1960-04-08

INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity of announcing two policy decisions concerning the administration of Indian affairs.
The first concerns women of Indian origin who have lost their Indian status through enfranchisement or marriage, and who have no alternative but to return to friends and relatives on the reserves for various reasons such as the death of their husbands or serious illness in the family.
Up to the present there has been no satisfactory means whereby essential welfare and educational help could be provided to these women and their children. It has been decided, therefore, on humanitarian grounds that educational and welfare assistance shall be granted to these people on reserves in the same manner and to the same extent as though they had Indian status.
Second, I wish to announce that the federal government is prepared to negotiate agreements with the governments of the various provinces for the extension of normal provincial welfare services to persons residing on Indian reserves. The purpose is to avoid the development of exclusive welfare services on reserves which would tend to set Indians apart from other Canadians and duplicate provincial programs in adjacent non-Indian communities.
In negotiating these agreements the federal government is prepared to pay a reasonable share of the costs of the benefits, over and above the federal contribution under existing federal-provincial agreements, such as the Unemployment Assistance Act; and to share with the provinces reasonable costs of additional staff and administration required for the application of such programs. Moreover, my department will be prepared to enter into agreements to enable Indian bands to assume responsibilities for welfare programs normally administered by municipalities under provincial legislation.
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. lady on both these
announcements. I think they are both very progressive steps indeed.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: We also appreciate the announcements made by the minister with respect to these two matters, which are exceptionally good ones. We hope additional steps will be taken later on in order to deal with other similar problems.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in that spirit of agreement which has been revealed here may
1	suggest an amendment to the motion standing in my name on the order paper. I make the suggestion with regard to the amendment on the basis of standing order 58, subsection 6, which reads as follows:
On the eighth of the said days, at fifteen minutes before the ordinary time of daily adjournment or, when the eighth day is a Friday, at 4.45 o'clock p.m., unless the debate be previously concluded, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question on the main motion-
In order to cover that situation I would ask-and I hope the house will agree-an amendment by adding these words after "3.30 p.m." in the motion:
-which shall be deemed to be the ordinary time of adjournment that day within the meaning of standing order 58.
The motion in my name would then read as follows:
That, on Wednesday next, April 13, the hours of sitting shall be from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from
2	p.m. to 3.30 p.m., which shall be deemed to be the ordinary time of adjournment that day within the meaning of standing order 58, and that the provisions of standing orders 2 and 6 be suspended in relation thereto.
I so move,
Hon.	L.	B.	Pearson	(Leader	of	the
Opposition): I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister on this amendment, which I think is a very progressive one.
Motion as amended agreed to.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon.	L.	B.	Pearson	(Leader	of	the
Opposition): I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of reports from the Geneva conference on the law of
3038	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the sea. The question is this. Has the Canadian government now abandoned its proposal for a 12-mile fishing zone reserved exclusively for the fishermen of the coastal state without recognition of any historic fishing rights?
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, from time to time in order to attain a reasonable measure of agreement without the sacrifice of rights that are regarded as first principles, changes are necessarily made. The conference has been proceeding for some time, and the Canadian government has concluded that it is most desirable without the sacrifice of principles, to attain a measure of agreement which has been attempted for many years.
To that end we have instructed our representative at Geneva to place before the conference a proposition whereby the six miles would be the territorial limit, and six miles beyond that would constitute the area in which each country would have its own fishing rights, except where there has been in the past the use in that area of fishing rights by other countries. In so far as that situation is concerned, all those traditional rights will terminate at the end of 10 years. I think that in effect answers the question of the hon. gentleman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Does that mean there will be no change whatsoever for 10 years?


John George Diefenbaker: That means that in effect Canada's position previously was one of accepting the principle that the period should be five years. An extra five years has been added in order to assure that we shall be able to attain something, which otherwise could not be done, for the benefit of generations to come.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am just asking for information. The Prime Minister said our previous position was five years. My recollection is that when the Secretary of State for External Affairs made the announcement in the house there was no such stipulation whatsoever. Was not the position originally taken that we would negotiate bilaterally with respect to certain of those historic rights?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; there would still remain, of course, the bilateral negotiations to which the hon. gentleman refers.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the human approach taken by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on another problem this morning, I should like to address this question to her.
In view of the statement by Miss Irene Rebrin in a Vancouver hospital yesterday that she cannot think of any possible reason for the government's refusal to let her remain in Canada; and in view of her statement, "What country would take me now with this stigma over me?", and in view of her expressed wish that the immigration department should make public the reasons for their denial of her right to remain in Canada, in justice and in fairness to Miss Irene Rebrin will the minister make public the reasons for her deportation?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statement, but it is my impression that I gave an explanation yesterday.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question. Are war criminals accepted as immigrants in Canada?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is scarcely germane.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the hon. lady a supplementary question about this matter. Has she offered, on behalf of the government, to pay the transportation costs of the voluntary departure of this person to any other country where she is willing to go?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to say whether there was any formal offer. I think the question was asked of us in regard to the departure, whether if there was a formal offer to depart voluntarily the government would assure the cost of such departure, but I cannot say what was the outcome of that discussion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. lady make inquiries and let the house know whether any such offer was made and, if so, on what basis?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I shall be glad to do that.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister say whether, in fixing the support price for sugar beets this year, consideration will be given by him and by the stabilization board to the loss suffered by farmers growing sugar beets in western Ontario as a result of the decision this week by the arbitrator pursuant to the contract between the Dominion Sugar Company of Chatham, Ontario, and the sugar beet growers?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in setting a support price for any commodity consideration is given to all relevant matters. Full weight is given to them before a final decision is arrived at as to what the support price will be.



REPORTED REJECTION OF REQUEST OF WESTERN FARMERS FOR MEETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of a press report that the Prime Minister has rejected the request of western farm leaders for a meeting. Can the Prime Minister say why he has refused to see the western farm leaders, and whether an appointment has been made for some later date?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the press reference, but there was no rejection. There was simply a communication by me to the secretary of the liaison committee representing the 10 farm groups asking him to place before the government in writing their agreed alternative to deficiency payments. After those representations have been made and studied the question of whether there should be a meeting with the western liaison group will be determined. The only matter that was brought to the attention of the secretary was the fact that the government wanted to know the alternative which these western organizations had in mind, and the only denial of a meeting was that a meeting could not be arranged before the Easter recess.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a further question to elicit additional information. Is the alternative plan that the Prime Minister requested the delegation to submit to him in addition to the alternative plan they presented to the government at the last meeting?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot enter into an argument during the course of the orders of the day, but may I say that any representations made in the past constituted not an alternative but a series of alternatives.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the Minister of Finance a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia. Is the government at the present time considering any payment to the western farmers which would upset the balance of ways and means that the minister put before us in his budget speech?


Hazen Robert Argue: What a question.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think no one will recognize the impropriety of that question more readily than the hon. gentleman who asked it. The budget introduced last week was naturally introduced with the full support and concurrence of the government. It is the government budget.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the minister, I recognize no impropriety in asking whether the government is considering a policy, and I repeat my question to the minister. Is the government giving consideration to doing anything for the western farmers?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is asking me just about the same question that was asked of the Prime Minister a minute ago. Is it the tactic of hon. gentlemen opposite to go down the treasury benches and ask every minister the same question? With great respect, I say this is not the proper way to ask questions on the orders of the day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a
further question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If I may deal with the objection that has been taken to the question, it seems to me that the question does involve a straight decision of policy, and the hon. member could hardly expect it to be declared in answer to a question at this time, particularly in view of what has already been said on the subject. The hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance, but in view of your observation possibly I could ask the Prime Minister whether he is not aware that on March 4 the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources suggested to the farmers of western Canada
3040	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry that if they had any alternative plan, such as acreage payments, they should lay it before the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is one of those argumentative questions that get us into difficulties if pursued, and I would ask him to reserve it for debate.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. S. MacLellan (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Would the minister advise the house whether Mr. John Morrison, who was recently removed from Hamilton to Sydney, is now free to return to Hamilton?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; Mr. Morrison was paroled last night. Information I received this morning indicates that this fact was communicated to the authorities in Nova Scotia by telegram last night, and the certificate of parole is being forwarded to Hamilton where Mr. Morrison was employed and to which place he wishes to return.
I am advised also that there was a suggestion that a warrant would be issued on an outstanding charge for an offence against the Nova Scotia liquor act. My information is that this matter was referred to the attorney general of Nova Scotia, and he gave instructions that the warrant should not be issued. According to the latest information I have, therefore, Mr. Morrison, on payment of the fine for the previous conviction, will be free to return to Hamilton and resume his employment.
Perhaps the house would permit me to observe, Mr. Speaker, just to avoid a misunderstanding, that those matters upon which Mr. Morrison was taken down to Nova Scotia were not outstanding charges but outstanding convictions. When the matter was drawn to our attention it seemed about the only thing that could be done, inasmuch as the convictions had been recorded, was not to interfere with them in so far as they were sentences, but if he paid the fine, immediately to follow the sensible course of paroling the prison sentence, and that has been done.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Finance, in view of the jurisdiction given to


the parliament of Canada by subsections 14, 15, 19 and 20 of section 91 of the British North America Act, whether he was consulted by the premiers of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick before the governments of those provinces made an approach to Sir Oliver Franks to head a royal commission to investigate the effect of federal monetary policies in the Atlantic region.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It depends upon what the hon.
gentleman means by "approach". I was not aware, until he made the announcement just now, that an approach had been made to Sir Oliver Franks.


Some hon. Members:: Read the newspapers.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is sometimes more interesting to listen to these announcements in the form of questions asked by hon. gentlemen opposite on the orders of the day.
I had been made aware by the premier of one of the maritime provinces that he and the premiers of one or more of the provinces in the Atlantic area were considering inviting someone from the United Kingdom to advise them in regard to such questions. The precise form of the organization, whether royal commission or otherwise, was not clearly indicated at the time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question. Would the Minister of Finance agree that it is desirable that such a royal commission if established, if that is the proposal, should be composed of outsiders, without consulting the government of Canada, considering that monetary policy comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, no decision with reference to any matter that falls under federal jurisdiction in this country is going to be taken except by the federal government and the federal parliament. Let me make that quite clear. If other jurisdictions wish to engage in studies of questions they think are of interest to them, I do not think it is a function of the federal government to tell them they may not do so. We respect the rights of other jurisdictions, and that has been axiomatic with this government. It is our policy to proceed, where decisions are to be taken that will have legal effect, so they will be taken by the body holding the constitutional power in that regard.
[Later:}


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question supplementary to the ones asked of the Minister of Finance, and it is this. Which of the

premiers made him aware of the fact that the Atlantic premiers were considering this whole matter?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Premier Flemming of New Brunswick.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe
Opposition):	May I ask the Minister of
National Defence whether, in accordance with the practice followed in the last session, he proposes to issue a white paper on defence before the discussion begins on his estimates?
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: There will not be a white paper to the same extent as the one which was issued last year, because the main principles as they were enunciated in that paper still apply. However, we will get information to the committee in advance of its meeting in order to indicate changes that may be made.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Defence Production whether he can give us anything concrete about all the speculation now going on with regard to the Avro auto car and the money the government is giving this company.


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the Avro car is concerned, hon. members will realize that work on this car has been going on by way of development since 1952. At first help was given by the Canadian government and then by the United States government. At the present time negotiations are going on between Canada and the United States with regard to the research and production sharing program, but no contract has been signed to this day.	[DOT]


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question. Is the vehicle designed for defence purposes or is it for civilian use?


Mr. O'Hurley:: Both, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the
The Budget-Mr. Tremblay Minister of Labour, now he has told the house that the number of unplaced applicants at national employment service offices has practically reached the level of March, 1958, whether he would tell us what measures the government proposes to take to meet this emergency?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member has just stated to the house is not true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the minister told this house yesterday that the number of unplaced applicants was about 832,000. He has told us on previous occasions that fishermen are deducted to reach this number, and if he will take the trouble to look at the statistics he gave us two years ago he will find that my statement is accurate. Therefore I repeat my question. What is the government going to do about it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There seem to be
differences raised by this question and answer which cannot be resolved on orders of the day, so I suggest that it is improper to pursue the matter.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to submit the proposed bill of rights, which is on the order paper, to a committee of this house, where submissions can be made and evidence heard?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thought I dealt with that question on a previous occasion. My recollection is that I said the matter would naturally be considered by a committee of this house, and I am unchanged in that view.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, April 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Benidickson, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Regier. (Translation):
Mr. J. N. Tremblay (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to add my own congratulations to those already extended the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) for


Mr. Deschalelels:: From the very start of his remarks, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay), has been criticizing the procedure of a committee of the house. If you refer to page 2898 of Hansard, dated April 4, 1960, you will find that I also discussed the attitude of a parliamentary committee. I was speaking about the industrial relations committee.
And here is what the Speaker told me, in calling me back to order:
It seems to me the hon. member is reflecting on a decision of a committee of the house. He is not within his rights in taking a course of that kind.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Roberval should abstain from discussing the decisions taken, or the procedure followed in a committee of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am inclined to believe that the decision referred to by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) is more or less in order, because as far as I can make out, a vote taken
The Budget-Mr. Tremblay in the house cannot be discussed in committee; however, a committee report may be commented on once it has been introduced in the house.
I do not see that the hon. member has in this case discussed a vote or a decision of the committee referred to.


Mr. Caron:: Just a word on that matter. I do not believe-I do not have the exact paragraph of the standing orders here, but I think the standing orders do not permit committee matters to be discussed in the house except by permission of the house, and as the matter was not raised, I think the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont is right.


Mr. Johnson:: Mr. Speaker, that rule would apply to a report of a committee sitting during this session. Now, the member for Roberval is referring to a committee report of the previous session.
(Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: On the point of order, I should like to suggest that the hon. member be given complete leeway to go as far as he wishes in his criticism of the committee, because I firmly believe that the chairman and other members of the committee will be prepared to produce arguments in answer to what is being said. I think this is a contribution to a free and open discussion. If the hon. member is going to show that this committee's operations were of a kind that blocked him, I think he should be allowed to proceed.
(Translation):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, even if the committee report was not approved by the house it remains a final report, and at this time it is in order and in keeping with practice to discuss it, even if the house has not approved it. Unless the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) is able to recall a specific case, I do not think I can maintain the question of order.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying, we have the right- and without unduly interfering with the internal business of the C.B.C.-to try to establish some relationship between what the C.B.C. is costing the taxpayers and the quality of what it is offering to them. That is the point of view I had adopted during the inquiry of the committee on broadcasting, and it is in the same spirit I should like to make the following remarks.
The C.B.C. is not a public service, in the same way as are certain other government bodies. Its services are of a moral category, because they have a direct bearing on the souls and minds of our citizens.

The Budget-Mr. Tremblay
Therefore, we cannot, in regard to any C.B.C. activities, use the same criteria we are accustomed to use in the case of activities of an ordinary crown corporation. It is not surprising, therefore, that the members of the parliamentary committee should have tried to go beyond the requirements of an inquiry into purely administrative and financial matters.
For my part, I tried to define the problem in its exact terms, and to establish what must, first of all, constitute the basis of the C.B.C., its purposes, its principles, its methods, its means and the pertinent facts connected with what I have just outlined. I distinctly remember the wry faces of some C.B.C. pundits when we asked them what the C.B.C. should be, and about its responsibilities in the intellectual and moral field.
Their answer was that the C.B.C. was trying to provide wholesome and entertaining programs. That was a very neat way of begging the question.
Yet, in putting those questions, the members were trying to echo the representations made by the public. They were asking, on behalf of others, the essential questions. They were making their own the opinions, criticisms and protests of the people whom it is their duty to represent. I do not think we can decently challenge the validity of such representations on the part of the people. They are the democratic expression of a right, based on democratic principles and on the normal exercise of democratic privileges. Those who think that the legitimate representatives of the people have nothing to do with the claims of those who have elected them and who, through their taxes, are paying for the administration of the C.B.C., show utter contempt for democracy, in whose name they are none the less pursuing all their destructive campaigns.
I think Mr. Speaker, that we have a right to examine all the facts pertaining to the administration of the C.B.C. We have such a right because the people have recognized it in appointing us to represent them and to defend their interests in this house. We would be derelict in our duty if we evaded such a difficult and thankless task. We have a right to inquire into the cost of the C.B.C., because it is the people who are paying and because we are the official representatives of the people.
We also have a right to look into the ethics of the C.B.C., in order to assess the value

of its program policies, and find out whether the C.B.C. is carrying out the purposes for which it was set up, and whether its activities are truly in line with the needs of the human community it is designed to serve.
I think some people fail to realize the importance of these basic problems, and tend to minimize the role of the people's representatives.
We are a legitimate government and as such, the trustees of the public welfare. We have the rights that correspond to that tremendous responsibility. There is an essential democratic principle involved here.
I have had occasions in the past to commend the C.B.C. in this house. I then had in mind certain high quality productions which deserve the highest praise. That is no reason why I should not criticize its other productions, whether of medium or of poor quality, and to judge them severely in view of what the taxpayer has to pay.
I recognize that, in this field as in others, no one can be perfect. Still, there are certain mistakes that should never be made, when the people are footing the bill. There are basic rules of caution which must be observed so as to keep to a minimum the risks involved in necessary experiments. To quote just one example, take the case of the broadcasting of the production: "La plus Belle de Ceans". It cost the taxpayers $84,000. No one has ever denied it was a failure. A failure which was due, in the very words of Mr. Marcel Ouimet, to a "slackening of the usual supervisory machinery", which in plain English, means a lack of elementary supervision and precautions. Apart from its cost, it was a major blunder, considering the circumstances. Could anyone be surprised, therefore, that protests poured in after the broadcast, that an investigation was demanded, and that it was even urged that those responsible be fired for such a gross mistake, if we can so describe it, in view of the circumstances, the context and the atmosphere surrounding the event? Hardly anyone could be found, except the author of "La Vertu des Chattes" (The tabby-cat's virtue) to shield the responsible parties. Then finally a C.B.C. representative, Mr. Gerard Lamarche, summed up the situation by saying that if the C.B.C. sometimes blunders, it never does so deliberately.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you know why roses are red and violets are blue. This is the very height of justification. As if it were

conceivable, in a field like the C.B.C. that people might goof with intent. I can't make head or tail of it, although I can see that the C.B.C., unaccustomed as it is to account for its deeds and misdeeds, has not yet hit upon the standard phrases and blanket alibis.
But reverting to my subject, I maintain that we were entitled, without underestimating the importance of the work done by the C.B.C., nor attempting to whittle down its public prestige or to discredit anyone, we were entitled, as I say, to have the C.B.C. account for itself. All the more so because the deficits piled up by the C.B.C. are forcing us to seek new funds from the taxpayers. I therefore feel no embarrassment in availing myself of representations made by the people to direct questions to the C.B.C. on its general policy, on its plans, on the philosophy behind its information activities, its recreational programs and on what it describes as its educational broadcasts, because I have received such representations from known public bodies, educational institutions, associations, religious societies, and individuals in all walks of life, all of whom are justly alarmed at the philosophy apparently prevailing in the C.B.C., which disregards the traditional and historical values of the Canadian community.
I do not think I am wrong in following up, in that matter, the directives of the bishops of the civil province of Quebec, who voiced serious and significant protests about the French network. My reason for speaking today is to give expression once again to all those representations, and to those which were made last summer by a group of citizens who met in Montreal to discuss the problems of our government radio and television systems.
May I take this opportunity to express astonishment at the fact that our friends of the Liberal party did not deem it necessary to file a strong protest against the program I mentioned a while ago, and at the fact that they did not comment on the episcopal collective letter. Their only steps were those in defence of the three gentlemen of the English network who took it into their heads one day, in order to protect their meagre fees, to stir up a war against what they called political interference, which, in any case, they could never prove. Nothing else mattered, no, neither the philosophy of the C.B.C., the intellectual as well as the moral dangers of some programs nor the slant of its information. All of a sudden, Messrs. Peers, Gillis
The Budget-Mr. Tremblay and Trotter of Toronto were the C.B.C., with a Montreal branch run by Laurendeau and Gagnon. Let us recognize, Mr. Speaker, that we ran a great risk in that case, and that Canada as a whole was never closer to a catastrophe. The point was this: those men were resigning because they were no longer allowed their daily gravy, so miserably earned by their few minutes of commentaries every morning. Without that breeze from Toronto each morning, the nation would wither away. An executive's weakness removed the threat, the program was resumed and Messrs. Gagnon and Laurendeau did not have to resign and actually were saved from an embarrassing financial flop.
The moral of this story is that the government has no right to raise its voice in criticism, be it a shadow of criticism. The people's representatives have no right to complain about the huge costs of the C.B.C., they have no right to say that programs of questionable quality are costing huge amounts; even less are they allowed to think that slanted information is a bad thing. No, this is all political interference. The result is that we accept the existence of a state within the state, and that our sole recognized right is the right to vote money to a corporation without knowing exactly what use is being made of it.
Mr. Speaker, I say that the rights and privileges of the C.B.C. are those which are granted and recognized by parliament, that this parliament has the right to demand an accounting and that the members of parliament have the right, like other citizens, and on behalf of the citizens they represent, to complain about the C.B.C. Otherwise we are allowing the establishment of feudal benefice, of game preserves, which sooner or later become a burden upon the state and a threat to its security. The Canada Council, if you allow me to say so, is becoming that type of mighty organization which disclaims any responsibility towards parliament.


Mr. Pigeon:: That is true.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if we allow the setting up of such organizations, we are endangering the rights of parliament and democratic privileges. The people of Canada are forced to accept institutions which they are called upon to maintain and provide for, but which do not accept corresponding obligations towards the people.
Those are the views I put forward last year in the committee on broadcasting. I have tried to uphold the principles of a responsible government. Moreover, I feel this is the purpose for which the committees of the house are set up, so that from time to time the members may have the opportunity to
3046	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Tremblay analyse in detail the administration they entrust to officials. Thus, the members in turn are in a position to account to the public, to explain the machinery of administration and to justify the expenditures so incurred.
I repeat that the committee on broadcasting could not perform its duties. It has been more or less a smokescreen, because it did not have the means to get the necessary information. The discussions were hampered with all kinds of technicalities of procedure. I do not hesitate to say also that the French speaking members did not have the opportunity to go into a full and detailed study of the French network administration.
Therefore, I regret that this committee has not been re-established sooner. Needless to say that what has been announced in that regard-that is, that we would be studying instead the problems of private stations- could not satisfy those who believe that before judging private enterprise and setting up rules and regulations for it, we should first settle the affairs of the government owned corporation.
I feel that the public radio network is costing the taxpayers enough money to justify us in trying, first of all, to clarify the situation there. If we can manage to restore to it an inspiration and a policy in conformity with its objectives and aims, then we shall be able to hold it as an example and use it as a model, for who can claim that it has really improved?
The complaints made by the public last year still stand. We might even say that the C.B.C. has tightened certain policies and seems to challenge public opinion. Mr. Alphonse Ouimet, its president, took the lead when he announced certain changes- changes of form at the most, aimed at fooling the public-in the management of the corporation.
In an interview with Mr. Claude Paulette, on October 1, 1959, during the T.V. news program at 11 o'clock at night, he did not hesitate to say that the recommendations of the committee on broadcasting had nothing to do with the changes he was announcing.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote what was said during that interview which is really, as will be seen, a masterpiece of insolence:


Mr.   Paulette@: Do you think that the changes which you have just made at the higher level of administration of the C.B.C. will meet the recommendations of the parliamentary committee on broadcasting?


Mr.   Ouimet@: 1 think the committee was not specific, except on one point. The committee recommended the appointment of a senior officer responsible for all programming across the country


and also for the control of the costs of programs. The board of directors and the management of the C.B.C. do not believe it is possible to place such a responsibility upon one man alone because we have 90,000 programs a year, both French and English, national programs and regional programs. What we did, therefore, was to divide this responsibility between three general directors, each responsible for one sector of our programs.


Mr.   Paulette@: Could it be said that the changes you made were entirely due to the recommendations of the committee on broadcasting?


Mr.   Ouimet@: In fact, that organization was
planned at least two years ago. The idea was to reduce the number of senior officers directly under the authority of the general manager at that time, or the president now.


Mr.   Paulette@: Does that reorganization mean that your programming policy is going to change?


Mr.   Ouimet@: Not at all. Organization is one thing and the programming policy is another, altogether different thing.


Mr.   Paulette@: Can other changes be expected at the lower levels of the C.B.C.?


Mr.   Ouimet@: I could not tell you, for the whole C.B.C. organization is under consideration at the moment, and I do not know whether other improvements can be introduced outside the head office. Of course, if any become apparent they will be introduced if necessary.
It was quite a blow. The patient had really recovered; he had all the strength needed to jeer at the minister responsible for the C.B.C., at the government and at members of parliament.
This explains why known commentators were brought back so quickly, why our institutions were again the target of attacks, why anyone could say anything on the government owned radio or television network as long as his words bore the stamp of that spirit of anarchy that has been denounced on many occasions in certain circles.
There still prevails in the C.B.C. this amoral atmosphere consisting of a complete disregard of principles inspired by Catholic and Christian ethics; as in the case of the frequently harmful movies that are shown without any consideration for the education of the public for which they are intended, and for its ability to make necessary reservations. Still scheduled are certain T.V. serials that are an outrageous caricature of the life, morals and languages of French Canadians; others that are downright stupid, or padded versions of writings of merit, but now made devoid of all sense and significance. The odious program "Music Hall" is still running, as is the inept program "Coq a l'ane" and the unqualifiable "En premiere", where nothing but insipid scripts have been offered, most of them reflecting a sense of morbidity already too much in honour in the C.B.C. There are many other programs quite as questionable;

entertaining programs, would say Mr. Marcel Ouimet, but which promote a taste for the nonsensical and trifling, when they do not simply undermine authority, or principles and values worthy of the highest respect.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Rumilly will like this.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: And those gentlemen, last year, at the time of the strike, labelled this "French culture". I am all for culture, as long as it means the elimination of American-inspired programs, nonsense of all kinds, caricatures of our language, programs of questionable moral quality, and those young people's programs that prompt our young people to break free from parental authority as soon as possible and to seek entertainment outside the home. What will be left, after all that? Surely there are some excellent programs, but on the whole unfortunately, there are too few.
I shall have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to come back to the specific matter of programs. I shall then be able to specify the general criticisms I have just made, because it is not my intention to cast reflection on those C.B.C. officials who are doing remarkable work with a scrupulous conscientiousness and in a spirit steeped in the best cultural traditions.
What I denounce is everything that is done under the sign of improvisation, of amateurism and incompetence, not to mention the motives of profit and commercialism that mark the activity of certain stars and of certain producers.
There is also inefficiency at the top. The accumulated and repeated deficits of the C.B.C. had already shown it up cm another plane. The C.B.C. programs are still more eloquent in this respect.
That is why I advocate early and drastic reforms in the whole structure of the crown corporation, providing:
1.	That a crown minister be directly responsible for that public body as well as for the national film board, and other cultural government bodies;
2.	That a deputy minister be especially appointed to serve as a liaison officer between the minister and the corporation;
3.	That an advisory committee be set up, composed of prominent personalities in the religious, educational, social, artistic, cultural and economic fields; which advisory com-
The Budget-Mr. Tremblay mittee would have to make a complete study of the corporation's program policy and, when needed, act as a board of censorship;
4.	That competitions be organized for the recruiting of performers of all kinds, in cooperation with the conservatory of music and drama of the province, schools of fine arts and the various artistic and cultural bodies of the province of Quebec;
5.	That competitions be organized for the selection of radio and television scripts, and that a jury, recruited among personalities of the literary and artistic world, be appointed to judge those scripts, in co-operation with the C.B.C. producers;
6.	That the annual budget of the C.B.C. be included in the estimates of government expenditures and thus be open to criticism by the taxpayers' legitimate representatives.
Those suggestions do not prevent me from hoping that, in the near future, the setting up of a provincial radio network may look after purely educational programs, in order to put an end to that further federal interference in provincial affairs, through the medium of the C.B.C.
Those suggestions, Mr. Speaker, could serve as a basis for reorganizing the C.B.C. I claim that they are the last word in the matter. However, I do think they deal with some of the most important aspects of the general problem. I realize there are difficulties involved; they will certainly be interpreted as an attempt to make the C.B.C. subservient to politics. I do not think that is the case, and such is not my intention; in any case, they would have the advantage of making plain civil servants out of the regular employees of the C.B.C.-in this I do not include performers and writers-and would allow the government to exercise closer control over the corporation's finances. Such a reorganization would in no way impede the C.B.C.'s really cultured and artistic activity. It would however guarantee a better control over a government organization which, under the guise of freedom of speech or of thought, must not be left to the whims or will of coteries which strive to thrust their views, feelings, ideas or prejudices upon the people. Instead of being some kind of a state within the state, the C.B.C. would become again what it should be, an organization representative of our environment and reflecting its philosophy, its principles, its social, religious, political, artistic and cultural life, its aspirations, its concerns and various trends of thought.
3048	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Cardin
(Text):


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, in order to appreciate the full significance of this year's budget I thought it might be useful to study a few flashbacks of the important events which have not only challenged Canada's strength and ingenuity in the past but which indicate clearly the magnitude of the problems that Canadians of this generation will have to face. Everyone will agree, I believe, that since confederation tremendous economic, social and political changes have taken place within the boundaries of our country which are indicative of and comparable with similar changes in the world as a whole. The extremely rapid pace with which these changes have been made in our country and in the world is to my mind of particular significance, and should be foremost in our thinking with respect to what is to happen in the remaining 40 years of this century.
Since the turn of the century the pace of our economic and social evolution has accelerated, and has gained a momentum which in many respects is causing justified anxiety. The tempo of life is quickening and the concept of values has changed. Materialism in all levels of society, particularly on the North American continent, has reached the point of being the accepted criterion of economic, social and even political consideration. So far as transportation is concerned, the world has shrunk so that now we are but a few hours away from the farthest geographical point, and we are even engaged in conquering outer space. Economic and military isolationism is now unrealistic. Absolute sovereignty in now sacrificed for economic and national security. The concept of international trade has so evolved that it is causing us serious trade problems. The world is split into two opposing ideological camps, and continues to face the possibility of a disastrous economic war or incredibly horrible military suicide.
In spite of these very real and undeniable problems and challenges, Mr. Speaker, the government, after having undermined Canada's financial stability, could offer to the country nothing more than the undecided budget that the Minister of Finance brought down the other evening, and which is characteristic of the policy of this "we knew it all" government. There have been serious problems and challenges in the past, but they have not been solved by indecision. The first world war taught us that Canada would no longer be excluded from international conflicts in other areas of the world, and we also learned that Canada was not immune to world economic disturbances.


The economic depression of the 1930's was a challenge to Canada. In 1935, Mr. Speaker, did Mackenzie King ask the opposition what they would do under the circumstances, as the Prime Minister has done ever since he assumed office? No, Mr. Speaker; Mackenzie King launched into what was then a revolutionary and extensive social legislative program, which in fact was opposed in part by the Conservatives, with the result that all the social legislation we have on our statute books today, and which indeed has become an essential crutch for our economy, is due to the foresight, planning and courage of Mackenzie King and the Liberal government of that day.


Mr. Graffley:: He consulted the crystal ball.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is utter bunk.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: In 1939 Canada was faced with another challenge, the second world war. At that time we did not have ships, guns or planes. Not only did we not have them, but we did not even have the industries by which they could be built. Did Right Hon. C. D. Howe ask the opposition what they would do in the circumstances? No, Mr. Speaker; Right Hon. C. D. Howe faced up to his responsibilities and took the means of building the ships, planes and guns, and in doing so he also gave birth to Canadian industry.
Mr. Pallet!: He did not ask anybody, not even his own party.


Mr. Bourgel:: Why should he ask you?
Mr. Pallet!: He did not even ask his own party.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The new international relationships that were made obligatory during and after the last world war were another new challenge to Canada. A whole new concept of our external relations made it necessary to revamp the Department of External Affairs, to set up in the countries of the world Canadian embassies and missions and to train and send Canadian representatives to international conferences such as the United Nations and NATO, in the formation of which, by the way, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent played a great part. For a country that prior to the second world war had relatively no Canadian representation abroad, Canada has more than held its own in the diplomatic field, and we owe a tribute of appreciation to the foreign service officers and members of the Department of External Affairs for their hard work and the exceptionally remarkable success they have achieved in such a short time.

But in the face of the complicated and pressing problems of a rapidly changing world, did the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), when he was secretary of state for external affairs, ask the opposition what they would do in the circumstances, as the present Secretary of State for External Affairs has done since he has taken over that portfolio?


An hon. Member:: Bosh.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Speaker; the secretary of state for external affairs in the former government assumed his responsibilities and made his decisions without fear of being repudiated by his prime minister.


Mr. Pallell:: Perhaps he could answer that question.


Mr. Ricard:: He abstained from voting when the situation was too tough.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: As a result of his competence, his tireless efforts and effective contributions in our struggle toward world peace, he was awarded the Nobel peace prize.
Another challenge to Canadian ingenuity was the post-war period when men in the armed forces had to be reintegrated into the working force, when industry had to be converted from military production to peacetime production after going through an almost incredible period of expansion. Did Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent ask the opposition what they would do in the circumstances? No, Mr. Speaker; he faced up to his responsibilities and took the steps that the circumstances required without considering whether or not they were popular or politically advantageous. Nor did he preach economy to the country and indulge in record governmental expenditures as the Minister of Finance is now doing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he mind being specific and saying where the money is being wasted at the present time, or being spent unnecessarily?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Hundreds of millions wasted.


Paul Joseph James Martin: National defence.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not ask the
hon. member for Essex East, I was asking the hon. member who made the assertion.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I did not say that money was wasted. I just suggested that the expenditures of the government are increasing, and that was all I said. I do not believe the Minister of Finance can deny that. Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent did not preach economy to anybody; he did, however, administer the country within the very realistic limitation of the country's capacity to pay. The result was that the Conservatives, who were the eloquent
The Budget-Mr. Cardin but false prophets of gloom and doom of that day and who each year since 1945 had predicted that the war boom would end and the country would be thrown into a catastrophic depression, were politically disappointed because the recessions which started in 1948 and 1953 were stemmed by appropriate and effective action of the government of the day. The 1957 recession, which occurred five months after the Conservatives came to power and from which the Minister of Finance, in three budget speeches, claimed Canada was emerging has not, in spite of the minister's statement, been stemmed.
In the light of the challenges with which our national economy, our international trade and our national security are being presented today, it was disconcerting to note the complacency with which the Minister of Finance basked in the very partisan applause of government members as he brought down his budget-


John Cameron Pallett: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I will be happy to answer all my hon. friend's questions after I have finished what I have to say.


John Cameron Pallett: I just wondered if the hon. member was under the impression that we were still in a recession.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I will answer questions after I have finished what I have to say. It was actually frightening to witness the minister's coyest and toothiest smile as he announced, after bringing down repeated record deficits, that this Conservative party, which in 1957 claimed to have the answer to all the problems, had finally given birth to a microscopic surplus of $12 million. This is true if, of course, you do not count the $210 million in total cash deficits which the government will have to borrow during the current year.
So, Mr. Speaker, a toothy smile and a debatable forecast of a $12 million surplus are the only assets which our Minister of Finance, with the excitement, the pride and the naivete of a nouveau riche, has to offer as a solution to the ever challenging economic, social, trade and security problems facing the country. Not only is this year's budget indicative of the government's alarming indecision and lack of plan and foresight in all fields, but once again the government has used the propaganda gimmick-in this case a nominal or fictitious surplus-in order to camouflage the true insignificance of the budget and its complete inadequacy to meet the real problems facing the government.
This time it is the Canadian people who must foot the bill for this latest Conservative

The Budget-Mr. Cardin publicity stunt, because the surplus was obtained at the expense of the 800,000 unemployed who were ignored in the budget and to whom nothing was offered, not even words of encouragement that a solution would be found to the very real and pressing unemployment emergency.
This surplus was obtained also at the expense of the provinces and municipalities who are still waiting for the equitable share of taxes promised to them three years ago. The two thirds of the civil service which was ignored in the budget and which had every right to claim an increase in salary also contributed to the Conservative propaganda surplus. So did the farmers, to whom so much had been promised by the Conservatives. Their net revenue dropped 7 per cent in 1959, yet the government proposes to do nothing about it.
We may ask, by shirking these real problems and responsibilities has the government effectively cut down its expenditures? No, Mr. Speaker; government expenditures this year will be $173 million more than they were last year. Because the Conservative policy of promising more than the country could afford, and because of the extremely high interest rates on our national debt, for which the government is responsible, the government is now caught in a vicious financial circle which apparently leaves no room for the consideration or solution of the fundamental problems that are now challenging our economy.
I was literally shocked to hear the minister say, as recorded at page 2671 of Hansard:
Our people have demanded social security, services and facilities from all levels of government on an expanding scale.
He says, "our people have demanded". Why, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives not only claimed that this expanded social security was financially possible, they actually promised it in 1957. Not only did they promise it, they also promised to reduce taxes by $500 million as well. I submit that it is the height of arrogance, the height of effrontery for the Minister of Finance, after having blamed the previous Liberal government and the Bank of Canada for the present financial impasse, to attempt now to lay the blame on the people of Canada who had no reason to suppose that the Conservative promises were not only empty and irresponsible but, indeed, economically dangerous. Surely the Minister of Finance and the Conservative party must have realized these dangers.
If the government have no solution to the problems before us, at least they should have the decency to recognize and accept responsibility for their own mistakes without trying


to lay the blame anywhere and everywhere except where the blame really belongs.
How insignificant, Mr. Speaker, is the $12 million surplus compared to the $2.3 billion deficit the government has incurred over the past three years without being able to point to any real solution to any of the problems that now face us, and when in fact the increased payments in social benefits have been swallowed up and neutralized by high taxes, high interest rates and the high cost of living. How shallow and empty are the minister's words of confidence and smiles of self-satisfaction compared to the gravity and urgency of the real economic problems which he left out of his speech. The minister did not mention in his speech that the best economists in the country are agreed that the so-called Conservative prosperity, with its alarmingly high rate of unemployment, will cease and we will have at the end of 1960 the depression that the Conservatives prophesied under the Liberal regime.
How will the government, which has no financial reserves whatsoever, which has increased the national debt by $2.3 billion in three years, and which has burdened the economy for many years with an extremely high interest rate, be able to meet the financial obligations of a depression? How will the government, which in a period of so-called prosperity has seen its unemployment insurance fund decline from $874,574,000, in 1957 to $408,145,000 in February, 1960 be able to cope with the catastrophic number of unemployed which is characterized of a period of depression?
What is the government going to do about the continually increasing international payments deficit which rose this year to an unprecedented $1.5 billion? What confidence can Canadians have in a government which spent $5,607 million on our national defence last year and intends to spend this year $5,880 million, when we know that our national security seems to be centred around a useless Bomarc which the United States has discarded, and our obsolete CF-lOO's? The government apparently has no plans whatsoever for providing Canada with alternative adequate defence equipment, in spite of the fact that Canada's geographic position makes her a likely theatre for a third world war. Not only does the government not have a policy but it apparently refuses to discuss defence policy in this house or in committees set up for this purpose.
These are the facts, Mr. Speaker, which make the minister's $12 million surplus utterly ridiculous and insignificant, and which prove clearly that the government is not up to the responsibilities the people con-

ferred upon it in 1957. Not only is the government lacking in foresight, in planning and in leadership; it is also lacking in courage to face up to the problems and inform the public of the seriousness and the urgency of finding solutions to problems which now threaten Canada's economy and security. The government apparently still prefers to hide behind smiles and verbiage to save its face, but in doing so it is jeopardizing the true welfare of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated that the twentieth century would belong to Canada, he did not say there would be no problems and no challenges in our path. He took it for granted that these problems and challenges would be faced squarely and fearlessly. However, in making his prediction I am afraid Sir Wilfrid Laurier had not counted on Conservative indecision and maladministration.
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a couple of questions. First of all, is he of the opinion that there is presently a recession in Canada; and second, where did he get the figures he quoted about defence expenditures?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are facing a very uneconomic situation, and this government has no policy.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: If the hon. member wants me to answer his question, I did not claim we were now in a recession. I stated that the best economists in the country so prophesied, and I would refer the hon. member to the report of General Research Associates Limited, March issue, which claims that at the end of 1960 or the beginning of 1961 we are going to be in a serious recession.
Mr. Pallet!: Would the hon. member answer the second question about the defence expenditure figures?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I took down the figures from the budget debate, from the minister's speech and the estimates. The hon. member will agree, I am sure that the Minister of Finance, in all his confusing reports, can quote figures which he can defend. I can quote figures which I can defend also, and they will not be exactly the same figures.


John Cameron Pallett: The hon. member mentioned defence expenditures of $5,000 million odd.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, I said $5,880 million-$5 billion.


John Cameron Pallett: They are the same.


Mr. O. H. Phillips (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be of congratulation to the Minister of Finance for his budget and its presentation. The fact that the Minister of Finance was able to introduce a balanced
The Budget-Mr. Phillips budget despite increased expenditures and without tax increases is, I think, a credit to his ability as minister. Most of the editorial comment has been very favourable, and I think the average Canadian is agreeably surprised that the budget is being balanced without tax increases.
Now a word on the subamendment which will be voted on this afternoon. I would refer specifically to the self-liquidating investment fund. I checked with the Oxford dictionary, and I found that the word "liquidating" when applied to business usually refers to bankruptcy. I think the subamendment can aptly be described as bankrupt.
While the minister has received a great many compliments, perhaps he would appreciate a suggestion along with the compliments he has received. I refer particularly to the reduced expenditures of the Department of Public Works. I have a number of projects in my constituency which, while not deleted, have unfortunately been delayed. I know the policy of reducing public works expenditures when a budget is being balanced; it is not new. Past ministers of finance have usually reduced public works expenditures too, but I wonder if in the long run this does not cost us more. Quite often there are emergency repairs and emergency dredging in various harbours which have to be carried out, and I think it increases the total cost of these projects.
The tariff changes are most welcome, and I think will be very beneficial to the textile industry in particular. Last year the potato growers received additional protection, protection which had been requested for years from the previous government. This year they have received greater protection. The tariff on processed potatoes entering this country will help that industry here, which is only in its infancy in Canada. During the present session of the Prince Edward Island legislature there has been considerable discussion over the efforts of the Prince Edward Island government to establish in that province a processing plant for potatoes. I am sure the tariff protection provided in this field will give them an extra incentive to bring their efforts to a successful conclusion.
In discussing the economy of the Atlantic provinces I had hoped to compare the percentage of the population with the gross national product, but I find there is no breakdown by areas.
Our primary industries are those associated with agriculture and fisheries, and perhaps a word on these two subjects might be appropriate at this time. Agriculture in the Atlantic provinces enjoyed a very good year

The Budget-Mr. Phillips in 1959. Our net farm income in Prince Edward Island will be almost identical with that for the year 1958, which was the second best year on record. Fishermen on the Atlantic coast enjoyed their best year in history in 1959. Total fish landings were worth $60 million for the year; and when we consider the employment that is provided in processing plants, the total value of the Atlantic fisheries is obviously far greater than the landed value. Our fisheries in Prince Edward Island are, of course, much smaller than those of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, but we had a record landing amounting to $4.2 million.
It is interesting to note the increase which has taken place in landings over the past decade. In 1949 the landed value in Prince Edward Island was $2.1 million. In 1959 it was $4.2 million, an increase of over 100 per cent in the decade. I may say that the greatest increase has occurred in the last few years and is partly due to increased prices received for the fish, especially by the lobster fishermen. It is also due to the efforts of the Department of Fisheries to modernize and improve fishing methods. More long-liners and draggers are being used, and the Department of Fisheries through the subsidy on these vessels and the loans provided by the provincial loans board is continuing to assist in the expansion of this industry.
During the present session we have heard a great deal about unemployment but very little about employment. During the past year employment in Prince Edward Island was at a record level. We had more people working last year than at any time in our history. This is probably due to the number of federal projects being carried out in the province, including the expansion of the R.C.A.F. station at Summerside, the Charlottetown airport, roads to resources, and public works.
While our employment has been high, wages unfortunately have not been high. In 1956 the average wage in Canada was $64.44. In Prince Edward Island it was only $47.50, and in Nova Scotia $52.90. In New Brunswick it was $55.10. In 1959 the average wage was $73.47. In Prince Edward Island it was $54.75; in Nova Scotia, $60.17 and in New Brunswick $60.39 per week. If we are to improve the economy of the Atlantic provinces and establish industries it is essential that we should increase our basic weekly wage. There is a tendency for the low wage rates in the maritimes to become perpetuated in a number of ways. The average wage in respect of federal contracts is considerably lower than in the rest of Canada. In the past winter I received complaints that the C.N.R. was paying 70 cents an hour for labour used to shovel


snow. I think hon. members will agree that this situation is extremely bad, and that efforts must be made to correct it.
There is in the maritime provinces today new interest and a feeling of encouragement over the results of a number of actions taken by this government. These actions include the adjustment grants given to the Atlantic provinces. The grants have been the greatest morale boost to the maritimes since confederation. We have also received assistance to establish thermal power plants, and we have received other forms of help which have laid the foundation for an improved future. I think the time has now come to act and build upon that foundation.
Our two main difficulties are lack of industry and transportation problems. In the past, under the Liberal government, industry in the maritime provinces-and the maritime provinces in general-was neglected. The former government had a policy of giving us a one-way ticket out of the maritimes, and it was aided in that regard by the genius of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who was very much in agreement with that policy.
In order to develop new industry in the maritime provinces we must have funds, and I suggest the establishment of a federal-provincial development fund for the maritime provinces. This fund could be used to extend our present industries and also to establish new industries, preferably in conjunction with our primary products of the farm and sea. The interest rate should be low enough to attract firms to the maritime provinces, and certainly it should not be above the rate charged on farm loans at the present time.
I	think this should be a joint fund of the dominion and provincial governments, and I hold this view for several reasons. First of all, maritimers themselves have a responsibility for improving their lot. We should play our part. Second, the provincial governments themselves have various plans for the establishment of industry. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have already done a great deal to establish industries in their provinces, and the new government of Prince Edward Island has plans along the same lines. We should take advantage of their experience and of the experience and advice of the APEC.
Third, in the maritime provinces there is a suspicion of advice and direction from Ottawa. We dislike the idea of some official taking a two-day expedition to the Atlantic provinces and then returning as an authority on our problems and giving advice to the government. In fact, if I may refer to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate again, I would say that he is a classic example of the type of

individual who causes suspicion in the maritime provinces. He comes down for a couple of days at election time, and then returns and grows wheat on his farm in Rockcliffe.
A second method of developing industry in the maritime provinces would be through more consideration by and contacts with the Department of Defence Production. The present minister has gone a long way toward correcting several unfair situations that occurred under the former administration, notably that of the grouping of tenders. Formerly a number of tenders were called' together, and there was always at least one product with respect to which the maritime firms could not compete. This grouping has been largely eliminated, and its elimination has benefited us to a great extent in the Atlantic provinces. However, I should like consideration given to the United States plan of giving preference to depressed areas; where there is a labour surplus in one area, of giving a certain preference to the tender from that area.
I think we could also break up the tendency of having goods delivered to a central warehouse in Ontario. A couple of years ago a maritime firm tendered on a contract for army boots. The tender of the maritime firm was 9 cents a pair higher than that of a firm in central Canada, but they were required to deliver the boots to a warehouse in Ontario and they lost the contract. But when the boots were delivered to the warehouse in Ontario the army promptly shipped a large portion of them back to Camp Gagetown. If the maritime firm had been allowed to deliver those boots to Camp Gagetown they could have tendered' successfully.
Our second problem is transportation. It is not a new problem by any means. It has been plaguing us since confederation, and has increased considerably since world war II. Last year in the house I suggested that the Department of Transport give consideration to the establishment of a sea-train service. The department has taken notice of this suggestion and has given some consideration to it. But in the meantime I wonder whether we are not moving a bit too slowly in this regard. The United States is taking quite seriously sea-train, container service, or "fish-back", or whatever you care to call it. At the present time 17 vessels are under construction in the United States for this service.
I refer to an article in the Globe and Mail of May 20, 1959, which quotes an official of Grace Lines Incorporated as predicting that in the next 15 years the majority of general cargo ships will be of the container type, that 79951-0-193
The Budget-Mr. Phillips is to say they will be ships that take general cargo aboard in large vans, in which it is trucked directly from the shipside to the consignee. An article in the Duluth-Minnesota News Tribune of October 15, 1959 states that the interstate commerce commission has authorized "fish-back" container service from Duluth to Detroit and Cleveland. I feel that this type of service could be adapted from the maritimes to the ports on the seaway, and that the ports of Halifax and Saint John could be utilized on a year-round basis. This service could also be utilized for the shipment of products to the developed areas in northern Quebec and Labrador. The products could be placed in the container vans, shipped to Seven Islands and on by rail from this area.
We in the maritimes are greatly interested in the royal commission that is at present studying the transportation problem. However, we have a suspicion that transportation commissions tend to rehash what other commissions have gone over. When you consider the briefs that are submitted to these commissions you find that they are similar to previous briefs, and that each report of a royal commission on transportation seems to devote a good deal of space to reference to previous reports. If we looked around for different methods I think perhaps we could accomplish more than by attempting to doctor up our present methods of transportation.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I inadvertently misinformed the house earlier today by stating that the government expenditures for 1959 were $5,670 million and in 1960, $5,880 million. What I had intended to say was that in 1959 the government's defence expenditures were $1,422 million and in 1960, $1,528 million. I was hoping that perhaps Hansard would make the correction.
I also wish to thank the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett) for having brought the statement to my attention.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) that Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Phillips 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.
Orville H. Phillips: Before one o'clock I was discussing the transportation problems of the maritime provinces. No discussion of our problems would be complete without reference to the three C's, namely the Prince Edward Island causeway, the Chignecto canal and the corridor road across Maine. These matters are now under study, and it is difficult to say too much until the studies are completed.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) has told me that an interim report on the causeway will be available shortly. I will make no further comment other than to say I hope we do not have too many interim reports and that a decision will soon be reached on this vital project. If for any reason a causeway is not feasible, then we must have plans approved immediately for the construction of a new rail carrying ferry for the Borden-Cape Tormentine route. I am naturally more interested in a causeway than in the other two projects but the Chignecto canal has taken on new importance with the announcement that there is a possibility of increased industry in the area if a canal is constructed.
There is a tendency to look upon these projects as a means of providing temporary employment in the maritimes. I think this attitude is entirely wrong. These projects should be looked at as part of the general development of the maritimes. If we are able to establish industry, improve our transportation problems, keep our young people at home, raise the population of the maritimes by a minimum of half a million people, we will have solved an awful lot of our difficulties; we will have a local market for our manufacturing and primary producers.
Recently I received a copy of the budget address delivered in the Prince Edward Island legislature. One part of that address should be very interesting to members of this house. It is the statement that 56 per cent of Prince Edward Island's revenues are obtained through grants from the federal government. We could only have achieved this large percentage of grants through the efforts of our present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and our able Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). We look forward with confidence to the next full scale dominion-provincial fiscal conference, and we are sure our problems will receive the same sympathetic consideration then as they received in 1957.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the occasion of the budget debate is the second and the last opportunity of hon. members to speak in general terms on the policies, general and financial, of the government and, within certain limitations, to speak on matters affecting their own constituencies, their own provinces and the country; also, on international affairs and relationships.
It is not my intention as I rise to speak in the budget debate to criticize the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) because he has brought in what might be called an interim budget, nor to criticize him, as has been done by some people and by editorial writers and suggest that he is waiting to introduce a budget of a more beneficial nature to the majority of the people of Canada just prior to an election. To me that is not an important piece of criticism because it is the general policy of governments and of election expediency to follow that procedure.
It may be a number of years before a change is made and a budget is introduced on the understanding that its underlying principle is the welfare of the country and not election expediency. However, in applying myself to the budget speech made by the Minister of Finance I personally can come to only one conclusion, namely that the principal motivating idea behind the remarks of the Minister of Finance the other day was that it is good policy to leave a few things unsaid. On analysis I do not think the budget speech of the Minister of Finance can be interpreted in any other way than that he considers it good policy to leave a few things unsaid.
This afternoon I want to speak on some of the things which the minister left unsaid. I can find no better way to introduce my remarks than to draw to the attention of hon. members the fact that in previous sessions, and even in the present session, I have made the statement that Conservatives and liberals, in government and out, supporting a free enterprise system as they do, stand completely indicted because the record of Canada conclusively proves that the only time we have anywhere near full employment in Canada is in time of war when men and women offer their lives for their country and goods are produced for destruction. But when men and women of Canada want to live for their country, to produce for consumption in a useful manner, then we reach the position where we find ourselves in a period of depression, recession and unemployment, as at the present time.
As I have already informed you, Mr. Speaker, I have made this statement once in the present session and previously in other

sessions, and I have been sneered at and jeered at from the government side because I said it. So, how better can I introduce my remarks in the budget debate this afternoon than to ask those who sit on the government side of the house this question? If they will not listen to an analysis by the group of eight in this corner of the house, will they pay any attention to an analysis made by one of their own members? I refer, of course, to the speech made on April 6 by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). It was quite remarkable how quiet Conservative members were when he made this statement, as found at page 2966 of Hansard:
For over 30 years I have sat here and listened to vigorous debates on the unemployment problem, only to see it temporarily relieved from time to time by the grim necessities of wartime. That is not good enough and I do not believe we have to endure it.
That was the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe speaking. If the treasury benches and Conservative members generally do not want to listen to us who have been saying the same thing for so many years, will they listen to what was said by one of their own members who, according to his own statement, has now heard one third of all the budgets ever delivered in the House of Commons of Canada? It is because of what he tried to say that I want to make my views known in the budget debate.
I not only listened to the Minister of Finance when he delivered his budget speech on Thursday night last week but I have read twice everything he said on that occasion and I want to say in unequivocal terms that the Minister of Finance in his presentation let the people of Canada down because of his refusal to face the facts and realities as they exist in our country. I was, as I think everybody else was, happy to hear him say that Canada is prosperous and booming but for the Minister of Finance of Canada to stand up in his place and ignore completely, with the exception of two sentences, the situation of the low income groups and the unemployed is a dereliction of responsibility on the part of the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: The hon. member really does not believe that at all.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has been a member of parliament for a few years. I have had the honour of being a member of parliament or a member of a legislature for 27 years. Let me tell him that in the over 20 years I was in the British Columbia legislature and the seven years that I have been here I have never made any statement in which I did not believe.
79951-0-193J
The Budget-Mr. Winch I hope that the hon. member has the same sincerity with regard to his responsibilities that I have with respect to mine. I say that we are happy that in the opinion of the Minister of Finance the majority of the people have prosperity and there is a boom in Canada. But I say that the Minister of Finance, having regard to the responsibilities of his position, was derelict in his almost complete omission of any reference to any discussion, let alone planning, with respect to the condition of the low income group, the pensioned group and in particular the unemployed of Canada.
Just over a year ago there was a disaster in Springhill. That disaster meant a great deal to the people of Canada and to the members of the house. Much was said by the government about the disaster, about the horror of the men who died, the heroes who tried to bring them out alive or dead and what the federal government would do for the people of Springhill. A year has gone by and what has been done for the people of Springhill? I was there about a week ago. According to figures I was given there are over 700 unemployed. Where are the new industries that the government was going to establish there? There are two, a battery plant employing approximately 34 people and a woodworking plant employing seven on part time. There is to be a new prison that may eventually employ about 53 people. Is there anything else? No.


Mr. Cardiff:: What did you expect them to do, build a whole new town?


Harold Edward Winch: I certainly expect a government that has said there shall be no undue suffering in Canada to keep its promises.


Mr. MacEwan:: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question?


Harold Edward Winch: The hon. member who has just interrupted had a lot to say last year but what has he to say about Springhill today?


Howard Russell MacEwan: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Harold Edward Winch: I intend to continue my speech. You can ask your questions when I sit down. It might be helpful if you would represent your part of the country better than you have done in the past.


Richard Albert Bell: But he represents Springhill.


Harold Edward Winch: You cannot tell me that there is a boom in Nova Scotia. No, there are grave and great troubles down there. Was there any mention in the speech of the Minister of Finance as to how that kind of problem
3056	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Winch is going to be handled? Was there any mention of the fact that when Avro took over Dosco they promised that coal mines would be open, not closed, but now there are fewer coal mines than there were before? When Avro took over Dosco citizens of Nova Scotia were turning out axles for railway freight cars. Now that is no longer being done in Nova Scotia because of Avro direction and control outside of Canada. The axles are coming from overseas. Are there any plans with respect to coal mining, with respect to the machining of parts that were previously made in Canada? Are there any plans for the 700 unemployed in Springhill?
Let us go to the other side of the country, to British Columbia. At the invitation of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines I had the opportunity to travel home on a jet plane about two weeks ago. What is the situation there? According to the government's own figures, there are over 80,000 unemployed in British Columbia and the Yukon. In the construction industry alone there are over 12,000 unemployed. In the budget speech was there any mention of methods or plans by which these problems could be dealt with? No. There are just two sentences to the effect that things are not going right. In other words, we find that the policy speech of the Minister of Finance is one of wishful thinking, one of drift and absolute refusal to face up to the realities of the situation; a refusal to do any planning on behalf of those who are not prosperous.
What is the policy of the government with regard to planning for stopping the loss of industries and keeping people employed? There is none. In British Columbia during the past six months the whaling industry has been nonexistent, and this is the first time that has happened in 10 years. It is a small industry I admit, but it does mean an amount of $600,000 in annual payroll and it has meant several hundred thousands of dollars also to those who supply services such as petroleum companies, shipyards, vessel outfitters and so on. There has been no indication during this entire session, let alone in this budget speech, of any plans to maintain the herring industry of British Columbia, the whaling industry of British Columbia, the coal industry of British Columbia. Only lately the last coal mine closed down. There has not been a word about this situation. There has been no suggestion that would bring help to the closed coal mines of Nova Scotia or replace the loss of machine work since Avro bought Dosco. Now, as a result of outside control, products are shipped into Canada which we previously brought into being ourselves.


There may be good reasons for all these things. Surely, however, there is a good reason for asking the Minister of Finance and the government, have you given any thought to what is taking place? Have you any plans to ensure that industry is maintained? When some coal mines are in trouble, you have subventions. When the gold mines are in trouble, you have the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. When certain farmers need help, you come through to some extent. What we are asking is whether or not you have an over-all plan for the economy of Canada? I have never seen you help the farmers of British Columbia or the fishing industry of British Columbia or the coal mines of British Columbia. There are difficulties there, but there has been no mention of any of these problems in the minister's speech. I am saying that this government, because it is on a midterm basis, is doing nothing to try to resolve the problems of our country. I quite understand why you want a balanced budget. I maintain it is possible to have a balanced budget, if that is the criterion of success on the Conservative side, if you will take care of the problems which you have up until now ignored and make savings where you have refused to make them.
I know the logical question that one could ask at this point is: Where can you save money to take care of the planning for the depressed people and the depressed areas? I want to say that I, personally, and we in this group believe it is possible for a great deal of money to be saved in the Department of National Defence without any radical change in policy. Numerous statements from cabinet benches have made it clear already this session that the government's defence policy entails Canada being bound to NATO and NORAD. This, of necessity, means that Canada maintain a very close military and scientific relationship with the United Kingdom and the United States.
Canada now buys much of her military equipment from the United States, just as we used to buy it from the United Kingdom. In my opinion, therefore, it is not logical that we should be spending so much money on our defence research board when the same investigations and the same studies are being made by our allies in the United States and in the United Kingdom. I cannot understand why Canada should be doing the specialized research which is being done in other countries with whom we are so closely related.
I must be even more specific because if I say something should be done about planning and assistance for the unemployed and



I960

[Stage Direction]
low income groups and the depressed areas, then of course I must show where the savings can be made. I find it difficult to understand why Canada should develop its own Heller anti-tank rocket launchers; why we should be spending money to develop a solid fuel for missiles when Canada has no missiles. I should like to know why in our present estimates we are asked to spend so much money on research, design and development which has already been undertaken and, in some cases, concluded in the United States and the United Kingdom. I would ask the Minister of Finance, through you, sir, or perhaps the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) why we are wasting so much money on what he terms "unification".
Two years ago the estimates committee made a recommendation on unification to the Minister of National Defence, related to the medical and religious branches. This year we have been told unification has been completed. I have made a study of the answers and information from the Department of National Defence on this subject, and what do I find? I find that in the unification of the medical and chaplain corps the government seemed determined it would do its best to make no savings whatever for the taxpayers of Canada. In so far as the chaplain corps is concerned, the establishment was 273 before unification and it is still 273 after unification. Of course, there is one difference. Two junior ranks were removed but two new brigadier chaplains were appointed at headquarters in Ottawa. In the medical corps at unification we found that the number of medical officers was reduced from 477 to 472; but at the same time headquarters was padded by two additional lieutenant colonels. The result was that under government policy unification costs more than it did before.
I am convinced that if the Minister of Finance and the government believes in economy and efficiency it is possible to save millions of dollars, not only by a proper unification of the medical and chaplain corps but by the unification of all the armed services. This would make available the money which we say should be available under a balanced budget to help old age pensioners, veterans and the disabled, and in particular-I emphasize this-to take care of distressed areas and do some real planning. This has been completely ignored by this government and is emphasized by ignorance, incompetence and impotence in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance.
These points I have mentioned regarding planning policy are not the only matters left out of the speech the Minister of Finance made the other night. I know I speak on behalf of our group when I say that I feel
The Budget-Mr. Winch the minister, irrespective of the time he took, did not give any indication that he was taking the people in general and this House of Commons in particular into his confidence as to problems of the present and the future. I know, it is not too difficult for one to raise a little bit of Cain about the present, but my major worry is that there was nothing said about the future, except the wishful thinking that we are going into a time of prosperity and boom, which is denied by actual facts.
I would note from the remarks of the Minister of Finance that because of the way he is balancing the budget now the federal government will not have to go on a major borrowing spree this year. That will enable the provinces and the municipalities to have a more open door on borrowings than they have had in the past. I should like to ask if the Minister of Finance and the government have given any real thought to this problem of dominion, provincial and municipal governments having to go into the borrowing market. I should like to ask whether any consideration has been given to a new policy. I present this as my personal belief, but I do not think that our confederation in Canada is so parochial or provincial that it is not possible for the federal government and the provincial governments to get together on their borrowings, thereby reaching an understanding of the situation in the borrowers' market. Already I notice the Minister of Finance shakes his head and scowls.
Is there any difference between our nationalism in Canada and that in the commonwealth of Australia? In Australia every year the prime minister of the commonwealth and the premiers of the states get together and discuss their borrowing needs, reach an agreement, and then the federal government borrows all the money for the commonwealth and states by unanimous consent. That means a great deal. Then the federal government having borrowed all the money gives to each state the amount of money it requires at the same rate of interest as it had to pay. Then if the commonwealth government has a surplus, it loans the money to the states, which we call the provinces.
I spoke to ministers in five of the states of Australia. I spoke to one of the ministers of the commonwealth and he said it had been a wonderful system. There is just one borrowing by the commonwealth government on behalf of all states. I should like to suggest that this be considered by the minister. Is it impossible to believe that we cannot do a co-operative job in Canada on the same basis? I merely offer that as a suggestion.
My time is getting short, but I should like to say that the question of taxation is a
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Winch serious one to governments and to the people. The question of income tax and corporation tax is serious, as is also the question of plugging the loopholes. I do not go for all they do in the United States, but I do agree with the committee they have set up comprised of both houses which discusses matters of financial policy, does research and makes recommendations. I have been most interested to note that in the past 12 months in the United States very serious consideration has been given by the joint committee on internal revenue taxation and house committees on ways and means to try to arrive at a basis of income tax and capital gains tax to remove all loopholes, to give equity to everyone and to see that government receives its proper and fair return on the income of all people from the lowest standard of living to the highest.
I want to say that my reading of the work of those two committees in the United States leads me to believe that they are facing up to the facts and realities of taxation. I should like to suggest to the Minister of Finance that instead of things being done behind closed doors he place greater responsibility on committees of the House of Commons, on the Senate or on joint committees; that they should be able to conduct research on matters of taxation in order to see whether we, too, cannot come up with recommendations which will make our taxation laws less complicated, less iniquitous and will plug the loopholes.
I am led to believe that they think they can find the answer in the United States where the laws are somewhat different from ours. I do believe that the same principle if applied here under the leadership of the minister would mean a great deal to unity and understanding. What I think is required is a new taxation policy for Canada with regard to income tax and corporation tax. We have not yet a capital gains tax which I think is required if we are to have taxation according to ability to pay.
I notice that my time is almost up. May I conclude with these few words? Perhaps the minister and the government do not think that many of the proposals which we put forward are possible or conceivable. May I say that impossible things are simply those which have never yet been done. I state that with understanding, sincerity, knowledge and diligence the minister should go beyond his budget speech and endeavour to do things which we think are not impossible and not improbable, but inevitable in the interests of all the people of this country.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?
[Mr. Winch.)


Some hon. Members:: Question.
The house divided on the amendment to the amendment (Mr. Regier) which was negatived on the following division.
YEAS Messrs:
Argue	Howard
Boivin	Regier
Fisher	Winch-7.
Herridge
++NAYS
Messrs:
Aiken	Fleming (Eglinton)
Aitken, Miss	Fleming (Okanagan-
Allard	Revelstoke)
Allmark	Forbes
Anderson	Forgie
Asselin	Frechette
Balcer	Fulton
Baldwin	Garland
Barrington	Grafftey
Baskin	Granger
Batten	Grills
Bell (Carleton)	Gundlock
Bell (Saint John-Albert)	Halpenny
Belzile	Hamilton (Notre Dame
Benidickson	de Grace)
Best	Hanbidge
Bigg	Harkness
Bissonnette	Henderson
Boulanger	Hicks
Bourbonnais	Hodgson
Bourget	Horner (Acadia)
Bourque	Horner (Jasper-Edson)
Brassard (Chicoutimi)	Horner (The Battlefords)
Brassard (Lapointe)	Johnson
Brooks	Jones
Broome	Jorgenson
Browne (St. John's West)	Jung
Browne (Vancouver-	Keays
Kingsway)	Kennedy
Bruehesi	Knowles
Brunsden	Korchinski
Cadieu	Kucherepa
Campbell	Lambert
(Lambton-Kent)	Latour
Campbell (Stormont)	Leduc
Cardiff	Legere
Cardin	Lennard
Carter	Letourneau
Casselman, Mrs.	Macdonald (Kings)
Chambers	Macdonnell
Charlton	MacEwan
Chevrier	Maclnnis
Chown	MacLean (Queens)
Churchill	Macnaughton
Clancy	MacRae
Comtois	McBain
Cooper	McCleave
Crestohl	McFarlane
Danforth	McGrath
Denis	Mcllraith
Deschatelets	McIntosh
Diefenbaker	McLennan
Dinsdale	McPhillips
Doucett	McQuillan
Dubois	McWilliam
Dumas	Martel
Dupuis	Martin (Essex East)
English	Martineau
Fairclough, Mrs.	Martini
Fane	Matthews

Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Roberge
Robichaud
Robinson
Rogers
Rompre
Rouleau
Rowe
Rynard
Sevigny
Simpson
Skoreyko
Smallwood
Smith (Calgary South)
Smith (Simcoe North)
Southam
Speakman
Spencer
Starr
Stearns
Stefanson
Tardll
Tasse
Thomas
Thrasher
Tremblay
Villeneuve
Vivian
Webb
Webster
Weichel
Winkler
Wratten-184.
Michaud Milligan Mitchell
Monteith (Perth)
Monteith (Verdun)
Montgomery More Morissette Morris Morton Murphy Nasserden Nesbitt Noble Nowlan Nugent O'Hurley Ormiston Pallett Parizeau Pascoe Paul Payne Pearkes Pearson Phillips Pickersgill Pigeon Pugh Racine Rapp Regnier Ricard
Richard (Kamouraska)
Richard (Ottawa East)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the subamendment lost. The question is on the amendment.
(Translation):



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Marcel Boivin (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. I deem it necessary to inform you that just now I inadvertently voted in favour of the amendment to the -amendment, in the belief that I was voting for the amendment submitted by the official opposition.
(Text) :



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Benidickson.
Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I wish initially to state that I intend to be brief, and I shall certainly make another reference to brevity in speaking in the house before I am finished.
Like others, I am justly proud of the budget presented in this house by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). It is, I believe, a statement of true fact that the minister is the most capable minister of finance that this
The Budget-Mr. Winkler parliament has ever had. I know that he is accepted as such in financial circles, and even the minister's critics across this country will in due course appreciate his tremendous abilities in his present position, and I know it will be evident in the management of the affairs of this country.
To support my belief it is not necessary for me to search far following the presentation of the budget. Indeed, many of the headlines back up what I have just indicated. They also support the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) when some of the headlines forecast "more cash jingles in Canadian pockets." Then, we have the word "courageous" and other such headlines. I would add to that just plain common sense. This, of course, is in direct opposition to what the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) thought.
Then, further, a few days following the budget, we also noticed that the headlines were running a little more in the right direction. We know that defence costs are declining and that the cost of living index has declined for the fourth straight month.
I do not doubt that less complimentary headlines could be found; but I am one of those- and I know anyone who has read the statistics involved in the presentation of the budget knows it full well-who believes that the compliments I have referred to are well founded.
There is good reason for confidence in this year's business as a result of the minister's forecast. Even in the light of the fact that many of the expenditures which he indicated in his white paper were considerably higher than the year previous, even with the decline in the deficit-and I am sure that the trend will continue-to mention but a few of those to indicate how the government has acted and how the minister's forecasts have worked out in regard to expenditures, I would like first of all to refer to the expenditures for agriculture. I will not make these comparisons throughout but they are all figures obtained from the white paper presented by ministers of finance and mostly, of course, by the present minister.
In 1956-57 the previous government spent $5,019,000 on supports; in 1957-58 it was $5,988,000; in 1958-59 it was $15 million; and in 1959-60, $57,700,000 was spent in support of agriculture. To assure the leader of the C.C.F. party that the door is open at all times I think the trend indicated here would support that thinking. I know from my own experience with the minister, and certainly with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hark-ness) that such has been the case. After all, the expenditures that were made on behalf

The Budget-Mr. Winkler of my constituents in regard to compensation for rabies which was not an inconsiderable amount of money.
Then, we move on to university grants, provincial subsidies, tax-sharing arrangements, farm supports, health grants, hospital insurance, veterans' affairs and a great host of others. These expenditures have increased. I think we can assure the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) that the veterans' welfare will also be looked after, as well as all other phases of our social program.
As announced by the minister, this government has now substantially removed itself from the money market. It might be wise to comment on what the results can be and will be. It is now becoming quite evident that the interest rates are dropping and the inevitable benefit will redound to every level of government in its capital spending. Also there will be a tremendous benefit to industry and I would expect that our exchange position with the United States will improve in the immediate future. I think the indications are that way now. This, of course, will be most desirable on the part of industry.
What about the projected surplus? This morning we heard again about how small it was, how insignificant it was and so on. The opposition have tried to point out that the trend is maybe one of wishful thinking rather than planning. Although in my own estimation the percentage to the total budget may be small, yet the trend is correct and we can be justly proud of the minister's efforts. As a matter of fact, it would not surprise me if at the end of the current fiscal year the surplus was about 10 times as great as he forecast.
The minister and the government have made one point very clear in financial matters, namely that they did not adopt the attitudes of the previous government by suggesting to the Canadian citizens that they cannot look after their own affairs. They have spent the money in the interests of Canadians and of the entire economy. They did not, as one hon. member mentioned this morning, take $50 million and stick it here and another $50 million and hide it there and another $165 million and hide it some place else. We are spending the money that we take in in taxation on the citizens, in their interests and in the interests of Canada. I am sure that as the forecast of this budget indicates the minister will go on to repair all of the damage that has been done in the past and that we shall have a very sound economy again in the very near future.
The opposition critic was very generous in giving credit to the minister on two points, as reported at page 2863 of Hansard. But, of course, what most amazed everyone is the


fact that he could not complete the 20-minute period that was left to him on budget night. With all deference, I think that mere conformity to tradition would lose him a tremendous number of points in anybody's view. We are all concerned with any of the situations that are brought home to us but it has been evident in this debate that the members of the Liberal party have been very hard pressed to find any criticism that is sound; indeed, the entire party, not only the critics, have been dashed in their hopes of a much higher deficit, with increased taxation, in the budget. I think this is very evident, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to join with the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) who stated that Canada has been most fortunate in that most of the members of parliament who have held the position of minister of finance have been of good sound character, have been good citizens, and so on. This is indeed true, and it is most certainly true of my predecessor who was also the predecessor of the minister now in office. I note, however, Mr. Speaker, that this gentleman is making public statements similar to those of his party members and I should like to quote from the Owen Sound Sun-Times of March, 1960. I regret I have not the date, but I have the clipping before me. It says:
Harris says deficit may be $600 million.
This is an indication that they were all hoping to enjoy something like that, a little more doom, a little more gloom. We know now this was wishful thinking, but Mr. Harris went on to say that the:
-deficit will come as a shock to the Conservatives unless they can find some money pretty fast.
They were going to be embarrassed. It seems to me that he, like other members of the Liberal party, would do anything in his power to make the Canadian picture and the Canadian scene bad. They are prognosticators of nothing but ill for Canadian citizens. We must conclude that they would stop at absolutely nothing to regain power. It is a difficult thing for me to understand that Mr. Harris would be such a protagonist of the Liberal cause after the treatment accorded to him by his party supporters at the leadership convention in Toronto such a short time ago.
In making his criticism the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River stated that if he were in power he would consult the experts on what to do and then, of course, he would do something, he said. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members, what one very well qualified expert has to say. I refer to an article in a morning paper today reporting

a speech made in Vancouver on April 7. The article says that a prominent Montreal analyst said:
-Canada has suffered from very poor financial and fiscal policies. The Bank of Canada, he said, eased money in 1955 when other countries were tightening up on money.
"I don't think they should have," said Mr. Bolton. "It was an error which has hounded us ever since."
I do not think we have to go too much further to agree that this is the case and that the present situation in which we find ourselves is only emerging from all of those things with which we have had to deal.
I should like to refer for a moment to trade. Trade, of course, will play a most important part in the coming economic upswing. I know that the figures published for January and February show an increase of 27.1 per cent and there is no reason to believe that this upswing will alter. Indeed, although I have not been able to get a firm figure from the bureau of statistics, I have a statement here made by the Canadian association of purchasing agents that orders placed in the month of March are 27 per cent ahead of a year ago and in all industries reporting production is ahead by 33 per cent.
The minister has indicated that he is aware of the importance of imports and the impact they will have on our economy, and it cannot be other than good planning and salesmanship that the increase is of such great proportions. We all know what foreign imports, which are usually made in a much cheaper labour market, mean to us and we would not want the impact on our industries to be as great as has occurred in other countries. I note that the New York News of March 29 reports that many small businesses in the United States have been forced to close their doors and that even the big boys are feeling the pinch. Allow me for a moment, by making reference to that paper, to indicate the situation there. We note, for instance, that 12 years ago the United States, such a large country, imported only 1,500 foreign cars and at that time exported 261,000 cars. Last year they imported 668,000 and exported a new low of 117,000. So goes the whole picture. Four million radios were imported and exports were negligible by comparison.
Another important point I note is that one of the oldest sewing machine companies in the United States, established over 80 years ago, threw in the towel three years ago and now distributes only a foreign-made product. We do not want this sort of thing to happen in Canada, and I am sure that the ministers concerned will take the necessary action to see that this does not occur. We would also not want a socialistic atmosphere 79951-0-194
The Budget-Mr. Winkler to present itself because to live under such circumstances would create chaos. Let us not forget that after socialism comes the hammer and the sickle.
I believe that members of the opposition- apparently they do not like to listen to what I have to say-would rather engage in the sort of talk that breeds great lack of confidence and we know, of course, that their discourses are strictly for public consumption. I should like to say that on this particular point alone they are damaging to a great degree some of the possibilities that exist and by no stretch of the imagination are they contributing anything that would be constructive.
I should now like to make a few remarks regarding local industry in my constituency. I have mentioned before in the house that in the main it is furniture manufacturing and, as in other industries, we note a very rapid rise in the rate of imports of furniture. This is an industry that does not and has not had the good fortune of enjoying an export market. There is a possible market in the United States but the tariff and the export procedure make shipments almost impossible. We note that the sharpest increase in imports is from the United States, a market which, as I have said, it is difficult for us to enter. However, there is an alarming increase in imports from other countries in the world and it is necessary for me to mention this matter because if a situation arises in the future where things become impossible I will have to bring this matter to the attention of the government with much greater force.
I should like to refer to a report in the Montreal Gazette of April 7 of a speech in Montreal by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). The article is headed, "Join Free Trade Area, Martin Urges". I can only say that we in the constituency of Grey-Bruce know full well what this means now and we would be remiss if we did not remind the people of the country and the government that this is not the time to consider such a move. What would they have us do? Destroy secondary industry in this country? Allow the farming industry of the country to be torn to shreds by producers who can snow us under? We have heard enough of this already today. I congratulate the government on any move they make which will support local and domestic industry against unfair competition such as we are beginning to experience in our own way.
I might also mention that I live in an area which is very close to lake Huron and Georgian bay. It is a sad reflection for me

The Budget-Mr. Macnaughton to see the deterioration of our once great fishing industry in these waters. The participants in the industry are now almost all out of business due to the lack of fish.
A comprehensive picture was given in the house by my colleague, the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Noble), and I think it would be wise for the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) to investigate the possibility of planting fish that are known to thrive in such waters and are able to resist the eel and the smelt. Also, and I appreciate that this is primarily a matter of provincial concern, some action is necessary to stop the reinfestation of these waters from the sea. This is a program which I believe could be done very easily and at small expense. Inasmuch as funds are appropriated by the government for the support of the great lakes fisheries commission it would not be beyond the bounds of reasonable expectation for the minister and the department to give some consideration and leadership in this matter.
Finally, I should like to refer to the cost involved in speaking in the House of Commons. As was indicated previously this session, I believe it is in excess of $1,820 an hour. In consideration of the suggestions regarding economy-I hope I am being brief this afternoon in consideration of others who would like the floor-may I say that I am of the opinion that we should amend the rules of the house in some way to cut down the time that I feel is wasted. There may be some who think that I have wasted time today, but it is with that purpose in mind that I am speaking. I believe that a great waste of time is also brought about by people who are impressing their views upon the house and the country unnecessarily. I refer to the filibuster that we are experiencing these days. There are ways and means of putting one's feelings vehemently before the right authorities without wasting the time of the house and depriving hon. members of the opportunity to bring worth-while private resolutions and bills before the house.


Mr. Alan Macnaughton (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) forecast a surplus for the fiscal year 1960, modest though it may be, all Canadians were pleased. The minister's determination to abandon deficit spending, which has been the feature of his last two budgets, is a step in the right direction, at least one step in setting the government's house in order. The deficit spending of the present government for the past two years has been causing grave concern to a great many Canadians who consider this policy a threat to our future economic prosperity. All the people who hold this view, and I list

myself amongst them, complain in particular that the country is not receiving the benefits which should have accrued from this deficit spending.
Experts are generally agreed that government spending of the nature and the scale of the past few years-I should say perhaps for the past three years-is not the most effective way of fighting a short recession. Such spending leaves in its wake many economic difficulties. The president of the Royal Bank, Mr. James Muir addressing the shareholders at their annual meeting on January 8, 1959, said:
Last year, as in previous recession years, and while the economy was still on the downgrade, I urged tax cuts by government and price cuts by business. Instead of tax cuts last year, which would have encouraged business activity while reducing pressure on prices, we got increased government spending. Instead of an immediate deficit last year, timed to coincide with the depth of the cycle, we find ourselves today with a delayed deficit which has timed itself to coincide with the present recovery and the emergence of a new inflationary potential. For it is the great disadvantage of government expenditures as a cure for recession and it is both ponderous and irreversible; it takes time to get projects under way, and once started they must be completed.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Would the hon. gentleman give the date of that?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Yes, certainly. The date of that was January 8, 1959, the report of the president of the Royal Bank to the shareholders.
In his statement on tax policy, which appears on page 2681 of Hansard of March 31, 1960, the Minister of Finance said:
As I said a year ago, and as I have repeated in this house and elsewhere on a number of subsequent occasions, sound tax policies must be flexible and adapted to changing economic conditions. The onset of the 1957 recession called for lower taxes, higher expenditures and heavier capital commitments in order to offset the downward trends in the private sector of the economy and the decline in the external demand for some of our basic products; and I put such proposals before the house in December, 1957 and again in June, 1958.
It strikes me as very strange indeed that the minister now acknowledges that lower taxes was one of the specific features of his program to deal with the recession in 195758. If memory serves me aright, I recall how vigorously the minister opposed and condemned, both on the hustings and in the house, the Liberal policy of tax reductions as a means of stimulating economic activity. I find it equally strange that the minister did not remind the members of this house that he withdrew a good part of the benefits of these tax reductions in the 1959 budget.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not for the people in the low income brackets.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: However, that is all in the past. What about the future? In my opinion, the minister is taking a big gamble in forecasting a modest surplus. First, he is assuming that there will be no decline or hesitancy in the rate of our economic growth. Second, he is assuming that each department of government will rigidly control its expenditure. Third, he is assuming that our export trade will continue to grow.
With regard to the first assumption, the minister chooses to ignore some of the danger signals in our economy which suggest that the rate of growth may be slower than that which he predicted. He rejects the warnings of the leading economists in the government service, in the academic field and in business, for most economists, I think, agree that rough economic weather is ahead for late 1961 and 1962. An increasing number of economists fear that the first wind of the storm may come in the last quarter of 1960 and the beginning of 1961. In other words, our Canadian economy may be bucking strong winds during a good part of the last half of the 1960 fiscal year.
I do not intend to quote these authorities, as many of them have been cited in this debate so far by other members. However, I do want to point out to the house that a slowdown in our economic growth could easily turn the minister's modest surplus into a deficit and thus could force the government to borrow substantially more than the estimated amount of $210 million.
The minister's second assumption is equally risky. He is demanding departmental control of spending which does not allow even for a normal and expected degree of overspending. There is no margin for the unexpected necessary expenditure. While the minister is certainly to be congratulated for asking for strict control throughout government departments, I wonder if he is being realistic, considering the smallness of the surplus he anticipates?
Have we any hope that the minister may have suggested to his colleagues in the cabinet that we have reached a plateau with regard to government spending and that the various government departments must remain on this plateau for several years to come? I think we should all keep in mind that the basic problem is not only balancing the budget, but at what point or where do you balance the budget? There is no purpose in talking about a balanced budget if in each succeeding year the budget is balanced at fantastically higher and higher levels. This is, in effect, only kidding the people.
The minister's third assumption is, perhaps, his greatest gamble. Canada's export trade, for the past few years does not encourage 79951-0-194J
The Budget-Mr. Macnaughton many people to share the view of the minister or of his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill). Here, the two ministers seem to be in a dream world of their own. Perhaps the Minister of Finance has ventured there so his colleague will not be lonely. I will have more to say about trade shortly. At the moment I merely want to say that the Canadian exporter finds it increasingly difficult to get a fair share of the increase in overseas markets. The economic vitality of western Europe and the United Kingdom, the entry of Russia on a large scale as a large and vigorous trader, is producing a degree of competition in international trade unknown since the end of the second world war.
Our exporters find it harder to retain their traditional markets and harder to acquire new ones. A real increase in our export trade may be slower in the future than it has been in the past.
These are the gambles the minister is taking. As Canadians interested in the economic well-being of our country we wish the minister luck, though many of us feel he has balanced the budget with a hope and a prayer.
I have spoken of the favourable aspects of the budget. Now let me comment on some of the disappointments. The minister has announced no policy or program to deal with the serious deficit in our international accounts and the problems which our exporters are encountering in the international markets.
Surely the minister realizes that responsible government demands leadership. Three weeks ago the members of this house discussed international trade. We were told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that all was rosy in the garden. He failed to define government policy. Now the Minister of Finance has spoken and he has failed to state a policy or outline a program to ease our situation. This I find very strange indeed.
The minister is the one member of the government, apart from the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) who can direct and stimulate our economy by the policies he persuades his colleagues to adopt. Government departments and agencies can act effectively if the economic policy of the government is known.
The Bank of Canada, for example, can manage our monetary system and has done so brilliantly and successfully for many years; but the Bank of Canada cannot manage or direct our economy. That is the job of the government.
The deficit in our international account is serious. The minister himself acknowledges the fact. He urges us to work and save but

The Budget-Mr. Macnaughton does not tell us what he intends to do about it. His attitude appears to be the well known attitude of laissez faire.
What can be done about it? Are we importing too many consumer goods? If so, I suppose the importation of consumer goods could be controlled by a quota system. But a quota system is not acceptable to Canadians, and furthermore it would only antagonize our friends and customers. A quota system would invite retaliation and could lead to economic isolation. The problem of the deficit in our international accounts could be remedied to a degree by various government controls, such as government control of exchange and by the formation of a capital issues committee. But controls in any form are not acceptable to the Canadian people. The institution, and furthermore the administration of such controls would be complex. Experts also doubt that they would be as effective in application as they appear to be in theory, and I doubt if the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages.
The adoption of such controls would be contrary to the trend abroad where currencies have been freed and public and private investment encouraged. I believe such controls would lose us many friends and certainly as many customers. The minister has, quite rightly, rejected all these proposals, but what alternatives does he suggest? He certainly has not told us of any.
If we are going to import goods and capital at our present rate we must earn more abroad on the sale of Canadian goods. We must sell more in our traditional markets. We must find new markets for our traditional export products. We must encourage the export of new products in raw or semifinished form which are not now being exported in sufficient volume. We must seek new markets abroad for all our products, industrial as well as agricultural.
It is almost trite to say that competition has become an increasingly important factor in world trade, but how very true it is. Other countries are no longer forced to shop in the North American market as they were in the years immediately following the war. They can now purchase their goods from a number of suppliers. We are in a buyer's market, no longer a supplier's market. Our ability to export is no longer measured by our ability to supply foreign markets. Our productive capacity permits us to meet almost any foreseeable demand. Canada's ability to export today and even more so in the future will be measured by our ability to meet competition and our success in opening and developing new markets abroad.
Our new exports, uranium, iron ore, petroleum and now natural gas have helped


The Russian threat demands that our government recognize the possible consequences to this country and begin to take appropriate action which would include the immediate study of the long range effects of Soviet competition on Canada's export trade. Canadian exporters have every right to expect some guidance as to the nature of this threat. All we ask is that the government show a sense of urgency such as the situation warrants. Surely Canadians have a right to expect far more from their government than what has been done so far. A mere indication that the situation is being watched and that the government will protect our interests if necessary is not enough.
Canada's economic life blood is dependent upon the vigour of its foreign trade. This is Canada's historical position, as professor Hugh G. J. Aitken said in a seminar at Duke University in the summer of 1958 under the heading "The Changing Structure of the Canadian Economy". I should like to quote his words, because I think they are very significant-
Canada, from the beginning of its history, has been a vulnerable economy, exposed to pressures and stimuli from more advanced nations. Its development has been geared to external demands and external challenges.
This government has failed to appreciate this economic fact. It has failed to appreciate, too, that Canada needs a favourable international trading climate more than any other nation. That is why Canada must take the initiative in advancing plans for the basis of international trade.
We sometimes fail to realize the size of the markets being created by the regional trading blocs. Mr. John McCullough, a prominent United States chartered accountant, put out a private booklet on the financial implications of the common market. It was written for the public of the United States, but what he describes is applicable to Canada to an even greater extent. Mr. McCullough had this to say:
Many a corporate financial executive will decide in 1960 what his company is going to do about the vast new mass market now evolving in the common market countries of Europe. Among the factors impelling this decision are:
First, it is expected that the common market will evolve into a mass market of 170 million people by 1970 with a progressively increasing standard of living; that the gross national product of the common market countries will increase by then to $400 billion (ours was $442 billion in 1958) ;-
He is referring to the United States.
-and that there will be a tremendous increase in demand for consumer goods and concomitant capital goods. Substantial sums of European and American capital have been expended or are planned for expenditure on the basis of these expectations.

Then in paragraph No. 6 he says this:
Finally, corporate financial executives must consider the projected effect of foreign competition upon their United States business and their foreign business outside the common market. Development of know-how, increase in efficiency and improvement of economic position, superimposed on lower wage rates, has materially strengthened foreign competition in the United States domestic market. Already, some American manufacturers have not been able to meet this competition and there is reason to believe that others will suffer.
Other regional groups can be equally large. Unless Canada is aggressive and imaginative in its trading policies and particularly in its negotations with other countries, it could well be that we would be shut out and driven into economic isolation.
The situation demands a sense of urgency on the part of the government. It is my hope that the Minister of Finance whose responsibility it is to guide and direct our economy will initiate without delay a polcy to deal effectively with our deteriorating international position in trade and our deficit on international account.
Mr. Pallet!: In view of his last statement, will the hon. member answer a question?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: I should be glad to answer.
Mr. Pallet!: Has there not been a tremendous upsurge in January and February of this year?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: I do not think it is fair to take one or two months. You might as well say there is a tremendous upsurge of employment in the summer time. Of course there is, because of geographic and weather conditions. The same thing applies to trade. I could read the hon. member an article which was discussed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on a question of privilege. It appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press. I have it here but I will not waste time by reading it. I should like to finish as I have a few more minutes left. I should like to conclude my speech because I am sincere about the necessity of there being a sense of urgency on the part of the government to initiate, to undertake and to explain to the Canadian people, to do something about a trading policy which they have not had for the last three years and which has gradually crept up on us and will eventually destroy our position in the European market.
I am not alone in thinking this. Mr. John Meyer, the financial editor of the Montreal Gazette, on Monday, April 4, wrote as follows:
The budget would have given finance minister Fleming the opportunity to give direction to the economy had he recognized there was a need for direction. In standing pat on tax levels, he also
The Budget-Mr. Hicks
stood pat on the tired assumptions that everything will come out right in the end. That posture is not one which can much longer be afforded.
Then he concludes with this paragraph:
But surely the budget is not intended as a catalogue of the difficulties confronting action on this point. Rather, the difficulties should constitute the challenge. Mr. Fleming, unhappily, does not seem to be aware that the challenge has been offered.
I hope sincerely that the Minister of Finance will recognize this challenge of trade, deficit financing, the need to hold the line, the need to control expenditures except in those cases in which we decide in this house that they are socially necessary. I hope he will hold the line and accept this challenge that he give us a trade policy, a financial policy, and do something about the threat of Russian trade competition.


Mr. Harold Hicks (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like very much to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming)	and also his	parliamentary
secretary (Mr. Bell) on the very fine budget brought down by them and on the way in which it was brought down. Of course, that is exactly what everybody expected would happen. It has been well received in the press and over the radio. In view of that fact I do not intend actually to discuss the budget very much. However, I want to read one article. I quote from the Ottawa Citizen of April 2, 1960 these words. This article may have been quoted by somebody else when I was not in the house. However, it is such a good article that it will not hurt one bit to quote it a second time. It is headed "U.S. Politician Praises Our Balanced Budget". I may say that this is the best authority in the United States on Canadian affairs. It reads as follows:
One of the most knowledgeable men in the U.S. congress on Canadian affairs Friday praised the Canadian budget for "resisting temptation to intervene artificially" with Canada's trade imbalance and the foreign premium on her dollar.
Representative Frank Coffin of Maine says that the budget required "a good, long respectful look northward" by this country's authorities.
He was speaking, of course, of United States of America.
"Although an increase in expenditures of about 3 per cent is contemplated, with defence, civil service pay raises and social security accounting for the increases, the forecast is for a balanced budget," Coffin said in a statement.
At the same time Canada expects to continue her remarkable growth rate of about 6 per cent, about twice that of the U.S. in recent years.
"The government has also set a good example for the U.S. in resisting temptation to intervene artificially to attack Canada's trade imbalance problem and the dollar premium problem, while responding more selectively to special problem areas such as textiles.
"All in all it should hearten us in the U.S. to know that Canada's outlook for the future is that of a growing economy playing a significant and responsible role in the world of trade."

The Budget-Mr. Hicks
Mr. Speaker, you will probably recall that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) was speaking in the debate on the speech from the throne he mentioned the establishment of a House of Commons committee to consider the rules under which parliament operates. I refer you to page 65 of Hansard of January 18. Later in the debate on the speech from the throne as reported at page 402 of Hansard the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith), having in mind similar ideas, gave seven or eight suggestions about changing the rules of the house. A proposal I should like to make is the installation of a projector by means of which a member could use slides or even a position where a good map could be hung in this House of Commons. I know that many hon. members would ask, where are you going to put a map in this house so that we can all see it? I think we could see it all right if it were up over that clock. Perhaps that would be a good place to put it now because time is a factor and I have quite a few things to say.
In fact I find myself at the moment in need of a large map of British Columbia as I wish to speak for a few minutes about three rivers. I refer not to the city between here and Quebec but to three great rivers of British Columbia, and I wish to point out the terrible flood danger of the lower Fraser river, as seen by me in 1948.
One of the rivers is in the southeastern section of the province; I refer to the Columbia river. The first river I wish to discuss is the Columbia river with about a third of its length in British Columbia. It rises in Columbia lake about 70 miles north of Cran-brook, British Columbia and north, of course, of the U.S. border in the Rocky mountain trench. It flows north to Golden, thence in a horse-shoe shape to which the Big Bend highway corresponds and back south. At the most northern end of the Big Bend is the Mica dam site, the largest storage site for power in the project. Then it goes south to Revelstoke and takes in the drainage waters of the Arrow lakes and also goes south and takes in the Kootenay lakes and river and other valleys and crosses the 49th parallel into the northeast portion of the state of Washington. Thence it flows south to Portland and flows into the ocean there. It flows in British Columbia a distance of 480 miles. Its flow is in total length 1,225 miles and the total fall is 2,655 feet. The total British Columbia basin is 29,500 square miles, and the total United States basin is 5i times that much, namely 219,500 square miles.
The Columbia river is one of the really great rivers of this continent, with its length and run-off only exceeded by the Mississippi


going south, by the Mackenzie going north and by the St. Lawrence going east. As we know, the power potential of this great river is enormous. As negotiations are under way at the moment among the United States, Canada and British Columbia I do not care to say more at the present time about the Columbia expept that we must avoid overflooding of valuable land in certain areas.
The Mica dam is the important dam to build from the Canadian and British Columbian point of view. This morning I received a resolution put out by the Revelstoke board of trade and I wish to read three sections of this resolution:
Whereas construction of Mica dam will provide large land reclamation areas in the Columbia basin as opposed to flooding resulting from construction of the high Arrow dam, and
Whereas construction of the high Arrow will delay commencement of Mica dam for a period of many years, and
Whereas Mica dam will provide British Columbia with an ample and lasting supply of low-cost public power and control of water,-
And so on. They are very much in favour of having the Mica dam built.
For a very brief moment I want to turn to the Peace river. This great river originates north of Prince George, almost in the centre of the province of British Columbia. The Parsnip flows north, and from the north the Finlay flows south to Finlay Forks, where it meets the Parsnip to start the Peace, which in turn flows east and crosses the British Columbia-Alberta border into Alberta and continues on in a northeasterly direction to enter into the Slave system. The source of the Peace is the home of the famous, or some people even call it the infamous, Wenner-Gren project.
The Peace River Power Development Company was incorporated in October, 1958. The company's proposed hydroelectric project for the generation of four million horsepower of electricity is situated at two proposed dam sites at Peace river canyon, 80 miles west of the British Columbia-Alberta border. It is planned that the proposed development of power will be in three parts.
First, present projects; there are two dams at the Peace river canyon, an ideal place for dams, near Portage mountain. The first dam is 600 feet high with a 7,000 foot crest. The second dam is a few miles further downstream and is 150 feet high with a 1,700 foot crest. The second project is two additional dams still in British Columbia, further down the river, and the third downstream dam is in Alberta along the Peace and the Slave rivers.
The unique feature of the project is the size of the reservoir lake which will be formed. It extends 70 miles above the canyon

and 200 miles in the rocky mountain trench. This huge lake will provide great storage capacity, more than the present storage of all hydro dams in British Columbia, as well as the three nearest in the United States. It is estimated that this lake 2,250 feet above sea level will take seven years to fill and by that time it will be able to develop 750,000 horsepower. The estimated cost is $700 million.
Storage in the reservoir is provided for 88 million acre feet of water, which is six times that of Grand Coulee dam. The 200 mile long reservoir lies in a northeasterly direction in the rocky mountain trench, with its southerly end about 63 miles north of Prince George or, in other words, it is something like 50 to 70 miles from the Fraser river. The average width of the reservoir is four miles and the area about 900 square miles.
The big objection to this project is the fact that the power is manufactured so far from where it will be required unless, of course, business and industry move to where the power is. It is 600 miles from there to Vancouver, where most of the power would be used under present conditions, and it goes by Prince George, Quesnel, Williams lake and follows the Fraser to Vancouver. There is also objection to the fact that so much arable land is being flooded.
The third objection is that there is very severe criticism of the handling of this project.
Having said this about the two great rivers, the Columbia and the Peace, I want to turn to the Fraser and to give hon. members some idea of what flooding has done in the past and show that things are not safe at the present. We certainly do not want to have a repetition of the 1948 flood.
The Fraser river is entirely within the province of British Columbia. The basin contains 90,000 square miles and that is about one quarter of the entire province of British Columbia. The area drained by the Fraser is all inside the great mountain system known as the American Cordillera.
The Fraser originates in the area around Yellowhead pass, or mount Robson, and after 70 miles in a northwesterly direction in the main trench it turns south from the trench at Prince George, where it is only about 60 miles from, as I said before, the storage reservoir of the Peace, and flows some 400 miles. At Lytton, the Thompson river enters the Fraser. It cuts through the coast range in a deep canyon, passes through Hell's Gate on to Hope, where it is then 100 miles from its mouth at Vancouver. From source to
The Budget-Mr. Hicks mouth it flows 850 miles. In the north it drains such lakes at Taka and Stuart and the Nachaka river, and further along, Quesnel, Chilcotin, Bridge River, Lillooet, Thompson and the lower Fraser valley are all drained by it. Over 70 per cent of the area of the basin lies above the 3,000 foot range, which is the limit for agricultural crops; hence, the importance of the fertile agricultural lands in the short lower Fraser valley area. The great flood danger lies in the last 80 miles of its course after it has passed through Hell's Gate and gone on down past Hope, about 20 miles.
On May 24, 1948 I was attending a Rotary convention in Bellingham, Washington, about 20 miles south of the border, and I felt rather uneasy, knowing that the water was coming up at Agassiz, where I was situated at that time. I decided I would go home the next morning. I got out and going down to see what was going on I saw the dikes. I found there a flow of about 10 feet deep, 20 feet wide, just gradually pouring in over the farm land and the people were beginning to move their cattle. The people were beginning to move out of the area. At the time I thought it was a terrible thing that this could happen. Actually, I felt that this might not be too bad at all because the water would come in gradually that way and it would not be a case of breaking the dike and chasing people out.
On that day the reeve of the municipality came to me and said, "You know quite a few people, employees or officials, of the Canadian Pacific Railway; I wish you could arrange to take charge of evacuating all the people out of the Agassiz valley except, of course, the people we want to work." I took charge of that work. We got a lot of the older people and the women and children out. It just so happened that the old hotel in Vancouver was vacant at that time and the Red Cross took over and looked after the people. A day or two after this the railroad washed out just west of Agassiz and we had to send more people out by Harrison lake down to Harrison river to a station further down and then on into Vancouver. A few days later the river burst through the C.P.R. right of way at Hatzic and the highway and as soon as this happened the water began to recede a little in the Agassiz area.
Shortly after I had been given a charge of evacuating people Premier Byron Johnson of British Columbia, came to me one day and asked me if I would take complete charge of all the work at Agassiz. My terms of reference were something like these: "You are in charge. Help the people. Anything you want to have done, initial it, pass it on and it will go. Do what you can to help

The Budget-Mr. Hicks all the people and save all the money you can without anyone getting hurt."
At that time we had moved cattle into a cemetery roughly two miles by one mile in size. There were 700 cattle there and approximately 100 people had their tents right among the graves. About the third day afterward, I believe, I went that way and I could hear the catle bawling a mile away. Feed had run out and I actually saw cattle there straddling shrubs as they went looking for food. They would straddle a shrub, pin the top down, and eat the leaves. That is how hungry the cattle were.
We at the experimental farm were a little more fortunate because the C.P.R. right of way had helped to hold the water back until it got by Agassiz. We had our office and our whole herd there and we were able to get clean water that ran down the mountain. It was a wonderful source of water supply for the people left there. I think that 17 people slept in our house one night.
I am telling you these things to place before you the importance of controlling flooding on the lower Fraser river. As the flood receded you can imagine the work that had to be done. Where the water had got inside houses it had raised floors and shoved sills out and when the houses dried out the sand left on the floor was as hard as cement. I want to pay a tribute to the provincial department of health. They inspected all the houses, wells and so on before people were allowed to go back to their homes again.
Agassiz is a cesspool town and the town, of course, was flooded. I actually saw fish going in the back door of the butcher shop and swimming out the front door and some of the ladies were catching fish in the main street.


Douglas Mason Fisher: 


William Harold Hicks: B.C. That is right. At that time we wondered what we would do, but the wonderful thing about it all was that there was not one single case of disease or one casualty in the area during the flooding, which lasted for three weeks, that could be traced to the flood. The waters flooded all the area taking in Dewdney, Hatzic, Nicomen island, Barnston island, Pitt Meadows, Sumas and Matsqui. Five years later in driving through some of these areas you could see the high water mark on the side of the buildings just below the eaves.
The 1950 flood in the Fraser valley was not as bad as the 1948 flood. By that time, of course, the dikes had been repaired and we also had the help of the army. I hold in my hand a booklet entitled, "Nature's Fury". It contains the stories of the newspaper reporters who saw the flood at that time and if


any hon. members are interested in looking at it there is a copy in the library. I wish I could show you some of the pictures in the booklet. This one shows where the railway and the highway were washed out at Hatzic. I do not suppose you can see it from where you sit. Here is a dead cow floating in a pasture field and here there is water up to the eaves of a barn. These are the things to which I refer.
Whose responsibility is it to see that a flood like this does not occur again? The federal and British Columbia governments have good reasons for joint participation in studies of the Fraser river development such as have been going on since 1948. The province's reasons for participation are, first, that British Columbia is concerned with flood control and hydro power. Second, the Fraser river lies wholly within the province. Third, the administration of water rights and other national resources close to the river is the responsibility of the province.
The reasons for federal participation may not be quite so readily understood, but Canada is responsible for navigation and coast and inland fisheries. This, of course, means salmon. Canada is compelled to take action whenever any national emergency occurs by flooding, the two great floods having been in 1894 and 1948. Canada is interested in hydro power development and if any such development appeared to threaten navigation and fisheries Canada would, of course, intervene.
Diking has been carried on in the lower Fraser valley for almost 100 years. At first the work was characterized by cheap construction methods and poor planning. This era reached its height at the time of the 1894 flood. The great damage done at that time certainly demonstrated that a comprehensive system of diking must be undertaken, and it was beyond the ability of private owners to finance the scheme.
Although much had been done on the building of dikes up to 1948 the great flood of that year wrecked many of the dikes. It has been said that losses totalling $20 million occurred in the lower Fraser valley flood of 1948. At that time the commander of the Canadian army in British Columbia was given control after Premier Johnson issued a proclamation declaring a state of emergency. Many agencies, including governmental, co-operated to improve the situation. When it was all over it was agreed in Ottawa that Canada would pay 75 per cent of the flood fighting costs, 75 per cent of the reconstruction costs and 50 per cent of the rehabilitation costs. The provincial government met and passed a couple of bills.

I should like to make two brief quotations from the report of the Fraser valley diking board. They had this to say:
By careful engineering methods, one can restrain the river in spots, one can nudge it here and push it there, but never, without fabulous expenditures, can the lower Fraser river be harnessed and controlled by a system of dikes. In designing this new system of dikes, the board had to compromise, striving after maximum security consistent with reasonable economics.
I think the main feature of the report of the board is the fact that dikes are not the complete answer to flood control of the Fraser river. After some study and consideration by a larger board, in 1958 the membership of the board was decreased to four members as it is now. The members from the province are the controller of water rights and the surveyor general of surveys and mappings, and from the federal government the members are the director of the water resources branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who is chairman, and the director of the Pacific area for the Department of Fisheries. This board has made several studies of four known ways to control floods; diking, flood detention reservoirs, river diversions and channel improvements. It seemed obvious to the board that the first two are the most effective. In the interim report presented by the board seven recommendations were made.
We should all realize at this point the enormous potential of the Fraser river basin for hydro power. We have been made aware of this aspect of the Columbia river and the Peace river in British Columbia, but what has not been emphasized is the fact that the Fraser river can produce more power than the Columbia and Peace combined, or about 45 billion kilowatt hours annually. This is about 4J times the total power presently being produced in the whole province, and does not include power already coming from the Fraser.
The preliminary report mentions three system studies by which the great majority of power could be developed. No. 2 provides the best benefit-cost and includes a power site and storage at Moran. This would create a lake 150 miles long upriver from Lillooet. However, in spite of all the fine things that can be said about a project of this nature, it cannot be undertaken because of the threat to the salmon industry. The salmon industry has an annual value of about $34 million, about $20 million goes to Canadian fishermen and the remaining $14 million to United States fishermen. It is easily understandable, therefore, that projects of the kind mentioned cannot be undertaken for power or manufacturing and flood control.
The Budget-Mr. Hicks
I will, therefore, move on to another portion of the report put out by the board. They mention four requirements for partial development. The first is to provide flood control to non-damaging levels in the lower Fraser valley. The second is to form an integral part of a comprehensive plan for the basin in which all the economical power sites would be fully developed. The third would be compatible with maintaining anadromous fish runs and the fourth to be economically selfsupporting through power production. It is worthy of note that flood control in these systems could be provided in an early stage of the development.
I should like to mention specifically at this point the lower Fraser valley dikes, some 223 miles in length. It is estimated that these dikes will withstand a flow of 375,000 cubic foot seconds of water past Hope. To build up the dikes to withstand this amount of flood would cost about $17 million with about $2 million annual in maintenance costs. So, Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes I have left I should like to give you a few quotations from some of the local newspapers emphasizing how badly they feel about the fact these dikes are not as they should be at the present time. The alternative suggestion now would be to put up storage dams in the Clearwater area.
The Agassiz Advance said:
The B.C. Progressive Conservative association, meeting in Vancouver last Friday, adopted a policy calling for an immediate start on Fraser river flood control dams as recommended by the Fraser river board.
On February 24, 1960 the Fraser Valley Record recognized that the storage dams should be built immediately to help control floods. On March 11, in the Progress, we find a note that the membership of the board of trade is expected to endorse a resolution calling on the provincial and federal governments to implement plan A recommended by the Fraser river board.
Last, but not least, the Fraser valley milk producers association which, of course, is a huge dairy co-operative in the Fraser valley with annual sales of over $27 million, passed a resolution to urge the federal and provincial governments to relieve the annual flood threat to the Fraser valley by hastening their adoption of a policy of flood control of the Fraser river which is now under study by the Fraser river board and is known as plan A. The plan, as recommended by the Fraser river board, shows that an alternative system of storage dams would be available and would not interfere with the fish runs and would, at the same time, effect the desired measure of flood control.

Private Bills-Divorce
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I, personally, am very much in favour of having these dams built to control the high water. I am also very much in favour of protecting our fish business in the Fraser valley in every way possible, and I am convinced both can be done successfully.


Mr. Granger:: Since there are only a couple of minutes left before five o'clock, may I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-36, for the relief of Omer Therrien-Mr. Mc-Cleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. McCleave:: The first bill to be considered this afternoon is the petition of a 40-year old workman who has been separated from his wife since 1946. Despite humble means he has managed to bring up three children who are now in their teens. His wife has been living with another man for some time, and he is asking the House of Commons for a divorce.


Frank Howard: In so far as Bill No. SD-36 is concerned, the hon. member for Halifax has been kind enough to make a few comments about the circumstances surrounding it. I think this is a commendable approach because it assists in bringing to the attention of the members of the committee some of the circumstances surrounding this particular bill.
There are, however, some additional matters to those which the hon. member for Halifax has mentioned. I might point out that there are three children involved and, naturally, we should concern ourselves with their welfare. The three children are in their teens, one being 18, one 16 and the other, according to the evidence, either 15 or 14. It is possible that the birthday of the child is close to the particular date on which this evidence was given before the committee and this would account for the confusion.
The couple involved have been separated since 1946, and the children have been maintained in a boarding school by their father. There were some proceedings for separation prior to this particular petition for divorce being filed. Mr. Joyal, the counsel for the petitioner, asked some questions about this. In this instance I do not know whether Mr. Joyal is acting as agent on behalf of another

counsel who was initially retained, or whether he is the prime counsel. However, he does inquire about some separation action which was not taken by the present petitioner but by his wife, the respondent in this case. At page 11 he asks these questions of the petitioner:
Q. Has there been any action taken between you and your wife in the courts in Quebec to determine who was going to have custody of the children?
A. She took action to separate.
Q. When did she take this action?
A. I think in 1958.
Q. 1958?
A. Or 1957.
Q. Did the matter proceed to trial?
A. No.
Q. There has been nothing further done in connection with any action?
A. No.
So apparently the wife sued for separation proceedings two or three years ago but proceeded no further with that particular action. Why, I have no idea. Whether she felt she would be unable to get a favourable decision from the courts, or whether she just declined to proceed further, is open to speculation; and 1 do not think it is important in this case, except for this, that if the action for separation was taken by the wife, now the respondent in this case, and the ground alleged was adultery, it would naturally be adultery on the part of the husband who is the present petitioner. If that is the case the situation is now reversed so far as these divorce proceedings here are concerned.
If that is the case and that was the ground for the separation asked for-as I say I do not know whether it was or not, although as I understand it adultery would normally be the ground upon which one would petition or take action for separation in Quebec-perhaps there was some indication of adultery on the part of the man or the wife. But as I say, this is pure speculation.
With respect to the children there is again extensive examination.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I think the Chair has allowed the hon. member to refer to the children for quite long enough. As the hon. member knows, this bill has nothing to do with the children whatsoever. I am sure the hon. member can refer to the children, but I would not want him to discuss the children.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I thought this would be in order. I appreciate this ruling was made some time ago that custody and maintenance of children is not within our jurisdiction and we cannot deal with them. But I would submit that in the Senate committee, there was extensive questioning by

both counsel for the petitioner and hon. senators with regard to the children and their maintenance, their upbringing, their maintenance in boarding school, as well as the question of action for separation to which I referred. It was only to that extent that I made my remarks and confined them to what had occurred in the other place. I have no intention of going beyond what the hon. senators discussed in the other place. As I said, the hon. senators did give extensive consideration to this question.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I think perhaps this committee had better look at its own rules.


Frank Howard: I certainly agree with that, Mr. Chairman, that we have rules which apply to these cases. But it is unfortunate that we can only concern ourselves with divorce and must completely disregard what happens to the children, even though in the other place the hon. senators seem to ignore this rule and concern themselves with it. They seem to be acting in a manner which indicates they are concerned with the maintenance of children and what will occur to them afterwards. I would probably go a little further and say that it is an excellent attitude for the senators to take, to disregard the rules as they apply to the maintenance of children, because it is something they cannot close their eyes to. Evidence is given about them. While I do not know offhand about other cases, this petition states that there are three children. That is point number five of the petition which is dated April 27, 1959. It states:
5. That after the said marriage, your petitioner lived and cohabited with the said-and there are three children born issue of the said marriage, to wit:-
Giving the names of the three children. I think to the extent that this is a subject matter of the petition, and that the petitioner says to us, in asking for-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must ask the hon. member to refrain from discussing the children. This committee has no jurisdiction over the children, as he has already agreed. Therefore I must ask him to refrain from discussing the children.


Frank Howard: I wonder if I could raise a point of order, Mr. Chairman, as the result of that. I do not mean as far as your ruling is concerned because I understand that that ruling was made before, but I mean as to the validity of a particular petition which makes reference to children being born issue of a marriage when this house and the Senate apparently have no right whatsoever
Private Bills-Divorce to concern themselves with the children. I would think if that is the case-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I do not see any point of order in that. This committee cannot make new rules and regulations; we have to go by what is laid down for us by the house.


Frank Howard: My point of order is that the reference in the petition to children having been born has no place here whatsoever. If we are not entitled to concern ourselves with it, it should not be in the petition and has nothing whatsoever to do with the divorce proceedings which are being asked for.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. This committee has no jurisdiction to say what will go in the evidence and what will not go in the evidence. That is beyond our power. We have no jurisdiction over that at all.


Frank Howard: I do not want to run contrary to the rules except to conclude my remarks on the point of order, without moving any amendment to the bill and as to what we should do with it. But it certainly seems completely out of order when a petitioner makes reference to children for hon. senators in the other place to concern themselves with them if it is something over which we have no jurisdiction and is not germane to the case. To the extent that reference is made to the custody of the children and its relationship with action that the wife took initially for legal separation I think we are probably concerned or should be concerned with taking notice of it. I think this committee should undertake to communicate with the members of the other place and ask them to refrain hereafter from asking any questions about children or their maintenance, their upbringing or their care, because it is no concern of theirs and should not clutter up the record.


An hon. Member:: It is too late now; they have all gone home.


Frank Howard: We can probably communicate with them after Easter. This has been going on for many years. We can look back at the records in 1926, 1927 and 1928 and see questions asked about this particular result of the marriage, and probably the Senate is in error-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I think the Chair has been very lenient in reminding the hon. member that this committee has no jurisdiction over the children. Therefore, the question of the children should not be discussed in this committee.

Private Bills-Divorce


Frank Howard: I agree with your ruling completely, Mr. Chairman, and it is extremely unfortunate that we cannot concern ourselves with the children. Let us return to the evidence on page 13; I imagine this is within our rights. Evidence is again given by Charles Charron, with whom we are familiar in these cases, and his occupation is given as that of investigator. He is questioned by Mr. Joyal, and I would point out that Mr. Charron, in accordance with the ruling given in this house, makes no reference to children. He makes reference only to the things he discovered, or which it was arranged for him to discover as the case may be. I imagine that Mr. Joyal and other counsel who subsequently appear before the committee of the other place will take notice of the ruling made here that no discussion is to take place regarding children. I imagine that in future no reference will be made to the children, that we shall be as heartless and as cruel as we can in these instances. But Mr. Joyal asks Mr. Charron:
Q. I show you a photograph, which is Exhibit No. 2. Who is the person shown in that photograph?
The answer is:
A. That photograph was supplied to me by someone in the office.
The witness does not say who supplied him with the photograph. He merely says it was supplied to him. Then the evidence continues:
Q. Where did you meet Mrs.-?
I assume that though it is not made clear here, the photograph is that of the respondent. I might as well make sure, in this regard, that exhibit 2 is, in fact, shown to be a picture of the respondent as identified by the petitioner. But even though Mr. Charron does not say this, does not say that it was a photograph of the respondent, I take it we can assume it was a photograph of the respondent. Anyway, in reply to the question: "Where did you meet this woman?" an address in Montreal is given. The record continues:
Q. What date?
A. April 16, 1959.
Q. Describe to the committee the circumstances under which you saw Mrs.-at that time?
A. I was there around 5 o'clock. At 6 o'clock I saw Mr.-come in. He went into the house, so I stayed until 10.30 when I saw the light go out at 10.30. I called my assistant, Mr. Lacombe, to come and meet me, and he came at 11 o'clock and we went to the door and knocked several times before Mr.-came and opened the door slightly. When he opened the door he had on a pair of maroon pyjamas and a grey dressing gown. I walked into the bedroom then.
Q. You went into the bedroom?
A. Yes. Mrs.-was sitting in the bed and she had on a blue top of pyjamas. I asked her who she was and she admitted that she was Mrs.-. I showed her that photograph that I had, and she admitted
[The Deputy Chairman.]
it was one taken of her, so I said to the man, "You are Mr.-? You are living here as a man and wife with this lady?" He said, "Yes, what is it all about?" I told him it was divorce proceedings. He got a little mad and we went out.
I submit again that this is a highly unlikely thing to have occurred but I am sure every hon. member would agree that this situation would not normally occur. Incidentally, I point out that it is strange how often the time lag in these oases is half an hour between the time the lights go out and the time the investigators knock at the door. It is not 35 minutes, or 15 minutes; for one reason or another, it is half an hour. Perhaps it is considered that half an hour is enough time for people to have engaged in whatever they might have been engaged in after the lights went out.
According to the evidence, the two men went to the door and knocked several times before the door was opened. The man who opened the door had on a pair of pyjamas and a dressing gown. The next thing that happens is that the two men walk into the bedroom. There are no preliminaries, apparently; no pushing their way in; no explanation that they had come to check the gas meter; no question such as "how are you fixed for oil", or "how are you fixed for razor blades". They just walk through into the bedroom and find a lady sitting on the bed wearing a blue top of pyjamas.
These two complete strangers spoke to this lady who had apparently been in bed for half an hour since the lights went out. They asked her what her name was, and she said her name was so-and-so. There was no question raised: "Who are you?" or "What are you doing here?" addressed to the investigators. Then the two visitors asked another question, whether the two were living together as man and wife, and the man replied: "yes, that's right".
No one in his right mind, I submit, who is engaged in this kind of activity whether it is of a long term nature, where people are living together as man and wife, or whether it is one engagement only-and that occurs sometimes by arrangement, in divorce cases- would behave in this way. Unless these people knew that a certain thing was going to occur at eleven o'clock, or whatever time it was, and that someone was going to knock at the door, they would not open the door and allow two persons to come in and ask questions of the nature which were asked in this case, and then, only after the questions were answered, get a little mad.
I have grave doubts about this case. I submit from the evidence that was given here that what happened was this: there was some difficulty at home. The couple was

separated in 1946, as the evidence shows, and there had been trouble in the family. The two people could not get along together and in addition there was in-law trouble. Then, possibly, this woman or wife was going out with other people. These are the reasons why the divorce is sought; these are the reasons why it should be granted.
However, adultery is what we insist must occur, so couples must make arrangements accordingly. Lawyers must make arrangements, private investigators have to make arrangements either with the people concerned or with the lawyers for the sole purpose of arranging a situation where adultery might reasonably be supposed to have taken place or might have taken place. I say there is a great deal of hypocrisy about forcing people to do that sort of thing to make divorce possible when the situation is such that if they were living elsewhere- in the province of Nova Scotia, for instance- it would all be unnecessary. If these people lived in the province of Nova Scotia they could get a divorce on the basis of cruelty. If they lived in another country to which we are very close they could get a divorce on grounds of desertion. I think it is most unfair to ask that these people make these arrangements and set them up in order to meet that strict test upon which we insist, namely circumstances which could lead one to believe that adultery had taken place.
As I said before with respect to Mr. Charron, after reading and considering evidence in other cases with which we have dealt just prior to this time, these are the stereotyped answers that he gives. He knocks on the door. There is no question about what he wants or who he is. It is stated who answers the door. There is no questioning of the person who answers the door about coming in. He merely walks in, walks into the bedroom, asks whoever happens to be there what their names are. They do not hesitate to tell him "we are living as man and wife" or "this is my wife" or "this is my husband." There is no question at all about the impropriety of that sort of thing. It is just as though they had gone to a dress rehearsal in order to make sure that when they made their entrance, everything went according to plan. After it is all over, in order to give it an air of authenticity, as if these people had been disturbed, he uses this phrase "He got a little mad and we went".
I submit that it is asking the committee to stretch its imagination quite a bit to expect it to believe that this is precisely what occurred. I say this without intending any reflection upon what they concern themselves with but I submit that if the hon.
Private Bills-Divorce members of the other place had applied themselves as assiduously to examining Mr. Charron about his activities that night as they did to examining-and quite properly; I think they should examine and question on this matter-what will occur to the children after this divorce is granted, they would have found out a few other things about the adultery arrangements which probably are not shown in the particular evidence given here.
Again at the risk of incurring your wrath, Mr. Chairman, I say that the action of the Senate in the examination of the petitioner with respect to the teen-age children is an example, and is something they should do. I think the Senate should do this time and time again, regardless of these contrary rules. It shows that apparently the Senate also think the same way. It shows that they are not just concerned with rubber stamping some sort of arrangement because it meets some solemn test with respect to adultery but that they are also concerned about the welfare of other people who are affected in these particular divorce proceedings.
I may as well give you fair warning, Mr. Chairman. As I say, I do not want to incur your wrath, but I say with sincerity that, even though you have made this particular ruling, I think you should allow a fairly relaxed bit of discussion, thought and examination by members of the committee of the whole affair with respect to the children, even though the rules say something different. I hope, Mr. Chairman, I can push in that direction as much as you will allow without incurring your wrath. I would not think it would be right for members of this committee to rise on points of order, as some are wont to do from time to time, because the strict rules are not exactly followed, rules which they themselves do not follow when they are speaking about particular matters.
But when it comes to the matter of children, I think this is something with which we should concern ourselves a great deal more than we do. I submit that it is unfortunate that the jurisdiction is divided. The province itself has some jurisdiction over this matter but then we are asked to split asunder or to cut the marriage ties without concern for what certainly concerns the petitioner and the respondent, namely what occurs to the children after this divorce is granted. The children should have accorded to them far more concern and consideration than is given at the moment.

Private Bills-Divorce


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must refer the hon. member to standing order 59 (2) which reads as follows:
Speeches In committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
The Chair can go no further than that. I therefore once again ask the hon. member not to refer to the children.


Frank Howard: Because of what I have said previously and because of the references in the evidence-and because I think it is most unfair to put in the evidence and in the petition references to something which we have no right to discuss-I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Charles Edward Rea: Will the hon. member put the motion in writing?


Frank Howard: Yes.


Charles Edward Rea: Does the hon. member mean "ask leave to sit again either this day or next sitting of the house"?


Frank Howard: Later this day or next sitting of the house as the case may be.


Charles Edward Rea: The motion is the following one:
That the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day or next sitting of the house.
Motion negatived: Yeas, 5; Nays, 28.


Charles Edward Rea: I declare the motion lost. Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Peters:: I too have been greatly concerned in this particular case about what is going to happen to the children. Because the children were discussed in this evidence-


Mr. Lambert:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. In discussions in this committee may we please have conformity with the rules? There have now been four rulings by Your Honour on this particular point and once again we are seeing an attempt being made to breach the rulings made by Your Honour today and on previous occasions in connection with petitions of this nature.


Frank Howard: May I say a word upon the point of order raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West, Mr. Chairman, and point out that it is not an attempt to breach the rules. It is an attempt to act in a moral fashion and to consider the welfare of people who are not otherwise considered.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. That is not a point of order.


Frank Howard: I did not raise a point of order.
(Mr. Howard.]


Thomas Miller Bell: Are you
lecturing us on morals?


Frank Howard: You do not know what morals are.


Charles Edward Rea: The Chair has already ruled that the children are not to be discussed in this committee as they do not come under this bill or under the provisions of any of the causes of this bill. I will therefore again ask hon. members not to refer to them or I shall be obliged to ask them to resume their seats.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree with the-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The chairman has made his ruling and I shall be obliged to ask hon. members to abide by it.


Harold Edward Winch: Do I understand it is your ruling that in any divorce case the children shall not be the concern of the House of Commons?


Charles Edward Rea: I can only go by what the rules say. The debate must be relevant to this bill and there is no reference to children in the bill.


Harold Edward Winch: Will you explain why in the evidence which is before us, which has to do with a report of the committee on divorce, it is mentioned that there are three children?


Charles Edward Rea: Order. This committee can only go by the bill in front of it. There is no reference to the children in the preamble; therefore, the committee cannot allow a discussion on children.


Harold Edward Winch: This is the first time that I have ever heard that children do not interest the House of Commons.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to disagree with your ruling, but I shall be happy to try to meet the point without referring to the children, although they have been discussed widely in the evidence.
The hon. member who spoke a moment ago when he rose on a point of order mentioned rules. He has been in parliament long enough to know that we are not operating under rules as they affect this particular case. This is an act, and an act must take into consideration the results of its operation.
It would seem to me that there are two or three questions the sponsor of this bill should answer. I concern myself mainly with the fact that previously there was an attempt made to obtain a separation order in the superior court of the province of Quebec. It is my understanding that if this order had been granted by the superior court in the province

of Quebec and a separation obtained certain considerations would have entered into the matter. The court would have decided whether the wife was to get alimony and what the alimony was. Second, the court would have taken into consideration the children in this particular case. These two considerations would have been met in the case of a separation.
We are not too happy to discuss the matter of delay, but it would seem to me that the sponsor of the bill either should give some reason why this delay has taken place, or he should meet the charge that the reason that this act was presented to parliament at all was so the wife would not be able to continue her separation order and thereby get maintenance for the children through a civil court.
It is my understanding that if we grant this divorce then obviously there cannot be a separation order, and if there cannot be a separation order then there can be no maintenance granted by a court under a separation order. It would seem to me that if this is so then we are taking away the rights of those children and the wife to obtain support in the superior court.
It may be that we are not allowed to talk about the children here. It has been of importance to the Senate and the Senate have ruled. They have rules that govern what they do in a particular divorce action. They themselves, I believe, are capable of and have the full right and responsibility for changing the rules as they see fit. The reason you are advising the committee that we have no right to discuss children is not that you object to our discussing them, Mr. Chairman, but that you simply object to our discussing the maintenance of the children.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The Chair has no objections to anyone discussing anything that is before the committee. As I said before, I can go only by what is before the committee. It is not that I am objecting to anything; I do not object to anything that is pertinent to Bill No. SD-36. I hope I make myself perfectly clear.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that this case is in a very weak position. As I say, I think that the granting of this divorce will mean the end of the separation proceedings in the province of Quebec. There are certain considerations that we believe must be taken care of, and whether they have been implemented with or without consent is not of much importance. But I think it is important to know the background of this particular case.
It would be wise for us to read the evidence in this particular case, since we are passing
Private Bills-Divorce an act to dissolve the marriage of these people. It may be that some of the Conservative members do not want to see any issue of this marriage. They wish to think in their own minds that this is an annulment and that the marriage never happened. That is all right if that is the attitude they wish to take. Possibly that is the way their law is constituted. If this is true, then we should take up the actual case itself and find out what led up to the request for the dissolution of the marriage in the first place.
In the evidence taken by the Senate the normal questions were asked, such as whether any arrangements were made between the husband and the wife for obtaining the divorce and that sort of thing. The answers are as one would expect, because they were asked by legal counsel for the petitioner. Senator Barbour asked these questions:
Q. What was the cause of the trouble?
A. We used to live with the mother-in-law, and I wanted to take a house so that we could live by ourselves and she didn't want to come with me so she said to me if .you are not satisfied to stay here you can go. I couldn't live with her any more.
I guess because she told him he could go. I continue:
My mother-in-law was there and there was trouble all the time.
Q. Who was there?
A. My mother-in-law. She wanted to stay with her mother and did not want to come with me and there was too much trouble in the house.
Q. Were you living in her mother's home?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you try to get her any home of your own?
A. Yes, that is what I wanted to do, and she would not go with me and because there was too much trouble in the house I wanted to go. So I took my house, but she didn't want to go.
Q. I am not clear as to where the children are.
We will not give the answer to that question, Mr. Chairman, because I do not think the committee wants to know where they are. From the answers to these questions one can judge that the mother-in-law was at fault and that it did not have anything to do with the lady running around or the husband running around, or anything of that nature. It was purely domestic trouble. A question was asked by Senator Taylor. Again, there was some questioning about the children but we do not talk about that. Then, this question was asked:
Q. There is no hope of reconciliation at all?
A. I don't think so.
This is the first case we have had where the parties have said they did not think there was any hope of reconciliation. It would indicate that the man had not made up his mind yet. It would also indicate that he may have been advised that if he had not made

Private Bills-Divorce up this mind and if there was some chance of reconciliation probably the Senate would not see fit to pass the bill.


Mr. Bigg:: I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member who is speaking is imputing to members of this committee negligence in their attitude toward the children of these particular people. I take this as not only a personal insult but as an insult to the whole committee. I wish he would substantiate his remarks or withdraw them.


William Arnold Peters: There was a vote a few moments ago. The hon. member did not support us when we wanted to discuss the children. I do not think I have to go any further.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The Chair has ruled that the children cannot be discussed in this committee. They are not referred to in the bill.


William Arnold Peters: That member got up and supported it.


Harold Edward Winch: You attack us. Why are you not interested in the children?


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


William Arnold Peters: He goes on to ask if consideration has been given to changing her mind and coming back to live with him, and Senator Taylor continued with this question:
Q. You kept on in the hope that she would come back and live with you?
A. She lived with another man.
Then Mr. Joyal, the lawyer in this particular case, as in the last three or four or more cases we have had before us, made what in my opinion is a very startling statement. It is not a question but a statement by counsel. He says:
I don't think we will have evidence of actual cohabitation, but there is common knowledge that the respondent and correspondent are more or less living together, if not living together as man and wife.
Here is a very odd statement made by a lawyer, one of those people who are always so definite and are paid to be definite. They either believe the person is guilty or not guilty and they are not the least bit above setting out to prove their belief. We have Mr. Joyal, a barrister at law, presenting this petition and making this statement:
1 don't think we will have evidence of actual cohabitation, but there is common knowledge that the respondent and corespondent are more or less living together, if not living together as man and wife.
It seems to me this is further indication that this case was brought before parliament, not because the parties particularly wanted a divorce but for the simple reason that it

was a method of getting around the problem of separation which would have required consideration of things that we are not even going to talk about. There are further reasons why I suggest that this matter should not have been allowed to have been delayed the length of time it was. We mentioned the question of delay in divorce proceedings in a very superficial way the other day. As in other types of court procedures, delay is a discretionary bar and will prohibit the prosecuting of a case that has been subject to unreasonable delay. In the book, "The Law of Divorce in Canada", I find the following:
"Unreasonable delay" within the meaning of said act of 1857 is such a delay as indicates that the plaintiff acquiesced in the guilt of the other party or was insensible to the loss of his or her spouse, or is of such long standing as to compel the conclusion that there has been condonation. It does not need to amount to connivance for that is an absolute bar to relief under section 31; but lack of concern and long delay may be taken into consideration as evidence of conduct conducing to later adultery. In the Shaw case-


Mr. Speakman:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member is not discussing the bill at all.


William Arnold Peters: We are trying to indicate some of the things that are involved in the bill and that the action should not and could not be allowed in a court of law.


James Stanley Speakman: Which court of law?


Robert Jardine McCleave: How do you know? You are a bunch of vigilantes.


William Arnold Peters: I am not giving this out of my head. I am reading what somebody else has said which is more than some of the other members have been doing in the last few days. If they were to follow somebody else's advice they might do a lot better. I continue:
In the Shaw case... McLaurin, J., whose dismissal of the action was affirmed, held that standing by and doing nothing for a long period amounts to unreasonable delay and acquiescence within the meaning of the section. He disagreed on this point with Zaharia v. Zaharia.
This may satisfy the other side of the argument.
In that case the respondent wife left the petitioner in 1927, bore the corespondent an illegitimate son, and the proceedings were not instituted until 1942. The discretion was exercised against the petitioner by McPherson, C. J. K. B., and the court of appeal reversed him and granted the decree on the grounds of public policy and in the interests of morality.
We are not suggesting that we follow the same grounds that they have in Great Britain where the grounds for divorce are different from ours. We are not suggesting changes at this time but we are pointing out that there is an indication that this petition was not necessarily brought before the house

in the same manner that other actions have been brought in that it was brought as a method of preventing action for legal separation in the superior court of Quebec being proceeded with or contemplated in the future.
In my opinion it has not been clear for some time just what members of the committee will accept as constituting adultery. This matter has been discussed by the authorities and they mention those things that constitute adultery and those that do not. I would suggest that members of the committee familiarize themselves with the evidence that is necessary to prove an adultery charge. Because some of them probably cannot read or have not the time to read literature such as "The Law of Divorce in Canada" it may be necessary for me to read it in its entirety at some later date. But it is pointed out that adultery does not take place between two single people, between two women or two men. A number of things are necessary in order to prove that adultery has taken place.


An hon. Member:: Is that right?
Another hon. Member: What is your authority for that?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, apparently
some members of the committee would much rather hear what is in this book so I will go ahead and read it. Even the lawyer in this case admitted that he did not think that there would be evidence of actual cohabitation and he is the one who is trying to make a case before us today. Here is the definition of adultery as found at page 306:
Adultery is not defined by the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, or the divorce acts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island and its meaning has varied in different countries and under different systems of law. There is no doubt, however, that in divorce and other matrimonial causes it means voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person-


Charles Edward Rea: There is nothing in this bill asking for a description of the word "adultery". I, therefore, ask the hon. member to come back to the bill.


William Arnold Peters: I suggest that there is something here that mentions adultery.


Charles Edward Rea: I would be very happy to hear it, if you could make it relevant to this bill.


William Arnold Peters: I am just trying to find the prayer to the petition. It reads:
An act for the relief of-
Then, we will skip the name.
Whereas so-and-so, domiciled in Canada, and residing at the city of Longueuil, in the province of Quebec, has by his petition alleged that on the first day of September, A.D. 1941, at the city of
Private Bills-Divorce
Montreal, in the said province, he and Maria Rossi were married; and whereas by his petition he has prayed that, on the ground of her adultery since then, their marriage be dissolved; and whereas the said marriage and adultery have been proved by evidence adduced and it is expedient that the prayer of his petition be granted: Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
I would suggest that if we are going to admit this bill, which has the word "adultery" in it, then I am pointing out we are not aware of what adultery actually is. I suggest we should consult authorities higher than ourselves. I think it is only fair, since this is really a court procedure, that we be allowed to quote the leading authorities in Canada and the leading cases. We have an admission by the lawyer in this case that no adultery took place and yet we have a statement in the bill that adultery took place. It seems to me that this lawyer needs to know actually what constitutes adultery. He has been before us on four or five cases, and I am sure the committee should have the benefit of the authority I am citing. I suggest it is relevant to this particular case. I should like to complete the definition of adultery that I was given.


Charles Edward Rea: I will certainly listen to the hon. member and if he strays away from this case, I will advise him.


Mr. Nesbitt:: We may as well waste time this way.


William Arnold Peters: In so far as that last remark is concerned, I would say that if some hon. members just listened they might learn something. Some of them have been in this house a long time without learning very much. I continue the quotation:
There is no doubt, however, that in divorce and other matrimonial causes it means voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person of the opposite sex other than his or her spouse.
There is a reference then to the Oxford dictionary definition.
It seems that, under the canon law, where one of the parties was unmarried he or she did not commit adultery, but merely fornication but the use of the word "adulterer", without more, in section 28 of the act of 1857, which provides that a husband petitioner shall make "the alleged adulterer a corespondent, unless-"
Then, there are some asterisks.
-would indicate that this distinction does not prevail in our divorce law. Since the intercourse must be voluntary in order to constitute adultery the woman does not commit adultery in a case of rape; nor in the case of carnal knowledge of a girl under a certain age where her consent is no defence.-


An hon. Member:: Is that right?


William Arnold Peters: I am very interested in hearing the interjections. I am pleased to know

Private Bills-Divorce the hon. member is obtaining some information. The citation goes on to mention a number of other very interesting definitions, but I rather think hon. members would do well to read them for themselves. I have given what I consider to be the important part.
In any event, I think it has been made quite evident through this definition that actual sexual intercourse must take place. If we accept that as the definition of adultery, then obviously the evidence will have to go farther than it has in this case. Certainly, there has been no indication that this was not an arrangement, and there has been some indication of collusion between the corespondent and the respondent in this case in the obtaining of this divorce, perhaps so they could get married. I do not believe that adultery, in any way, shape or form, has been proved.
I suggest that before this bill is carried by the overwhelming majority when it comes time to vote on these bills the lawyer be recalled before the committee of this house and queried as to why he should make a suggestion that no adultery had taken place, why he should bring that type of evidence before the House of Commons.


Robert Jardine McCleave: He did not say that. Do not misread the evidence.


William Arnold Peters: What he says is:
I don't think we will have evidence of actual cohabitation, but there is common knowledge that the respondent and corespondent are more or less living together, if not living together as man and wife.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask-


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask a question of you, Mr. Chairman, concerning the procedure when a divorce case reaches this stage in the House of Commons and you have information that the spouse asked to appear before the Senate or House of Commons committee but was not notified, and is prepared to give sworn evidence that there was collusion between the lawyer and the other spouse. I should like to know what procedure we take.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I rise on a point of order; obviously, that has nothing to do with this case.


Charles Edward Rea: I can only rule with reference to this bill, and anything else should be given to another source.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six 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. McWilliam: 1.	Have changes been made in transportation allowances for civilian personnel engaged at the Renous naval ammunition depot, Renous, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, what are the changes?
3.	What was the date of the last change in transportation allowances and what were the changes?
Answer by: Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):
1.	No changes have been made in transportation allowances for civilian personnel engaged at the R.C.N. ammunition depot at Renous, N.B., since July 1, 1955.
2	and 3. On July 1, 1955 the daily transportation allowance for civilian employees
Questions
residing 21 miles or more from the unit was reduced from 80 cents to 60 cents.


FOREST INVENTORY, N.B.-FEDERAL PARTICIPATION
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Is the federal government presently sharing the costs with the province of New Brunswick of a new forest inventory, including aerial photos?
2.	If so, what is the estimated federal cost for the completion of this inventory?
3.	What is the estimated period of time to complete this inventory?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	Yes.
2.	An initial federal-provincial forest inventory of New Brunswick was begun in 1951 and completed in 1958 at a federal cost of $129,328. Since 1958, inventory maintenance costs have been shared under an agreement which provides for a continuing inventory progam up to March 31, 1961, when the present agreement expires. It is estimated that at that date the federal cost since April 1, 1958 will amount to a little over $51,000.
3.	See answer to part 2.


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
[See Hansard for April 7, 1960, p. 2997]
Building	Type of	Number ofNo.	Designation	Construction	Size	Stories	Pertinent Data106	Exchange, Cafe Snack Bar	Frame Permanent	12,233 Sq. Ft107	Telephone, exchange	. Frame Permanent	5,617 Sq. Ft202	Shop, Ord. Equip. Base	. Frame Permanent	8,719 Sq. Ft203	Heating facility building	. Frame Permanent	1,390 Sq. Ft204	Auto maintenance shop	Concrete	25,841 Sq. Ft910	Auto maintenance shop	. Concrete Permanent	13,626 Sq. Ft213	Vehicle fueling station	. Frame Permanent	3 pumps928	Vehicle fueling station	. Frame Permanent	2 pumps223	Headquarters, Wing	. Brick Permanent	31,086 Sq. FtT-255	Theatre	. Frame Temporary	11,426 Sq. Ft565	School elementary	. Frame Temporary	5,158 Sq. Ft566	. Frame Temporary	5,158 Sq. Ft567	" High	. Brick Permanent	39,894 Sq. Ft564	School Elementary	. Frame Temporary	3,458 Sq. Ft308	Open Mess, Officer	. Frame Permanent	42,334 Sq. Ft401	Family Housing Officer	. Frame Permanent	5,760 Sq. Ft402	tt a	tt	5,760 Sq. Ft403	tt tt	it	5,886 Sq. Ft404	tt tt	tt	5,760 Sq. Ft405	tt tt	tt	5,760 Sq. Ft406	tt	5,760 Sq. Ft407	tt tt	tt	5,760 Sq. Ft408	tt tt	tt	5,886 Sq. Ft409	tt tt	tt	5,886 Sq. Ft410	tt tt	it	5,886 Sq. Ft501	Garage, Family Housing, Officer	
tt tt	. Frame Permanent	2,914 Sq. Ft517	((	3,875 Sq. Ft813	Garage, Family Housing, Airmen...	tt	3,370 Sq. Ft507	Family Housing Officer	it	9,109 Sq. Ft508	Family Housing Officer	It	it509	Family Housing Officer	tt	"510	Family Housing Officer	it	8,624 Sq. Ft
1 w/basement
1
1	w/basement
1
2	w/basement
1
1
2 w/basement
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
Contains 164 Cafe seats, Barber shop 5 chairs, Beauty shop 2 chairs, Sales store space 3,892 sq. ft.. Storage space 3,085 sq. ft., Latrine facilities.
Telephone exchange has a capacity of 1600 lines and is connected with the city of St. John's, Ernest Harmon AFB, Argentia NAB, Goose AB, Gander and many air stations under jurisdiction of 64 Air Division.
Fully equipped to handle repairs to heavy equipment such as graders, tractors etc.
Capacity 1-75 H.P. Boiler-Central Heating Plant- Provides steam to buildings 202, 204, 205 and 206.
1-100 H.P. Boiler
Capacity-22 vehicles fully equipped to handle repairs to automobiles, pick-ups etc.
Capacity-44 vehicles.
Mo-gas storage 12,000 gals.
Mo-gas storage 12,000 gals.
Administrative type building.
Capacity-500 seats.
Contains 5 class rooms, capacity 150 students.
Contains 4 class rooms, capacity 150 students.
Contains 15 class rooms, capacity 480 students. This is a modern High School, fully equipped, including cafeteria, library, chemistry and science laboratories etc.
Contains 2 class rooms, capacity 90 students.
This building was designed as a 125 man barracks. However, conversion effected and an addition of 14,569 Sq Ft constructed.
4 family unit-3 bedroom-1 bathroom.
tt	tt	it
Capacity-12 vehicles Capacity-16 vehicles Capacity-14 vehicles
4	Family unit-4 bedroom-3 bathroom
it	it	Uit	it	tt5	Family unit-2 and 3 bedroom-1 bathroom3082	HOUSE OF COMMONS511 512 610 614 710	Family Housing Officer	
Family Housing Officer	
Family Housing Officer	
Family Housing Officer	
Hospital	Concrete Permanent	9.109	Sq. Ft 9.109	Sq. Ft 3,400 Sq. Ft 3,395 Sq. Ft 113,428 Sq. Ft616 713 807	Garage, Ambulance	
Mortuary, Base	
Service club	. Frame Permanent . Frame Permanent . Frame Permanent	1,898 Sq. Ft 1,920 Sq. Ft 27,765 Sq. Ft809	N.C.O. Club	Permanent Frame	27,664 Sq. Ft301	Administrative Office	. Frame Permanent	27,765 Sq. Ft302	Headquarters, Command	. Frame Permanent	27,765 Sq. Ft305	Rctn, Multi-Purpose	Frame Permanent	27,765 Sq. Ft311	Education Wing	Frame Permanent	27,664 Sq. Ft530 531 532 104	OQ, Visitor	
OQ, Men	
OQ, Men	
OQ, Men	. Frame Permanent Frame Permanent . Frame Permanent . Brick Permanent	23.566	Sq. Ft 23.566	Sq. Ft 23.566	Sq. Ft. 17,988 Sq. Ft615 701 Thru 709 207 723 812 102	Family Housing Officer	
Family Housing Airmen	
Family Housing Airmen	
Family Housing Airmen	
Photo Lab. Base	
Globecom Relay Centre	. Frame Permanent . Frame Permanent Frame Permanent . Frame Permanent Frame Temporary Frame Permanent	5.886	Sq. Ft 5.886	Sq. Ft 2,995 Sq. Ft 1,968 Sq. Ft 3,830 Sq. Ft 12,233 Sq. Ft851	Dormitory, Airmen	Frame Temporary	8,657 Sq. Ft901	Fire Station, Base	Concrete Permanent	12,384 Sq. Ft902	Install Engr. Admin	Frame Permanent	12,422 Sq. Ft903	Laundry, Base	Concrete Permanent	24,957 Sq. Ft904	Ele. Power station <fe Steam Plant...	Concrete Permanent	6,254 Sq. Ft905 1043 906 907	Cold storage, Food Base	
Cold storage, Food Base	
Bakery, Break	
Auto Storage, Heated	Concrete Permanent Concrete Permanent Concrete Permanent . Frame Permanent	18,339 Sq. Ft 2,727 Sq. Ft 7,666 Sq. Ft 44,030 Sq. Ft
2
2
2 w/basement
1
2 w/basement 2 w/basement 2 w/basement
2 w/basement 2 w/basement
2 w/basement
2
2
2
4 Family unit-4 bedroom-3 bathrooms
a	a	a
1 Family unit-4 bedroom-3 bathrooms
1 Family unit-4 bedroom-3 bathrooms
150 bed hospital. Construction all reinforced concrete with gas proof basement having a capacity of 132 beds in emergency.
Capacity-7 vehicles.
Autopsy and Morgue-9 Cadaver capacity.
This building was designed as 125-man barracks. Converted to service club.
This building was designed as a 125-man barracks. Converted to N.C.O. Club.
This building was designed as 125 man barracks. Converted to administrative offices. Exchange sales store and warehouse.
This building was designed as a 125 man barracks. Converted to Headquarters Command.
This building was designed as a 125 man barracks. Section of building was converted to physical fitness section for officer personnel.
This building was designed as a 125 man barracks. Section of building was converted to education wing for chaplain activities.
Capacity-49 men.
Capacity-49 men.
Capacity-49 men.
This building was designed as a 125-man barracks. Converted to shop, comm and Elect, Depot to house Canadian Marconi Company.
4 Family unit-3 bedroom-1 bathroom
9 units-4 family unit-3 bedroom-1 bathroom.
1	w/basement
2	w/basement
1	w/basement
2	w/basement
2
1 w/basement
1 w/basement
1
1
2 Family unit-3 bedroom-1 bathroom 1 Family unit-3 bedroom-1$ bathroom
Building also used as Base Communications and Post Office.
Capacity 47 men. This building was used for non-commissioned officers.
Building used by two (2) activities-Fire Station & Police Station. Capacity fire station-2 stalls.
Approx. 6,103 Sq. Ft used as administrative space, remainder used for storage and mechanical cow.
Capacity per month-60,000 pieces laundry and 7,900 pieces dry cleaning processed.
Stand-by emergency power plant-capacity 1,500 KW.
Central heating plant-capacity 750 H.P.
Capacity-281,198 cubic feet.
Capacity-11,700 cubic feet.
Capacity-4,000 man.
Capacity-96 vehicles-second storey of building approx. 22,654 Sq. Ft. Used for commissary store and storage.

[Stage Direction]
Building		Type of	
No.	Designation	Construction	Size803	Dormitory, Airmen	
Concrete Permanent	27,664 Sq. Ft804	Headquarters, Division	
Frame Permanent	27,664 Sq. Ft805	Headquarters, Division	
Frame Permanent	27,765 Sq. Ft806	Headquarters, Division	27,765 Sq. Ft815	Operations, AC&W	
Concrete Permanent	13,757 Sq. Ft1050	Operations, AC&W	it	10,886 Sq. Ft303	Dormitory, Airmen	
Frame Permanent tt	27,765 Sq. Ft U309	tt tt	tt tt a	tt tt tt310	if	tt312	tt	tt	tt313	ft	a	tt314	tt	a	tt802	tt	tt	it808	tt	a	tt810	tt	a	tt811	tt	a	tt1024 thru	Dormitory Airmen	
(t	
Frame Semi- Permanent	2,213 Sq. Ft1027	u	ti	it1029 thru	a	H	1033	u	tt	"1935	"	"	thru	"	"	It1039	tt	"1041	"	((	it1046	tt	tt	tt1028	Lounge Dayroom	
Frame Semi Permanent	2,213 Sq. Ft1034	"	1040	u	"	205	Warehouse, Base	50,194 Sq. Ft.206	it	tt	17,514 Sq. Ft.209	"	"	850 Sq. Ft1047	(t	Permanent	960 Sq. Ft1053	ti	((	2,213 Sq. Ft
-Cone.
Number of	
Stories	Pertinent Data
2 w/basement Building was designed as 125 man barracks. However, approximately 16,936 Sq. Ft was converted to open mess, airmen and administrative offices.
2 w/basement Building was designed as 125 man barracks. Converted to Division Headquarters.
2 w/basement	"	"	"	"	"2 w/basement	"	"	"	"	"
2
2 w/basement 13 units-115 man capacity. Two (2) dining Halls-300 man capacity, in building 303 and 808 in use.
1	16 units-20 man capacity-prefabricated buildings
a
a
ii
it
ti
ii
it
ii
it
ii	it
ii	ii
ii
ii
it
ii
it
ii
3 units-prefabricated buildings. Used for off duty recreation such as reading, pool and television. a	u	a
a
a
1	Approx. 20,000 Sq. Ft used for auto maintenance shop and
auto storage. Remainder used for storage of supplies.
1	General Storage.
1	Paint and dope storage.
1	General Storage.
3084	HOUSE OF COMMONS
79951-0-195
1100	U	ti	1,984 Sq. Ft1102	"	1,984 Sq.Ft1130 thru	it	8,020 Sq. Ft1135	11	"	"1142	"	U	"1140	((	"	23,626 Sq. Ft1150	Warehouse, Disp & Salvage	(<	8,820 Sq. Ft1170	Warehouse, Base	
Concrete Permanent	72,690 Sq. Ft1048	Heating Facility, Bldg	
Concrete Permanent	1,731 Sq. Ft1071	... Concrete Permanent	1,568 Sq.Ft908	IE, Pavement & Grnd Fac	... Concrete Permanent	5,824 Sq. Ft909	IE, Maintenance Shop	... Concrete Permanent	16,980 Sq.Ft930	Rctn, Gymnasium	
Frame Temporary	19,127 Sq.Ft951	Chapel, Base	
Frame Temporaty	6,153 Sq. Ft952	Shop, Comm. & Elec. Depot	... Frame Temporary	15,245 Sq. Ft1000	Rctn. Workshop	,... Concrete Permanent	9,733 Sq. Ft1003	Stor. Igloo	,... Concrete Permanent	1,610 Sq. Ft1014	Water Supply Storage	,... Concrete	500,000 Ga.1015	«	u	500,000 Ga.1020	Trlr. Ct. Utility House	
Frame Temporary	314 Sq. Ft1045	Dining Hall, Airmen	,... Concrete Permanent	4,668 Sq. Ft1044	Storage, subsist, base	960 Sq. Ft1051 & 1054	OQ Men	.... Frame Permanent	12,522 Sq. Ft1101	Tech Lab 1/fuel analy	,... Frame Semi-Permanent	1,984 Sq. Ft1042	Auto Storage, heated	... Concrete Permanent	7,440 Sq.FtRoad	... Asphalt Concrete	5.3 milesRoad	... Stabilized Earth	6.6 miles1	Petroleum products.1	General Storage((	itii	U1	General Storage.1	Storage of supplies disposed of thru crown assets disposal
corporation.
1	General storage and administrative offices of base supply
personnel.
1	Central heating plant-capacity 450 H.P.
1	Central heating plant-capacity 250 H.P.
1	This building was designed as auto storage, heated. Converted to present designation.
1	This building houses all shops used for maintenance and
repair of all facilities on base.
2	This building is equipped with six (6) lane bowling alleys
w/semi automatic pin setters and basketball court.
1	Capacity-375 seats.
1	This building is used by Canadian Marconi Company for
maintenance purposes.
1	This building is used as a hobby shop.
1	Underground Ammunition storage.
Provides emergency storage for base.
Community house for trailer court. Trailer court is designed to accommodate 53 trailers.
1	Capacity-230 men.
1	Storage of dry subsistence. (Food	Storage).
2	2 units-32 man capacity.
1	Laboratory for testing petroleum products.
1	This building was also used to house firefighting equipment reauired to for more adequate protection of White Hills area.
On Base.
On Base.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, April 11, 1960