1960-04-07

PRIVILEGE


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press dated Monday, April 4, 1960.
The editorial, in part, reads as follows:
The most serious offence that a Canadian cabinet minister can commit is to misinform the House of Commons on a factual matter of public business. Of this offence Mr. Churchill, Minister of Trade and Commerce, has recently been guilty three times over. The true information about Canada's present position in the field of trade and foreign debt, together with Mr. Churchill's large package of misinformation, are shown today in an adjoining column.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I quote another paragraph in the same editorial, which is as follows:
Having distorted the figures, Mr. Churchill used them to show that Canada has no need to worry about the prospects of its foreign trade or its accelerating plunge into foreign debt. The government's foreign economic policy, in short, is based on Mr. Churchill's optimistic analysis which, in turn, is based on false figures.
Then I quote a third paragraph from the same editorial:
Meanwhile, by distorting the known official facts and misleading parliament, the government and the nation, Mr. Churchill has discredited himself as a reliable witness on the vital questions of policy.
Mr. Speaker, every one of those three paragraphs is false. The figures that I used in the speech I made in the House of Commons on March 21 and March 22 were derived from official dominion bureau of statistics publications. No figures were distorted; the known official facts were not distorted; no figures were false or erroneous.
The same false statement about using wrong figures occurs in the heading of an article on the same page of the Winnipeg Free Press written by one who designates himself by the initials B.H. The heading is, "Wrong Conclusion from Wrong Figure". The article by B.H. on which the editorial writer purports to base his editorial is similarly misleading and false.
Mr. Speaker, I did not misinform or mislead the House of Commons either deliberately or otherwise. There are other things I might say; there is more detail into which I might go, but I think I have said enough to indicate what is in my mind regarding this matter.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement concerning world refugee year. Today has been designated as a day on which special efforts will be made in countries around the world to focus public attention on the world refugee problem in order to encourage increased contributions from the public to the world refugee year program.
In Canada a unique program has been planned by the appropriate private agencies. As far as I am aware no other country is attempting anything like it. Mayors and reeves of municipalities across Canada will be proclaiming the last week of April to be national austerity week. During that week Canadians will be requested to deny themselves some luxury or pleasure on which they would ordinarily spend money and to send the money so saved to their local world refugee year committee. In the course of this special week, tag days and other methods of fund raising will be employed in aid of world refugee year.
The government has agreed to follow up the interest engendered by national austerity week by authorizing post offices across the country to use a special world refugee year postal cancellation during May and June. It is hoped that this special postal cancellation, which will read "World Refugee Year-Remember and Give", will remind Canadians during the final months of world refugee year to make their contribution to their local world refugee year committee.
Hon. members will recall that in early March I announced that the government would be prepared to extend the program for the admission of tuberculous refugees and

Inquiries of the Ministry their families to Canada if suitable arrangements could be worked out with the provincial governments which administer the sanatoria. It may be appropriate for me to state at this time that the replies received from a number of provincial governments have been encouraging, and we have therefore begun the preliminary selection and processing of additional tuberculous cases in the refugee camps. Until these processes have been completed it is, as I said yesterday, not possible to give the specific number of tuberculous refugees and their dependents who may ultimately be admitted to Canada for rehabilitation.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I am sure all members of this house will join with the minister in impressing upon the Canadian people the desirability of their making a contribution toward a solution of this problem. The government does not, however, in the statements which have been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, indicate its intention to extend its own contribution. It is true that the minister has announced that more tubercular cases will be processed, but I suspect this is largely due to the underestimate which was made of the total number of tubercular refugees who could be covered by the original grant appropriated for that purpose by the government.
In any event, the minister does not indicate if the government has accepted the representations made by the national welfare council and other voluntary social and religious organizations which asked for assistance so they in turn might make some definite contribution toward the alleviation of the refugee problem. The criticism, of course, also has prevailed that Canada has been prepared only to take those tubercular cases that were capable of rehabilitation, that the hard core which remains a very substantial part of the tubercular refugee problem, was not one to which Canada was giving the kind of support it should.
It may be that the minister will take note of these observations and find ways and means of integrating them in the program on which Canada has officially embarked. The solution of the refugee problem is something that commends itself to the conscience of all civilized people. It is appropriate that Canada, a country with excellent tubercular treatment institutions, should in this way join with other countries in trying to resolve this world refugee problem.
I venture to express the hope in taking my seat that the government likewise will be continually interested in the resolution of another refugee problem, that in Palestine.

These are problems that require the careful attention of civilized peoples whose governments are called upon to make a contribution to the solution of these very vital humanitarian problems.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, this group has always expressed concern for the welfare of people who are suffering anywhere. On that account we are pleased to hear the minister's announcement which indicates that Canadians will make some personal contributions and sacrifices in support of action by the federal and provincial governments.
In view of this response on the part of various organizations and individuals to do more in connection with making world refugee year a success I urge the government to give further leadership by increasing the number who can be assisted as the result of government action, through responding favourably to representations made to it by such organizations as the Canadian welfare council and religious and other bodies across Canada.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act to permit payment of pension in prescribed circumstances to pensioners absenting themselves from Canada beyond the periods now prescribed: and to provide also certain saving and transitional provisions to protect and preserve the rights of pensioners so absent upon the date the said measure comes into force.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour if he can give us the latest figures of unplaced applicants in the offices of the national employment service for the latest available date.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; 832,823.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would I be correct in saying that is 40,000 over the comparable figure for this date last year?


Michael Starr: I could not say that, Mr. Speaker-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think it is about 40,000 more than the figure for the same time last year.


Mr. Hees:: I am sure you figured it all out well in advance.


Michael Starr: If that figure comes from the Martin bureau of statistics calculations I would have to check on it, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: What did your bureau tell you?



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. If he does not feel that it comes under his department he might refer it to a colleague.
In view of the discrimination being practised by the government of South Africa, as evidenced by the restoration of the personal identification pamphlet, would the Canadian government as a method of showing its disapproval of such inhumanity to men consider withdrawing the Canadian exhibit now on display at the annual trade fair in South Africa?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the trade fair in South Africa opened on April 4 and will continue until April 23. We have our own building there. It was constructed in 1958 for the Rand Easter show, and was modified for this year's exhibit. There are about 80 manufacturers exhibiting at the fair, and the displays are chiefly with regard to engineering equipment. With the fair under way and 80 Canadian firms showing exhibits there, it is not possible for the government as such to take any action. I appreciate the hon. member's interest in this matter.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is it not possible for the government to express the view that those exhibits should be withdrawn? As a further supplementary question, is the minister aware that deteriorating trade between South Africa and other parts of the world has now led business -leaders in that country to interview their government, asking-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: -for modification-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is going well beyond the proper scope of a
79951-0-189
Inquiries of the Ministry question by making statements. He is volunteering a statement instead of asking for information.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moose Mountain.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like the minister to answer my question.


Mr. Speaker:: In due course the hon. member may rise again. I recognize the hon. member for Moose Mountain.


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


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes, I think I can rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: No point of order can arise between the time I recognized the hon. member for Moose Mountain and now, because he has said nothing. The hon. member will have to bide his time.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Assiniboia wish to repeat his question?


Hazen Robert Argue: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is this. When a member is asking a supplementary question and is endeavouring to place before the house the foundation for his question, even though Your Honour may feel that the supplementary question has been expanded too far-I do not agree that that is what I have done, but it is Your Honour's right and duty to decide whether that has been done-I do not feel that the recognition of some other member removes the right of the person who is about ready to ask his supplementary question; I refer to his right to put his question to the government.


Mr. Ricard:: Put it now.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is a long standing rule of this house that a point of order can be raised at any time. I feel that I was perfectly justified in raising the point of order at that time. Other supplementary questions are allowed, and having regard to the importance of the issue I was raising and having regard to the foundation I was laying for my supplementary question, I feel that my supplementary question was in fact in order and that Your Honour should not have used the tactic of attempting to prevent me from asking it-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hazen Robert Argue: -or should have sought to prevent me from asking the supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is perfectly entitled to raise his point of order and state his viewpoint. I hope he will not transgress by making references to the Chair as he has just now been doing. Perhaps by recognizing another hon. member I prevented the hon. member from getting an answer to the first part of his supplementary question by reason of his having added to it irrelevant material. If the hon. member wishes to repeat his supplementary question of course he is entitled to do so, provided that the supplementary question is not embellished as it was before.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Speaking on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. Perhaps the time has come when this house should examine the practice it is getting into with respect to the asking of supplementary questions. I regret that I do not have in front of me the actual references. However, I have been concerned about this matter because, while Your Honour has allowed-and as I recall it all your predecessors have done so or have been inclined to do so-reasonable latitude with respect to the asking of supplementary questions, I suggest that during this session particularly the supplementary questions, which previously have been confined to probably not more than one or at the most two on any one subject, have been extended on a number of occasions so that as many as six or more supplementary questions have been asked on one subject. As Your Honour will appreciate, this procedure takes the matter out of the realm of questions seeking information on urgent matters and into the realm of debate.


An hon. Member:: Cross-examination.


Mr. Fulion:: And as somebody behind me says, "and of cross-examination". It is clearly such an enlargement of the principle with respect to the asking of questions as to be out of order. When we had a discussion on a point of order not so long ago, and when I raised a point of order with regard to questions, we were told that this was the custom and it was suggested that I was seeking to limit, or to ask Your Honour to limit, the rights of the opposition with respect to the asking of questions and to run counter to custom.
At that time I pointed out that what I was concerned about was a trend developing which, if not called in question, would then be regarded as having become customary. It is for that particular reason that I now

raise this point of order with regard to supplementary questions. If we as a House of Commons do not examine the practice that we are beginning to follow, I am afraid we shall later be told that because the matter was not raised, this has become a custom.
The particular ruling I have in mind is one by Mr. Speaker Glen no longer ago than 1943, in which Mr. Speaker Glen said this. I am not quoting his words verbatim, but I know I reflect their sense accurately. He said that supplementary questions are not allowed by our rules. That was as recently as 1943. There have been rulings by speakers since that time which perhaps were not quite as strict as that by Mr. Speaker Glen but which certainly restricted the asking of supplementary questions to not more than one or two on any one point. Certaintly no hon. member, as I recall it in looking at this ruling, has the absolute right to ask a supplementary question.
I submit in brief that the rules of this house, as interpreted by the Speaker of the House, make it clear that supplementary questions are not allowed by right and that if allowed they are allowed occasionally only as a matter of latitude, usually only in order to clear up what would otherwise be some misunderstanding or some gap in the information that had been given in the original answer.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that we are falling into the practice not of raising supplementary questions for that purpose but of using them for the purpose of engaging in debate at a time when debate is not supposed to be taking place. Debate is supposed to take place only when we reach the matters which are on the order paper for discussion as part of the regular business of the house.
I would be prepared to discuss the matter at greater length if Your Honour desires me to do so, but I raise the matter now because, in view of what was said by the hon. member for Assiniboia, I think if the matter is not raised at this time we shall be told later, if we raise it, that the practice has become a custom and should be allowed. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is wrong to allow it to become a custom because it is contrary to the rules of this house.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Speaking on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. I am sure Your Honour will have been grateful for the advice and information you have received from the Minister of Justice, whose interest in and concern about this matter is no greater than that of any other member of the house. The citation in question in

Beauchesne's fourth edition which seems to cover this matter is citation 182, which reads as follows:
The extent to which supplementary questions may be asked is in the discretion of the Speaker.
We are quite content to leave it so.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Read on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If any hon. member wishes to read more of the citation he is free to do so. The hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Campbell) appears to have something to add.


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: If I may, I should like to say a word on the point of order. I wish to submit a citation. I believe it is the one to which the Leader of the Opposition has just referred. I am going to read from it a little bit further:
Mr. Speaker Lowther laid down the rule about this on the 5th July, 1915, in the British House of Commons, where the practice is practically the same as ours. He said: "All supplementary questions are irregular and are not provided for at all in any standing order. It is entirely a matter of grace. I may say generally that the object of supplementary questions is to elucidate any ambiguity in the reply of a minister or to seek for some further information if he can give it; but supplementary questions should not be put, and ought not to be put, to embarrass a minister or to lead him to give an answer in a hurry which at a subsequent time he might be sorry that he gave. I will give as much freedom as I possibly can, but at the same time there must be some limits."
I think this citation very forcefully substantiates the position taken by the Minister of Justice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Somebody has handed me the citation to which I referred, namely the ruling of Mr. Speaker Glen on May 28, 1943. I should just like to put it on the record and leave the matter there. As reported at page 3128 of Hansard of that year Mr. Speaker Glen had this to say:


Mr. Speaker:: That is hardly a question that can be asked on the orders of the day-
The question had been asked by Mr. Knowles.
-and certainly it should not be put. I must point out further that a practice is coming into vogue in the house of putting supplementary questions to elicit answers in addition to those given by ministers. If the rules permitted it, that would be entirely proper: but the rules do not permit of supplementary questions being asked. I have allowed a number of these questions where explanations or statements by ministers might reasonably be requested, in circumstances where the minister would no doubt wish to have his remarks made as clear as possible. But I must point out that the rule is as I have stated.


Mr. Deschatelets:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
79951-0-189J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wishes to speak on the point of order I will hear him, although I think the matter has been sufficiently debated.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I would like to clear the matter just brought up by the Minister of Justice. He has read one decision and only one. I would like to know whether that is the only decision in favour of his theory which he has found since confederation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Speaker. I can give the hon. member a list. I can refer him to other decisions of Speakers, more or less on this point. Some are not as strict as the one I have referred to, but the tenor of them confirms what I have said. There are decisions in the 1944-45 session, the 1950 session, the 1953-54 session and the 1957-58 session.


Mr. Speaker:: The discussion has perhaps not been strictly relevant to the point which was raised by the hon. member for Assini-boia, but as it concerned the business of the house I was glad to have the advice and assistance of members who wished to comment on the use of supplementary questions.
There is no doubt that the supplementary question is at the discretion of the Chair. It is not specifically provided for by our rules; nor is the oral question, which we permit at this time of the day, provided for in our rules. The whole practice is one which has grown up and become established in the course of time.
I think the supplementary question-in moderation-is permissible and desirable where it seeks to clarify an answer which has been given. The objection I took to the question asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia, which I think was his first supplementary although it may have been his second, was that the question itself was quite improper. He indicated later, on a point of order, that the earlier part of his question was in his view a proper supplementary and I offered him the opportunity, if he wished, to repeat it.
As to the time of raising the point of order, I ruled that his question, which had proceeded to give information rather than ask it, was not acceptable by recognizing another hon. member. It seems to me that when an hon. member has been recognized and has not yet said anything it is improper to interrupt him, either on a point of order or otherwise. The hon. member I had recognized might himself be rising on a point of order.
To conclude the matter, if the hon. member for Assiniboia has a supplementary question

Inquiries of the Ministry which he feels should be asked, I will hear it and exercise my judgment as to whether it should be permitted.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, as I was about to ask, some 15 minutes ago, is the Canadian government prepared to suggest that the exhibits at the fair in South Africa should, in the interests of non-discrimination, be withdrawn?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder to what extent that applies in this instance? According to May's Parliamentary Practice, sixteenth edition, supplementary questions may be asked if they are necessary for the elucidation of the answers which have been given. I gave a concise answer to the question which was asked which does not require any elucidation whatsoever, and this question is quite out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think if the minister will review the situation he will recall that the first question asked whether the government would withdraw its participation in the trade fair. The answer, as I recall it, was that the government had commitments to exhibitors and in any event was not prepared to take that course. The supplementary question then asked whether the government would seek to have the exhibits withdrawn. To my mind that does not go beyond a reasonable supplementary inquiry.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I cannot follow the practice of the hon. member for Assi-niboia-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Greenwood is rising on a point of order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: On the same point raised by the minister?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, a new one.


Mr. Speaker:: Then, having disposed of that point, I think the minister should have the opportunity to reply if he wishes to do so.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend, as far as I know, to take any action with regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia, and I so indicated in the answer I gave to the earlier question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is a very simple one. Am I right in understanding that when you yourself are on your feet nobody else is supposed to be on their feet? If that is the fact, then may I point out this rule is being constantly broken.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister state whether steps have been taken to ascertain whether there is a definite radiation hazard to men working below the ground with Newfoundland Fluorspar Limited, as a report in this morning's Globe and Mail indicated?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, the occupational health division of my department has been co-operating for some time with the Newfoundland department of health and the provincial mines department, and has surveyed the working conditions in this mine. It was found that radiation levels did in some cases exceed the recommended limit of exposure, but I am informed that measures have already been taken to reduce these to a point well within the margin of safety.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. L. Hanbidge (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. If he has not received notice of this he may take it as notice. My question is based on a question raised by the leader of the C.C.F. group (Mr. Argue) and by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Pearson), as reported in Hansard of Tuesday, April 5 at page 2910.
Was the official who is said to have refused to let the Leader of the Opposition be televised the other night the same official who refused to let any part of the proceedings of the Conservative national convention in Winnipeg in 1942 be broadcast? Was that refusal in 1942 based on an order of the government of the day for fear that there might be aid and comfort for our enemies of those days?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



STATEMENT ON CANCELLATION OF INTERVIEW WITH LEADER OF OPPOSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, although I may not have an answer to the question just asked by the hon. member, I do have an answer to the question which was asked me

the other day by the hon. member for Assi-niboia regarding the cancellation of a telecast, not the one of 1942.
I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that an interview with the Leader of the Opposition, proposed as part of last Saturday's hockey telecast intermission, was neither scheduled, refused nor cancelled by the corporation. A suggestion for such an interview was made and then withdrawn by the advertising agency which handles the hockey account. The corporation further informs me it cannot speak for this agency, nor can it be responsible for the treatment of news reports related to this matter.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour whether he has now received a report from the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commission on the matter of severance pay at Elliot Lake?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker. May I say a brief word of explanation. The committee met on March 4; this is the report I got from the unemployment insurance commission. It met on March
4.	Recently, as a result of that meeting, a report was made to the unemployment insurance commission. The unemployment insurance commission asked the advice of the justice department as to one of the items in the report. The Department of Justice gave an opinion to the effect that the recommendation could not be implemented. Consequently the committee has reconvened to meet tomorrow in order to decide that particular matter. I am advised that a report should be made in the early part of next week.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. McLennan (New Wesiminsier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister any comment to make on a west coast radio broadcast made last night by Jack Webster criticizing the medical facilities at the British Columbia penitentiary?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I understand there was such a broadcast, but I have not seen the text and therefore am not in a position to make any
Inquiries of the Ministry comment or give any answer to anything that may have been said therein. But I should like to advise the hon. member that over the past few days I have received complaints about the medical facilities at the British Columbia penitentiary, and I have now asked for a report on this subject so that I may be in a position to determine what steps, if any, are needed to improve these medical facilities.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the Minister of National Revenue, in his capacity as reporting minister for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, whether the corporation are prepared to improve their transmitter facilities at Lacombe, Alberta, in order to provide better reception so far as audibility is concerned for the residents of southern Alberta.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, as well as others, has spoken to me about this matter on various occasions. I have taken it up with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and I am advised by the corporation that improvement of these facilities is very high on the priority list of projects.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to questions which have been asked in the house by the hon. member for Cartier and the hon. member for Kootenay West with reference to Miss Irene Retain, may I say that this woman was admitted to Canada as a visitor and subsequently sought to change her status and remain here permanently as an immigrant. After an inquiry held under the provisions of the Immigration Act she was ordered deported because she could not comply with specific provisions of our immigration laws and regulations applicable to immigrants. She appealed against the order, as provided under the Immigration Act, and the appeal was dismissed.
This case has been carefully reviewed to see whether the strict application of the law should be waived by the exercise of the

Inquiries of the Ministry discretion vested in the minister under the Immigration Act. However, on the basis of classified information available to us we are satisfied on security grounds that the deportation order should not be interfered with.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, notice of which I sent to his office earlier today. Will the minister advise the house of the number of insured loans made during the first quarter of 1960?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for sending notice of his question. The number of approvals of insured loans in the first quarter of 1960 was 1,731. The hon. member will be glad to hear that in the last two weeks the rate of approvals has been stepped up, in that there were 367 approvals for the week ended March 25 and 264 approvals for the week ended April 1. Therefore the rate for 'at least the last two weeks is at about the same level as it was last year with respect to loans by life, loan and trust companies.


John Richard Garland: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the figure just given by the minister represents, I believe, approximately a 75 per cent decline compared with the 1959 first quarter figure, can the minister say what steps, if any, have been taken by the government to encourage greater participation by the approved lenders for the balance of 1960?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, this is not a debate. We completed that debate two weeks ago. As my hon. friend knows, the government takes these matters under careful and constant consideration. The whole question of housing occupies a great deal of my time.


John Richard Garland: Of the number of loans made by the approved lenders in the first quarter of 1960, can the minister say how many were made by the chartered banks of this country?


David James Walker: As far as I know, very few indeed. As to the exact number, I have not that information at the moment.


John Richard Garland: Would the minister be prepared to give that number?


An hon. Member:: Put it on the order paper.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Can the minister give this house one single valid reason as to why there is such a delay in tabling documents and correspondence exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of the province of New Brunswick with regard to the East Saint John thermal plant, as ordered to be tabled by this house on February 3 last?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member has to exaggerate the situation at all. I am quite sure there is a very good reason for it.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Then what is it?


Léon Balcer: I will inquire and answer later.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Postmaster General or the Minister of National Revenue, or both of them. Is one of them now in a position to comment on the loss of a mail bag containing applications for income tax refunds, as reported in the Newfoundland Weekly Herald, to which I referred on March 29 and March 30?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, there was no foundation whatsoever for the suggestion of loss made by the hon. member, putting it into the same class as most of his other statements.


Azellus Denis: The question I asked of the Postmaster General concerned a report in a Newfoundland newspaper, which really exists. I think I gave my copy to the Minister of National Revenue, and I think he should be fair enough to say that I did not pretend that report-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for St. Denis seems to me not to be asking a supplementary question even, but engaging in a debate with the Postmaster General. I suggest that he put his question on the order paper.



I960 THE BUDGET ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, April 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Benidickson, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Regier.
Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock last evening I was leading into the subject of the United States defence bases in Newfoundland and Labrador which were granted to the United States government by the imperial government at the outset of the second world war in 1940. I referred to the fact that although these bases had been leased for a period of 99 years without the advice or consent of the people of Newfoundland at that time, no protection whatsoever had been provided for the pension rights of the people who were employed on those bases.
I referred yesterday to the fact that this is a matter of concern to other hon. members of this house who have these bases located in their constituencies. I have in mind St. John's West, where a United States naval base is located at Argentia; Grand Falls-White Bay-Ladrabor, where the United States air force has a location at Goose Bay, and Humber-St. George's where the United States has the Ernest Harmon air force base situated on the west coast of Newfoundland at Stephenville around which a town of some 8,000 people has grown.
This is a very important question, because I think the time has come when this whole situation should be carefully studied and reappraised in connection with the future disposition of these bases. I am founding this contention on the fact that only a few weeks ago the United States government and our own Department of National Defence announced that Pepperrell air force base at St. John's would terminate its operations by September 1 of this year. This news was not unexpected, because warnings had gone out several years ago. Yet in spite of the fact that representations have been made by the employees over the past ten years or more, it was only upon realization that a close-down was imminent that the right of these people to a pension was recognized.
I mentioned earlier that I was happy to refer to this subject because our relations with the United States military forces in Newfoundland during the past 20 years have been,
The Budget-Mr. McGrath
I suggest, without parallel anywhere in the world. Our relations with United States service personnel have been exemplary. Many thousands of our people have found constant employment with them. These men and women from the United States are fully integrated into our society and communities. They take an active part in community affairs and in sporting events, and they have generally been good neighbours. They will be very greatly missed. I should like on this occasion, on behalf of my constituents, to acknowledge publicly our deep sense of appreciation and our deep sense of loss with regard to the departure of these good friends.
Now, however, the question arises as to the future disposition of these bases. For example, Pepperrell air force base, which was founded in 1941, originally as a military establishment and subsequently as an air force base, contributes at the present time approximately $12 million annually to the economy of St. John's. Hon. members will realize without difficulty that the loss of this sum annually to a city of less than 100,000 people is substantial and constitutes a severe economic blow. This is accounted for mainly by the fact that there are approximately 5,000 air force personnel employing some 1,200 civilians. The civilian payroll alone reaches a total of $4,576,000 annually. The annual rate of pay per week for Canadian citizens employed on this installation is $81.
As I said, this base was established on a 99-year lease which means, in effect, that it was not similar in all respects to military camps as we have come to know them in Canada. These buildings are permanent buildings. The total value of the properties located at Pepperrell, near St. John's, exceeds $40 million. These include a fully independent, self-contained hospital; magnificent school buildings, beautiful large living quarters of brick construction, as well as all the other buildings that go toward making up a large military establishment.
The St. John's Evening Telegram in its issue of January 12, 1960 said:
A "deactivated" Pepperrell air force base-a technically-abandoned base on Canadian territory, which was not Canadian when the territory was handed over and which was granted more as a gift than as part of a business contract and without prior consultation with its original owners, seems to have the makings of a very interesting international question.
In the same issue, with reference to the properties on Pepperrell air base, the Telegram said:
In any event, what is to happen to the magnificent, multimillion dollar plant located on the base in the

The Budget-Mr. McGrath
shape of a splendid hospital, a fine school, family homes and barracks, that, without too much difficulty, could be turned into apartments.
Are they to be left to deteriorate, as they inevitably must, when Newfoundland is short of classrooms, hospital beds, housing accommodation? Surely there must be some way, some arrangement that could be made to put such costly and worthwhile buildings and other facilities to work to fill a great need.
It is true that we are desperately in need of hospital beds, and that there is a magnificent hospital located on this establishment. We have been pressing for an armoury at St. John's, and there is a magnificent armoury at the Pepperrell air force base in addition to classrooms and buildings of all descriptions.
Probably what is more important is the fact that with the withdrawal of the United States air force a vacuum will be created in the North American defence structure. No one is prepared to concede that the day of so-called conventional war is a thing of the past. On the contrary, the future existence of civilization depends on hostilities being restricted to such small conventional wars. I raise this point to emphasize to my colleagues in the government and particularly to the Minister of National Defence the need of consultation on the part of his department with the joint chiefs of staff of the Canadian services, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Defence Production in respect to this question.
I will be the first to concede that the allocation of the defence budget across Canada is made not on a per capita, regional or proportional basis but purely on the basis of strategic need. Newfoundland is the Gibraltar of Canada, of North America. It is Canada's easternmost frontier. It has only a token force of Canadian military personnel. With the withdrawal of the United States air force, and with the question being raised as to the future disposition of the facilities at Pepperrell, now is the time when we should give consideration to providing a military establishment there on Canada's easternmost frontier comprising members of the Canadian army, navy or R.C.A.F. as the case may be. There is a need for such a Canadian establishment at the Gibraltar of North America, which has always been fortified, if for no other reason than to provide a token force, to establish and maintain sovereign rights and to recognize the strategic location of this part of the country.
As I have said, we have a ready-made military installation in Canada in which since


1940 Canada and the people of Newfoundland have had no say. What is to be its future? We know that Pepperrell is to be vacated, but what will be the future of the United States air force base at Stephenville? It is primarily a fighter base. We know from discussions in the house that the trend in the general defence policy of North America adopted by Canada and the United States is away from the fighter to the ballistic missile and other weapons. There seems to be no justification for this installation, which is primarily a fighter base, basing interceptor squadrons. What is to happen to the town of 8,000 people that has been built up in that area over the past ten years should the installation follow the course at Pepperrell and terminate its operations?
These questions require careful and serious study on the part of our government in consultation with the government of the United States through its department of state and department of defence. This is a domestic question certainly falling within the province of the federal government. It points to a need to reappraise the situation on the east coast with regard to our own military installations.
The Royal Canadian Navy has great strength in Nova Scotia, which is the traditional home of the navy in Canada and will always be so. Surely there is a requirement for larger air force establishment at St. John's to fill the vacuum created by the withdrawal of United States troops. I suggest that without undue delay this question be given serious thought by the government of Canada, and that consultation be initiated with the United States government relating to the eventual disposition of United States properties in Canada.
I should like at this time with the consent of the house to have printed as an appendix to Hansard a description of the physical buildings and properties at Pepperrell air force base, so that hon. members may see more clearly exactly what I am talking about. May I have the consent of the house for this purpose?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member indicate the source of the table to which he is referring?


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is from the United States department of defence. It appears to be lengthy, but it is triple space

printing and could be easily condensed to occupy, I would think, not more than three pages of the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member suggesting that this be printed as an appendix to Hansard?


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent to the printing of this table as an appendix to Hansard, that is a table showing a description of the buildings at Fort Pepperrell?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For material referred to above, see appendix to Hansard for Friday, April 8, I960.]


James Aloysius McGrath: I thank the house for this courtesy, Mr. Speaker. Before I leave the subject may I at this time publicly acknowledge the understanding, co-operation, kindness and consideration shown by his excellency the ambassador of the United States and members of his staff and the United States air force authorities in Ottawa during the weeks this question has been under discussion. It is as a result of their endeavours and the endeavours of the consul general of the United States in St. John's, and the understanding of the United States air force authorities, that the people who are being laid off from some of these bases, particularly Pepperrell, are to be granted pension rights under the United States civil service retirement act.
Before I resume my seat I would like to refer briefly to one other subject which affects my constituency. I would like to refer to the surplus labour situation in the iron ore mines of Bell island. I draw the attention of the house to the fact that, notwithstanding what may have been said to the contrary by learned members of the opposition from Newfoundland, particularly the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, the Minister of Labour wrote to the premier of Newfoundland on October 5, 1959 following his visit to Bell island to personally survey the situation there, where some 600 men were laid off last year as a result of the closing down of one of the three shafts of the mine. As a result of his personal appraisal of the situation he recommended to the premier of Newfoundland that they, that is, the federal and provincial governments, share in a vocational training scheme in order to enable particularly the younger people on Bell island 79951-0-190
The Budget-Mr. McGrath -where there are, I might add, over 14,000 people wholly dependent on one industry-to get some vocational training to provide greater scope and opportunity for them, and for men of middle age who know nothing but work in the mines over the past years. This need has been recognized by the people of Bell island, including members of the labour movement and civil leaders. It is a very serious problem. The need to relocate those people in other sections of the country or of the province, as the case may be, where jobs are more readily available and where they could have greater scope because of newly acquired skills, is obvious.
I am sorry to say that although the minister's letter was acknowledged on October 8, 1959 and advice was given by the premier that the matter was being referred to his colleague, the provincial minister of labour, that is where the matter stands at the moment. I am raising this matter at this time, sir-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, to whom my friend made reference, is not in the house because of another engagement. If he were here I am sure he would ask the following question. Would the situation in Newfoundland, as revealed in the premier's letter, be due to the fact that the premier of that province does not have the necessary resources owing to the failure of this government to live up to the financial terms of the agreement it made with Newfoundland?


An hon. Member:: You know better.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am just asking the question.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: Nonsense personified.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is a rhetorical question that does not warrant an answer. The hon. member is a past master at getting statements on Hansard when other members are speaking.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He smuggles them in.


James Aloysius McGrath: In any event, Mr. Speaker, if the question of the learned member for Essex East does warrant attention, surely if the government of Newfoundland with greater revenue than ever before cannot afford a

The Budget-Mr. Rouleau 50-50 arrangement with the federal government to provide vocational training for about 500 people, then I suggest it does not deserve to carry on the government.
My purpose in raising this particular question at this time is to impress upon my learned colleagues in the opposition, particularly my good friend for Bonavista-Twillingate, who is not here-maybe the hon. member for Essex East will convey this to him-the necessity of his interceding with his good friend and mentor the premier of Newfoundland, on behalf of my constituents on Bell island. Please ask him whether he will at least look into the possibility of acceding to the request of the Minister of Labour in providing that badly needed vocational training for those displaced miners on Bell island.
In closing, I thank the house for its indulgence in listening to my remarks, which I have tried to make of a national character rather than purely local in scope because, as I said, the question of the United States bases affects not only my constituency but other ridings in the country. The question of the surplus labour situation on Bell island is one which concerns all of us in Newfoundland. I would hope that we can forget our partisanship long enough to resolve some of these problems, particularly as they apply to our people. After all, they are not interested in the colour of our political flag when their stomachs are empty. I would ask, sir, that these questions be treated in the way that the United States bases question has been.
I might add, sir, that I like to feel-and I am sure the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) would agree with me -that it is because of the fact that those problems have been kept out of the public forum and have not been made partisan political questions that the solution has been a satisfactory one, particularly in regard to pensions. I would hope that the same spirit would guide us in discussion with regard to the future of the displaced miners of Bell island and other questions.
(Translation):


Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, last Monday, when the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Bourdages) rose to comment on the budget speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), I was preparing to listen closely to him in view of our friendly


relations and also because of the fact that he represents the constituency next to mine in Montreal.
I was quite disappointed however, because if you analyse his speech and leave out the quotations, there is just nothing left.
He gave us a definition of the word "create". To create, he says, is to do something out of nothing. On the basis of that definition, there is little to be done with his speech, because there was nothing in it.
He managed to say, after the minister's budget speech, that we have a great, an outstanding Minister of Finance.
That reminded me of the speeches we used to hear regularly in Quebec from Union Nationale members, about a certain politician they described as being the greatest since confederation.
While we are on the subject, may I remind some of the Quebec Conservative backbenchers that this is not the Quebec legislature, where duplessism is the keyword; this is the House of Commons of Canada, where there are standing orders which are applied with fairness and justice.
A number of Conservative backbenchers from Quebec use this house as a sounding-board to extol the merits of a man of whom, unfortunately, they are disciples.
Mr. Duplessis, as the dictator of Quebec for many years, caused untold harm to Quebec and to Canadians on the national level. We were misjudged because of the stand he took and because of his insubordinate and reactionary turn of mind. It is not surprising that from time to time we hear remarks such as those made last Friday by the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). However, in view of the position he holds, I think that before making his speech he should have sought information about the true feelings of the right-minded majority of French Canadians.
It has never entered the minds of Quebec people and French Canadians to impose their views on the other provinces. But I understand that Mr. Duplessis' attitudes led many of our fellow citizens outside the province of Quebec to believe that we objected to everything coming from Ottawa or from the other provinces. He always gave the impression that Quebec refused to compromise. But this was only the opinion of one man and of a few of his followers who, unfortunately, were entrusted with the future of the province.

When you know the French Canadians well, you realize they want to live their lives fully as Canadians, within the framework of the Canadian confederation, sharing the rights and responsibilities of all Canadian provinces.
This is something you personally understand, Mr. Speaker, and I commend you for the attitude you show publicly towards Canadians, not only since your appointment as Speaker, but always.
The Speaker of this house deserves the admiration and respect of all Canadians, and most particularly of French Canadians, whom he sincerely understands and admires.
But I would ask my French Canadian fellow citizens, who are sitting in this house under the Tory label, to stop behaving as henchmen of Maurice Duplessis and the Union Nationale. They should at last understand that, as they have been sitting here for three years, they are here to deal with national matters, on a national level and in a purely national spirit.
That should not prevent them from expressing, from time to time the views of the province they represent here, but they should in doing so, remain conscious of the fact that we are living in a Canadian confederation which extends from coast to coast.
The prime objective of federal members should be the greatness of their country, of all their country, and the welfare of Canadians, of all Canadians. The leader of the government here is not the leader of the Quebec government, but the leader of the Canadian government. My Conservative colleagues from Quebec seem to forget it sometimes.
This is so true that when the member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin), addressing a Manitoba audience, stated, as reported in the press, that Mr. Duplessis had been obsessed by autonomy, none other than the great treasurer who controls the sinews of war for the Union Nationale, saw fit to denounce him to the whole province, right in the legislature, and to call him a child.
After the remarks made by the Hon. Gerard Martineau, the member for Mont-magny-L'Islet felt bound to go back on his opinion and to explain himself, in order to reingratiate himself, not with the leader of the Canadian government, but with the big chief of the Union Nationale.
Such a situation is unbearable for a member of the Canadian parliament.
79951-0-190i
The Budget-Mr. Rouleau
In saying this, I do not want to point personally to the hon. member for Laval because, as far as I know, he himself never walked into that trap. But, as I mentioned earlier, his statement that the Minister of Finance is a great Minister of Finance reminds me that the front and backbenchers of the Union Nationale, in my province, were always saying that Mr. Duplessis was the greatest premier since confederation.
Mr. Maurice Duplessis is now dead. God has judged him and history will judge him. When the hon. Mr. Sauve replaced him, a new mood spread over the province of Quebec. Already the Union Nationale and the Conservative members had started to say that he too was the greatest premier we ever had in the province of Quebec. Since both of them were the greatest premiers, I wonder where this leaves the present premier of Quebec.
To come back to the Minister of Finance, as I have just said, the member for Laval exclaimed, in his charming candour, that he was a great, great, great Minister of Finance.
When he sings the praises of the Minister of Finance, of the Prime Minister, and of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, he reminds me a little of a purring cat waiting to be patted.
Well, after the few remarks he made, he had his pat, his reward, when the Minister of Finance turned towards him and gave him a big smile. There are less of those purring cats nowadays, that used to keep close to cabinet members looking for a smile, a pat or something else. But we notice this year, since the appointment of parliamentary secretaries, that many of the purring cats keep huddled in their corners and are no longer heard from.
After hearing and studying the budget speech and after surveying the reactions of various groups of businessmen across the country, I can only say that this year's budget is much smaller than Conservative members, through the hon. member for Laval, would have us think, and that the Minister of Finance is not that great.
Of course, since confederation, it did not happen very often that a Conservative government, through its Minister of Finance, could in a budget speech forecast a slight surplus, and I understand the quite childish satisfaction felt by the Minister of Finance

The Budget-Mr. Rouleau when he introduced his budget, and by the government members and later on by Conservative backbenchers.
I must say frankly that, as a Canadian citizen, I am happy that the budget could finally be somewhat balanced and I wholeheartedly hope that the minister's forecast will prove to be right, although I doubt it very much.
But I cannot forget that, if this year the minister was able to forecast a surplus of $12 million for next year, it is because of the tax increases of last year, which yield approximately half a billion dollars each year to the treasury.
Nor can I forget the 800,000 unemployed in our country, about whom the Minister of Finance did not seem to care very much.
I cannot, forget either the 100,000 civil servants whom the Minister of Finance did not take into account in the salary increases.
I cannot forget either the businessmen and industrialists across the country, who suffer and many of whom are facing bankruptcy because of the credit restrictions laid down by the Bank of Canada in collusion with the Minister of Finance.
And the Conservative backbenchers ignore those issues which are vital for all Canadians, and hang on to what seems to them a safety belt after those discouraging and depressing deficits of the last three years.
According to those Conservative backbenchers, Mr. Speaker, all is for the best in the best of worlds. In their view there is no unemployment. They see no credit restrictions, and they think that civil servants are satisfied. Like children, they are wild with joy. They are happy. Therefore civil servants must be happy too, as must be businessmen, leaders of industry, and even the unemployed.
Like them, we should follow in the footsteps of the hon. member for Laval who declares that the Minister of Finance is a great, great, great minister.
But, Mr. Speaker, even if, as a Canadian, I expressed some hope because of the $12 million surplus announced by the Minister of Finance, I say again that, because of our past experience, I cannot share their views and call the present holder of the finance portfolio a great minister.
Since the Conservative party took over in 1957, the government and the Minister of Finance have increased this country's national


debt by more than a billion dollars, thus increasing the servicing of the debt by several hundred million dollars a year.
For the year just ended, the Minister of Finance, a few days before his budget speech, confirmed to us that the deficit exceeded $400 million. Is that something about which Canadians may rejoice? The only happy ones are the Conservative backbenchers.
During the years 1945-57, the government under a Liberal prime minister succeeded in lowering the national debt by $2,413,000,000, which reduced the servicing of the debt accordingly. In less than three years, the Conservative government has again increased the national debt by more than a billion dollars, thus adding some $500 million yearly to the servicing of the debt.
Mr. Speaker, I do not hesitate to state in this house, and before the whole nation, that in less than three years, this government and the Minister of Finance have destroyed the results of 11 years of good and sound Liberal administration.
However, Conservative backbenchers are rejoicing and are satisfied with the mirage summoned before their eyes. I did not know they were naive enough to be satisfied with so little.
The hon. member for Laval told us in this house last Monday, that if he were sitting in the opposition, he would be so discouraged by the finance minister's budget speech for this year that he would resign.
That shows very little knowledge of the Leader of the Opposition and of members who are sitting by his side. Like our leader, our sole purpose is the greatness of our country and the welfare of our fellow citizens.
What we have done since we have been in the opposition has been merely to ask the government to give a sound administration to this country and to ensure the welfare of Canadians.
Discouraged? We could have been that long before today, when we saw our country so badly administered by this government. But we are not discouraged. We never are, and never will be. We shall not let up. Quite the contrary, we shall keep on working towards the goal I have just indicated.
We have a role to play in this house, and neither the member for Laval (Mr. Bourdages), nor his Conservative backbencher friends, will prevent us from playing it.

However, we are astounded by the naivete of Conservative members who content themselves with so little. In view of their puerile attitude, we are determined to fight on for our Canadian fellow citizens, confident that we represent the views of the great majority of Canadians who are only waiting for the opportunity of sweeping out of office a government that is showing arrogance, inconsistency, complacency, and which is leading us, without any doubt, to economic chaos and to unemployment.
The people are not happy. The unemployed are not happy. Businessmen are not happy. Industrialists are not happy.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Neither are the Liberals.


Guy Rouleau: Only those dear Conservative backbenchers are happy.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The Liberals are not.


Guy Rouleau: Why don't you do something about the unemployment in your constituency?
We wonder why the member for Laval, who, epitomizing the thought of his backbencher friends, stated, I don't know on what basis, that civil servants were happy with the $15 million granted to a third of them. I am glad for those civil servants who will get a small salary increase, and I take this opportunity to point out to the Minister of Finance that it would now be proper to show our gratitude to those ladies who, in parliament, are our collaborators; I mean the members' secretaries. They are not only our stenographers, they are real collaborators. They show unlimited devotion and they have great responsibilities. They do not hesitate to stay on the job until late, to carry on the work they have undertaken, and what is more, they defend the member for whom they work. They deserve not only our admiration, but also all our gratitude. I hope that, as a token of our gratitude, the Minister of Finance will grant them the raise they deserve.
As to the 100,000 who have been ignored, I would strongly advise the hon. member for Laval and his colleagues to take note of the comments of various officials of civil service organizations, which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen for April 1, 1960. It is reported that the joint action committee of Canadian civil service organizations expressed bitter disappointment at the salary increases announced by the Minister of Finance
The Budget-Mr. Rouleau in his budget speech, which involved only a third of the civil servants. The report added that there was general dissatisfaction.
Mr. Ken Green, of the national defence employees association, stated that the commission had been ignored and that increases should have been extended to all civil servants. Mr. Fred Whitehouse, president of the Civil Service Federation of Canada, said with a touch of humour that civil servants would hit the ceiling. He added that the increase, which had been expected for all civil servants, applied only to one third of them.
Mr. Marshall, president of the professional institute, indicated that civil servants were not being given full satisfaction.
Those are only a few comments from officials of civil service groups. I am sure they adequately represent the feelings of all Canada's civil servants.
Tory backbenchers are happy, but civil servants are not, and they still remember the Minister of Finance's statement that even if funds were available, civil servants would not get the increases they have been demanding.
The unemployed are also dissatisfied. The 800,000 people who, across Canada, would like to earn a decent living but cannot, surely do not share the feelings expressed by the hon. member for Laval, and are quite disappointed that the Minister of Finance has mentioned nothing that might be of some help.
Proportionately, Canada has twice as many unemployed as the United States. That is an intolerable situation. Instead of rejoicing at the few crumbs they are getting from the Minister of Finance, Conservative backbenchers should give serious thought to the plight of family heads who are unable to find jobs and who, much to their sorrow, have to let their families live in want.
Being jobless, many of those family heads have lost their car and some furniture, because they could not meet the payments. Many have had to take their children out of schools and colleges because they were no longer able to pay for their education.
Instead of rejoicing, Conservative backbenchers should feel pity for those unfortunate people and insist time and time again that the government correct the situation once and for all, and not tolerate such a disastrous state of affairs affecting hundreds

The Budget-Mr. Rouleau of thousands of families in a country with unlimited natural resources and supposed to be rich.
If we were able to find the necessary funds for our war effort-and rightly so-it is inconceivable that in a country such as ours and in peacetime means cannot be devised to provide work for our bread winners and citizens.
The member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and several other opposition members made constructive suggestions to the government. But as the suggestions originated from the opposition, they were ignored just as the employment situation in this country is ignored. However, while the unemployed are unhappy and opposition members are anxious to see that crucial problem settled, Conservative backbenchers are happy.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, they are happy, but business, industry, the civil service and the jobless are quite unhappy about the government's attitude.
Had he been of any consequence, the member for Laval would have been the laughing stock of all textile plant owners when he said that they were satisfied with the budget and that all their troubles were over.
Nevertheless, a statement by Mr. W. H. Young, vice president and general manager of the Hamilton Cotton Co. Ltd. is to be found in the Hamilton Spectator of April 1, 1960 to the effect that the budget had no significance for them, and another by Mr. E. D. James, vice president of Comos Imperial Mills Ltd., to the effect that the budget was most disappointing and the technical changes in the wording of tariff regulations would not in the least reduce costs to textile mills.
This year, construction, which has often been considered the basis of our economy, is experiencing a dangerous and even alarming decline. Businessmen and industrialists see their profits dwindle gradually. Credit restrictions are making it hard for them to stay in business.
The Prime Minister went to great pains to tell us in a television broadcast last fall that there was no tight money policy in this country.
The Minister of Finance repeated the same thing. Let us ask industrialists, businessmen, merchants or workers whether they can easily borrow at the bank the money they need to successfully operate their business. They know in advance the answer they will get

from the bank manager. They will be told that there is no money available for them at the present time.
The Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance may deny the government's responsibility for this state of affairs, but the facts prove that full responsibility for the tight money policy rests on the present government.
Indeed, what has happened, Mr. Speaker, since the Conservatives took office?
In order to fulfil a few of the many irresponsible promises they had made to the voters, they had to go to a terrible expense and plunge the federal administration into deficits that had never been equalled so far. To cover those deficits, the government had to resort to loans and particularly to the famous debt conversion operation.
As a result, whatever money was available in banks or elsewhere went to the government, which became the country's heaviest borrower. The government grabbed money which otherwise would have been available to small borrowers, thus causing interest rates to soar. This has forced every Canadian taxpayer to pay more for servicing the national debt which in two years has risen by one billion dollars, raising the interest payments by $249 million a year.
The increase in interest rates had an impact on the borrowing of school boards and municipalities. Those corporations, when they are able to secure loans at all, have to pay an interest rate often exceeding 7 per cent. And who ultimately pays the interest charges paid by municipalities and school boards? Who pays for the increase in servicing the national debt? The taxpayer, the small property owners whose assessments rise accordingly.
If the Tory government had administered things wisely, it would at least have balanced its budget since 1957; it would not have had to resort to enormous borrowing, and the borrowed money would still be available to others at a reasonable interest rate. We would not be facing today that tight money policy which is driving hundreds upon hundreds of people to the wall and contributing to unemployment.
The Prime Minister, just like the Minister to Finance, wants to deny the evidence, by maintaining that they have nothing to do with the decisions of the governor of the Bank of Canada. Those two ministers accused

the chartered banks of being responsible for the tight money policy. Nothing is farther from the truth. The decisions taken by the governor of the Bank of Canada are completely endorsed by the government. The Bank of Canada is under the jurisdiction of parliament and, more particularly, of the Minister of Finance.
If the governor of the Bank of Canada were to take some action and adopt attitudes contrary to the government's, he would have no other alternative but to tender his resignation. However, to my knowledge, neither the Minister of Finance, nor the Prime Minister, nor any member of this government has denounced the governor of the Bank of Canada with regard to tight money policy. I have not heard it said that the governor of the Bank of Canada had considered tendering his resignation to the Minister of Finance.
It therefore means that this government, in order to meet the dire results of its inexperience and its lack of responsibility endorses the Bank of Canada in its tight money policy.
The Minister of Finance would have the Canadian public believe that there is no tight money policy in this country. He had solemnly promised that, under a Conservative government, there would be no credit restrictions. That is just another promise broken by the Conservative government.
During the present session, I heard on various occasions the Minister of Finance, with a few Conservative backbenchers in his wake, exclaim that the leader of the government and the Conservatives had fulfilled all their promises.
I indict that statement as false, and so do our people. The leader of the Conservative party, who is now Prime Minister, and the Conservative government did not fulfil their promises.
Yet, if I refer to the Toronto Star of December 2, 1957, I find the following statement, which the Prime Minister is supposed to have made at a Conservative convention in Ottawa. Mr. Diefenbaker, is said to have stated at the time. "A promise given is a promise kept." And he added that 10 per cent of the promises he had made had been kept.
He suggested that a government which did not keep its promises was doomed to defeat.
I would like, this afternoon, to recall some of the promises made by the leader of the
The Budget-Mr. Rouleau
government during election campaigns, promises which have not yet been fulfilled, even after three years of administration. A whole litany of unfulfilled promises could be listed.
We had been promised a tax cut of $500 million a year. In the session which followed the coming into power of this Conservative government for the first time, taxes were reduced, because another election was in sight soon after. But right after the general election of 1958, instead of being reduced by $500 million, taxes were increased by the same amount. We had been promised a balanced budget. However, since the Conservative government has been in power, deficits have been as follows: 1958, $38,500, 000; 1959, $609,300,000;	1960, $405,800,000,
which makes a total of $1,053,700,000 in three years. Are these what we might call balanced budgets?
The Prime Minister had long been solemnly promising a bill of rights. Every year, since he has been in power, he introduces his bill, but never gives the house an opportunity either to consider it or to adopt it. There is another unfulfilled promise of the leader of the government.
When he was in the opposition, the Prime Minister kept promising to raise old age pensions to $60, but they are still at $55 a month.
The Prime Minister had promised new taxsharing arrangements between the federal government and the provinces. Apart from a few slight concessions made to the provinces, those arrangements have not yet been renewed; and that is another promise that has not been fulfilled by the Conservative government.
We had been promised that closure would be abolished in the House of Commons. Still another promise that has not been fulfilled by the Conservative party.
The province of Quebec had been promised the same representation in the cabinet which it used to have under the Liberal regime. That is another promise that had been made, but has not been kept.
We had been promised that Canadian National Railway employees would have their pensions increased. Another broken promise.
A Canadian coastal guard had been promised. We have no Canadian coastal guard yet. Another promise unfulfilled.
We had been promised that the special excise tax on cars would be abolished. Nothing has come out of that. Another promise that has not been fulfilled.
We had been promised a price support program for fish. Nothing has come out of that. Another promise that was not kept.
3004	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Rouleau
We had been promised that the prairie farm rehabilitation act would apply everywhere in Canada. Another promise that has not been fulfilled.
We had been promised equal freight rates, to help agriculture and industry in the prairie provinces, so that they might compete with the rest of Canada. It has not been done. Another broken promise.
We had been promised that tuberculosis and mental illness would be included in the national hospital insurance plan. It has not been done. Another promise that has not been kept.
We had been promised a vigorous immigration policy. On the contrary, immigration is being slowed down. This is another promise on which the government has backed down.
We had been promised a reduction in unnecessary government expenditure. However, since the Conservatives have been in power, expenses have been rising steadily. Another unfulfilled promise.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That includes money for the Leader of the Opposition.


Guy Rouleau: I hardly need mention that this is another unfulfilled promise.
We had been promised that immediate legislation would be introduced to provide for the control of water pollution. It has not been done. Another unfulfilled promise.
We had been promised that action would be taken for the greatest possible use to be made of the port of Churchill as an export centre for western grain. That has not been done; it is another unfulfilled promise.
We had been promised that Canadians would be encouraged, through fiscal measures, to invest their funds in such a way as to gain ownership of Canadian corporations. It has not been done, and it is a further unfulfilled promise.
We had been promised that a standard gauge railway would be substituted for the narrow gauge railway in Newfoundland. It has not been done, and it is still another unfulfilled promise.
We had been promised protection for manufacturing companies. Nothing has been done in that regard, and it is another unfulfilled promise.
We had been promised a change in the differential method used for taxing Canadian oil companies. It has not been done. There is another unfulfilled promise.
We had been promised a tax bill designed to help small industries, but that has not been done. Another unfulfilled promise.
We had been promised tax rebates for research into every field. It has not been done, and it is another unfulfilled promise.


That is only a partial list of the promises which the present government has left unfulfilled, and I wonder how Conservative backbenchers can be satisfied with such a government, just as I wonder how those who attended the Conservative convention in early December could cheer their leader when he stated that a promise made by a Conservative government was a promise kept. The Prime Minister, on that occasion, said that a government which backs down on its promises is doomed to defeat.
Mr. Speaker, after the list I have just given, I hardly need to say, what fate is in store for the present government.
According to a report published in La Presse for March 15 the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Balcer) stated in a speech delivered before the junior chamber of commerce of Montreal, that the difference between Canadian political parties is nothing more today than a difference between the teams that make up those parties. I refuse to accept that statement, because I think there are basic differences in the political outlook of the Liberal, Conservative and socialist parties. I feel sure, from the experience we have had in three years of Conservative administration, that the team which now leads the Liberal party is incomparably better and much more experienced than the Conservative team.
At the head of our party, we have a man of outstanding abilities. He has been a professor at the University of Toronto, and his ability has given him a reputation that will never be forgotten.
He raised Canada's reputation to unprecedented heights, and earned something which no Canadian had ever earned before: the Nobel peace prize.
He is the uncontested leader of the Liberal party. As Leader of the Opposition, his unquestionable skill is recognized by every member of this house, and by everyone who has had the privilege of following the debates in this house.
He is the future prime minister of Canada, and as such, he will give the country the sound administration we have a right to expect.
The Liberal party, in its 22 years of administration, and even through a terrible war, managed to provide a sound economy, to ensure a record prosperity and a high level of employment in Canada.
Three years of Conservative administration have resulted in heavy budget deficits and instability caused by a lack of administrative sense on the part of the leaders of the present government.



I960

[Stage Direction]
Canadians wanted to give the Conservatives another chance, but if we listen to the man in the street today, we realize that the people are longing for the day when they can replace the present government by a team that has always showed its mettle.
As I said at the outset, the member for Laval stated that if he were in the opposition, he would be so discouraged he would resign. I tell him again that, far from being discouraged, we are getting ready to restore to this country a sound administration and, until we appeal to the country, we will keep on doing in this house the work vested in us by the constitution.
As for the hon. member and the other Conservative backbenchers, they will not have to resign. The people of Canada will see at the next election that they are sent back home. The future of the country will be entrusted to other administrators.
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is what you were saying in 1958.


Guy Rouleau: I do not want to question the sincerity of any one but, on the record of the last three years, we cannot have confidence in this government. Under the constitution, we still have two or three years to go before another election is held. I sincerely hope that the situation does not grow any worse.
This is a beautiful, great and wealthy country. To develop all the wealth with which it has been endowed, we need, at the head of the government, a team capable of developing our bountiful heritage. The Conservatives woefully failed at the task. It is up to us, to the press and the public in general, to prevent things from getting worse from now until the next election.
The natural resources of this country are unlimited. There is no reason why there should be any unemployment in Canada. No Canadian willing and able to work should suffer. We are still in a better position than the United States. We have a great part to play among the nations of the world.
What we have to do is to develop all our resources. Unfortunately, this government has been unable to do it. So, for the time being, we must make the best of the situation and prepare for the future.
In spite of what is going on at the present time, I have confidence in my country. I have confidence in my fellow citizens and I know that our own team is ready to watch over the destiny of Canada.
In a few years from now, we shall solve the problems that the present team cannot solve and we will continue to administer the affairs of our country so as to make it one of the great, one of the greatest and most peace-loving countries of the world.
The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell
(Text):


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This is the fourth day of the debate on the budget, and I find myself puzzled and perplexed- and interested, of course-by one aspect of it, and that is that none of the five members of the previous government who sit in this house have yet taken part in the discussion. They do not ordinarily behave like non-combatants, and I have been asking myself just why there should have been this extraordinary unanimity of silence. What are they waiting for? New ammunition to come up from the base? Or do they expect that the newspapers will put down a barrage under which they can make an advance? If that should be their motive, I doubt whether they are going to find it a satisfactory one. At any rate, I suppose it will emerge soon.
One might imagine that the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martini has been very busy with statistics-preparing his own ammunition, so flexible and so original-and one might imagine that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) is in company with his distinguished former chieftain whose life he is writing, and he will, no doubt, seek counsel there. But to come back to the newspapers. I doubt very much if any comfort will come to the opposition from that source. I shall read a short quotation from the Montreal Star which, so far as I recall, has not been very partial to our party over the years. This is what it has to say in part:
From the national point of view it is vital to pay our way, and that is what Mr. Fleming promises ... Indeed, a balanced budget in this year must be regarded as something in the nature of a minor miracle.
I like those words. And then the article goes on to say:
Its achievement reflects the integrity and growing stature of the Minister of Finance.
I like that, too, because it seems to me a plain statement of fact. I think the people of this country, even those who do not like us, are going to be impressed by the fact that we are now paying our way. I think as that sinks in it will be more and more impressive to them.
There is one quarter from which the opposition might have expected support. I refer to the Toronto Star. But I find the editorial which appeared in the Toronto Star the day after the budget somewhat perplexing. It is true the writer left some postern gates through which to return to the attack later on, but for the moment, it seems to me, he was pussy-footing.
The only interesting thing to me about the editorial was that it uses a word I have

The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell never seen used before. It is a kind of highbrow word and I suppose one finds in use in the higher Liberal ranks. The editorial referred to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) as an "euphoric mariner". It is not an unpleasant word. I looked it up in the dictionary that we have in this chamber but it is not there. Apparently it is not the kind of word that hon. members of parliament use. It is perhaps over their heads.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not a parliamentary term.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is not a term of insult. As a matter of fact "euphoria" is a rather interesting word. It is described as a word used to express well-being or the perfect ease and comfort of healthy persons. Now, who could have more feeling of well-being than the Minister of Finance at the present time?


Mr. Benidickson:: It may be a false wellbeing, though.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It seems to me that the Star, perhaps unintentionally-it may be that they did not know the meaning of the word

 paid the minister a compliment. The word is not in the dictionary we have in the house and I do not suppose it would be in a Cambridge dictionary but it was in Murray's Oxford dictionary and that is what it means.
I repeat, I have no doubt that the Minister of Finance does feel a considerable amount of comfort. I would if I were in his position with a balanced budget. 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. After all, the Minister of Finance has had a long schooling in politics. He began in what is probably the most useful of all kinds of public service, as school trustee, went on to be an alderman and came down here as a member. We all know his record here. We are all aware of his zest for work. We all know he had a certain-what shall I say- aggressive quality which was very useful when he was in the opposition and which even now can be shown from time to time. He also had a considerable capacity for using the word "no" and that, I am sure, has been very useful in his present job.
Of course we must not forget that the minister has colleagues nor that he has the support of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) and his other colleagues, but when we look back and see that in those three years there has been a kind of steady relentless purpose moving toward a balanced budget we all must feel an admiration for the hon. gentlemen. He sought two years


ago to prepare for it. Last year he told us he hoped that this year it would come about, and here it is.
The Minister of Finance, of course, has his critics. As a matter of fact there was a period when he was subject to a great deal of very ignorant-I repeat, ignorant-criticism, some from people who should have known better and some from people who did not know at all and should not have undertaken to express opinions. I will admit there was a time when some people who should have known better where inclined to be critical. I believe that most of them have changed their minds and realized that the minister's long term planning was sound. I think they have realized that they were wrong.
Let us take, for example, the conversion loan. There were lots of people who talked foolishly about that, and I repeat, foolishly. What was the comment of people who knew about it at the time? I can remember very well what was said by a man whom I respect very much, a well-known businessman. I will never forget his words. He said, "What else could he have done?"
When you look at what happened in respect of that conversion loan and when you realize that in July of 1958 the average length of term of the outstanding victory bonds was 4.3 years and that by the first of September it was 13.3 years, anyone who understands debt and what it means will realize what a tremendous relief that was. I do not think any serious man in the world of finance will deny now that that operation was necessary and wise. They might say, "Oh well, he should have sold the bonds cheaper; he got too good a bargain from the public; he has probably made too good a sale," but that is not a very serious crime.
I do not think any serious person-and I must admit there are some people who are not serious who undertake to talk about it -will deny that that conversion loan was very wise indeed.


William Moore Benidickson: I would put in a caveat.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well, caveats cost nothing. As I understand it you can put them in practically with no fee.
I also want to say a word about the premium on the Canadian dollar. I mentioned it especially because it is referred to in the amendment. The minister explained that at length in Toronto in January, I remember, and briefly again in the budget, and to me the answer to that is that so far as I am aware none of the people who have talked about it and wanted it wiped out is prepared to say how to do it. The minister has pointed out in his statements that without controls

and in a free market you cannot do it unless with fabulous expenditures. As I understand it, no one in the opposition has faced up to the question and said he is prepared to accept controls because no doubt he would find out quickly that if you are going to have financial controls as there were during the war time there will be other controls, too, and people are not in favour of them.
I believe every reasonable man will echo the words of the Montreal Star to which I have already referred that the balancing of the budget is the primary consideration, and when you tell them the budget is balanced they metaphorically sit back and say, "Thank God; that is a good thing." Let me read again the last sentence of the Montreal Star editorial:
-a balanced budget in. this year must be regarded as something in the nature of a minor miracle. This achievement reflects the integrity and growing stature of the Minister of Finance.
Surely those are words which the Minister of Finance can regard with deep satisfaction and pride.
So far I have been dealing with our own affairs which I believe the judgment of this country will pronounce good. I think even the bitterest opposition critic knows in his heart they are good. We had a list from the hon. member who spoke last of all kinds of things he alleged have not been done but for the most part they were small stuff. The judgment of the country will rely on the over-all fact that this minister has steered us into smoother seas by balancing the budget which was what everybody wanted.
If we lived in a world where everyone was in that position how happy we would be but we do not live in that kind of world. It is impressed on us more every day that we live in a shrinking world. We are living on each other's doorsteps with planes that go nearly a thousand miles an hour and with radio that goes instantaneously and tells other people in the world how we are all living. We are conscious of the fact that there are many countries-100 altogether, according to Paul Hoffman one time head of the Marshall plan- where poverty, ill health and despair prevail. Mr. Paul Hoffman was I suppose par excellence the man most skilled in international finance in providing relief to underdeveloped countries. He recognizes that there are 100 tragically poor countries, not including China, and that their population is 1,250 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Two thirds of the people of the world.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, two thirds of the world's population. He speaks of the powerful
The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell moral, political and business reasons for this. I underline the word "business". I believe myself that all of these three considerations represent, I was going to say the $64 question, but I would like to multiply it and say $128 question. Barbara Ward, the amazing woman who was once an editor of The Economist speaks of several break-throughs in these last ten years. Among others, she speaks of the break-through of those hungering for economic growth, hundreds of millions of them, and says that this and other break-throughs will expand explosively-I repeat, explosively -to make the sixties a period of challenge and change unequalled in human history. I wish I had the eloquence of a Lincoln or a Churchill, because I believe this is the thing which every one of us should take to heart. We know that in the back of our minds there are forebodings about the world we live in. We really get to the stage where we just try to forget them. But there they are.
I am going to read a few of the comments of world leaders which will underline the situation and give us the picture. First of all, I want to read wise words of our own Prime Minister. He speaks about the economic assistance to underdeveloped countries as a major and mandatory need if freedom is to be preserved in the world. Major and mandatory; that means something has to be done if freedom is to be preserved in the world.


William Moore Benidickson: What was the date of that reference?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not sure of the date. It is from a speech of the Prime Minister. I would' have to give the date to the hon. member later.
I want to read briefly from three or four other world opinions. First of all, a word from President Eisenhower on this question. When speaking of the crisis he said:
We face what could be a turning point in history, and we must act decisively.
Macmillan speaks of improving the conditions of life in the less developed countries of the world. He says it is one of the great challenges of our time. Then, this quotation from de Gaulle, which interested me more than any because it was not the kind of thing I would expect from him. He says this:
It is the duty of those who are best endowed and strongest to help others-those who are in want, those who are underprivileged. This, they must do if they themselves do not want to perish.
I repeat that. "If they themselves do not want to perish." There is a hard-boiled world leader, if you like, and this is what he has to say about the situation. I do not think any of us should take it lightly.
3G08

The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell
I have read these quotations because I want to make clear that those practical men are agreeing with Hoffman. I shall quote later from Eugene Black of the world bank, another businessman who has put this forward as tremendously important.
The results are rather disappointing. Hoffman said that: The result in 1950 was very disappointing. The per capita income in 1950 in underdeveloped countries is estimated at $110. In 1959 it should reach $125-$130. That is only $15-$20 in 10 years. The income has gone from approximately $110 to $125-$130. In other words, there has been an increase of only $15 to $20 in 10 years. Hoffman adds that this is dangerously slow. The average increase in the western nations between 1950 and 1957 was $300 per capita. In the United States it was $530. The rich are getting richer and the poor desperately poorer. Hoffman again says that the goal for 1969 should be $160.
When you look back at what was done in England and in western Europe you can see that there was a tremendous success achieved. The recipient nations were well organized. Hon. members recall how they were able to take the money and use it. Hon. members recall the loans we made to Britain in 1946. This is one of the first things we remember in parliament, the Minister of Finance, and I, who were new members at that time. As I recall, our loan was $1,250 million and the United States $3,750 million. They did a good job. As we remember, the Marshall plan worked almost a miracle under the management of that great man Hoffman. I just want to read a sentence from what Marshall said in 1947 at Harvard University:
Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist.
I commend these words to the intelligence of every one of us. I have quoted Hoffman's aim for 1970.
We are spending billions on defence. Speaking for myself, I do not see how we can let down our guard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just for my own
satisfaction will the hon. gentleman give me the date of his reference to Hoffman?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The quotation was taken from a speech Hoffman made in Toronto on October 19. I will send the hon. member a copy.
We are spending those billions in the hope -sometimes we find it a faint hope-that the equipment will never be used. We hope it will be a deterrent, but we can never be sure. We remember the old phrase, "Hope


deferred maketh the heart sick". I suppose what happens is that we try to tuck this into the back of our minds and not think about it. We watch new weapons being manufactured becoming obsolete before they are even ready for use. We see hundreds of millions of dollars spent for weapons which, as I say, are already obsolete. Meanwhile, another deterrent is not being adequately used. I refer to the deterrent of a revival of a working economy in the world, as Marshall said, so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist.
I think the feeling throughout the world is that war is not the only great enemy, but that poverty is another. There is no mystery as to how to aid countries. We learned how to do that from past failures. Money has been wasted but a great deal has been learned. The Hoffman organization under the United Nations makes searching inquiries before moneys are supplied. They survey natural resources and they give technical assistance. Recently there has been established a United Nations special fund, to which we have made a contribution, which will supply limited funds for capital development.
Let me read from Hoffman's pamphlet, entitled "One Hundred Countries" and his proposal at page 45. I wish to read also a short extract showing the almost miraculous results which can come about if the situation of these people can be improved ever so little. Here is what Hoffman says:
My proposal is this: That we-all of us together-* fix it as our goal to double in the 1960's, as compared with the 1950's, the annual per capita rate of economic growth in 100 countries and territories containing a billion and a quarter of the world's people. If we achieve this goal it will mean increasing the per capita economic growth rate of the less developed countries from an average of 1 per cent a year in the 1950's to an average of 2 per cent in the 1960's. To do this it will be necessary for the less developed countries to sustain an annual rate of economic growth of 4 per cent. This will mean a total increase of about 40 per cent and a per capita increase of nearly 25 per cent in 10 years. It will mean increasing per capita income from the estimated present figure of around $100 to around $125 in 1970. This means increasing per capita income in the 1960's by about 25 per cent per person or an average of about $2.50 per person per year.
I have one more quotation, and it will be my last quotation of any length. It struck me as so almost unbelievable that I want to read it. Hoffman said:
If the less developed countries receive additional foreign capital and increase local savings sufficient to lift their per capita incomes by only 1 per cent more a year over the coming decade, they might well offer to the United States alone a market for an estimated $14 billion of its exports in 1970. This would represent an increase of more than 100 per cent over total U.S. exports to the same areas

in 1958. And over the 10-year period, the total exports of all the developed countries to those areas. . . might be as much as $320 billion. In the long view, these 100 underdeveloped countries are for the United States and for the developed nations generally a great new economic frontier.
There you have the business side of it. We do not need to regard it as charity. There is a business side of it too. For instance, let us apply this to India. I was present in Montreal two years ago when the Minister of Finance presided over the commonwealth meeting there. So far as India is concerned, we can remind ourselves that in addition to being a member of the commonwealth India has a settled government, it has law and order and it has a well trained civil service. Therefore we can be reasonably certain that money applied there would be well spent.
I should like to read a sentence from a speech by Black of the world bank because I feel ever so strongly that this is a matter in which we should all be deeply concerned in our own self-interest. Black in speaking at Oxford a month ago dealt with the need of backward countries to develop efficiency and emphasized particularly that everything depends upon the responsibility of the backward countries themselves. Unless they are ready to stir themselves, unless they are ready to make greater sacrifices, the thing does not start at all.
These men are businessmen. Black has lent nearly $5 billion through the world bank without any loss. That shows the kind of man he is. He is not going around dishing out money for charity. He stresses the need of these countries stirring themselves and developing pride of workmanship and then he goes on to say, which impressed me very much, that the objective should be "that every ounce of resources available is used as efficiently as possible" in these countries. He then had this to say:
And how important it is that the free world community stand ready to pledge whatever measure of its wealth can be usefully employed in this endeavour.
There is the challenge. Let me point out at once the range and the limitations of whatever measure of this wealth can be usefully employed. We are not going to run crazy. The borrowing countries have got to do their part but on the other hand Black suggests that the free world community has a tremendous responsibility. This, as I say, is from an experienced banker who has lent nearly $5 billion without loss.
I have just one other thing to say. I hope that we will not forget the results of failure. If we go on as we are now I think we will fail. I think this thing has got to be stepped up. I should like to refer to some remarks
The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell
of Adlai Stevenson, for whom I have great respect. He stresses the need of narrowing the economic disparity that exists now in the world. Here are his words:
We can't go on much longer living in a world where, for instance, the average yearly income in America is $2,000 a year and the average yearly income in India is $60.
I remember that I was amazed when I was at the commonwealth conference two years ago over which the Minister of Finance presided; this figure was before us at the time and I was amazed, that there was no complaint on the part of the representative of India. I would not have been a bit surprised if he had said, "Look, we cannot go on this way". But he like Black no doubt was looking at the thing in a practical way. I continue quoting Adlai Stevenson:
No wonder great political, social and scientific revolutions are sweeping the world and that instead of seeing the world go democratic we have seen 11 countries, I think it is, turn to other forms of government in the last few years. Democracy is not winning in the world. It is losing.
You may or may not agree with Stevenson but at any rate we will agree that he has been around and has seen more than most of us have. I admit at once that I was greatly impressed by his statement. He strikes me as being a man with his feet firmly on the ground, and this is what he says. I had not been aware that 11 countries had turned to another form of government.
With regard to our own government, it has given a lead and things have been done. The Minister of Finance has told us about this from time to time and I have quoted the Prime Minister's words which I now repeat:
. Economic assistance to underdeveloped countries/ is a major and mandatory need if freedom is to bei preserved in the world.
I find these words very impressive. I do not think the matter could be put more strongly. My feeling is that people like ourselves should be thinking about it. The Prime Minister will be going to London before long. We do not know what the agenda of the commonwealth conference is but it is pretty hard to believe that the prime ministers will not be thinking about this question. The Prime Minister's words are beginning to carry far, not only as Prime Minister of Canada but also as John Diefen-baker. I should tremendously like to feel that when he goes he may have the feeling that the people of this country are behind him and that if he wants to take great steps in this matter which is all important he will be supported.
Let me emphasize again that there is no intention on the part of people like Hoffman and Black to rush into huge expenditures.
3010	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Batten They realize it is going to take years. They realize that the countries to be benefited have got to assume the greatest part of the burden but on the other hand they feel that unless we can steadily improve the situation within a few years the prospect is not going to be good.
My feeling is that it is a fair thing to put this matter before hon. members of the house. I believe that no one should take it lightly and that for unselfish and also for selfish reasons it is a matter of the greatest possible importance that comes right home to every one of us. In my opinion there should be indications given to the Prime Minister and the other members of the government through all kinds of organs of public opinion and by representatives of public opinion, our churches, universities, trade unions, boards of trade and chambers of commerce all across the nation that this matter should be taken seriously.
I suggest that the first people to take it seriously should be ourselves. By what I have said this afternoon and particularly by referring the house to the words of other people I would hope that possibly I have persuaded hon. members that this is a matter which we should all take seriously. We played a great part in the war and I think there is no reason why we should not play an even greater part in peace. I believe that part cries out to be played.


Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-Sl. George's):: Mr. Speaker, before making any comments dealing directly with the budget I should like to say at this time how grateful I am to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) for his interest and action on behalf of those Newfoundlanders employed on United States air bases in Newfoundland.
I should also like to thank him for his courteous replies to my representations on behalf of those in my own constituency of Humber-St. George's who are employed at the Ernest Harmon air force base in Newfoundland and also for his kind attention to the correspondence from the chairman of the committee representing the employees at this particular base.
In August, 1940, following the establishment of the permanent joint board on defence by the United States and Canada, the United Kingdom, with the approval of the Newfoundland commission of government, gave the United States the right to construct bases in Newfoundland and to hold them on a 99-year lease. Early in 1941 construction began on three chosen sites, namely at St. John's, Argentia and Stephenville. Since the period of initial construction until the present time a number of Canadian citizens have been


employed as full time employees with unlimited tenure. Many of these have been steadily employed for 15 years.
I understand there has been a great deal of correspondence between representative committees appointed by the employees and the commands of the various United States bases, the United States department of defence and the United States civil service commission. I believe also that these agencies have shown considerable interest in the possibility of providing some retirement plan for those "non-citizens holding permanent excepted appointment". The statement made by the minister last Thursday in the house is a most welcome one to all concerned. To those who have worked on this base for some time and who have decided to make their homes in this area the decision with regard to pensions affords a large measure of real satisfaction.
Colonel William H. Noel, the commanding officer at Ernest Harmon air force base, has also shown a keen interest in this retirement plan and has encouraged the committee in their efforts and in their representations. To him I express my appreciation and thanks for adding yet another accomplishment to the long list of services rendered to the people of western Newfoundland by the United States armed forces.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) referred to vocational training. I have a general knowledge of the problem about which he speaks. I think I will say here that education in a broader sense should include not only those in elementary schools, high schools and universities but also those whose abilities lead them toward the technical rather than toward professional fields. I do not want to expand on this problem at this time but I would say that in a country like Canada, which is highly industrialized-and which maybe in the future can look forward to greater industrialization-and a great manufacturing country there will always be the need for technically trained people.
I think that technical education should be expanded all across Canada in order to fit more people for jobs where know-how and native talent are required. In Newfoundland we have a need for this type of education beyond what we already have. But as everybody recognizes, we have great demands on the money allocated for education in my province. At the moment there is a great demand for elementary schools and regional high schools. Then there is the money required to build a new university. All these things add to the burden which the province must bear with regard to its educational responsibilities.

However, from my own correspondence I know that a great deal of interest is being shown in vocational education. Even in my own home city of Corner Brook a well set-up committee is now giving a thorough study to the vocational training act as it applies in Canada and as it would apply in Newfoundland. They are also discussing vocational education as it is operating in Newfoundland. Knowing the personnel of that committee as I do, I have no doubt that when they reach their conclusions those conclusions will be worth studying.
I come now to a brief consideration of the budget. During the last few months we have heard, both inside and outside of this house, that this government has no financial policy, that it has failed to provide the leadership which Canadians expect and that it operates on the theory that time solves most problems by removing them. There is a good deal of truth in that statement and the best evidence of it is the budget of 1960. In his budget speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) gave a report of the year's operations and then after a little bit of sermonizing he expressed the hope that during the coming year everything would turn out for the best. The trade deficit, tight money, unemployment, defence spending and many other topics of daily interest to our people were touched on only lightly or ignored altogether.
During the election campaigns of 1957 and 1958 the present government pledged itself to lower taxes, lower spending and lower interest rates. According to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in 1957 every Canadian was overtaxed by $30 a year and every family was overtaxed by $120 a year. He said that the government of the day was on a wild spending spree and that high interest rates and tight money were forcing industry, the provinces and the municipalities to the wall. Then he shouted, "Give us a chance, we will show you". The Canadian people gave him the chance. Let us now have a look at some of the results of his stewardship.
The revenues of this country in 1957 amounted to $5,106 million and in 1960 to $5,892 million. This means that the average per capita revenue in 1957 was $314 and in 1960, $334 or an increase of $20. Rather than taxes being reduced by 20 per cent, the per capita tax in the last three years has been increased by approximately $20.
Let us look at expenditures. Expenditures in 1957 was $4,849 million, an average of $295 per person. In 1960 the estimated expenditure is $5,880 million, an average of $334 per person. Here the per capita expenditure is shown to be $40 more than it was in the year '57.
The Budget-Mr. Batten
Our net debt was $11 billion in 1957; in 1960 it was $12,100 million. In 1957 the average net debt was $664 per person; in 1960 it was $681 per person, an increase of $17.
In 1957 the net interest on our national debt was $313 million; in 1960 the net interest on our national debt was $499 million. In 1957 the net interest as a percentage of our debt was 2.85 per cent; in 1960 it was 4.13 per cent. Interest rates were less than 4 per cent during the election campaign of 1957; in August of last year they were well over 6 per cent.
The minister went on last year in his budget speech to say that he expected that the gross national product would increase by 7 per cent. We now know that his expectations were not fullfilled.


William Moore Benidickson: Fifty per cent wrong in volume.


Mr.   Baiien@: The increase in the gross national product is no more, and may be a good deal less, than during a number of the years under Liberal administration. I am not going to give the figures on all this because they have been given by other speakers. The figure of borrowings was $164 million in 1958, $1,200 million in 1959 and $900 million in 1960, making a total volume of $2.3 billion odd.
Obviously this government has been on a wild spending spree of unequalled proportions. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) a few moments ago referred to the fact that the government was now paying its way. I do not think the government is paying its way until it is able to repay to the Canadian people the money which it has borrowed from them in the last three years and then has brought forth a balanced budget. I do not think this government will be in power long enough to pay the expenses of this exhibition of, or expedition into, Toryism.
In the matter of trade, we have a trade deficit of $1,460 million. All these items go to show the manner in which the present government has kept its promises to the Canadian people. I remember that in 1957 the Prime Minister shouted, "Take the tax-masters off the backs of the Canadian people". Who are the taxmasters now? Surely when we look at these figures we must realize that these promises must have been made in days when the government did not have the responsibility it has now.
We talk about tight money and interest rates. The Prime Minister talked about them in 1957 and pointed out how damaging they were to the provinces and the municipalities.

The Budget-Mr. Batten He went on to take credit in 1958 for lowering the interest rate, yet in 1959 he disclaimed all responsibility for tight money or high interest rates. Let us look at what the Prime Minister said in 1958. In Calgary on March 14 of that year he claimed that interest rates had fallen sharply as a result of government action since the previous June, from a high of 4.33 per cent to 2.89 per cent. Surely if the government can reduce inerest rates in 1957 it can reduce interest rates in 1959.
He went on to outline in Selkirk on March 17, 1958, as reported in the Toronto Telegram of March 18, Progressive Conservative accomplishments since they had assumed office, and he declared that one of these was to ease the tight money situation inherited from the former Liberal administration. If the Prime Minister and his cabinet eased tight money in 1957, then they did not think they had the authority and responsibility and the know-how to do it in 1959.
When the Tories are out of power the Liberals are blamed for tight money and high interest rates. When the Tories are in power they disclaim all responsibility and place that responsibility on the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks. When the Tories are out, the government of the day is the villain; when the Tories are in the government the Bank of Canada is the whipping boy. When the Tories are out they see one side of the penny; but when the Tories are in they flip the "Coyne".
When the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae) spoke yesterday I did not think he was completely satisfied. He made reference to the appointment of a minister for Atlantic affairs. This is what he said, as reported on page 2926 of Hansard:
-perhaps the time has arrived when there should be appointed a minister of Atlantic affairs just as we have a minister of northern affairs.
I could not agree with a statement like that. In the first place the position of the provinces is quite different from that of the Northwest Territories. Again, I would have some very grave doubts about appointing a minister for Atlantic affairs, because all that would do would be to make a colonial office for the Atlantic provinces. I do not think the Atlantic premiers are very happy about it either.
I have here a page taken from today's Montreal Gazette, which contains an article headed "Regional monetary policy". Perhaps the Minister of Finance would listen to this. Then there is a subheading, "Atlantic premiers ask British banker's aid".


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Finance should listen to this.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It goes on:
The Atlantic provinces premiers have asked one of Britain's foremost bankers to study the effect of federal money policies on the Atlantic region, it was learned here. Sir Oliver Franks, chairman of Lloyds Bank, told them he would consider their request and give an answer in about 19 days.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member permit me to suggest that he ought to speak possibly with a little more force so that the Minister of Finance, who is now engaged, could listen to this very important subject.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It continues:
It is understood Franks has been asked to head a commission of three who would investigate the effect of Ottawa's money policies at first hand and submit recommendations or changes.
Surely this indicates that the premiers of the Atlantic provinces are not very happy with the monetary policy of the present government.
Going back to some of the promises which have been made by the Tory party, one can almost see the sky darkened by the flapping wings of chickens coming home to roost. Or we could look back over the long list of Tory promises on which this government was elected and, viewing them in the light of accomplishments, is it any wonder that the government should want to scorn the base degrees by which they did ascend.


Mr. Chambers:: The best record in history.


Herman Maxwell Batten: You will have a job to prove it. I come now to a few comments concerning civil service salaries. For many months the government has had this question under consideration, but the shabby treatment accorded to members of the civil service last Thursday evening compounded all that was done before. Determination of civil service salaries is a joint responsibility of the civil service commission and the government as outlined in section 11 of the Civil Service Act. Generally the policy of the federal government has been to relate increases in salary to the remuneration received by workers in comparable fields. This policy was well defined in 1951 by the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, when he said:
As I have said on previous occasions, the government's policy in these matters is based on two main principles, first, that salary and pay scales and other conditions of employment in both the civil service and the armed forces should be such as to attract and retain persons of the right type and necessary qualifications; second, that having regard to aneilliary conditions of employment, remuneration for each class of work or employment should be generally in line with that paid for comparable work by good private employers.

On May 1, 1958, the Prime Minister expressed the same view in these words:
For many years it has been generally accepted that two main principles should guide the determination of salaries in the service. First, the salaries must be enough to do the job, that is, to attract enough of the right kind of men and women into the service and keep them in it. Second, they must be fair as between civil servants and people outside the service-the taxpayers-which means that the salaries we pay for any class of work should be comparable with those paid by private employers for similar classes of work taking into account the other terms of employment that are necessary to make a fair comparison. I think these principles should continue to guide us.
In an effort to arrive at some satisfactory method of comparing civil service salaries with those in other fields the government in September, 1957 set up a pay research bureau following a similar development in the United Kingdom a year earlier. This bureau, under the direction of the civil service commission and the Department of Finance, made its first report which was followed by a report of the commission in the spring of 1958 stating that no general revision of salaries was warranted. At that time the government refused the request for salary increases and shifted the blame from the shoulders of the cabinet to the commission by tabling the report in the House of Commons. This report was not embarrassing to the government, because it could be used to support the cabinet's rejection of the civil service request, a rejection based on the government's financial position which had been brought about by the government's own financial ineptitude.
Further investigation was made by the bureau, and it was shown that some classes were receiving salaries 20 per cent below those paid by private employers. The overall picture revealed a gap of about 8 per cent. The commission's report based on these findings was not tabled in the House of Commons although it had been received about six weeks before the last session ended. Why was the 1959 report not tabled? Why was it considered to be confidential although the 1958 report had been made public? Obviously on this occasion the government could not use the commission as a whipping boy. Responsibility for the denial was now placed squarely in the lap of the government. Then, true to form, the government began its delaying tactics and returned the report for further examination.
Finally, on Friday, October 13-it was a most unlucky Friday for the civil service- the Minister of Finance flatly denied to accord the increases. This time, having no commission report to support his action, he proceeded immediately to muster public opinion and backing by stating that the
The Budget-Mr. Batten salary raises which had been requested would cost $214 million which would be equivalent to an increase of 15 per cent in the income tax rates. One can hardly conceive of a more effective statement with regard to placing public opinion behind the minister's rejection and militating against a favourable attitude on the part of the taxpayers toward the civil servants' application.
The arithmetic by which the minister began with $50 million to meet an 8 per cent increase in salary and concluded with $242 million is devious and doubtful. The minister may not have intended to do so, but he certainly left the impression in the public mind that if the requested increases were granted the total amount would be an immediate charge on the treasury for the year 1959. The public may take a different view and consider that if almost $6 billion is to be collected by the Minister of Finance the spending of this money, while directed by the government, should be managed by those who are qualified to do so and who are sufficiently well paid to do so.
A few months ago the increases requested by the civil service were supposed to cost $242 million. In the next budget speech the minister stated that $15 million would be sufficient to provide increases for about one-third of the civil service. No wonder there is confusion and resentment. This whole matter has been poorly handled by the government. The arrogant manner in which the recommendations of the civil service commission were rejected; the minister's tabling of one report when it suited his purpose-


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order. The minister never tabled any report.


Herman Maxwell Batten: 1 did not get that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member has said the minister tables reports when it suits his purpose. The minister has never tabled any report, and if there is any assertion that the 1958 report was tabled, that assertion is wrong.


Herman Maxwell Batten: If the hon. gentleman wishes to make a comment on what I am saying he will have ample opportunity when I am through.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter of privilege. The hon. gentleman has said the minister tables reports of the civil service commission when it suits his purpose-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was speaking on a question of privilege.

The Budget-Mr. Batten


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am rising on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister wishes to make a correction with respect to what has been said by the hon. member who has the floor, and he raised that as a matter of privilege. I think the course to be preferred, if the hon. member who has the floor does not yield, is to make the correction at the conclusion of the speech. That is the better course to follow. It is one which is prescribed by the rules of the house although, perhaps, it is not one which is usually followed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Without labouring the point, may I say that the comment made by the hon. member is a reflection-and I think it was intended to be a reflection-upon myself. The hon. member said the minister does something when it suits his purpose. My answer is that the minister never did anything of the kind. He never tabled any report.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister thinks
that there is a reflection on his conduct amounting to a question of privilege he can, of course, raise it at the time, and should do so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is what I have done.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance wants to talk I prefer that he do so in his own time. I would remind the house that there are three kinds of politicians, those who talk too much, those who tax too much and those exceptions who do both. The Minister of Finance is the exception.
In discussing these salaries I agree with the minister's class by class arrangement which I am sure will be welcomed by the civil servants but I am sure they will be concerned with the date of this revision and the date from which any increase will be effective. Certainly this revision was in the mind of the minister when he presented his budget. Why was the announcement not made then? Obviously, to the Minister of Finance a headline in the daily papers indicating a surplus was more important than the peace of mind of the civil servants.
I wish now to refer to the speech made on Tuesday last by my friend the hon. member for York-Sunbury. The hon. gentleman placed a table on the record at page 2925 of Hansard showing the amount of money spent under different headings in the years 1955 and 1959. There is some question in my mind as to why the hon. gentleman should pick the year 1955. I believe that if comparisons


are to be made they should be made between significant years. Why not take the year 1945 or 1935?
The hon. gentleman then went on to give the amount of money being spent under different headings and referred, for example, to the trans-Canada highway. There has been no money spent by this government on the trans-Canada highway except that which would normally follow the initial legislation. The government has brought in no legislation to amend the act other than to provide the money that is normally required.
My hon. friend then went on to speak about the amount of money given to the Atlantic provinces for the acquisition of buildings and vessels. The question that comes to my mind is this. What about the 50 ships that were going to form the nucleus of a great Canadian mercantile fleet? What about the Canadian steamships down in Halifax harbour? Statements of this kind are wild and unfounded.
I am reminded of the occasion when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) claimed that his government built the airport at Stephen-ville. That airport was constructed, had been officially opened and was being used before the election of 1957. I am also reminded of a statement made by the Prime Minister last November in the famous speech when he spoke about social justice and referred to the increases which had been given to the Canadian people under the heading of family allowances. I am sure the Canadian people have received no increases under the heading of family allowances as a result of any legislative action on the part of this government.


Mr. Speakman:: Oh?


Mr. Pickersgill:: None whatever.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Indeed, none whatever.


James Stanley Speakman: They got promises, but nothing else before then.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I turn to the speech made by the Minister of Finance in Halifax, I believe last October. He referred to a number of things in the Atlantic provinces and although I do not believe he intended to do so directly he certainly left with the people to whom he was speaking the impression that these things were Conservative policies.
He referred, for example, to the feed freight assistance policy and went on to describe how important it was to the maritime provinces. It certainly is important but I know that this policy was initiated by the Liberal government in 1941. He went on to

talk about the great benefits derived by the Atlantic provinces from the industrial development bank. That, too, came into being as a result of Liberal legislation passed in 1944.
The hon. gentleman went on further to talk about the Atlantic provinces' adjustment grants. Here I am going to give the minister full marks. I have said both inside this house and outside of it, and I shall say again, that in providing these special grants to the Atlantic provinces the minister has done a commendable job for which I give him full credit. He made reference to those grants in his speech on that occasion.
The hon. gentleman also referred to the subventions on coal, yet coal subventions were started in 1928, a year when a Liberal government was in power in this country. The minister's next reference is a dandy. He referred to the $15 million paid by the federal government toward the construction of the Canso causeway. Here again is a good Liberal project.
The hon. gentleman went on to talk about Camp Gagetown, another project initiated by the Liberal government. He spoke about the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act passed in 1944, the Farm Improvement Loans Act also passed in that year and also referred to freight rates in the maritime provinces stating that money had been granted to reduce the rates in those provinces, but they were reduced to 10 per cent from 17 per cent after the rates had been increased.
The minister when making his speech would have been more interesting to the people in the Atlantic provinces if he had made reference to special income tax concessions to industry locating there, if he had talked about the freight rate structure in the Atlantic provinces, low cost capital loans, consideration for the building of trunk highways, a greater allocation of defence spending and the tariff structure in relation to the maritimes. Those are things in which the people there are interested. However, we do give him credit for giving to the people of the maritimes a long list of Liberal accomplishments.
I turn now to a consideration of federal-provincial relations. We all know the story here. We know that during the 1957 election campaign the Prime Minister promised that if he were elected his government would call a federal-provincial conference immediately to settle some of the problems existing between the provincial governments and the senior government of this country. He said, for example, on April 25, 1957, in his opening campaign speech in Massey Hall:
We intend to form a government to immediately convene a dominion-provincial conference to bring
The Budget-Mr. Mandziuk
about a settlement of these problems, not in the spirit of arrogant domination as displayed by the present government, but in the spirit of unity and amity and with mutual tolerance and respect.
In the same speech he said:
-a Conservative government, if elected, would immediately call a federal-provincial conference to settle existing problems.
I could cite a number of these references, but let us examine what has happened. A conference was called late in November. The premiers came, made their statements and went home with the promise of another meeting in January. No such meeting was ever called.


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


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to hear such enlightening addresses from the members of the opposition; it was a pleasure to hear political battles fought over again today; it was a pleasure to hear how many people are unhappy and in particular those sitting on the benches opposite. I felt that there might be some change in this world but yet it has not changed. The life and activity of this nation, both in production and development, are going on at a great pace in spite of the fact that the "experienced" hands of the gentlemen opposite are not at the helm of state. Because they are not at the helm of state they resort to every trick known to oratory to introduce doubt and timidity in the public mind. Do we need any proof of this statement? Just glance back at what has been going on during this session, during the last few months, few weeks or few days.
Not so long ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) gave us a very interesting and exhaustive review of the situation of Canadian trade. Canadians were happy to hear	that our	export trade	wasexpanding,	that	we were	gaining new markets. But,	Mr.	Speaker,	this stunned	theopposition	for	a while.	Then when	they
regained their balance they charged him with too much optimism. "Oh, you are too optimistic. Things are not as good as you say. Oh, how much better they would be if we were sitting there instead of the place where the Canadian people put us."
I was going to make reference to a critical editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press. In view of the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce rose this afternoon on a question of privilege, it is already on the record and I am going to skip it.
Let us go to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). Most of the country thinks he has done a wonderful job.

The Budget-Mr. Mandziuk In spite of the fact that he is not as experienced as some of those men opposite, a lot of those experienced men opposite have their former colleagues at home biting their fingernails. Hon. members know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke with pride of the role Canada is playing in world affairs, e.g. in the United Nations. This role is nothing to blush about. Canada's role and influence in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, in the British commonwealth of nations and in international affairs is probably out of proportion to our size and population. This role is owing to the leadership that our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) has given.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs gave us the exact picture. What did we hear from the opposition? Oh, they joined in a chorus: You are too optimistic; Oh, this world is so dark; there are dark clouds on the horizon, thunder and lightning; hell will break loose unless the Canadian people realize that they have been fooled. Do they know why they are where they are? They are there because they fooled the Canadian people until they realized it.
I think the review of the Secretary of State for External Affairs filled us with pride. I think any person with any sense should appreciate criticism. I could refer to the words of President Eisenhower when he spoke to one of the Latin American nations, either Argentina or Brazil. He said, "We are not saints; we can make mistakes, but our hearts are in the right place." Are the hearts of these people who criticize in the right place? What do we hear from them? "Disarm, disarm", one section cries. "Oh, to arms, to arms", the other section cries. They accuse us of lack of leadership. I am trying to give the house my personal reactions, the reactions that I get as a backbencher, as a man with no political experience, the reaction I get from all this back-biting back and forth.
Let us go to another department. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) had any secret hopes that he would get any bouquets or prizes for bringing in a balanced budget he must be disappointed. When the minister budgeted for a deficit in previous years the hue and cry was: "You are driving this country into ruin; oh, you are spending money like a drunken sailor." Hon. members heard that, did they not? It was said, "You are spendthrifts; you are leading us into inflation that is going to be the ruin of this country. What does he know about finance?"


An hon. Member:: Who is that?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I am just repeating the words and the questions that they asked and the implications that they tried to put across


to the people of this country. But, when the minister brings in a balanced budget they call it "cold porridge". That is what the expert financial critic said. They call it, "a do-nothing budget, a don't-budge budget; they say that the jobless were ignored", and so on down the line.
In the course of my remarks I shall give some of the reactions of the Canadian Press. But before I do so, I want to mention the criticism, or the so-called criticism, as it affected me. When interest rates were going up last summer we heard nothing more than the theme, "tight money, tight money". We even had some questions on the orders of the day. What are they saying today when interest rates are going down? There is not a peep from the other side. Why?


An hon. Member:: They are all asleep.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Oh, yes. It will be a long time before they wake up.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: We are enjoying your speech; it is very good.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Thank you. I am giving it for your enjoyment. Let me refer to another department. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) was all but crucified, all but charged with treason, when under his instruction, direction and leadership the stabilization board changed the system of price supports on eggs and pork from outright purchase to deficiency payments. What did we hear in this house?


Mr. Michaud:: The hon. member for Ros-thern.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Blue ruin. Barrels and barrels of tears were shed for the poor farmers. I too felt like crying for them because I knew they were not getting a square deal. But why the silence now? The Minister of Agriculture asked the house and the country to give the scheme a chance and I am beginning to think that the minister has some horse sense. Egg prices are going up and the opposition has not asked one single egg question or one omelet question up to this time. But I think that wonderful troupe is tuning up for a new chorus. There will be another chorus. Do you know what it is going to be? When the price of eggs reaches a certain level, a level of prices to which I think Canadian farmers are entitled, the opposition is going to be singing another chorus. In whose defence will they be crying? They will be saying that the poor consumer is going to suffer because the price of eggs is going up. They cry, they always cry.
I have tried to follow the criticism of the budget. I like to hear objective criticism.

We appreciate that. But all we hear are bits here and bits there. Do you remember the story-I think some hon. members will- about the six blind men of Hindustan who went to see the elephant. Each one touched a certain part of the elephant. The one who touched the ear said that the elephant was like a fan. The fellow who took hold of the elephant's tail said that it was like a whip or rope; he could not be convinced otherwise. The chap who got hold of the elephant's front leg said that it was very much like a tree. But the fellow who bumped his head against the body said that the elephant was like a wall. Then they started to fight among themselves as to who was right. That is what we get by way of criticism from the opposition.
Those of us who lack the political experience of the gentlemen in the opposition are astounded and bewildered by such tactics. But we have some common sense and common sense tells us that the aim of the opposition is to talk the country into another recession so that they can be given an opportunity to put on their tarnished and battered armour, get out their three-legged horse and pose as saviours of the people in the next election. If you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read an extract from a newspaper article. How true are the words written by Nate White in the Christian Science Monitor of February 20 last. Mr. White is the business and financial editor of this paper and this is what he had to say under the headline, "Gloom-Talk Hobbles U.S. Boom". The article refers to the United States but I think it is most applicable to Canada. He said:
A recession does not begin solely from talk, but talk plays an important part in it. Talk becomes publicity, and publicity in this highly communicative society multiplies. It Is extremely easy to manufacture a recession almost literally out of thin air once the communication system gets in motion. This is what is happening now.
He is referring to the United States but that is what is happening right in this country and in this house. He went on to say:
But if gloom, like a low-spreading fog, continues to creep throughout the nation, it can introduce doubts and timidity in public thought and eventually in business decisions. Before anyone hardly knows what has happened, a recession is upon us.
This must be the object of the opposition. The words of this eminent journalist are so applicable to the tactics and apparent plans of these people who were so long in power and so used to ruling this country that like children they are still crying for those sweet days when they were in power.
The Budget-Mr. Mandziuk
The budget has been introduced and the rules call for a maximum of eight days debate. Barrels and barrels of tears will be shed. In fact, several barrels of tears have been shed already. Eight days of debate costs the Canadian taxpayers a pretty penny. Therefore Canadians expect their elected representatives to give full and careful consideration to the manner in which the government raises money and the manner in which it spends it. The budget has been labelled as a cold porridge, do-nothing budget and everything else, but I maintain that it will have definite effects on every segment of our economy.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: As we adjourned at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues remarked on the fact that our friends, the Grits, were conspicuous by their absence, there being one frontbencher and two or three others present. But I was heartened by another colleague who said that when their leader teed off with a non-confidence motion on Monday, I think it was, with a very good factual criticism of our defence policy, he counted only 13 of his supporters during that one speech of his. I was therefore heartened. I have not lost heart. I was reflecting that they did not care to listen to an inconspicuous backbencher and that was the reason they had stayed away.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I hope the hon. member has better arguments than that one.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I am again reminded of the six blind men of Hindustan by this remark of my friend.
Taking the budget as a whole we should be happy, if for nothing else than the fact that there are no tax increases. I join those who have spoken previously in complimenting the Minister of Finance on a job well done. Hon. members do not need to take my word for it. I know in particular that members of the opposition often resort to opinions appearing in the press. May I be permitted to quote from the Winnipeg Tribune an editorial published on April 1, the day after the budget was presented. It states in part as follows:
Just the same, the budget must have given many Canadians a great deal of quiet satisfaction. For the first time since 1957 the finances of the country were climbing out of the red into the black. Mr. Fleming was able to balance the 1960-61 budget and even forecast a small surplus.
This means-

The Budget-Mr. Mandziuk
I hope the doubting Thomases will take this into account.
-that the inflationary effects of government fiscal operations should diminish considerably and that the competition for capital resulting from heavy federal government borrowing should ease off. This year Ottawa will borrow only $201 million compared with $900 million in 1959. The provinces and private agencies should be able to borrow for more of their growth needs in Canada rather than being forced into the U.S. money market.
I quote further:
The effects of this determination, and effort are already being felt.
I ask my hon. friends to mark these words.
The bank rate-a barometer of tension in the nation's finances-has fallen to 3.26 per cent-
No wonder they do not ask how the bank rates are at the present time.
-after a steady eight-week decline.
Mr. Fleming is further complimented in this editorial as follows:
The essence of Mr. Fleming's budget speech and the budget itself was middle-of-the-road moderation. The same can hardly be said for the initial criticism of the budget by William Benidickson, Liberal financial critic. It is his job to criticize and to tear budgets apart, but statements like "shocker" and "I don't know when a country has lost so much ground in so short a time" simply detract from a serious opposition assessment of the government's financial shortcomings.
That is the opinion of an extremely responsible paper. I recollect that the other day-I think it was on Tuesday-this same hon. gentleman, namely the financial critic of the official opposition, appeared on television and was asked what he would do. His answer, as probably those who saw that broadcast are aware, was this, "We would consult experts and we would do something". They had time in which to do something for a good many years.
However I should like to come nearer home and come to the capital. May I be permitted to quote a bit from the Ottawa Journal dated April 1, the day after the budget was introduced? It states as follows:
This is Mr. Fleming's answer to the pessimists who, within the past two years, saw deficit spending bringing possible budget deficits of a billion dollars, spoke of mounting debt and inflation threatening fiscal ruin.
The Jeremiahs who talked that way forgot Donald Fleming; forgot the Calvinistic finance minister who knew his stuff and did his homework and had the courage to say "no". The man who said "no" on civil service salaries-
Although they threatened to jump through the roof, as one hon. gentleman has remarked. They should attend to their business in offices instead of trying to jump through roofs away out west.
-said "no" to his ministerial colleagues, said "no" in the treasury board. Come hell or high water, the line would be held.


That is Donald Fleming as described in the Ottawa Journal. The editorial goes on to say this about the minister's estimates:
Hopeful guesses? Perhaps; but Mr. Fleming's past guesses have been amazingly good-his estimate a year ago of national income and the deficit came within fractions of being right.
In any event, come what may short of war, pestilence or other catastrophe, we have left big deficit budgets behind, for the time being at any rate; have struck our fiscal tents, with promise of prosperity ahead.
That is the local paper. I know the charge may come forth that these two papers that a backbencher has quoted are always favourable to the Tories but how about quoting from a paper which is favourable to the Grits? An extremely eminent journalist, who at least has grit tendencies with a small "g", namely John Bird, writing in the Toronto Star, stated this. May I quote part of his article? I respect the gentleman's judgment because I believe he showed good judgment when he was writing this article. Here is what he says:
However, the budget itself does bring Canada some way toward meeting the conditions which Coyne lays down-
Although very reluctantly, he still admits something, does he not? I continue the quotation:
-namely a reduction in the rate of our increasing dependence on foreign financing. It's roundabout, but it's there.
That is important. I do not care how the minister obtains it but he has obtained it. I come back to the quotation:
More important even than a small budgetary balance is the cut-back in estimated "cash requirements", that is in the need for the government to borrow money outside. For the coming year cash requirements for which the government will have to go to the money market are estimated at only $201 million as against $900 million last year and $1,273 million the year before.
That indicates that there is a very favourable reaction to this year's budget. Time does not permit, but I could quote for hours from various papers across the country showing a favourable response to this budget, this "cold porridge budget". True, some items show concern. I think we are here for the purpose of giving every item in the budget our serious consideration. I will share with you, Mr. Speaker, what disturbs me, and that is the statement by the Minister of Finance that the tariff was going to be increased on textiles.
Textiles immediately made me think of Japan. What effect would these tariff increases have on our trade with that country? I am going to paraphrase the minister's remarks he made to the Saskatchewan board of trade on February 19. He said that we westerners are very touchy at the mention of anything that may endanger disposal of our

wheat, because next to the United Kingdom Japan has become our second best customer for this product of the soil. Japan purchased $70 million worth in 1959. Western Canada depends so much on this country buying our foodstuffs.
I can well recall letters written by farm leaders from the west at the news that there were some negotiations going on between this government and the government of Japan about the cut-back on some of the imports coming in from that friendly country. The farm organizations were very disturbed and wrote letters to the Prime Minister and to the government. This same subject occupied a lot of space in the briefs presented by the interprovincial farm union as well as in the brief presented by the union federation of agriculture.
I myself was disturbed and wanted to find out what was the situation in fact, and I found the answer in the minister's address to the Saskatchewan board of trade on February 19 of this year. I would advise those hon. gentlemen who have not read this address to do so, because I think it throws a lot of light on this matter and it enlightened me about some of these matters which really disturbed me. I quote from this address, page 18:
There are two particular features of the agreement which are noteworthy. The first is the escape clause whereby Canada reserves the right to apply fixed values for duty in the event of damage to Canadian industry: the second, the provision for consultation whereby each country undertook to give sympathetic consideration to representations made by the other. You should know that in the six years which have elapsed since the signing of the trade agreement with Japan, Canada has not once resorted to this special escape clause. We have been able to resolve our problems through frank and friendly consultations. This is the way of friends, and I assure you that both Canada and Japan would very much like to continue in this spirit of friendly co-operation.
That shows the basis of agreement between us and Japan. We know for a fact that in 1959 Japanese exports to Canada amounted to $105 million; $25 million of those Japanese imports, one quarter, were textiles. They affected our textile industry; I realize that.
But as a good friend and customer, Japan imposes restraints on exports to Canada. That is in accordance with the terms of the treaty. She recognizes that exports to Canada must proceed gradually and that she must avoid a disruption of Canadian markets. Japan recognizes that she must avoid excesses or flooding of Canadian markets with any one particular commodity.
I had to have two questions answered to be satisfied in my mind that the textile industry in Canada was an industry of sufficient importance, because we of the west, the
The Budget-Mr. Mandziuk woolly west, do not recognize the importance of some of these industries to Canada. I looked at the Canada Year Book and I found some very interesting facts, although the Canada Year Book of 1959 only contains statistics and records for 1956. But I found that there were 3,776 textile, clothing and woollen mills employing almost 200,000 people. That is a good sized industry.
Then I went further and searched to see whether there was any such animal in Manitoba, that young province which entered confederation in 1870. To my surprise I found that Manitoba had 37 textile mills, four knitting mills and 154 clothing establishments. This industry employed around 7,000 people. All in all there is around 200,000 people employed, and that means that if every family has an average of three or four members, there are about 800,000 human beings who depend for their bread and butter on work in our textile industry.
That impressed me because of the fact that this government recognized the importance of the agricultural industry. Therefore, the simple answer is, why not recognize the importance of the textile industry? If it gives a living to almost one million people in Canada, why should it not receive some consideration? This government has given consideration to improving the conditions of the agricultural industry by various enactments, such as farm improvement legislation, farm credit, acreage payments, cash advances, price stabilization, and shared assistance to farmers to compensate them for grain snowed under.
I had, too, another question which should be answered, because I realize we have to keep our people employed. Will this increase in tariff rates endanger our trade with Japan? I am watching the clock, Mr. Speaker, and I could quote from the address of the Minister of Finance, as reported in Hansard at pages 681 and 682 of February 3 last. I could read extracts from his address in Saskatoon at page 20, but time does not permit.
There it is shown that our trade with Japan is on the increase, that in the three months of November, December and January just past it has gone up. That is very encouraging. I am glad the Japanese understand that we cannot permit an influx in large volume of any particular manufactured product, because what Japan sends to us are finished manufactured products which compete with products made in Canada, while we sell to them raw products, foodstuffs, wheat, or products of the mine and of the soil. But having asked these two questions, I think I can safely meet with very little fear any

The Budget-Mr. Herridge criticism by farmers out west and prove to them that this industry was entitled to this recommendation of the tariff board. It was not a decision of one man but of the whole board. It deserves some consideration.
In closing, I should like to give a few words of warning, not to the minister, because I think he is doing his best, but to industry. I hope the textile industry does not take this as a licence or as an excuse for raising the prices of their products. I hope that labour does not take this as a licence to ask for, and strike for higher wages. The Minister of Finance has asked us to hold the line. He is asking everyone to hold the line, including the big corporations.
As a man who grew up and grew old out in the west, I can say that this price squeeze in which the farmer finds himself caught today is the result of rising costs. I should like to read in the press that there has been a cutback in the profits made by the corporation, profits which in some cases have reached astronomical figures. This is what is causing the price squeeze. I do not attribute to labour, in the main, the causes for these rising prices. I believe that our labour is efficient. I believe that for a dollar's worth of work our labour produces more than any other labour on earth. But I feel everyone must cooperate. This appeal made by the Minister of Finance to all of us to hold the line applies to the corporations, also.
I wish to repeat that the reason we are being priced out of the markets of the world, and the cause of this price squeeze, is rising costs. I am prepared to grant tariff protection but, again, I say I hope industry does not take this tariff protection as licence. We have to get our labour working but we also have to be prepared to compete with goods coming from Japan or from any other country. Of course, we want to trade with Japan as well, because trade is a two-way street.
In closing I should like to quote the words of the Minister of Finance as they appear on the official record of this house:
So long as our access to foreign markets is unimpaired and we are able to keep the cost and the quality of our products and services thoroughly competitive we need have no fear for the future.
I think that applies to everyone. It applies to big business, small business and everyone alike.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise to support the subamendment, and in order to relate it directly to my remarks I should like to quote it again at this time:
That the amendment be amended by striking out the period after the word "unemployment" and adding thereto the following words:


'and in the opinion of this house the solution of these problems requires amongst other things that the government give consideration to the following measures:
1.	The planned elimination of wasteful defence expenditures,
2.	The provision of a self-liquidating public investment program,
3.	The provision of an appropriate capital gains
tax.'
Before proceeding with my remarks, I do want to say that I enjoyed a number of the speeches which have been made by hon. members in this debate on both sides of the house. Whether I agree with them or not, I like people to get up and express themselves and tell the house where they stand-although I must say we are decidedly under the impression before they rise that we know where they stand.
I was particularly interested in the very thoughtful speech which was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) especially when he referred to the international situation and the contest going on in the world today; the struggle of ideas between those who believe in democratic institutions and those who are supporting forms of dictatorship.
I listened carefully and with interest to the speech made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). I have listened to the minister for 12 years as a pessimist in this house, and three years as an optimist. I listened very carefully the other evening when the minister was speaking, with his Cromwellian stance, preaching the doctrines of Gladston-ianism, doctrines of retrenchment and reform in the nugatory accents of Bay street.
While I was listening to the hon. gentleman I was inclined to think of past days, and I was reminded how much the minister resembled in his ideas and his mannerisms a very old friend of mine, an old Kootenay pioneer. As soon as I mention that magic word "Kootenay" I see all faces turned this way as if I was about to open the doors to paradise. Anyway, he was an excellent person. He performed the role of a minor tax collector and collected money due for mining licences, fishing licences, dog licences, and that sort of thing. He was a scion of the house of Buccleuch in Scotland. He was a Presbyterian elder, a man of unquestioned integrity, untainted virtue and as stubborn as a mule. He had another interesting facet to his character. He flew a Union Jack in front of his premises every day and, as a matter of fact, he had a Union Jack always on one desk or table in his office. I have heard of someone else who had a Union Jack draped on his desk in this house. But, as I said before, he was an excellent character, a lifetime friend

of mine who combined in his person all the characteristics of John Knox and Scrooge.
His family motto was: Always balance the budget. He was known as Walter Balance the Budget. I will illustrate what a good chancellor of the exchequer he was in his official capacity and in his domestic affairs, too. I remember being in a post office on one occasion when he went in to post some papers. He used to send the Vancouver newspaper to his brother in Australia. He handed the paper in, and the postmaster handed it back and said: It is a cent short. It will take another cent stamp.
He looked at him for a moment. "Ah, my boy," he said, "hand it me back, I'll take it home and cut out the advertisements." He promptly walked home, took an hour or so to cut out the advertisements, walked back and mailed the paper. Naturally he was a Conservative. Why I was reminded of this gentleman when the minister was speaking is because he always believed in balancing the budget. It is always wise to do so so far as the current account or daily or annual consumption is concerned, but to be successful as chancellor of the exchequer you must do more. You must have fiscal policies that make the best use of the human and natural resources you have in the country.
This old gentleman was well off in natural resources. He owned miles of timber limits and a good number of mineral claims which he never developed because he would always insist on balancing the budget and would not develop them until he had accumulated sufficient surplus so to do and he never accumulated that surplus. He died after 50 years of waiting for a surplus without having developed his resources because he wanted to balance the budget and was not willing to secure credit based on his natural resources or undertake a self-liquidating enterprise in the interest of the country.
When the minister was speaking I could not help but think of this ancient friend and very fine gentleman because in many respects I think the minister resembles him. We can learn a lesson from the faults of this humble chancellor of the exchequer and so can our present chancellor of the exchequer. I want it understood that my comments are directed to the minister in his official capacity because as a private citizen I know he is one of the kindest men who has ever picked the pockets of a helpless taxpayer.
I realize that the minister has to budget within the terms of reference of the capitalist system which provides certain limitations. My criticisms and the alternatives I propose to government budgeting are based on the
79951-0-191
The Budget-Mr. Herridge socialist philosophy and outlook which of course means that instead of placing profits first we must consider humanity first.
We live in an expanding economy producing an abundance for all and exporting large quantities of goods. We have the abundance but what do we have against that? At the lowest estimate, the one accepted by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), we have at the present time approximately one half million unemployed. That is the situation facing us. Unemployment is a serious and continuing problem in all its various aspects whether it is seasonal, occupational, regional, structural, technological or otherwise. This is a serious disease of modern capitalist society.
Anyone who reads books or daily, weekly or monthly publications knows there is an increasing interest on the part of economists in this aspect of modern society, continuing unemployment regardless of the prosperity of the majority.
To support my argument I shall quote a few brief paragraphs from an article by Edwin Copps which appeared in Saturday Night, issue of April 2, 1960. He writes what I consider a helpful article on the subject entitled "The Stubborn Facts About Unemployment" which appeared under the heading "Ottawa Letter":
One of the minor tragedies of parliamentary battles is that their most important aspects are quickly forgotten. Politics creates most of its clamour about trifles. People remember the points that don't matter and miss the points that do.
There is much truth in that. I continue:
For example, if Canadians remember anything about the most recent debate on unemployment it will be that most of the squabbling was about figures. They will recall that the opposition claims that nearly 900,000 persons were unemployed this winter while the government believes half a million were without work and looking for it.
That depends upon which side of the house you sit. I continue:
This bickering masks the main malignancy of our economic life. It is the fact that our nation has within it a tumour that won't go away. It is a hard nub of persistent unemployment, a continuing surplus of labour in some parts of Canada. In good times and bad, it would appear, we have less than "full employment".
In the rare moments of enlightenment when it was not gazing at two sets of troublesome figures, like a snake before the beady eyes of a mongoose, the House of Commons saw clearly something it was loath to admit. What it saw was this: we only enjoy full employment in wartime. At other times, even relatively prosperous ones like the present, many of our people are either on relief or sipping at the weak brew provided by unemployment insurance benefits.
Regardless of which side of the house we sit on I think as realists trying to find solutions to the difficult problems that face us- and no one suggests there is an overnight

The Budget-Mr. Herridge solution-we must recognize the disease. In this case the disease is continuing unemployment in some of the sectors of modern society.
At the same time we realize as this problem exists we find various veterans organizations urging a 33J per cent increase in the pensions of disability pensioners. Simultaneously, the veterans organizations urge an improvement in war veterans allowances particularly with respect to permissive income and some other aspects of war veterans allowance legislation. These increases are requested by organizations that are in close touch with veterans because they realize the people concerned require some adjustment in the pensions or allowances they receive to meet the changing cost of living in recent years.
We also find that many of our senior citizens lack the necessities of life and simple comforts. I have had the opportunity to visit senior citizens in my constituency who receive old age assistance or old age security. I have seen the dire necessity occasioned in most cases by living in larger places where much of the pension or assistance, is consumed by rent. I have seen the need of these people who have borne the heat of the day and instead of spending their lives in a measure of security and comfort exist with a great deal of discomfort lacking in many cases the bare necessities of life. I am sure that all hon. members have received correspondence on this question or have seen resolutions from organizations directly concerned with the welfare of senior citizens.
Unemployment, the needs of veterans and the needs of our senior citizens are problems that face us. Then, we have our civil servants who in many cases are receiving salaries below the prevailing rates in the districts in which they live. The evidence of the need of that increase is to be found by anyone who has read the excellent briefs brought to the attention of the government and hon. members. I am unfamiliar with all of the details as to the schedule of salaries, details as to the classifications, and so forth, but after reading those briefs I am distinctly of the opinion that our civil servants are entitled to adjustments in their salaries, wages and so on. We are glad that the government has at last started to recognize the just claims of the civil servants. Here is another group, a very important group in Canada rendering a service to this country, which has placed before the government its needs with respect to salary adjustments. I mention these few important segments of our population only to illustrate the points I wish to make. There are others, but time will not permit me to deal with them now.


What are the facts in relation to, shall I say, our opportunity to meet this demonstrated need? I do want to make it clear that I am not one who believes in unsound finance. By that I mean I recognize that budgets generally, except in times of emergency, as far as current revenue and current expenditure are concerned, should be balanced, and the suggestions I wish to make will be along these lines. I am not one who has lived on what you would call a bed of comfort all my life. I have known what hard work is, saving my pennies for a rainy day. That sort of experience inclines one to be fairly sound when making suggestions dealing with financial matters.
But what are the facts? I have stated some of the needs that have to be met. This year, as I heard the minister, it is estimated our gross national product will be $54.6 billion. The minister informed us that an amount equal to a quarter of that would be capital invested in Canada this year. The minister also informed us that in 1959 we had the largest exports in the history of Canada. Last year, when we had somewhere between 500,000 and 900,000 unemployed in this country, we exported $5 billion worth of goods, and we want exports. That is the position of the government as a whole with respect to the gross national product, anticipated capital investments in 1960, and the export situation last year which the minister expects to be improved this year.
What about profits? I am going to give only three or four illustrations. Last year was a most profitable year for business people in Canada. Since we live under the capitalist system I am not one to suggest for a moment that it is a criminal offence to make a profit because I realize business cannot exist under capitalism without making a profit. But I do want to bring to the attention of the house the excellent showing that some of the companies made last year, and' the possibility this offers for the Minister of Finance when he is looking for funds to meet the needs that I have mentioned.
The Bell Telephone Company, the largest privately owned company in Canada, showed a net profit of more than $50 million, which was 29.3 per cent over the year 1958. The British Columbia Telephone Company, which we dealt with recently in the form of a bill presented to the house, second in size to the Bell Telephone Company, had a net profit in 1959 of $6.6 million, over 60 per cent higher than in 1958. The New Brunswick Telephone Company, privately owned, showed a net profit of more than $2 million in 1959; this was 33.7 per cent more than in 1958.

Let us take a look at a few of the other large corporations. Dominion Tar and Chemical had a good year, with a net profit of 53.8 per cent over 1958, amounting to $11 million. The British American Oil Company had a net profit in 1959 amounting to over $25 million, a 25 per cent increase over the year 1958. Abitibi Power and Paper Company showed a net profit of $11.8 million for 1959, a 22.5 per cent increase over 1958. International Nickel had a net profit of $85 million in 1959, more than double the 1958 profit.
I suggest that not only is it the duty of the opposition to criticize the government's policy or policies but to offer constructive alternatives to government policy. Before doing that I want to say that I have thought very seriously about this question because over the years I have come to the conclusion that time is running out for those who refuse to recognize the changes that are taking place. On the one hand, we have a growing economic dictatorship known as monopoly capitalism which is daily freezing out the genuinely free enterprise practised by small manufacturers and businessmen. This is occurring in every part of this country. On the other hand, we have the political dictatorship of communism.
We in the C.C.F. group, believing in democratic principles, believing in parliamentary institutions, believe there is a middle course. We call it a dual or mixed economy, representing an understanding of human nature, Canadian psychology, Canadian history and Canadian traditions, and that we can do something to find a middle way between those two extremes before it is too late. This is why this group continues to put forward to the house the policies it does. Unless we do this, Mr. Speaker, there is a day coming- and it is not far off-when there is going to be a clash between extreme views, because if you remove all the economic diversification from democratic society you will have placed democratic society into two clearly defined groups; on the one side the monopolistic owners, and on the other side the workers recognizing the fact that that is the position they must continue to occupy in society for all time.
How can we meet those current needs that I have mentioned? I have made these rough calculations. I am not suggesting that they are exact but I think they are approximately exact. I will deal with current account first. I think that any person who goes into debt for his needs is going to become bankrupt very soon. When it comes to current account we have to pay as we go, and we can do that and provide for the needs of the people of this country.
79951-0-1914
The Budget

Mr. Herridge
I estimate that a 33-J- per cent increase in disability pensions will cost $50 million. The amount required under the War Veterans Allowance Act will cost approximately $7 million. To pay our senior citizens at this time-I am suggesting this figure-an extra $10 a month to which they are entitled would cost $130 million. The cost of increasing our civil servants' salaries I am going to place at $50 million. That makes a total of $237 million that we have to find for this current account expense involved in carrying on the day to day life of these people. Can we do it? With revenue estimated by the minister this year of $5,892 million, $237 million does not seem a very large figure to satisfy the needs of these very large groups in our society. We suggest that these needs can be met. They can be met first, as we say in our amendment, by the planned elimination of wasteful defence expenditures, and for a start we will use the figure of $300 million. I believe there is a reduction this year of around $90 million in defence expenditures.
We in this group are quite confident that every dollar that is being spent on the Bomarc is being wasted. We are quite confident that if the government pruned wasteful defence expenditure we could save $300 million for a start, and I think I am very conservative with that estimate. Not only do I say that but I predict that this government will be doing just that inside of a year or two because of the change of circumstances with defence.
We also urge an appropriate provision for a capital gains tax. This is a rather difficult tax to estimate. I have gone to a number of sources for information, and I estimate that we can obtain approximately $100 million a year from that tax. There is such a tax in the United States and the United Kingdom, and for the life of me I cannot see why a person should win $100,000 in a sweepstake and not pay a cent of tax while some poor chap working hard every day has to pay income tax if he earns above a certain level. There is a large field for the operation of a capital gains tax. When we refer to an appropriate capital gains tax we are not suggesting for a moment that we should take away the benefits that a man derives when he sells his home or farm property and moves from one place to another, but there are appropriate areas in which a capital gains tax can be applied.
According to the figures I have drawn up that makes a total of about $400 million as against requirements of $237 million. We in this group are definitely of the opinion that by taking that course we can, without any

The Budget-Mr. Herridge imbalance of the budget, provide for these people who are appealing to the government for assistance and help at this time to remedy their present circumstances.
What about unemployment? I have left unemployment to the last because we in this group are of the opinion that unemployment, continuing problem that it is and related as it is to fiscal, investment and resource development policies, is not going to be solved out of current revenue. It will have to be solved as the result of a national investment program.
What do we need in this young country? There is need for a national highways system. I am not going to deal with that fully because I think there is a bill still before the house. But we have only to read a number of publications and resolutions in recent days to realize the enormous amount of money we are losing in tourist trade because of our highway system in Canada. The main reason for our unfavourable balance at the present time as far as the tourist industry is concerned is the condition of our highways in Canada. That is indicated in United States publications.
We need hospitals. My goodness, in the city of Ottawa people cannot get into a hospital. I have heard of people waiting for 10 days, two weeks and so on, and that condition prevails in many places. Should that condition prevail in a civilized society producing the immense amount of wealth that we are? We also need schools. There is a great need for rural redevelopment, which this government has recognized. At this point I want to say that I have been very interested in reading the proceedings of the Senate committee dealing with land use in Canada. 1 think they are doing very useful work. That is the sort of thing that can be done very well by the Senate. They can take their time, and I am not saying that in a jocular sense. Studies of this sort are not easily made by members of the house when they are burdened with the work of the house committees and correspondence. I think the members of the Senate committee are doing very useful work and as a result have obtained some most useful information.
There is a tremendous need in Canada for rural redevelopment and for the relocation of about 25 per cent of the farming population from marginal to satisfactory economic farm units. This has been proceeding in the United States. This is a field in which something practical can be done as a result of federal, provincial and community co-operation.
Look at the need for power. Look at the difficulty we are having in British Columbia


and with respect to the development of that great natural resource, the Columbia river. Look at the opportunity there for the federal and provincial governments.
It is for that reason that we propose the provision of a self-liquidating public investment program. As long as it is self-liquidating it is a sound program because it is for the development and utilization of natural resources which brings returns. In doing so we bring together to the advantage of the community as a whole idle human resources and idle natural resources.
It will require planned fiscal and development policies to overcome the unemployment that is with us at this time and which will continue with us in any circumstances under our present system. We in this group say this. Because we believe in this mixed economy we believe that governments, whether federal or provincial, have to face the fact that they have to take the leadership with respect to the public sector of the economy. There is a public sector that definitely requires development. We say, let the private banks supply the capital needs and the capital requirements of the private sector of industry and development in this country and let the Bank of Canada supply the credit that is required for a national investment program.
The security is there as has been evidenced in recent years. Mr. Wenner-Gren comes to British Columbia and gets an option, as it were, on 40,000 square miles of British Columbia with huge water resources, huge forest resources, huge land resources, in short, an empire. What did his representatives do when they came before the Senate committee last year? For what did they plead? Mr. Main-waring's adopted children came before the Senate committee and wanted the government to impose export of power taxation by order in council so they could bargain with any government in the future as to the taxes they would pay. They came before this committee and definitely said they were going to raise $500 million. What is the security? The natural resources of the people of British Columbia.
It is the same with the pulp and paper industry. One company in that province gets a timber management licence and is immediately able to go to New York and raise $200 million. What is the security? The natural resources owned by the people. We have hydro companies doing the same thing. We say that people seem to be hypnotized by the idea that money can only be created by private institutions. Under these circumstances the lending of money is a racket and an imposition on the people of this

country. I am not blaming the individuals concerned. The responsibility does not rest on them. Things are changed when enough people understand the situation and are alerted to it.
What we say is this. Why not use the national credit of Canada through the Bank of Canada, using the natural resources of Canada as the security or the base for a national investment and development program? We suggest that is one way in which to provide stability and more regularity of income in this country. It can be planned between the federal government and the provinces to All up the gaps in unemployment at the most serious periods.
This afternoon, when the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) was speaking he mentioned our responsibility to the underdeveloped nations and the fact that democracy was challenged throughout the world. That is another aspect of our program that we believe in. The hon. member mentioned the disparity of annual income, between an average of $2,000 a year on the North American continent and $60 a year in India. There is no question about it, that situation cannot continue indefinitely. In the ordinary process of economics it will destroy us through an expanding population.
Democratic institutions are in danger. If we are going to meet our responsibilities abroad and do the things at home that are required at this time and in the future full production is essential to meet the needs.
I am nearing the end of my speech, Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to go into detail but I suggest that these are some of the alternative proposals, put forward by this party in order to provide full production in Canada and consequently full employment and to provide an opportunity for the government to fulfil its obligations to Canadians at home and needy persons abroad.
In conclusion, may I say this? We ask the government and the minister to give serious consideration to these proposals advanced in good faith.


Mr. M. E. Barrington (Chaieauguay-Hunl-ingdon-Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, my first
words must be directed to paying respects to you on behalf of my electors and myself, having regard to the honoured position you hold in this house. I also at this time want to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) on the excellent budget he brought down one week ago tonight. I think this budget is appropriate and sane. We have heard a great deal of criticism, one way or another; but when we look back over the last three years we find that we inherited a recession which, had it not been for the
The Budget-Mr. Barrington good work of the present government under the capable leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), could easily have developed into a depression and a severe one at that.
The present government, through its timely action, avoided this threat. Today we have a balanced budget. Over the past week end I had occasion to speak with several of my electors, and I am happy to say to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that I heard nothing but the most favourable of comments on the budget that was brought down one week ago tonight.
I think a further proof of the value of this budget as it has been brought down and of how well it has been received by the electorate in general across Canada is shown by the criticism made by the opposition. They are really floundering. They are looking for something to criticize. They are extremely disappointed in the budget, we know, because it is too good for their liking. We have heard such things as this. When they were asked what they would do, they said, "We would consult the experts" or "We would do something". I think the best experts to consult are the electors of Canada. Were they asked today in a poll what they would do I think they would give the same reply as that which they gave in 1957 and 1958. I think all will agree that the reply given at that time was most definite. The criticism of the opposition that I have heard to date-and I think I am a fairly regular attendant here in the house-reminds me somewhat of the housewife who is trying to make gravy without grease. The ingredients will not stick together and the people will not eat it.
I should also at this time like to congratulate the government and especially the Minister of Finance upon the proposed program for the civil service. I have a fair number of civil servants in my constituency and I know they are happy about the present plans. They look forward to a general improvement in their rate of salary. It is not all going to happen at once. They understand this fact. They are willing to accept it. The point about which I am extremely happy in the civil service plan is that it is going to help the man in the civil service with the lower salary. In other words, this is a plan to help the needy and not the greedy.
I have the honour to represent three counties in the province of Quebec, namely the counties of Chateauguay, Huntingdon and Laprairie. This being my maiden speech in the house I should like to take hon. members on a short tour through my constituency.
The counties are located in the southwestern part of Quebec and are bordered by

The Budget-Mr. Barrington the St. Lawrence seaway on the east and by the county of Beauharnois-Salaberry on the north, the remainder being bordered by the state of New York and a section of the constituency of St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville.
As the county of Laprairie has a population composed to the extent of some 90 per cent of French speaking Canadians, I am pleased to represent my electorate there in the French language.
(Translation):
Laprairie constituency is located on the south shore of the St. Lawrence river, directly opposite the city of Montreal. As will therefore easily be realized, it represents an important section of the St. Lawrence seaway. Cote Ste. Catherine, the Laprairie basin, Candiac, Caughnawaga-are all places that we often hear about and which are situated in this important constituency. Farms and beaches along the river have all vanished from that area, as did the beautiful scenery of the great St. Lawrence. Many sites have been bought for future industrial expansion; a large industrial centre is under construction there. Population is rapidly increasing and, in this regard, I urge the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) to consider the advisability of providing the electors of Laprairie with a letter carrier service.
Already, with the St. Lawrence seaway, the numerous railways, the well kept roads, the riding has become an ideal site for the development of new industries, and I intend to do all I can to attract new industries and, at the same time, to co-operate fully with the authorities in this regard.
I have in mind something you have probably heard about, and I refer to a project as important as the St. Lawrence seaway itself. You have probably guessed that I mean the deepening of the Richelieu river. The Richelieu will be deepened some day. It has to be done because the whole country needs it, because we need it and our neighbours to the south need it too. Some people suggest deepening the Richelieu from Sorel as far as lake Champlain. Others believe it would be more advantageous and more useful to dredge this canal inland, from Ste. Therese island on the Richelieu to the vicinity of Longueuil.
I have a third project in mind. I refer to a canal starting at Ste. Therese island, on the Richelieu, and cutting through the land to the area just outside Laprairie. One of the great benefits from such a scheme would be to shorten the distances and reduce construction costs. Moreover, the canal would end up in a


new area, where it would be easy to do some city planning and provide appropriate residential, commercial and industrial zoning. This third project would obviously be of considerable benefit not only to the city of Laprairie but also to the surrounding area, on the south shore, and to the whole constituency.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, my home county is the county of Chateauguay, the county where history was made on October 26, 1813 when Colonel Charles-Michel de Salaberry, with a few hundred soldiers and a friendly band of Indians, won immortal fame by successfully defeating the American invaders who had invaded Lower Canada and were marching on the city of Montreal. This is where the all important battle of Chateauguay was fought and won, and it is one of the great historical sites of our country.
The other county I have the honour to represent is the county of Huntingdon, which stretches from the Indian reserve at St. Regis across the river from Cornwall to the Richelieu river, and has some 50 miles of frontier with our neighbours to the south in the state of New York.
The two counties of Chateauguay-Hunting-don form what is known as the Chateauguay valley, and here dairy farming is the principal industry. In fact, it is considered to be one of the more important of its kind in the whole of Canada. Here a large percentage of the fluid milk consumed in the city of Montreal is produced. We have excellent soil and growing conditions, and all in all it is considered a very prosperous farming community.
Great pride is taken in the fine dairy herds raised throughout this area, and we have a good export market to the United States of purebred cattle and other livestock. In fact, it is not uncommon for cattle to be shipped from this area to such places as South America and many of the other Latin countries.
If I may be permitted to insert a little commercialism at this time I should like to say that in this fertile and prosperous valley, to be more explicit, my home town of Ormstown, Quebec, each year is held an agricultural and livestock exhibition. It is held in the second week in June and I would like to take this opportunity, through you, sir, to invite anyone interested in a good livestock and agricultural exhibition to be my guest at this fair, which is often called the Little Royal, and is known as the biggest fair in the smallest town in Canada.

As I have stated, the main industry in the counties I have the honour to represent is that of dairy farming. Dairy farming is a subject we hear very little about in this house. I have been rather disappointed, I might say, about this, since I have come into the house. We hear a great deal of another type of farming, but I fear we do not hear enough about the dairy farming industry.
I should like at this time to discuss this industry, but first let us take a look at the man who operates as a dairy farmer. What is he made up of? What kind of individual is he? There are two words which answer this question: he is a hard-working man. A dairy farmer today starts before sunrise and goes long after sunset. To be a successful dairy farmer a man must not only be hardworking but must be practically a jack of all trades and master of many. For example, he must be, in part, a veterinarian, an agronomist, a machinist. He has to be an expert in so many fields and in a goodly number of them he must be highly qualified.
We hear statements that the dairy farmer is enjoying great prosperity. With this I cannot agree. He has possibly shown a certain degree of prosperity in the last few years. But this has all come about by good management and efficiency on his part. The way things are in the dairy farming industry today, the dairy farmer is not getting the protection that other industries are enjoying. We know we have surpluses in dairy farm products, but I think these surpluses are because of the efficiency of the dairy farmer. We know that in the last few years he has been able to produce more; he has been able to place his commodity on the market, and I think especially of butter where a surplus has been built up of this product. Very well. Suppose this surplus has been built up due to the efficiency of the farmer. Why should the farmer be penalized because he is an efficient operator? We have to find a cure for this situation.
The dairy farmer has a great deal with which to contend. He must face many difficulties. He has to gamble with the weather. He has to gamble with the moods of the people in general, and he has a difficult market in which to compete. Workers in other spheres-workers in industry, for example-can go on strike through their labour unions if they are not happy about the way things are going. But the farmer would look very foolish if he decided to go on strike, closed down the valves on his cows and sent them out on the picket line. It would be a pretty foolish operation.
The Budget-Mr. Barrington
He is at the mercy of the public. He cannot obtain protection in the same way as other workers are protected, although the whole rural economy, especially in the eastern part of Canada depends on the dairy farmer. I think it is so true, the saying we often hear, that as the dairy farmer goes, so goes the nation. If the dairy farmer is enjoying prosperity, the whole district around him is sharing that prosperity. The dairy farmer is, no doubt, the backbone of our country. Maybe this country is gradually becoming more industrialized, but anyone who believes that a day will come when there will be no such thing as a dairy farmer had better give the matter further thought. The dairy farmer is the backbone of the country and I am certain he will continue to be so for many years to come.
With regard to this question of surpluses, I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) and to the government as a whole. As I have just said, I do not feel that the efficiency of the dairy farmer should be a reason for penalizing him in the end. I ask the Minister of Agriculture, whose dairy farm policy will, we know, be brought into the house in the very near future, to hold the line, especially with regard to the price of butter. I ask him to take no action as a result of which the dairy farmer will suffer. Let the minister retain the present measure of support. Everyone knows we cannot go on forever buying up surpluses. No government can do that. But I should like to suggest that the government appoint a commission to work with the dairy farmers of Canada through their group leaders to study this question in the coming year to try to arrange matters so that a balance between supply and demand with regard to this product can be attained. Butter is very important to the economy of the eastern dairy farm, and the future of the whole dairy industry depends on this product.
Now I should like to say a few words about another industry which I have in my constituency, namely the textile industry which plays an important part in the lives of my constituents both in Chateauguay and Huntingdon counties, especially in the towns of Huntingdon and Ormstown. As in other such localities, we are very much concerned about the future of this vital industry. We know that since the Progressive Conservative party has been in power a great improvement has been noted. We realize that there is still more to be done.
The former government criticized the textile industry, saying it was inefficient and poorly managed. It was ready to abandon

The Budget-Mr. Barrington ship and let the industry sink. We know that the present government has no such intention. I am happy to say that the textile industry in the two towns I have mentioned, Huntingdon and Ormstown, is under the best of management, well organized and efficient. Sometimes when we speak of the textile industry I think we forget the very important part it plays in the life of our country.
We find that the primary textile industry, especially in the province of Quebec, is located in the smaller municipalities. When there is a shutdown at the mill, there is a shutdown in the town. This affects the merchant, the butcher, and the grocer; the whole financial set-up in the town is disturbed. When we consider that some of these smaller plants are established in towns with populations of 2,000, 2,200, or 2,800 people, one can imagine the effect upon all concerned when the mills are shut down. We cannot allow that to happen.
I know the Minister of Finance has given a great deal of thought to this problem and that he is still working hard on it. I have heard directly from the management of the mills I have mentioned that they are very pleased with the action the minister has taken to date. They know he is sincere and that he intends to do his level best to improve the situation, but I ask the minister this: even if it is necessary to take what might be considered in some quarters to be drastic action, he should take such action for the benefit of this all-important industry. As I have stated, many of the smaller municipalities are directly affected. Again, on behalf of the employers and employees engaged in the textile industries in my area, I ask the government to take very definite steps to improve the situation.
In the same breath, I want to thank the government on behalf of the employers and employees in this industry for the steps which have been taken in the past month to come to its aid. I sincerely hope that this assistance will continue until such time as this industry will enjoy the prosperity it once knew and deserves. As my final words on this subject, I would say if this industry is to survive in the smaller municipalities and small towns the assistance and aid must come now.
I bring these matters to the attention of hon. members, first, in order to represent my electors who have placed their confidence and trust in me by electing me as a member of this house and, second, in order that it be known that the counties of Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie do in fact exist. I regret to say this, but facts are facts and let us put the cards on the table. In past years my counties were poorly represented by the
[Mr. Barrington.!

elected member who in the apparent custom of the day sat on the laurels of a sympathetic vote and forgot the needs of the electors. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, this is not the pattern I shall follow either in this house or in representing my electors outside this house.
In closing I wish to express my thanks to the electors of my counties of Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie for the confidence they have placed in me and I wish to say that although the greater proportion of my electors are French speaking Canadians, I, an English speaking Canadian have been elected to represent them in this honourable house. This is a fact of which I am justifiably proud. This not only shows the great feeling of harmony that exists between our two great races in Canada but also indicates the fairness and good will shown to the minority race in that fine province of which I am proud to be a son, the province of Quebec.
(Translation):


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arihabaska):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) brought down his budget, several members have made speeches and, from the ministerial benches, there has come an unending stream of praise and congratulations directed at the Minister of Finance. One wonders if their words did not exceed their thoughts, as in the case of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) .
Soon they will have to publicly retract their remarks through the press, the same as he did.
The present budget, submitted by the Minister of Finance certainly deserves-


Mr. J. H. Tremblay (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, the budget submitted by the Minister of Finance-
(Text):


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


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Yes, Mr. Speaker. (Translation):


Jean-Noël Tremblay: I am rising on a question of privilege because the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) just said that I had retracted through the press. I simply sent to the press a letter explaining what I meant in my speech, together with some incidental remarks on farming.


Samuel Boulanger: The budget introduced by the Minister of Finance no doubt deserves some praise, if it is compared with those of 1958 and 1959. However, the compliments paid the minister should not be too warm, con-

sidering the mistakes he has made in the past, as between his forecasts and the facts.
Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I should like to make a few remarks to express the feeling of the taxpayers I represent here. In the constituency of Drummond-Arthabaska, as in many others, there are two sectors of economic activity which determine the prosperity of its inhabitants: the textile and farming industries.
The matter on which I should like to call the attention of the house, and most particularly that of the Minister of Finance, is that of the textile industry.
The question has given rise to many newspaper comments, especially lately. It shows the importance of the textile industry in Canada, and particularly in eastern Quebec and in Ontario.
That industry, one of Canada's major industries, has been an essential factor in Canada's economic development.
According to figures published in the statistical year book, 1959 edition, in 1956 we had 3,786 establishments engaged in the textile industry, including 965 in primary manufacturing processes, 296 in knitting, and 2,525 in garment making.
Those 3,786 establishments employed 182,575 people, and produced close to $1,700 million worth of goods. It is hard to get statistical data for 1959, to compare with the figures I have just quoted.
However, I intend to talk about some sectors for which we have statistics showing that our textile industry has been constantly declining since 1956, and that that is one of the causes of the present alarming unemployment.
In spite of the best efforts of our industrialists and workers who wish to maintain their industries in operation, several of them gave up or moved to other countries. In fact, hardly two years ago, the Geo. Pattinson Company, which was employing 250 workers, moved its plant to Jamaica. Slingsby Manufacturing Co. ceased its operations in January 1959, thus putting 300 employees out of work.
(Text):


Mr. Anderson:: Mr. Speaker, would the
hon. member permit a question?


Samuel Boulanger: No, Mr. Speaker. My time is short.
79951-0-192
The Budget-Mr. Barrington


William Anderson: I was just going to say
that the factory has not moved yet so the hon. member does not know what he is talking about.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: No.
Imperial Cloth Company, a 25-year old industry which employed from 70 to 100 workers had to close its doors in 1958, after having incurred monthly losses of $3,000, for several months. Canadian Cotton, which was employing 2,000 workers, also closed its doors last year.
That was also the fate of a small plant in Saint John, New Brunswick, as well of that of Rosamond Woollen Mill in Almonte, Ont.
In Milltown, a textile plant sold its machinery to a private individual who moved it to the Dominican republic. In our own province, and in particular in St. Hyacinthe-


Mr. Pigeon:: Which has a very good member.


An hon. Member:: According to the St.
Hyacinthe paper.


Samuel Boulanger: Gotham Hosiery Company closed it doors and dismantled its machinery in order to sell it-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: There are four new manufacturers.


Samuel Boulanger: That company employed 400 persons. In that same city of St. Hyacinthe, another company-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You do not say a word of the others who have opened-


Samuel Boulanger: National Hosiery Mills,
which had been operating since 1936, with about a hundred employees, closed its doors after having incurred a loss of $60,000 in two years.
In Sherbrooke, in the constituency of the defender of the textile industry-not here in this house but behind the scenes-Orient Hosiery, which employed 300 workers, closed its doors.
Julius Kayser had to lay off part of its staff.
Brack Mills Ltd. has to close its doors, intermittently, from one to two weeks a month.
Venus Mills Ltd. closed its doors, having gone bankrupt.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Where is that?


Samuel Boulanger: Domil Ltd. had to close intermittently.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That has always been so.
3030	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Boulanger


Samuel Boulanger: Yet, in 1957 and 1958, the Conservative government and its members-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You know nothing about that industry.


Samuel Boulanger: -had found very easy reasons to explain the alarming situation which, according to them, was affecting that industry. It was the fault of the previous Liberal government, they claimed.
All the Conservatives of today, who were candidates in constituencies where there are textile plants, kept on saying that under a Conservative government, the textile industry would revive and prosper.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself said in the maritime provinces, as reported by the Halifax Chronicle-Herald for May 6, 1957:
If we want to build up this country and ensure jobs. ..we cannot do so by exporting labour to the United States in the form of primary products.
A Conservative government would carry out a national development program as a crowning feature of Canada's first centenary as a nation.
On February 23, 1958, at Cornwall, Mr. Diefenbaker said this, which I find in the Cornwall Standard-Freeholder for February 24 1958:


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He did not learn his trade in English.


Samuel Boulanger: Last night, Prime Minister Diefenbaker promised that a Progressive Conservative government would pass legislation to put an end to the dumping of textiles and other products in Canada.
Canada cannot live without its textile industry. Following representations to the tariff board, and the board's recommendations, we shall have to take the necessary steps to protect all our industries against dumping, he added, amid thunderous applause from the audience.
A year later, the Canadian Cotton plant closed down. We are now in 1960, and for three years have been under Tory rule. And now we realize the deplorable and piteous state of our textile industry.
Let us see what happened in the cotton industry since this government came into power. I do not mind comparing my figures with the 1956 figures, i.e. the last year of Liberal rule, as the statistics for that period cover the whole year. In the cotton industry, there were 22,400 employees on the payroll at the end of 1956 in all the spinning mills, which produced 51 per cent of Canadian consumption, whereas at the end of 1959, the number of employees fell to 18,200, while the


production only covered 41 per cent of our domestic needs. At the same time, the United States alone sold us 45 per cent of our consumer needs.
Therefore, since this Conservative government came in, i.e. within the last three years, the number of workers in the cotton industry fell by 4,200, while our domestic market declined-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Samuel Boulanger: -in the proportion of 9 per cent.
Are conditions any better in the wool industry? Let us see. In 1956, 13,940 workers manufactured 53.42 per cent of our Canadian consumption. In 1959, 11,010 employees, i.e. 2,930 less than in 1956, supplied 49.7 per cent of our consumer needs.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Why?


Samuel Boulanger: In the silk and rayon industry, in 1956 15,200 employees produced 74 per cent of our domestic consumption, whereas in 1959, that number had fallen to 14,600 workers, whose production only reached 67 per cent of our consumption.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Are these Lamontagne's figures?


Samuel Boulanger: We lost a production of 60 million linear yards of cotton, 6 million linear yards of synthetic fiber and 1 million linear yards of wool material.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Why did you object to increased tariffs on British woollens?


Samuel Boulanger: It means that under the Conservative administration, the number of people employed in the primary textile industry has decreased by 6,730 in three years. May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that I am not referring now to manufactures of rubber goods, hardware, silverware, sporting goods, etc.
That is only part of the picture in the primary textile industry of Canada. It is no better off than some other industries like coal and gold, which are supported by federal grants.
The distressing position of primary industry, which has been brought about by the Tories, is no better than that of the secondary textile industry, or of advanced processing of primary textiles, such as the industries manufacturing articles of clothing, awnings, tents, nets, etc.

While the primary textile industry is affected by imports from the United States, India, Italy, etc., the secondary textile industry is affected to an alarming degree by the imports from Japan.
Our trade exchanges with Japan have greatly increased during 1959. Our total exports have reached $140 million, while our imports totalled $105 million, leaving a $35 million balance in our favour in Canadian dollars.
If we examine the amount of our textile imports, we note that it reached $41.5 million, or 56 per cent more than in 1958 when it was $26.6 million and 115 per cent more than in 1956.
According to the estimated figures for the first months of 1960, we may expect an even greater increase in imports over 1959.
Contrasting with the figures I have just mentioned, with a market 15 times that of Canada, the United States bought from Japan six times more goods than we did in 1959.
The break-down of our imports from Japan is as follows:	textiles, about $10,600,000;
finished products, $30,300,000; yarns and sundry, $600,000.
Therefore 73 per cent of our imports of textile goods are made up of finished articles which require no further processing by Canadians.
The Japanese can indeed refer to a balance of $35,000,000 in Canada's favour. But let us look at actual facts and find out which of the two countries gains more.
To fully appreciate how much damage Japanese imports are doing to our economy, we must think of the replacement value represented by those goods in Canada.
That replacement value being two or three times greater, it means we imported the equivalent of $300 million worth of goods from Japan last year.
Apart from the figures, there are other principles which should guide our economy. The most important one, and one which our ministers do not seem to understand, is that we would gain more from promoting employment in our factories than from promoting the sale of raw materials. As long as we go on exporting our manpower through the purchase of finished products imported from countries where salaries are as low as 15 cents an hour, there is no hope of checking unemployment.
79951-0-192J
The Budget*-Mr. Boulanger
While I realize that we have to buy from Japan and from other countries if we want to sell them our own goods, there must be a reasonable balance in the transactions, a balance which should be based on the intrinsic value of the dollar in each respective country.
In the past few months, I know that representations have been made to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Finance by western farm organizations, urging the government not to apply restrictions to Japanese imports because that would prevent a further expansion of our wheat exports.
I respect that point of view, but the hard fact remains that there are close to 200,000 employees in our textile industries. If we deprive them of their means of subsistence, Canada's economy will be jeopardized, and western farmers may be the first to suffer.
We must also think of the 93,000 young people who enter the labour market every year. What can we offer them as compensation for the jobs we would be exporting through increases in our purchases abroad?
After all, we should not have to buy them a ticket to Japan or Hong Kong.
Mr. Speaker, to assess the possible effects on our economy of the government's failure to protect our secondary and primary industries-and I am thinking of textiles-we need only look at a study made by Canadian National economists in the city of Stratford, Ontario, on the economic impact to be expected from the creation of new jobs for 100 workers. It is shown that those 100 new jobs would provide a living for 131 families or 427 individuals.
Those 100 jobs would create 117 other nonindustrial jobs, and finally, would raise the annual purchasing power at retail prices by $939,000.
There is no doubt that if the investigation had been continued into the possible effects of the creation of 200 new jobs, the resulting figures would have been more than doubled.
Mr. Speaker, it cannot be denied that the situation of the textile industry is alarming in Canada. It is alarming for two reasons: excessive imports and ineffective anti-dumping legislation.
What future is there for our textile industries? That will depend on the share of the Canadian market that is reserved for our domestic industry in relation to imports.
In 1956, economists predicted that in 1975, Canadian demand for clothing would rise to
3032	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Boulanger $2,000,200,000, or 2\ times the present level. The same will apply to the demand for industrial and household textiles.
The figures collected in 1959 show that the forecasts were rather conservative.
It can therefore be expected that in 1975, the labour force employed in the primary textile industry will be of 182,000 people for the production of the textile products required to meet our needs.
What proportion of the labour force will be Canadian? That will depend on the percentage of the domestic market that can be retained by our industry.
If the 46 per cent share we have today is maintained, in 1975 we shall have 120,000 employees in the primary textile industry. At that rate, the same could be said of the secondary industry.
The textile industry is aware of the unemployment situation which exists now and will exists 15 years from now. It is also aware of its need to expand in order to keep up with the development of the country; that is why it has put in modern equipment comparable to that of American industry.
However, there is a phase in the economic process where the industry and the textile workers can exert no influence, that is in the field of world trade.
Only the government can be of assistance in that field if it wants so supply an incentive for our industries.
To achieve that, we need men who have the strength and the courage to face the problem, and not ministers and members of parliament who hide their faces when they speak in this house. In other words, we need men with backbone.
(Text):


William Anderson: You have got them now. You did not have them in 1957.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He is speaking through his hat anyway.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: For the last three years, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have received representations, briefs, delegations, etc., etc. from the people concerned and the result was a tariff increase on British woollens which has been practically ineffective.
In 1958, anti-dumping legislation was passed by parliament, which could give good results if it were applied. Yet, we had a greater number of linear yards of cotton imported than last year and the Canadian government did nothing to protect the textile industry. Consequently, members from every region where the textile industry is established stated in 1957 and 1958 that the textile industry had to be saved.

For the past three years, that is since the end of the Liberal administration, while the number of employees has decreased by 6,000, our imports have increased and this has contributed to the slow down in our textile industry.
(Text):


Mr. Hodgson:: You mean they dropped 6,000 three years ago.


William Anderson: Mine are working night shifts.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: I have here a letter giving a summary of the situation in the textile industry.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Over whose signature?


Samuel Boulanger: It was published in La Tribune of March 1960, and reads as follows:
Sir:
Last January 26, Mr. Maurice Allard, member of parliament for Sherbrooke made an Interesting speech in the house on the question of disarmament and on its consequences.
With all the members of my family, I can appreciate what Mr. Allard can say on a question of such scope and importance, but I think that in view of the serious situation in which-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is contravening the rules of the house by reading extracts from editorials or news columns which criticize the conduct of hon. members in the house.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: An anonymous letter. (Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker. I shall conclude my remarks-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It is an anonymous letter.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: He does not know the rules.


Samuel Boulanger: -by commenting on the press release in which the primary textile industry said, following the statement of the Minister of Finance, that:
-The primary textile industry states that "the changes in Canadian tariff on artificial fabrics and fibres, announced tonight by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), will hardly bring any change in the protection against imports."
In another release, the Canadian cotton industry made this statement:
The Canadian cotton textile industry has studied the Canadian tariff amendments announced tonight by the Minister of Finance, Mr. Fleming, and sees no real cause for optimism.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member will permit me to interrupt, it is now ten o'clock.


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

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

Mr. Fisher: 1.	At how many, and what airports, in Canada does the Department of Transport provide terminal services for commercial airLines (including Trans-Canada Air Lines) ?
2.	What was the revenue at each of these airports in the fiscal years, 1957-1958 and 1958-597
3.	How much of this revenue came from commercial airlines?
4.	What was the cost, where determinable, in these years at each of these airports, to the government?
5.	How many employees of the department were employed at these airports in these years on work that has direct relationship to commercial airline operation?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of Transport):
(See page 3034)
5.	1230 and 1362 on airport operation and maintenance.
Note: This figure does not include personnel of air traffic control and other en route common user services set up to serve both military and civil flying.


SEWER AND WATER PIPES UNDER CANALS
Mr. Dupuis: 1.	Has the federal government made any grants toward assisting municipalities in the construction cost of sewers, intake of water, etc., passing under the canals of the Department of Transport or any other department?
2.	If so, in what localities, under what circumstances and for what amount in each case?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1 and 2. In 1907 the department of railways and canals (now transport) granted an amount of $8,000 to the city of St. Johns, Que., for the construction of a water intake from the Richelieu river immediately below
Questions
lock No. 9 which was located under and across the Chambly canal. The total cost of this project was $25,000.


POST OFFICE BUILDING AND SITE, WINDSOR, N.S.
Mr. Regier: 1.	How much money was spent in each of the past five years on (a) the post office building in Windsor, Nova Scotia; (b) land and otherwise for the proposed new post office building?
2.	Were any lots or houses purchased adjacent to the existing building?
3.	If so, from whom were purchases made, and for what amount, in each case?
4.	What were the assessed values of such buildings and lots?
5.	For what specific purpose were each of the expenditures referred to in question 1?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minisier of Public Works):
1.	(a) 1955-56, $14,188.34; 1956-57, $6,359.51; 1957-58, $9,412.80; 1958-59, $7,043.66; 1959-60, $5,028.55.
(b) $21,750 land and buildings.
2.	Yes.
3.	R. W. Newcombe, $9,750 (land and building); T. B. Sheehy, $12,000 (land and building).
4.	Newcombe property, $4,900; Sheehy property, $6,750. Assessed value indicated at 50 per cent of the current market value.
5.	(a) For maintenance and operation of post office building; to February 29, 1960: (See page 3035)


WHARF SITE, YARMOUTH, N.S.
Mr. Bourgei: 1.	Since June, 1957, has the government acquired land in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, as a site for a public wharf?
2.	If so. when was the land acquired, from whom and at what price?
3.	If not, is it the intention of the government to acquire a property as a site for a public wharf?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minisier of Public Works):
1 and 2. Treasury board has approved acquisition of the William Law and Company property for a public wharf site at a cost of $53,000. It is expected payment and transfer of title will be effected within a few days. 3. Answered by No. 1 and 2.

Friday, April 8, 1960