Mr. Marler along these same identical lines.



ELLIOT LAKE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question some days ago regarding Elliot Lake and I told him I would give an answer as soon as I could.
I am now in a position to advise that on Saturday the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Labour will visit Elliot Lake to discuss the whole situation with representatives in that area. This is in sequence to the fact finding committee which recently visited the same area, that committee being headed by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the proposed visit, which I am sure will be welcomed by the inhabitants of Elliot Lake, it is not now intended to make available to the house the report of the fact finding committee until after the ministers' return?


John George Diefenbaker: I think it would be better to discuss that matter after the return of the ministers, if the hon. gentleman would agree. (Translation):



VALCARTIER QUEBEC


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberl Lafreniere (Quebec-Monlmo-rency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Is the minister aware of a report published in La Presse of April 4, 1960, to the effect that 450 employees of the Canadian Arsenals in Valcartier will be discharged on April 17, 1960?
Has the minister any comments to make on this matter?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: I read this report in La Presse. It was a statement by Mr. Marchand, secretary general of the Catholic labour unions of the province of Quebec, saying that 450 employees of Canadian Arsenals would be discharged on April 17. Mr. Marchand's statement is altogether untrue. Forty one employees were actually discharged at the end of March, because they were over 65, and for other reasons. Moreover, the contract for

Inquiries of the Ministry cartridge cases has been completed in Val-cartier. We are not expecting any change or any layoffs of Quebec arsenals employees in the coming months.
(Text):



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the minister who reports for the C.B.C. Would the minister give the house an explanation as to why a sponsored interview scheduled during the Saturday night telecast of the Toronto-Detroit hockey game with a well known Canadian athlete, the Leader of the Opposition, was cancelled?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the question should be directed to the Leader of the Opposition, because apparently he knows more about this than I do. I read the interesting story on the front page of the Globe and Mail this morning, and I suspected that somebody might be asking me about it. I will obtain a report on the matter and answer in due course.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder, when the minister has obtained a report, whether he would make a further inquiry as to the explanation given by the public relations officers that if the Leader of the Opposition had appeared it would have been a political appearance, but that it was a public service when the Minister of Transport spoke on national health week.


George Clyde Nowlan: I refuse to commit myself, Mr. Speaker, in discussing the activities of public relations officers of any corporation anywhere, at any time.
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of fhe
Opposition): When the minister is making an investigation into this interesting matter, I wonder if he would get the text of the statement made by the Minister of Transport on a similar occasion advocating national health?


George Harris Hees: Perhaps I might answer that, Mr. Speaker. That is impossible because I spoke from the heart, not from a text.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister whether it is not correct that the Minister of Transport always speaks from the heart rather than the head?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister any statement to make to this house following his meeting in Paris with the other defence ministers?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: I could make a brief statement if required, Mr. Speaker, as I expected there might be such a question raised.
I think the best way of describing this meeting would be to say it was a "technical session" during which were discussed various matters of interest to defence which will be further considered by the military committee in order that they may be brought forward to the NATO council in permanent session.
The question of the logistic support of the alliance was discussed with special reference to the problems of the Federal Republic of Germany. These are to be examined by the NATO military authorities in full co-operation with West Germany and the other nations directly concerned, which means that General Norstad will consider what contributions the various NATO countries can make to the solution of Germany's problems. It was urged that these be found within the NATO area.
Ministers also discussed ways in which the efforts of the alliance could be better coordinated in the fields of research, development and production in order to take advantage of the skills and capabilities available in NATO countries. This matter was referred to the NATO armaments committee. A list of various projects planned or under development in the several NATO countries will be submitted for study. In this way it is hoped to make progress toward preventing duplication. This item is of special interest to Canada. I expect that several of our country's projects will be reported upon and, of course, Canada would benefit if it were found that any were generally acceptable for use within the alliance.
Questions of defence planning were raised, increased emphasis being placed on immediate readiness and the first phase of a war. The military committee is to examine the suggestions made during the discussion and report by July 1 upon the consequences, particularly with respect to the logistics. As to sharing the burden, numerous suggestions were advanced so as to enable all member nations to train and maintain their forces at the level agreed upon by the north Atlantic council.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I read a newspaper report the other day to the effect that some equipment was to be made by several of the NATO countries in concert, and wondered if this same committee has recommended any other equipment which could be manufactured partially at least in Canada, or if results have yet been achieved in this field.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion was made that the countries should submit a list of the projects they were carrying out, and that the armaments committee would prepare a list of about 20 promising projects for further examination.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question arising out of his statement-if I understood it correctly-that if bases were not available in NATO countries or West Germany they might be found outside those countries. Was any restriction in that regard suggested to West Germany, in regard to territory suitable for such bases?


George Randolph Pearkes: The question of bases was discussed, and it was referred to General Norstad to examine the need of bases, training facilities and supply bases in peace and in the various phases of war. He was urged to find these bases within the NATO area.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us whether there was any discussion about the continued use by Canada of French bases for the R.C.A.F. after we have re-equipped with planes carrying atomic weapons?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker, that subject was not raised.



INQUIRY AS TO PROPOSED PROVISION OF ACREAGE PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question based on an interview given to the Regina Leader-Post on March 5 by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, in which he suggested that farm leaders should sit down with the government and discuss alternatives to grain deficiency payments such as acreage payments. Is it the intention of the government to provide acreage payments this year to farmers in western Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman with his wide experience on the treasury
The Budget-Mr. Badanai benches will realize that the only appropriate answer is that this is a matter of government policy to be announced in due course.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 4, 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.
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday night I listened very attentively to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). First he gave us a resume of the economy, in which he could see nothing but roses.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the hon. member wait for one minute, as there is considerable movement in the house at the moment which will soon settle down.


Hubert Badanai: I was just saying, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance last Thursday night gave us a resume of the economy in which he could see nothing but roses. Then he proceeded to enumerate small changes described in various terms such as "minor" and "technical". For all practical purposes the budget did not create the spontaneous, resounding applause that those on the government side of the house had hoped for, because the position is practically the same as it was before March 31. No one anticipated a general slashing of taxes, but there was plenty of justification for anticipating the removal or at least a reduction of some taxes, such as the excise tax on passenger motor cars, which has been suffocating an industry that has contributed more to the coffers of the receiver general, to employment and to the all-round standard of living of Canadians than any other industry.
The automotive industry in Canada today can be regarded, directly and indirectly, as one of the major employers of labour. This industry provides more jobs than any other industry. The total value of its products in 1959 was $1 billion. There are approximately five million motor cars and trucks using the highways of this nation, and where great distances might seem an obstacle to national advancement the motor vehicle has supplemented the railways and the waterways in opening new territories for development.
I shall proceed to outline briefly the impact of the automotive industry on our national life. The reason I am bringing this

The Budget-Mr. Badanai industry to the attention of the Minister of Finance is that, nothwithstanding its many contributions, the minister has again ignored the need for the elimination of the discriminatory excise tax on automobiles which now, more than ever, is an obnoxious tax on Canadian made cars and is only creating a favourable climate for the sale of foreign importations.
There is no Canadian employment in the manufacture of imported passenger cars and substantially less tax revenue for the government from their sale, but the most important factor is the reduction in employment in the Canadian manufacturing plants. To illustrate this point, among the principal Canadian automobile factories the monthly average of employment was 40,243 in 1956, whereas in 1959 the monthly average of persons employed in these plants was only 33,160. Yet more passenger cars were sold in Canada last year than in 1956.
The hon. member for Laval, speaking on this subject last night, had this to say as found in the translation of his speech:
As you can see, this government has improved the economic situation of the country. In the field of industry, again there is progress. For the automobile industry, for instance, we have some revealing figures.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the revealing figures are the figures of new car registrations in Canada from 1955 to 1959 inclusive. These figures are as follows:
Made in Canada	 332,929
Made in United Kingdom	 13,864
Other European cars	 7,943
Made in United States	 27,046
Made in Canada	 333,711
Made in United Kingdom	 16,475
Other European cars	 17,851
Made in United States	  36,567
Made in Canada	 326,972
Made in United Kingdom	 22,109
Other European cars	 26,008
Made in United States	 16,572
Made in Canada	 289,170
Made in United	Kingdom	
38,051Other European	cars	
37,037Made in United	States	
17,333Made in Canada	
389,030Made in United Kingdom	
57,929Other European	cars	
55,551Made in United	States	
24,764
These figures are revealing indeed. They reveal the fact that if all these imported cars had been manufactured in Canada it would have resulted in the additional employment of roughly 16,400 persons. I am not suggesting

that the elimination of the excise tax would automatically stop the importation of automobiles, but I am sure it would result in a reduction in importations, and a beneficial effect on sales of Canadian made cars would undoubtedly be the outcome.
It is a matter of more than passing concern that the excise tax affects the share of the market obtained by Canadian companies. Even the most cursory examination of the share of the market obtained by the less expensive foreign cars leads to the conclusion that consumers are sensitive to variations in the price spread between imported and domestic models. The price spread resulting from the application of the excise tax on a Canadian produced car which is sold to the public for $3,000 and a European automobile which is sold for say $2,000 amounts to about $90. The removal of the excise tax and thus the removal of the price spread it creates of about $90 could have an important effect on the share of the market to be obtained by Canadian produced cars.
Relief from the excise tax on passenger cars is needed to help the Canadian motor car manufacturing industry combat the increasing sales of European cars, and would permit the continued growth of the Canadian passenger car manufacturing plants. But, Mr. Speaker, over and above all I have said with regard to the facts and figures, the excise tax is discriminatory because the automobile is the only major consumer article still subject to special taxation, and I submit to the minister that a re-examination of this provision should be made without undue delay looking to the elimination of this unwarranted tax.


Mr. Spencer:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


Norman Leonard Spencer: I hope he will correct me if I am wrong, but I understood him to say that if the excise tax on automobiles were removed it would enable the Canadian industry to supply the cars which are now being imported from abroad. That was substantially his point. Is the hon. member aware that the excise tax is applied also to imported cars, and in the light of that fact will he kindly explain how the removal of the excise tax is going to have any bearing on the importation of cars from abroad?


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, the question is really not particularly relevant to the subject, nor to the figures which I quoted. There is a difference between an imported vehicle being sold for $2,000 and one made in Canada and sold for $3,000. There is an excise

figure of approximately $90. I can substantiate that, and I shall do so if my hon. friend wants an example.
I suggest that the government should give serious consideration to the production of the Bobcat, which is an amphibious vehicle developed by the Department of National Defence and engineers of the Canada Car Company, whose plant in Fort William would be in the immediate position to proceed with its production. The reason I am advocating that this vehicle be used for the opening up of the far north is that until recently it was the objective of the government, and now it seems to be totally ignored.
Those of us who were hoping to see a budget designed to create jobs for the unemployed certainly could not cheer. Only the day before the budget Chrysler Corporation of Canada announced that some 3,500 workers were being laid off in a shut-down of all passenger car production. Some of these will return to work, while others will be laid off indefinitely. I hold in my hand a clipping from the Fort William Times-Journal of April 2, which indicates a serious and alarming unemployment situation. I am going to quote only a paragraph:
An all-time record high of 10,527 people are seeking employment according to figures which reached the lakehead employment advisory committee during their March meeting.
The move to amalgamate the telegraph services at Fort William, which cannot be assessed but as a step toward a program to merge all telegraph services across the country, is just a beginning of a nation-wide scheme to bring about the physical amalgamation of the two railways, a proposal which was originated by the Conservative government of R. B. Bennett in the 1930's. Only last week at a meeting of the committee on railways, air lines and shipping, attended by the president of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Donald Gordon, and some of his officials, it was brought out that extensive reductions in service on sections of the line to Sioux Lookout and between Atikokan and Rainy River were effected, as well as at Reddit, Armstrong, Nakina and Longlac, and Belleville in the eastern part of the province of Ontario. As a result Sioux Lookout, a railway town dependent for its existence upon the Canadian National Railways, will be on the verge of becoming a ghost town. I am told that the morale among the men in those sections of the Canadian National railway system has never been as low as it is at the present time.
It is all very well to be pleased with a budget which forecasts a surplus, but with nearly 800,000 unemployed the satisfaction
The Budget-Mr. Badanai is but of short duration. I have had occasion to say, and I say it again, that I would rather see deficit financing, with full employment of the available manpower of the country than a financial statement in the black with massive unemployment. Our human resources are paramount, and their welfare should be the first consideration of any government. I do not mean to imply that those who are occupying the treasury benches are less concerned with the welfare of the people. I suggest that the Minister of Finance and his colleagues have been listening to the wrong prophets and, for whatever reason, have not been able to come up with the right answer to cure unemployment, and that these trends toward amalgamations or mergers of services will not produce results acceptable to the Canadian people.
On February 18 I asked the Minister of Finance whether he would consider the removal of the burden of double taxation on those people who have received or will receive payments under the Ontario health plan and who cannot deduct those medical expenses from their taxable income even though they have paid taxes on their contributions to the plan. The minister informed the house that it was not appropriate to discuss fiscal policy during the question period. Now I expect it to be quite in order for me or for any other member to ask the minister, since the federal government contributes only a portion of the cost of this plan, whether some adjustment could not be made so the provincial and personal share of these payments might be deducted from taxable income.
To illustrate my point, prior to January, 1959 a person who was covered for hospitalization and medical care under Blue Cross paid $5.40 per annum more than he is paying for his present coverage under the Ontario hospital plan and Blue Cross for semiprivate and P.S.I. medical. In 1958 he was allowed to deduct all hospital expenses from his taxable income. In 1959 this person was hospitalized twice, but he can deduct only his semiprivate room charge of $3 per day instead of the full charge of $23.25 per day. This means that instead of having a tax refund of $45.70 for 1959 he is allowed a refund of only $5.70. In other words the government charged the extra $40 against its contribution of only one third of the cost of hospitalization.
I express the sincere hope that in what the minister did not spell out in his statement last Thursday, when he said that minor adjustments will be made, he had this particular feature in mind.

The Budget-Mr. Badanai
On Friday, March 18 I asked the Minister of National Revenue whether the government had made any attempt to evaluate the impact that the selling of duty and tax free goods by International Resort Facilities Limited to United States tourists at border points is going to have on small retail merchants who derive their livelihood from the tourist trade. A few days later the minister replied to the effect that it was impossible to determine the impact of that business because operations had not yet started.
This is a question which has engaged the attention of the tourist industry as well as the retail merchants association. It has been reported that this scheme may well cost Canada a lot of money as a result of the dislocation of small businesses and the diversion of customs duties and sales tax revenue from the federal treasury.
The Minister of National Revenue also indicated in his reply that the company involved, namely International Resort Facilities Limited, was incorporated in the regular way under the Canadian Companies Act. This is, of course, not a question of legality but of whether or not this type of free shops merchandising is in the national interest. These shops will be stocked with samples of imported goods, cameras, perfumes, watches and clothing. While Canadian goods will probably be on display, the visitor will be tempted to buy goods imported from abroad and brought into this country in bond so they can be sold without customs and excise taxes.
Theoretically any merchant could set up a bonded warehouse, but in practice small retailers could not afford such an overhead, with the result that they will be the losers in competition for the tourist dollars. Those feeling the effects of these free shops will be not only merchants operating at border cities anywhere in Canada, but the chief losers will be a large section of our national retailers. I suggest that a close study be made of this new type of merchandising which might cause more trouble than the extra dollars are worth to the country even if, indeed, it should mean extra revenues, something which I doubt.
About a year ago, on the occasion of a debate on a supply motion, the Leader of the Opposition introduced the subject of Canadian-United States relations and during the course of that debate I mentioned the move by the city of Chicago to have an increase in the diversion of water from lake Michigan from 1,500 to 2,500 cubic feet per second, the effect of which would have been a threat to the water levels of the great lakes. You will recall that the bill passed the United States Senate, but fortunately it
[Mr. Badanai.1
was vetoed by the President. Now they are at it again, and I do not know whether this government can stem the tide. I therefore wonder whether a proposal formulated in the mind of one of our brilliant young engineers, namely Mr. Thomas Kierans, who hails from the city of Sudbury, has sufficient merit for this government to give it serious consideration.
Briefly, the plan would be to take fresh water from rivers flowing into James bay and divert it by way of the Harricanaw river into the Ottawa and Mattawa rivers, lake Nipis-sing and the French river into Georgian bay; in stages, up to 25,000 cubic feet of water per second would be diverted. The beginning stage calls for the diversion of about 4,000 cubic feet of water per second from the Bell river to the Harricanaw river near the height of land south of James bay. This initial diversion, according to Mr. Kierans' estimate, could be completed within three to four years.
What Mr. Kierans suggests, however, is a study which would determine the feasibility of the plan. Mr. Kierans submitted his original idea to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Unfortunately the minister's reaction was negative. On the other hand the reaction of Robert Macaulay, minister of energy and resources in the Ontario provincial government, was receptive, so much so that Mr. Macaulay has initiated a study of the plan with his energy committee and with Ontario hydro.
Inasmuch as the United States government is plagued by the continuing problem of water diversion from the great lakes by the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois, the plan was taken to Washington by Mr. Robert Evans of Sudbury. There Mr. Evans was received by Senator Fulbright, chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee; by Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois and Senator Alexander Wiley of Wisconsin. Senator Douglas is working hard to secure more water for his state. Senator Wiley is emphatically opposed to further diversion.
There is pending now before the Senate foreign	relations	committee	a	bill	called
H.	R. 1, which calls for a study of the Chicago
water diversion problem, while at the same time it would permit Chicago to divert 1,000 cubic feet per second more of water from the great lakes.	That city	is	at present
taking 1,500 cubic feet per second for sanitary and shipping purposes, and an additional
I,	800 cubic feet per second for domestic clear water purposes.
The bill already has passed the house and should	be reported out from	the	Senateforeign	relations	committee	to	the	Senate
floor within the next few days. In the meantime Senator Wiley sees the Kierans plan as a possible solution to the long time problem. He told Mr. Evans he would recommend that the United States initiate funds to study its feasibility, with the permission and co-operation of Canada. I understand that the Prime Minister has been informed of the plan. I would therefore suggest to the Minister of Finance that he make money available, if necessary, for initiating a study of this plan with the co-operation of the United States.
Mr. Kierans prepared a substantial brief, a copy of which I believe is in the hands of the Prime Minister. I am just quoting from one page of it. It contains that proposal and suggests that the advantages that project could offer to Canada include the following:
(a)	Profit from the sale of water to certain water deficient areas in North America.
(b)	Hydroelectric energy from the fall of the new water on the southern side of the height of land.
(c)	A barge navigation channel from James bay to the great lakes and the lower Ottawa, thus providing a low cost transportation system for the large iron ore reserves of the James bay area.
(d)	An opportunity to open for economic development a very large area of Canada now only very sparsely settled.
In his budget speech the Minister of Finance acknowledged the demand made upon the government for devaluation of the Canadian dollar to the level of the United States dollar. As reported at page 2673 of Hansard he had this to say:
There is a related question upon which I should like to dwell for a moment. This is the question of our exchange rate. The external price of our Canadian dollar has been high for eight years now and is currently running about 5 per cent above the United States dollar. The situation has been brought about mainly as a result of an inflow of foreign capital and reflects the confidence of outsiders in the soundness of the management of our financial affairs. Admittedly it lowers the prices received in Canadian dollars by those exporters who have to sell in world markets at world prices.
Further on the same page he continued:
It might well be that the government could not reduce the inflow of funds sufficiently without imposing direct controls on capital movements and then on the movement of goods. Apart from the economic objections to such policies it would be a very difficult matter to work out effective technical means of control. Even then the controls would not be effective unless the objective were one which commanded the broad public support which is necessary for general compliance. In other words we would be embarking upon a gigantic financial speculation with no assurance of success.
With that statement the minister is attempting to give this question an air of finality which should not be raised now or ever, at least until the government will decide when it will be appropriate for further review. The minister contended' that the inflow of foreign capital was responsible for
The Budget-Mr. Badanai the premium on the Canadian dollar, but said nothing about the borrowing in the United States by provincial governments and municipalities and private corporations, a procedure which many would agree to have been chiefly the result of poor financial management. It is a statement which does not take into consideration the artificial value of the dollar which in reality, having regard to its true value in relation to our trade deficit, should be worth only 95 cents instead of $1.05 in United States dollars. I think the truth of the matter can be found in the suggestion that the Canadian dollar is presently being manipulated by a few international financiers.
The artificial value of our dollar is damaging our tourist industry to the tune of millions of dollars. It has severely handicapped northwestern Ontario major industries, pulp and paper and forest products, and the iron ore from Steep Rock iron mines. I submit to the minister that he would render Canada an excellent service if he would reconsider the question in the light of what parity of our dollar with that of the United States would mean to our export trade and to the development of Canada.
In the matter of civil service salaries, the minister made an astonishing statement to the effect that the last general increase in civil service salaries was authorized by the present government in July, 1957. He very conveniently omitted to say that the general increase had been proposed and approved by the government of the previous prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, as of May of that year, several days before the then prime minister decided to resign. The increase at that time ranged from 3J to 12 per cent, or an average of 6 per cent. On the same date increases to the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were also granted. After the brush-off which the civil service received from the present government last year we at least anticipated that in this year's budget a general increase would be forthcoming for all civil service employees, not only for a fraction of the number who will benefit by the minister's announcement. Perhaps among those hardest hit by this omission are the postal employees who are actually in receipt of a lower net income than they enjoyed three years ago.
There is another important omission about which the minister failed even to whisper; that is, giving civil servants who do not occupy executive positions the right to bargain, in the same way as members of police forces and firemen, and the protection that none should suffer the penalty of dismissal

The Budget-Mr. Badanai for attending a political meeting. The granting of these rights would remove the stigma of being considered second class citizens subject to penalties and loss of employment. As far as the civil service is concerned, this budget can be labelled the half a loaf budget of 1960 to be divided among a fraction of the civil service body.
On January 20, on orders of the day, I asked the Minister of Finance if he would inform the house whether a borrower from the industrial development bank could prepay a loan without having to pay a penalty, and if not why not. The minister's answer was to the effect that the industrial development bank is a subsidiary of the Bank of Canada and that he, as Minister of Finance, had no control over it.
The reason which prompted me to ask the question was that a firm in my constituency, on whose lands and buildings the industrial development bank loaned $60,000 on a mortgage, recently had sold a part of their assets consisting of small boats which they manufactured, some machinery and stock. Consequently they wished to prepay the sum of $25,000 on the mortgage; and all things considered, when money is still in a strait-jacket this prepayment or any prepayment of loans should be welcomed by the government-owned bank. But because the mortgage contained a clause under which the bank reserved the right to charge a premium on prepayments which amounted to one tenth of one per cent, multiplied by the number of months in advancement of the date the instalments fell due, the premium asked was excessive. The manager of the company wrote a letter asking me to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Finance in the hope that he would see the merit of the request, which resulted in the question and answer as reported in Hansard of January 20 last, pages 135 and 136.
I did, however, receive a detailed explanation from the secretary of the industrial development bank, which contained the following paragraph:
Many mortgage lenders do not permit prepayment of mortgages at all and where prepayment is permitted, it is the usual practice to charge a prepayment fee whenever any amount is prepaid.
This would mean, then, that the government-owned industrial development bank has adopted the practice and regulations of ordinary moneylenders. It is a matter of regret that the minister overlooked the importance of suggesting an amendment of this practice to the industrial development bank. The statement of profit and loss for the year ending September, 1959 reported a rather healthy profit of $1,533,363, and an amendment which would remove the objectionable

feature of premiums on prepayments of loans would in no way prejudice the profit position and purpose of the bank.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this budget, and I am very pleased and proud to do so. We have a courageous budget introduced by a courageous and capable minister. This budget, as has been well said, stands to hold the line. At a time like this holding the line is a necessary thing. We have to learn to live within our means. We have been living beyond our means, but now we are going to stand and move forward from here. I compliment our minister and the government for taking this stand, which every thinking man in Canada knows has to be taken.
I am pleased, however, to see that even in this year of holding the line we have not forgotten the great body of civil servants who run our country so efficiently. As usual the members of "the group" have criticised the stated contribution to this effort. They say "too late and too little". The sum of $15 million, I might point out, is only the minimum set aside for this purpose and, as has been promised by the government, a full review of the civil service is being made and many groups will benefit in the near future.
Amongst these no doubt will be the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This body of men have been notoriously underpaid ever since 1873. I would say that the basic pay is now more realistic, but there are still certain groups within that body, notably the sergeants and the superintendents, who are underpaid. Bearing in mind the responsibilities they hold and the service they are giving to this country I would recommend to the government that when they are making this review they give special consideration to these particular groups. I served for some 23 years with the mounted police; therefore I speak with firsthand information.
Although I have no doubt that we are moving forward and will continue to move forward, there is still one part of the population which has not come fully into its own, and that is the agriculture industry. In particular I refer to the small family farm. The bureau of statistics assures us that the family farm is now getting a fair share of the national income. I do not think this is quite accurate. I think agriculture has gone forward, and that total income has increased. However, we have an inequity in the agricultural picture. I see a tendency to return to the feudal system in agriculture, not on account of claims of birth or blood but on account of the claims of finance. Today our farms are highly mechanized. Today a farmer

needs a lot of capital, and it is not easy in a free economy to make capital available down to the level of the family farm.
I have consulted with farm groups who have come from all across Canada, and have tried to get them to define the family farm. They refuse to do so, and I think this failure is due to the fact that the better-off farmers are able to use their influence within their own groups to press for those things in agriculture which help the men with the most money. This tends to concentrate agricultural income into fewer and fewer hands, regardless of the increased income available to agriculture generally.
At this point I would ask permission to have the following tables printed in Hansard. The source is the dominion bureau of statistics
The Budget-Mr. Bigg census of Canada, and the tables purport to give the over-all figures of the number of farms in Canada in 1941, 1951 and 1956, and the number of farm holdings by size of farms in 1951 and 1956. These tables are too long to read at this time, and I think it would be for the convenience of the house if they were inserted in the record.


Paul Joseph James Martin: These figures are from the bureau of statistics?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to have the tables referred to printed in today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The tables referred to follow:]



TABLE 1. NUMBER OF FARMS IN CANADA, 1941, 1951 AND 1956

[Stage Direction]
CANADA	
Newfoundland	
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia...
19411	1951	1956
677,500
11.400
27,900
29.800
144.900
167,200
54.400
126.900
93,200
21.800
623,091
3,626
10,137
23,515
26,431
134,336
149,920
52,383
112,018
84,315
26,406
575,015
2,387
9,432
21,075
22,116
122,617
140,602
49,201
103.391
79,424
24,748
1 These are estimates based on the definition of farms used in 1951. Source: Census of Canada, D.B.S.

[Stage Direction]
1951	1956
Size of Farm	No.	%	No.	%	- Percentage changeTOTAL	
623,091	100.0	575,015	100.0	- 7.7Under 10 acres	
24,704	4.0	21,467	3.7	-13.110- 69 acres	
83,264	13.4	75,409	13.1	- 9.470- 239 " 	
293,872	47.2	261,799	45.6	-10.9240- 399 " 	
102,946	16.5	93,551	16.3	- 9.1400- 559 " 	
48,192	7.7	46,997	8.2	- 2.5560- 759 " 	
30,821	4.9	31,825	5.5	+ 3.3760-1,119 " 	
22,665	3.6	24,958	4.3	+10.11,120-1,599 " 	1.6	11,104	1.9	+ 12.21,600 acres and over	
6,728	1.1	7,905	1.4	+17.5
Source: Census of Canada, D.B.S.
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Bigg
Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: These tables show that there has been a great decline in the number of farms in Canada. Total acreage has not declined, but the number of farms has notably decreased with one exception, namely that in British Columbia the number of small holdings has increased.
This tendency to increase the size of our farms has a great many backers. The economists agree almost unanimously that the larger farms are more efficient. This means, of course, that you can produce more hogs in a large pen, more chickens in a large chicken house, and more cattle on a large ranch, with a corresponding reduction in the cost per head. It is also true that you can reduce the cost of grain per bushel as acreage increases.
I spent a good many years on a farm. I love the land, and so do most Canadians. It is not sentiment alone that gives us an attachment to the soil; it is a natural way of life. The small farmer on his own land is the happiest man in the world. He is healthy. He works hard. He produces natural wealth. He sleeps well, and he raises his family in the finest of surroundings. I can speak for the people in my district, some 65,000 strong, and say that our whole economy is based on the family farm.
I wish to bring to the attention of every person in Canada the fact that today the number of farmers is shrinking; the number of farm homes is declining; the number of children reared in rural surroundings is becoming fewer and fewer. Dollar efficiency is not the only question involved. We still want to draw on the farms for young men and young women who are healthy, strong and independent. I think this is an environment which must be retained. A few dollars today, properly invested in agriculture at the proper level, would help to do this.
This government is not approaching this question blindly. We have thought long and hard about this subject. A large number of hon. members who sit in this house today have a rural background, and we are trying hard to find a correct compromise between so-called efficiency and this rural way of life. I would have expected greater support from hon. members who have socialist views. They must see this trend, and at times they should be able to see that money wisely spent will help to accomplish what they claim they hope to accomplish, an even distribution of wealth. The program of this government is based on the retention of the family farm. Canada is still an agricultural country, and it is an agricultural exporting country.
Here again we have a double problem. If we decide to support the family farm this


will mean it is likely to cost more to produce our goods, which will then be more difficult to sell in a fiercely competitive world market. However, I think we can achieve a happy medium. If we retain the family farm and still make sure that we produce beyond our needs and turn these products loose on the markets of the world, we can stabilize our economy at home and still be a blessing to the world at large. In order to accomplish this we have to make sure that the family farm is secure, and that is why we have gone in for support prices. We would have no need for support prices were our markets capable of absorbing the whole of our production. But it is hard to get the money down to the family farms when it is being picked up by the corporations who are competing.
We instituted a system of price support for hogs. What happened? Money poured out of the cities, and the farmers were offered an illusory security. They were told that if they worked hard for the corporations they would make more money and be more secure than they would be on their own. Then when the hog market collapsed in the circumstances-because this system always results in overproduction-the corporations withdrew their money from the market. The farmer was unemployed. He rushed to the city, and we find him on the unemployment rolls. If he had stayed on his farm and we had been able to assist him to remain independent, this would not have occurred. It seems to me that our Department of Agriculture has done well to realize that the only way to stop this process is to set a quota on hogs and reduce government support to 100 units. This is not foolproof but it does tend to cut down the extent of vertical integration in the hog industry.
There are one or two other matters I should like to deal with concerning what may be done beyond the home front. Trade is our life blood, and anything we can do to balance our trade will attack this problem from another direction. If we can retain and increase our world markets there will be a greater call for all our agricultural products, and then perhaps there will be a future even for corporation farming. In order to do this we must take steps to reduce the cost of marketing our grain, of transporting it to the lakehead and across the ocean. This must be done more cheaply and efficiently. Anything we can do to diversify our agriculture should be done. We should encourage the growth of things like rapeseed for use in the production of edible and lubricating oil. If we can get our rapeseed put on Crowsnest pass freight

rates it will not only increase the return to the farmer but will make rapeseed oil competitive in the world markets.
Rapeseed is important at the present time in terms of our trade with Japan. Japan has been taking all the rapeseed we can produce. The production of rapeseed in western Canada is leaping ahead. If we can encourage farmers to put rapeseed into production in place of wheat in relation to certain acreages it will help us balance our trade, because rapeseed sells in the world market.
Transportation is very important in getting our goods to market. In my district of Athabasca I cannot exaggerate the necessity of improved transportation facilities. In an area of 60,000 square miles, three quarters of my district is absolutely without road communication of any kind. We do not even have air communication in a great many districts. At Fort Chipewyan, a community of 1,200 people, there is no road, no railway and no airstrip. It is true that in the summer one can land on the lake and in the winter when the lake freezes over it is possible to land on the icy surface, but for a period ranging from eight to ten weeks during the year this community of 1,200 people is completely cut off. We are going ahead with organizing the district so the community can take on the responsibility of a municipal airport.
The description I have given clearly indicates that Canada is still a pioneer country. These people are not whining for government help, but they do have to have it. The government must assist them in building the necessary facilities, just as we built the railroads for their fathers and grandfathers.
Roads still remain the most important link. As all hon. members know, roads are principally the responsibility of a province, but the government of the great province of Alberta has consistently refused to assist in the outlying districts, particularly in the northeast corner of the province.
If roads are to be built the federal government will have to assist in their construction. I think it has a perfectly good reason for doing so, because in the northeastern part of Alberta we have some of the finest tourist country in the whole of Canada. We have Wood Buffalo park with 15,000 buffalo. We have some of the finest fishing lakes in the world and some of the best hunting in the country. This is virgin territory with no roads, railways or other transportation. If the federal government were to assist in putting roads in there tourists, and particularly tourists from the United States, would flock in.
The Budget-Mr. Bigg
Some hon. members might wonder why I mention this in relation to trade, but tourist dollars are solid dollars. This is the most important kind of trade we can get at present to balance our trade with the United States. We want tourists, and in large numbers. We are not selling tourism in Canada as we should. We do not advertise the attractions of our country, and we do not even stay home and enjoy our own country. We spend far too much abroad which could be spent at home. All hon. members from eastern constituencies have a standing invitation to visit us in Alberta in September. We want you to come, and when you return we want you to tell everyone what you saw. When hon. members have done so people will come out west in large numbers.
It is useless to talk about agriculture, trade and the need for improved transportation if we do not have peace, and so I come down to the last and I think possibly the most important subject facing us today, the peace of the world and the defence of our nation. I suggest that this subject can be handled under two headings. We must be strong at home and we must be generous abroad. I am greatly assured, after hearing the speech of the Minister of National Defence, that we have a realistic approach to the defence of North America. If we keep North America strong and free it will serve as a launching pad for the peace of the world. Nothing less than a realistic approach to the defence of this continent is of any value. This is the time not for pacifism but for realism. It is a time to get ourselves in shape, physically, mentally and spiritually to accept this challenge. I repeat, we must be strong at home and generous abroad.
To be strong at home we need a strong air force. To understand what I mean you have only to visit Cold Lake airport, one of the finest airports in the world. You should see the morale of the men there in the Royal Canadian Air Force, the finest air force in the world. These boys are worried about the future of aviation and of the air force. I have told them and the Minister of National Defence has also told them that we are going to keep them flying. We are going to supply them with the finest up to date aircraft we can, bearing in mind our ability to produce and pay for such planes. I believe we will always need them. These boys are willing to fly the planes and, as I have said, I have assured them we will do everything in our power to see that they keep their wings. So much for the need of our being strong at home.
As my second point I mentioned that we must be generous abroad. We in Canada

The Budget-Mr. Carter have learned complete tolerance. We are going to love our neighbour in a completely practical way. We intend to do our best to feed him. We have a future here in Canada to produce all the food we can as cheaply as we can and give it to the people of the world as quickly and as inexpensively as we can; but in order to do this we must bear in mind that charity begins at home. We want to take a long look at the family farm and make sure our agricultural policies are long term policies that will keep the farm family on the farm.
I think the most forward step we have taken in that direction to date has been through the provision of acreage payments. We have given the small family farmer a little shot in the arm, a bit of assistance, but it is not enough. The farmers are in need, and perhaps particularly those in my district where they have sustained three crop failures in a row and are hard pressed. I would strongly urge upon the government that again in this year of holding the line wo do not hold it too rigidly. I urge the government to see that the family farmer receives temporary support when he needs it. In my opinion he still requires this assistance to help him get back on his feet and keep him in the running.
If we take action in this regard then our policies of price supports, farm credit, emergency assistance for crops under the snow, crop insurance, land protection and rehabilitation, irrigration and all the measures we have undertaken will work out to the advantage of all Canadians. If we have a strong and healthy farm community at home we will be in a position to assist those in underdeveloped countries who require our aid.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, the budget speech affords the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) an opportunity to review the national accounts of the year which has passed, to describe the financial health of the nation, and in general to give an accounting of the government's stewardship in handling the nation's business. In an economy such as ours which is based mainly on free enterprise the main duty of the government is to create as far as possible a favourable economic climate wherein free men by exercising their free decisions can operate the various kinds of business with a minimum of interference and a maximum of success.
The budget speech should therefore provide clear and accurate information in a simple form so as to be readily accessible to the public. It should also contain an accurate account of all the financial activities of the government, a forecast of the economic


weather that is likely to be encountered during the coming year, and it should indicate what adjustments the government is making to meet the situation and what part the public will have to play in this regard as well.
Since no government plans or action can be successful without the wholehearted cooperation of the people it is important that the people not only know and understand what defects exist in our economy but also how they came about, what forces caused them and how these forces can be neutralized or reversed.
If we appraise the budget by these standards I think it is fair to say that while it does contain a few items that will be welcomed by the Canadian people it also has some glaring deficiencies which will cause a great deal of disappointment to thinking people who are looking for clear, positive leadership at this very crucial period in our history. I would not wish for one minute to detract any credit or commendation from the minister for his efforts to achieve a balanced budget or for his easing of the double impact of the estate and income tax on the widows and children of deceased taxpayers.
I welcome also the increased payments to the lower paid civil servants. True, it is only an item of $15 million and only about 50,000 or one third of the total civil service force will benefit from it. Still it is better than nothing and I commend the minister for doing even that. But I must tell him at the same time that it destroys the argument that he used on a former occasion when he turned down a request of the civil service because of the high cost to the government as he stated at that time. Fifteen million dollars is not a very huge expenditure and if we can afford it this year I think we could very well have afforded it last year and perhaps have alleviated a great deal of the hardship which some of these poorly paid civil servants have had to undergo in the meantime.
The minister's efforts to enable us to live better electrically will no doubt be welcomed by people setting up new homes. It will help in some measure to reduce the cost of furnishing homes and in that way offset the rising costs due to the high interest rates that have to be paid on mortgages. But while giving the minister full marks for all these points, we cannot assess them at their true value unless we know their true cost and also know the motive that lies behind them.
It is interesting to note that a surplus, which was denounced as something very wicked by the minister and his party prior to the 1957 election, has now seemed to

acquire at least a small measure of virtue. I do not know whether the virtue is to be measured by the size of the surplus. If so, we hope it will grow. But the difference between a $12 million deficit and a $12 million surplus will have a rather negligible effect on the economy and if that surplus is being acquired at the expense of hardship to certain individual Canadians or at the expense of the development of certain underdeveloped parts of our country, then I think we may very likely be paying too high a price for it. Also, if it is being acquired at the expense of an increase in veterans war pensions, which is more urgently needed at this time than in any past year, then again I doubt whether it is worth the cost. If in addition to this cost the motive behind it is purely political so that a balanced budget can be achieved before the next election, then, of course, that destroys its worth completely.
As the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) pointed out yesterday, there is a great deal of disappointment that the budget indicates that nothing is to be done to ease the cost of production in the fishing industry. The suggestions made by the fisheries council of Canada in this regard have not received favourable consideration. They were very modest requests and not only very practical but vital to the welfare of the fishing industry. The removal of the tax on diesel fuel would not mean a very large cost to the federal treasury but it would wipe out a great deal of discrimination between different types of fishing vessels and at the same time would enable the fish to be produced more cheaply. Not even the insignificant request that the tax be removed on diesel oil used in generating electricity within the fishing industry has received favourable consideration even though this privilege is and has been enjoyed by the mining industry for some years. The cost of drying fish is one of the main factors which will decide whether or not we can compete in foreign markets. The removal of the sales tax on imported driers and imported parts for maintenance would again be a great help to the fishing industry, but no special consideration has been given to any of these requests.
Also, there is nothing in the budget to indicate any encouragement of the development of our resources in the Atlantic provinces. There are no special tax incentives to induce enterprises to establish themselves in the maritimes and no word as to whether there is to be a modification of the industrial development bank or whether a development corporation is to be set up to introduce a measure of flexibility into our economy.
The Budget-Mr. Carter Therefore we must conclude from the budget that the maritimes, or the Atlantic provinces, must still bear the full brunt of the bad effect of tight money and, at the same time, there will be no easing of the dollar premium which is a great handicap to our fish exporters who sell to the United States markets.
It seems to me that the main criticism of the budget is that it does not show any positive leadership. There is no recognition of the problems, no reappraisal, agonizing or otherwise, of the government's policies and no redirection of our economy.
The problems of the uneven development of our resources, to which I have just referred, which is a direct result of tight money and high interest rates; the growing hard core of the unemployed during relative prosperity; the pattern of unemployment which involves a much higher percentage of the work force in the Atlantic provinces than in other parts of Canada; the dangerous balance of our trade payments, especially in so far as invisible exports are concerned; our mounting debt, public and private; the high interest rates which have been frozen for some years to come by the uncallable bonds that the minister has put on the market; the effects that we must expect through automation; all of these problems have been entirely ignored. Apparently the government is operating on the principle that if we ignore them and leave them alone long enough they will go away of their own accord.
On this score the government has no reason to be proud of its stewardship. We know from the budget that the government's estimated expenditures for the coming year amount to $5,880 million. If we look at the estimates for 1957-58, which were the last estimates introduced by the former administration, we find that the estimated expenditures were $4,827 million, exactly $1 billion less. If we study the budget papers, at page 19 we find that the total federal expenditure for 1959 amounted to $6,359 million, and that the figure for 1957 was $5,337 million, again an increase of $1 billion in expenditures since this government took office.
If we look at page 18 of the budget papers and study the effect on the taxpayer and if we exclude the investment income we find that the total amount of money taken from the taxpayers in 1957 was roughly $5,300 million, but last year the government took $334 million more than this. If the minister's estimates are right for the coming year and are as accurate as he has boasted about last year's estimates, then he will take an extra $592 million from the Canadian taxpayers. I emphasize these figures, Mr. Speaker, because they come ill from a government which made
2922	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Carter so much fuss about waste and extravagance prior to the 1957 election, and which was elected on a firm pledge to cut expenditures by $500 million; a government which had also pledged not only to cut expenditures but to cut taxes as well. Therefore, these figures are interesting in that they highlight the wide discrepancy between the promises of this government before election and their performance since election.
If we look at the public debt-again on the same page of the budget papers-we find the same picture. In 1957 the interest on the public debt was $519 million; in 1959 it was $678 million, or $150 million more. If we look at the estimates for 1960-61 we find that the interest on the public debt is estimated at $774 million, which means an extra $250 million, which is going to be, as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Beni-dickson) pointed out yesterday, a millstone which will hang around the necks of Canadians for many years to come.
It is unfortunate that we have so little information concerning private debt. I placed a question on the order paper some time ago and the answer, as recorded at page 2383 of Hansard, showed that in 1949 the total consumer debt of Canadians amounted to $582 million, but in 1959 the consumer debt of Canadians had increased to $2,076 million. These figures are not exactly comparable because they are different kinds of dollars. But if we reduce the $2,076 million of 1959 into 1949 dollars we get $1,490 million, which means an increase of $900 million in consumer debt during the last 10 years. Not only has consumer debt and public debt both increased, but interest rates have increased as well.
At page 2672 of Hansard the minister made reference to productivity. He said the following:
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.
I have been interested in this question of productivity for some time. I spent a whole week end in the library trying to discover information on this subject. Unfortunately, however, there does not seem to be any information available. We do not know what our man-hour productivity is here in Canada either in general terms or in specific industries. We do not even know what manhours are worked each year. However, we know that the gross national product has increased by 3J per cent. If we take into consideration the number of people who have had jobs during the year, it would appear that there is a slight increase in our productivity. But when we take into account


the extra productivity in the agriculture industry, it is doubtful whether there has been any actual increase in productivity in the other sectors of our economy.
This question of productivity is of immense importance because unless we have some information about it we shall not be able to measure the effects of automation on productivity when its impact is fully felt. At present automation has not had a great effect on Canadian industry. For most Canadian small businesses automation machines are too expensive to be employed by them. However, the time is coming when these machines will be much cheaper and will be available to small industries. That day may not be far distant. A radio report this morning indicated that it might come within the next 10 years. When it comes it is going to bring with it a whole new set of social and economic problems. What are we doing to prepare for it? Certainly one of the first steps toward the preparation must be to make a study so that we shall have at our disposal accurate information on man-hour productivity in Canadian industry.
The inadequacy of our present economic system is increased by this lack of information. It is further complicated because we do not have an absolute unit with which to measure our wealth. How would we manage if we were obliged to use a yard or a pound that was different every year? No scientific progress was possible until absolute physical standards were evolved for length, weight and volume. Yet we measure our wealth in terms of a dollar that changes, not only from year to year but during the year as well. In fact, it changes practically every day in the year.
We are living in times when it is imperative that business firms and industry should be able to make rapid and accurate comparisons of cost control, price increases, efficiency and productivity at very short notice. But how can this be done with a unit that is constantly changing? Then again the dollar is not only a unit for measuring wealth, it is in addition a medium of exchange and on some occasions a commodity bought and sold on the world market. This situation raises a question as to whether these functions are compatible with each other. Should we not therefore have a royal commission to look into this subject and bring forward recommendations that can be used at least to introduce a measure of simplicity into our system?
In conclusion I should like to commend the minister for the little bit of indirect advice-

he gave to the people of Canada as reported at page 2672 of Hansard. This is what he said:
Canadians can increase their own domestic capital and make this country financially more self-reliant if they are prepared to practise increased efficiency, productivity and thrift.
Then he goes on to say this, and this is the punch line:
This responsibility falls on all levels of government, private business and individuals.
And, I presume, on the minister himself. It is true that we can do this as Canadians and we should do it. However, I think the burning question is this: Will we do it? When we are obliged to choose between the national interest and our own narrow selfinterest do we as Canadians have sufficient self-discipline to put the national interest first?
I raised this question in the committee on railways, air lines and shipping a week or so ago. Mr. Donald Gordon complimented me on my altruism but he went on to say that in the hard bargaining that goes on between labour and management in working out their agreements he felt it is a little overoptimistic to expect that the national interest should be the overriding factor. However, unless the national interest becomes the overriding factor, these suggestions which the minister made will not produce any tangible effect.
Some time ago the Duke of Edinburgh called attention to our lack of physical fitness and most people in Canada agreed with him. Many editorials were written in praise and support of what the duke said. However, I think we need to ask ourselves whether this physical softness-if this physical softness is a fact-is not a reflection of our inner softness, our moral softness, our mental softness, our reluctance to do any hard thinking. If this is a fact, is it not true that most of our economic problems can be traced directly to this source?
We Canadians need to ask ourselves whether we are not a self-indulgent, pleasureseeking, security-minded people, whether we are able to distinguish between our wants and our needs and whether we have the necessary self-discipline to make the right decision with the right motive.
As I was coming to work this morning I met a friend who told me a story about a farmer, and he used this story to illustrate the people's attitude toward government. This story came to my mind as I listened to the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) who preceded me in this debate. Illustrating the people's attitude toward government generally, he pointed to a litter of pigs in his pen and said, "That is just like it: those that
The Budget-Mr. MacRae are not sucking are squealing". And there may be a lot of truth in that statement.
In any case, if the minister's suggestions are going to bear any fruit, what Canada must have is a new concept of living, a new sense of purpose, and above all a new unifying idea which will enable us all to rise and work concertedly together, not only in the national interest but in the interests of the world as a whole.
Two weeks ago there was distributed to every home in Canada a little pamphlet called "Ideology and Co-Existence". I hope every Canadian will read this pamphlet not once but many times, because it not only describes the problems of mental softness and moral softness and the dangers inherent in them, but it also provides the answers to those problems as well.


Mr. J. C. MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my first words in contribution to this debate must be to compliment the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) upon his budget and his presentation of it. There is no question that in the next few weeks, perhaps the next few months, there will be many things said about this budget, many things complimentary and many things which are not complimentary. But over the week end I read these words in one of Canada's greatest newspapers in describing the budget which had been brought down. This newspaper said, "It was sound, it was solid, it was business-like and it was competent". I think those words are most applicable not only to the budget, to the minister and to his handling of his department, but also to the government of this country as it is constituted today.
In discussing the points which are brought out in the budget there are only two that I would like to discuss at this time. The first is the raise given to the civil servants. I think a very fine thing was done by this government in giving a raise to 50,000 clerks and those who are lower paid. I think they will welcome it; I am sure they will. I know that the representations which I have had from my own constituency in which there is a fairly high percentage of civil servants have been most reasonable at all times, and I know they will welcome this particular move on the part of the government. I think, too, that the review of civil service salaries in cycles and by groups is the correct and proper way to approach this particular problem.
I am distressed, as I am sure most thinking Canadians are, by the attitude which has been taken by certain of the leaders of the civil service association and the civil service federation. The language they have used as

The Budget-Mr. MacRae reported in the press over the last months is something you would expect to see perhaps in the Canadian Sailor, or something of that category. Of course, I am sure these gentlemen are honourable people, but they are trying to justify their own salaries as all union leaders try to justify their salaries. I think they have said many things which should never have been said. They should realize that this government will not be bludgeoned and bullied into doing anything. I think all Canadians are learning that the government will treat everyone fairly at all times.
There was another point brought out in the budget, and that was the relief given to the textile industry, especially to cotton milling firms. That was especially interesting to me because in my constituency we have a small cotton milling town which has been having a rather difficult time. We used to say years ago that you should never reinforce failure. Well, you should not, but I do not think the textile industry in this country should yet be considered a failure. I think it can be saved even in the face of competition from Japan, United States and other countries. This measure was most welcome to me and I am sure to the people of my constituency also.
For the few minutes I have today I should like to discuss a subject which is very dear to my heart, and that is the economy of Atlantic Canada, our maritime economy. I suppose that Upper Canadians, or sometimes we just call them Canadians, are tired of listening to this but it is something about which we feel very strongly. All of those who live in Atlantic Canada are interested in that part of the country and wish to stay there. Their roots are there and they would like to have their families remain there. We know that at confederation the maritime provinces were the most wealthy part of this country and the most heavily settled. We know, too, that in 1864 they were planning a maritime union. The father of our country, Sir John A. Macdonald, heard of this and hurried down to persuade them that rather than unite they should come into Canada as they were. Then in 1867 New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, along with Upper and Lower Canada, that is, Ontario and Quebec, united to form this great dominion. But this was not accepted by our people entirely. Of course, now they have forgotten, although peoples' memories are long and these things are handed down, but they hung black crepe on the doors in Halifax and Saint John on the first day of July, 1867.
From 1867 up until perhaps 1950 our economy has never been able to keep pace with the rest of Canada. We have dropped


steadily back from an economic point of view. We know, of course, what our contribution has been to this country in war time. Those who met the men who served who came from the maritimes in the two great wars, great numbers of them, know the contribution they made. We all know what their contribution has been in peace. Great political figures have come from the maritimes to lead this country. Nova Scotia provided three prime ministers of Canada including the great Sir Robert Laird Borden. New Brunswick provided Richard Bedford Bennett and a prime minister of Great Britain, Bonar Law. We have provided industrialists, leaders of the church, of professions and education, such as the late Hon. Sidney Smith, so recently deceased, and other men of that calibre.
But this is changing. During the last decade in the maritime provinces there has been progress, and there has been progress for two reasons. I think the first one is that the people of Atlantic Canada are trying to raise themselves economically by their bootstraps. In fact they sometimes refer to it down there as "Operation Bootstrap".
One of the steps taken, and there are two I would like to discuss, has been the meetings of the Atlantic premiers which were instituted some seven or eight years ago, when the premiers of the four Atlantic provinces, regardless of their party affiliation began meeting to try to work out and do something about their mutual problems. Our own able and distinguished premier of New Brunswick, Hon. Hugh John Flemming, has always taken an active and leading part in these conferences.
Then there is another body which I have mentioned before but would like to mention again, the Atlantic provinces economic council, which was founded in 1954. Many things have been said about it, but here is a quotation from one of the Ottawa papers:
The letters "APEC"-
They stand of course for Atlantic provinces economic council.
-spell out a symbol of a new and united determination of the Atlantic provinces to force consideration ... and correction ... of economic problems of that area upon the rest of Canada. This is a citizen body now busily working to inform and consolidate public opinion behind the proposals of the four provincial governments for the development of these provinces.
From their statement of policy I should like to put a few words on record in this house as follows:
What APEC is.
The Atlantic provinces economic council is a voluntary association of industry, business organization and of individuals. Its objective is the raising of the economic status of the Atlantic provinces region.

APEC is non-political and non-profit making. Its basic idea lies in the man with an idea, an organization with a plan, a government with a policy, and is designed to produce economic betterment within the region and the Canadian nation as a whole. Just as in any organization where there are only men, it is always strengthened and made better because women take some part. The women of the Atlantic provinces now have their own women's Atlantic council.
Last September the annual meeting of the Atlantic provinces economic council was held in my home city of Fredericton and I had the opportunity to attend. I was amazed at the amount of work which these businessmen, leaders of the professions and others were doing. It is hoped that at the annual meeting in Halifax this fall there will be in attendance all the maritime senators and members of parliament.
Another excellent step which was taken because of APEC was the formation in London, England of the Atlantic provinces office under a very able businessman, Watson Jamer, who has already been successful in bringing some industry to Atlantic Canada. I was interested in a report in the press with regard to the possibility of further development of mineral sites in northern New Brunswick. Some of us believe there is a reserve of minerals in this area second to none in the world. The mines there which have been quiescent for the last year or two because of economic conditions affecting minerals will be going back into production, and that is most encouraging news to us.
Yes, we are showing initiative now in Atlantic Canada, and we are taking action with regard to our economic problems. We have one of the greatest basic assets-a stable, eager work force. We have electric power, and all we need is industry.
I should like to say that this government has done much for us since 1957. The equalization grants have been of great help in providing the money to do things which otherwise we could not have done; the aid given to our province in respect of electrical development-the building of thermal plants and transmission lines-has also been extremely valuable. I should like to quote a few figures which I have assembled in preparation for my contribution to this debate showing the expenditures in New Brunswick in two contrasting years. I will use the two years 1955, under the previous administration, and 1959. The comparison is interesting.
79951-0-185
The Budget-Mr. MacRae
Department	1955	1959Agriculture Acquisition of buildings	$ 42,000	$ 346,000Finance Compensation in lieu of taxes 	17,000,000	30,000,000Payments to municipalities 	218,000	925,000Fisheries Fish culture and development 	155,000	204,000Research 	449,000	803,000National Health and Welfare Hospital and health grants	1,400,000	1,700,000Northern Affairs Construction of buildings	113,000	597,000Forestry operations contributions 	19,000	61,000Spruce budworm program	314,000	452,000Public Works Construction and improvements 	1,790,000	5,000,000Trans-Canada highway contributions 	510,000	11,000,000R.C.M.P. Acquisition of buildings	142,000	400,000Transport Acquisition of buildings and vessels	289,000	2,410,000
I have used round figures because I just wanted to point out the things which this government is doing for the Atlantic provinces.
I have, too, a clipping from a recent newspaper containing an article from the Canadian Press which reads as follows:
Private and public investment in the Atlantic provinces is expected to reach a record $563 million in 1960, the Atlantic provinces economic council said today.
I should like to say a word about York-Sunbury, my own constituency. This has been the most successful year, I believe, in the history of that part of New Brunswick. I mentioned earlier how happy the people of Marysville would be over the tariff protection which is now to be accorded to their products. The Minto coal field in central New Brunswick has produced more coal this past year than ever before in its history. The new town of Oromocto beside Camp Gagetown continues to grow. We hope the new Department of Agriculture research station, costing nearly $2 million, will be ready this fall. We are experiencing a building boom second to none in our history.
Unemployment has been mentioned in this house on many occasions. It is true there are men and women who are unemployed in Fredericton as elsewhere, but I should like to tell the house about something that happened a few weeks ago. The daily Gleaner,

The Budget-Mr. MacRae the Fredericton newspaper, offered as a public service to those who were unemployed, the opportunity to advertise in its classified columns without cost it they wanted work. There were some 2,400 men and women drawing unemployment insurance benefits. After a few days had passed, and it had become known in the area that men and women could advertise without cost to themselves in the local paper, I decided to see how many people were actually advertising. The results were interesting. The first day I checked there were 17. The next day there were nine, and of these nine, most were repeats from the day before. One was the advertisement of a lady attempting to get pupils for piano lessons, and another was that of a high school girl who wanted to do baby sitting. I think there is a lesson here which we should take into account when we think of our unemployment figures today.
Another point which I think should be mentioned is this. I do not think unemployment should be used as a political football. I can remember the time after the election of 1957 when perhaps on occasion discussion in this house became acrimonious. In particular, I remember well one night when the opposition asked for unemployment figures. They were given, and they were considerably higher than they had been. As a matter of fact, they were higher than many of us would have liked to see. I recall that there were members of the Liberal opposition at that time who, like Horatius on the bridge, could scarce forbear to cheer. I remember only too well two of them in particular who did cheer at that point, the former hon. member for Portneuf and the former hon. member for Charlotte. Neither of them were here after March 31, 1958.
As I have said, we are raising ourselves by our bootstraps in the maritimes. However, there are one or two matters which I should like to bring to the attention of the government, things which I feel might be done to help us down there. I may say that none of us want any part of Canada to be a second class area. There must be no second class Canadians and no second class areas of Canada. First, I should like to suggest to the government that more defence orders and public service contracts should be allocated to maritime firms. I suggest this might be done along the same lines as it is done in the United States. In each defence department procurement agency there is a small industries division which can set aside all or part of a government order for military supplies for tendering only by small firms if it is felt these companies can do the job. Most of these small industries are to be found in the retarded areas of the country.

In addition, the 6 per cent preference given under the buy American act to United States firms over foreign companies in bidding for government orders is extended to 12 per cent in the case of labour surplus areas. Before awarding any contract for government supplies to a firm in an areas that has no unemployment problems, any bidder from a labour surplus area whose tender has been within 20 per cent of the successful firm is given a second opportunity to match the latter's price and get the order. The federal government's recently instituted policy of calling for tenders from maritime shipyards only for the building of certain vessels for service on the east coast is a step in the right direction.
Second, we hear much about freight rates. It is our firm belief in Atlantic Canada that there must be a revision of the freight rate structure. As there is a royal commission studying this particular matter perhaps it would not be apt at this point to discuss it further but we certainly hope that the commission will see fit to recommend that provision be made for doing something about our freight rates and the difficulties they impose.
With respect to a capital projects program, we have three pet projects in the maritimes at this moment. First there is the Chignecto canal which we sincerely hope engineering and economic studies will prove should be built. I think all hon. members from the Atlantic provinces regardless of party affiliations stand firmly behind it. There may be one or two exceptions but I know that all those who come from New Brunswick stand behind it completely.
The second project is the causeway which, if it were built, would join Canada to Prince Edward Island. There is a difference there, you will see, between joining Prince Edward Island to Canada and joining Canada to Prince Edward Island.
Finally, there is the corridor road project. This is a plan to build a road across central or northern Maine which would link the maritimes with Montreal and central Canada.
I wish to advance the suggestion that provision should be made for low rate capital loans for new industries and the provision of income tax concessions to industries that might locate in the maritime provinces. We have an economic problem there and there is no question about it. I suppose the government of a country can grow too large but I should like to suggest to the distinguished leader of our government that perhaps the time has arrived when there should be appointed a minister of Atlantic affairs just as we have a minister of northern

affairs. We have the problems and we have the men there to solve them under proper direction. If that suggestion were not practical I would suggest as an alternative that a department of government be set up to deal with Atlantic affairs possibly under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton). I think that suggestion commends itself and I would ask the government and the distinguished leader of our country to take my suggestions into consideration.
In conclusion, may I say that the decade that has recently concluded has been one of awakening and of renewed hope in Atlantic Canada. Under the able leadership of our Conservative government we are now confident that many of our hopes and aspirations will be achieved in the decade we are now entering.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting everyone in this chamber. There is a horrible draft at this moment in the chamber.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) relate in any way to the fact that I am rising in my place or to the fact that the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae) has just resumed his seat.
In the few brief minutes at my disposal before we reach the private members' hour perhaps I may make a few general comments about the reference in the budget to increasing the salaries of some civil servants. I refer to the $15 million interim payment to some 50,000 civil servants and following that, as I understood it, a class by class review with respect to other civil servants. This sounds like a job evaluation study or a co-operative wage study as referred to in private industry in which each job-for instance, that of a stenographer-is assessed and assigned a certain position in the wage structure. A job evaluation program is complex and requires great study and negotiation between union and management and does not occur overnight.
I understood that this was to be one of the functions of the pay research bureau. I understood it was to assess jobs in the public service and relate them to like jobs in private industry evaluating the differences and making recommendations for adjustments in the wage scale applicable to each job category.
The bureau some time ago completed a full year's study in this field and made recommendations through the unemployment insurance commission to the Minister of Finance who promptly shelved it and said he would 79951-0-1854
Private Bills-Divorce have nothing to do with the recommendation. Now the bureau is again carrying on the same function for next year. It makes one wonder if the $15 million arose out of the recommendations of the bureau or if it is just a figure the present minister took out of a hat for a particular purpose and not to equate wages in the civil service and industry.
If the $15 million arose from the recommendations of the bureau surely the minister is duty bound to make the report public. If he insists on keeping it as a secret document we are entitled to draw other conclusions.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-35, for the relief of Joseph Alphonse Yves Jean Gabriel Lalonde-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the last three or four bills we have considered have involved the same individuals as investigator and as counsel for the petitioner and certain patterns have developed as a result of the functions of these two gentlemen. This case is again one of those in which children are involved. There are two teen age children. There is reference in the evidence to where they have been living, with whom they have been living and so on. I do not wish to suggest that there is anything whatsoever wrong with the existing arrangement. In 1955 the petitioner received a legal separation from the superior court of Quebec and was also awarded custody of the two children at the same time. This couple have been separated since 1949.
From reading the evidence it would appear on the surface at least that the attitude and activities of the respondent or mother were not in the least in keeping with what one would expect of a wife and mother. Apparently she absented herself from the home at times and went with people other than her husband. This behaviour continued for quite some time. She would go away for a few days at a time. They have been separated for some 11 years and the father has had the custody of the children. I do not wish to draw any conclusions with regard to this arrangement but certainly after a separation or divorce, regardless of which parent has legal custody of the children, I think the other parent should have the opportunity to spend time with the children because after all the children are theirs.

Private Bills-Divorce
But with this background and having in mind the fact that in 1955 the father obtained a legal separation and custody of the children, none the less the evidence given to the Senate committee by the petitioner or father indicates, as shown on page 15, that one of the children, the daughter, has lived with her mother at times in New York, Montreal and Ste. Adele. Apparently the daughter moves back and forth from the father to the mother. Regardless of the legal position with respect to custody of the children, it would seem that this situation has existed for some time.
In this case there was also some discussion between the husband and the wife about a divorce. I intend to read the evidence to indicate precisely what the discussion was. I do not want to run afoul of the hon. member for Halifax and have him accuse me of selecting phrases and words out of the evidence in order to paint a particular picture. I suggest to him that in all fairness I have not attempted to do that on any occasion, and if the hon. member for Halifax is going to rise and suggest that is what I am doing in this case then my only alternative is to read all the evidence into the record, which will take considerably more time. There are two references with respect to the discussion about divorce. As found on page 14, Mr. Joyal, counsel for the petitioner, asked the petitioner questions about arrangements. He said:
Q. Did you make any arrangements with your wife so that she might give you evidence for the purpose of obtaining a divorce before this committee?
A. No. In 1956 she came back to Montreal, about four or five months after I found she was in Garden City. She came back and phoned me and wanted to meet me. She said that if I had no objections she was going to take divorce proceedings and I said, no, and she wanted to see a lawyer and apparently she did not go through with it.
Apparently the wife wanted to make some arrangements for a divorce but the husband said no, he did not want to have anything to do with it. Certain other evidence found on page 13 is probably connected with the desire on the part of the wife to obtain a divorce. About a third of the way down the page Senator Isnor asked this question:
Q. Who was the man? Were you given the name?
This was after the petitioner had indicated that he had found out that his wife was living with someone else. The petitioner replied:
A. His name was ... She was living with him at-
Then he gave the address in Garden City, Long Island.
About a year afterwards she was in the Lauren-tians and she came to my office and introduced this Mr.... to me. I thought that was a little odd.

He may have thought it a little odd but I think we are entitled to wonder whether or not this was also an indication on the part of the wife that she was desirous of getting a divorce, that she wanted to show him the particular person she was living with and perhaps indicate that everything would be all right one way or another if they could get a divorce.
Then there is the evidence of the investigators and again we have Mr. Charron who has acted in a number of these cases. His evidence is again stereotyped and it makes one wonder whether or not what he says happened is in fact all that occurred. Again I must say that I did not hear the remarks that the hon. member for Halifax made from his seat on the last occasion when these bills were being dealt with but in looking at Hansard I find that he inquired whether I never believed anyone who testified under oath. That is not the case at all, neither in this nor in any other instance. This is the evidence given by Mr. Charles Charron and he is bound by it. When one questions that evidence one is not saying that the evidence is incorrect or that Mr. Charron has perjured himself, but it may well be that the full story has not been told. There is often quite a difference between being told the complete story and only part of the story. Where the evidence is not clear, where there are incongruities or strange things seem to exist, we are entitled to wonder about these things and relate them to the other activities in the case. I do not know whether Mr. Joyal or the members of the Senate committee did not want to deal with these things. I think it is necessary to refer to the full examination by Mr. Joyal of Charles Charron, the investigator, and I read from the evidence:
Q. X show you exhibit 2 in this case, which is a photograph?
A. That is Mrs. ... That is the photograph I had at the time of the investigation.
Q. What investigation did you make with respect to her?
A. I got all the information from Mr. Hetu-
I am jumping to a conclusion here but I believe he was the lawyer who arranged the legal separation in 1955.
-that she was living in New York at... Garden City, Long Island, so I went there.
Q. What date?
A. On the 18th of February, 1959.
Q. What happened?
A. We went to ... about 8 o'clock in the morning-
When he says "we" he is talking about himself and his partner Mr. Morin. I continue:
A. We went to-about eight o'clock in the morning and at nine o'clock we saw a man come out and he went away. We stayed there and at 10.30 we saw a woman come out, Mrs.-the lady on that picture, and she went to a shopping centre not

far from there. She had her dinner at the shopping centre, in the restaurant, and came back home with some parcels at 2.30 in the afternoon, and at six at night we saw the same man who went out in the morning come in and at ten o'clock we saw the light go out and at 11.30 we went to the door and there was a big mailbox marked, "-" on the mailbox.
He refers to the name of the corespondent. I continue:
We rang the doorbell several times before the same man we saw going up there at six o'clock came and opened the door. We went in.
All the way in; there was no argument at this stage about asking who he was, or what his name was; he just went in. He went not only in through the door, but into the bedroom. He said:
We went to the bedroom on the left hand side and Mrs.-was lying in the bed, a full size bed. I went near the bed and said, "You are Mrs.-?". She said yes. I showed her the photograph and she admitted that it was a photograph taken of her. So I says to the man, "You are Mr.-?" And he admitted it and he says, "What's this for?" And I told him it was divorce proceedings that Mr.- was taking against his wife, so the man started to get mad and pushed us out and we went out.
Finally, after all of this the man started to get mad. This is very stereotyped sort of evidence that Mr. Charron is quite adept at giving. He seems to glory in it, after having discovered probably that this is the type of evidence that is necessary to meet the tests established by the other place with respect to divorce.
I point out again, if I may, Mr. Chairman, that here are two strangers, unknown to the respondent and the corespondent. Not only that, they are not in the same city and often not in the same country. They are in New York, in Garden City on Long Island, and at 11.30 in the evening after the lights have been out for an hour and a half-and I assume that if this couple were living together as man and wife, as the evidence would indicate they might well have been asleep by that time-this man rang the doorbell several times and a gentleman came to the door and opened it and the two strangers walked in. They walked into the bedroom and asked questions. They asked the lady in bed what was her name and to identify the picture. They got an admission from her as to who she was. Then the man started to get mad, after all this had taken place.
As I indicated before in another case, this might well happen in one instance, but I submit it is stretching coincidence a bit to assume that in every case that Mr. Charron gets involved in the self-same things occur. He goes to a door; he knocks on the door; someone opens it. He walks in to the apartment, the house, or whatever it is. He walks into the bedroom without being asked one question
Private Bills-Divorce by anybody. He inquires of whoever is in bed what is his or her name. He shows a photograph, and then suddenly the individual who opens the door starts to get a little mad. Perhaps I should express these doubts. I doubt very much whether Mr. Charron was telling the exact truth when he made that statement. The man might have got mad in one particular case, but I do not think you could stretch it to the point of saying that it was absolutely true in each case that Mr. Charron happens to be involved in. I doubt whether this is what occurs.
I submit also that the evidence given by the petitioner is not quite accurate. The wife came back to Montreal in 1956, and about four or five months after her husband discovered that she was in Garden City. She came back and said she wanted a divorce; she was going to take divorce proceedings if he had no objection. On another occasion she brought the gentleman with whom she was living, the corespondent in this case, to the petitioner and introduced him. I submit that in this case there was agreement. There is no argument. There is no contest, and she undoubtedly was not the least bit surprised, neither was the corespondent, when at 11.30 at night a couple of strangers came knocking on their door, walked into the bedroom and asked them what their names were, showed them photographs and then left. I submit there is quite a bit of understanding with respect to this particular case in so far as getting the evidence before the committee is concerned.
There is one other incident which makes one wonder, not about this particular subject matter of divorce but about another matter submitted in evidence. I do not want to put a construction upon someone's words to express what was not there or a thought that was not there, but a particular word or phrase is used which in some circles is taken to mean, not something dishonest particularly but the putting on of a show in order to obtain a certain thing. In some circles it is called a front. When someone puts on a bit of a front it leaves the impression that he is a pretty decent chap, and so on, or that he is using it to gain some other end. This is commonly referred to as a front. This gentleman used this, and I wonder whether it might not be the subject matter of some investigation. At page 13, Senator Isnor asked this question:
Q. Do you still support her?
A. No, I am not supporting her because in 1955, having to make a request to the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for a radio station, I wanted to put up a front in the Laurentian where I intended to establish a radio station, and I ordered a house built for her in Ste. Adele.

Private Bills-Divorce
I do not know that there is anything wrong with that. The use oi that word would indicate that he wanted to leave an impression with the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that he was established in this particular area so that he might get a radio station. This might well require some investigation by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in order to find just how people happen to get radio stations, and whether it is necessary to put on a front to get them.
This is quite apart from adultery in the case itself. Because of the activities of this particular woman during the period of their marriage when they were living together; the husband coming home and finding someone else in his place; the wife being away for a few days and living with another gentleman, and so on, this might put a different complexion on the case. Apart from this, though, apart from the fact that it looks as if there were some arrangement, there was no surprise to the respondent and the corespondent to find someone knocking on their door at 11.30, and so on, and walking in and asking certain questions about divorce, I submit there is a great deal more to talk about than the conduct of the wife herself.


Mr. Peters:: I should like to say a few words on this case because it is unique in that this is the first time there has been an international incident in relation to one of these cases that has come before us. I am greatly surprised that in the state of New York there does not seem to be more objection taken to the method of operation, as outlined by the hon. member for Skeena, of detectives in relationship to the rights of privacy and private property. Something that surprises me in this case is in connection with Mr. Joyal. First I should like to inquire whether Mr. Joyal is the lawyer in these particular cases or whether he is only retained as counsel who handles them in Ottawa and the legal case is handled by somebody else, and that all he does is to present the case. Maybe the sponsor of the bill would like to answer that question.


Mr. McCleave:: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Joyal is an Ottawa lawyer. It sometimes happens in these cases that a Montreal notary- as I think the description is-will start the case and will here counsel here in Ottawa.


William Arnold Peters: I thank the sponsor for that information. I think it excuses Mr. Joyal in some respects, in relation to his questions, as to which he might not otherwise be excused. But I am rather surprised that the legal counsel always get answers to the questions they ask. In this case in particular one


of the senators, namely Senator Isnor, asks a question in two separate instances and these questions are not answered. I checked back over some of the other cases in order to find out whether this had been an instance where the Hansard reporters did not get the answer or just did not follow it. I find that when this is done the Hansard reporter or the clerk who is taking down the verbatim report always puts at the end of the question a notation to the effect that an answer was made but it was indistinguishable to the clerk or the reporter. In this case, for instance we find the following questions asked by Senator Isnor:
Q. What do you mean by Montreal?-Where do you say your daughter is?
A. She is in Montreal living with her mother.
Q. How long did you live and cohabit together after your marriage?
A. How long?
This question, of course, is not answered. The question is re-asked:
Q. Roughly, how many years?
There is no answer to the question. We go on to page 13 of the evidence and we find that Senator Isnor again asks the question:
Q. Did she occupy the home you had built?
There is no answer. I am surprised that the senators, when they did not get answers to these questions did not pursue the questioning a little bit further.
There is something else about which I should like to inquire in connection with this matter. In this authority by W. Kent Power entitled "The Law of Divorce in Canada" I read on page 30 some of the statutory bars in general that would prohibit divorce. It states as follows:
The absolute statutory bars to the granting of a divorce are connivance, condonation and collusion. If the plaintiff is shown to be otherwise entitled to a divorce but the evidence establishes connivance, condonation or collusion the decree must be refused.
They refer to a case in Alberta of Emeny v. Emeny in 1929. I suggest that maybe we have here quite a few instances of enemy versus enemy and sometimes friend versus friend; but the indication would be that if it is a case of friend versus friend, probably no decree should be granted. The quotation continues:
As courts can act only upon evidence, the trial judge cannot refuse relief on the ground of an absolute bar unless the evidence is such as to satisfy him that the bar exists; a mere suspicion that it does is not enough.
Then at page 31 it goes on to state as follows:
In an undefended case, the limits of the trial judge's inquiry, either by constituting himself a cross-examining counsel or otherwise, must be left to him; and if the view be correct that there is a

provisional presumption against condonation, connivance and collusion it would seem that the better practice is for the judge himself to question the plaintiff on those points in the first place.
I think that indicates quite clearly that if the courts are handling these cases consideration is to be given to some of the constitutional bars. Because the courts are not hearing these particular cases I suggest it is the obligation of members of parliament to do the best they can in order to satisfy themselves that these statutory bars, as long as they are in our divorce act, are observed. I should like to read from the evidence as it was brought out by Mr. Joyal at page 12 where he starts his questioning:
Q. Are you living with her now?
A. No.
Q. When did you stop living with your wife?
A. September, 1949.
Q. You have not cohabited with her since?
A. No.
Q. Could you explain to the committee briefly what was the occasion that led to the separation in 1949?
A. Well, between 1940 and 1949 I was a singer and master of ceremonies for radio and nightclubs and I often had to go out of town to perform my contracts and when I came back home several times there was somebody else in my place. That is one of my reasons for the separation.
This may have been grounds for separation but it would not necessarily constitute grounds for a divorce unless he was willing to prove that adultery had taken place and also was willing to prove that not only had adultery taken place but that adultery had taken place which he had not condoned. The questioning continues as follows:
Q. Did this behaviour on the part of your wife continue over a long period of time? Was it something that was repeated?
A. Oh, yes. For a year and a half or two years after our marriage she kept going out late at night and even going off for a few days.
Q. But you continued to live with her nevertheless?
A. Yes, until 1949.
Q. And that is when you finally separated?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have been living separately and apart from each other since that tune?
A. Yes, since that time, September, 1949.
It would appear that during this time adultery was continually taking place. The questioning did not bring out the information as to with whom she had relations but it likely can be assumed that it was at least in some instances with the corespondent in this case. If this is true, it would indicate that condonation had taken place on a particular occasion. In other words, he had condoned this particular offence on a number of occasions and this would indicate that he had changed his mind and was not going to approve it after 1949, while at the same time he had done so for a number of years from 1940 to 1949.
Private Bills-Divorce
This authority which I hold to be the leading one on divorce, at page 87 points out under "Discretionary Bars" in section 14, "Conduct Conducing to Adultery" as follows:
The wording of the act of 1857 (sec. 31) with respect to this discretionary bar is "such wilful neglect or misconduct as has conduced to the adultery". Such conduct must have been after the marriage. It has also been seen that, even when adultery, cruelty or desertion is set up as a reason for refusing the decree, the question whether it conduced to the defendant's adultery is a vital factor for consideration.
It goes on to point out that the court has to be very satisfied in a case of this nature as to what the wife's conduct was. Although it does not say this, it is indicated that the wife's conduct would come under common prostitution. Even if it was not the same person each time, we would at least be able to assume that she was promiscuous. It is pointed out that if this is the case then the judge must exercise a great deal of discretion in his own right. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, in this case I would think this committee must exercise that right and decide whether it would be advantageous to the welfare of the state and the community in general to grant this particular divorce.
On page 73 there is reference to a discretion being exercised in favour of an adulterous wife although she has been living a life of prostitution. Mr. Justice Bucknill said:
The most difficult part of the case Is the fact that she continued to live in this way right on from 1928 to 1934, after she left her husband and at a time when she cannot say her husband was in any way forcing her to do this, or that he was in any way directly or indirectly responsible, except in this way, that he had, in my view, made it impossible for her to go back to him. He had failed to provide her with a proper home and failed to keep up the payments of 25 shillings a week which he had covenanted to do. That being so-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I must remind the hon. member that we are considering the evidence of this case in committee, Bill No. SD-35, not other cases.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to point out that this particular type of offence had occurred continually from 1940 to 1949. At the same time it would indicate that the husband was quite satisfied to live with her up until 1949. What we are saying is that he condoned her actions for nine years, and if he condoned them he has no right to decide that he is not going to condone them in the future, that it now becomes adultery although it was acceptable before. The law as such is quite clear about this. Condonation of a matrimonial offence means the forgiveness of the offence with full knowledge of the circumstances, followed by the reinstatement of the offending party to his
2932	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce or her former state; subject, however, to the implied condition that no later offence has been committed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: That is the point.


William Arnold Peters: In this case he points out that in 1940 when he was away he found someone was living at his home and he condoned it. I would suggest you cannot condone it for a period of time and then all of a sudden decide it is an offence. If you condone it once and there is a repetition-


Mr. Stewart:: No. You can only have condonation after the offence.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member knows more about it than I do, I am sure, and it is probably true that you can condone it once and forgive the party. Then next time you do it all over again. That may be true, but I suggest a period of nine years elapsed when this was the case and it was condoned over the whole of that period. Then he decides he wishes to get a divorce, and I suggest you cannot condone the same offence. There is no evidence which would indicate that it was not with the same person.
I suggest we should not accept the argument that adultery was being committed over these years, and that when it continued beyond the time it suited him that he has the right to say he is now going to object to it. Because it would indicate that he probably had established relationships elsewhere, and that he wanted a divorce rather than anything else.
In this treatise of what condonation involves the following is stated:
If a husband comes to one decision and means to act upon it, and then afterwards says, "Well, notwithstanding that I arrived at that decision and acted upon it, I am now going to take another line," it is clear that so far as a man is concerned, there is no going back.
In other words, if he condones an offence he has, in my opinion, to continue condoning it. If the wife got another boy friend I would suggest he might not be so happy to condone it as previously, but I think that is another line of thought altogether. I am sure we can legitimately pursue that line in this case, because he did not indicate that there was a different man with whom the wife was continuing to commit adultery from 1940 on. This treatise goes on:
One act of marital intercourse would always be construed as condonation. But in the case of a woman the courts have been far more lenient. The petitioner seems to have tried out the idea of returning to him, and having tried it out, altered her mind with the thought that perhaps after all she would like to go on with her proceedings.
This was in reference to a case where the lady had considered the divorce, as in this case, and then decided that the arrangements


were worthy of consideration and she decided not to go through with the divorce even though she had considered it for some time. Before I leave this I would like to refer to another part. It says:
Since condonation is a conditional forgiveness it must be distinguished from the irrevocable forgiveness conferred by a Rose v. Rose clause in a deed, or perhaps In a mere agreement supported by consideration whereby the parties covenant that no past offence shall be pleaded or admissible in evidence in any proceedings between them. What shall or shall not constitute condonation cannot be determined beforehand by agreement between the parties. Knowledge of the offence is essential to condonation and knowledge must be distinguished from suspicion. Therefore, condonation of an adultery of which the plaintiff was aware with one person does not condone adultery with another person of whom the plaintiff was not aware.
As will be seen from the evidence, there were a number of men involved in this case. Forgiveness of the offence is always complete forgiveness, and no further reference can be made to such an offence as far as the granting of a decree is concerned if the couple continue to live together. However, there may be some substance in what hon. members who are more learned in the law than I am have said, namely that each act of adultery may constitute grounds for a divorce decree. Therefore it might be possible that all the offences cannot be lumped together, as I would suggest they might; that any adultery committed would be grounds for divorce, and if it happened a hundred times it would be no different to it happening once. In this particular case application was made nine years after separation.
I am very unhappy about the fact that the Senate in dealing with the evidence in this case did not establish what the courts of Quebec had found with regard to the separation charge, because it would seem to me that if adultery had been charged and proved in Quebec we would not have too much difficulty about granting this divorce. I am concerned over the fact that the Senate has not given more consideration to the evidence as it was presented to a previous court. Since evidence with regard to the separation was admitted in the Senate, I think there was an obligation on the lawyer concerned to ask what the superior court of Quebec had done with regard to this separation. If a separation had been granted on an adultery charge, then the Quebec court would, of course, have taken into consideration the question of condonation with which we have been dealing. If they did not take that into consideration I think we should ask that this case be referred back to the committee until such time as inquiries have been made regarding the action taken by the superior court in Quebec in respect to it.



I960

[Stage Direction]
There is another point of law which does not seem to have played a large part in the determination of divorce cases in the past, and that is the question of delay. This couple ceased to live together. This probably happened, originally, in 1940, but the adultery at that time was forgiven. Adultery happened continually over the years, and then we find Mr. Charles Charron, a private investigator, going to another country and establishing an adultery charge which appears to differ in no way from the adultery charges that were continually being made over the years. This gentleman did not come to parliament and ask for a divorce until 1960. I presume, of course, that he started the case in 1959-
Robert Jardine McCleave: March 17, 1959.


William Arnold Peters: March 17, 1959. I would imagine that if we granted this application it would be a good St. Patrick's Day gift to the gentleman, if he is Irish. But that is an aside. We are concerned with this question of delay. This is a question which enters into these divorce cases in the same way, I presume, as it enters into other cases. It appears that the petitioner had not made up his mind as to what he wished to do. It may be outside our jurisdiction even to ask him what he has decided to do. However, there would seem to have been a great deal of delay between the date when a divorce was sought and the first occasion upon which one of these offences was committed, even if we take the 1949 date.
On page 82 of the Law of Divorce in Canada, section 11, under the heading "Delay", Mr. Power had this to say:
The delay which under the act ol 1857 (sec. 31) is a discretionary bar is "unreasonable delay in presenting or prosecuting the petition." The same discretion exists in New Brunswick and in Nova Scotia. The delay of the respondent in putting in a defence is a factor to be considered in deciding whether cross-relief asked for therein should be granted. The reason for the court frowning on delay was expressed thus by Sir Francis Jeune, in Johnson v. Johnson (1901) -
I read this only because many of us are not lawyers and do not have the advantage of the legal training which is necessary in order to handle legal cases. The citation goes on to give the reason put forward as follows:
The reasons why this court insists on steps being taken promptly, if they are taken at all, and why it should be very strenuous on the subject of delay, are that it is a terrible thing that people should be going about the world, neither married nor unmarried, possibly liable to contract fresh and illegal matrimony, and certainly exposed to temptation to commit adultery. This is a state of things which ought not to be prolonged for a moment longer than can be properly avoided.
The courts are very strict with regard to this matter of delay, and I think this is something to which we as a committee should give serious attention. Divorce cases have 79951-0-186
Private Bills-Divorce been brought before us after a delay of many years. We might say that this case was delayed only since 1949 because of the condoning of the adultery in the nine years previous to that, but even after 1949-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, there have been some thoughtful comments made in this debate. In particular, three legal points were raised, and perhaps some explanation should be given by myself as chairman of the committee.
With regard to the first point concerning condonation, I think the hon. member for Timiskaming fully answered his own question when he read excerpts from the authorities, the point being that one has to make up one's mind whether to forgive or not. The point is that you have to make up your mind whether or not you forgive. You can forgive a certain pattern of conduct and after a while if that pattern is continued while you cannot renege with respect to your original forgiveness you certainly do not have to forgive new offences that may occur from time to time. I believe that is the point here. The husband had forgiven everything that had occurred between 1940 and 1949 and after that he lost his patience to forgive.
With respect to collusion I gathered from the hon. members that there was no direct suggestion that there had been collusion. It was pointed out quite ably that the detectives had remarkably easy access into the home in New York. It was almost as though they had been welcomed there with open arms to obtain the evidence they needed for parliament. I think the point about collusion is this. If there had been an arrangement between the husband and wife and she were to go forth and commit adultery for the purpose of giving the husband evidence of adultery that would be clearly collusion and we should not entertain the petition here. If on the other hand she had set up a liaison with this man for some time-and it is pretty obvious in this case that that is what happened- and then made that evidence available rather easily to the husband that in the eyes of the law in such cases as Yaetes in Ontario and on the basis of other authorities would not be collusion. I believe that hon. gentlemen in the other place who heard this case as well as others observed the law very scrupulously and I would say it was applied very fairly in this case.
The third point raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming as to delay is a somewhat harder nut to crack. This would have been an excellent point if the hon. member had brought this newly acquired knowledge

Private Bills-Divorce of his before the committee so we could have had a greater examination of that particular point.


Frank Howard: As I understand it, one of the major grounds on which the Quebec superior court grants legal separations is adultery. There is some reference in the civil code of that province to cruelty and other matters but legal separations are granted mainly on the grounds of adultery. If it is not possible for the province to apply adultery as a ground for other action it should indicate this in the cases that come before this house. When a separation is granted on the grounds of adultery in the Quebec superior court it should be proof of the grounds of adultery for divorce and we should no longer concern ourselves with it. That arrangement would speed up the processing of these cases.
I appreciate that complications may arise. As often happens a couple separated on the grounds of adultery may cohabit in the interval but if cohabitation does not occur after the separation is granted we should not concern ourselves with it any longer with respect to proof of adultery.
On Friday last when discussing Bill No. SD-34 the hon. member for Halifax, as reported at page 2849 of Hansard, said:
Mr. Chairman, we have had a particularly mischievous type of intervention in the debate on this particular case... Ordinarily, I would content myself but I am afraid I have reached a point where I cannot sit here in the House of Commons among certain other gentlemen and hear hon. members from one particular corner assassinate the characters of people who are not here and able to defend themselves.
In this particular case is the hon. member for Halifax of the opinion that the character of anyone has been assassinated and, if so, whose character?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, that is an interesting question.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I do not think that question has anything to do with this bill. That question could perhaps be asked at another time but certainly not while we are discussing Bill No. SD-35.


Frank Howard: With deference, Mr. Chairman, I disagree with you-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The Chair feels that that question should not be answered in this committee.


Frank Howard: How about the individuals concerned in this case? What about the investigator, the respondent, the corespondent, the petitioner, the counsel for the petitioner, and so on? For my own guidance in these cases I do not want to be in the position of being accused of character assassination.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member for Skeena has the floor. Is the hon. member for Halifax rising to say something?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I was going to say there was a fair appraisal of the evidence in this case.


Frank Howard: It is my intention to direct that question to the hon. member in respect of each bill we discuss. I am interested in knowing if the hon. member used words on Friday last which he did not mean-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member must confine his discussion to Bill SD-35. Shall clause 1 carry?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, we raised the question of delay in this case. I am pleased to associate myself with the hon. member for Halifax in his presentation to the miscellaneous private bills committee. We recommend changes in the procedure-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. It being six o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for the consideration of private and public bills having expired, at eight o'clock the house will resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Benidickson, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Regier.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I was suggesting that if the announced increase for some civil servants in any way reflects the report of the civil service commission it is the minister's responsibility to make public to the house and certainly to the civil service associations that particular report. I had been saying that if these adjustments do not reflect the one year's study made by the pay research bureau

into the question of civil service salaries then we are entitled to draw the conclusion from the announcement of the minister that the wage increases were not in keeping with the recommendations made by the civil service commission to the minister some time ago. If they are not, and there is every indication on the surface that there is no connection between the $15 million announcement in the budget and the recommendations of the civil service commission, then I suggest that the pay research bureau, which is now conducting another one year study to be completed before the next budget is presented, is wasting its time if the minister is going to disregard the activities of that organization within the civil service commission which is supposed to deal with the question of civil service salaries.
But apart from all that I still think that a much more decent approach to the civil service salary structure and working conditions would be to grant bargaining rights to the employees within the public service. If the government has any real thought of putting into practice what it says it espouses, namely the competitive, free enterprise system, then it should certainly extend that concept of free enterprise to employees in the service of the government and allow the true and free play of competitive forces in collective bargaining to apply to the crown and to the employees in the public service. This is a proper extension of the theory in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) says he believes, and the free play of collective bargaining will be a most beneficial thing for civil servants, for the government service and for the government itself because it will have a tremendous effect upon bringing civil service salaries, which have been too low for so many years, into proper adjustment.
But I suspect that the government is afraid to do any such thing because it knows full well that it could not possibly justify its attitude on salaries for people in the public service before any type of impartial tribunal such as would have to be established if the civil servants had collective bargaining rights. In years past many private employers used to use precisely the same method as the Minister of Finance has used in order to weaken and destroy any effective growth of a union within a particular industry or among the employees of a particular employer. That is one reason why it is provided in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and in the various provincial labour acts that it is illegal for an employer to increase or decrease rates of pay and so on during a period of bargaining or during a period when a union is trying to become organized or certified.
79951-0-1864
The Budget-Mr. Howard
This is an attempt on the part of the government to emulate the attitude that many employers used to have some years ago, an attempt to weaken the effect of any organization among its own employees. I do not intend to make any further comments at this time about civil service salaries or bargaining rights even though it may be upsetting to some hon. members opposite, especially those on the treasury benches.
One of the major features of the budget and the key to its nature is the use of the phrase, a balanced budget. I am quite sure that if the Minister of Finance applied the principle he has used to balance this budget to his own financial system within his household he would not think he was being fair to his family because certainly he would not want to limit his own personal financial arrangements to such an extent as to deprive his wife and children of food, clothing, shelter and things of that nature. But that is precisely what the Minister of Finance is doing with this balanced budget because on one side of the scale that functions in this balancing process there rest about 800,000 unemployed people. This is the balancing factor in the budget and nothing else.
I have here the figure of registrations at national employment service offices released on Wednesday, March 23, 1960, as at February 18, 1960. I do not say this is the latest figure that has been issued but it is the latest I have been able to obtain. I understand that the figure is higher since that time. However, it indicates that over 800,000 people are out of work in this country. Within the Pacific region alone, which comprises British Columbia primarily, there are more than 80,000 people out of work. It is a very unwise, unfair and discriminatory thing to balance a budget with 800,000 unemployed people.
While I am on the subject of the number of unemployed I would point out that there is, of course, some difference of opinion as to which set of figures should apply, those to which I have referred or the figures compiled by the dominion bureau of statistics. There is some question as to which set of figures is correct. Reference is often made to the national employment service statistics as to unemployed being incorrect because they reflect a number of people who in fact have jobs but are applying for other jobs and people who have secured work since registration. I point out that this is taken into account. In the publication to which I have referred there is a note at the bottom of table 2 reading in part as follows:
The count excludes registrations from persons known to have a job and applying for another one. Measures are also taken to exclude as far as possible persons who have secured work on their own since registration.

The Budget-Mr. Howard
Therefore these factors are taken into account. In addition to the number of unemployed registered with the national employment service offices, there is this factor which the footnote goes on to point out:
Not all persons who are looking for work register at N.E.S. offices.
That is quite true. In addition, there are a number of people who realize that they are not eligible for benefits, who have had a pretty sad experience with the national employment service so far as finding employment is concerned, and consequently they do not bother to register, or if they do register they do not bother to go back again once they find they are ineligible for benefits but rather attempt to find work on their own.
In addition to the 80,000 people who were out of work in British Columbia as of February 18 this year, there are an estimated 20,000 people not eligible for unemployment insurance who are on social welfare or municipal relief rolls.
Some time ago, in another debate-I believe it was the throne speech debate last year-I suggested that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) would be well advised to go out and stand in a bread line once in a while and find out what it feels like to stand in a bread line merely to get a sandwich because no work is available. I suggest it would do the minister a great deal of good to get much closer to the people who are unemployed and find out their problems rather than sit in his insulated plush office and continue to study and debate which set of figures should apply-


Mr. Grafftey:: The Minister of Labour is closer to the people than the hon. member has ever been.


Frank Howard: There they go again, Mr. Speaker, knowing full well that they might get into difficulty if they stood up to make those comments. Instead of that they sit quietly by. Unfortunately so many of them are talking at the same time that it is impossible for one to find out what they are saying.


Mr. Clancy:: In what year did the hon. member stand in a bread line? He has just made the statement that he stood in a bread line. In what year did he stand in a bread line?


Frank Howard: Well, I-


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Don't say "Well, I," tell me. The hon. member has repeated it three times.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Frank Howard: My hon. friend is just as much off base in his question as he was in

repeating what I said. If he will sit down I will tell him what I said, and if he listens he will hear it correctly.


Mr. Speaker:: Both hon. members should address the Chair.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, you know full well that I always direct my remarks through you; I am doing that now. What I said was that it would do the Minister of Labour some good to go out and stand in a bread line and appreciate the views of the unemployed of this country. That is precisely what I said. The minister has been so engrossed in his facts and figures and fiction that it has not been possible for him to differentiate one from the other.
Unfortunately, while the Minister of Labour seems to stand the brunt of all the problems concerning the unemployed people in this nation, he is not the one to whom they should be directed because the Minister of Finance has far greater control over the cabinet than the Minister of Labour could ever hope to have. The Minister of Labour is the present head of the Department of Labour. The unemployment insurance commission comes under his direction, as does the national employment service. He issues the statistics. He argues as to which is correct and which is not. There is hope, because the minister has taken some action. If we want to be fair to the minister- unfortunately he is not here this evening; I am sure he will be apprised of what is said here in this debate-we must say that he has taken some action on this question of the unemployed. He set up a committee to attempt to resolve the differences of opinion between which set of figures is correct. This is an admirable approach because perhaps out of it all we shall finally get one set of statistics only to which the government may make reference, and they will be stuck with them. They will not then be able to take a set which incorrectly reflects the state of the unemployed, a low set, and say, "These are the ones which apply."
Unfortunately the committee which was established by the Minister of Labour was not received with too much revelry and rejoicing by the 800,000 people out of work. The establishment of the committee will not put them back to work. It will not feed their families; it will not provide them with employment; it will not pay their medical bills; it will not help to pay their portion of the national debt into which the Minister of Finance has driven them over the last couple of years. But it is something that the Minister of Labour has done.
It may well be, Mr. Speaker, that he has lost the program that he had a couple of

years ago. Perhaps he has lost the little sheets of paper he used to make reference to and say, "This is what we promised; this is what we will do." It may well be that that has been misplaced. If the minister does not have one of those promise sheets left, if he has destroyed or lost them, I would be quite happy to provide him with a copy so that the specific promises to the unemployed can be carried out.
I suggest that the real reason why the Minister of Labour is not, unfortunately, able to deal with this question, as he undoubtedly would like to, is that he is not able to propose the ideas that would bring about the solution. I think one of the reasons is that the Minister of Finance and others with him have too much say in the cabinet. The Minister of Finance is laughing at that, Mr. Speaker. Maybe he thinks he has not enough authority and wants more.
We all know there has been a shift in power in the cabinet. When this government was first formed there was speculation and hopes on the part of each cabinet minister as to who would be able to play his full part in government policy and whose ideas would be reflected in the government's decision on legislation when it was introduced. At least some of the hopes and ideas of the individual government ministers have been realized. Hopefuls have arisen from different parts of the nation, but I think the position has been pretty well solidified now. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) takes most of his counsel from ministers from the city of Toronto. The major person in this new emergence of authority behind the throne, of course, is the Minister of Finance, as he knows, and we know. The other is my very dear friend who is now the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker). He may laugh, but he is still the person who decides which part of the estimates is going to be slashed. First it is the Minister of Finance who decides, and then the Minister of Public Works puts the decision into effect. He slashes, he cuts the estimates and he discontinues the program that is supposed to be put into effect. He is the butcher of the estimates after he gets the order from the Minister of Finance. But they are doing the slicing in the wrong direction.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) comes from British Columbia. He, along with his associate minister, is the head of a department. If they want to go after it properly, if they want to use the knife and discontinue wasteful and foolish expenditures, here is the department in which to start. Do not start in the departments which mean so much to the individuals in this nation.
The Budget-Mr. Howard


David James Walker: The hon. member talks about slicing. Will he be good enough to tell us what he is slicing at the moment?


An hon. Member:: Baloney.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: That is what my friend suggests I am doing; I deny it completely. But if that is what he suggests I am doing, I am sure he would be the first to recognize it because he is such an expert in the field himself.
Unfortunately this power behind the throne, this desire to disregard completely the interests of the citizens of this nation, particularly the unemployed, the people we are talking about, leaves the Minister of Labour in an awkward position. His defence of the whole scheme must be to say to the opposition, "What do you want me to do?" This is what we have heard the Minister of Labour say so many times during this session. "What would you suggest; what would you do to overcome this problem?" We know full well he does not want any suggestions; he rejects them when they are given because the minister cannot be counted on to put them into effect, anyway.
If the minister requires any suggestions he will find there are lots of them; Hansard is full of them. The legislative assembly of British Columbia dealt with this question last year and made some recommendations about what the national government should do. All parties were represented on that committee in the legislature, as are committees in the house here. When I say all parties, I mean all parties that were represented in the legislative assembly itself.
We have a Social Credit government in British Columbia, as you probably know, Mr. Speaker, and that is bad enough without cluttering the house up with Conservatives. But the electorate in their wisdom decided they did not want any Conservatives in the legislature a few years ago. If we have an election this June some time, or May, or whenever it is that the premier of the province gets around to calling it, I am sure that when it is over there will not be any Conservatives in that parliament either.
Here is what the British Columbia legislative assembly recommended. This is not a partisan political document such as that which the Liberal party developed at its leadership convention a couple of years ago and that the C.C.F. necessarily would develop as its political platform. This is a report of a committee of the legislative assembly in the province of British Columbia. It is reported in the votes and proceedings of that legislative

The Budget-Mr. Howard assembly of Friday, March 20, 1959. In it this committee dealt extensively with unemployment and made recommendations as to what the national government could do, what the provincial government could do, the local government, the trade union movement and industry. It went rather thoroughly into the question of unemployment. It heard a great many representations. I will not read them all. They are listed in about one and three quarters pages. They include such companies as the Aluminum Company of Canada Limited, which is certainly not a fly by night organization; the British Columbia Electric Company Limited; trade unions; the Canadian Legion; the fisheries association of British Columbia; Shuswap Okanagan Dairy Industry Company and Surrey Co-Operative Association. All of these organizations appeared and made representations to the committee and gave the committee the benefit of their ideas, beliefs and hopes in so far as the matter of dealing with unemployment is concerned.
I suggest that this procedure is what this government should have adopted earlier. It is still not too late to do so, but it should have been done earlier this session. Authority should have been given to the committee on industrial relations of this house to follow this course in order that the members of that committee might draw upon the wisdom of people outside of this parliament and outside of this government in respect of what action the national government should take on unemployment.
Let me read some references here as to the suggestions to the legislature in the province of British Columbia. As I say, I picked this example because it is the province from which I come-that is one reason-and because it cannot be charged-as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) or other cabinet ministers would like to charge, and as they have charged on other occasions

that the proposals advanced by members of the Liberal party or members of the C.C.F. party are nothing but political propaganda and do not mean anything, and that they are merely trying to get some free publicity or something of that nature. I therefore picked this example and here are the suggestions so far as the national government is concerned.
(1) Materially assist In a large scale works program at appropriate times of the year on such projects as:-
(a) Forest access, transprovincial, and interprovincial roads:
<b) park and camp site improvement:
(c)	diking and drainage projects:
(d)	stream clearance projects and the creation of artificial spawning areas:-
It makes specific reference to activity on the Fraser river and the benefits that have accrued.
IMr. Howard.]

(e)	Fraser river flood control consistent with a policy of fish conservation.
2.	Institute an enlarged program of apprenticeship and trades training during adverse seasons of employment by extending the scope of the unemployment insurance commission.
3.	Adopt a carefully screened immigration policy on the basis of the stated needs of industry and agriculture thus ensuring the planned assimilation of immigrants into the national working force.
4.	Encourage and promote the construction of coastal shipping and national defence requirements in Canada.
5.	Foster the expansion of a research program designed to encourage the use of coal and coal byproducts in our industrial economy.
6.	Initiate the formation of a joint federal-provincial trade investigation team to the republic of China for the purpose of inquiring into trade possibilities with that country.
7.	To provide the ways and means to extend low-cost credit in order to:-[DOT]
(a)	Promote and expand economic development and stimulate revenue, income, or self-liquidating projects or works by the province and its municipalities; and to
(b)	Assist and encourage the establishment and growth of local industries.
8.	Give leadership and co-operation in the calling of a federal-provincial conference to seek a Canadawide solution to the unemployment problem, requesting representation from all levels of government.
Then the next phase of this deals with the provincial government, the local government, and so on. However, I confine my remarks to those suggestions or recommendations by the select standing committee on labour of the legislative assembly of British Columbia contained in its report which appears in the votes and proceedings of March 20, 1959, just a bit over a year ago. Following its presentation I would assume that the report was communicated to the federal government or some cabinet ministers of the federal government, in order to draw these things to its attention as to what should be done about the matter by them.
The record of this government is fairly bad, even on these well worth-while suggestions that have been made here. Some of them have been done, certainly on a cooperative basis. As to the recommendation about forest access, transprovincial and interprovincial roads, we have some work proceeding on a trans-Canada highway but so far as transprovincial and interprovincial roads are concerned, the need for an expanded highway program which would provide employment and develop highway construction, we have nothing. We have the trans-Canada highway and the roads to resources. We have had an indication that something might be done later on. I am concerned about this "later on". It is our opinion that these are things that should have been planned some time ago, to be put into effect when they were most needed and in order to develop these roads on a sensible

basis instead of maybe a couple of years from now coming up with a scheme to do something of this nature.
As to park and camp site improvement, there has been some of this activity. As to diking and drainage projects, there is an extensive study which was made under the water resources branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources; by the Fraser river board dealing with diking and draining that is necessary along the lower regions of the Fraser river and certain other hydro projects further on north. That report is in the hands of the government. The government has had it since last year some time and it is sitting on it. The recommendations are there as to what could be done.
As to stream clearance projects and the creation of artificial spawning areas, we all know of what value fish is to British Columbia and of the need for employment in that regard. The flood control provisions on the Fraser river also are connected with the diking and drainage projects which have been thoroughly studied and reported on by the Fraser river board under the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
As to the other suggestions made, there is the one with respect to the encouragement and promotion of the construction of coastal shipping. What we have is not an expansion of that industry but a reversal of that recommendation and a diminution of shipping facilities on the west coast.
As to research programs designed to encourage the use of coal and coal by-products, that recommendation applies not only to British Columbia but, as was pointed out by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae) earlier today, it applies extensively to the maritime provinces. There is great need there for some machinery by means of which to make sure that our coal resources just do not sit idle and that coal miners are employed, and that we make some use of these natural resources.
Trade is another phase of this report. It deals with the republic of red China, and I appreciate the government's reluctance to do anything like that because of its fear of the United States.
There is the suggestion about provision of the ways and means to extend low cost credit. Instead of that occurring the finance minister has driven credit higher, and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) is part and parcel of it in pushing up interest rates.
As to the recommendation to assist and encourage the establishment and growth of local industries, this is a prime thing that this government could do. The hon. member
The Budget-Mr. Howard for York-Sunbury again this afternoon made reference to the need for such industries to be established in the maritimes. The maritimes are not the only part of Canada that needs the insurance of some governmental agency to bring into their areas industries which will grow up and rise in an area to the end that long term full year employment can be obtained by the people in that area where there is none at the moment and where they are economically in a collapsed position or where there is one industry and any shift in the economy of that particular industry upsets the working force and upsets the economy of the whole area around there.
I suggest that this national government on the question of developing industries should, if necessary, underwrite the capital expense involved. It should provide a reserve or a revolving pool or fund which could be loaned out on a selective basis. It would have to be on a selective basis because we have not the resources to lend money toward the entire capital expansion needs of Canada. This money should be loaned out either at a low interest rate, or at no interest rate at all if that is necessary to ensure the growth of an industry. These concessions should be provided in order that industry could go into places on a planned basis-not a haphazard basis but a planned, co-ordinated basis-to ensure the best possible supply of employment opportunities.
But the government does not want to do anything about that at all. It has that philosophy that the blind progress of our economy will eventually work itself out. We have depressions, recessions or lay-offs. We have three quarters of a million people unemployed every winter, so apparently this is no minor detail. It is part of the necessities of having this so-called free enterprise economy, which incidentally in its true sense we do not have. But because the government has this philosophy, these are the problems resulting from it: unemployment, declining trade and declining production. The government cannot cope with this particular problem if it continues to act like an ostrich and stick its head in the sand every time something dangerous occurs, and then while it has its head in the sand and its eyes and ears covered, hopes that the problem will straighten itself out.
A budget which, as I said, has on the one hand more than three quarters of a million unemployed people in Canada as the balancing factor, and a budget which continually talks about prosperity just around the corner, is not worthy of the name of a budget and should not receive the support of hon. members of this house.
2940	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Weichel


Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, I consider it a great pleasure to have the opportunity of taking part in the budget debate on behalf of my constituents of Waterloo North. Our Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), a man of outstanding ability and sincerity, is to be congratulated for his splendid presentation and the terrific amount of work he has contributed to the preparation of this budget. Every hon. member of this house will appreciate his untiring efforts and loyalty in carrying out his important duties as Minister of Finance.
Through the kindness of our esteemed Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and yourself, Mr. Speaker, I was chosen as one of the delegates, along with four fine gentlemen, to represent parliament in West Germany as guests of that government last September. Perhaps one of the most impressive events was the inauguration of the new president, Dr. Lubke, who succeeded Dr. Heuss, beloved by the German people. This took place in the city of Bonn, the present seat of the West German government. Dr. Gestemeir, the speaker, in his opening remarks made mention of our presence. His words drew real applause from all those present. The hospitality of the German people was excellent, and I feel that our good will tour was of great benefit to both countries and will help establish better trade relations.
Mr. Speaker, your leadership of this delegation demonstrated your personal cordiality and sincerity as well as a deep understanding of the problems confronting us in our daily obligations. May the divine benediction rest upon you as you guide us in our duties for the strengthening of our great nation and the promotion of the public good.
May I as a member of the House of Commons observe that we have a busy schedule ahead according to the budget speech. The issues we will debate are of the utmost importance to the future of Canada. One of them that touches the heart of my industry-packed constituency of Waterloo North is the discussion of our international trade that will be carried on in this house. I hope that when international trade is discussed we will examine closely the effect that imports from low-wage countries are having on our Canadian industries, industries that have grown up with Canada and which have placed all their money, their hope and, yes, their trust, in the future of Canada.
The impact on the Canadian rubber industry of imports from low-wage countries, especially Japan and Hong Kong, has long been known. It has been pointed out before in this house during the Liberal administration but to no avail. It has caused serious

harm to rubber footwear industries in my constituency of Waterloo North and in other parts of Canada. However, other industries have also been hard hit by these imports, such as the radio, television, button and shirt manufacturing industries. Again they make up important segments of the industry of my constituency. It has been pointed out to me that two years ago only 10 per cent of all radios sold in Canada were imported. Today that figure is between 40 and 50 per cent. That has meant a loss in volume to one Kitchener manufacturer of approximately 30,000 small table radios alone.
Two of the largest shirt manufacturers in Canada, along with smaller firms, employing about 2,000 people are also situated in my constituency. They, too, are asking for some government help.
Concerning tariff changes, we are informed that an important round of tariff negotiations under GATT will be initiated this autumn. Many proposed tariff changes may find some place in the forthcoming negotiations.
Turning to the rubber footwear industry in Canada, the latest figures for the 11 month period in 1959 as compared to the same period in 1958 shows that the percentage of the total consumption of waterproof footwear imported into Canada increased from 17.6 per cent during the 1958 11 month period to 31 per cent in the same period in 1959. In canvas footwear the percentage jumped from 58.9 per cent in 1958 to 68.5 per cent in the same 11 month period in 1959. To sum it all up, in the first 11 months of 1959 approximately 46 per cent of the total consumption of waterproof and canvas footwear was imported.
I realize the tenuous position that the government holds because of this country's trade position, especially with Japan, the country from which much of these imports are coming. I realize, too, that in order to keep exporting-especially wheat-to Japan we must buy in return a good amount of Japanese products. I know our government is very anxious to help solve this problem. Let us therefore use every effort in finding a way to maintain trade with Japan, but at the same time see that our Canadian industries that have grown up with Canada, that have placed all their money, their hope, and yes their trust, in the future of Canada are able to flourish and continue to provide employment for thousands of our Canadian citizens.
Just a word about our federal civil servants. As a former civil servant for more than 35 pears, and knowing some of their problems I was pleased to hear in the budget address that treasury board had approved

recommendations from the civil service commission involving some 50,000 employees of the public service. May I suggest that consideration be given to revising salaries in the under $6,000 bracket as soon as possible, and that also serious consideration be given to salary increases for our armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
A few months ago, the Kitchener-Waterloo Dutchmen of my Waterloo North constituency represented Canada in the Olympic hockey championship at Squaw Valley, California, winning the silver medal. Like many Canadians, I was disappointed in the final result. However, as a sportsman and lover of wholesome recreation I felt justly proud of their achievements. Their supreme effort was not quite good enough to win the gold medal for Canada, but their gentlemanly conduct and good sportsmanship rated them as top-ranking good-will ambassadors for Canada.
Many sportswriters and sportcasters, along with individuals, have spent much time in finding a formula to provide better conditions for our competing athletes in Olympic competition. What is the answer? May I suggest two points that may be of some assistance to this question? It is my firm belief that schools in every province, not only to cover hockey but all recreation, could be started about four months before the beginning of the Olympic games, provincial governments to provide the financial assistance. Through the efforts of these schools the top athletes could be chosen to represent Canada.
My second thought concerns the federal government and the acceptance of the resolution as proposed by one of the hon. members from Vancouver on the subject of a Canada sports council, with the financial assistance coming from our government to defray expenses of our competing Canadians. This council, representing every province, could provide the necessary assistance and inspire our youth to take a greater interest in Canada's Olympic team. The outcome of such efforts could be the greatest enemy of juvenile delinquency.
Let us face the facts, especially with regard to hockey, Canada's national game. We have taught this sport to other countries, and in most cases they have been good scholars. The competition has become tougher, and in order to compete successfully our government, along with provincial governments, assisted by athletic associations all across Canada, must lead the way.
As a veteran of the first great war I am naturally intensely interested in the welfare of those who lost dear ones; disabled veterans, and all veterans and their dependents. I know it is not necessary for me to remind our government to give further consideration to their
The Budget-Mr. Weichel requests for pension increases and other assistance. Their sacrifices and services have been deeply appreciated by our government, the Canadian people and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks). Their needs, financial and otherwise, should continue to be one of our first obligations.
About a year ago I mentioned in this house the possibility of a university in the city of Waterloo, Ontario. Since that time, this has become a reality. The value of education is becoming more important daily, and I would like to congratulate the member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) for her recent remarks on this subject. The Waterloo university college board of governors decided recently in favour of federating with the university of Waterloo. The faculty of St. Jerome's College had previously made such a decision. In the very near future agreements to federate will be signed by both church colleges with the university. The federation program will become effective July 1, 1960.
Enrolment at Waterloo college had grown in the last six years from 168 full-time arts students to over 500 this year. The university enrolled its first students in July 1957, and the students now enrolled in its co-operative engineering course total over 600. When the two related church colleges come into federation with the university the total enrolment will be between 1,200 and 1,300 students. In addition, the university is serving the community through its adult education program which has an enrolment in excess of 1,000 people.
On the university's new campus of approximately 200 acres there are now two large buildings completed and in use, the chemistry and chemical engineering building, of 54,000 square feet, and the physics and mathematics building of 100,000 square feet. Dr. Steacie, head of the national research council, officially opened the physics building on February 10 last. The total faculty of the university and colleges numbers over 100. Architects are now developing plans for the university's engineering building which is scheduled for completion in 1962. In addition to the Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches operating Waterloo University College and St. Jerome's respectively, the Anglican church and the Mennonites have also indicated an interest in building residences on the university campus for the use of the students of their denomination who are attending the university.
Only a short time ago the university publicly announced the appointment of its chancellor, the Hon. Dana Porter, chief justice of the supreme court of Ontario. As you are aware,

The Budget-Mr. Weichel his lordship is a man who is highly regarded for his public service, especially in the field of education. The fact that Hon. Leslie Frost encouraged Mr. Porter to accept the appointment is an indication of the high esteem in which the university is held by the premier of this province. I say in all sincerity that the interest shown by this government and by the government of Ontario in the university of Waterloo is deeply appreciated by the community, by the fine men who have made this university possible and by the members of parliament who represent that area. The Kitchener-Water loo Record of January 8 rightly states, and I quote:
It is important that all those involved in this great development should resolve to devote their efforts to its creative exploitation. The development of fully rounded and adequately educated citizens is of the utmost importance both to this district and to the nation at large. The new university, with its broad facilities in both the sciences and the arts, should be better able to contribute to this goal.
Today we are blessed with wonderful schools, colleges and universities, and teachers who are ever ready and willing to impart that knowledge so essential to every girl and boy in this great country of ours. We should be continually on the alert, so that when their opportunity comes we may assist them in every way. After all, our youth of today will be our citizens of tomorrow.
Last spring I spoke briefly to this house in favour of new federal plans for emergency measures and civil defence which had been announced a few weeks previously by the Prime Minister. At this time I want to add that the progress and development since last spring have justified the optimism I expresed then as to the workability of the new plans made, thanks to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) and others.
Since then the ten provinces again met with the federal emergency measures ministers and officials at Ottawa early in October, after the provinces had had an opportunity of studying for some months the new realignment of duties and responsibilities between the federal government agencies, including the army, the provinces and municipalities. All the press reports since have indicated a remarkable unity of acceptance by all provinces of the new proposals as being both feasible and acceptable.
These emergency measures are the civilian counterpart of the Department of National Defence and the armed services with respect to what has to be done to protect the civilian population and their governments and operations in the event of war.
I am sure that all hon. members of this house will join with me in the hope that such

measures may never be needed, and that the release of world tension which has occurred during the interchange of visits between the leaders of the world powers will continue and grow. But until the world does come to true disarmament, these emergency measures for the protection of our civil population are indeed necessary.
Just so long as this parliament finds it necessary to vote many millions of dollars for the armed services and to maintain radar lines across Canada to give warnings of enemy attack and to develop missile bases in Canada, just so long will it be equally necessary for this government to expend funds and carry out planning in emergency measures and in civil defence to protect our civilian populace.
From all the reports I have heard the progress across Canada in the new realignment of responsibilities and duties has been both substantial and satisfactory. In particular, I want to commend the Canadian army for the realistic way it has taken hold of its new responsibility to carry the warning of any enemy attack to the people across Canada and to assume the battlefield command of the rescue and other forces which would have to act in areas which have been damaged by enemy bombing or heavy fall-out of radioactive dust. In not only the regular army but also in all their militia units this program which was begun only eight months ago is now proceeding with dispatch under the able and energetic leadership of the general officer commanding of the central region.
Some time ago the provincial government in my own province of Ontario took formal action so that it too could co-operate fully with the federal government and the army in these emergency measures for the continuity of government and the survival of our people in the event of enemy attack. On January 14, 1960, under order in council 201/60 the province of Ontario established an emergency measures organization for Ontario to parallel and co-operate with the federal emergency organization. The provincial organization includes various provincial government departments whose continued functioning would be immediately necessary in the event of enemy attack, and whose functioning is limited to carrying out the provincial responsibilities under this new alignment.
The new Ontario organization remains within the ministerial direction of Hon. W. M. Nickle, Q.C., minister of planning and developing, who has been charged with heading the old civil defence branch, while the chairman appointed by order in council is Mr. W. J. Scott, Ontario fire marshal, whose county fire mutual aid organization throughout the province is accepted as a pattern



I960

[Stage Direction]
for the fire defence organization across Canada, and who is well known for his work in civil defence over a long period of time. His contribution to civil defence has been outstanding. *
In my own riding of Waterloo North we have had within recent months three cases where the automatic assistance of all the fire departments in the county of Waterloo was immediately available under this organized emergency mutual fire aid program. Undoubtedly, in all instances this county organization in Waterloo county saved hundreds of thousands of dollars of potential fire loss. They are peacetime examples of the value of organizing now for any emergency that may occur in either peace or war. This is what I feel the new emergency measures organizations are geared to do in all three of the municipal, provincial and federal levels of government. Our government is to be congratulated for its splendid progress in civil defence.
Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, the budget which was presented before this house by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) last Thursday generally was termed as a stand-pat, an unexciting budget. Unexciting it may have been to the ones who were not deprived of the necessary things of life in the course of the past year, to the ones who were able to make both ends meet in providing for their families the food, clothing, medical care and educational facilities required. When there is the assurance that these same opportunities will again be provided this budget might very well be considered, indeed, a satisfactory budget. But to those others who have seen the necessities of life evade them, to those whose incomes have left them wanting in their ability to provide to their families those things necessary to their physical and educational welfare, to those hundreds of thousands presently unemployed, this is not a satisfactory budget. On the contrary, it is a barren and gloomy budget and the bringer of gloom is the Minister of Finance.
The expected increase of 6 per cent in the gross national product alone cannot fill the gap in providing sufficient employment outlets to all those Canadians in need of income at the present time. Too much stress is also being laid again on statistical data in the present budget while forgetting the humanitarian aspect in terms of those in the country who are being denied what is a fundamental right of every citizen, namely the right, when willing to work, to earn a fair living for himself and for his dependents. It is with a sense of deep responsibility that
The Budget-Mr. Michaud I contend that the most urgent national problem, namely unemployment, was ignored or conjured away by the minister in the presentation of his last budget.
It is noted that a broader interest is manifested these days in the economic problems of the maritime provinces particularly. Here is a situation which calls for a broad national recognition if it is to be resolved. As a representative of the maritime provinces in this parliament I feel it is my duty at this time to deal with some aspects of the faltering economy of those provinces even at the risk of reproof and rebuff by some other representatives from that area whose utterances in this house since the opening of the present session would tend to indicate that all is well in the maritimes, that the maritimes are going through a period of great boom at the present time.
A week ago I returned to Ottawa following a few days' visit in my constituency. The conditions I found there are simply disheartening. I do not wish to be considered an alarmist or pessimist but I am saying that the conditions there are the worst we have had since the great depression in the early 1930's. If it were not for those social benefits introduced by Liberal governments which are paid every month such as old age assistance, old age pensions, family allowances and unemployment insurance-to those who are fortunate enough not to be denied unemployment insurance through vexatious interference in the application of the law-if it were not for these different forms of social assistance I say that conditions there would be, if not worse, at least in every way as bad as they were in the early 1930's.
Surely this is a situation which deserves more sympathetic attention than mere lip service when we realize that the main source of income in some parts of the maritime provinces at the present time is under the form of social benefits in one way or another. It was stated recently that about 20 per cent of the labour force in the province of New Brunswick was unemployed. That being the case, I feel that the percentage in some particular areas of that province is well over one third of the labour force. Do we realize all the social implications in a community plagued with such depressed conditions?
How long can we remain indifferent to the needs of such a sizeable segment of our population in a country where we speak of high standards of living, of notable economic expansion and high social development? We often speak of immigration in this house. I am not against immigration but I do contend that if our economy permits the integration every year of thousands of immigrants

The Budget-Mr. Michaud then we should also be able to take care of those Canadian born citizens who are destitute and in every way as much in need of a steady means of livelihood.
The morning I left home to return to Ottawa last week I paid a visit to the office of a local lawyer who told me that his main occupation during the past winter months had been preparing visas for people emigrating to the United States. That same morning he had had four new applications, and this lawyer is only one of those engaged in that same business at the present time. Can we not logically contend that such a situation is inadmissible?
What is going to happen to the economic and social structures of our municipalities if this mass exodus of our people to another land in quest of a situation which will procure them a livelihood continues? These municipalities at one time or another have contracted certain obligations toward these people with the expectation that the greater part of the population would normally remain in their midst. For instance, who is going to remain responsible for the school debentures of these municipalities if too great a number of these young people for whom these schools were built have to leave the municipalities and the country? No municipality can afford to provide educational facilities to a whole generation for the benefit of another country. In this respect alone we could end up in a very embarrassing situation.
Does it mean that no solution can be devised to remedy such an abnormal situation? Surely we have not reached a point of such utter defeatism where we must admit that ways and means cannot be devised to remedy such depressed conditions. Indeed, concrete suggestions have been and still are being made in the face of the public awakening to the necessity of an economic revival in the maritime provinces. Foremost, there is the necessity for the whole country to realize that this is a national emergency. In this respect I can do no better than to quote the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) who, in dealing with this problem, had this to say as found at page 1693 of Hansard of March 3, 1960:
There is something else we have to accept. The wealthier parts of this country will have to accept obligations, perhaps in the way they have not in the past, to the economically weaker and less developed parts of the country and to help solve their special problems. There is only one way it can be done. And it has been done in the United Kingdom. If you read the United Kingdom program for the depressed areas you will see how it was done. Nor did they have the financial and economic resources over there at that time that we have in this country now. The only way it can be done is by government schemes of capital assistance to encourage industrial and economic redevelopment


in those areas. Perhaps this redevelopment aspect of the problem is as important as new development projects in our economy. If that should mean -and I suppose it would-heavier tax burdens, no Canadian has the right to complain if the taxes, if the money from those taxes, is used to put into effect constructive and forward-looking plans worked out in co-operation with the provinces so that we will not have underdeveloped areas in this country indefinitely in the future. I am thinking, of course, particularly of the Atlantic provinces.
This assistance could take the form principally of major capital works projects. This form of assistance has already been available in the maritimes to the great benefit of all. I had the occasion to mention in another debate last year that at one time anyone who wanted a job in the maritimes could get it when construction was under way at Camp Gagetown and at the airfield bases in the Labrador region. These projects are now mostly completed and alternate projects have not been initiated, accounting in part, therefore, for the heavy backlog of unemployed in the maritimes at the present time.
But other major projects are needed in the maritimes. Foremost is the construction of the Chignecto canal, which has aroused the interest of the maritime provinces as a whole recently. There is the construction of a causeway between Prince Edward Island and the New Brunswick mainland. There are those other numerous industrial developments promoted by APEC, a council formed to promote the economy of the Atlantic provinces and which is engaging the minds of all the civic-minded leaders of the Atlantic provinces. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the present government in consultation with the Atlantic provinces authorities to seek ways and means whereby appropriate and adequate measures can be devised to revive the general economy of the Atlantic provinces. Then it will be the duty of the government to act.
While it is urgent that we devise such a program of capital works, nevertheless great attention should also be given to achieve the greatest development possible of our primary industries. There is room, I submit, for broad improvements in this respect. The three main industries in the Atlantic provinces are farming, lumbering and fishing. Of these three basic industries, agriculture remains to the forefront if considered in its social as well as its economic aspects. A sound agricultural community reflects an element of stability and balance in the framework of the nation at large.
The question arises today as to how long the farm community will be able to subsist in the face of the difficulties besetting that industry. In a general economy of expansion and growth in the country agriculture

finds itself in this unhappy cost-price squeeze position which, if allowed to persist much longer, might jeopardize the whole stability of the industry. Indeed, how much longer can farmers subsist if on the one hand the prices they receive for the goods they sell are continuously going down while on the other hand the prices they have to pay for the goods and services they have to buy are going up? Farmers in the Atlantic provinces and in my own riding are, therefore, anxiously waiting to see what the present government will have to offer to solve this crucial problem.
Farmers are also waiting to see what is going to happen to the deficiency payment policy on eggs and hogs which has brought such unsatisfactory results up to this time. I was told that since the inception of this inept law last January hogs have sold in the maritimes for as low as 18 cents a pound, never reaching a higher point than 23 cents a pound, which is under the 23.5 cent support price. Since the deficiency payment on pork is to be calculated on a yearly national average it might very well happen that if prices go up toward the latter part of the year, due to a scarcity brought about by many farmers being forced out of hog production, then those who have been selling at 18 and 19 cents may never recuperate any differential price at all. Unless an offer to purchase by the government is re-established in pork marketings the industry will be faced with a situation which could have ruinous consequences.
Farmers are also anxiously awaiting the introduction of the newly formed farm credit corporation. Many farmers in the Atlantic provinces are anxious to increase their holdings, but wonder whether the new government credit agency, the farm credit corporation, will operate with more flexibility than the former farm loan board. I feel very strongly that drastic measures will have to be adopted if we wish to see agriculture in the maritime provinces regain the stability it needs to restore confidence in the industry.
The fishery is also an important segment of our economy in the Atlantic provinces. Great strides have to be made in the industry if we wish to ensure a fair standard of living to those engaged in that way of life. To get a fair estimation of the general situation of some fishermen along the eastern shores, one has only to remember something that was pointed out that at the time of the Escuminac disaster last June, that is that the average income of those who were the victims of that storm-there were some 35 of them-was between $600 and $700 a year. It is very hard to realize how anyone can eke
The Budget-Mr. Michaud out a living for himself and his family with such an income. Yet many of our local fishermen are within that category. Of necessity, something must be done to supplement the income of those low income fishermen if they are to enjoy a fair share of the national income.
When we analyse the situation we find that many of these people, while engaged in fishery for part of the year only, are living on land holdings of some considerable size. This land, in almost every case, while fertile, tillable land which could produce many of the things needed for the fishermen's families, is left in complete abandonment. It is true that certain capital, now not within the reach of the ordinary fisherman, would be required to carry on a supplementary farm operation, somewhat of a sideline operation. That is where I submit a fisherman's fund, something along the lines of the farm credit corporation, and in conformity with the nature of the enterprise, should be established. It would permit those fishermen with insufficient income and who hold some farm land to carry on small farm operations proportionate to their family needs.
Incidentally, the history of most of those fishing settlements along the shores would indicate that in most cases they were founded primarily on an agricultural basis. It was only when fishing became an important industry that farming in those areas was abandoned. Circumstances today would justify a return to the former practice of conducting farming and fishing operations concurrently, where fishing alone is insufficient to bring adequate returns to ensure the livelihood of the fisherman's family. I therefore submit the above recommendations to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) who I know is anxious to do everything possible to help the rehabilitation of those submarginal fishermen.
In another respect I wish to make certain recommendations concerning the protective measures of our fisheries, of the lobster fishery in my part of the maritimes particularly. I am happy to say that some measure of success has been encountered in this respect since last year. The great majority of our lobster fishermen now realize the importance of returning to the sea undersized and berried lobsters to ensure a continuous lobster catch from year to year. Unfortunately there are still those who, unscrupulously, fail to obey the law, thus causing great prejudice to themselves and to all those others who are cautious enough to respect the law. I realize how difficult it is for the protection officers to cope with every case in this respect. But I wish to reiterate that the great majority of

The Budget-Mr. Michaud the lobster fishermen want the full enforcement of those protective measures. I urge the department, through its protective staff and officers, to continue its efforts in this respect until it has succeeded in stopping all those guilty of those wrongful poaching practices. The lobster industry is a valuable one along the Atlantic sea coast. It is often referred to as a little gold mine. Let us make sure that we keep that industry at its highest state of production from year to year. We need that industry.
Our third primary industry in the mari-times, and in my own constituency as well, is the lumber industry. Here again is a field where the returns are not commensurate with the value of the product and the cost to produce it, thus showing a detrimental effect on the economy of that particular industry. As an example, pulpwood, which only a few years ago was selling at $17 a cord is now selling at $10 a cord. Little wonder, therefore, that farmers had to reduce their cuttings on their own woodlots. Farmers cannot afford to hire woodsmen to produce wood for the market at such a depressed price. Many hands who formerly were occupied in that idustry are therefore left idle.
Would it not seem here again that wood prices should be brought more in line with the commodities bought with the returns of that product itself? After all, it is no secret that the price of those finished products coming from the processing of wood, pratic-ularly paper, has been rising steadily, while the price of wood has been steadily going down. The cost-price squeeze here again is having an unfavourable impact upon the economy of the industry. Until and unless conditions are regularized in this segment of the economy unemployment will continue to prevail in the lumber industry. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the government to create better conditions which will restore to this industry its former prosperity.
These are some of the recommendations which I deemed it advisable to make to the government in this budget debate concerning the general economy of the maritime provinces and the economy of my riding. I have tried to make these objectively, with the hope that it might cause the government to give its attention to the crucial problems with which we are so greatly concerned at the present time.
Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, there is another matter with which I should like to deal briefly. I have in mind certain aspects of the administration of the unemployment insurance commission. At the outset, let me emphasize the fact that my remarks at this time are not directed at any

officials in any particular office but rather at the policy of the commission itself.
In the maritimes we have a larger number of unemployed people than in any other part of the country, proportionately speaking. This is a situation imposed upon us by circumstances over which we have no control. I say this because I have an impression, at times, that there are some who like to refer to that situation disparagingly, as if we in the maritimes carried the responsibility for that situation. Lest there be any misapprehension in this respect let me emphasize the fact that our workers in the maritimes are as capable, as industrious and as eager to work as are their fellow workers in other parts of the country. If there is any difference between the status of our workers and that of the workers of other regions it is not in their character but in their opportunities to find employment.
I feel that this situation is often abused at the expense of the maritime workers, both by the employers and by the commission in its decisions to allow benefit warrants. I do not wish at this time to defend the case of those who, at times, attempt to qualify themselves through irregular methods. These, of course, must be repelled. But too often applicants of good will, with good cases, are penalized through vexatious interference devices which should not be tolerated.
Too many woods employers, for instance, during winter months particularly wish to take advantage of the law governing the commission in order to impel woodsmen to perform certain jobs on a cord basis in nearly impossible conditions, just because they know that these woodsmen cannot refuse to go lest their unemployment insurance benefits be cancelled.
I know of a case during the winter of 1959 where scores of claimants were disqualified from insurance benefits just because they refused to work for a certain contractor who did not even have a real assignment to offer to those who reported for work. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) the other day referred to a case in which a claimant was refused unemployment insurance benefits because he refused to buy a $200 chain saw for a job which was guaranteed for only six weeks. I know of a worse case than that. On the job to which I referred just a moment ago I know of a man living 25 miles away who reported for work and who, upon finding there was no camp in which to stay, returned home, only later to have his unemployment insurance benefits cancelled because he did not accept work. In this instance I suppose he was expected to procure for himself an automobile



[Stage Direction]
in order to cover daily the distance between the site of the job and his home since there was no other means of communication. I submit that cases such as these are cases of pure discrimination against the workers.
Then there are other happenings which occurred this winter where miscalculations are taking place and the claimants are then requested to reimburse the amounts they supposedly were not entitled to receive. How could we be more unrealistic than to expect workers, living on an income provided by unemployment insurance benefits for weeks and months, to reimburse that same money? Where do we suppose the money is going to come from?
It is a well-known fact that the unemployment insurance fund is now seriously depleted. But I cannot conceive of any reason why Canadian workers, especially the maritime workers, should be asked to compensate for a situation which is due to no fault of their own but rather to the mismanagement of a government which has spoiled the golden heritage bequeathed to it by a previous administration. The unemployment insurance commission in many ways should show better judgment in many of its dealings with Canadian workers whom it is supposed to protect and to assist and not to penalize indiscriminately.
(Translation):
Mr. Marcel Bourbonnais (Vaudreuil-Sou-langes):: Mr. Speaker, I should not miss this opportunity of extending my heartfelt congratulations to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) for the greatness of his accomplishment in bringing down a surplus budget this year. Knowing what administrative difficulties he had to face when he took over the finance portfolio in 1957 and knowing also that he had to face a deficit of almost $600 million in 1958 and another deficit of $400 million in 1959, we are all amazed that he was able to bring down a balanced budget this year.
So, since the Conservatives have taken over, at a time when the whole country was worried, the Minister of Finance has succeeded with sheer perseverance and, above all, confidence in our national potentialities, to bring this country out of the doldrums prevailing under the previous administration and along the steady road to prosperity.
Today, the ordinary citizen when asked his opinion on the present budget, answers: "Things are better, keep it up".
In spite of all the sophisms and all the nonsense spread by the members of the opposition through all the publicity mediums at
The Budget-Mr. Bourbonnais their disposal, radio, press, etc., the average citizen, the farmer, the worker, finds out that we narrowly avoided a depression, through the feat of strength of the present government. Today, confidence is rising with the Conservative party, as revealed by the Gallup polls.
Besides, that is what prompts the outbursts of demagogy of our opponents who, instead of remaining calm and respectful in this house, spend their time laughing, getting excited, and jumping for no reason at all, and attempt to make light of all the suggestions made by the government.
For instance, when we took up the legislation to settle the problem regarding our universities a number of opposition members cracked jokes and tried to make fun of a problem which is so significant for the province of Quebec. In fact, I shall come back to that later on.
Mr. Speaker, before going on with my remarks, I would like, on behalf of all those I represent here, and also of those who did not have the opportunity to do so in the house, most sincerely to commend the hon. Minister of Finance for his delicate attention to the French speaking people of Canada, when he started his budget speech in French with an accent comparable to that of Her Gracious Majesty the Queen of Canada, when she addressed us in that language. There you have a positive action clearly indicating that, under this government, national unity is progressing in the right direction.


Mr. Valade:: The Grits have never done that.


Marcel Bourbonnais: Mr. Speaker, with regard to national unity, very regrettable words were heard last Friday from a member of the C.C.F. party, about the province of Quebec. I will not go over all he said in his speech, because that would give him too much importance, but I cannot refrain from quoting a few lines that I find on page 2823 of Hansard:
One of the things that bother a great many people in Canada who do not live adjacent to among or with French Canadians is a feeling that somehow they insist in taking a different view of Canadianism and of what Canadians want and need from that of people within the rest of the country. This is a most delicate-
The hon. member does admit it.
-delicate and touchy subject for a politician to confront, but I think it needs some confronting. Like many other members who have come here in the last few years, while I have read a great deal in Canadian history about the French Canadian problem, it was not until I began to follow the French Canadian newspapers with more

The Budget-Mr. Bourbonnais
intensity that X realized the markedly different conception of Canadianism that the French Canadians have. This is something that we very much need to resolve-
He wants to change everything, solve problems that cannot be solved.
-even in the name of that magical phrase, national unity.
One feeling I have taken from reading the French Canadian press is that they have what is almost a conceit in their Canadianism. They push upon other Canadians an interpretation that X cannot accept and which I think many members of the house cannot accept. It seems that the contradistinction between their kind of Canadianism and ours is that theirs is French Canadian based upon language and Roman Catholic based upon religion and so on the other hand we have to be Protestant and English speaking. I do not think this necessarily is true.
I agree with that, Mr. Speaker.
I know that in my constituency, we have very few French Canadians. We have a good many Catholics who, in the main, are English speaking. Many of them are Italians, Poles and so on. I do not think their conception of Canadianism has to take a back seat at any time to what I might call the superiority complex of Canadianism that exists in French Canada-


Mr. Tremblay:: This is out-and-out Maurice Lamontagne talk.


Marcel Bourbonnais: We can sense there the socialistic approach of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). He can hardly tolerate that different people should exist in Canada, people who do not wish to change their way of life, but who try to maintain their traditions, without forcing any other Canadians to copy theirs.
What the hon. member for Port Arthur means when he speaks of national unity is the great uniformity into which the great minority, or all Canadians, whatever their origin might be inmersed so as to come out good, manageable little guys who would think and speak in the same way and act all together at the bidding of a single socialist master-of an advanced Liberal, to use the phrase of a former Liberal prime minister.
However, as we have seen in the last election, Providence protected us from the scourge of the C.C.F. If the hon. member for Port Arthur thinks we are overbearing in our Canadianism, it shows how little he knows about Canadian history. Let me remind him that on the whole, French speaking Canadians are much more deeply rooted in Canadian soil than the great majority of Canadians of other languages, and that the fact that we have a different language and a different religion may perhaps appear to him as a different form of Canadianism which he will never

understand until he learns our language and lives in our province of Quebec. For a member who has pretensions to culture, his remarks show that it is very far from complete. If the hon. member thinks the French Canadians have a superiority complex, let me tell him once again that he knows nothing about history or about present conditions, despite all his titles.
What we have in the province of Quebec is a feeling of pride in many respects and for several reasons.
Incidentally, I might give some advice to the leader of the Social Democratic party, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue); we heard him when he took up the cudgels for certain South African subjects and tried to defend negroes who are oppressed in that country-no sincere Christian of course can admit that negroes, subjects of an important country, be persecuted-but he tried to force the government to interfere in the internal affairs of another country. I would ask him to look after his own household instead of interfering with what concerns other countries, and to attempt to teach his supporters that Canadianism and national unity are not based on prejudice.
I heard, last Friday, some members of the Liberal opposition protest loudly in connection with the benefits of the measure introduced by the Minister of Finance, to adjust the federal grants to universities.
If the hon. members would recall the difficult years education went through in the province of Quebec under a Liberal administration, up to 1935, they would perhaps understand why the great majority of the people of Quebec have supported the thesis of the Union Nationale and the former premier, the Hon. Maurice Duplessis, on the exclusive rights of the provinces in the field of education.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to remind them of certain statistics showing that under the former Liberal administration in the province of Quebec, education always came
last.
In 1935, the province of Quebec had 9,000 schools-I should rather say 9,000 educational institutions, since this number included all colleges and universities, special and private institutions, as well as rural schools of two or three rooms where there was only one teacher, and we had dozens of those in each parish. Now, in 1956, there were 11,000 educational institutions in the

province of Quebec, most of the small schools having been replaced by central schools of twelve to twenty classrooms.
In 1935, there were 27,000 teachers while in 1956, there were 51,900, that is 52,000. In 1935, we had 700,000 pupils in the province of Quebec, while in 1956 there were 1,116,000.
The total contribution of the taxpayers to education in the province of Quebec was $28 million in 1935; in 1956, it had reached $99 million. The provincial government's contribution to education in 1935 was $5 million and in 1956, it was $87 million.
The total amount spent on education in 1935 was $33 million, whereas in 1956, it was more than $250 million. When comparing the figures for 1935 with those of 1956, the difference between the amounts spent reflects the interest in education shown by the former Liberal government of the province in comparison with the interest shown by a Union Nationale government of Conservative trend.
Other figures show what has been done for education in the province of Quebec, because, in 1935, an amount of $1,800,000 was spent for the building and repairing of 480 schools. In 1956, 440 schools were built at a cost of $46 million. Moreover, repair work was carried out in 1,451 schools at a cost of $4,297,000 which means that in 1956, 25 times more money than in 1935 was spent for school construction and repairs. The average salary of educators in the province of Quebec varied until 1935 between $80 and $400 a year for a female teacher. No male school teacher received a salary higher than $1,500.
Today, the minimum salary of a female teacher is $1,500, and the average teachers' salary is $3,445. We therefore see the tremendous progress achieved with regard to education in the province of Quebec in the years 1935 to 1956.
This year $300 million will be spent to that end in the province of Quebec. We may therefore say that the amount spent on education in the province of Quebec will be ten times greater than in 1935. This system of assistance to education in the province of Quebec was started under a government which is known as that of the Union Nationale. That is why so many people in Quebec favour this government.
In 1952, the Liberal government tried, for political reasons, to offer assistance to universities. In Quebec, at that time, we were doubtful of the government's sincerity, recalling as we did the difficulties we had suffered
The Budget-Mr. Bourbonnais at the hands of a similar administration in the years prior to 1935. After all the money that the federal government wanted to turn over to Quebec universities had been collected from Quebec taxpayers. Why then should that money reach Quebec through Ottawa, in view of the provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act, to the effect that -and I am now going to quote that section because it has repeatedly been referred to by great politicians who always try to confuse sections 91, 92 and 93, which are nevertheless quite clear to any layman. I shall read the section in English:
(Text):
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions-
(Translation):
It is up to each province, then, to construe that section as it should be construed. The province of Quebec wanted to abide by that section of the constitution.
I merely wish to show that, in the province of Quebec, education is in good hands and that our province has no need of advice or help from C.C.F. pseudo-intellectuals, nor even from all those petty politicians who are more interested in their personal advancement than in that of our province and of our country.
We are proud, in the province of Quebec, of our achievements in that field in the last fifteen years. Today, if the hon. member for Port Arthur thinks that we have a superiority complex I must tell him that, when he is aware of what goes on in the province of Quebec he will understand that he is mistaken, and that it is rather a feeling of pride for us to have at last aroused the envy of our neighbours, we, who were but a poor little people exploited by blackmailers who were keeping us in ignorance in order to better exploit us and to maintain their Liberal party strong and powerful, at our expense.
In 1957, during the first session of parliament, most members voted in favour of the increase from $1 to $1.50 per capita for the purpose of assistance to universities provided by the federal government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I think he is anticipating, or reverting to a debate on the measure introduced by the Minister of Finance concerning grants to universities. I would ask him to drop the subject.


Marcel Bourbonnais: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I only wanted to straighten out a few things.
Besides, we are discussing the budget speech, and since last week, the action taken

The Budget-Mr. Bourbonnais by the members of the province of Quebec was misunderstood, I wanted to quote certain figures and to recall certain facts.
I should like, therefore, to set out the reasons why some members from the province of Quebec voted in 1958 in favour of raising federal grants to universities.
We realized-this is my own personal view, but I think it is shared by many-we members from the province of Quebec realized that provinces other than Quebec had universities which were in great need of financial help. Those provinces were counting mostly on assistance from the federal government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order I regret having to intervene again. I thought the hon. member would limit himself to opinions of a general nature concerning certain remarks made by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), which are not necessarily related to Bill C-56, whose purpose is to amend the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.
I note, however, that the hon. member is mainly working towards the point that is already covered by the bill which is to be submitted to the house and which was discussed at the resolution stage of that bill.
I would therefore ask him to drop that subject.


Marcel Bourbonnais: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think that in describing the reasons which prompted us to vote, in 1958, in favour of raising the grants to universities, I am getting away from the bill.
What I wanted to say is that other provinces have universities, and that such universities have financial needs and were counting on help from the federal government.
I also had to keep in mind other provinces which did not object to federal aid to their universities. I was convinced that this government would soon find a solution that would be acceptable to the province of Quebec and that the amounts which had been reserved in trust for the universities of the province of Quebec would thereby increase and would be paid to them some day.
I wanted to show the willingness of the people of Quebec to co-operate with all the provinces of Canada and never to handicap the development of their neighbours.
What this government is now doing confirms my opinion and I am all the prouder of being a Canadian from the province of Quebec because I have an opportunity to participate, with the Conservative government, in the establishment of a Canadianism

based on the mutual respect of the various groups which form our country, and to share in measures calculated to achieve economic recovery by a wise, farsighted and sound administration.


Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, we have been listening for about 20 minutes to the hon. member from Vau-dreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Bourbonnais). Quite understandably, I do not intend to deal with his remarks at this time, for if I did so I should be out of order, just as he was.
Last Thursday, Mr. Speaker, I heard the third budget speech of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) not counting, of course, his miniature pre-election budget of 1957, as I was not yet a member of this house.
Actually, this is my third experience at getting ready to speak on the budget.
Reference to the official reports in Hansard for 1958 and 1959 will show that I was then unable to speak for lack of time. So my notes had to be filed away and unfortunately, I cannot use them this year, because they are now outdated.
I am more fortunate this year and, I think, it is an advantage to be able to make a few remarks about the budget speech of last Thursday.
May I be allowed to point out, at the beginning of my remarks, what Mr. Speaker himself said before the Ottawa branch of the alliance canadienne.
I have here a clipping of the Montreal Gazette for April 4 1960, headed:
"Mr. Michener boosts bilinguals."
This dispatch from Ottawa reads as follows: (Text):
Commons Speaker Boland Michener said that mutual understanding among English and French speaking Canadians would be reached more easily if all were bilingual.
(Translation):
The item continues, and I quote the Speaker himself:
(Text):
Each of us must strive to be a member of both groups. I look forward to a future in which we have a good knowledge of each other's languages and a perfect understanding of each other's ideals.
Coming from Mr. Speaker himself, the first member of this House of Commons, this declaration must-and I personally hope it will-do more to achieve in Canada this perfect understanding between all Canadians. I wish also to point out that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) himself paid tribute to the French speaking population of this country by delivering a part of his budget speech in my native language. He started



[Stage Direction]
to speak in French and twice afterwards used the same language. For that he must be congratulated. On my part, Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the minister in speaking these few words of congratulation in his own maternal language.
(Translation):
May I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Bourbonnais) also had words of praise for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), and it might have been the only moment in his speech where he was not out of order.
There is one thing which has always struck me-I do not say this to criticize the Minister of Finance because politicians of all parties are a bit at fault in this matter-and that is the fact that one feels the need to speak French when it comes to federal-provincial relations. That is what the Minister of Finance did, as can be seen on page 2675 of Hansard of Thursday last.
As I said, I am not blaming him for choosing that method. Should we believe that doing so will commit the government of my province to a less negative attitude towards the government of Canada? I hope so, and I also trust that the new atmosphere of agreement will continue to exist and that our province will fully benefit by its relations with Ottawa.
That friendly atmosphere, Mr. Speaker, that climate of mutual understanding might have existed under the former Liberal administration which was at the helm in this country. That government did not refer to members of the Quebec government as "those people from outside". We know the opposite is the truth. I need not emphasize what large amount of money the people of the province of Quebec lost through the negative attitude of their former premier. May I be allowed to say here that I believe that attitude was purely electoral? And I would call to witness premier Barrette, whose statements follow closely those of Mr. Sauve.
I have here a clipping from Le Devoir of March 17, 1960 reporting certain words of
The Budget-Mr. Roberge the present premier of the province when he referred to the future of Quebec universities. Let me quote part of that clipping:
Mr. Barrette made much of the talks with Ottawa-
And we do not blame him for those talks; on the contrary, we are very glad of it.
-made much of the talks with Ottawa to recuperate the accumulated grants.
And please note this:
We gave ourselves airs of independence, he added, but we were most anxious to settle the problem.
I also have a clipping from Le Devoir for March 28, 1960, or three weeks later. I shall quote only the title:
Mr. Antonio Barrette:: Certain things have occurred in the past.
Then there is a subtile in larger print:
Today we must go hand in hand with Ottawa.
And now here is a clipping from La Presse for Monday, March 28, 1960, which goes into greater detail on this political speech made by the premier of my province. The story starts with the same quotation:
Certain things have occurred in the past.
Farther down, the article goes on to say:
Thanks to the new climate now existing between Quebec and Ottawa, we have been able to solve problems which had been outstanding for years ... Ottawa is now treating us like friends. As long as they themselves will co-operate, I will never regret to co-operate with the central government, to give them a true hand-in-hand co-operation.
To conclude this first part of my remarks, I would add that under the former Liberal government, the door was not closed, but that it was the premier of the province of Quebec who closed it on his way out.
I do not intend to comment on those statements at this time, since we will probably have the opportunity to deal with them during the debate on the second reading of the federal-provincial tax-sharing arrangement bill.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the appropriate time to ask you to say it is now ten o'clock. (Text):


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

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

Mr. Boivin: 1.	Who has the present contract for the transportation of mail between Montreal and Sherbrooke, Quebec?
2.	How many trips are made daily both ways?
3.	What is the cost of this contract?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):
1.	(a) Aurele Desmarais (via Richmond), (b) Lionel Ducharme (via Granby).
2.	(a)	1 trip daily except Sunday, (b>
3
trips daily except Sunday and 1 partial trip daily except Sunday, Montreal to Granby.
3.	(a) $12,741,08 per annum, (b) $32,450 per annum.


MAIL CONTRACT, MONTREAL-WATERLOO, QUE.
Mr. Boivin: 1.	What amount was paid to the Canadian National Railways each year for the transportation of mail between Montreal and Waterloo, Quebec, for the last four years of their contract?
2.	How many trips were made daily both ways?
Answer by:	Hon. W. H. Hamilton (Postmaster General):
1.	Sept. 9, 1951-Sept. 8, 1952, $3,293.34; Sept. 9, 1952-Sept. 8, 1953, $3,672.96; Sept. 9, 1953-Sept. 8, 1954, $4,009.53; Sept. 9, 1954-Sept. 8, 1955, $4,009.53. Service discontinued September 9, 1955.
2.	Waterloo to Montreal, one; Montreal to Waterloo, two.


NEW BUDWORM INSECTICIDE
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Is the federal government attempting to produce an insecticide that will be effective for bud-worm spraying of forests but harmless to fish?
2.	If so, what are present prospects of producing this solution?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):
1.	The Department of Agriculture does not engage directly in the production of new chemical insecticides. This is done by chemical corporations, who are devoting very considerable effort toward the production of selective chemicals which are poisonous to one form of life but not to others.
Fundamental research by the department in this field is devoted primarily to the study of physiology and the mode of action of chemical insecticides to develop the basic knowledge necessary to the production of selective chemicals.
2.	In view of the many problems inherent in developing a suitable highly efficient poison for one form of life, but which will have no effect on other forms of life, it is not possible to predict when such a chemical will be available for budworm control.
The department is taking a leading role in the development and testing of insecticidal toxins, which are products of insect disease organisms, and which have no ill effects on forms of life other than insects. Field trials of these against the spruce budworm and other related pests are being planned for 1960.
POST OFFICE CONTRACT, ST. MAXIMS!


DE SCOTT, QUE.
Mr. Bourgei: 1.	Has a contract been awarded for the construction of a post office at St. Maxime de Scott, county of Dorchester, Quebec?
2.	If so, (a) on what date; (b) to whom; (c) for what amount?
3.	Was the contract awarded to the lowest bidder?
4.	If not, for what reason?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of
Public Works):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) March 15, 1960. (b) Mr. Benoit Grenier, St. Elzear, P.Q. (c) $15,996.
3.	No.
4.	The difference between the tender of the lowest bidder and Mr. Benoit Grenier's was $1. Mr. Grenier's tender was constant whereas the lowest bidder became low, under circumstances about which there was some question.

Wednesday, April 6, 1960