1960-04-11

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 83-Mr. Dumas:
For a copy of all payrolls showing the names of those employed, the period of employment and the amount paid to each person, in connection with the reconstruction, during 1959, of a wharf located on the west bank of the Malartic river, range 4, in the township of Malartic, Quebec.
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this order for the production of papers could be accepted with the reservation that the return be tabled after the investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is completed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the mover prepared to allow the motion to stand?


Mr. Dumas:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the house agrees to allow this motion to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



H. T. PECKHAM  TRAVELLING EXPENSES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 87-Mr. Michaud:
For an itemized statement of travelling expenses paid by the Department of National Defence for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1959, to H. T Peckham.
Motion agreed to.
ESTABLISHMENT OF SEAPORT, MOOSONEE, ONT. Motion No. 89-Mr. Peters:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and any of its departments, and the provincial government of Ontario, its agents, commissions or agents thereof, since January 1, 1959, dealing with the establishment of a seaport at Moosonee, Ontario, including the establishment of docking facilities, dredging of a channel connect-Bay Moosonee wkh the deeper waters of James
David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, this is accepted subject to the usual reservation in connection with the province of Ontario.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
79951-0-195J

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 91-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of a letter dated February 4, 1959, from the air transport board to Autair Helicopter Services Limited, requesting certain information concerning application by the latter for the removal of the restriction limiting the company to the use of certain equipment as referred to in the air transport board order, decision serial number 1275, dated June 1, 1959.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in asking the
Prime Minister whether he can report to the house on the steps that have been taken to protect the interests of a Canadian citizen, Mr. Norman Phillips, arrested in South Africa for carrying out his duties as newspaper reporter, may I also ask him a related question supplementing those I previously asked on March 25 and 31, namely whether he would make provision, as was done last Friday in the parliament at Westminster, so the views of this parliament can be expressed, through a resolution, on the policy of apartheid.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the first question is concerned, when information was received by the government to the effect that a Canadian newspaperman, Mr. Norman Phillips, was being detained, the matter was taken up with me, acting in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and as a result the Canadian High Commissioner was instructed to inform the South African government that the arrest and detention of Mr. Phillips could not but add to the widespread public indignation already felt in Canada at the measures which had given rise to recent violence and loss of life in South Africa.
The high commissioner was instructed to make strong representation to the South African government with a view to securing the release of Mr. Phillips. Those representations were made. While I am not in a position at the moment to report finally as to what the result may be, I have reason to hope that Mr. Phillips will be released from detention.

Inquiries of the Ministry There is however, a suggestion that to that release may be added an indication on the part of the South Africa government that Mr. Phillips' presence in that country would no longer be considered desirable by the government of South Africa.
In so far as the second question is concerned, the Leader of the Opposition has referred to a resolution which came before the House of Commons of Great Britain on Friday last. If the house would allow me I might refer to the pertinent portions of that resolution:
That this house, deploring the present racialist policies now being pursued by South African government, under which non-Europeans are consistently denied normal human and political rights, including the right of campaigning for a peaceful change in the laws under which they live, and the recent declaration of a state of emergency and the many arbitrary arrests, fearing that a continuation of this repression is threatening the security and welfare of all races living in Union of South Africa and good relation between members of the commonwealth, urges Her Majesty's government to take the opportunity at the forthcoming commonwealth prime ministers' conference to bring home to South African government the strong feelings of British people; and restates its firm belief that peace and tranquility in South Africa can only be secured in the long run on the basis of freedom and equality and a full respect for the inherent dignity and humanity of all men.
Now, sir, speaking on behalf of the government and people of Canada, I have stated that we deplore the situation which brought about the bloodshed in South Africa. I have stated that whatever one's personal feelings may be-and I do not have to state what mine are in this regard, for they have been stated and restated in the past-respect must be had for the situation which might arise in a commonwealth prime ministers' conference if in advance there was an indication that this matter would be included in the discussions. There is no official agenda for the prime ministers' conferences, but I am sure hon. members will realize that in the informality that prevails at those conferences, and with the prime ministers of India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Ghana, Malaya, and other countries of the commonwealth present, it may certainly be expected that the views of the various commonwealth governments will be made most clearly evident.
The Leader of the Opposition asked whether an opportunity might be given for the introduction and discussion of such a resolution as was brought before the United Kingdom House of Commons three days ago. While there is no opportunity now, having regard to the order paper, the fact that we are discussing the budget and also the fact that we have fully before us the very tragic happening of last Saturday, I can say that immediately after recess, when
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l

the condition of affairs in South Africa will at least not be as turbulent, we hope, as it is at the moment, we might then give consideration to doing that which the hon. member has suggested so that the views of Canada's House of Commons, with respect to which there is no difference from the point of view of party affiliation or position in the house, might be expressed.
I would also point out that if I were not sitting where I am, with the responsibilities that are mine, I would express myself somewhat differently from the way I am at the moment. But looking ahead to the prime ministers' conference, while there must be the clearest consideration and the frankest discussion of those things that affect all parts of the commonwealth, and though bound together by no pact or treaty we are free to discuss as we will, I fear for the future of the commonwealth if, while never failing to make clear the viewpoint of each of us, the prime ministers' conference should become the judge and jury of the conduct of member nations.
In saying that I also express the hope- my predecessors Mr. King and Mr. St. Laurent have also spoken strongly of this matter-that while there should be nothing done among the member nations to cause division and dissension, some day the members of this great group of nations will be able to bring about a declaration of basic, accepted principles with regard to human dignity so that together all the nations of the commonwealth, having a similar heritage, may hold, in so far as these basic, fundamental things that touch sacredness of the human person are concerned, a common basis for agreement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will not be out of order, or if I am you will excuse me, if I express the appreciation of our party on the Prime Minister's statement that an opportunity will be found at the earliest convenient date to express the views of this parliament on apartheid through a resolution. May I also express the view that this resolution should include an expression of the hope of this parliament that, before it is too late, some way out of the distressing situation in South Africa may be found, before further violence makes any peaceful solution, founded on right and justice, impossible.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Speaking on behalf of a party that abhors violence in all its forms, 1 want to say we support the proposal made by the leader of the official opposition that this house be given an opportunity to discuss the South African



I960

[Stage Direction]
situation, such as was provided to members of the House of Commons at Westminster. We have evidence once again, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that Britain leads the world in speaking with a united voice against tyranny.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that while we are glad to hear the Prime Minister's statement that at a later date we will have an opportunity of taking a course of action similar to that taken in Great Britain, we would prefer him to take that action now so we can support Great Britain's united stand in opposition to typranny in South Africa.
Before I sit down I should like also to say that the attempted assassination of the South African prime minister was a most unfortunate event. This attempt on his life is evidence of a grave social conflict arising from the practice of tyranny in South Africa. So long as this tyranny remains there can be no peace in the hearts of freedom loving people of the commonwealth or elsewhere in the world. We suggest, Mr. Speaker, that now is the time for the Prime Minister of Canada to speak up for Canada.
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister say whether Canada has been approached by any country or any group of countries with regard to the suggestion that a special assembly of the United Nations be held regarding this matter?


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot say definitely, although the information I have would not bear out this suggestion on the part of the hon. gentleman. I would ask to be allowed also to say to the hon. member for Kootenay West that the Prime Minister's views have always been made known with regard to these matters that are concerned with discrimination, and those views have never been muted. However, at a time like this outspoken criticisms may have the effect of making the situation more serious, deplorable as it already is. It is for this reason that there has been, on the part of this government, a sense of restrained responsibility, without failing to recognize the needs of the moment.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport, notice of which I have sent him. Did the international civil aviation organization adopt the United States VOR-DME navigation aid as a standard for world air lines, despite protests by Canada that the system
Inquiries of the Ministry was inadequate, untested and inaccurate? What effect will this decision have on the very high frequency directional range now in use in our country?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question.
I understand that the council of ICAO last Friday, by the necessary majority vote, accepted what is known as the distance measuring equipment as a standard for addition to the already accepted visual omni range system which is at present an ICAO standard. Canada did not vote in favour of this move at the time, since while we were prepared to accept the DME specifications as a standard we felt the requirement for its installation should be on the basis of what is known as an ICAO recommended practice rather than an ICAO standard. The full report on this discussion, and the formal ICAO recommendation, have not reached my department yet, and I am therefore not in a position to comment until the documentation has come in and we have had an opportunity to consider it.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask a supplementary question with regard to the VOR ranges that are now in operation. Are they all installed, and what will happen to the 18 new ones that it is the intention of the department to establish? Will they still go on?


George Harris Hees: As far as I know. However, I should prefer to wait until this whole matter has been fully considered before giving a final answer.



EAST SAINT JOHN, N.B. THERMAL PLANT   PERMISSION TO TABLE CORRESPONDENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Can the minister inform the house on what date a reply was given to the request of the government of the province of New Brunswick for permission to table an exchange of correspondence in connection with the East Saint John thermal power plant? Can the minister also state whether the reply was in the affirmative?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of Stale):: As to the exact date, I have not that information at the present time. However, I will take the question as notice and supply the information as soon as possible. As to whether the minister can state whether the reply was in the affirmative the answer is yes

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I have a supplementary question. In view of the minister's reply, and also in view of the recent denial by the premier of New Brunswick of having received such permission, as reported in the newspaper L'Evangeline of April 6, will the minister also undertake to find out on what date such permission was received by the premier of New Brunswick and report to the house accordingly?


Léon Balcer: This matter is outside my jurisdiction. I shall be pleased to supply the date on which this reply was sent, but I cannot tell on what date it was received.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. My question of privilege has to do with the rights of members of parliament to get truthful replies to their questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: There is a controversy here, and this has to do with my question of privilege. On March 30 I asked a starred question and a reply was given by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness). The question was:
1.	Has a request been received from the government of the province of New Brunswick asking for permission to table in the New Brunswick legislature the exchange of correspondence between the New Brunswick government and the federal government, in connection with East Saint John thermal power plant?
2.	If so: (a) on what date was such a request received; (b) has a reply been given; (c) what was the nature of the reply?
The minister replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is yes.
The answer to part 2 (a) is February 26, 1960; (b) yes; (c) the government of Canada has nc objection to the tabling of documents which are not of a privileged nature, provided the government is informed which documents the provincial government proposes to table.
In the New Brunswick legislature, as reported by the press last week, the premier of New Brunswick denied having received such permission. I think the house has a right to know whether permission was given to the premier of New Brunswick, and on what date it was received.


Léon Balcer: On the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member's question of privilege relates to the supplying of information in the New Brunswick house.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: It relates to information which was supplied to this house and which is being denied outside of this house.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: In wonder if I could ask the Acting Secretary of State whether he has yet had an opportunity to look into the return I mentioned on a question of privilege last Tuesday. The return was obviously incomplete, and I asked that the matter should be looked into.


Léon Balcer: If I remember correctly, this return was made available on the same day the hon. member intervened, or the day after.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman is thinking of another return. Would he have another look into the matter?


Léon Balcer: Would the hon. member be good enough to tell me what subject his question dealt with?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was on the subject of federal payments to the provinces.


Léon Balcer: I will look into it.
(Translation):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. On two occasions I asked him whether he had a statement to make about support prices on dairy products such as butter, cheese and milk powder. I was not given any satisfactory answer by the minister. Now I see in "Le Bulletin des agriculteurs" an official announcement concerning butter-
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: So far, the hon. member has been volunteering information rather than asking a question. The rules do not permit arguments or speeches. If the hon. member has a question to ask, would he please ask it?


Mr. Starr:: Learning from the hon. member for Essex East.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was about to ask my question. I should like to know whether reliance can be placed on that announcement, made outside the house, to the effect that the price for butter has been set at 64 cents, that for cheese at 31.5 cents in the province of Quebec and at 32 cents in Ontario, while that for milk powder is reported to be 10 cents.

(Text):


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: I do not know what announcement the hon. member has in mind. It certainly is not within my knowledge, and whoever may have announced it has apparently done so entirely on his own responsibility and without any foundation.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, for the minister's information, and in order that he may be hetter posted on the matter, I will send him the newspaper clipping I referred to.
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: All I can say is that I am not able to read all the newspapers in Canada; therefore I have no knowledge of what this particular newspaper may have said.
[Later: ]


Douglas Scott Harkness: In connection with the question asked by the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska, may I say that the announcement to which the hon. member referred, and of which he has sent me a copy, is an announcement I made a year ago, an announcement to apply to the dairy industry on May 1, one year ago. The hon. member seems to be a year out of date.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker: the announcement in "Le Bulletin des agriculteurs" is for 1960, and not for last year.
(Text):



DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS HELD BY GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. Can he say whether it is a fact that the government intends to turn back to Canadian packers some 90 million pounds of pork and, if that is done, what steps are being taken by the government to make sure that the price to be charged the consumer will be reasonable and fair?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is not the situation Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is confused. He is referring perhaps to a news dispatch which I saw, I think, in a newspaper on Friday last-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Saturday's Winnipeg Free Press.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This news dispatch evidently made no distinction between the canned pork we are holding and fresh pork. I should like to remind the hon. member and the house that on March 8, as reported at page 1836 of Hansard, I announced that starting April
Inquiries of the Ministry 18 the stabilization board would offer stocks of canned pork-may I emphasize "canned pork"-for sale in the domestic market.
At that time I also stated that it was not expected that the sale of canned pork into the domestic market would have any significant influence on the hog market, the reason being that canned pork is a specialty product representing only a very small portion of the total pork sales, and does not compete directly with the normal sale of fresh and cured pork products.
Further, now that pork products may move freely between Canada and the United States, the most important influence in determining hog prices in Canada is the price level in the United States and, regardless of the volume of offerings of Canadian product, hog prices will not drop below the general level of the United States market.
Actually this is a straight matter of putting back into the market products which we purchased when we were under the old form of price support. As I am sure hon. members realize, it would be completely uneconomic for the government to hold millions of pounds of canned pork and for packers to can more when they are able to sell in the market all the fresh pork they are now securing from current hog deliveries.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is the consequence of the government's repudiation of policy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member of course is completely out of order in making a statement of that kind. There has been absolutely no repudiation of policy.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister give the approximate quantity of canned pork involved in this offering?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I announced to the house some time ago that we had at that time about 100 million pounds of canned pork. We have made gifts for international relief and for distribution to needy cases in Canada since that time representing a considerable volume of pork, something over 20 million pounds at present. I refer to canned pork, of course.
The amount of canned pork we now hold will be released into the market in keeping with the demand for it. The canned pork we have left will not be thrown on the market in one fell swoop, but will be fed into the market gradually as and when the market is able to absorb it without having any effect on current hog prices.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In view of what the minister has just said and

Inquiries of the Ministry all that it entails, will he be kind enough to inform the house why Canada imports canned pork?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we are going beyond the range of proper questions on orders of the day. This may be a matter for debate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Perhaps I should answer that question if I may, Mr. Speaker. The point is that normal trade goes on between Canada and other countries. Other countries have been sending a limited amount of canned pork of specially prepared types to this country for many years and are continuing to do so.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. I may say that this would normally be a question for the order paper, but I understand there is no time for that. In the light of the imminent move of the trade mark office to No. 8 temporary building, could the minister inform the house whether adequate notice has been taken of (a>
the design load of the building, (b) the actual load of the office, and (c) the safety factor?


David James Walker: I will be very happy to accept this question as notice.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Labour made an interjection a moment ago, and that caused me to remember that I have a question to ask him. Can the minister give us the latest figures for unplaced applicants as of March 31? If the hon. gentleman has not these figures available, will he kindly supply them by tomorrow, or before we adjourn in order that the country may have an appreciation as to whether this problem continues to be the serious one I believe it to be?


Michael Starr: do not have these figures available. As soon as they are available I will give them to the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. gentleman try to have the figures available by tomorrow?


Michael Starr: I receive them; I do not issue them.



ALBERTA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister. Unfortunately I have not been able to give him notice, and I shall be content if he answers it on another occasion. Has the right hon. gentleman received a letter from the brotherhood of maintenance of way employees, Alberta lodge, protesting against the abolition of sections, and also the drastic cut being made in maintenance of way forces, in which it is urgently requested that the Prime Minister use his good offices to inquire into these employment conditions? Has the Prime Minister made such inquiry and, if so, with what result?


John George Diefenbaker: I shall have to look at my files to see whether I have received the message in question. Having done that, I shall be able to give the hon. gentleman an answer.


Lionel Chevrier: It was sent on April 4.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman could let the house know before the Easter recess what the government's plans are with respect to the three procedural and administrative tribunals which, he said, would be the subject of government action; the scrutiny committee, the procedural commission and the royal commission on the civil service.


John George Diefenbaker: I am trying very hard to get on with the business before the house. We have made some progress in the last few days and in the 63 days we have sat so far. When we conclude the budget debate, immediately after the recess we shall be in a position to deal with these very important matters.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance the following question. In view of the statement

carried in many Canadian newspapers relative to the decision of the chartered banks to charge an additional discount on United States silver coins, will the minister inform the house whether he or his department was consulted on this question, and what effect the decision may have on monetary policy and on financial relations between Canada and the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that is a matter which is the administrative responsibility of the minister, but the minister himself may have different views and, if so, I shall permit an answer to be given. But it seems to me this is a matter which is within the jurisdiction of the banks.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Precisely so, Mr. Speaker. This is a decision which the banks have evidently made within their own sphere of responsibility. There has been no consultation with the Department of Finance as far as I am aware.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question. If there had been any consultation, what would have been the attitude of the Minister of Finance?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Constructive, as
usual.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is it true that applicants for loans under the provisions of the National Housing Act-and I am referring now to people resident in northern Ontario-have to report the bonuses paid to mine workers, an amount which is unascertainable from year to year? if this is so, would the minister not consider having that regulation withdrawn and the question removed from the application papers?


David James Walker: I found it difficult to follow the hon. member, but I shall be very glad to accept his question as notice.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: May I
put a question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister be good enough to try to make available before the Easter 79951-0-196
The Budget-Mr. Granger recess the return relating to the housing development at St. John's, which was ordered a few days ago?


David James Walker: I will certainly do my best to oblige the hon. member.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I wish to address a question to the Acting Secretary of State, and ask him if he is now in a position to answer the question I put to him on Thursday April 7 in reply to which he said he would inquire and give an answer later.


Léon Balcer: I think the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources will answer in my place.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I have been away for a few days. The return asked for by the hon. member will be tabled right away.
(Translation):


Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Postmaster General.
Almost two months ago, on February 15 last, I put a question on the order paper that was passed as an order for return on February 17, 1960. It was about the organization of flying squads in Montreal by the Post Office Department. Can the minister tell me if I may expect an answer shortly?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: I hope to get an answer during the week end, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: Let us not forget that the house adjourns on Wednesday.


William McLean Hamilton: Before Wednesday, then.
(Text) :



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, April 8, 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.
Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, debate on the budget fortunately allows one to comment not only on what the budget contains but on what it does not contain. The budget seems to lean toward the latter to such a degree that it could in fact be called the vacuum budget.

The Budget-Mr. Granger
However, there was a nostalgic reminder of the past in the budget speech. Certainly when the Minister of Finance praised the qualities of thrift it was like a voice from the past. "Thrift" is a word we do not hear much nowadays, and I thought it might have been dropped from the English language. During the golden age of Liberalism it was not needed much, but like other words which have fallen into disuse-"unemployment", for instance-it has been been brought back into current usage by the Conservatives. Doubtless the language is the richer for it, even if the people are the poorer.
Thrift is doubtless a good thing. There is no doubt but that many of us would be better off-if we practised it, or if we made it a motto to make things do and to wear them out, but what would happen to an economy based on spending I would hesitate to say. Certainly there are many people in Canada today who have to practise thrift whether they like to or not.
The rosy description of our soundly based economy was heartening, and no doubt it must be comforting to the multitude of unemployed to know they are living in the midst of such prosperity. However, it is not considered good form to mention unemployment. In fact, to do so is to court the charge of being a Jeremiah. Unemployment must be ignored. Officially it does not exist.
I noted with interest what the hon. member for St. John's East said regarding the position of Canadian citizens working on United States bases. I am pleased, as he is, to hear that their status in respect to pension rights has been recognized. I trust that this includes those working on the Goose Bay air base in Labrador. I feel I should point out that the base in Labrador was not included in the original bases deal, and part of the air base at Labrador has been leased by the Canadian government to the United States under different circumstances.
I also noted with interest the hon. gentleman's comments on vocational training. I would ask him to use his influence with the Minister of Labour to adopt the proposals of the Liberal party as put forward by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, namely that the federal government should itself bear the full cost of vocational training for the unemployed instead of trying to push half of it on the provinces which already provide the vocational training schools.
So much has been said over the years about the fisheries, and particularly the salt codfish section of the industry, that I rather hesitate to discuss it further. But I believe so strongly in the importance to Canada of the fishing industry that I ask the patience


of the house while I refer again to Canada's oldest industry, which is still very valuable and which can be much more valuable in the future, both to Canada as a whole and to the individual fishermen.
From time immemorial fishing, like farming, has been one of the basic industries of mankind. The fisheries were very important to the countries of Europe away back in 1497, when John Cabot sighted Bonavista and in reality discovered Canada. When he returned to England he reported that the waters of the new found land were full of fish, and the very next year English merchants were outfitting ships to voyage across the Atlantic to the new fishing grounds. Soon the French, the Portuguese, the Basques and the Spanish were fishing in the waters of the new world. From that day to this the waters of Canada's east coast have been fished by many nations. Today, as in the closing days of the fifteenth century, the flags of many nations dot the seas off the coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador, and over the years the fishing industry has been a very important factor in the economy of eastern Canada.
However, less attention is paid to the fisheries today than in the past. There is reason for this. The industrialization of central Canada, the wealth which industry has brought, and the huge agricultural industry of the west have drawn public interest away from the old maritime pursuits, the fisheries of the Atlantic provinces. This is understandable, but it could be fatal to a large segment of our population. I do not dispute for a moment the right of the more prosperous and populous parts of Canada to press their problems and to advertise their progress. Rather, I applaud them for it. As Canadians we are all proud of the might of industrial Canada and of the glorious productivity of our land. What I do regret is the lack of public support for an industry which is vital to the survival of the Atlantic provinces.
It has been said in criticism that if the fishing industry cannot support itself it had better disappear; that if fishermen cannot make a living catching fish they should get better jobs elsewhere. On the face of it such criticism appears to be just. In any case, that is what is happening; and if the trend continues-and the downward trend is confined not only to the fisheries-the end will be the depression and depopulation of the Atlantic provinces. But in a nation growing at the rate Canada is growing we cannot afford to let any industry disappear. Every part of our national wealth must be exploited, and the waters off the northeastern coast of Canada are wealthy with food. There is no need for

the Atlantic provinces to be a depressed area; there is no need for the fishing industry to disappear.
It is granted that the industry is an old one, but age in itself is no yardstick of vitality. For instance, the wine industry is one of the oldest in the world, but today it is not considered to be a bad investment. The fishing industry has had its ups and downs, but so has every other industry. The real trouble, sir, is first, that the fishing industry has changed too litte over the years; it has failed to embrace modern methods quickly enough; second, it is facing heavily subsidized competition. Canadian fishermen must compete with the Portuguese, the French, the Icelanders, the Russians and many others, all of whom have the benefits of substantial government subsidies. Somehow we must effectively solve these two problems.
With respect to the former, the need for modernization of the fisheries, much has been done in recent years. We can take some satisfaction from the vast changes which have taken place. True, they came late but much progress has been made in the industrialization of the fisheries in recent years. Prior to the last decade or two there had been very little change in the way of catching fish. Looking through an old history of Newfoundland some years ago I saw some old drawings of fishermen of the sixteenth century, showing gear, stages, dress, and so on, and I was shocked to note that little change had taken place. To try to operate a fishing industry today, using ancient methods, is like trying to run a modern farm with hand implements, like attempting to meet the world need for grain with hoes and the single furrow plow.
It is no wonder that fishermen found it difficult to make ends meet and often quit the sea to get jobs ashore. But in recent years, and almost too late, the cod fishery has been partially industrialized. With provincial and federal aid modern plants have been built, handling both fresh and salt fish, and where these plants are operating the way of life has changed. While the industrialization of the fisheries was getting under way many fishermen quit the fisheries. Young men are not making fishing their profession because of the bad economic history of the industry. I am convinced that a danger point is being reached. Industrialization has come too late to save the industry without additional steps being taken to complete its rehabilitation. While a commercial revolution has been taking place, the fishermen have been disappearing. I would impress this upon hon. members. You can make a farmer into a miner, you can make a labourer into a mechanic, but a deep sea fisherman has to be bred to the job.
79951-0-196J
The Budget-Mr. Granger
Now, mark you, most fishermen and sons of fishermen would prefer to follow the sea, with its freedom and rich experience. This is not just a pretty story but is in fact the truth. I have met many fishermen and sailors who want to continue to follow the sea, but who quit it because they could not make a living at it. While the good effects of the industrialization of the fisheries are spreading out to the remote areas, something must be done to encourage fishermen to continue fishing, to make it possible for them to continue fishing, or one of these days we will find ourselves with modern plants and no fish for them. If we lose a generation of fishermen we will lose a great industry in Canada.
But this need not be so. Action can be taken to save the industry, speed up the industrialization and make a profit for Canada. The good work being done by the federal Department of Fisheries and the provincial department of fisheries in research, active aid, and so forth must of course be continued. But of immediate concern is making money available to fishermen so they can continue to fish.
Let me illustrate. On the Labrador coast today-and the waters of Labrador are one of the great sources of supply; I will come back to this later-there are many fishermen who have lost stages and fishing property through storms. Their boats and gear are worn out. Salmon nets are ragged; cod traps are full of holes. It is beyond the ability of the fishermen to get the necessary materials to repair their nets and traps, to build new boats, to buy engines and equip themselves to be able to prosecute the fisheries efficiently. It is impossible for them to do this without help. There is need, and need now, for active federal assistance to fishermen to replace worn-out gear.
Money must be made available by loan or grant to see them through this difficult period. Present loan schemes are neither ample nor workable. Capital must be made available. It must be made easier for fishermen to get up to date equipment. Believe me, it will pay the nation to do this. The community stage program must be continued and extended. It must include Labrador, because the fishing plants of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have to look more and more to Labrador for their supply. Within a few years I predict that Labrador will be more important than ever to the fishing industry. If we do not recognize what the Russians and others are even now capitalizing on we will regret it forever. At all costs there must be more attention paid to the Labrador fisheries. The replacement of property is of tremendous

The Budget-Mr. Granger importance. Several of these community stages must be built in Labrador this year.
The bait service, considerably improved, must be extended rapidly. A perennial shortage of bait has cost this country untold millions over the years. Research into artificial bait should be stepped up. The building of more fish plants must be encouraged. There must be more fish plants, with more fishermen fishing more efficiently and making more money per man. These things can be done at comparatively little cost. Let me repeat that the two great enemies of our oldest industry are tardiness in accepting change and the heavy government subsidies paid to our competitors. Certainly we can beat them both.
However, the fate of the industry rests right here. Only if the representatives of all of Canada make the fishermen's business their business and the Atlantic provinces' business their business can we hope to save a vital industry and a noble region of Canada. If for no other reason, national pride should make us want to do something about looking after our own interests.
Last fall while I was in northern Newfoundland there was a large ship and a flotilla of smaller ships inside the Grey islands. They proved to be a Russian supply ship and a fleet of Russian trawlers. It is known that Russian ships were still fishing in Labrador waters in February of last year. French and Portuguese trawlers come into St. Anthony for supplies. And I could go on. The ships of many nations are fishing Newfoundland and Labrador waters. In summer in my home town of Catalina on the northeast coast, sometimes the bay outside the harbour looks like a city as the lighted ships of a foreign fleet fish at night inside the three mile limit. Canadian waters are a happy hunting ground for the nations which know the value of the wealth in our waters. This is something that most Canadians apparently do not know and, what is worse, do not seem to care about. I think the proposed 10-year delay in protecting fishing rights in our coastal waters is regrettable and dangerous.
We stand to lose our fishing industry on the northeast coast of Canada. We stand to let the Labrador waters be lost to Canada in every practical sense. I say we cannot afford it. No matter how wealthy Canada is, she cannot afford it. The cost of rebuilding and making the Labrador fishery profitable is trifling compared with the reward. I say we cannot afford not to do this; and yet the Labrador coast is neglected. Despite the trifling cost of inexpensive radiotelephone sets, the fisher folk have little or no means of


communication. They try to survive under primitive conditions, without aid or interest, while the efficient ships of Russia reap the wealth of their waters.
However, while the coasts of Labrador await the attention necessary to development, the interior of Labrador, practically unknown and unexplored since creation, is now beginning to yield up its secrets and its wealth. The developments now in process in this unknown territory promise to make it one of the most important and wealthiest parts of Canada and, indeed, of the world.
A great change has taken place in the public attitude toward this unknown land in recent years, though I do not believe the scope of exploration and development is yet fully appreciated. Early explorers were astonished by the forbidding, fortress-like coasts of Labrador, the vastness of the Labrador wilderness and the barrenness of its northern mountains. It was early dubbed "the land which God gave to Cain". In 1770 Captain George Cartwright, who voyaged to Labrador, wrote:
One is insensibly drawn to the conclusion that this country was the last which God made, and that He had no other view than to throw together there the refuse of His materials as of no use to mankind.
However, despite that bitter observation Cartwright continued to voyage to Labrador for 16 years, and it is interesting to note in his journal that he thought he had detected the presence of iron ore. There were valuable materials in what Cartwright called the refuse of creation, for today the iron ore deposits of Labrador are of unimaginable importance to the economy of North America. In my opinion Cartwright did not do justice to this vast and impressive land, for no one can visit Labrador without being impressed by its grandeur, its iron-ribbed strength and its brooding immensity. In Hamilton inlet, where the great fortress of Goose Bay is located, even the weather is extremely good.
In recent years a modern saga of exploration has taken place in the Labrador. The bush plane on floats or skis, the men with sleeping bags and parkas, are the modern pioneers of a new front for civilization. There was little in the way of recorded data to go on, but huge deposits of iron ore and great potentials of water power were thoroughly investigated.
The water power of Hamilton falls is stupendous. The capacity is estimated to be about four million horsepower or more, with a possibility of another two million horsepower being available after the upper water power has been developed. That is a potential of six million horsepower, and the lower tributaries may well add another five million

horsepower. The British Newfoundland Corporation has spent several million in exploratory work, and in 1956 an access road was built from the Quebec, South Shore and Labrador Railway to the Hamilton river, a distance of 104 miles. I might add that 56 miles of this road were graded to a standard adequate to handle wheeled traffic.
This year the company will build a 120,000 horsepower hydro plant near Hamilton falls. The surveys have been completed and the preliminary work started. The project, including transmission lines, is scheduled to be finished in 1962. The power generated by this plant will be used at the new iron mines which are opening up in the Wabush lake area of Labrador, 110 miles away. Thus two of the great natural resources of Labrador have been linked together. The Iron Ore Company of Canada and Wabush Iron Company Limited will be the customers.
The great iron ore deposits of Labrador are being developed. A railway is being built there. A pilot plant is in operation. A town is springing up, and soon in what was once wilderness a modern town of several thousand people, with modern schools, hospitals and all the appurtenances of civilization, will live, move and have its being in what was once a remote and unknown land. It may be that God did not give this land to Cain after all; he gave it to Canada.
Here are northern development and the northern vision being fulfilled. We have heard much about visions and northern development during the past two years, but while the great northern vision of the administration seems to be fading like a disturbing mirage, in Labrador there is vision and fulfilment. I am not one to scoff at vision. I deplore the lack of it. The proof of what vision and patience can do exists today in Labrador. It is a great vindication of the vision of the premier of Newfoundland and others who believed in the practicability of northern development.
I would hate to see the northern vision, of which we heard so much during the prophetic winter days of 1958, die until the need for prophecy arises again. I believe the northern vision must go to meet the northern lights in Labrador. Here is a great new country of proven wealth. Here are known resources to be developed. Here is a region so large that a great agency like the federal government is needed to bring it the necessary public services. Here is a need for roads to known resources. Here is a place for federal enterprise in opening up a great new and wealthy land. Federal roads to resources, such as a road from Seven Islands on
The Budget-Mr. Kennedy the St. Lawrence to Goose Bay, Labrador- these are the things to inspire and challenge the vision of a great new northern development even now coming lustily alive.
I have talked much of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and of the old industry declining on its coast as well as the new industry beginning to flourish in its interior. Both have a great potential for our nation, and I am sure all Canadians, as they get to know this new land of Labrador, will be proud to count it as part of their country, even as I am proud to be its representative in parliament.


Mr. C. F. Kennedy (Colchesler-Hanls):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like first to congratulate the Minister of Finance and this government upon the budget. Being one who is proud of at least some of the thinking of my Scottish ancestors, it gives me very great satisfaction to see that the forecast is that we will come out on the right side of the ledger. Those in responsibility on this side of the house have every right to be proud of the fact that they have directed the public affairs of this nation and given the leadership necessary to bring us through a period of difficulty. Now we are in a position to indicate to the people of this country that they can look forward to prosperity and development on a pay as you go basis.
The position we have now reached as a nation has not come about by mere chance but is the fruit of careful planning and prudence, coupled with the unselfish application of the resources of our people in every walk of life. It is gratifying also to observe, especially during the last few years, not only the growth and progress economically but also the trend toward moulding a more united nation, made up of so many ethnic groups and based upon our British and French heritage. Let those who have assumed responsibility, and indeed this should include every citizen of this country, not accept all these blessings lightly and become complacent. There are many influences around us which, if we are not on our guard, will seek to destroy the high standards and principles which have become ours, not only through our own efforts but as a result of the sacrifices of those who pioneered in this great country.
In the last few years there has been a tendency for more and more people to call upon the government to enter more and more into business and private lives. I hasten to point out that it is generally recognized that the more we demand from government, the more of our individual freedom we sacrifice. The strength of a nation, I submit, lies not

The Budget-Mr. Kennedy in regimentation and control but in the initiative and industrious capabilities of the individual, working in an atmosphere of free enterprise.
The geographical location and nature of this country while having many advantages, also has some disadvantages. First, Canada stretching across the northerly part of North America is subject to extremes in seasonal climatic conditions, and this tends to raise many difficulties in the competitive production of many of the goods required on world markets. Because of this fact we have always been faced with a problem in providing year-round production in many things and this results, of course, in the problem of maintaining steady and full employment for all classes of workmen. Our climatic factor also concedes advantages in the seasonal production of various items to our great neighbour to the south and, in this regard, contributes in no small way to the present trade deficit with our neighbour. If we are to continue to enjoy the luxury of many consumer goods which because of climatic conditions can be produced earlier or only in the south, we must contiually open up new developments here and streamline production in such a manner that we can sell more to bring our trade ledger more into balance.
Second, this country stretching from sea to sea for a distance of nearly 4,000 miles has many transportation problems. The bulk of our population and manufacturing industries have been concentrated in the mid-eastern section. This, of course, has created many difficulties, both in distribution and marketing, for the lesser populated areas which lie in 'the western and Atlantic areas. If, for example, we who live in the Atlantic provinces are to develop our economy and enjoy the full resources of the country, it is necessary that steps are taken to realistically equalize this cost of distribution so it will be shared by all Canadians. When this great country was brought together in confederation it was intended that all citizens should share equal rights and privileges. Since that time we have shouldered the burden imposed by protective tariffs, and we in the Atlantic provinces have not been afforded equal treatment in that we have been, and still are, bearing additional burdens brought about by continued costs in transportation.
Before confederation, because of access to the water trade routes of the world, transportation was not a problem. However, after confederation tariffs robbed us of access to this trade in order to protect manufacturing which was mostly located in central Canada. Import tariffs, the benefits of which accrue to the national treasury, are nothing more

than a form of subsidization, because the one who buys the product thus assessed pays the shot. Why then, I might ask, are we who live in the extremities of the country not entitled to subsidization which would make us equal in the other respects?
For example, let us look at the distribution of products which are manufactured locally but sold on a national scale. It is my considered opinion that if it is not reasonably possible or practical economically to diversify some of these factors, then the products produced in this manner should bear the same price tags at distribution points all across the country. For example, let us consider the standard automobile. The standard automobile costs over $100 more in Windsor, Nova Scotia than it does in Windsor, Ontario. If these prices were equalized it would only mean a slight increase to the many buyers in Ontario, but would mean a major reduction in price to the buyers in the extreme areas.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Excise taxes should be eliminated, and that would help a great deal.


Cyril Frost Kennedy: I am sure that unless some steps are taken to rectify this situation with regard to these types of manufactured products, their customers located on the seaboards are going to look more and more to the advantages of buying imported articles; and I am sure everyone will agree that this procedure will not help to keep the factories going in this country. It is my opinion that this matter might bear close examination by the manufacturers concerned.
Last Friday the hon. member for Vancouver East, in speaking of the heroic town of Springhill and mentioning the few industries introduced into that community in the last year, was either unaware of or deliberately failed to mention the following fact, namely that a Nova Scotia company is opening a new mine in the town which will employ approximately 200 men. The company is being assisted in great measure by the very progressive provincial government of Nova Scotia.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. MacEwan:: He would not listen to me. Don't give him the floor.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Harold Edward Winch: Very well.



I960

Cyril Frost Kennedy: A good deal has been said during this debate with regard to the government's attitude toward the civil service. Some of those affected in my constituency express pleasure in that, since this government has taken office, they have already received two substantial pay increases and a good medical plan for which the government pays half the cost. The empty arguments of some hon. members opposite only show that they still have not learned that grass is better fodder than brass.
Hon. members opposite have had a good deal to say with regard to Canada's participation in continental defence. Surely they must realize that we are receiving a great degree of protection in view of our modest contribution. It is unthinkable that the people of this country could bear the burden of a go it alone plan. If they examine the present arrangement carefully they will find that under the policy of this government we are not only receiving reasonable defence but are also sharing in the production program to a extent which means a great deal to the economy of our country. In this age of missiles and electronics, techniques and defensive designs are changing so rapidly that the implements under development are liable to be obsolete before they reach the practical stage. It is therefore necessary to gamble to a certain extent beyond the foreseeable future.
Some hon. members opposite, in being critical of our program, seem to forget the colossal blunders made by the former government when they sat with it on this side of the house. I wish to remind them of one which hits close to home. For instance, the establishment of Camp Gagetown in New Brunswick, at a terrific cost to the public, certainly could not be justified, and so far as I am concerned involved the spending of huge sums of taxpayers' money and resulted in the ruination of the economy of such communities as Debert and Aldershot in Nova Scotia where facilities to meet the required military need already existed to a large extent.
Earlier I referred to our trade deficit with other countries. It is to be noted that we also have a considerable deficit in our tourist spending. It would be a terrific boost to our economy if we could encourage our own people to spend their vacation dollars within the boundaries of this country and, as a matter of fact, it should be possible to attract more tourists from other countries. I wonder whether we in the Atlantic provinces have explored all the possibilities. I am thinking at the moment particularly of the hundreds of miles of ideal bathing beaches along our shore lines, which I daresay are practically
The Budget-Mr. Kennedy unknown to the people a few miles inland. If hon. members of this house and their families have an opportunity to spend a week or two in partaking of the pleasure of salt water bathing and sunshine on one of these beaches, I am sure they will wish to return every year thereafter. Many of these beaches could be made more accessible and attractive by the owners themselves and at little cost.
I would commend the exploration of these resources especially to the municipalities as a field in which they could well increase their revenues at little or no cost. Local boards of trade also might well study the economic value of such developments to the locality concerned.
We in Nova Scotia are deeply grateful to this government for the special financial assistance which has enabled our municipalities more or less to hold the line in taxation and at the same time expand social, educational and health services. I am firmly convinced that under the positive policies of this government and the dynamic leadership of Premier Stanfield, Nova Scotia will continue to forge ahead even more rapidly than in the past year.


Harold Edward Winch: I wish to ask the hon. member a question. I waited until he finished his speech in order to do so. May I ask the hon. member whether the company which he said was going to open a mine and employ 200 men in Springhill is the same company that received from the government of Nova Scotia a financial contribution for drilling, and has now made an additional application for more money but has given no indication of doing anything beyond drilling? Is that the same company he has in mind?


Cyril Frost Kennedy: Not to my knowledge.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Beauce.


Mr. Hellyer:: I wonder whether I might put a question to the hon. gentleman. Can the hon. gentleman give us the dates of those two measures providing for salary increases to civil servants to which he referred as being introduced since the present government came into office?


Cyril Frost Kennedy: No, I have not that information. One was just the other day.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The $15 million one the other
day?


Cyril Frost Kennedy: That is the one.


Harold Edward Winch: Will the hon. member answer this question? Because of his statement when he challenged my statement in the House of Commons, will he give the name of the

The Budget-Mr. Racine company which is going to provide employment for 200 men in a coal mine operation in Springhill? Will the hon. member do that?


An hon. Member:: You made your speech.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Beauce.


Harold Edward Winch: Will the hon. member do that? Of course he does not dare do it.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: We are not in committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Beauce.
(Translation) :


Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my contribution to the budget debate, may I take this opportunity to express my deepest sympathy to those of my constituents who have suffered hardship from the Chaudiere river floods. I know that a number of my constituents have again been affected this year and have sustained considerable lasses.
I cannot help sympathizing with them, and I also hope that those who are still worried will not suffer further losses, whether they are city dwellers or people with farms along the river banks.
I also hope that some agreement may be reached between the responsible government and the federal government to eliminate this annual danger.
Mr. Speaker, there is a very legitimate tradition for taxpayers, i.e. to wait with some anxiety and impatience for the budget speech because they want to know the policy of the government and the prospects for the coming year.
This year, as in the past, the Canadian taxpayer was wondering what changes would be introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), if any change was to be expected at all, as under this government, we have got used to annual deficits, which, of course, prevent the minister from providing any reductions in personal income tax.
The budget presented by the Minister of Finance on March 31, does not contain any important fiscal change, as the minister himself has admitted, but he is optimistic and hopes that 1960-1961 will show some improvement.
He believes, for instance, that Canadians will earn more and pay the government $1,750,000,000 in 1960, instead of $1,555,000,000 as in 1959.
This prosperity, according to the minister, will also extend to business corporations which will pay the federal treasury

$1,340,000,000 instead of $1,140,000,000 in 1959.
The minister also hopes that customs revenues will rise by $51 million during the next financial year and that the sales tax will also bring in $59 million more than in 1959.
Consequently, the greater portion of additional revenue which the government hopes to raise during the financial year 1960-61, i.e. an amount of $591 million, will come mainly from direct taxes on individuals and corporations, representing an amount of $395 million, i.e. a percentage of 66.
Individuals will therefore account for one third and corporation for another third of the additional income which the minister hopes to secure in order to reach a $12 million surplus.
I hope, as do all taxpayers, that those forecasts will materialize, because at that time, they would indicate improvement in our economy, at least from the point of view of gross national product.
But I am inclined to agree with my colleague for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Beni-dickson), that we will face another deficit and that the supplementary estimates will be higher than foreseen by the Minister of Finance.
Since this government has been in office, it is the first balanced budget that the Minister of Finance has attempted to introduce, and here again we will have to wait until next year to know whether he has achieved his ambition or if he has been over optimistic.
However, in spite of the minister's optimism, we can hardly forget that right now there are more than 800,000 unemployed in Canada.
We cannot forget either, that the net income of farmers decreased by 7 per cent in 1959.
Those are two fields for which the Minister of Finance does not foresee any rapid solution which could warrant his hopes for 1960-61.
In his budget speech, according to page 2685 of Hansard for March 31, 1960, under the heading Summary and Conclusions, the Minister of Finance admits that the total loss of revenue from the relieving amendments could add up to as much as $2 million, and he admits also that those changes represent only some corrections. Therefore, there are no exemptions, and the 1960-1961 budget is based merely on optimism, in so

far as the balancing of the budget is concerned. Supposing the hopes of the Minister of Finance do not materialize completely, 1 wonder what will happen to the unemployment insurance fund, because if business does not improve or at least does not improve sufficiently, there will still be unemployment unfortunately. We know that in the last fiscal year and during this one, the Conservative government has not taken, or does not want to take, any steps to eliminate the economic evil which is unemployment.
In agriculture, for the year 1960-61, will the government maintain support prices at their present level? We all know how much farmers are disappointed and anxious over the new system of deficiency payments. That is the reason why they have been urging the government to maintain support prices on butter and cheese, and to establish a new support price on milk powder. I sincerely hope that the government will give special consideration to these highly justified demands of farmers.
We also note that, in the last fiscal year, imports rose by 9 per cent, whereas exports increased only 5 per cent. This means that, from this angle, the Tory government has done nothing to reduce our trade deficit, and if the yield of customs duties in 1960-61 is $51 million more than last year's, as expected in the budget, it means that we can expect a further rise in our imports, and therefore our trade deficit will be still larger in the next fiscal year.
We, in Canada, have the facilities for greater production, because we have the manpower and the raw materials. What is lacking is markets. Yet, according to an item which appeared in Le Soleil for April 29, 1957, here is what the Prime Minister of Canada stated:
Mr. Diefenbaker accused the Liberal government of partly destroying our economic independence by allowing an unfavourable trade balance to accumulate between Canada and the United States, a balance which now reaches the figure of $11 billion, an all-time record, and by allowing foreign capital to invade Canada to such an extent that the Financial Post, that great business newspaper, wonders how long Canada can retain its separate entity, in view of the increasing control of foreign capital in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, those were the words of the Prime Minister in 1957. We are now in 1960, and he has been in power ever since that time, and yet he has not done a single thing as far as our trade deficit is concerned.
The Budget-Mr. Racine Here is what he said on the same subject in Brockville, on May 8, 1957, as reported by the Globe and Mail for May 19:
(Text):
In a major policy statement, John Diefenbaker tonight outlined the steps the Conservative party would take to counteract Canada's increasing unfavourable balance of trade and to assist small business.
Steps must be taken immediately, he said, to encourage the development of Canadian production to reduce and ultimately eliminate adverse trade balances.
To encourage trade, he underlined, Canadian individuals and institutions should be encouraged to participate to a greater extent in the equity ownership of foreign-owned Canadian corporations.
One of the best ways to produce this result, Mr. Diefenbaker added, would be the revision of taxation laws to encourage a larger degree of Canadian investment.
(Translation):
Those are the words of the leader of the Conservative party and, at the time, he surely did not know that the voters would try him out by electing him Prime Minister.
What is the Conservative government doing to alleviate this problem? Absolutely nothing.
In another field, we see that during the last fiscal year, the federal government paid over to the provinces $149,800,000 for hospital insurance purposes. This amount, for all practical purposes, comes from taxes collected by the federal government to be redistributed to the provinces under the hospial insurance plan.
It is unfortunate that the province of Quebec, while sharing in the costs of this program, does not yet share in its benefits.
This hospital insurance program came into operation, in fact, in 1959-1960, when all provinces except Quebec decided to participate.
In the province of Quebec, because of the inertia of the Union Nationale government, the measure has not yet gone beyond the study stage.
The financial situation of the government shows us also that expenditures increased by 6 per cent to a record amount of $5,706,800,000.
But here is what the Prime Minister had to say about this. According to the Toronto Telegram of May 2, 1957, which reported a speech made in Truro, Nova Scotia, the day before, he said:
(Text):
Mr. Diefenbaker pledged that a Conservative government would set up a commission similar to the Hoover commission in the United States so that the "unnecessary and wasteful federal expenditure could be eliminated."

The Budget-Mr. Racine (Translation):
And yet, since the Tory government has been in office, expenditures have kept going up.
Since the Conservatives got in, there has also been a money crisis; nobody can borrow except at prohibitive rates.
Yet in this regard, according to the London Free Press for June 7, 1957, the Prime Minister said in Woodstock on June 6:
(Text):
The Conservative leader criticized the government for its tight money policy which, he said, had paralysed the lumber industry, had levelled prosperity in certain provinces and had jeopardized or ruined small businesses.
(Translation):
And what about tight money? No later than April 7 last, we learned in La Presse that the school board of St. Johns, in the Iberville constituency, was refused a loan by a bank in St. Johns.
The article reads as follows:
The Iberville school board needed a $61,000 loan, but it was turned down by the bank with which it had been doing business, although permission to borrow had been granted by the municipal commission. This amount would have been used to pay interest dues on debentures and to pay the teachers' salaries.
It was to be a short term loan, to be repaid in December 1960. The board was counting on its taxes and statutory grants to repay it.
Mr. Speaker, you have there another vivid example of the difficulties encountered by our school boards and our municipal corporations when it comes to borrowing, even for the retirement of loans and urgent work projects.
I have referred to the case of that school board in particular but I must point out that this is by no means an isolated one. 1 only had to open a recent newspaper to see that similar cases are to be found everywhere.
The tight money situation affects all fields of our economy, including schools, municipalities and industry.
Think of the farmers who, as I said while speaking during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, went to the banks for loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act to buy tractors and were told that money was available to customers only. If that is not a tight money situation I wonder what is.
That is the kind of situation created for many of our farmers by the policy of a Tory government which has not tried to solve that problem.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the financial situation of our municipalities.

In the last few years, the federal and provincial governments have been increasing their taxes, while municipal taxes also went up pretty steadily every year in the form of higher land and sales taxes. Municipal corporations also have a budget to balance, and they only have one field of taxation on which to rely, that is property taxes, a fact which the other governments seem to worry very little about.
I feel that the provincial governments, as well as the federal government, should seek an answer to various municipal problems.
I do not wish to suggest that our governments should meddle with the internal affairs of our municipalities, but I think that the federal government could exempt our municipalities from the excise tax.
I know that many items are now tax-free, but this tax exemption should not cover those items only, but also all purchases that municipalities must make during the year.
Many reasons would justify such a policy on the part of the federal government. In the first place, the federal government does not pay any taxes and, second, the taxes it imposes are deductible for income tax purposes.
We may also consider that taxes collected by the federal government are subject to collection charges. Now, in the present case, collection charges have not been reduced because the government must still control items only, but also all purchases that munici-tax.
In my opinion, if it has been found advisable not to tax some specific items, this excise tax abatement should be extended to all purchases made by our municipalities.
As I was saying, I am entirely against the federal government intruding or interfering in the internal affairs of municipal administration.
However, since the Prime Minister will convene a federal-provincial conference very soon, we are justified in asking ourselves what part municipal representatives will play at this meeting.
The Prime Minister declared on March 28, in this house, that a federal-provincial conference would take place on July 25, 26 and 27. Following that announcement the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) asked the Prime Minister, in view of previous statements with regard to the matter, what would be the municipal participation in the conference. We are still waiting for the

Prime Minister's answer. Consequently, it is quite plausible to think that municipalities will have no say at that gathering.
If the government realizes the present position of municipal corporations, if it is aware of the trouble it caused them by grabbing all available funds to cover its own deficits, it has, in return and in all fairness, the responsibility of granting them full deduction of the excise tax on all their purchases.
Of course what I am advocating for municipal corporations I also want for school boards, for they are now in a position which is similar, if not worse.
In fact, practically every week we read in newspapers about the troubles of many school boards. At times, they even have to face strikes by teachers whose salaries they are unable to pay.
If I am urging the federal government to remove this excise tax, it is not only because I consider it could thus be of help without interfering in the municipal and school fields, but I consider it could in this way legitimately subsidize, under the constitution, the requirements of those municipal and school boards that are now in great need.
Mr. Speaker, you will perhaps find it strange that I should emphasize the fact that the deduction could be made without interference by senior governments, but precisely, I consider it an advantage to be able to help them without asking them anything in return, as a certain Quebec government is doing when it infiltrates itself into those corporations to better control them for political purposes.
It was rather amusing to note how certain Conservative members tried to make the best possible use of this debate on the budget.
The first one to do so was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Bell) who, following the custom established by the Conservatives, did not fail to ask suggestions from the opposition. The Conservatives keep asking:	"What would
you do?" As if they were not the ones who had to fulfil the many promises they made to the Canadian voters.
The Conservative member for Laval (Mr. Bourdages) stated, according to page 2905 of Hansard, that this was the most sensational budget that we could hope for as far as textile products are concerned, and he went on to say:
This last budget has caused enthusiasm in cities where the textile industry will now become prosperous.
That is not the kind of comment we read in La Presse for April 1, in which it is reported that the reaction of representatives of the
The Budget-Mr. Racine textile industry ranges from dissatisfaction to resignation, and that they are disappointed because the protective tariffs for this industry have not been raised high enough.
As for the Conservative member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Bourbonnais), he said very little about the budget. He chose instead to praise the Union Nationale, thereby forgetting that the subject matter of the debate was the budget of the Minister of Finance, his Conservative colleague.
He went on to give us the old story which is well known in the province of Quebec, and told us about the number of schools that were built not by the ratepayers, those who pay taxes, but by the Union Nationale, a party of Conservative trend, as he said according to page 2949 of Hansard.
On the other hand, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay), as if it were appropriate for him to do so, took the opportunity to give us a lesson in ethics.
We conclude from this budget that the Conservatives hope that spring will bring about a solution to the unemployment problem; otherwise, as the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) stated, if spring does not bring any solution, the fund will be depleted by 1962.
We also note from the budget that there is nothing to show that the Conservatives intend to keep the promises they made to Canadian voters in the last two elections.
We note that there is nothing to show that farmers can expect a rise in their incomes, which dropped 7 per cent in 1959.
We note further that housebuilders are concerned, according to a statement made on April 4 by the chairman of their association in Montreal, and I quote:
The housebuilding industry, Mr. Holmes stated is now going through a very serious crisis, such as it has not known for a number of years.
In the first three months of 1960, he added, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approved four times less mortgage loans than in the corresponding period last year. This year, it has approved 2,800 loans across Canada, as against 8,900 last year.
Mr. Holmes blames the situation on three factors: the attitude of C.M.H.C., the refusal of banks to grant mortgage loans; and the increasing indifference of lending firms.
The housebuilders association realizes that it is up against competition from industry and business, which are more attractive to moneylenders because they offer a higher rate of interest, whereas the rate is generally restricted to 6 per cent on mortgage loans for housing purposes.
Civil servants are also dissatisfied because their demands have only been partially met, and because the salary increases apply only to certain classes. Postal employees will not
3104	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Ricard be satisfied, since this salary increase does not apply to them; in fact, those 20,000 postal employees, or so, are not included in the 50,000 civil servants who will benefit from an increase retroactive to April 1.
In other words, nobody, except Conservative members, seem to be satisfied with the administration of this government, and if, here and there, we hear rumours about the Conservatives going to the polls in 1961, perhaps it might be a good thing to suggest to them that they do it as soon as possible, because the people would be ready to get rid of them this very year.


Mr. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, allow me, at the beginning of my remarks, to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) on the efficient way in which he fulfils his task as Canada's great treasurer. The balanced budget he introduced in the house, on March 31 last, is evidence of his great ability and, at the same time, of the firm determination of the present Conservative government to give the country a sound economic leadership.
I was glad to hear, the other night, the Minister of Finance open his speech with the following words, uttered in my mother tongue:
In presenting my first budget on June 17, 1958, I drew attention to the fact that never since confederation, had any portion of the budget speech been delivered in this house in the French tongue, I expressed my surprise that in a parliament with two official languages enjoying complete equality every portion of this budget speech has always been delivered in English.
As a member of a constituency where 99 per cent of the people are French speaking, I think it is my duty to thank very sincerely the Minister of Finance for this courtesy towards the racial group to which I belong. His attitude confirms the determination of the present Conservative government to give the French language the place it rightfully deserves in the proceedings of our nation's parliament.
Mr. Speaker, when the minister spoke the words I quoted a moment ago, I stole a glance at my Liberal friends, sitting on my right, who never miss a chance to ask questions whenever anyone makes some slight error or a minor slip.
It was most amusing to see how humiliated and disappointed they were after the lesson the Minister of Finance had taught them. The lesson was the harder to swallow as it came from a member of a Conservative government


which in the past, they used to represent as the arch-foe of everything French Canadian. Therefore, in the days following the budget speech, our hon. friends, the Liberals, did not particularly try to play up this incident in the press. They chose instead to minimize the whole thing.
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the speeches made by hon. opposition members since the beginning of the session, and more particularly since the budget speech. I was surprised to see how upset they were by the minister's budget speech on March 31 last. It was particularly sad to witness the superhuman effort of my good friend and desk-neighbour, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson), trying to criticize the budget submitted by the Minister of Finance. It was certainly a thankless task, as he had to criticize a budget which was most welcome to the remainder of Canadians.
Our people heard with great pleasure that there had been no tax increase. Textile workers in my district and in the remainder of the province rejoiced about tariff protection which, following the report of the tariff board, was announced in the budget speech. And now, Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote from an item, i.e. part of an article published by Le Courrier de Saint-Hyacinthe on the budget presented by the Minister of Finance. The title, and I quote, is:
A balanced budget In Ottawa. Forecast of a $12 million surplus.
The budget presented by the Hon. Donald Fleming, Minister of Finance in the cabinet of the Hon. John Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada, is full of optimism, dispels all gloomy forecasts, and hushes all the cries of dismay and hypocritical innuendoes of the Liberal opposition.
Not only does it forecast a surplus for the new financial year, but it reassures the people in respect of the question marks which are always present at this time of the year with regard to taxes and taxation.
Further on, it reads:
The strange thing is that the Liberal politicians who proclaimed themselves infallible throughout the country, failed, in their smug complacency to rouse themselves to an awareness of imminent economic perils.
Though they had been warned by their own financial and business experts, who were cautioning them against a future which might cause some uneasiness, they did not even take the trouble to listen to them nor to attempt any preventive gesture.
If we were to believe my hon. friends in the opposition, Canada is a rather poor country where life is rather dismal and hard. According to them, there is nothing

in Canada but unemployment and extreme misery caused by a tremendous load of taxes and duties.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the picture.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: To listen to Liberal speeches-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Industries are declining,
farmers are facing ruin, workers lead a miserable existence on the verge of bankrupty and so on.
According to them, these are the blackest years Canada and Canadians ever knew.


Some hon. Members:: So they are, so they are.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: On the other hand, if we were to believe the Liberals, there has never been either progress, or prosperity or happiness in Canada under any but their own rule.


Some hon. Members:: That is right; it is true.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: They alone are responsible for all beneficial legislation enjoyed by Canadians. All good comes from them.


Mr. Lessard:: And so it does.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: And all evil, all that is wrong, is blamed on the Tories.


H.-Pit Lessard: That's true, that's it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal
troubadours, in their dirges-


An hon. Member:: The troubadours-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -make the most of a few weaknesses in our economy. They have not a word for the action taken by this government to correct the poor situation we inherited in June 1957. They are particularly careful not to go back any farther than the last world war. They boast about extraordinary and essential accomplishments under their regime and claim credit for a prosperity which was unavoidable in wartime.
They like to refer to the prosperity which prevailed under Liberal administration and made it possible for them to reach a high level of employment.
Our Liberal friends, while tooting their own horns, quite intentionally forget something. During the next few minutes, I should like to refer to those very details which they chose to leave out of their speeches.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal members did not utter a word about conditions that prevailed during the years 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1936, 1937, 1938 and up to 1939 when the war got
The Budget-Mr. Ricard them out of the mess they were in. Farmers remember that in 1928 and 1929, hogs were selling at $4.50 a hundredweight, eggs at 8 to 10 cents a dozen, and butter at about 20 cents a pound.


An hon. Member:: When was that price for butter?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: On the other hand, workers that are over forty today well remember that, at that time, there was a good deal of unemployment, that it was very hard for heads of families to find work and earn a living and that they had to be satisfied with wages of 10, 15 or 25 cents an hour.
The Liberal members might have added that verse to their dirge.
I have looked through Hansard-


An hon. Member:: 1930-1935.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -and I found that, at the
time, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) was not getting up every morning to ask the Minister of Labour if the number of unemployed had increased during the night. Oh, no, it was at the time of the Liberals, when there were 600,000 unemployed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The situation is much more serious now. That is why.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Ten per cent of the labour force was unemployed, and our Liberal friends were sleeping, sleeping a deep sleep. At that time, therefore, they were ignoring the workers but now that they have lost the power, they just love the workers. Yes, they love them so much they are pressing them closely on their hearts so as not to hear their impressions on the conditions which prevailed when they were in power.
Here, Mr. Speaker, in support of what I just said, I would refer to a passage from a book entitled: "Official History of the Canadian Army, Six Years of Wars", by Stacey.
(Text):
I quote from page 112:
Another factor, probably less important in practice, made conscription seem unnecessary in Canada in 1939. The country had not fully recovered from the depression which had begun a decade before, and there was still a great deal of unemployment. Estimates of the number of unemployed at the outbreak of war run as high as 600,000, and the federal government at this time was still making large contributions to unemployment relief.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out again that that was under a Liberal government.
Mr. Speaker, in contrast with the dark picture presented by the Liberal members of the present economic situation, I

The Budget-Mr. Ricard should like to make a brief review of what has been done by the present Conservative government since it has been in office.
In the field of agriculture, which is the most important basic industry of this country, legislation was introduced right at the first session in order to correct a situation which was detrimental to the agricultural class. The farm price support act, which farmers had been expecting for a long time, was adopted in order to stabilize the prices of farm products. In order that the act, designed to help farmers, might be applied efficiently, a revolving fund of $250 million was set up.
Mr. Speaker, you will no doubt be glad to learn that, as a result of the policy adopted by the government which I have the honour to support, on price support, farmers of my constituency have received more than $262,000.
The sugar beet industry has enjoyed a support price from which it gained an amount of $41,390.70; the subsidy of 25 cents per hundredweight of processed milk, in ten dairying establishments, has yielded to the farmers an amount of $221,523.04. Added to that are deficiency payments on hogs and eggs, which will be paid later in the year.
An amount of $345 million was voted to pay cash advances to western farmers for farm stored grain. Those surpluses had piled up almost entirely under the Liberal administration.
The Canadian Farm Loan Act has been greatly improved. Under the former act, the maximum loan was $15,000, as against the present amount of $20,000, and the percentage of the loan has been raised from 65 to 75 per cent of the assessed value of the farm.
In July 1959, the Conservative government enacted the crop insurance act. The Animal Contagious Diseases Act was also amended to give greater compensation to farmers whose animals are slaughtered under a tuberculosis and brucellosis control program. Mention should finally be made of the amendment to the Farm Improvement Loans Act. An amount of $300 million was voted for that purpose.
One has to be extremely biased to claim that the present Conservative government has done nothing for the farmers. It has done more in three years than our predecessors in the 15 years before their defeat.
Now let us look at the working class. Let me mention first that an act was passed granting paid vacations to all workers under federal

jurisdiction. The unemployment insurance regulations were amended to remove any discrimination against married women. In 1957, an amount of $13 million was paid to 250,000 workers when the period of seasonal benefits paid under the unemployment insurance act was extended from 16 to 24 weeks. Then another extension was granted in 1958, which enabled approximately 200,000 workers to receive an additional amount of $14 million in benefits.
Again in the field of unemployment insurance, the benefit period was extended to 52 weeks, to help workers who are forced to remain idle because of the unavailability of jobs.
At this stage, Mr. Speaker, may I make a few remarks on economic conditions prevailing in Canada, and particularly in my constituency, just to brighten up our friends in the Liberal party, who see everything through dark glasses. I should like to draw to the attention of the house certain indications of Canada's economic recovery, and just to prove my point, I shall quote from articles which appeared in various newspapers.
For instance, in La Presse of Tuesday March 22, 1960, we find the following:
Canadian companies will pay out this month in dividends an amount of $81,583,100, as compared to $77,878,900 in 1959 and $75,628,100 in 1958; the first quarter total reaches $195,794,000, that is 4 per cent more than in 1959 and 5 per cent more than in 1958, according to figures compiled by J. R. Timmins & Co.
Industrial firms are accounting for $48,444,000, a little more than last year but a little less than two years ago.
Due to the increase of the dividends of the International Nickel Company, the mines will distribute $21,979,200 this year, against $19,929,200 in 1959 and $17,119,100 in 1958.
Public utilities and financial institutions will pay out a little more this year than in the two previous years.
And, Mr. Speaker, here is an article from the Gazette of April 8 1960:
(Text):
Greater Activity is Shown in Manufacturing Industry.
A further improvement in manufacturing and processing activity, following a significant increase in February, is reported for March by the Canadian association of purchasing agents.
New orders were higher than in February, according to 37 per cent of the association's respondents.
(Translation):
And a little futher on it states:
(Text):
Employment edged ahead in the latest month with 23 per cent reporting more employees, more than offsetting the 17 per cent reporting a decrease.

(Translation):
In Le Devoir of April 6, 1960, I find the following:
Bright outlook for Ford of Canada.
Though sales so far in 1960 have not been as good as expected, it will be a good year however, said Mr. Rhys M. Sale, president of Ford of Canada, at the annual meeting of the shareholders.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with things which concern more particularly my district and, to do so, I will quote from Le Devoir of March 25, 1960:
Construction of a $15 million plant in Tracy.
Work will start this spring on the construction of a $15 million plant in Tracy, near Sorel, for the British Titan Products (Canada) Ltd.
The plant will have a capacity of 23,000 tons of titanic oxide a year and will require a regular working force of 250 people.
I read now from page 15 of Le Yamaska of March 9, 1960, the following title: "Southern Canada Power declares a 9.2 per cent increase for its gross revenue. The subhead reads:
More than one million kilowatt-hour sold. Sixty-four new industries established in this area in 1959.
You hear that, Mr. Speaker; 64 new industries. It is quite different from the gloomy picture that the members of the opposition are constantly describing.
In the speech he made last week, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) dealt with the textile industry and tried to make us believe that this industry started to decline in 1957 only, after the Conservative government assumed power.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on the record some information with regard to the textile industry. This is an excerpt from the publication Quebec Industriel of May 1957 On page 16, it says:
Employment in the primary textile industry has fallen from 98,000 in 1951 to 81,000 in 1956.
If my memory does not fail me, Mr. Speaker, I think that our hon. friends from the Liberal party were then in power. Therefore, the textile industry had begun to decline in their time. A little farther down, on the same page, we read:
Whereas in 1955 the total amount of profits for Canadian corporations were slightly higher than in 1950, those of the textile industry had fallen to about a third of what they were.
On page 18 we find:
And as the salary factor represents a significant proportion of production costs-costs being what they are in Canada-it is a stimulant to importation.
That was still under Liberal rule, Mr. Speaker.
That is why, from 1950 to 1954, approximately 70 companies had to close down, which resulted in the lay-off of 21,000 workers.
We did not hear the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) say
The Budget-Mr. Ricard anything about that. No, it could not be, because orders or rather the watchword of the party requests its members to present an entirely gloomy picture of things under Conservative rule.
Yet, I take much pleasure in referring again to the publication I already mentioned, and in quoting the title on page 24:
A disastrous tariff policy.
That was again under the Liberal government of the time, and it says:
For the last 20 years (except for the depression period of the 30's) there has been a gradual decline in Canadian tariffs on textiles from abroad: in fact, those of 1954 were lower than those of 1928. The decline was even higher than that of any other country. Consequently, our imports have increased at a faster rate than our production. The part of the national market that domestic production has satisfied has decreased from 67 to 57 per cent from 1950 until this year-
That is to say 1957, under a Liberal regime,
-while it was 71 per cent in 1930.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are a few bits of information that my friend, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska could probably have given the house.
I have never denied it. I even pointed it out myself. I said that the Gotham Hosiery, which lost its markets because it so stubbornly persisted in making full-fashioned hosiery that other firms took over the market, and when it was ready to switch to seamless hosiery- which women prefer-it was just too late, the market had been taken over by its competitors. However, instead of quoting from anonymous letters, my hon. friend could surely have mentioned that in my own town, four new industries have started. He made no mention of this, because again, it would have shown the situation in its true light, and this would have weakened the case of the Liberals.
I had jotted down a few notes on this subject, but I seem to have mislaid them. He said, for instance, that the Gotham Hosiery employed 400 persons, whereas the official report I have here, and which I have received from the St. Hyacinthe city hall, states that Gotham Hosiery employed only 225 workers.
More half-truths, similar to the ones we heard a few weeks ago from the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis), when he said that Penman's Limited was on the point of closing down because of competition from imported Japanese sweaters. On the following Saturday, I immediately got in touch with Mr. Covert, manager of Penman's Limited, who informed me first that the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Na-pierville was not authorized to make such a statement, and furthermore, that it was utterly false. He added that such statements

The Budget-Mr. Ricard only served to spread panic, anxiety and fear among the employees. He also asked me to put the record straight by mentioning in the house that sweaters only make up a very small part of the production of Penman's plant in St. Hyacinthe.
Those are all half-truths, used in attempts to minimize the achievements of this government, and to promote to some extent the ever doubtful chances of the Liberal party.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what you are hoping.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is what we know, and that is what is extremely painful to all Liberals, starting with my good friend, the hon. member for Essex East.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is running short, but I would like to go over a few notes I have jotted down, to tell the house that in the years when the Liberals were in power, employment and workers' salaries were not at the level they are today. You know there are more people at work today than ever before. As far as salaries are concerned, the average salary has increased substantially since the Conservative government has been in office. It is as follows, for the years 1955 and 1959, under a Conservative
regime:
1955	1959
Textile industries	
51.92	60.65Housing industries	62.11	77.18Industries in general_____	61.05	73.57
Our hon. friends the Liberals have said repeatedly that workers had never paid so much taxes than they are paying now, under a Conservative regime.
If you want facts, Mr. Speaker, I will examine those figures, while comparing our record with that of the Liberal members.
I have used the table of deductions No. 8, for 1952 and tables No. 12 and 12a for 1959. Now, according to those tables, the weekly deductions levied at the source for a salary of $60 a week, were as follows-the year 1952 was under a Liberal regime, while the year 1959 was under a Conservative regime:
1952 Single without dependents.$8.15	1959 $6.05	$2.10Married without children .	4.05	2.75	1.30Married with 2 children eligible for family allowances 	2.90	1.40	1.50Married with 4 children eligible for family allowances 	1.80	.05	1.75

1952	1959
Married with 6 children eligible for family allowances	
0.70	-Married with 8 children eligible for family allowances	
0.15	[DOT]-
There you have, Mr. Speaker, the record I would ask Canadian workers to judge, and say which of the two, that is the Conservatives or the Liberals, have taxed them more.
(Text):
Before closing, I should like to read an article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of July 2, 1958. It gives a good account of the contribution of French Canada toward the maintenance of true Canadianism.
(Translation):


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is from bishop Carrington?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Yes. I quote:
(Text):
"After 23 years as bishop and archbishop of Quebec, I can devoutly thank God for the courtesy, kindness and understanding which have been accorded to us by the bishops and clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, and the general goodwill of the provincial authorities."
These words were heard on Sunday in St. Paul's Cathedral in London. Most Reverend Philip Carrington, the Anglican Archbishop of Quebec, now in London to attend the Lambeth conference, was the invited preacher.
He was speaking as one having authority, for, as he said, he was speaking out of 23 years of experience. He described the Anglican population of his diocese as "very minute" and as living in a province with several million French Canadians. But the achievement of co-existence is not merely a legalistic accommodation, but the development of a spirit of wise adjustment.
And a great achievement it has been. "I wonder," said the Archbishop, "whether there is anywhere else on the face of the earth where two races have lived together so successfully in mutual respect and affection."
(Translation):


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is the statement of a good man.
(Text):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Any reasonable person not blinded by political partisanship, deceit and racial prejudice will admit that such an accomplishment could not have taken place under a dictatorship, as was suggested by certain members of the opposition. May I make a special appeal to the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) to forsake his narrowmindedness and ponder these words and the words which I have just quoted. I am glad

to let the hon. member know that French Canadians have witnessed many such attacks and survived them easily.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Racine: Before the hon. member resumes his seat, perhaps he would answer a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Certainly.


Jean-Paul Racine: He has quoted from the he Courrier de Saint-Hyacinthe, in which opposition members are referred to as hypocrites. Could he give us the name of the writer of that article?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: My hon. friend can look up the newspaper, and he will find out.


Jean-Paul Racine: What newspaper?


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is customary to try to say something nice about the minister during the budget debate. This was practically impossible this year when we look at this budget. When we look at all the problems facing the country and we see that they have been completely ignored it is very difficult for one to have any kind words for the minister.
However, there is one thing on which the minister should be complimented. He has continued the practice he started of giving his budget speech in the two official languages of this country. This is all to the good.
We face a great danger of being completely overwhelmed by our giant friendly neighbour from the south. The fact that we are so friendly increases the danger of losing our Canadian identity altogether.
In my opinion, the greatest bulkwark against this is the fact that we are a bilingual and bi-cultural country. Canadian citizenship requires that we speak either one or the other language. Our objective should always be to speak both.
It matters not if we are French who cannot speak English or English who cannot speak French, whichever we are, we are that much short of being the Canadian we should be because then indeed we would be truly distinctive from the United States.
The minister is setting this good example and he must really have been working on his French because it shows marked improvement. But maybe he has been working too hard on it because as his French gets better so his budgets get worse. Might I suggest he work as hard on his budgets in the future as he appears to have on his French in the past and maybe he can bring about a similar improvement in them. Might I say that his French is adequate now to give a much better budget than he has given so far to this house.
The Budget-Mr. M. Martin
(Text):


Mr. Pigeon:: I should like to put a question to the hon. member. What does he think about the declaration made by his colleague, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher)?


Murdo William Martin: I think it was distorted to a greater extent than anything I have seen in the newspapers across this country for a long time. It is unfortunate that the extremists in both our languages should take a football like this and kick it around to the detriment of Canadian unity.
On the subject of the budget, I see that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) is up to some of his old tricks again; he likes to have things both ways. If we look at pages 2669 and 2670 of Hansard we find that, first of all, he had this to say:
In spite of a period of credit strains and in spite of some unfortunately prolonged industrial stoppages both at home and abroad, Canada has had a good year.
Then on the next page, he says:
Average per capita wages and salaries of workers in trade and industry reached a new record of $3,773, an increase of 4 per cent over 1958 and of 10 per cent over 1956.
The minister goes on to say that the increase nationally amounted to a satisfactory figure of 3 per cent real income. Here is the old story of a man trying to have it both ways. In one sentence he regrets that there have been industrial stoppages, though this is the only method by means of which many employees can get a raise in pay. But he goes on with the next breath, to take credit on behalf of his government that they did get a raise. Similarly, if we look at page 2671, we find this paragraph.
Any inflow of capital raises questions as to ownership and control of Canadian industry and resources, and also the question of the servicing of debt. As to ownership and control, this government's position is clear. We welcome capital into Canada if, when here, it is willing to act as if it were Canadian and not as if it were foreign. During the past two years there has been increasing evidence, in many quarters, that foreign capital in this country is becoming increasingly conscious of its Canadian responsibilities. This is a subject that has been vigorously brought to the attention of foreign investors by the Prime Minister and others. It would be better if the desired result were achieved by such persuasion than by legislation.
I have read that over five or six times and have not the foggiest notion what it means. Stripped of its double-talk it amounts to nothing more than mealy-mouthed balderdash.

The Budget-Mr. M. Martin
How times have changed since the halcyon days of 1957. In those days even some hon. members of the opposition had something kind to say for the Minister of Finance when he brought in his baby budget. In 1958 and
1959	many Canadians and many newspapers still remained loyal to the government but in
1960	almost without exception the newspapers have deserted the minister and the government. Read through the newspapers from coast to coast and you will find scarcely a kind word for this government. Some newspapers made a big issue of the fact that the minister was interrupted 44 times by loyal members pounding their desks as a sign of approval but I suggest this shows not so much enthusiasm on their part as good training.
We have seen one after another of the Tory backbenchers rise and praise the government and the minister but it has been apparent too that more and more frontbenchers have joined with the opposition in criticism of the government. We have to look no further than the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) and the perpetual thorn in the side of the government, the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) for proof of this. While the latter hon. gentleman is not considered a frontbencher he sits in the front row, even if next to the door.
The minister and the government must have nostalgic memories of those days when they found kind words about them in the newspapers. It is interesting to examine why the newspapers have turned against the minister and the government. I suggest that the first reason is because of unemployment for which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) has tried to find an answer. I recall the ringing words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he said on television, "we have met the problem of unemployment." The right hon. gentleman did not say where he had been that week but he could have met unemployment anywhere. He could have met it in the maritimes, on the west coast or on the streets of Ottawa. I do not know of any place in Canada where he would not meet the problem of unemployment. What we wonder about is when he and his government are going to do something about it.
The second reason is because of the attitude of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) and the defence policy of this government. In today's Globe and Mail there is an article that clearly indicates why newspapers and many Canadians are taking a second look at this government. I wish to

quote a few extracts from the article entitled "Misgivings on Defence":
Evidence of deep unrest among Canadians over this country's defence policy grows stronger day by day.
Reference is then made to the comments of the hon. member for Greenwood to which I have already referred, and to statements made by the president of the University of Toronto. The article continues:
In the fiscal year that has just begun, Canada is spending $1,593 million on defence. What are we getting for it in national safety? How much of it is going to buy and maintain obsolete weapons, to pursue outdated defence concepts? Could not the same degree of national security be obtained by spending, say, half the money? These are essentially the questions Canadians are asking.
They see the obstinate way in which the government sticks to the highly dubious Bomarc missile which represents, for Canada, a total investment of about $125 million.
The article goes on in the main to criticize the Liberals but that is not my job here today. In fact the only kind word the article had to say was about the C.C.F., and I quote:
Mr. H. W. Herridge, C.C.F. member for Kootenay West, told the commons Thursday that elimination of wasteful defence spending could yield a saving of $300 million a year to start with. There is nothing wild in this estimate.
It is not too often that we find suggestions of the C.C.F. being commended to the Canadian people by this newspaper. The article continues:
Parliament cannot go home until Canadians are provided with answers to the many and legitimate questions they are asking about defence policy.
I will not go into that subject at length, but with respect to the Bomarc I will say this. I am told that as you come out of North Bay proceeding north on highway No. 11 you pass over a hill called Thibeault hill. As a result of the Bomarc project I am informed that a tunnel now cuts through Thibeault hill and comes out right beside the insane asylum at North Bay. I would say this is a fitting monument to the Bomarc.
The third reason relates to the proposed bill of rights. We watched the Prime Minister and the government take a firm stand a couple of years ago supported by the whole house with respect to the situation in Hungary. We thought this action was in line with this great fighter for the bill of rights. A chink appeared in the armour of the hon. gentleman when he failed to take the opportunity of doing away with the repressive labour legislation in the province of Newfoundland. Today all Canadians and most newspapers are wondering why the Prime Minister has been so reluctant to take a stand on the South African situation. Britain and the other commonwealth countries have raised their voices in protest. No doubt the

Prime Minister's reluctance to take a stand is interpreted by the black people in South Africa as an indication that the Prime Minister is on the side of the government there.
The fourth reason is because of the treatment accorded war veterans and pensioners. I do not know how many hon. members have received letters from legionnaires in their riding but I have received quite a few in the last several days and they are appropriate to the subject I am now discussing. I wish to place one letter on the record:
I am writing you because I believe the time has come when we must realize that changes in the Pension Act and the War Veterans' Allowance Act are long overdue.
As you know the Legion have made representation to the Prime Minister and cabinet, and have appeared before the parliamentary standing committee on veterans affairs explaining why, in our opinion, our requests are justified. Indications now are that it is not intended by the government that there will be any amendments to the Pension Act at this session of parliament.
I believe our requests are just and that the government should take action to grant the points raised in the legion briefs.
I believe that the increases they have asked for are reasonable, and it is a fact that the disability pensioner today is not in as favourable a position as in 1920 or in 1946 when compared to wages paid to various classes of Canadian employees.
I would appreciate your doing everything in your power to assist the veterans in obtaining improved legislation this session.
This is all the more serious, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Aiken:: Will the hon. member indicate the source of these letters?


Murdo William Martin: This is a form letter from the Canadian Legion British Empire Service League, Timmins branch No. 88, Timmins, Ontario. It is signed by Harold W. Richardson, member, branch 88, B.E.S.L., Timmins, Ontario. This is only one of many I have received. I think it is all the more serious when we realize that last year many of the veterans who were down here making representation to this government went home with the feeling that they had a definite promise from the minister that they would be given some consideration this year.
Then we find another reason why this government is losing its popularity. We have only to turn to the farmers of this country. The other day I picked up a copy of the Western Producer, dated April 7, which contained the headline:
The Next Move Up to Farmers
Alvin Hamilton Says
This is very interesting to the farmers because it is about the sixth or seventh move that has been up to them. I imagine they are wondering what kind of game of checkers it is they are playing. Their first move was representation to this house. That did not work. Therefore they tried another move.
The Budget-Mr. M. Martin They elected 47 or 48 western Conservative members but they had no luck that time, either. They received no help so in their third move they sent a delegation 1,100 strong to make representations to the members. Still nothing happened. The fourth move was more representations. Now it says here that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) says that the next move is up to the farmers. I suggest there is only about one move left to the farmers and that is the proper move when the next election comes along.
Then I go on to the next reason for the lack of popularity of this government. All we have to do is to turn to housing and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker). I was home over the week end and I attended a meeting of the northeastern Ontario development association. A pretty grim picture, a pretty grim outlook was painted by the construction people in that association. People who originally planned to go ahead with about 100 or more houses this year told me that under the present legislation, the present picture drawn up by the minister, they are going to cut back their program and not build a single house they intended to build.
I would suggest that the Minister of Finance apparently decided this year to balance his budget at all cost. He can balance it only by postponing the payment of debts. He is also balancing it at the expense of the war veterans, the old age pensioners, the farmers, the unemployed and the civil servants. I do not think this is a laudable way for the Minister of Finance to balance his budget.
I should like to go on and make reference to another minister who I believe should receive some attention at this time. I refer to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough). Not too long ago I received a letter from British Columbia which contained a copy of the Birmingham Mail, a newspaper published in Birmingham, England. It was dated January 27. Unfortunately, I have not the copy with me; I believe I have mislaid it. I will have to quote from memory what was in the advertisement in that paper. As I said, the paper was dated January 27, 1960. The headline of the advertisement read, "Canada Needs Immigrants." With 700,000 unemployed in this country, we need immigrants. The advertisement went on to expound on the opportunities in Canada and the assistance available. They could get interest free loans to come here; they could get assistance after they get out here. For what purpose? To join the unemployed? I should like to read from just part of the letter which accompanied the copy of this newspaper. This letter was written by an immigrant who has

The Budget-Mr. M. Martin been in this country about two years. He came from the British Isles. He says:
What really bothers me is the fact that there are four pages of jobs vacant in this same paper, and as you will see there are literally over a thousand different advertisements offering several thousand jobs in all occupations, both skilled, unskilled. white collar and professional. In Canada we have widespread unemployment with over 700,000 men looking for jobs. Also here we have exorbitant rents, with a high cost of medical care and dental care (which hits us British immigrants hardest of all).


Mr. McCleave:: On a point of order, surely the hon. member cannot read a letter into Hansard without giving us the name of the author. I think this is covered specifically by the rules.


Murdo William Martin: I am quite sure the gentleman would have no objection to my giving his name. It is signed by John O'Sullivan, and his address is 4728 Bond street, South Burnaby, British Columbia. I wonder whether the minister ever stops to ask whether this is fair to the immigrants who come over here? Certainly, neither myself nor my party has any objection to immigrants, provided they are given a fair break and the Canadian citizen is given a fair break in regard to immigration policy.
I wonder whether it is fair to bring immigrants over here and turn them loose in a labour surplus market? They are cursed and reviled through no fault of their own. Instead of receiving a welcome as neighbours they will be considered by the unemployed people, and even by the employed people who are afraid of losing their jobs in this surplus market, as a menace to their jobs and to their security. We had an example not long ago in Timmins. With all the unemployed miners returning from Elliot Lake a newcomer from the British Isles started at one of the mines with no mining experience whatsoever. In fact, the information on his card said that his previous occupation had been that of an instructor in a trade school. He was going to work underground in the mines when literally thousands of unemployed hard-rock miners were coming back from the mining fields of Elliot Lake, Bancroft and Uranium City; men who had been working in the uranium industry.
What the immigration policy of the minister is doing is just compounding the difficult position of the Minister af Labour in his endeavours to try to solve the unemployment problem. What kind of immigration policy is this? Is it any wonder that the newspapers are going after this government every day?
Another thing they do not tell these immigrants when they go over there to lure them away from gainful occupations-because they
[Mr. Martin (Timmins).)

have full employment in Britain; they have not the backlog of unemployment that we have here-is that Canada has not adequate health services as they have in England. They do not tell them that we do not have the educational opportunities that they have in England, and they do not tell them they are coming to a country where there are
700,000	people unemployed, 10 to 20 per cent of the population, depending upon which area you are in.
I should like to deal with one more aspect of this matter and point out why I consider this budget is not an adequate one. There are five giant evils in our modern industrial society, and this budget not only does not try to grapple with them, it does not even recognize them at all.
The first of these evils is ignorance or inadequate educational facilities. This is not news to the government. It has not only been brought to their attention by members of the opposition but has also been brought to their attention by members of their own party on more than one occasion. Do we see any recognition of the problem or provision for it in the budget?
The second one is idleness or inadequate opportunities for gainful employment. If this has been a secret to the present government it should not be any more because they have heard sufficient about unemployment in this session of parliament. The figures that the Minister of Labour presents to the house show that it is not a seasonal problem but a recurring, chronic cancer in our society, one with which no government, past or present, has ever seemed to be able to cope.
The third evil is squalor or poor living conditions. No matter to what city we go from coast to coast we find this condition. Every city has its slums. What provision is there in the budget even to recognize that such a problem exists? The only action on the part of the government is to cut back last year's house construction by 50 per cent.
The fourth evil is disease, or inadequate provision for health and medical care. We did break our hearts a couple of years ago and brought in a sort of helter-skelter hospital plan that varies from province to province, but apparently there is no thought of taking any steps toward getting a health insurance plan throughout the country to look after the health of our citizens. We do not make this known to British immigrants when they come here. In a British newspaper, the Daily

Mail, of Tuesday, March 1, 1960, there is an advertisement containing these words:
One of Canada's most rapid and far-reaching social changes is hospital insurance, which is now sweeping the country from coast to coast.
I am sure that would sound very amusing to the British people if they knew the facts inasmuch as they have had complete hospital, health and dental care for the last 15 years.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Murdo William Martin: Certainly.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Were the advertisement to which he is now referring and the previous one published under the authority of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration <Mrs. Fairclough)?


Murdo William Martin: The name of the author of the article is not given but there is a short note in the middle of it in these words:
This article has been contributed by the Canadian government immigration service.
Finally, I come to the last of the five giants

want, or inadequate income for a minimum standard of living. This condition is not confined to any one class of our citizens; quite a number fall into this category. There are people working today for 40 or 50 cents an hour and being exploited by unscrupulous employers. There are the people receiving old age pensions who have waited for so long for the further increase promised by the government back in 1957. They are still waiting. The same is true of people receiving other forms of pensions. I just read a letter having to do with people receiving war veterans allowances. All these people fall into the category of those who have inadequate income to meet a minimum standard of living.
There, Mr. Speaker, are the five giants in our society with which our government should be coping. Yet the budget makes no provision whatsoever even to recognize them, let alone to grapple with them and try to improve the situation. As found on page 2669 of Hansard of March 31, the minister used these words:
We can look forward optimistically to another year of solid expansion and balanced growth.
I wonder what the people I have mentioned think of the minister's words that this is a year of solid achievement and balanced growth. I suggest that the budget is not the trumpet call of achievement that the minister and the government supporters would like to make us believe it is but that stripped of its double-talk is nothing more than an abysmal and abject confession of failure. I
The Budget-Mr. Simpson also suggest that the newspapers will become even more critical and continue to be until a disillusioned people have a chance to vote and correct the mistake of 1958.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased indeed to have the opportunity of taking part in this debate because there are a number of subjects 1 should like to bring to the attention of the house. First of all, let me say how gratifying it was to listen to the very eloquent address a week ago last Thursday night by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). I am sure we were all very pleased with what we heard. I am fully aware that it is an accepted fact that budget speeches generally will invariably invoke loud criticism from the opposition benches, but in my opinion this budget address was clearly indicative of a high sense of realism and responsibility. I do wish to point out that I am not entirely satisfied with certain aspects of government expenditures and I do have a few strong complaints regarding the policy of some crown corporations. It is my intention to voice my complaints as often as I possibly can until these problems cease to exist.
I am particularly pleased, however, tha( Canada has experienced such a good year and that there is such a buoyant outlook for 1960-61. The prospect of a budget surplus and the decision not to raise taxes will be welcome news to all, I am sure. The wage increases amounting to $15 million for approximately
50,000	civil servants and the forecast surplus of $40 million in the old age pension fund, the first surplus incidentally in its nine-year history, are further evidence of the capabilities of the Minister of Finance.
I mentioned before that there is bound to be a certain amount of criticism, but in my opinion it is often far more amusing than disconcerting to analyse some of the remarks of those who seek to spread gloom and despair. For instance, I am certain that we were all very interested to hear the minister forecast an increase of 6 per cent in the gross national product and to learn from figures made public last week that we experienced a 6 per cent rise last year.
This seems to be in direct contrast to the moaning and wailing we have been listening to from the opposition benches for the past year and a half. I cannot quite figure out just who they are trying to scare, but it is quite apparent to me that they have not made much impression at all on anyone who is remotely associated with contributing in any way to the gross national product. If all their rantings and ravings were in any way consistent with the general state of the economy in Canada, the gross national product

The Budget-Mr. Simpson would be a red ink issue. If these prophecies of doom and despair were offered in a spirit of warning of some well-founded, imminent danger, there might be some justification for them. However, I am certain it must be quite evident to the people of Canada that this line of talk is nothing but a fervent hope.
I think Mr. Charles Templeton cleared this up conclusively on a television program last night when he probably expressed the views of the Liberal party in mentioning that he hoped Canada was about to experience a drastic economic recession as it might be of some assistance in the resurgence of the Liberal party.
Following further along this line of criticism, and showing just how ridiculous it can become at times, I should like to read a portion of a news article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of Friday, April 1, in which the writer is referring to the fact that the Minister of Finance proposed no change in the rates of personal income tax. The writer says, and I quote:
All the same, the average Canadian will pay more taxes because, if the government forecasts are correct, his income will be higher.
I must say that the writer's deductions are logical. I wonder how much you are going to scare people by telling them they are going to get a rise in pay?
I believe the government has accomplished a number of outstanding feats since taking office in 1957. Many of the people I am honoured to represent derive their livelihood from agriculture. I must say that these people have been and still are confronted with a number of problems. The farmers of the Swan river area in Manitoba are a hard working, economical group of people with whom I have had many opportunities of discussing their business problems. I have many valid reasons for believing that further agricultural legislation is needed. However, I also have good reason for believing that with the advent of the further farm legislation which is planned by this government our over-all agricultural program will be of great benefit to the people engaged in farming.
In so far as our foreign trade is concerned, I feel that this picture has improved steadily since this government took office. I believe there are a number of cases where our trade balance has diminished slightly, but there are many signs which lead me to believe this is a good thing in many respects. The farmers in western Canada are genuinely concerned about our trade with Japan. It is only natural that they are anxious to have a healthy volume of imports coming in from that country so that Japan will be able to

continue to purchase our wheat. This government not only hopes Japan will be able to continue purchasing our wheat, but that sales can be increased as time goes on.
It is gratifying to see the improvement in our trade with Japan over past years. In 1954 Canada exported to Japan goods valued in the neighbourhood of $96 million and our imports from Japan in 1954 were in the neighbourhood of $19 million. In 1959-this is an estimated figure-exports to Japan will amount to $140 million, while Japan's exports to Canada have climbed to an estimated figure of $105 million. I think that is very gratifying. As I mentioned before, so long as Japan can continue selling to Canada I am sure our wheat trade with Japan will not only hold up but may even increase.
In so far as financial contributions to the provinces are concerned, I think it is sufficient to refer to page 2676 of Hansard for March 31 of this year. There we find that the total contributions to the provinces from the federal government have increased as follows: In 1956-57 contributions from the federal government to the provinces were $689.4 million; in 1957-58 they increased to $837.2 million; in 1958-59 they rose to $1,037.6 million; in 1959-60 they rose to $1,252.5 million; and, in 1960-61 the estimated contributions to the provinces will be $1,300 million. This is almost double the amount in 1956-57. I think these tables alone are sufficient to show that this government is very much concerned about the welfare of the provinces.
In so far as opposition criticism is concerned, I should like to read into the record the words of an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune of April 8 of this year. It is captioned "Liberal Criticism", and reads:
During the past few weeks Liberal supporters inside and outside the commons have subjected the financial program of the Diefenbaker government to increasingly bitter criticism. Among other things, the Conservative administration is being charged with reckless deficit financing during the past two years and with excessive borrowing that brought the country near financial chaos.
Just to keep matters in balance, the Liberal financial proposals for the period should be taken out and reviewed.
At the moment the Liberals have no known financial program as an alternative to that brought forward by Finance Minister Fleming in his budget speech. The opposition is content to criticize without offering a different course of action.
But the policies the Liberals proposed in 1958-59 are a matter of record. It will be recalled that when Prime Minister Diefenbaker was elected to office in 1957 with a minority government he cut taxes by $178 million. After a short special session an election was held. During the election campaign Liberal Leader Lester Pearson outlined his fiscal proposals.
He promised that taxes would be cut by $400 million. Income tax was to be reduced by $275 million, with a special deal for newly-weds; the

excise tax on cars was to be abolished with a tax saving of $60 million; corporation taxes on small businesses were to be reduced by $25 million and so on.
And this was to be done while increasing social security measures-sickness insurance, old age pensions for unmarried women at 60, family allowances to children up to 18 years of age. No suggestion was made for cutting expenditures through reduced services or by effecting economies.
There is no reason to believe that Mr. Pearson was not being completely sincere in his promises. If he had been elected to office it must be assumed that the tax cuts would have been made.
Thus it is fair to say that in 1958-59 there would have been a deficit of at least $400 million more than that reported by the Conservative government for the year. Instead of the Conservative deficit of $600 million, a government headed by Mr. Pearson would have had a deficit of more than $1 billion in 1958. Moreover, unless Mr. Pearson increased taxes drastically in 1959, he would have had a further deficit of more than $800 million for the 1959-60 fiscal year.
The Liberals would have made Mr. Fleming look like a piker in the deficit department. Naturally this would have involved much greater borrowing by a Liberal regime. Canada would have experienced tight money and inflation much more severe than anything seen during the past year.
This should be borne in mind when assessing the present bitter Liberal criticism of the Conservative financial record for the past two years.
I should now like to deal with one or two problems which are of extreme importance to the area I have the honour to represent. The first problem is one that I have raised in this house on various occasions and it is an important one. I refer to the failure to date of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to supply television services to the northern areas of Manitoba. For almost three years we have been endeavouring to get from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation some assurance that this project will be undertaken. As I have mentioned previously, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is set up under a statute as a national system. Their purpose is to provide a national system of television and radio broadcasting for Canada.
At the present time the constituency of Churchill, which is comprised of roughly
180,000	square miles, has no television services whatsoever. In the Dauphin-Swan river area a satellite station is planned as an extension to the Yorkton station and it will give certain coverage to the people of that area. Many people feel that this satellite station is not going to give adequate coverage, but that matter remains to be seen. However, the people in the area of The Pas and Flin Flon are anxious to receive consideration of their problem at the earliest possible moment. In their words-and they are quite right- they pay the same taxes as does anybody else anywhere in Canada.
I have been told on many occasions that it will involve a large expenditure to get this system into northern Manitoba and that the
The Budget-Mr. Simpson people in other parts of Canada should not be obliged to pay the cost of providing us with television. At the present time the people of these areas are paying, as they have been doing for many years, their share of the cost of the television services enjoyed by the people in other parts of Canada. Many people who have had television for a good number of years seem to think that this is not an important subject. However, when it comes to Grey cup time, world series time or National hockey league time, I notice that they are all quite concerned as to what is going to be done about those particular broadcasts. I am quite sure they would rise up in arms if the C.B.C. decided it was not going to carry these programs and, as I said before on another occasion, would say, "We want those programs regardless of what they cost". We must never lose sight of the fact that the people in the northern and outlying parts of the country that are not serviced are going to be paying their share of the cost of those programs.
I know there are in Canada many areas desiring this service. One of my criticisms of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is the fact that there is coming from them no indication as to when these areas will be served. They tell us-as I suppose they tell everybody who approaches them-that if the government will give them enough money they will service all these areas. However, in any of their budgets I have yet to see enough money asked for specifically to service these areas and that is why I criticize them. I criticize them for not asking for this money and specifically saying that it will be used for servicing these areas or, failing that, for not at least coming up with some kind of a capital expenditure program over a period of years so that these areas would have some idea as to when they were going to get this service. I might say that all town councils, chambers of commerce, service clubs and groups of various kinds in the area which I represent are interested in this subject and have all made representations to the C.B.C. with regard to it.
I should like to say that this specific subject of television can be related to a number of other problems. We can even relate it to the problem of unemployment. In northern Manitoba I have noticed-and it is a strange thing-what happens on many occasions when construction programs are under way in that area. The people seeking workers send out a call for so many workers. They might send out a call for 150 men. Two days later four or five men will arrive. Many of the men that have been interviewed in the other parts of Canada will not go north because television and other amenities of life are not provided for them. The people in the

The Budget-Mr. Simpson north do without many things. I think they should be given further consideration with regard to this one important subject.
I note that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) has made many representations on behalf of the people in northern Manitoba. I find that fact rather amusing. If my findings are correct, he was obliged to leave Manitoba and go down to Newfoundland in order to get elected. I do not think the people of Manitoba are too greatly concerned about his worrying over their problems.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He could have a seat anywhere.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Simpson: The people who are without these services are doing a very good job in bringing the matter to the attention of the C.B.C. I think possibly the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate might be better advised to go back to his constituency and study his own problems. I do not know what kind of mileage he figures he is making out of this attempt; but if he wants to make some mileage, perhaps he could follow my foot-, steps to some of these departments day after day, and then he would really make mileage.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Robert Simpson: At six o'clock I was discussing the problem raised by the complete absence of television services in northern Manitoba, and the desire of the people of that area to secure such services. I should like to say that the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Forbes) and the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) have worked closely with me on this problem for a long time.
In bringing this point once again to the attention of the house or to any who may feel that these services are not of great importance, may I say that it is my feeling that the people who live in the more densely populated areas of Canada probably do not realize how few of the amenities of life the people of the north country have at their disposal. As I said earlier, these people are pioneering these areas, and at the same time, paying their full share of the taxes which are necessary to keep these amenities in being for the benefit, largely, at the present time, of the people who live in the more populated centres. People who live in or
fMr. Simpson.]
near the big towns have a lot of these benefits handed to them. There is the trans-Canada highway, for example, which is financed by the federal government jointly with the provinces. People who live in the thickly populated areas take a service such as this for granted and feel they are entitled to it. That is just one example.
People who have enjoyed television since its inception by the C.B.C. have possibly come to the conclusion that radio is not as important as it was some years back. Speaking of radio, I maintain that over the years since the C.B.C. began its radio broadcast we in northern Manitoba have continuously made representations in favour of an improved service. Under the old dominion network system which was serviced by land lines many people felt there was a better calibre of program carried at that time, and we were serviced by the trans-Canada network. There is a transmitter at Watrous, Saskatchewan which feeds radio stations in outlying areas, but reception is often poor, and as a result we were never in receipt of a program of good quality. At the present time, we have a station at Flin Flon. I understand that because of the fact that a Winnipeg station has increased its power to 5,000 kilowatts there is a great deal of interference with our local radio station at Flin Flon. There is still no land line service of the C.B.C. radio network north of Brandon, Manitoba. I think this constitutes another reason why despite the fact that there are many areas in Canada which cannot receive television programs, Manitoba should have some priority when plans are made to extend the television service.
It may take some time to reach the stage where these areas can be served, but it might be a good idea for the government to study the possibility of introducing a program designed to bring some of these amenities of life to the outlying areas-a program much on the same lines as the present roads to resources scheme, that is, through federal and provincial co-operation financially. At the present time I know of no provincial government which is contributing toward the cost of providing television services. However, I think if the federal government could introduce a scheme of this nature some of the provinces might be interested in assisting.
It should not be forgotten that these areas which do not enjoy the facilities which I have mentioned are precisely those which are faced with a higher cost of living, while the people who live there are paying the same taxes as everyone else. All these things should be taken into consideration. As to the

higher cost of living, the government recognizes this as being a factor, because it pays a northern allowance to its own employees who work in the north. Thus, all things considered, I believe these areas should be served as quickly as possible.
Now I should like to touch on one or two other subjects of interest which I have come across lately. I should like to mention at this point that I recognize the servicing of D.E.W. line operations-the delivery of foodstuffs and other necessary supplies-to be, possibly, an obligation of the United States government. However, I should like to draw one thing to the attention of this house because I believe it would be possible for the government to pass this on to the government of the United States as a matter of liaison. I understand that the eastern D.E.W. line sites are currently serviced with foodstuffs from Montreal, and that the western sites are serviced from Edmonton. This may have been found the best way of carrying out this operation. However, it is interesting to look at some figures with which I have been provided. These are figures of transportation costs under the present system of serving eastern D.E.W. line bases from Montreal, and hon. members will find that the cost of sending one plane load of food consisting of 15,000 pounds from Montreal via Churchill to Foxe, which is a D.E.W. line base is $8,566.80.
I maintain that these supplies could be sent by rail from Montreal to Churchill and then flown into the bases. In that case, the same load would cost $4,299.10. I am raising this question because I believe that these supplies could very easily be purchased in Manitoba, sent by rail to Churchill and then flown in by existing carriers. That plane load could be sent into Foxe at a cost of $3,934.60, which is a saving per plane load of $4,632.40.
I cannot imagine the United States government not being interested in a saving of this order and I suggest that the proper authority should bring this matter to the attention of the United States government which could then decide whether the supplies could not either be purchased in Manitoba and sent by rail to Churchill and then flown in or, if they could be purchased more cheaply in Montreal, sent by rail to Churchill and flown in from there.
There is one other point I should like to bring to the attention of the house and that is the importation of diesel oil and fuel oil to Churchill from foreign markets. I am raising this subject for two specific reasons. First of all, I think with respect to the general economy of Canada it would be very beneficial if Canadian products could be
79951-0-197
The Budget-Mr. Simpson used at Churchill. There is a vast amount of fuel oil used there by various government departments including the Department of National Defence. Not only am I concerned about having Canadian products used in that area but I am interested in exploring the possibility of achieving a reduction in the cost of this fuel to consumers in the town of Churchill.
I understand that a number of years ago the Imperial Oil Company was given the operation of the marine tank farm at Churchill and as a result of that, I am told, quite substantial savings were effected by the Department of National Defence in then-purchases of fuel and diesel oil. However, previous to this western Canada products were used at these establishments. I think it would be well to investigate this situation to see if there is as large a saving effected as we think.
I understand that in September of last year there were 4,072,540 gallons of diesel oil shipped to Churchill at a price of $355,554. The cost loaded on ship at Aruba, Nether-land Antilles, expressed in Canadian dollars in relation to Canadian gallons was 8.73 cents per gallon. In October, 1959, 3,489,411 gallons were shipped to Churchill at a cost of $306,589. The price, loaded on ship at Aruba, was 8.786 cents per gallon.
I understand that the Department of National Defence is receiving this oil at a very reasonable price. The oil is landed on board at the price I mentioned but I understand that when you add on the transportation costs it brings it up to about 12 cents a gallon landed at Churchill. At the present time individual consumers at Churchill are paying approximately 26 cents a gallon. There is a rather large spread there, and I think additional savings to the consumer could be made.
I am informed that the price to the consumer went down to some degree when this method was adopted but in following this course a foreign product rather than a Canadian was introduced. I believe we also have to take several factors into account when assessing the value of this saving. Previously a crown corporation, Canadian National Railways, was in the business of hauling this western oil to Churchill. We therefore have a loss of revenue to one crown corporation and possibly a saving in one government department. We must also take into consideration the men who would be employed on the railway and the maintenance and supplying of tank cars. All in all we might learn that we have lost a market for western products to a foreign fuel and that there is not too large a saving at all.

The Budget-Mr. Simpson
Before concluding I wish to briefly touch on one or two other subjects. I shall deal first with Canadian National Railways freight rates. Despite the fact that the president of the C.N.R. has suggested that members of parliament should keep their noses out of the C.N.R.'s business, I think there are one or two things that should be brought to the attention of the house.
I have mentioned before that in many of the northern areas some of the services that are taken for granted in the larger centres are not available, or at least not prevalent. In many places there is a great interest in receiving the free pickup and delivery of express and L.C.L. freight. When the railways have been approached on this question they have said that the cost is too prohibitive. My experience has been, however, that as soon as roads are built into an outlying area and truck competition enters the picture these services are hastily provided. I believe this is something that should be investigated. The outlying areas should be given the same services by crown corporations as are provided to people in the larger centres.
As my concluding point let me mention that it has been gratifying to me to see that some of the problems of the people at Churchill have been investigated and action is being taken. I should explain that the people at Churchill are there as a result of government establishments. They do not live in a municipality but in unorganized territory. If it were not for certain government establishments there would probably be no people at Churchill. For many years the people there have been urging the federal and provincial governments to provide a sewer and water system, additional power and other necessary services. It is a source of satisfaction to know that at the present time the Manitoba power commission in conjunction with the Department of National Defence is setting up an adequate power system for the people of that area and that the required additional power should be available this summer.
When I first came to Ottawa I learned that nothing had been done for years. In fact, I was informed that such things as an additional water supply were considered unnecessary and out of the question in relation to Churchill. I am pleased to know that the Department of National Defence is presently investigating the possibility of a new water supply for Churchill and it is hoped that it will be constructed during the course of this year.
I am glad to see that these things are being done in my constituency and it is my hope that the other problems that exist there will be solved just as quickly as possible.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Speaker,
I am indeed very happy to be able to join with other hon. members in participating in this lengthy budget debate. On behalf of the constituents of Nickel Belt I should like to express certain views which I have had occasion to discuss with the citizens of my riding.
To assist hon. members in following the course of my remarks I should like to remind the house of the wording of the motion we are now debating by reading the amendment presented in this chamber on April 4 by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) because my remarks will relate to this amendment. It will serve as the theme of my address, as it were. The amendment reads as follows:
This house regrets that the financial policies of the government will produce a fourth consecutive over-all deficit in a year of "so-called prosperity", while at the same time offering no solution to the problem of rising prices, rising trade deficits, a continued high premium on the Canadian dollar, increased pressure on provinces and municipalities to borrow outside Canada, declining farm income, and high and rising unemployment.
In presenting his budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) expressed an attitude similar to that he has expressed on previous occasions since I have been a member of this house in attempting to convey the impression to hon. members that budget night was the loveliest night of the year. The reception given to the budget by hon. members in this chamber and by newspapers throughout the country does not bear out the impression the minister sought to create. I noted that during the course of his remarks the minister sought to add colour to the drab speech he delivered on that occasion by employing a Maurice Chevalier accent and introducing a few paragraphs in the French language.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Osias.-J. Godin: It became obvious to the house and to the country that evening that either in English or in French the budget had very little in the way of hope to offer to the Canadian people. It did not turn out necessarily to be the loveliest night of the year.
Since then the budget has been discussed in many newspapers in the country. It has been analysed, as I will have occasion to indicate, by people who know much about the economic situation of the country. The gist of the remarks and the studies indicates that the Canadian people are not satisfied with the budget presented by the Minister of Finance.
How should I approach the budget tonight, Mr. Speaker? I am following some hon. members who have made a great contribution to this debate. Certainly I will not find inspiration in the budget speech. It has been

referred to as a stand-pat budget, as a stay-put budget, as a do-nothing budget, as a budget of omissions. I read with great interest -and it has certainly been my impression of the budget speech-the remarks quoted by a person who has great knowledge of financial affairs, the financial critic of the Financial Times, published in this country. In the issue of April 8, which I received this morning, I read this headline:
Stand Pat Budget Avoids Problems Opportunity Missed for Providing Fiscal Leadership
By Minister
This article was written by E. J. DeSeau. I will quote one paragraph which definitely expresses my opinion.
Finance Minister Fleming's budget, of which so much was expected, in the end turned out to be a thoroughly disappointing document. Mr. Fleming had a wonderful opportunity to give the sort of fiscal leadership which he has demonstrated he is capable of but, for one reason or another, he ducked the challenge.
Instead, he stood pat, a posture which has little to recommend itself in these times.
Further down it says:
Mr. Fleming's budget sins are both in omission and commission.
The evening on which the Minister of Finance delivered his budget address, which we are now debating, happened to be the second anniversary of the date on which this government was elected with such a large majority and was the day before April Fools' day. I think the Canadian people on this occasion appreciated the significance of the April Fools' day as possibly many of them did two years ago. One of the most outstanding things in the budget speech on the second anniversary was that it indicated that this government in the short period of two years has brought about, not a second anniversary measured by time but a doubling of the liabilities of the country. Furthermore, they have cut down to half many of the assets which this country enjoyed only two years ago. This would be a very serious statement for an hon. member to make if he could not prove it. I am asserting it a this time and 1 intend to prove exactly that. I intend to show how the assets of our country have been cut in half and how the liabilities have been doubled in two years. A while ago the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) took us back to 1928. Surely we can discuss the economic condition of our country today without going back to 1928 to prove the point.


Azellus Denis: What about the period from 1930 to 1935?


Osias.-J. Godin: That is one period they love to skip. They talk about the 1928-29 period 79951-0-197J
The Budget-Mr. Godin but they skip the period 1930-35. Anyone who wishes to read the speech of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot will undoubtedly see that he was willing to forget the years 1930-35.
Enough has been said about unemployment to make us realize that it is an important problem in this country. I will give some information to show this liability has doubled since this government came into power. I hold in my hand an article-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: There are more Canadians at work now than ever before.


Osias.-J. Godin: -which is dated February 17, 1958. It is from Brantford, Ontario. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) made a speech on that occasion. This article refers to the Prime Minister in these words:
He charged that the Liberals were trying to "fill Canadians with fear" by saying there were 800,000 Canadians out of work. The actual number, he contended, was only half that.
The Prime Minister of this country, the leader of the government, stated on February
17,	1958 that the unemployment figure was 400,000. I will quote an article which appeared exactly two years after, on February
18,	1960. It is from the Toronto Star. The report is dated March 4, and is from Ottawa:
There were 800,494 unplaced applicants for jobs in Canada as of February 18, Labour Minister Starr told the commons yesterday, in reply to Osias J. Godin, Liberal, Nickel Belt.
Therefore, we have the words of the Prime Minister of this country and of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) that unemployment, this great liability that we are trying to overcome, has doubled under this regime.
Permit me to say a word about housing. Housing is an asset which we would like to see increased. What has happened to it? This morning I received a document from the dominion bureau of statistics, issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce. It is volume 28, No. 14 and I quote the following under the item "Housing":
Starts on the construction of new dwellings in urban centres in February declined to 2,130 units from 4,021 a year ago.
This is the anniversary that we are now discussing. From the statistics made available by -the government itself we find that this asset has been reduced by one half. I will have more to say about the problem of housing in a moment.
I now come to trade. What is the situation there? What have we done about our trade position? This will be interesting to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), who spoke the other day in favour of higher tariffs, and so on. What has happened to our trade? I intend to prove this. In the

The Budget-Mr. Godin Bank of Canada report for 1959 at page 22 -and anyone can refer to these figures- we find that the balance of payments in our dealings with the countries of Europe, putting aside the United States and so on, were, as of March 31, 1957, plus $144 million. What has happened since then? The same report indicates that in 1959 the figure not only was not plus but had become minus $224 million. That is what has happened to our international trade.
Let us take our trade with the United Kingdom and see what we find. May I refer hon. members to the dominion bureau of statistics monthly summary of foreign trade. If hon. members will refer to page 2 they will find there a table indicating our balance of trade with the United Kingdom for the years from 1952 to 1959. In 1952 the figure was plus $391.3 million. What had happened by 1959? As of December, 1959 the figure was plus $200.5 million. We see that our exports balance to the United Kingdom has been cut in half.
I stated that I wanted to prove the allegation that the people of Canada are realizing that our assets have diminished very quickly by half and that our liabilities have doubled. I should like to refer hon. members to the public accounts for 1959. It is a 1,000 page book. I do not wish to have it made an appendix to Hansard but I should like to refer to a few figures to be found on page 121. If hon. members will do the proper calculations they will find that the over-all surplus accumulated by the Liberal party from 1946 to 1947 amounted to $2,305 million, but now we find it has been cut in half to $1,053 million. In three years the surplus has been cut to less than half what it was


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: We have increased pensions.


Osias.-J. Godin: -at the time the running of the affairs of this country was taken over by the Conservatives from the Liberals.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, after my few remarks in English, I should also like to speak briefly in French. I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) will not begrudge the fact that on this occasion, I have not spoken in French first.
Mr. Speaker, allow me first to commend you for the part you have been playing in the Alliance canadienne, an organization which is bound to play a major role in fostering goodwill between the two groups which make up our nation.
Mr. Speaker, just recently, I had the opportunity to attend certain meetings in Sudbury which led to the formation of such a


group. I am sure that in setting up associations of that type across Canada, we shall be able to obtain the co-operation of the various groups and to promote a more peaceful coexistence.
Also, I am pleased to mention to the house that this year is the 50th anniversary of the Association Canadienne Frangaise d'Education d'Ontario; the event will be celebrated next week. Like my fellow Canadians, I am pleased with the great part played by that association in the educational field in Ontario. I feel sure that in future years, this organization will play an increasingly important part in our province.
We in northern Ontario have also had the opportunity, recently, to celebrate the anniversary of the newspaper Le Droit, northern edition. As I said at the time, we wish that newspaper, which is gaining new readers day by day in the bilingual areas of the north, all the success it deserves.
The newly established University of Sudbury, an institution of higher learning which raises great hopes in northern Ontario, will render great services to our fellow Canadians, thanks to its bilingual nature. That institution, under a system of federation to the Lauren-tian University which has been set up in Sudbury, will offer specialized education to many of our young people who, in past years, had to go outside to get this type of education.
I note that our people are putting much trust in that institution of higher learning, but none the less they are also showing some concern. In fact, I had the opportunity of reading more or less bitter criticisms about this new institution.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, we should, first of all, believe that those who went to the trouble of setting up that institution, took the necessary steps to ensure that possible alternatives were considered in order to prevent any difficulties which might have cropped up.
To people who criticize those who have set up that institution I would say that they should have clearly pointed out, at that time, any shortcomings which, in their opinion, might have existed.
Mr. Speaker, although, for several years I have had the opportunity of taking part in the development of the bilingual group in northern Ontario, I did not have the opportunity of taking part in this achievement, but I think that with the co-operation of all concerned, that institution could be in a position to render great services to our country, in an atmosphere of harmony.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the setting up of a bilingual university in northern Ontario is more difficult than setting up one in the province of Quebec, or the setting up an additional faculty at the University of Ottawa.
For those reasons, I should like to congratulate my compatriots who have given the matter their most careful consideration, and particularly the reverend Jesuit fathers. (Text):
I indicated a moment ago that I should like to say a few more words about the problem of housing. For the last year at least housing in northern Ontario has been a very grave problem, and the reason is easy to understand. In that area we do have productive mines. The miners are working steadily but housing has been crippled in the last few years. I venture to say that the problem of unemployment is due in large part to the fact that housing activity has diminished and in addition the lumbering industry has not been operating on the same scale as it had been previously. We were told that the housing act would bring about a certain amount of incentive. That is true, but as the minister had occasion to be told last week, the problem is in relation to this arbitrary decision to set a $5,000 income ceiling for a person applying for a government loan. This is not satisfactory. I should like to refer to the regulations which were sent out a few days ago which indicate the manner in which applicants will calculate their income in order to qualify for the loan.
As I have said, this $5,000 is the basic figure. However, I am told that the questionnaire which has been sent out will require companies to indicate, especially mining companies, not only the hourly rate paid to employees but also all bonuses paid. We all recognize that these bonuses vary from year to year. It has been calculated that in my area a worker may have a salary of $4,400, and in a good year his bonus may put him above $5,000. This person would then be ineligible for a housing loan, and would have to stay put until possibly he does not have quite as good a year. On the other hand, if a worker's combined bonus and salary is below $5,000, he will qualify.
I realize that there is a need to set up a standard. However, I believe that the standard by which we measure should be of such a nature that it will take care of all these varied problems we have throughout Canada, such as a variation in the level of the cost of living. It is a well known fact that in certain areas people do not earn the same amounts in the same occupations, and the cost of living is not the same as in other areas. Zones have been established under
The Budget-Mr. Godin the industrial standards act to take care of variations in minimum rates of pay in various occupations.
I understand this regulation will work in such a way that a furnace worker will be able to apply for a loan because his salary is possibly $4,500 or $4,600 and yet in the same city and on the same street a man who is a mucker in the mine and whose income is only slightly more but whose need for a home is equally great will not be eligible for a loan. It is possible for a store manager in one area to be making less than $5,000 and thus able to qualify for a government loan, while in another area such a store manager may be making more than that and not be eligible. If some assessment were made of income levels and cost of living levels in certain areas, it would be found that bank managers, managers of department stores might not make $5,000 in some areas, while in other areas the same occupations would bring a return of $7,000 or $7,500 a year. As I have said, there should be a flexible standard established which would permit a worker in a particular area to obtain a government loan if he needs one.
I am informed, and I have received representations from my area, that it is the intention of the Minister of Finance, working with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), to change the sales tax so that it will affect the tinsmiths in this country. They are not a powerful group. They are not big income companies, as a rule; these are small firms which operate in various cities. I should like to quote from a memorandum which was sent to me by Mr. McCoy, a member of the firm of Morrison Plumbing & Heating in the city of Sudbury. This letter will indicate the views of these people to the minister, and I quote:
Under this regulation many heating contractors will be forced to close their fabrication shops and to buy all sheet metal pipe and fittings for their warm air heating installations from large manufacturers.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is he not aware that this is a matter of regulation, and the regulation about which he is speaking was withdrawn some time ago?


An hon. Member:: He has not found out yet.


Osias.-J. Godin: I am not too sure that this house has been advised of what the minister is now saying. If that is so, I am prepared to accept his word. Is the minister prepared to say that tinsmiths will not be included in the class in question which would oblige them to pay sales tax? Is the answer in the affirmative?

The Budget-Mr. Godin


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this is probably completely out of order, but I shall be glad to set the hon. gentleman right. This is not a matter of legislation at all. There is no budget resolution dealing with the matter of tinsmiths. What the hon. gentleman is referring to, apparently, is an interpretation of a regulation made some time ago, and that interpretation has been changed and corrected. There is nothing now affecting this situation at all involved in the budget. The hon. gentleman, I am afraid, is proceeding on information that is very stale, indeed.


William Arnold Peters: It is in your budget speech.


Osias.-J. Godin: I realize the Minister of Finance had two hours to explain his problems to the house, but I have only about 40 minutes to try to explain some of the problems of my constituents. What the minister has said is still not clear to me. Does the minister mean that this regulation, which was interpreted in one way a few months ago, has now been cancelled? The tinsmiths of this country have a great fear of the interpretation of the regulation and have taken the trouble to write to members of parliament about the problem. It is surprising that the big change which the minister has indicated is still not clear to the people who have been in this business for years. If that is true, I can only say that I do not believe this house has been informed that the regulation has been changed1 in any way. Perhaps the minister, in a later statement, can tell the house what the situation is.
Here is what these people have to say about the problem, and I quote further from this document:
It has also been estimated for residential work where the tax has not been applicable, that the expense of extra cost records and bookkeeping required under the regulations plus the sales tax (estimated at $10 to $15 per house) and plus mortgage interest on both of these, adds approximately $40 to the ultimate cost of each Canadian home.
I see that my time is coming to a close, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Osias.-J. Godin: I realize that hon. members, especially those to my immediate left, do not like to hear the facts about the affairs of this country in 1960.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are not the one to give them; you are distorting the facts.


Osias.-J. Godin: I am sure that if I went back to 1928 or thereabouts hon. members on my left would like that but I am not too sure that I would achieve much to assist the house.
I should like to say something about the problem-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has not yet expired.


Osias.-J. Godin: I could say something about the position of the veterans in this country. I believe all members of this house have received memorandums from our Canadian Legion wherein it was indicated that this government had mentioned that a revision would be made. I am no expert in the matter, but surely if this budget indicates any surplus-and it indicates the little one that was mentioned by the Minister of Finance- it is possibly owing to the fact that some of these people have not been attended to; and we are informed that the government does not now intend to bring about at least a study of the pension structure for our veterans.
Much could be said about our farmers and I have quite a few of them in my riding. However, that matter has been dealt with by many hon. members in this house, as has also the uranium situation and the situation at Elliot Lake which is close to my riding and affects my riding in many ways. But I realize that competent people have dealt with this matter also.
One problem, possibly a more specific one, That I should like to bring to the attention of the house is that of taxation in municipalities. One often hears the phrase tax on tax. We all admit that we have three levels of government, namely federal, provincial and municipal but that we have only one group of citizens to pay the taxes at these three levels. Surely if it was true two years ago that the Liberal party was overtaxing by $120 a year, one way in which this government could have kept its promise to reduce taxes would have been to ascertain that the municipal taxes paid by the citizens of this country and paid toward the services they need-schools, sidewalks, waterworks- be deducted from federal income taxes. One group of citizens must pay to the three levels of government. It would have been easy for this government, in fulfilling the promises it made, to reduce taxes to permit citizens to deduct the municipal taxes they pay to that level of government from their income taxes.
The rise of interest rates and the difficulty of borrowing experienced by the municipalities are a further indication that this should have been done. The house may be surprised to know that the municipal and provincial borrowings of this country which have been made from funds in the United States of America are in the amount of $400 million for 1959. This information will be found in the dominion bureau of statistics quarterly review on international accounts.


An hon. Member:: What page?


Osias.-J. Godin: I do not have the page here but that is the figure that anyone in this house can verify. If the interest rate had not gone to the height it has, and if this government had not been responsible for taking away every available dollar in this country by its conversion loan, the municipalities would not have been faced with the obligation to go to another country, namely the United States of America, in order to borrow $400 million. I am told-and I am no specialist-that this $400 million would be sufficient to bring our money to par if we had not to borrow this money in the United States of America. That is something to which this government should pay attention. It should at least be willing to listen when someone brings to the attention of this house the fact that through the action of this government our municipalities and provinces have been obliged to borrow from strangers and that it has forced them into that position through the conversion and other loans.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Osias.-J. Godin: No. I am sorry, for I do not have all the time that is available to the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the hon. gentleman not aware of the fact that the conversion loan did not take a cent from Canadians? It was not a cash offering at all.


Osias.-J. Godin: My time is limited whereas that of the minister is not.
Another thing of which I should like to remind the Minister of Finance is that the costs for municipal services vary in Canada. That is one means by which some equity could be brought about. I note that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour is laughing, but it is true that in my area public works cost much more than they do in other areas. How are we going to surmount the difficulties created by that situation?
I wish to say something about mining centres, and I have had occasion to say this previously. In northern Ontario miners must build and live in a rocky country. In other areas of the country municipal services are not as costly. If municipal taxes in the areas to which I have referred were deductible from the federal income tax it would bring about a reduction in taxes and one which would bring some equity with respect to the burden that our citizens are obliged to bear.
I realize that my time is just about up, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion I may state that last year we heard certain references to badges. I myself have read badges being worn by some of our citizens when walking
The Budget-Mr. Murphy in the streets; they read, "Don't blame me; I voted Liberal". I must tell the Minister of Finance that yesterday when I was walking down the street I had occasion to see a citizen whom I did not know wearing one of these badges. A friend of his walked up to him. Of course, as I walked by I noted that they shook hands and I had occasion to see the card on the lapel of the other fellow. The gentleman who approached him, reading the card, mentioned this phrase: "Please forgive me; I voted the other way".


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


Mr. Brunsden:: I should like to ask a question of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. As one of the other authorities on agriculture in the official opposition he made references to farm problems.


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


Edwin William Brunsden: I am asking a question of the hon. member who has just taken his seat.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member is asking a question, I am sorry to inform him that the hon. member who has just been speaking used up all his time and there is none left for questions.


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I could add anything to the well deserved laurels that have been heaped on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). As we know, budgets are judged by time. I think history will record this as the finest budget for Canada that we have ever had.
I should like to take this opportunity of commending the young hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) for the marvellous contribution he made to this debate.
The other day the financial critic for the opposition, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson), was referring to what the government had not done and among those things he included the fact that we had not set up a committee of research. He very kindly referred to me a couple of times because of my interest in research. I do not think it is necessary for me to remind him or the house that there is on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) a resolution to set up such a committee. I hope and expect that we shall have that committee functioning after the Easter recess.
I should also like to remind the hon. member who referred to this research problem that while we were in opposition for

The Budget-Mr. Murphy six years I tried to have a committee such as this set up; and on more than one occasion we could not even get a debate on the matter through the manoeuvring of the members of the then government.
I am one of those who are very proud indeed that we are going to have a committee set up-and I am sure it will be nonpolitical-to study not only the policies but also the administration of these three different bodies; Chalk River atomic energy commission, the national research council, and Eldorado Mining Company. I think a great deal of good could emerge from the discussions. I remember sitting on one of these committees studying different subjects years ago, and in the end that committee made one of the greatest contributions which, I imagine, any committee has ever made toward improved administration. I expect this group will do the same.
There are three items with which I should like to deal, two of them only briefly. We have heard recently about these airquakes, or the effect produced by planes which crack the sound barrier. We had an illustration here in Ottawa and there was another at Montreal a while ago. I am going to tell the house this: last fall one of these planes, apparently from Selfridge air base near Detroit, performed the same feat in my area. I happen to live on lake Huron, and a friend of mine telephoned to inquire about 30 feet of his bank which had dropped three or four feet. We had some geologists out there, and we ascertained the exact time of this drop. It was caused, according to these geologists, by this plane cracking the sound barrier. That drop of three to four feet, 30 feet back from the brow of the bank, extended for over two miles. I am going to suggest to this government that it is about time we took heed of this practice. It may be necessary but, if it is, let that practice be carried on where it is not going to do any damage. There are plenty of areas in the United States, as well as in Canada, where that can be done without flying over populated areas such as has been done on the three occasions I have mentioned.
The other item to which I wish to refer briefly has implications which discourage me very much. In the first speech I ever made in this house some 16 years ago I dealt with the tourist industry. As we all know, the set-up in this connection was introduced under Bennett and there has been a kind of autopsy ever since. We were informed recently that the revenue derived by Mexico from the United States in respect of the tourist industry exceeded the revenue received by Canada from the United States. To me that is very disturbing.


We are taking a very negative approach to this problem. We talk about trade deficits, and we have them. There is one way in which we could get another $500 million, and that is by developing the tourist industry. I think we have to make a more positive approach to this problem. Where I live I am within one day's drive, on the United States side of the border, of more people than are living in the whole Dominion of Canada, yet we are getting very little tourist traffic as I see it. Unless some change is made, we shall get even less.
On the same subject, a couple of years ago when they opened the new Canada House in New York, where the travel bureau had its office on the main floor, the United Kingdom travel bureau also had an office with about twice the space. Although Britain's revenue from United States tourists is less than ours, the United Kingdom is opening up more offices in the United States. As a matter of fact, the director for the United Kingdom received a citation-an order-from his government because of his success in promoting the tourist industry in the United States. I think the sooner we take an aggressive attitude toward the development of that industry the better it will be for our economy.
The other part of my speech deals with a subject which I think will concern many hon. members of this house. I referred a few moments ago to my living on lake Huron, one of the great lakes, which have an area of some 90,000 square miles. We were disturbed in that area on account of a platform which was being constructed by an oil and gas drilling company for the purpose of supporting drilling equipment to be used to drill for either oil or gas. The platform happened to be about 2,000 feet from the Sarnia shoreline and just a little farther from where the town has its water intake. As hon. members know, large areas of western Ontario obtain their water from lake Huron. I will say without hesitation that it is only a matter of 10 or 15 years before Georgian bay and lake Huron will be supplying water to the area from Toronto to Windsor, because it will be the only body of pure water left.
As I say, we were disturbed about this drilling operation because we knew what effect it would have upon the tourist industry, upon the beaches, upon fishing and upon health. As a matter of fact, I happened to get the idea that the company did not have the proper permit which is required in order to build a platform of that sort. The federal government can grant two types of permits and, as we also know, under the British North America Act the provinces control the land under the water but the federal government controls the water. On coming to

Ottawa to see the then new Minister of Public Works I was advised that the company did not, in fact, have the proper permit, and that the permit which had been granted was not transferable. Through the co-operation of the minister and through his action that platform was dismantled within a very few days and there have been no drilling operations attempted since.
My point is this: we are not satisfied. We know that on lake Erie there are some 13 gas and oil companies with licences and leases for drilling. We do not want that to happen on lake Huron or lake St. Clair. We feel- and rightly so-that these waters should be kept as pure as possible. The purity of these waters is more important than a few million extra barrels of oil or a few million extra cubic feet of gas, because we are certainly not short of gas and oil in this country, and we shall not be for centuries.
The government of Ontario, since Mr. Macauley took office as minister of natural resources, has taken a very active and constructive attitude with regard to this serious problem. Mr. Macauley set up a committee headed by Dr. Langford, one of the best known geologists on this continent, to make inquiries regarding oil and gas drilling on the great lakes. As a matter of fact, the committee is sitting in Sarnia during Easter week and it is also going to Lansing, Michigan. As hon. members may know, the Ontario legislature recently introduced some amendments to the energy act giving the government power to prohibit drilling for oil and gas in certain areas. What I am suggesting here is that this is the concern of several of our departments of government. Looking over the treasury benches I am reminded that almost every government department is affected including the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and the Department of Transport, as well as, probably some others.
My suggestion is that the two governments now get together in view of the proposed legislation in Ontario and work out a solution so that there will not be any drilling in the areas in the great lakes where there is not now drilling and so that the existing leases will not be renewed when they expire in relation to those areas where they are now operating. In this way we will probably have a greater body of fresh water. It is amazing to learn upon reading some statistics that 15 of the great rivers in the United States are so polluted as to be unfit for use by humans. No chlorination is adaptable for the impurities of those streams.
79951-0-198
The Budget-Mr. Murphy
I hope the government will take notice of this problem. The Navigable Waters Protection Act was first introduced, I believe, in 1882 or 1886. Certainly oil and gas drilling did not constitute a problem then because it had never occurred on the great lakes up to that time. I believe that legislation is due for an overhauling.
One fortunate aspect of the situation is that we are receiving excellent international co-operation. This matter began to brew in August and, as a matter of fact, a meeting was called at my suggestion by the mayor of Port Huron. He was being visited by some United States senators and others together with our mayor, the city manager and so on. Protests were sent by the governor of the state to Premier Frost and also to his own state department at Washington who alerted the Canadian Department of External Affairs with the result that they were represented at any hearings held before the Ontario fuel board.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on February 12 of last year announced that a national conference on conservation would be convened and several cabinet ministers have referred to the necessity for conservation not only in relation to water but in relation to land use and all that sort of thing.
There are also some very alert bodies on both sides of the border interested in this problem. We have the great lakes commission composed of members representing the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Illinois. That body has been formed to conserve and develop the water resources of the area. They believe the time has come to require all ships, large and small, to have spillage collection and storage systems. Speaking of spillage from ships, I think this must be corrected. I believe that ships will have to be required to provide containers so that they may empty their spillage at the proper places and at the proper times.
We had an illustration of the need for this some few years ago in the Parry Sound district when one of the Imperial Oil Company tanks burst. As I recall it, it took three years to clean up the mess and finally a good deal of the sand had to be removed and replaced with fresh sand. If I remember correctly the cost to Imperial Oil Company was about $1,500,000.
While a person could speak indefinitely about pollution it is not my intention to do so. We had last summer a spillage of oil in lake Erie and the beaches were rendered practically useless. Not many miles from where the platform was built last fall in lake Huron there was a well on land in the state of Michigan that gushed. Over 100,000
3126	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Murphy barrels of oil were spilled before the well could be capped. If that had happened where the platform was being built the oil would have gone into the shipping channel of the river and with the amount of freight that passes up and down in that area it would have resulted in considerable damage to property and a considerable loss of life.
Here again, just a few weeks ago, we had another gusher. We had to send to Texas for one of the men whose business it is to cap wells. It is my contention that these experts could more easily cap a well on land than on water. While it has been the stated policy of the Ontario government that it will not permit any drilling in this area if there is any danger of pollution, I feel I should point out that no system of drilling has been perfect to date to such an extent that a drilling operation is free from pollution. It is useless for the government to say, "We will permit it as soon as we are satisfied there will not be any pollution." Our contention is that we simply should not take that chance.
Another aspect of this problem is the situation already confronting some of the cities. It is amazing to learn that some of the large United States cities have had to close their beaches because of pollution. What concerns me are the changes required in the Navigable Waters Protection Act because of the possibility of fire. Because we are now having such marvellous co-operation on the part of the government of the province of Ontario and the government of the state of Michigan and of the other states bordering on the great lakes, it is time for us to get together on a high level at a conference involving the two federal governments as well as the governments of the states and provinces concerned to bring our legislation up to date. Certainly it has needed revision for a long time.
I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, and indeed many hon. members in this house live not too far from lake areas. We have on the great lakes' system hydroelectric developments at Niagara Falls and along the St. Lawrence river which are among the world's largest. The shores and waters of the great lakes provide a vast fishing, hunting and recreation area for millions of people, both residents and tourists. I mentioned a while ago that the contamination of our beaches would crucify the tourist industry, and I am satisfied that it would. Expert evidence reveals that oil on the beaches becomes jellied and most difficult to dispose of. I referred to the instance at Parry Sound a few moments ago.
We have been supported, also, by some 75 municipalities in our efforts to prohibit drilling. The Canadian-United States water


pollution committee of which I have the honour to be chairman has appointed legal counsel to represent it at the hearings of the Ontario board on April 21. Counsel was directed by the executive to ask for the prohibition of drilling in lake Huron, lake St. Clair and the connecting waters. If we accomplish this we hope we can take action with respect to other areas such as lake Erie at a later date.
I am very glad to have the opportunity to bring this problem before the house. It is a serious one; it affects everybody. The water problem in this country and in this world is one of the greatest problems that we have to face. There is no question about that. The time to take action is now, before it is too late. Beaches that were good 10 or 15 years ago are not useable now, even in the large areas. I am sure that the many departments concerned, realizing the importance of avoiding any damage to property or loss of life, will consider the episode which happened in Michigan within the last few months because, as I said before, and I repeat, if that had happened where the drilling platform was being erected it could have scuttled probably 100 ships in the St. Clair river since you can always stand on the bridge and see maybe 30 or 40 ships going one way or the other.
It is too serious a matter for us to ignore. With the co-operation of the different states and their willingness and determination to try and cure this evil, I think we can work together to obtain the necessary results.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the hon. gentleman who preceded me in this debate one would swear that our Conservative friends are really not as noisy as they sounded at the time of the budget speech by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming).
You certainly recall the racket that was raised in this house on that occasion. It got so bad, Mr. Speaker, that at one point I thought that your furniture was in danger and I suggest that you might have the desks checked to see if they are as solid as before the budget speech.


Mr. Martel:: You are quite surprised to see that they are.


Azellus Denis: According to one newspaper, our friends opposite found 44 opportunities for applause during that speech which to me was odourless, colourless and tasteless.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Martineau, listen.


Azellus Denis: What worries me most is the fact that our friends opposite applauded just about anything, at any time.



II, I960

An hon. Member:: That surprised you so much you did not dare talk about it.


Azellus Denis: Even when the minister talked about a deficit, the Conservatives were applauding wildly. The same thing happened in the case of hypothetical surpluses. The same attitude also toward our three quarters of a million unemployed. Our friends the Conservatives applauded to such an extent that I was afraid that group had become hysterical and unable to distinguish between good and evil.
However, in all fairness to them-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The hon. member cannot distinguish between good and evil.


Azellus Denis: The Minister of Finance was applauded when he had the courtesy to say a few words in French.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That hurt you.


Azellus Denis: You see how the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) reacts in the face of the Minister of Finance. He does not want national unity.


An hon. Member:: Oh.


Azellus Denis: I should like to congratulate the minister for his delicate attention.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It took a Conservative government to do such a thing.


Azellus Denis: He referred to those few sentences in French as "part of the budget speech". Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is already well grounded in French; he is even able to exaggerate in French as well as in English.


Mr. Foriin:: You will not forgive him for having spoken in French.


An hon. Member:: Look at little Fortin.


Azellus Denis: I suggest to the hon. member for Montmagny-l'Islet (Mr. Fortin) that he mind his statements about the Union Natio-nale. He has spoken about it in a way that is not appreciated at all, especially when he said that "the province of Quebec is in no way different from the others", and particularly when he stated that the present premier, Mr. Barrette, was a premier-


An hon. Member:: You are sorry about
that-


Azellus Denis: -was a man of great prestige. As for the Minister of Finance, he exaggerated when, speaking in French, he gave us to understand that it was "part of his budget speech". You will agree with me, and the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot will agree with me, that those seven short 79951-0-198J
The Budget-Mr. Denis sentences in French, out of a total of 35 pages of English text, were more a mark of courtesy than "part of the budget speech".


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Your ministers of finance
have not made budget speeches in French.


Azellus Denis: We are grateful for that-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He is crying.


Azellus Denis: We want to thank him for his friendly attitude, but he might have given us more tangible and more positive proof of his willingness to help his French speaking fellow Canadians. For instance, he might have used his influence to raise the number and importance of French-Canadian representation within the cabinet. I am reminded of an article which appeared in Le Devoir for June 22, 1957, from which I should like to quote tonight, because I think it fits the occasion. I quote:
Mr. Diefenbaker had better not try to run an election in Quebec with one or two French-Canadian cabinet ministers in secondary departments.
No matter how pleasant he tries to be and how praiseworthy his efforts to deliver speeches in French, it will not work.
That is exactly what happened, Mr. Speaker, it did work.
In the Conservative party, there are no doubt French-Canadian members who have talent, prestige, personality-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: They all have.


Azellus Denis: -who have personality and
who could fill important positions in the cabinet.
You have some Conservative French Canadians who might fill the post of minister of justice as Mr. Lapointe did.
There are also some who might head the Department of Public Works, as did Mr. Cardin in Liberal days.
We also have the transport department which was so efficiently directed by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier).


Mr. Fortin:: And Mr. Marler.


Azellus Denis: And why should the Department of Finance not be entrusted to a Conservative French Canadian? He surely could not do any worse than the present incumbent.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what happens is-


Mr. Martineau:: He could not do better, either.


Azellus Denis: Our fellow citizens have been given secondary appointments. We get beautiful phrases in French but when it comes to the important posts: nil.
3128	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Denis
In fact, one is a minister to prisoners, and one is a store clerk; the first is a stone crusher and the other is a batman to the Minister of National Defence.


André-Gilles Fortin: The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) would certainly not appreciate those words of yours.


Azellus Denis: May I ask the Minister of Finance and the government to show confidence to a greater number of my Conservative French-Canadian friends, That unity which the Minister of Finance referred to during his budget speech would be all the better for it.
Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), who unfortunately is not at his desk tonight, not to worry about Canadian citizens in the province of Quebec. He should not waste his time listening to outcries by some of our Quebec politicians who criticized people or another race or the central government for the sole purpose of winning elections. They depicted Ottawa as an enemy, as a bogey, to the sole end of winning the election.


Louis Fortin: Such was the position in the days of the Liberals.


Azellus Denis: And yet, there are today, among the Progressive Conservatives, as many English speaking people as in Liberal times.
Today, the Ottawa Conservatives are members of the federal parliament as were the Liberals at that time. How did such union come about? You will find, Mr. Speaker, that our friends of the Union Nationale have nothing against the English or against the central authority. They are opposed to English Liberals, Liberal members of parliament, and they would even be against our friends from the C.C.F., if that party had any significance. Such is not, as you will see, the reason for which some of our Quebec politicians used to denounce Ottawa. It was not for racial reasons, but simply because, formerly, the Liberals were ruling this country and speaking of autonomy at the time. However, such autonomy does not exist any more. It has been entirely reversed.
Mr. Speaker, I want to put on record a statement which also explains another attitude taken by some of our Quebec friends. That statement was published in the paper Le Devoir of April 7, 1960. It is a statement by Mgr. Maheux, a career professor, lecturer, historian, archivist and well-known author. That is what the article says:


The thesis of Mgr. Maheux is that 80 per cent of French Canadians are normally people who want to survive as such, without hatred, without prejudice, without acrimony.
Twenty per cent would he nationalists who have difficulty in accepting co-existence. Others are very vocal ultra-nationalists. As soon as they make some wild statement, they make the headlines in the papers of the rest of the country, and that is the way we are judged, as if we were separatists.
The same thing happens in reverse: if some Ontario Orangeman rants against Quebec, he gets wild publicity in Quebec as in the rest of the country. This is childish. All that only serves to keep prejudices alive.
It is thus, Mr. Speaker, that since the Conservatives have been in office, the misunderstanding which existed between Ottawa and Quebec has become co-operation. It is the leader of the Union Nationale who recently made that decision and stated that he wished to co-operate, hand in hand with Ottawa. Consequently, the autonomy of former years should still exist, or else it was simply an autonomy serving a definite purpose.
Mr. Speaker, you have heard the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur. We have there the makings of disagreements which might grow into something bigger, and for which our friends from Quebec would have to take their share of responsibility. For flaunting their phony autonomy to win elections they will be responsible for causing the province of Quebec to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants. They refused those grants for the sole purpose of winning elections.
I have here a list of the amounts that were voted by the federal government and which the province of Quebec could have accepted just as did the other provinces. That list includes the construction of the trans-Canada highway and I now hope the Quebec government will co-operate with the federal government to get back a part of the money we have been paying to the rest of the country in the form of taxes, and which is being distributed across Canada while we are not getting anything, thanks to the Union Nationale.
The list also includes the winter works program carried out to reduce unemployment in municipalities, which has been rejected by practically every municipality in Quebec, as a result of the Union Nationale government's refusal to contribute, and also of its delayed authorization. It also includes the development of camping and picnic grounds, the construction of access roads to certain resources; forest fire protection; reforestation for forest inventories; practical

forestry work; access roads to forests; development of national parks; forest protection against the spruce budworm; unemployment assistance; hospital insurance; civilian rehabilitation; farm labour; youth training; apprenticeship, training of foremen and supervisors, and many others.
As a result of this notoriously phony autonomy, the province of Quebec has been refusing over $100 million a year from the Ottawa government.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure that the hon. member does not think he is in another legislature because it seems to me that the grievances he is bringing to the attention of the government relate to another government entirely.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I humbly submit that in the budget there are some problems relating to the provinces and the federal government and those problems must be interrelated. If the province of Quebec, for instance, is against the federal government no doubt the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) cannot do much to help the province of Quebec, to which province I belong. I think it is my duty to explain to the house the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been refused and to refer to the various reasons for these refusals.
Now that we have a Conservative government in Ottawa which is friendly to the present government in Quebec and in view of the fact that the premier of Quebec has decided to co-operate hand in hand with the federal government, I humbly submit that I should be entitled to give a few examples of things that should be corrected in the interests not only of the province of Quebec but of the whole of Canada. It seemed to me that the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) wrongly thought that the people of the province of Quebec were against the federal government or the other provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member perhaps misunderstood me. My suggestion was that he direct his review of federal-provincial fiscal problems, if he wishes to discuss them, to the federal responsibility and not to the attitudes and actions of the province of Quebec which is the other side, as he says, but whose acts are not strictly relevant.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I will abide by your ruling. I should like to speak for a few minutes about the budget but unfortunately there is nothing in the budget. I have proof of that because the hon. member who spoke before me did not talk much about the budget at all.
The Budget-Mr. Denis
(Translation) :
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the Minister of Finance gave us a colourless, odourless and tasteless budget speech. Unfortunately, his budget speech made me live over a year of deception, a year of deficit, a year of high cost of living, a year of high interest rates, a year of trade imbalance, a year of reconversion, the notorious reconversion which had the effect of reaping the money of the people, with the result that our manufacturers could no longer find the required money to keep on operating their small industries. Therefore, the government made me live over a year of deception, because it dealt with anything but what was important, necessary and urgent. This budget advises me moreover to be prepared for another similar year, a year of deception, since the budget is about the same.
There has been no change worth mentioning and we will go on living just as last year.
They will continue to play the administrator. Important problems will be put aside and will be left unsolved next year just as last year. They are playing and they will continue to play the administrator, but they will take great care of their publicity.
The important problems, to our Conservative friends, are to stay in power, take care of their publicity, control radio and television, visit the world, travel-this looks good in the newspapers and it seems truly important. But what good does it do to have consulates, agencies, paid representatives in different countries to take care of our affairs? The minister has to go there just the same, even if it is only to see if our representative is a Conservative or a Liberal.
And we will spend weeks dealing with the Jacques Cartier bridge issue. That is something to give work to our unemployed; that is something that will lower the national debt, the interest rate, the cost of living, the credit restrictions. That is not important. What they need is a little scandal so they can throw up a smoke screen to hide a bad administration. We will talk for days about capital punishment. Who discussed capital punishment during the last election campaign? Nobody. That matter had no importance then.
In 1956, a committee of members of parliament and senators of all parties reported on the matter after considering it for many months. The committee heard the evidence of jurists, of an executioner, of wardens, constables, policemen, etc., and came to the conclusion, in 1956, that capital punishment should remain on the statute books. Well, it happens now that this government, while there is unemployment, while the national debt and the cost of living are increasing,

The Budget-Mr. Denis extends the debate for one, two, three and four days more to deal with capital punishment. That is what is important to them, because it works as a smoke screen, helping to make us forget the bad administration of their government. Newspapers are full of articles about that; we are shown photos of the electric chair, photos of the scaffold, and everyone explains to us the reactions of the condemned, five minutes before he goes to the scaffold, five minutes before and after. That is what we are concerned with, instead of concerning ourselves-


Mr. Allard:: Tell us something about
economy.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Tell us something about post offices.


Azellus Denis: Besides, I am not the only one to criticize the budget speech of the Minister of Finance. I have read some editorials, some leading articles of certain papers.


An hon. Member:: Is that true? It does not show.


Azellus Denis: I should like to place on the record not only the views of Liberals, not only the views of the opposition, not only those of the C.C.F., but also those of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) and of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasser den) who, on the subject of agriculture said the present government has enacted backward legislation.
On April 1, the Montreal Star-


Louis Fortin: It was an April fool.


Azellus Denis: The Montreal Star, as I say, published an editorial. This is not a Liberal, a Conservative or a C.C.F. supporter speaking, it is a newspaperman discussing the budget. I quote:
(Text):
This may not be what the man in the street must look for in a budget-
(Translation):
Here is what Le Devoir of April 2 had to say:
A report on the budget, why?
The Montreal Matin of April 4 reported:
-a disappointment to those who expected a reduction in the taxpayers' tax burden.
La Tribune added:
-a dull and uneventful budget.
The hon. member from Montmagny-L'Islet who has been interrupting me for some time would be doing something more useful if he went and supervised the winter works program in his constituency-


Louis Fortin: I have just been there.


Azellus Denis: -for there is a possibility that there might not be any. It is a ridiculous program, but he might go and see what is happening and report to the house on what the winter works program is good for.


Louis Fortin: I have just been there.


Azellus Denis: I was referring to La Tribune. Let us see now what Le Droit had to say:
-to Mr. Fleming who had extolled the huge reconversion loan program as being sound management of the debt; Le Droit: "Perhaps the greatest blunder ever made by a government".
La Presse of April 1 had this to say:
-an unstable balance.
(Text):
To Mr. Fleming, telling that Canadians can increase their own domestic capital by the practice of productivity and thrift: "It is a pity Mr. Fleming and his colleagues did not set an example a little sooner."
(Translation):


Mr.   Flamand-Mr. Fortin@: Give us your opinion.


Azellus Denis: What I am giving you are my views on an odourless, colourless and tasteless budget speech.
The Winnipeg Free Press says:
(Text):
Mr. Fleming is still a long way from the $500 millions tax reduction which his party cheerfully promised the nation three years ago.
(Translation):
This is what L'action Catholique said:
-if the budget speech does not grapple directly with farm and unemployment problems, the same may be said about our trade deficits and the imbalance of our international payments.
Le Soleil-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of what date?


Azellus Denis: One or two days after the Fleming budget which was colourless, odourless and tasteless; on April 1, April 2 or April 3.
(Text):
In order to save time I did not mention the dates, but I have the dates here ...
(Translation):
Le Soleil of Quebec had this to say on April 2, 1960:
-one wonders if the federal government has done all it could to reduce its expenditures.
And L'Evenement Journal said the following, on April 2, 1960:
-the government seems to have adopted a kind of wait-and-see policy.
Here is what Le Nouvelliste of April 2, 1960 said:
It is still a far cry from the Liberal surpluses which so annoyed the opposition at the time.

Well, Mr. Speaker, for all those reasons, and others that I cannot mention for lack of time, I will wholeheartedly support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) that: (Text):
This house regrets that the financial policies of the government will produce a fourth consecutive over-all deficit in a year of "so-called prosperity", while at the same time offering no solution to the problem of rising prices, a continued high premium on the Canadian dollar, increased pressure on provinces and municipalities to borrow outside Canada, and high and rising unemployment.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in this sixth day of the budget debate there is little left to be said. I want to take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) upon a job well done. To have taken over the financial difficulties which were building up prior to 1957 and to have balanced the budget in three years is an achievement of which the minister and this government can be very proud.
As the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) stated in his address in the house, while the Minister of Finance had hoped to balance the budget this year, this has been accomplished. Commenting on this accomplishment, the hon. member for Greenwood stated as reported at page 3006 of Hansard:
I think as one looks back one can see that it has not come about by accident but was based on long term planning and tenacity.
I certainly agree with this statement. Judging from newspaper headlines and editorial comments the balanced budget has been well received in all parts of Canada. Most people realize that after the period of deficit financing that stopped the threat of recession, a balanced budget will bolster the confidence in the Canadian economy. Even opposition speakers have more or less admitted this fact through their more than moderate criticism in this budget debate.
Canada's financial growth is graphically illustrated in a chart which appeared in many newspapers across Canada and which was headed "Awakening Giant of the Twentieth Century". It shows a graph of the gross national product as it continues upward, and it has been climbing more steeply in the last two years. Underneath the chart are these words:
Nothing so dramatically reveals Canada in the role of the awakening giant of the twentieth century as a glance at the chart above which shows the spectacular jump by which the country's gross national product has soared upward.. .to a prodigious 34.5 billion in 1959.. .Canada has emerged from an industrial fledgling, bursting with purpose and activity, to take her place as one of the great industrial nations of the world.
The Budget-Mr. Pascoe
I suggest that it is the policies of this government and, as has been stated, the long term planning and tenacity of the Minister of Finance that have made this chart possible.
Comments from my own city of Moose Jaw in Saskatchewan indicate, I believe, the general opinion on the effect of the budget in this new fiscal year. I have here newspaper statements from interested parties. The president of the Moose Jaw chamber of commerce said that the budget semed to be a reasonable one. The secretary of the local branch of the joint action committee and secretary of the local of the civil service association of Canada said that he was most pleased with what he had heard about civil servants' pay. He added that it was a step in the right direction. I might add that prior to coming down here to Ottawa I had dealings with the civil service. I found them to be very reasonable. I told them that the Minister of Finance had said that when the occasion arose the government would treat the civil servants in the various categories as well as it was possible to treat them.
The first vice president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool who lives in Moose Jaw said, "There seems to be little in it for the farmers". From personal acquaintance with him I know he is a reasonable man; and I am sure he will admit that farmers as well as other segments of our economy will benefit from the confidence in our future inspired by a balanced budget.
The mayor of Moose Jaw said that he was glad that the taxes on the people had not been raised. He also said he hoped the statement that the government would be getting out of the money market as much as possible would help municipalities with their financial problems.
In connection with municipal financing, I should like to re-emphasize what others who have spoken have said about the greatly increased grants of money the federal government is now making to the provincial governments. The Minister of Finance outlined how much more money is now going to the provincial governments in the table which appears at page 2676 of Hansard. I should like to refer to that table for a moment. I will just outline the totals. This table shows unconditional payments, conditional payments and extra payments. The unconditional payments estimated for the new fiscal year 196061 total $870.1 million as compared with $552.7 million in 1956-57. The conditional payments estimated for this new fiscal year total $389 million as compared with $111 million in 1956-57, the last fiscal year of the Liberals. Then there are extra payments, such as

Business of the House university grants and grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal government property totalling $41.8 million as estimated for this new fiscal year as compared with $25.7 million in the 1956-57 fiscal year.
The grand total shows the picture much more plainly. In this fiscal year 1960-61 the federal government is giving to the provincial governments by way of grants $1,300.9 million compared with $689.4 million in 1956-57, the last year of the Liberal administration. In other words, the federal government is paying in grants this year almost double what was paid' by the Liberal government in the fiscal year 1956-57.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire from the house leader whether he is in a position to give the business when the house resumes after it adjourns on Wednesday this week?


Mr. Churchill:: When the house re-assembles on April 25 the order of business for that week will run as follows. Monday is a private members' day. On Tuesday we will start off with No. 8 on today's order paper, second
reading of Bill No. C-56, to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act, followed by No. 9 on today's order paper which is second reading of Bill No. C-57, an act to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act. The third item is No. 10 on today's order paper, the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister dealing with the tenure of office of judges. The fourth item would be the motion in the name of the Prime Minister to set up a select committee on the procedure of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: What number is that item?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is item No. 15 on today's order paper. The fifth item is No. 11 on today's order paper, being the motion in my name to set up a select committee to consider the national research council and other matters as there outlined. Then those items of business being completed, we would continue with budget resolutions. That would be the business of the house for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. If completed by that time we would then take up the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


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