1960-12-21

Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday the hon. member for Skeena raised as a matter of privilege a question which was then deferred for further consideration today. As I understand it, the point made by the hon. member was one of interpretation of two statutes of parliament passed, of course, by this house. One was the Senate and House of Commons Act, and reference was made to section 10 as to the eligibility of members of the house to sit and vote under certain circumstances. The other was the appropriation to certain members of parliament of allowances for motor cars. I think that was the particular allowance to which the hon. member referred.
The question raised is a point of law as to the interpretation and effect of the statutes. I have to determine whether it is also a question of privilege in this house. Admittedly in certain circumstances the right of a member to hold his seat is a matter of privilege and interest to the house, and discussions of such matters are provided for under standing order 30.
The first point to decide is whether this is a proper question of the privileges of the house or any of its members. If any hon. member would like to assist in consideration of this question of whether there is a prima facie question of privilege raised, I would be glad to hear him at this time. I understood the hon. member for Skeena had pretty well completed his statement, but if he wished to add anything perhaps he should do so first.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, as I attempted to indicate, the primary purpose in raising this question was not to have people ejected from the house, but to protect them in the future from something which I think was done inadvertently. That is the real effect of repeal of the statute that contained that saving feature. My purpose was also to protect members of the cabinet, if the house decided to take some corrective action, from the penalty which might be imposed in a suit against any individual,
namely the $200 a day penalty that may be imposed by the court upon people sitting in the house contrary to the provisions of the act. This was my primary purpose.
Perhaps the house is of the opinion that it may not be specifically a question of privilege, as you have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, but the government and the house may perhaps consider it of such importance and urgency that some corrective measure should be taken.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with this matter briefly, not so much on the point of whether or not it is a proper question of privilege but as to whether there is anything in the question itself.
I believe that if one were to press the point that this is not a proper question of privilege, one might dispose of it on that basis. At least it could certainly be argued that if it is to be raised as a question of privilege, it must be raised in a manner which is provided for matters of this importance; that is, that they must be founded on motions. The hon. member has not seen fit to present any motion, and I think a strong argument could be made that therefore it is not a proper question of privilege as he has raised it. But I feel that, the hon. member having stated his case, he has raised a question which should not be disposed of entirely on the technical point of whether or not it is a question of privilege. He has in effect brought into question the right of members of the government to continue as members of the house because they have accepted the motor car allowance. I am quite satisfied that to most hon. members of this house the point is not one they would take seriously. However, the hon. member for Skeena has seen fit to raise it and I think he should be answered. He based his so-called point of privilege on the contention that the Appropriation Act of 1931 was repealed by a provision in the revised statute enactment of 1948. The Appropriation Act of 1931, which first gave recognition to the motor car allowance to cabinet ministers, itself provided that:
-the acceptance of such sums not to vacate their respective seats in parliament:
That was a provision of the appropriation act in question. The hon. member's argument, therefore, is that the protection was removed because, he says, the Appropriation Act of 1931 was repealed. May I point out to him

Question of Privilege
that he has been looking at the wrong schedule. He said it was repealed by the statute of 1948. If he will look at the statute authorizing the revision of statutes-1948, chapter 67-he will find it provides in section 4 that there shall be appended to the revised statutes a schedule A, and section 7 goes on to provide that when the revised statutes go into force the acts listed in schedule A shall stand and be repealed.
Schedule A is to be found at the back of volume V of the revised statutes of Canada, 1952. The statutes for 1931 which were repealed are listed at page 5971. This list does not include chapter 61 of the statutes of 1931; that is to say, the list of statutes repealed by the revised statutes does not include the Appropriation Act of 1931 which is, therefore, not repealed. In fact none of the appropriation acts passed since the last revision of 1927-the last previous revision -were repealed by the revision of 1952.
The hon. member has been looking at the tables in volume VI of the revised statutes. These tables are not law; they constitute only an account of what the statute revision commission did. Table one of appendix I in volume VI on which the hon. member erroneously relied, is only a history and disposal of acts. The important document is schedule A itself-acts and parts of acts repealed, from the date of the coming into force of the revised statutes of Canada, 1952- printed at the end of volume V of the revised statutes; and, as I said, schedule A does not contain the Appropriation Act of 1931 which therefore continues in force unrepealed. It is only those statutes listed in schedule A of the revised statutes which are repealed. So the hon. member has looked at the wrong tables and misconstrued and misunderstood what he saw.


Frank Howard: The hon. minister, with his delicate phraseology and his tendency to classify everything as erroneous, is himself in error and has misinterpreted to the house the effect of my comment. I said this particular act had been repealed by virtue of a proclamation of the governor in council, and not by virtue of the statute. So if the minister desires to be erroneous all the way through he might as well conclude by accepting that statement, too.


Mr. Speaker:: The point raised is, of course, a point of law, one which involves an interpretation of the statutes and, as the hon. member for Skeena has indicated, one which could be brought before the courts for consideration in the course of an appropriate action. It seems to me that this would be the

proper way to test the question of law unless it does necessarily involve the privileges of the house.
My difficulty in finding that this question is one within the category of privilege is that, in effect, to accept it as such the house would have to assume that in making its decision to pay these allowances it was thereby acting in a breach of its own privileges. This seems to be a conclusion which leads to absurdity.
May I put it this way. The house has enacted both these statutes, one specifying what payments would disqualify an hon. member from holding a seat and another statute authorizing payments to be made to the same hon. members. In authorizing these payments to be made to certain hon. members, the house has come to a deliberate decision just as it did when it passed the Senate and House of Commons Act. Therefore we would be asking ourselves now to say that we may commit a breach of our own privileges by legislating because that legislation might appear to disqualify certain hon. members from sitting under the provisions of the other act.
That seems to me to answer the question as to whether this is in the class of matters which involve the privileges of the house. To my mind it is not the kind of question which can be raised as a breach of privilege because to do so would in effect be to question the former decision of the house itself. That does not decide the point of law involved, which would therefore have to be dealt with in some other manner.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on a point arising out of the remarks made by the hon. member for Skeena just a moment ago in which he accused me of inaccuracy, I should like to draw Your Honour's attention and that of the house to another inaccuracy committed by the hon. member. The hon. gentleman criticizes me for having said that his case was that the Appropriation Act of 1931 was repealed by virtue of the statute of 1948. He said that was not his case, and that he had said the Appropriation Act of 1931 was repealed by virtue of the proclamation.
I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, as I say, to this further inaccuracy on the part of the hon. gentleman in recollecting even his own argument, because at page 998 of yesterday's Hansard he is reported as having said:
This statutory vote had effect only until the fifteenth day of September, 1953-
That is the vote under the Appropriation Act. He continued:
-and I should explain that this statutory protection no longer exists by virtue of chapter 67 of the 1948 statutes, being an act respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada-

It is therefore quite clear that the hon. member did base his case, as I said, on his contention that the 1948 statute repealed the 1931 act.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not deal with the merits, so to speak, of the point of law which was raised because, for the reasons I have indicated, it seemed to me it could not be raised here as a matter of privilege.



APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER FOR YORK EAST TO PRIVY COUNCIL

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce to the house that the hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor) was this day sworn of Her Majesty's privy council. In view of the fact that his biographical sketch in the Parliamentary Guide is one of the shortest and least informative, I think I should point out something of the service which the hon. member has given to his country in a period of some 50 years.
His service goes back to his election as a member of the Plains Road school board. He was elected deputy reeve of York township in 1922, deputy reeve of York East in 1924-25 and reeve of York East in 1926. He was elected to the House of Commons for the first time in 1926, and he has been here continuously for 34 years. He thereby becomes the dean of the house. In the United Kingdom a person occupying that position is called the father of the house, which means that, in either case, he has served for a longer continuous period than any other member.
I simply want to add that by giving him membership in the privy council, tribute is paid to the service he has rendered to parliament and to his country for so many years, and that such abiding modesty and friendliness have earned for him the warm-hearted friendship of all members of the house.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is a very great honour, of course, to be sworn of Her Majesty's privy council for Canada, and perhaps the honour is all the greater when there are no executive duties attached to the swearing in. The hon. member who has served this house so well over so many years may find it difficult to believe when I tell him that we on this side are just as happy about this honour as his own colleagues on the government side. It just shows, Mr. Speaker, where peace and quiet, shown persistently, courteously and continually, will get one.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those happy occasions when the house can take a unanimous position.
1023
Royal Commission on Health Standards The announcement made by the Prime Minister is most welcome; it recognizes the services of the dean of the house in a very practical and fitting manner.
The hon. member has been known to many of us for quite a number of years. I think what has happened today is an indication that there are a number of roads that one might take to the privy council, and the road taken by the hon. member over the years has been one of brevity and clarity. Perhaps this is an example that some of the rest of us might consider.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement to make now which I am sure will be of interest to all hon. members and the country as a whole. For some time past representations have been made to the government by various organizations and groups emphasizing the need of a comprehensive study of Canada's national health requirements, and the existing deficiencies in health care, with a view to consideration of the establishment of a national health plan.
It will be of interest to the house to learn that recently the Canadian Medical Association communicated with me in this regard and, with the leave of the house, I shall read the letter which embodies the views expressed therein. It is directed to myself from the Canadian Medical Association.
December 12, 1960.
The Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Diefenbaker:
The concern of the medical profession of this country in making personal health services available to our fellow citizens has been demonstrated by the establishment, under medical auspices, of 11 voluntary plans of prepaid medical care which now provide benefits for over 4 million persons. The Canadian Medical Association is conscious of a quickening of public interest in the whole area of health services, including the application of insurance methods of defraying the costs of medical services for all.
The issues involved are difficult and complicated and we regard it as a matter of considerable importance that a study be undertaken by a body which will command the respect of all Canadians in order that future plans and decisions be arrived at wisely and objectively.
I am therefore directed to request that there be established a royal commission or other agency under the authority of part I of the Inquiries Act for the purpose of assessing the health needs and resources of Canada with a view to recommending methods of ensuring the highest standard of health care for all Canadians.
The recent distribution of the attached statement on medical services insurance to members of the
1024	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Royal Commission on Health Standards House of Commons and the Senate of Canada has elicited replies which indicate a lively interest and I infer that the appointment of a commission such as we are suggesting would receive the support of parliament.
I would assure you that a study undertaken under a royal commission would receive such aid and co-operation as this association is able to render and that the medical profession would welcome the opportunity of providing information based on its experience and its obvious interest in all phases of health.
Yours sincerely,
A. D. Kelly
General Secretary
The government has decided, on the basis of the representations it has received from quite a wide area of Canadians, economic and other groups, to set up a royal commission, the scope of whose authority and the personnel to be announced early in the new year. I cannot say exactly the date on which the commission will be set up to make this study, but I would hope that very soon after the holiday period the announcement can be made.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, one will have to draw one's own conclusions from the announcement made by the Prime Minister, an announcement that normally might have been made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Prime Minister reminds the house that the general secretary of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Arthur Kelly, has written offering the services of the association in connection with the proposed study to be made by a royal commission. I would remind the house that two years ago the Canadian national welfare council, in representations made to the present government, urged that a body of this sort be appointed for the specific purpose mentioned by the Prime Minister and also to review generally social welfare measures on federal account now part of the law of this country.
The Prime Minister has decided that we are to have a study of this phase of medical care insurance through the medium of a royal commission. I would point out to the minister that it is open to the government itself to take a step in the field of medical care insurance, in co-operation with the provinces, without resorting to the intervention of the well known vehicle which this government is now seeking to employ, namely a royal commission. This will be at least the twelfth such instrument which the government has used for the promulgation of its ideas and policies. The government might well have embarked upon a specific plan of medical care insurance, just as the former government did with regard to hospital insurance,

which was enacted in this house without the prior intervention of a royal commission.
In any event, I would ask the Prime Minister, not today but at the earliest opportunity in the future, to give us some assurance that, in the appointment of a royal commission to investigate this important matter affecting the health and welfare of the Canadian people, this device will not be employed for the purpose of delay or postponement. There is a good precedent for my observation, because the Prime Minister gave the Canadian people assurance in January, 1958 that something was going to be done about adopting in this country a system of old age pensions similar to that in force in the United States. For this purpose a study was made that was to be completed in four months, but which has been under continuous study by the studious Minister of National Health and Welfare-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is going into the debating aspects of this question when he draws parallels with other acts of the government. I would ask him if he would stick to the non-contentious comments on the statement made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have our views, sir, as to whether or not my observations are in order. I submit to you with great confidence that I have a right to point out that this very device was used by the Prime Minister in another field of social welfare on another occasion. I am simply expressing the hope that the use of a royal commission in this instance will not mean a delay in the implementation of what I believe the people of Canada are now looking for, that is legislation by this parliament, in co-operation with the provincial governments, that will see to it that no Canadian suffers the want of medical care on the mere ground of financial incapacity. I hope this announcement by the government means action by the government, and not postponement and procrastination.


Hazen Robert Argue: This seems to be a day for the announcement of new policies by the two major parties in the house. The Prime Minister has announced a royal commission in this very important field, while the hon. member for Essex East has now gone far ahead of any pronouncements by his party on this subject, and has left other members of his party, including the Saskatchewan leader, far, far in the rear.
I am confident that the Prime Minister's announcement is merely another indication that the people of Canada are anxious to have the benefits of a national health insurance program at the earliest possible date. I have already said in this house this week on this

question that now is the time, in our opinion, for the government to go forward in the field of national health insurance. Reference has been made by the two previous speakers to other health programs. The people of Canada have had to wait over a period of 13 years between the first initiation in the field of hospital insurance and the completion of such a program for all the people of this country. We are hopeful that in the field of national health insurance and a complete medical care program, the time between the initiation in this field by one province and the provision of these facilities for all provinces will be much shorter than 13 years.
I am hopeful, too, and I would press upon the government, that there should be no repetition of the kind of action taken in regard to old age security. This should not be a means for delaying the implementation of a program, but rather the government should go forward a full step in this direction.
Mr. Speaker, I imagine that the announcement that has just been made by the Prime Minister will receive much greater commendation than will the important announcement made in this house over a long period last evening. However, for the government this may perhaps be a bit of a blood transfusion for the blue baby which is in such ill health at the moment, and which was introduced by the Minister of Finance last night.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the statements made-


Mr. Pickersgill:: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a clearly established principle-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to hear the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it has been a clearly established principle, established by Your Honour's predecessor, that when ministerial statements are made to the house the opportunity is given for comment by the leaders of other parties. This does not result in a debate nor give any minister, including the Prime Minister, any right to make further debating statements about it. I would hope that the rules would be observed in this instance.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister a point of order?


John George Diefenbaker: I am speaking on the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The opposition often follows the course of making a partisan speech when a purely objective statement is made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The suggestion is that it is terrible for the opposition to be partisan.
90205-6-65J
Admission of Tubercular Refugees


John George Diefenbaker: I presented a completely unprovocative statement. Surely I have the right to reply to the statement made by the hon. member for Essex East that we should follow the example of his party on health insurance.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no doubt that the practice is that the statement itself should be factual, that comments should be non-provocative and not of a debating order and therefore such as not to give rise to any necessity for reply. It has not been the practice to admit reply. The only exception that I myself have accepted is where the comment on the statement has made some interpretation of the statement which needs explanation, or in other words has given a wrong impression of the statement itself which requires explanation. If that circumstance arises I think the house would agree that, as at any time when an hon. member feels that what he has said has been misapplied or misinterpreted, he should have the right to call attention to that fact. But simply to reply would, to my mind not be in order. I leave it to the Prime Minister to govern himself accordingly. That is the position I take.


John George Diefenbaker: I always want to uphold the rules of the house, Mr. Speaker, but I find it extremely difficult to understand why I should be denied the right to reply to a number of statements that have no relevance whatsoever to the matter I brought before the house. The particular reference I wish to make, on the basis of the ruling Your Honour made, is this. The hon. member for Essex East stated that the purpose of this procedure was to bring about a stall, or something of that kind, and he said that we in this government in connection with hospital insurance should follow the course of the party that he represents when it was in office. We do not intend to follow that course for 38 years-it is far too long.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a question of privilege affecting each member of the opposition. My question of privilege is this. A few moments ago in this house, which is consecrated to party government, the Prime Minister objected to the opposition being partisan. Surely we are not going to have a one party state instituted by this government.


Mr. Starr:: It looks as though you are against the national health plan.



UNITED NATIONS


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make an announcement about the
1026	HOUSE OF
Admission of Tubercular Refugees movement to this country of a third group of tubercular refugees and their families.
Hon. members may recall that as a part of Canada's contribution to world refugee year, a $600,000 special fund was set up for the movement to Canada of these refugees and their families. One hundred families-344 persons, of whom 100 were tubercular- came to Canada in December of 1959 and in January of this year. Because of the rapid integration of that group, a second group of 39 families-209 persons, of whom 111 were tubercular-was admitted in June.
The refugees who came to Canada in the two previous movements have been so successful in adjusting themselves to the Canadian environment, and in becoming permanently established in our communities, that the majority of them are well on their way to becoming self-supporting. Our representative in Geneva has been consulting with the United Nations high commissioner for refugees about the continuing problem of the tubercular refugees who still remain in refugee camps in Europe and the difficulty of arranging emigration facilities for them.
Since a workable procedure has now been developed here for rehabilitating these families, and since the period of treatment and integration has proved to be shorter than was originally estimated, the government has decided in principle to admit a third group of tubercular refugees, and is urgently undertaking the necessary consultation with the provincial governments, most of which have co-operated generously in the two earlier movements. Because of the rapid settlement of the two previous groups, a balance of the $600,000 special fund has not been spent and would remain unspent at the end of this fiscal year. It is out of this residue that the expenses of the third group would be paid.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members will agree that, as Canada has already made so substantial a contribution to world refugee year, it would have been unfortunate if full advantage could not be taken under this program to reduce still further the number of handicapped refugees who remain in the European camps.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It seems clear, Mr. Speaker, that the humanitarian arrangements that have been in effect for the reception of these tubercular refugees have worked out very well. We on this side of the chamber warmly welcome the extension of this arrangement for which, in fact, we need not as Canadians take too much credit, because this is a debt that we owe to these people. In addition, as the minister has pointed out, this particular extension does not cost us anything extra.


Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: On
behalf of our group, Mr. Speaker, I should like to express our pleasure at the announcement we have just heard. We are happy indeed to learn that the process of rehabilitation of those admitted under this category has been so rapid. I should like to assure the minister that it is our opinion that anything being done in this line and anything that may be planned in addition to the measures he has announced will be heartily welcomed by the Canadian people.



THE SENATE


Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-56, for the reformation of the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: This bill is complementary to the one which was passed on December 16 this year, namely Bill C-ll. Its purpose, along with that of Bill No. C-ll, is to apportion the labours of the two chambers so that each house may have an expanded opportunity to be the more assiduous and attentive to its especial legislative duties, public or private as may be the case, and so promote and expedite continuing improvement in parliamentary efficiency. It seeks to put into effect that portion of the Tory election promise portfolio which dealt with the reform of the Senate.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Mcllrailh: What was the number of unemployed for each year 1949 to 1959 inclusive, measured as an annual average percentage of the civilian labour force?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the unemployed measured as a percentage of the civilian labour force, annual averages 1949 to 1959 inclusive are as follows:
1949 .		 2.8
1950 .		 3.6
		 2.4
1952 .		 2.9
1953 ...	
1954 ..,		 4.6
1955 ...	
1953 ..,		 3.4
1957 ...	
1958 ..,		 7.1
1959 ...	
Annual	averages were calculated from '
results of four quarterly labour force surveys

from 1949 to 1952 inclusive, and of 12 monthly labour force surveys from 1953 to 1959 inclusive.


HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURES, LAKEHEAD
Mr. Hellyer: How much money has the federal government spent on harbour improvements at the lakehead from March, 1958 to October 31, 1960?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is $3,632,527.00, including the lakehead terminal project, Fort William harbour improvements and Port Arthur harbour improvements.


T.v. SATELLITE STATION, MONT LAURIER
Mr. Clermont: 1.	Has the board of broadcast governors recommended the issue of a licence to establish a satellite station in Mont Laurier? If so, on what date?
2.	Has the government issued such licence? If so, on what date?
3.	Have tenders been called for the construction of the said station?
4.	If so, (a) at what date is such work to begin; (b) how long will such work last?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would let that matter stand.


Mr. Clermont:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Question stands.


EXPORT CONTROL LIST
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Have any items been placed by the governor in council on the export control list (order-incouncil P.C. 1958-1158 and subsequent amendments thereto) for the purpose of ensuring that arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war, naval, army or air stores or any articles deemed capable of being converted thereinto or made useful in the production thereof or otherwise having a strategic nature or value will not be made available to any destination wherein their use might be detrimental to the security of Canada?
2.	If so, which items have been so placed on the export control list?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the answer to No. 1 is yes. The answer to No. 2 is, all items in groups 1 to 8 inclusive except the following: pancreas glands of cattle and calves, pork and pork products, swine of that breed known as Lacombe swine, logs of all species (of wood), pulpwood of all species (of wood), scrap iron and steel, used rails and used railway axles, and helium gas.
I am tabling a copy of the export control list made under order in council P.C. 19581158 together with amendments to date.



Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl): 1.	Have any items been placed by the governor in council on the export control list (order in
Starred Questions
council P.C. 1958-1158 and subsequent amendments thereto) for the purpose of implementing an intergovernmental arrangement or commitment?
2.	If so, which items have been so placed on the export control list?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the answer to No. 1 is yes. The answer to No. 2 is, pork and pork products, and goods originating outside Canada (group 9).



Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl): 1.	Have any items been placed by the governor in council on the export control list (order in council P.C. 1958-1158 and subsequent amendments thereto) for the purpose of ensuring that there is an adequate supply and distribution of such article in Canada for defence or other needs?
2.	If so, which items have been so placed on the export control list?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the answer to No. 1 is yes. The answer to No. 2 is, pancreas glands of cattle and calves, swine of that breed known as Lacombe swine, logs of all species (of wood), pulpwood of all species (of wood), scrap iron and steel, used rails and railway axles, and helium gas.



OTTAWA TRADE COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE


Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Was a conference of Canadian trade commissioners recently held by the Department of Trade and Commerce?
2.	If so, where and when was such conference held?
3.	Were representatives of provincial governments invited to attend and participate in such conference?
4.	If so, to which minister, deputy minister or officer of the Quebec provincial government was such invitation addressed?
5.	What was the form of such invitation?
6.	Was a reply received from the government of the province of Quebec or any of its officers?
7.	If so, what was the nature of the said reply?
8.	Was the government of the province of Quebec represented? If so, by what minister, deputy minister or other official?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the answer to No. 1 is yes. The answer to No. 2 is, at Ottawa, November 30 to December 16 inclusive, 1960. The answer to No. 3 is yes. The answer to No. 4 is Mr. Rene Tremblay, deputy minister, department of trade and commerce, Quebec city.
The answer to No. 5 is, a letter dated November 17, signed by Mr. James A. Roberts, deputy minister, Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, to Mr. Rene Tremblay. The answer to No. 6 is yes. The answer to No. 7 is a telephone call to Mr. James A. Roberts which indicated that Mr. Rene Tremblay, accompanied by Mr. P. R. Hyndman, director, industrial development

Starred Questions
branch, department of trade and commerce, Quebec city, wished to participate in the conference. The answer to No. 8 is yes, by Mr. Rene Tremblay and Mr. P. R. Hyndman.



EXPORT OF QUEBEC MADE PRODUCTS

Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Has the government of the province of Quebec entered into any agreement with the federal government or the Department of Trade and Commerce providing for the promotion of export trade of Quebec made products?
2.	If not, have any steps been taken to that end by the government of the province of Quebec?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the answer to No. 1 is no. The answer to No. 2 is, not to my knowledge.



UNIVERSITY RESIDENCE LOANS

Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Are loans for university residence to be confined to the 38 institutions listed by the Minister of Public Works as reported on page 223 of Hansard for November 25, 1960?
2.	If not, what additional institutions are considered eligible and on what authority have additional institutions been added to the list?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, the answer to No. 1 is no. The answer to No. 2 is that other universities and affiliated colleges of equal standard are considered eligible. There is no definitive list. The names of some universities have been given for illustrative purposes only.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with respect to the answer given by the minister. The minister told us when the bill was before the house that the list he gave included all the institutions which would be considered for these loans. It is true that he said in another place that extensions to that list would be made. It does seem to me that this house is entitled to be told what that definitive list will be.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I said no such thing as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has alleged I said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read Hansard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Read your speech in Hansard.



POST OFFICE, RESERVE MINES, N.S.   PROTEST PETITION

Mr. Denis: 1.	Has a petition been received by the Post Office Department or the Department of Public Works, from citizens of Reserve Mines, Nova Scotia, protesting the construction of a post office on Sydney road?
2.	If so, how many persons signed such petition?
3.	Has a reply been made to same, and of what nature?
[Mr. Hees.l
4.	Has an inquiry been made with a view to finding a more appropriate site for this post office on Main street?
5.	If so, with what result?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, the answer to question No. 1 is yes. The answer to question No. 2 is 360. The answer to question No. 3 is yes, the petitions were acknowledged. The answer to question No. 4 is that other sites were investigated, but to date have not been considered suitable. The answer to question No. 5 is that the project has been cancelled.



C.B.C. CHRISTMAS BROADCAST  PAUL ROBESON

Mr. Carter: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation invited or negotiated with Mr. Paul Robeson to participate in a broadcast on Christmas day?
2.	If so, has Mr. Robeson accepted?
3.	In view of Mr. Robeson's communist sympathies would the minister suggest to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the desirability of substituting another performer whose views are more in accord with the spirit of Christmas?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the answer to question No. 1 is no. The answer to question No. 2 is, answered by the above. In amplification of that I might say I am advised by the corporation that Mr. Robeson did record a program for the British Broadcasting Corporation, which program has been acquired by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and part of which may be replayed on Christmas day or any other day because the corporation feels it is entirely appropriate to the occasion.



EXPORTS TO AREA CONTROL LIST COUNTRIES

Mr. Carter: What Is the value of Canadian exports to each of the countries listed on the area control list established under the Export and Import Permits Act for the years 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960 to date?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in view of the detail involved in replying to this question, I suggest it be made an order for return, tabled herewith.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Latour: 1.	How much time was granted to each federal and provincial political party since January 1, 1960, at the Montreal station CBFT and T.V.?
2.	What period was granted to each of these parties, at each of such broadcasts or interviews?
3.	What are the names of the participants in each of the said broadcasts or interviews?


WINTER WORKS PROGRAMS
Mr. Clermont: 1.	For the years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61, and
with respect to each province:	(a) how many
municipalities, cities or towns have submitted projects to the federal government under the winter works assistance program? (b) of these projects, how many have been approved? (c) what is the total estimated cost of the projects which have been approved? (d) what is the estimated amount of the federal contribution to the cost of these projects in terms of direct wages?
2.	(a) which provinces are at the present time contributing to the winter works assistance program? (b) what is the amount of the contribution made by each of these provinces?


EXPORTS TO AREA CONTROL LIST COUNTRIES
Mr. Carter: What is the value of Canadian exports to each of the countries listed on the area control list established under the Export and Import Permits Act for the years 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960 to date?


George Harris Hees: Return tabled.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 20-Mr. Cardin (for Mr. Dupuis):
For a copy of each of the reports made by the economists and engineers of the Department of Transport, in connection with the possible dredging of the Richelieu river between the St. Lawrence river and lake Champlain.
Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, a similar motion was called on Monday. At that time I explained that these documents are departmental reports and that therefore they are privileged under the established practice of this house. Therefore I wonder whether the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) would be agreeable to withdrawing his motion.


Mr. Cardin:: Mr. Speaker, I think the house will notice that all that is being asked for in this motion is the tabling of reports of economists and engineers of the Department of Transport. Owing to the wide interest that has been shown, and to the studies that have been made by organizations both in Canada and in the United States, I would urge the government and I would even insist that the government make these reports public.


Mr. Speaker:: I am advised that the hon. member who acts on behalf of the hon. member in whose name this motion stands is not in a position to withdraw the motion. By consent of the house, I suggest that the motion stand until the mover is here. Agreed?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of Mr. Dupuis I would insist that the papers be tabled-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am advised that the hon. member has not the authority to move
Inquiries of the Ministry the motion, if it is opposed, nor to withdraw it. There seems to be no other course but to allow the matter to stand until the member in whose name it stands is present. Is it agreed that this motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether, when he said last evening that employment had continued to increase in this country, he was aware that a dominion bureau of statistics publication issued this morning reported that over-all employment between the two quarters, that is the second and third quarters of 1960, remained unchanged.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I think I was aware of most of the statistics upon which the release which has been issued today was based. I think if the Leader of the Opposition will look at the release he will see that there were some
99,000	more persons employed on the date given in the release than were employed on the same date last year.



INQUIRY AS TO INCREASE IN DELIVERY QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of the low grain delivery quotas in existence on the prairies, almost 1,300 of one bushel or less and 700 have a lower quota than this time last year. Can the minister hold out any hope or give any assurance that at an early date grain delivery quotas can be raised to the two or three bushel level?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Deliveries of spring wheat grades have been held back this year until a few weeks ago because of our success in selling oats and Durum wheat, thereby increasing the cash income to farmers in western Canada. I think all the indications are that we shall be catching up with spring wheat quotas in the next few months or so. I should like to emphasize that what really counts is the number of bushels sold by farmers to the elevators, which is higher this year than last year.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the minister could inform the house, as his predecessor did in times gone by, as to the bushel target for delivery quotas this year. In other words, does the minister expect that an 8-bushei quota may be reached in this crop year?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is several years since an 8-bushel quota was reached for every station. In the last two years we have managed to get deliveries at many points up to a 7-bushel quota and more. I think last year we set something of a record, in fact, in reducing the inequalities among shipping points. I do not think we shall ever do as well as that again. However, I suggest that this year we should be very close to the 7-bushel quota.



THE CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assomplion-Monicalm):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
(Translation):
Could the Minister of Trade and Commerce tell the house whether an important delegation made up of representatives of various Quebec agencies has recently come to see him and whether it submitted any representations concerning the census?
If so, could the minister tell us what he intends to do in the matter?
(Text):


George Harris Hees: I appreciate the hon. member having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. I was very much impressed with the representations made to the Secretary of State and myself by the delegation which met with us on Tuesday afternoon. As a result of the representations which they made, I have instructed the officials in charge of preparing the census to carefully review the wording of the instructions to the census takers to make sure that every possible effort is made to obtain the correct information regarding racial and ethnic origin, and religion. A committee of three from the delegation will be meeting with the chief statistician to discuss their suggestions with him.
I very much appreciate the time and trouble which the delegation took at their own expense to come to Ottawa, and bring these important matters to my attention. I can assure them of our complete co-operation in this important matter.

(Translation):


Mr. J. A. Habel (Cochrane):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell us whether the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) managed to crash the gate to the meeting or whether he had been invited to attend?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker-
(Text):


George Harris Hees: The hon. member was obviously invited, because Conservatives do not go where they are not invited.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce with reference to the answer he gave me concerning the trade conference held in Ottawa recently.
(Text):
Could the minister tell the house who first started preparations for this conference?


George Harris Hees: Well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it was myself.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question somewhat similar to the one I put to the Prime Minister during the hon. gentleman's absence. Can the minister say what attitude the Canadian government proposes to take regarding the request made by the Prime Minister of India that the truce supervisory commission formerly operating in Laos be reconvened? I ask this question particularly now in the light of the statement made the day before yesterday by the foreign secretary of the United Kingdom in the House of Lords in which he urged that the commission be reconvened, and that he had had conversations in this connection with the secretary of state of the United States.


Howard Charles Green: As hon. members
know, this commission was deactivated many months ago. On different occasions since, India has suggested that the commission be reconvened. The Canadian government has taken the position that it would not agree to the reconvening of the commission against the wishes of the Laotian government. That is still the situation. The government of Laos has not requested that the commission be

reconvened. Should it so decide, then of course we would give further consideration to the situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question. If the new government of Laos, which has been recognized by the government of the United States and, I think, by implication by the United Kingdom, agreed to the commission being reconvened, what would be the policy of the government of Canada?


Howard Charles Green: That is a hypothetical question. If the Laotian government requests that the commission should be reconvened we would look into all the circumstances at that time and make our decision accordingly.
(Translation):


PENITENTIARIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rodrigue Bourdages (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), but first, I should like to take this opportunity, as this is the last sitting before the Christmas holidays, to offer to each and everyone my best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
I hope all hon. members will be offering their family as magnificent a gift as the one we were presented with last night by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming).
My question is this. Could the Minister of Justice tell me whether the penitentiaries division has made arrangements with the national capital commission for building a work camp for prisoners in the national park, and whether such camp would have unfavourable effects on employment in the Gatineau area?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question.
In accordance with our progressive policy in correctional matters which was announced recently, we intend to develop correctional work camps in several parts of Canada. In such camps, carefully selected prisoners with a positive attitude towards authority and willing to co-operate in their successful rehabilitation will be given the opportunity to work under less strict conditions than in penitentiaries.
The possibility of having work done in the Gatineau park has been explored in co-operation with the national capital commission.
The government believes in the principles underlying such rehabilitation projects and 90205-6-66
Inquiries of the Ministry their use for resources conservation purposes. However, in the study of each particular project, we apply the following test. Is it excepted that the project, within about ten years, would be carried out by regular workers and paid for out of public funds? If the answer is yes, it is not undertaken by prisoners.
(Text):


U.S. COMPLAINT RESPECTING ATTITUDE OF MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Otiawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask if he would comment on the complaint contained in the December 20 issue of the Washington newsletter "Through Canadian Eyes" to the effect that the United States understanding of the Canadian position concerning trade with Cuba was hindered by-[DOT] and I quote-"the exuberance of trade and commerce minister Hees in his public adoration of the Cuban trade mission."


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to comment on an article I have not seen, but let me say that I have no liking or admiration for the Castro regime. I was referring exclusively to the type of deal they had offered, which was to buy non-strategic, regular Canadian goods for cash, a deal that would provide jobs for Canadians, something to which the opposition is obviously very definitely opposed.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the last part of the minister's answer was completely gratuitous and not relevant to the question, since the question was directed to the damage done to United States-Canada relations by the minister's statement. The point did not relate at all to the attitude of the opposition to Cuban trade.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order or does he wish to ask a supplementary question?


George James McIlraith: I was rising on a point of order. My point of order was that I be permitted to ask the minister to answer the question. Second, it was to request that the last part of the minister's answer including his gratuitous comments be stricken from the record.


Mr. Speaker:: I did observe that the minister made a statement at the end of his answer which in my view was not a factual reply to the question. Whether the house

Inquiries of the Ministry wants to take the course of removing a statement of that kind from the record because it was out of order is another matter, and it would be only as a result of a decision of the house that I would take that responsibility.


George Harris Hees: All I was doing, Mr. Speaker, was pointing out something that is obviously true, as is apparent every time we hear these statements made in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he has any comment to a make on a report in a recent edition of the Financial Post attributed to Ottawa trade officials, presumably officials of the minister's department, to the effect that no export licence is required by a Canadian manufacturer to ship to Cuba if the products are non-strategic and are made in Canada.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, there are certain export control lists with which I have dealt in the house at some length and if products are not on any of those export control lists then a licence is not required.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister and ask whether export credit insurance is available for these cash transactions with Cuban importers.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, export credit insurance has not been requested by the buyers who came from Cuba. As I pointed out on several occasions, these transactions are cash transactions, engaged in between the Cuban buyers and the Canadian producers. The government does not enter into them in any way, shape or form.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister learned of any country other than the United States which has placed an embargo on Cuban goods?


George Harris Hees: I am not aware of any other country that has done so, Mr. Speaker. It may interest the house to know that the United States is almost daily exporting large quantities of food to Cuba.


OTTAWA CONFERENCE-INQUIRY AS TO PREPARATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if I have the floor I should like to put to the Minister of Trade

and Commerce the question which I put to the acting minister yesterday and which the acting minister recommended I put to him. My question is, and I put it in exactly the terms I put it to the acting minister: Were any plans or preparations made or any steps taken whatsoever with a view to having the meeting of trade commissioners that recently took place, before the change in ministers? I may say that the acting minister declined to answer the question.


George Harris Hees: The answer is, not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Tremblay (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Could the minister ask responsible officers of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to investigate the choice of the budget speech commentators who were heard last night over the English and French television networks?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If I understood the question correctly the hon. member was asking for an exercise of administrative responsibility which the minister does not undertake.
(Translation):


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully submit that my question is absolutely within the responsibility of the Minister of National Revenue.
(Text):



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Would the minister advise the house what progress has been made in securing an order from the United States government for the Montreal-built air transport cargo plane, the CL-44?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment to make on the progress of this deal. No definite answer has been given, and I have no comment to make.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he or his combines investigation officers have received any petitions or requests for an investigation in northwestern Ontario similar to the one conducted two years ago in Quebec and eastern Ontario into the prices of farm or settlement pulpwood.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall having received any such petition myself, at least not in recent months, but I shall be glad to inquire to see whether any have been received by the director and advise my hon. friend. I am afraid I will not be able to do that until the house meets again some time in January, but I will have the advice available at that time.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government been given any assurances by the United States government that their dollar gap worries will not affect United States defence purchasing in Canada and, if so, what is the nature of those assurances?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would repeat the first part of his question. There were a couple of words I did not hear.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Surely, Mr. Speaker. Has the government been given any assurances by the United States government that their dollar gap worries will not affect United States defence purchasing in Canada and, if so, what is the nature of those assurances?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Dollar gap worries.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am afraid the hon. member will have to explain his question more fully. Whose dollar gap worries is he talking about?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The United States.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member's question, concerning as it does communications passing between Canada and the United States in this respect, should be directed to my colleague the Secretary of 90205-6-66i
Inquiries of the Ministry State for External Affairs. The hon. member is probably aware of a statement that appeared in the press two or three days ago, I believe, indicating that the policy of the United States government in relation to limiting purchases abroad was not to apply to Canada.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Mr. Speaker, if my question should be more properly directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs I shall be only too happy to direct it to that hon. gentleman. Would the minister like me to repeat the question?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I am not any brighter today than the Minister of Finance.



REFERENCE TO INCREASE IN GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of
Finance whether, when he said last evening that the efforts of the government to contain inflation were at last achieving some measure of success, he was aware that according to the report of the dominion bureau of statistics issued this morning.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the Leader
of the Opposition would not consider that this is a matter which could more properly be raised in the debate which is before the house. It seems to arise out of the first speech in that debate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in raising it before the debate is to make sure that the minister was aware of the position when he gave us that information, in contrast to the facts that appeared this morning in a bureau publication. I want to get that matter cleared up.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is a question of obtaining factual information from the minister it would be in order to ask the question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My question is, was the minister aware when he made that statement that, according to this official publication issued this morning, half of the increase of 2.9 per cent in our gross national product during the first nine months of 1960 was due to price increases?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that this is the sort of subject that should be the subject of debate for which the house has provided an opportunity under its rules. I

Inquiries of the Ministry will be very happy to deal with any questions the Leader of the Opposition has to raise about anything that was said last night, and deal with them thoroughly.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, arising out of the assurance given by the railway companies and by the minister to parliament that railway workers would be taken back without discrimination following the passage of Bill No. C-45. Can the minister comment on the report that the Canadian Pacific Railway in the Revelstoke area have returned none of the former nonoperating employees to their jobs, and that this situation has resulted in a serious deterioration in safety appliances consequently endangering the safety of both workers and the public?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot comment on this situation because this is the first time I have heard about it. I am unaware of the facts put forward by my hon. friend.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the minister accept the question as notice and give me an answer at a later time?


Léon Balcer: Very good, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. According to this morning's newspapers the Post Office Department have decided that the list of statutory holidays will be reduced by two, namely Christmas day and New Year's day. I should like to know from the minister whether this information is well founded. If so, what will happen to those employees who normally work on Sunday if they decide to be absent from their work? Are they to be deprived of their salaries because these two days are no longer on the list of statutory holidays?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal more confidence in our post office employees than the hon. member for St. Denis, and I am quite sure that none of them who would be expected to work on any particular day that is

their responsibility would be absent except for legitimate cause such as sickness. Therefore this is no concern of ours.
Having said that, in answering the other part of the question may I say the fact that Christmas day and New Year's day fall on Sunday this year and that the following day, the Monday, has been declared a holiday for civil service purposes, would mean that those of our employees who regularly work on Sunday would be denied certain benefits due to them from having to work on a holiday. This is being taken care of by allowing them to work up a corresponding amount of overtime in the week preceding the holiday, so that there is no injustice whatsoever.
I am very glad the hon. member for St. Denis brought up the question because while I am quite sure the newspaper report was well founded in that it printed the information it received, someone who did not have truth as the basis gave the wrong information to the newspaper.
(Translation):



CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Could he tell the house whether it is normal procedure for the civil service commission to recruit stenographers for the chief electoral officer, as revealed in a letter of the commission dated December 21 and signed by the secretary. (Text):
The chief electoral officer of Canada requires the services of a number of clerks 4 with stenographic ability on 24 hours' notice following any announcement of a general election. There is, of course, little prior indication regarding the time an election may be held.
(Translation):
Would the minister also tell us whether this is an indication that an election can be expected shortly?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The second part of the question, of course, would not be admissible, but I do not intend to deprive the minister of an opportunity to reply to the first part of the question.
(Translation):


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the last part of the question is concerned, it is obvious that my colleague cannot decently expect an answer, because this is a matter for the government to decide.
As to the first part, I am sorry, but I have not quite followed the question, and if my



I960

[Stage Direction]
colleague agrees to consider this as notice, I might give him an answer at the next sitting.
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. Does the Secretary of State consider it to be consistent and decent that during elections, members of a political party ask secretaries or employees in the civil service-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -to do their work for them? (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did not hear the hon. member's question, but from certain phrases he used I take it that it is not an inquiry on matters of fact.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Yesterday the hon. member for York-Scarborough asked me for a list of the countries which had co-sponsored the Canadian resolution on disarmament. I have a complete list here, and it is as follows: Austria, Argentina, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ecuador, Federation of Malaya, Greece, Haiti, Iceland, Iran, Ireland, Norway, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, December 20, consideration of the motion of Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I had rather unusual difficulties being heard last night at any length, and I was beginning to think there was some hidden reason for not hearing me again this afternoon because of the length of time it took to get through orders of the day.
On the morning after the delivery of this most unusual document, a supplementary budget, I think the most prominent question across the land was, why did we have this budget at all? Certainly, one question has been answered. We are not likely to have an election in the near future because this document was so empty of anything that would
The Budget-Mr. Benidickson be very popular across the land. I thought last night that if the taxpayers, after hearing the report from the finance minister as to his programs for the present emergency, were sad, their sadness was equalled by the sadness of the supporters of this government who last night certainly looked very sad indeed when they found the empty package. If the budget had little to counter the economic dangers in this country as they are becoming very evident, it was equally negative I suggest in countering some of the other reports that are gathered by certain special polls with which the supporters of the government are very familiar.
I believe the general conclusion must be that this government, in planning this session, reached a decision to have a budget long in advance of the decision as to what they were going to put in the budget. When they came to the point of deciding what to put in the budget, we can see how little manoeuvrability they concluded was open to them in the financial market or otherwise, largely due to circumstances of their own making in previous budgets. If the country was disappointed, we can understand that it was disappointed because of the tremendous drama and build-up that was cultivated in the suggestion that we were taking this unusual step of having a supplementary budget. Even one of our friends in the press gallery, who is credited perhaps with being one of the stage entrance key-holders to this government, I am sure would be very disappointed in the package that was presented last night. In last evening's Ottawa Journal, which appeared prior to the budget, we find an article from Mr. Richard Jackson which reads as follows:
This is the night Finance Minister Fleming marches into the commons and unwraps the government's Christmas box for Mr. and Mrs Canada and family.
The gift, the government has hinted in the throne speech, is intended to be some of the stuff out of which better times are made.
;; * Tomorrow in Ottawa, and across the land, it will be a little like Christmas morning around the family fireside-
As I indicated last night, there seemed to be an empty stocking, unless one is going to say that there was coal in the stocking rather than a candy cane. We were also given to understand that after the adjournment last session the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), who would not admit it in public and continued to regard any reference to unemployment as a dirty word that at least he would not use, did say to his ministers that they would have to do something. He is reported to have said, I want you gentlemen to bring forward, between now and the new session, some proposals for remedying the serious situation which seems to be developing. One reporter indicates that some 77 proposals

The Budget-Mr. Benidickson came to the cabinet from the ministers. All we can say from examining the economic proposals as contained in the budget, and some of the other legislation, is that this number was certainly winnowed down and most of those proposals must have got the axe.
Last night I think we all got the impression, after the build-up, that it was like expecting a volcano. There is some scientific knowledge, of course, when we might have a volcanic eruption. Everybody is watching the situation. There was much consternation, but when the eruption came we found, in so far as this build-up was concerned, that there was little or no lava.
This all brings us back to a review of the presentation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) when he came before us not long ago with his major economic proposals for 1960-61. As usual, he was full of confidence in his own foresight, in his own capacity. He told us he knew exactly where we were going and, indeed, everything was going according to plan all the time. In the course of the budget debate he had this to say, as recorded at page 3174 of Hansard for April 12, 1960:
-this balanced budget is the outcome of coordinated decision and planned policy over a period of time. We have followed a consistent policy. The program adopted from time to time has been flexible to meet changing conditions, but this has been a goal and it has now been attained.
He was asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) whether or not the past deficits of over $1 billion had been a part of the plan. We got no answer. Certainly, at that time there was no indication of this new deficit of almost $300 million, and of course it is not long ago we had this forecast. We all realize that March 31 last was a rather fine night for the Conservative Minister of Finance. He had his hour of pride and triumph when he brought down a budget with an indication of a surplus.
There was one comment at that time which was a bit prophetic. It was to the effect that there is no virtue in a balanced budget as an end in itself; it depends upon what the economy needs. We, perhaps, should not expect too much in the way of surpluses. We should have realized that not too much is to be expected in the way of surpluses from a Conservative administration because I think the record indicates that since confederation there have been only four surpluses brought in by Conservative governments. Last night we had a statement from the minister, notwithstanding what he said about having a goal, having a plan and everything being

under control, in which he said this, as reported at page 999 of Hansard, for December 20, 1960:
Supplementary budgets are not entirely novel in the Canadian experience. They are intended to deal with important changes in the situation that may emerge within the course of the year. A responsible government cannot stand by and allow events to take their course simply on the ground that budgets are brought down only once a year.
I think that is a good policy in itself but it does not seem to be consistent with what the views of the minister were at the beginning of this year. Certainly I think the record will establish that the minister did not have many telescopes in 1960 when he was doing his economic thinking. This was his view as expressed at the beginning of the year to the Canadian club of Toronto which he addresses usually annually. He stated:
The experience of the last two and a half years has taught us that in a period when economic conditions are changing rapidly fiscal policy must be flexible.
He said that again last night.
It must be adapted as far as possible to changing conditions. It is not easy to alter fiscal policy to keep fully abreast of conditions when they are undergoing rapid or frequent change. So much of government fiscal policy must express itself annually in the budget measures. Adaptations between budgets are not possible on a large scale. This fact adds to the importance and responsibility of the budget and the accuracy of the economic forecasts on which it is based.
We shall have some examination as to just how much good forecasting there was in the budget that was presented to us last March. This further indicates just the super-confidence of the Minister of Finance and points to the lack of justification as the year has developed. As reported at page 2685 of Hansard of March 31, during his budget speech, he stated as follows:
This year's budget, devised to meet the conditions and needs of 1960, will, I believe, effectively serve this goal.
It did not seem to serve the goal very well because we have the unusual procedure of having a supplementary or amending budget. Then after a decision to have this budget is made, as I say, we find it is really going through motions more than anything else because there is in it little that could not have been provided in a normal budget in the spring. I ask the Minister of Finance what of real substance is in his budget that could not have been normally presented in a normal budget in the spring. It is because of the unusual circumstances that these high hopes were raised through the drama of a special budget; and of' course that is the reason why there is such bitter

disappointment that the package was so void of real remedies for the serious situation we are facing.
The minister always, even in supplementary budgets, ends his long remarks with perorations that are certainly of megalomaniac proportions. This is what he said last night, as reported at page 1015 of Hansard:
The government, bearing its responsibility to the nation, has set before parliament a comprehensive and courageous program of constructive action. Let citizen and parliament and government then unite in a dynamic of effort, of faith, and of achievement.
Will the public who are called upon in this conclusion of his speech last night think that in this partnership they have had a leadership in anything dynamic to meet the economic situation of this country, in the kind of budget that was presented to us last night? Indeed, the reaction is, as I say, one of great disappointment. Of course it follows three years of extremely deplorable financial performance. All down the line the public finds that practically nothing has gone according to the promise.
They also remember that the Minister of Finance was one who, in opposition days certainly sounded the tocsin along lines that are the very opposite of the form of administration that he has presented year after year. Over three years we have had reckless financial adventures. The production of the country has been penalized by tremendously increased taxes. Investments have been discouraged by extremely high interest rates. There has been a continuous rise in the cost of living. Despite what was said in March we have an unbroken string of annual deficits. As indicated in March, the debt of this country has risen over a billion dollars. We now add an additional deficit of almost $300 million. That is why business and industry today are extremely uneasy about the instability of the bank rates and the unstable interest rates. As so many bank presidents have said in their annual statements, they feel that this government is lacking in leadership to the country in these serious times.
Last spring and again last night the Minister of Finance took recourse to simply charging that his opponents were doing harm to the country by any talk of doom or gloom. We know that anyone who perhaps discerns any weed in the financial guard of the Minister of Finance is described as a real Cassandra. However, since spring I think events have proved that this country had a great deal less to fear from opposition criticism than from ministerial complacency which has brought us to our present plight. There were then 555,000 unemployed but you would never have guessed it from the complacency shown in the budget of 1960. We received nothing
The Budget-Mr. Benidickson but rosy pictures of our prosperity. We are still getting these statements about prosperity-we had one again last night-in spite of the alarming situation in which we find ourselves.
The minister, of course, has a phrase for it. When he finally confessed in September that things were not as good as he predicted in the spring, he stated, "We are in a period of rolling readjustment". That expression sounds better than "slump". However, as someone said the other day, we must be getting into real trouble because we now have this mood of euphoria. When people start to talk in these fancy economic terms, things are really getting tough indeed.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: That was a fancy Latin term.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister continuously had this erroneous optimism. After the budget in May of this year he went out to Winnipeg. This is what he is quoted as saying on May 18. He was interviewed by a representative of the press and the article states as follows:
The minister had another smile for Canada's economic prospects, despite gloomy predictions of approaching depressions and foreign trade crises ... "I have little patience with prophets of doom and gloom."
What was the actual economic situation at the time of the presentation of the budget last spring? Was the minister justified in the rosy optimism he had at that time with his prediction for the conclusion of the year 1960? I want to give you, Mr. Speaker, just a few facts concerning the economic climate at the time this budget was brought down.
We know that the Minister of Finance has, not only in his own department but in many other departments, a vast army of government economists and other advisers who should have been able, if he takes their advice, to recognize some of these symptoms. Without this kind of assistance, the opposition certainly presented warnings at these times of some of the developments that looked very ominous indeed.
What was the economic situation for the first quarter of 1960? Business failures could only be compared, in their quantity, with the bad situation of the 1930's. For three successive months in the first quarter of 1960 business failures had been rising. Cash income of farmers for the first quarter of this year showed a decline of $50 million in comparison with 1959.
The Financial Post had this comment to make:
In a sharp break with all previous Canadian experience in the post-war years, consumers pulled back their spending during the first quarter.

The Budget-Mr. Benidickson
Canada's industrial production slipped 2.4 per cent in April, seasonally adjusted. The ratio of unemployed in May was 6.2 per cent, which was worse than in the spring of 1958 and was indeed the worst situation for May since 1933.
It was obvious then that our economy was fast getting stuck on a plateau, in fact, it had started to slip. But the minister was continuing to say that conditions were good. He refused to let anybody in the opposition make a gloomster out of him and he refused, he said, to let anybody in the opposition make him worry.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Is that wrong?


William Moore Benidickson: My point is that he should not be either blind or complacent.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am sorry; I should not have spoken from my seat. Would the hon. member permit a question?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Does the hon. member think it is wrong for the Minister of Finance to have confidence in the future of this country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: But he should not be blind to the facts.


William Moore Benidickson: It is wrong to be blind to facts such as I have indicated. I am wondering what advice the minister was getting from this vast group of economic specialists employed by the government, because I have pointed out that some of these things were even obvious to the opposition. And if they were obvious to the opposition, without a skilled staff of this size, certainly, I suggest, the minister seems to have been very wrong indeed in his forecast.
His colleague, who is perhaps closer to economic conditions than anybody else, at the same time, in May of this year, told people out in Winnipeg that Canada was on an economic rocket. This did not prove to be the situation. The minister, of course, was the former minister of trade and commerce speaking in his own city of Winnipeg, and he described conditions in those glowing terms, that Canada was on an economic rocket. This was in May.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just imagine what the present minister would have said.


William Moore Benidickson: 
Mr. Palleli:: Who was the writer of that article?


William Moore Benidickson: It is on the editorial page.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Often quoted by government representatives.


William Moore Benidickson: The Prime Minister continues to say there is no economic emergency; there are difficulties. I ask just how bad must things become before it is recognized as an emergency? In November there were 429,000 unemployed; 6.6 per cent of the labour force. During the past two years over $900 million have been spent in supporting the unemployed.
We wonder-nothing was said about this last night in the budget-about the state of the unemployment insurance fund. We wonder if there will be anything in this fund at the end of the current winter. But

it was not mentioned in the review of the economic situation given last night by the Minister of Finance.
Sometimes reports such as I have indicated which come from a domestic source, the Financial Post, are challenged by members of the government. Therefore, in connection with whether or not we have been having the best three years that Canada has ever had, in real terms, in terms of normal growth, and so on, I would like to refer to something outside the country which has a reputable standing.
I refer to the general statistics of the organization for European economic co-operation. In their report, with 1953 as a base of 100, they say that the per capita gross national product for Canada in 1953-as I say, with a base of 100-went to 106 in 1956, and in 1958 it was down to 99. I should like to put the situation in other terms, because the minister has always attached a good deal of importance in his economic forecasting to the gross national product and this, of course, is understandable. I have prepared a table of gross national product per capita in constant 1949 dollars. If we take 1949 as being 100, we find that in 1960, based on reports for the two quarters, the index has declined to 95.2. I referred a few months ago to this all-important question of gross national product. The minister pointed out last night that the report showing the national accounts of income and expenditure for the third quarter was not available and that, of course, is true, because, certainly for our consumption, it did not become available until this morning. It became available, as so many of these reports do, after the ministry has had some statement to make.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Except when they suppress them altogether.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That remark cannot be allowed to pass. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate used the word "suppressed". I wish to know if there is any suggestion that reports from the dominion bureau of statistics are suppressed. I can assure the house that the release of these reports is a function of the chief statistician, and no one interferes with him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was no such suggestion. The minister knows perfectly well I was referring to the suppression by the former minister of trade and commerce of the "Economic Outlook for 1960," and we now know why it was suppressed.


William Moore Benidickson: I recall that in the budget debate following the presentation of the budget by the minister on March 31 the hon. gentleman was apparently ruffled when I pointed out to him that in his forecast of the
The Budget-Mr. Benidickson gross national product for 1959 he had been 50 per cent wrong, as events proved. I pointed out that when he made an estimate in his budget address of 1959 of what this country might do in 1959, he predicted that based on the stable prices, normal conditions, a continuance of peace, and so on there would be a rise, I think it was, of 7 per cent.
When the reports were adjusted to take account of price rises, the actual increase for the year, as I pointed out, was just 50 per cent of what he had estimated, namely between 3 per cent and 5 per cent. The minister took great offence at this, but year after year when a minister of finance has come before the House of Commons and given his prediction as to the gross national product he has invariably premised his prediction on the basis that there would be no increase in prices, no unusual external events and so on. But in 1960, for the first time, the Minister of Finance, having found himself wrong steadily in his forecasts, eliminated any suggestion that his prediction of a rise of 6 per cent was in any way tied in with stable prices. I just want to indicate what is contained in this report for the third quarter, and I quote from this publication by the dominion bureau which was released today:
Gross national product, seasonally adjusted, showed a fractional advance in the third quarter amounting to less than one half of 1 per cent.
Now we recall that the minister not so long ago, as recently in fact, as the end of March or the beginning of April, predicted we would see a rise of 6 per cent in the gross national product. But this statement goes on to say:
About half of the slight gain in the value of production in the third quarter was accounted for by a small change in final product prices. In volume terms the gross national product was very close to being unchanged from the level of the second quarter.
And the second quarter showed no progress.
Again, the report says:
The increase in the third quarter was concentrated in our trade with European and other overseas countries.
My recollection of his speech last night is that the Minister of Finance was seeking to blame outside sources for the difficulties in which he found himself, and that he blamed particularly the situation in European countries as being partly responsible for the failure of the economy to reach the levels he had predicted not so long ago. This statement says that the increase in the third quarter was concentrated in our trade with European countries. Then at page 3 of the report, it is stated:
In the first nine months of this year gross national product has averaged 2.9 per cent above the same
1040	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Benidickson period of 1959. Approximately one half of this increase represents a further advance in final product prices.
We heard last night, as we have heard year after year, that this government has inflation checked. The report goes on:
So that in terms of physical volume the gross national product shows a gain of about 1] per cent. The post-war average increase in the physical volume of output has amounted to approximately 4 per cent a year and was 3.5 per cent in the year 1959.
So I suggest that again the Minister of Finance in his forecast of this all-important item is at least 50 per cent wrong.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Does the hon. member not think it would be as fair to say that the Minister of Finance was about 97 per cent right? In other words, it seems to me that this use of 50 per cent would raise the impression in the minds of many people that the Minister of Finance had made an enormous error. Let us say the gross national product is $30 billion. It might be supposed that his estimate was $15 billion and that he was 50 per cent wrong. Actually the fraction is so small that to use the figure of 50 per cent is utterly misleading.


William Moore Benidickson: I wonder how wrong the hon. gentleman would say the minister was, in terms of percentage, in predicting a surplus of $12 million and revising it, half way through the year, to a deficit of almost $300 million. I do suggest, as the statement from the dominion bureau indicates, that the gross national product for three quarters shows nothing like the increase of 6 per cent which was predicted, and that it actually shows an increase of less than 50 per cent of the figure forecast.
We are always accused of undue doom and gloom, and I recall that during the budget debate last year the minister even suggested that people in other lands arrived at their conclusions about Canada very largely on account of something which was said in the House of Commons by members of the opposition. The hon. gentleman referred to certain quotations from statements I had made appearing in sources outside Canada. I indicated to him, particularly in the spring, that people with a detached view, an objective view, a non-partisan view in Europe and the United Kingdom, were suggesting, as we were suggesting in the opposition, that the indications in the spring were certainly not as roseate as the minister was representing them to be in his financial statement. I should just like to quote at this point what has been reported this month by a representative of the Telegraph of London, England, who came over here to see for himself what the situation was. This correspondent did not rely


on what he might have read in some speeches by the opposition. This is an excerpt from when the minister was sitting on this side of London, England:
No one who revisits Canada after a five-year interval can fail to notice the changed atmosphere. When I was there in 1955, the air of confidence- not to say self-satisfaction-was almost over-powering. Today thinking Canadians are disappointed and apprehensive.
He went on to say that he was approached three times by persons begging for money within 100 yards of the parliament buildings in Ottawa.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Maybe they were members of delegations.


An hon. Member:: Liberals.


William Moore Benidickson: That had nothing to do with the opposition. This gentleman came over to see for himself.
The Minister of Finance gave us a fair amount of selective reporting last night in his extremely lengthy address. I think it is only fitting that again if we feel he is unduly optimistic in his reporting the house should be made aware of some other figures of current economic activity that should be in the minds of us all as we together determine what we think should be the course to follow in our legislative program.
The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister referred to prosperity. They referred to the past three years in Canada's history. I gave some indication of what the climate was when the budget was brought down at the end of the first quarter of 1960 and how it indicates that somebody was pretty blind to the situation in bringing forward the forecasts that were brought forward at that time.
But what is the present situation? Retail sales for October, the last month reported, were down 4 per cent. Even in the slump of late 1957-58 retail sales continued to hold their own and of course assisted in preventing the slump from being even worse than it was. Our unemployment figures indicate that the situation is worse now than in 1958, but here is spending for consumption, something upon which we fortunately had a right to place some reliance in 1958, but today we are disappointed. In October of 1960 retail sales were down 4 per cent. They were down for the January-October period slightly.
I want to read from the current issue of the Financial Post. I invite hon. members to compare some of this objective comment with the statements that were made last night in the budget address:
As 1960 comes to an end the climate for business is considerably less encouraging than that of a year ago.
Then, business activity was building toward the crest of 1958-59's gentle boom. Total output was

expanding to a record, manufacturers were building up their inventories, even stock prices turned in a year-end rally.
Now, it is clear from production and employment trends that over-all commercial activity has been contracting mildly for a number of months-and the economy is weak as it goes into 1961.
It is indicated that signs of a turn will come when new orders placed with manufacturers start to pick up again. In Canada new orders have been running below the levels of a year ago from April to September. In the United States new orders have been sliding gradually for several months. In other words, the fall started earlier in Canada than in the United States. There is an increase in business failures.
In the Financial Post of two weeks earlier, December 2 of this year, the following is reported:
Largest single factor likely to affect the pace of business in coming months will be government action in both countries taken to offset the current sag in activity and to reduce unemployment.
I wonder if we got in the budget presented to us last night the medicine it was indicated was the thing upon which our hopes should be pinned? More than anything I believe there was surprise last night that the minister made not the slightest reference to the question of interest rates despite the fact that he has certainly heard much in recent times about too much instability in our money markets. He, of course, is always the first to brag when interest rates fall but we have heard nothing from him either in the budget speech or elsewhere concerning the fact that since September the trend has been decidedly the other way.
This instability is exceedingly worrying to the financial community. When one looks at the rates of interest for treasury bills for the period from September 8 to the latest offer-I think of December 15-one finds very wide fluctuations as far as Canada is concerned. In fact, the difference between the low and high interest rate-and rates at the end of the period are exceedingly high- involves a spread of 2.27 points in that short period of time. In contrast, treasury bills in the United States show a spread of just .52 per cent between the high and low rate between September 8 and the present time. The result is that we are again in the position where money is much more expensive in Canada than it is in the United States and despite some income tax patching that may have been done in the budget presentation there is still at the same time a sufficient margin of difference to attract Canadian borrowers into the United States market. It is this factor which is responsible in large part for our highly valued dollar which makes exports non-competitive across the world. It
The Budget-Mr. Benidickson is this factor which in large measure is responsible for some of our unemployment difficulties at the present time.
The minister said nothing about this but the bank presidents, as I have indicated, have had quite a bit to say about it. Probably the average man on the street has always thought that bankers rather relish high rates of interest. They represent lenders of capital and I suppose the average man feels that they would rather look forward to the wages of capital being at a high level. But if the Minister of Finance is not worried about high rates of interest certainly the banking fraternity is concerned about them at this time as is indicated by almost every annual statement issued by our commercial bank presidents.
I want to give just a few brief quotations from these annual reports most of which were presented in late November or early December. The president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce on December 13 is reported as having said:
During the past quarter century there has been an extensive growth of finance companies and deposit loan organizations operating outside the influence of the Bank of Canada.
We have been asking for an opportunity to examine the policies of the Bank of Canada. I have a resolution on the order paper indicating that as the Bank Act has not been substantially reviewed for quite a number of years the operation of some of this kind of lending agency should be reviewed. The point I really wish to make in the present context relates to the following statement by the president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce:
There is little doubt that, if our borrowings abroad diminished materially, a trend to a discount on our dollar, instead of a premium would soon emerge.
There appears, however, to have been little, if any, positive effort by the Bank of Canada to influence the level of interest rates.
The minister made no comment on this vital subject in monetary and economic matters in his very long address last night. The president of the Bank of Montreal is reported as having said on December 19 last:
Pointing to a need for a definitive lead from the Bank of Canada, Mr. Hart said the financial community should be given "some measure of assurance that official monetary policy, which has lately shown signs of greater flexibility, will continue in this direction as long as may be possible without giving rise to renewed inflationary dangers."
Mr. Hart said the financial communitv should be given "some measure of assurance that official monetary policy, which has lately shown signs of greater flexibility, will continue in this direction as long as may be possible without giving rise to renewed inflationary dangers".
He believed the present "sluggish and quiescent behaviour" of bank loans "should no longer be

The Budget-Mr. Benidickson regarded with the satisfaction that might he justified if we were in the midst of an inflationary boom.
What central bankers and commercial bankers should be worrying about now is ways and means of creating the conditions that will lead to an increase in bank borrowings rather than the reverse".
The Minister of Finance remained silent. In his statement Mr. Hart advocated that we return to a rate for central bank lending that would be fixed, that would provide a green light or a red light as conditions warranted. He referred to the present rediscount rate as bobbing like a cork and suggested that this showed lack of leadership. Of course, I know the Minister of Finance always suggests that these matters are the exclusive province of the Bank of Canada and that the government has no responsibility. This was not the view taken by either the Minister of Finance or the member for Greenwood when they were sitting on this side of the house; indeed more than that, it was not the attitude taken by the former administration. As long ago as 1936, this is what the prime minister of the day, the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, had to say on whether the Bank of Canada was an orphan in so far as government responsibility was concerned. He said;
The last word is not with the governor of the bank but with the governor in council which is the cabinet which represents the House of Commons and which in turn represents the people of this country.
In evidence that he gave, Mr. Towers, the former governor of the bank, said that monetary policy of the bank must conform to the policy of the government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Page?


William Moore Benidickson: This was in 1938, in the evidence of the governor. The presentation was made on March 14. On March 27, 1957, when the minister was sitting on this side of the house, he had this to say in the banking and commerce committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Page?


William Moore Benidickson: He said:
-the Minister of Finance, as far as we are concerned, is not going to hide behind the policy of the Bank of Canada. He is going to bear his own responsibility.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The page, please.


William Moore Benidickson: I have not the page; I just gave my hon. friend the date.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is that from
Hansard or from the proceedings of the committee?


William Moore Benidickson: It is Hansard of March 27, 1957, in the budget debate, I think, of that year. I have indicated that the Minister of Finance has never been reluctant to take
credit, responsibility and pride when interest rates go down, but every time they are on the rise he bucks and passes the responsibility to the Bank of Canada. In this house on January 31, 1958, as reported at page 4089 of Hansard, when he was asked about the decline in basic rates of interest by the then member for Nanaimo, Mr. Cameron, he said as follows:
May I address a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Can he inform the house if this change from a tight money position has been the result of some action by the government, and what the action has been?
The minister replied:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has been action on the part of the government. I do not say that the reduction is attributable entirely to the government's action, but it certainly is in line with government policy, and is in part attributable to it. The fact is that we have been seeking to bring about, with the means open to us, a reduction in this rate. I am not at liberty, and it has never been the practice, to indicate to the house all the government operations or the operations of the fiscal agent of the government in these matters, but I can assure my hon. friend that this reduction, which I am happy to report this morning, is fully in line with government policy.
When rates are rising no responsibility is taken. In a long documented speech that occupied an hour and a half of this house's time this all-vital subject was completely ignored by the Minister of Finance last evening.
The Prime Minister, of course, has never been reluctant to take credit, provided the rates were going down. In the election campaign of 1958, in Halifax on March 24, 1958, as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, the Prime Minister said:
Mr. Diefenbaker said his government reversed the "tight money policy of the Liberals". Interest rates had been decreased from 4.3 per cent to 2.8 per cent. As a result of the $300 million provided for housing loans there were more housing starts,-
And so on, but the credit is taken. He had the same thing to say elsewhere. In Calgary on March 14, as reported in the Winnipeg Tribune, the Prime Minister "claimed that interest rates had fallen sharply as a result of government action since last June-from a high of 4.33 per cent to 2.89 per cent in recent weeks."


Lester Bowles Pearson: What about a little action now?


William Moore Benidickson: The Leader of the Opposition very pertinently asks "How about a little action now?" Can we get from the government at least some idea of in what direction their efforts and policies are being bent?
I have indicated what an adverse effect high interest rates in Canada have with respect to the all-important situation of the premium on our dollar. I have never had from the ministry a satisfactory explanation of why we have never taken steps to help

reach either parity or even devaluation of the dollar, which would greatly help our exports. We have never heard why the equalization fund spent the unprecedented amount of $100 million in May of this year actually to prevent the dollar from sliding down to par.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not true.


William Moore Benidickson: Well, it did. The press reports that an anonymous official of the minister's department or of the Bank of Canada said that this is a normal practice. The phrase was: "We were just leaning against the wind". Well, are these people carrying out these kinds of manoeuvres, spending $100 million of the exchange fund in one month without the approval of the government, without it being in conformity with the policy of the government? I just draw to the attention of the house the fact that $100 million in one month is the equivalent of the terrific drain on the United States gold reserves, which has caused them such anxiety down there in recent weeks. This matter which has been getting so much attention all across the country, and particularly in financial circles, as I say, has been completely ignored in any government statement. Just yesterday the press indicated that United States interest rates are falling and they are falling under the deliberate policy of the government agency in that country, the federal reserve bank. But here we do not know what the policy is. All we know is that on the contrary rates have been rising alarmingly.
While one may have to do a fair amount of digging to find very much in last night's presentation upon which compliments could be extended to the minister-as we say up in northern Ontario, you have to do an awful lot of digging of ore to find anything that glitters-I will say that in some of the proposals of the minister which are likely to encourage further participation by Canadians in savings and investments in Canadian enterprise, he is to be commended. But the important thing is, as I said at the beginning, these things are for the future and are things that will develop very slowly. Again we wonder why a budget was brought down if these are the major items in it, because certainly this was not a budget that was likely to meet the existing emergency which is one of unemployment.
I do know, because I was in New York for part of the fall, that some of the speeches that were being made by officials in this country greatly alarmed possible investors in the United States. Everywhere I went I received inquiries as to what the policy of the government was. After all, these scare
The Budget-Mr. Benidickson speeches would lead one to believe that there was an unfriendly attitude toward the import of foreign capital.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: To what speeches is the hon. gentleman referring?


William Moore Benidickson: I am referring to the speeches by the Prime Minister in which he said these things would be stopped. This was reported in the New York Herald-Tribune. I am referring, of course, to the statements by the governor of the Bank of Canada. I want to say that these things have been exceedingly alarming. I met down there an aggregation of ex-Canadians who were operating in financial circles, and they gave me chapter and verse with respect to United States investors who, because of these speeches, were scared off. I think all we have to do is ask the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Doucett) whether or not he still thinks we might get this important investment by the Hershey candy company in Smiths Falls.


Thomas Miller Bell: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Would he be specific as to what speech of the Prime Minister he is referring?


William Moore Benidickson: I have not got that before me, but I certainly know the Prime Minister indicated that he was going to stop an undue amount of foreign investment in Canadian enterprise. This certainly has had a cooling off effect on the people who have been looking into possible places to build plants and carry on production.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wonder if the hon. member would be more specific about the statements which he attributes to the Prime Minister? Making due allowance for paraphrasing, I do not recognize any similarity between these statements and any statement made by the Prime Minister.


William Moore Benidickson: I will get that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There was a statement in a newspaper about 10 days ago, the accuracy of which was immediately challenged by the Prime Minister in this house the following day.


William Moore Benidickson: I will see that this is provided later in the debate by someone from this side because I can certainly attest to the alarm that has been caused by this kind of speech-making which has been indulged in by members of the ministry and by the chief representative of the fiscal agent of the government, the Bank of Canada.
I had some conversations a couple of weeks ago with an economist who is engaged largely by prospective European investors, one of

The Budget-Mr. Benidickson whom had in mind investing in Canada something in the nature of $4 million in European funds, most of which would have gone into construction in one of our large cities. This program has been deferred because of this alarming talk about foreign investment. I am very glad the minister has made his own position clear, but I do think that the fiscal agent of the government and the minister should not be talking in opposite directions, and that this matter should be cleared up for the benefit of people who might bring funds here and create work, not only construction but production.
A great many pages of the minister's text last night were devoted, as one would expect of a Conservative finance minister, to proposals for hiking up items in the customs tariff. Now, the real item that is going to be before us as these resolutions later come for study before the house apparently relates to the made in Canada provision, the law upon which has remained constant since the time of the last Conservative administration under Mr. Bennett. What it appears is going to happen here is similar to the dumping legislation, we are going back to Bennett and his policies.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the hon. member not aware that the order in council that governs this matter now was passed in 1936 under Mr. King?


William Moore Benidickson: My hon. friend said last night it was his intention to remove the operation of the law as it was established in 1936 under Mackenzie King and go back to the law as it was in effect under Mr. Bennett.


Richard Albert Bell: Repudiate Laurier and Fielding.


William Moore Benidickson: I am a little more up to date than that. If my friends always want to go back, particularly back to Bennett, then, of course, they are exhibiting a Conservative trait, going backward rather than forward.
In the minister's revised statement of receipts and expenditures he made some reference to matters that he thought could not be foreseen when the budget was presented last March. One of them was, of course, the increase in the deficit of Canadian National Railways. I have not any greater foresight than the Minister of Finance should have but he will recall that about last budget time I indicated, on the basis of the monthly statements of revenues and expenditures that were being made public in the early months of 1960 for Canadian National Railways, there was a likelihood the deficit in 1960 for this railway would be much larger than the one to which the minister referred.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member says about the budget time last spring-will the hon. member give the date?


William Moore Benidickson: I believe it was in April. We had the April results, as I recall it at the time. In any event, there are some other matters that I do not believe were referred to last night when the minister forecast the expenditures for the balance of the current fiscal year. I do not recall that he said anything about expenditures that may be involved in the last quarter by the federal government in connection with participation in the Quebec hospital insurance scheme. Perhaps he had in mind that we would have a Liberal government in Quebec during 1960 and that we would get a hospital scheme in that province and, therefore, he made some provision for it. I am not sure that was so.
I am not satisfied that unemployment assistance contributions will not be necessary this winter much beyond those which have been presented so far in the supplementary estimates. I am wondering just how much lapsing there may be of public works, where employment is greatly needed. The minister last night referred to some $30 million of additional lapsings that are likely to develop beyond what was in his mind last spring. I wonder whether these items relate to employment creating measures that were in the estimates of the federal government.
In the budget debate in the spring the minister indicated that he anticipated that there would be an old age security account surplus of about $40 million. Not only since August have the general revenues been on the slump but the record indicates that in August, September and October there seems to be a trend in the same direction in the special old age assistance fund. I greatly question whether the minister is going to find in the fund sufficient funds to offset the deficit of the previous year of which last spring he refused to take account in the national accounts of 1959-60.
In connection with old age security, there is an extremely interesting financial result. If one looks at the fund and recognizes this government makes and boasts about an increase of $9 in the standard contribution and if one takes that in its fraction to $55 and relates it to the $600 million which are disbursed, one finds that this increase amounts to about $100 million in the course of the year. But if one also looks at the revenue side, one finds that for $1 that this new government is disbursing for the old age security fund, on the new taxes which they imposed in 1959 they are taking in approximately $2.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is the new social justice.



I960

Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: The
people are paying less in taxes than they were paying when you were in office.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not true.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order.


William Moore Benidickson: I am not going to review at this stage the individual resolutions which will be brought forward for debate in their separate context at a later stage. As I have indicated, although a fair amount of digging is required to find much to commend in the budget, there are some items there that I have previously commended. But as is so often the case, I find that my hon. friend lacks frankness in giving his real motives for some of the changes that take place. One of the items-and I have no particular quarrel with it because it is apparently designed to eliminate discrimination with respect to investment income-is this.


Richard Albert Bell: Why preface it then with such a sneer?


William Moore Benidickson: We find here that the government is proposing to remove the 4 per cent surtax on investment income; and it says that coupon clippers will have this saving largely because there is discrimination in that income from investment from other sources such as pensions, rents and so on is now exempt. But to clothe this move with his own approbation the minister starts to talk about the poor widows and so on and the people who have lost the family breadwinner. I want to remind the house, Mr. Speaker, that investment income is already exempt from taxation up to $2,500 per annum. Hence the little recipient of modest income from investment has already been escaping this 4 per cent surtax.


Richard Albert Bell: Did the hon. gentleman not say that he agreed with this proposal?


William Moore Benidickson: I said that I have no quarrel with it. What I object to is the fact that the minister always wants to cloak his explanation-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Phony explanations.


William Moore Benidickson: This explanation has really not the motive of elimination of discrimination when he starts to refer to modest incomes.


Richard Albert Bell: The hon. gentleman proposes to vote for this proposal, does he not?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the usual query.


Richard Albert Bell: Will the hon. gentleman answer the question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The tears were phony ones.


William Moore Benidickson: That is right.
The Budget-Mr. Benidickson


Richard Albert Bell: There is no answer from the hon. gentleman.


William Moore Benidickson: When my hon. friends were sitting on this side of the chamber they had a standard rule of thumb when they were looking at financial statements and they always referred to a family of five. They used to say that the surplus meant that you could reduce taxes by $500 for every family across the land; at about $100 per person it would amount to $500 per family of five.
I have done a little bit of calculating on the financial record of this administration based on a family of five and I want to give the house the benefit of some of these calculations. Let us look at the matter of interest alone on the debt of this country. In 1956-57 the debt charges of the country were $520.2 million. The estimate provided to us for 1960-61 is $739.3 million. This is an increase for each year in the burden of interest on our debt alone of $219 million since the Conservative administration came into office. This works out to about $12 per capita. In other words, for a family of five the new interest burden, not the over-all interest burden, which is now imposed, is $60 every year for every average family of five.
I have here also a table of taxes taken in by this government. I have here a figure indicating that total revenues taken in in taxes in 1958-59, according to the white paper presented in the budget of 1960-61, page 92, totals $5,130 million. This works out to $269 per capita. In the estimate in the same document for 1960-61 the government indicated that the tax take for 1960-61 would be $6,522 million. That works out to a per capita tax take of $326. The difference is about $57 per capita. If you translate that figure into a family of five, it means that approximately $300 per family is being taken in taxes by this administration beyond what was taken just three fiscal years previously.


Richard Albert Bell: Such wild statistics.


William Moore Benidickson: In addition to that we have, of course, figures as to how this government has gone behind in its over-all account. We have an increase in debt of about $1,100 million reported in the budget of March. Today we add almost $300 million more as reported last night. We know that the assets of the unemployment insurance fund are down almost $600 million from the levels at which they were before this administration took office. We know that they have used up the defence equipment account which was there when they came into office in the sum of $235 million. If you add all these things up you will find that this means an individual per capita increase in debt

The Budget-Mr. Benidickson amounting to about $100. For a family of five it means that every family has had the equivalent of a new mortgage placed upon it by the financial administration of this country of about $500.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is the hon. gentleman not aware that the net per capita debt at the present time is considerably less than it was when this government came into power?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not true.


Thomas Miller Bell: It is true.


William Moore Benidickson: If my hon. friend will look he will find in a return by Wood Gundy just this month that the statement my hon. friend has made is not valid, that the per capita debt is actually on the rise.


Thomas Miller Bell: If it had not been contrived to stop me speaking this afternoon, I would have proved it was true.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the privilege of the house to table the figures
to which I referred, the comparative statement of revenues 1958-59, compared with 1960-61, on which I have indicated sources and have indicated that it is based on a population at September 1, 1960, of 18,150,000.


Thomas Miller Bell: What is the source of the information?


William Moore Benidickson: The source is indicated on my document, the white paper for the budget of 1960-61, page 92, and Hansard of March 31, 1960, page 2680.


Thomas Miller Bell: And the hon. gentleman, of course, takes responsibility for it?


William Moore Benidickson: Quite.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Do I understand the hon. member wishes to have this table printed in Hansard?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Rea): Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table referred to is as follows:]



COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES

[Stage Direction]
(Revenue Figures in Millions of Dollars)
Increase
Estimate	over
Tax revenues	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	1958-59Budget	
4247.4*	4750.0*	5300t	1053.2Old age security fund ..	
375.3*	549.9*	630t	254.7Total 	
4622.7	5299.9	5930	1307.9Non-tax revenues 	
507.3*	551*	592f	84.7Total revenues 	
5130.0	5850.9	6522	1392.6Tax revenues per capita	
$269.48	$301.99	$326.72	$57.00Note: Tax revenues per	capita have been arrived at by dividing total tax revenues by	
the population at September 1st of the calendar year in which the fiscal period begins. For 1960-61 population at September 1st, 1960 has been estimated at 18,150,000. * See white paper budget 1960-61, page 92. t See Hansard March 31, 1960, page 2680.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I think that some of these facts-not assertions, but facts -indicate just how far behind this country has been going in three years since the new administration took charge.
I would like to move at this time, as is normal, seconded by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill):

That all the words alter the word "that" be deleted and the following be substituted therefor: Whereas the budget speech of the Minister of Finance rests on the assumption that deficits and unemployment are inevitable features of Canadian life under Conservative government;
Whereas members of the government have failed to assess correctly economic developments in Canada in 1960 as illustrated by the following ministerial statements:

(1)	"We are in the midst of a period of marked expansion in the Canadian economy. We welcome it, but we do not wish to see it mushroom into a boom which would set loose the forces of inflation. What we must all desire is orderly growth without inflation. That must be the goal of policy in this year of expansion I960".
(Minister of Finance, Canadian club, Toronto, January 11, 1960)
(2)	"Present indications suggest that the unemployment figure for this winter will continue to be lower than that of the year before".
"The outlook for the coming year gives us every reason for confidence . .."
(Minister of Labour in his New Year's message, December 30, 1959)
(3)	"Subsequently, the pace of advance again quickened and key economic indicators are presently pointing toward further expansion. The international economic climate at this time appears particularly favourable".
(Minister of Trade and Commerce- Prospects for the coming year, December 28, 1959)
(4)	"What about the recession? Everybody knows that the recession is over".
(Minister of Labour, House of Commons, January 29, 1960)
(5)	"It is not only the government that claims the recession is over ... I am very much surprised that the only people I hear expressing contrary points of view on this matter are the opposition in this house".
(Minister of Labour, House of Commons, March 3, 1960)
(6)	"I am confident, however, that employment will rise as the coming of spring opens up new job opportunities and as the economy continues its upward trend".
(Minister of Finance in his budget address, March 31, 1960)
(7)	"I expect that the forces of expansion will continue during 1960 and that the rates of increase we have experienced in 1959 should be maintained throughout the year. Within this framework, I am basing my forecast of 1960-61 revenues on an increase in the gross national product in 1960 of about 6 per cent, or to a record level between $361 and $37 billion".
(Minister of Finance in his budget address, March 31, 1960)
(8)	"I expressed my belief in an early improvement in the unemployment problem and I still do".
(Minister of Finance, House of Commons, April 12, 1960)
Whereas the government persisted stubbornly and blindly in this mistaken assessment of the economic situation notwithstanding warnings issued in this house, notably by the Leader of the Opposition:
(1)	"If we do not take this approach we will probably be faced with a worst situation next year .. . This hard core of unemployment is building up and accumulating. It is now becoming a menacing long term problem and if we should face another recession with the chronic unemployment of this period remaining high, then we would be in very serious trouble indeed".
(Leader of the Opposition, House of Commons, March 3, 1960)
(2)	"Past experience and certain trends indicate that a fourth post-war cycle may develop again soon. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we should be prepared for it; surely, we should plan against the danger of its recurrence before long".
The Budget-Mr. Benidickson (Leader of the Opposition, House of Commons, April 12, 1960)
Whereas the necessity of calling parliament this fall to deal with emergency legislation and a supplementary budget confirms the position taken by the opposition and reveals clearly lack of foresight and leadership on the part of the government;
Whereas the supplementary budget converts a proposed surplus of $12 million into a forecast deficit of $286 million, which will be the fourth consecutive deficit of this government and exceeded in the post-war period in amount by only the last two deficits of this Conservative government;
Whereas the new deficit was unplanned, unexpected, and is a result of a wrong assessment of the economic situation;
And whereas the proposals in the budget do not deal with the deeper causes and manifestations of economic difficulties, and in particular with massive, persistent and growing unemployment;
Therefore be it resolved that the financial policies of the government do not deserve the confidence of this house.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order in connection with this speech, because such it is and it is not an amendment under the rules of the house. It certainly is the most extraordinary amendment that has ever been proposed at any time in the history of parliament. I would like to suggest to Your Honour that it is out of order as being irrelevant; it is out of order on the ground of vagueness because of the length of the amendment itself. I venture to respectfully suggest to Your Honour that you might reserve your decision in relation to the matter to hear further representations in connection with it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may say a word on the point of order. I would direct Your Honour's attention to a supply motion, that apparently has escaped the attention of the parliamentary secretary, which was made in 1932 by the then member for, I am not sure whether it was Kenora-Rainy River, or Kenora-it was Mr. Heenan, in any case-seconded by Mr. Mackenzie of Vancouver Centre, two very eminent parliamentarians. It went on at quite great length, as the present amendment does. It set out quotations, not from statements by ministers made in the house and in other official publications, but statements from the press to support the position taken in the substantive part of the amendment.
I would also draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that notwithstanding the length of the preamble, every aspect of the preamble relates directly to the budget speech. Also, the substantive part of the motion is as short, simple, comprehensible and direct as it could possibly be. It asks the house to resolve that the financial policies of the government do not deserve the confidence of the house, and I cannot believe the government is afraid to put that proposition to the hazard of our votes.

The Budget-Mr. Benidickson


Thomas Miller Bell: Most decidedly not. It is now clear that the voice is the voice of Kenora but the hand is the hand of Bona-vista-Twillingate.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps it would be a reasonable course to follow if I were to indicate that I feel there is an amendment in the document submitted by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River which can be accepted and upon which a debate on a question of principle can be founded. I refer to the last paragraph. I have my doubts about the recitation of argument and other matters which are properly the subject of debate.
If the house and the hon. member particularly concerned will permit me to reserve judgment on the amendment on the basis that there is here a substantive amendment in the last clause on page 6, which I shall accept resolving that the financial policies of the government do not deserve the confidence of this house, the debate will not then be prejudiced by proceeding on that basis.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erhart Regier: Since I am likely to be the last speaker before we go home for our recess, I should like to express the greetings of the season to each and every one of the members of this house and to hope that the New Year will be good to each of them and to all those they hold dear. That includes the minister, regardless of what I may have to say in the remarks which follow. At the conclusion of my comments I intend to move either an amendment to the motion or an amendment to the amendment-and the conclusion of my remarks will have to be in the New Year. At that time I hope to be in possession of Your Honour's decision on the point which has just been raised.
I was amazed by the attitude taken by the Liberals in this house with regard to the budget. In essence they have gone to great lengths to inform the country that the minister has been wrong in his predictions. But all of us, even the best of us, are apt to be wrongly advised, or to make mistakes, and I do not feel we ought to devote our energies to arguing about how wrong the minister has been in his predictions.
The rest of the Liberal presentation has in the main consisted of weeping and wailing. I have listened for a number of hours and I have heard not one constructive proposal put forward as to what ought to be done, excepting, obviously, that the Liberals ought to replace the Conservatives in office. This is hardly good enough, especially in the light of the fact that our major ills are the result of [Mr. Pickersgill.l

Liberals in office without remedial action being taken by the Conservatives who replaced them.
I have to condemn the government for this lack of remedial action, because at election time they claimed that they had the answers to our economic ills. We are waiting, and all Canada is waiting, to hear those answers. I know that Canadians as a whole were horribly disappointed upon hearing the contents of the budget last night. I noted an improvement. I noted that the minister on behalf of the government admitted at long last that the government has a responsibility toward the economic welfare of the Canadian nation. I think it is a forward move when we get the Conservative government admitting that the role of government in today's world means that it must assume responsibility toward the economic health of the nation as a whole. However, this admission arrives a goodly number of years later than it ought to have arrived.
I regret very much indeed that the minister was unable to offer any indication of when we might expect an end to the recession which we are now experiencing. The hon. gentleman forecast only a continuation of the recession and if I understood him aright his prediction is that the recession is likely to be a long one, indeed. I had hoped he would be able to give us at least a limited number of reasons for anticipating an end to existing conditions.
I regretted that the minister was inclined to blame our recession on what is happening in Europe and the United States. Events in Europe have been of very recent origin, and if there is any slackening in economic activity in Europe it has been of such recent date that it can hardly be held responsible for the difficulties that we are encountering. The attitude of the minister and, I assume, the attitude of the government seems to be one of a decision to roll with the punch and not to undertake any radical or severe measures to deal with the situation. The attitude seems to be: Let us roll with the punch and eventually everything is going to turn out well and we shall end up on top. The government is obviously afraid to tackle the problems facing us with imagination and vigour.
While admitting its responsibility for the economic health of our nation the government refuses to implement that responsibility. Where is the broad attack on our problems we have heard so much about in the boastings on the part of ministers of the government? They have held conferences galore. They have asked for advice from all parts of the nation and from all interests and I know they have received plenty of advice. However, we are anxiously asking where is the action? Where

is the axe that will fell the tall timber? I am convinced that the budget presented last night is not the axe that will accomplish this, that will resolve our difficulties.
It was a businessman's budget indeed, a concession made to the corporations and investors of our nation, not the widows and orphans. The budget seems like a bag of small potatoes. I can assure the minister we are going to examine them. I know that some of them may be acceptable and others may not be as acceptable.
I noted the particular reference to the return to the old Tory high tariff policy whereby they pay lip service to multilateral trade yet through a new interpretation of the made in Canada policy high tariffs will come sneaking in the back door. The effect of the minister's announcement may well be that in the case of many lines of machinery there will be an increase in tariff from 7J per cent to 22J per cent, a considerable added burden to the cost of production in our nation.
The minister seems overly anxious that Canadians should now become the owners of our depressed Canadian industries. The attitude and intent may be laudable enough but the important thing is to make our economy into a healthy one. That is of primary importance. There should be no appeal to Canadians to assume ownership of an economy that is sick indeed.
At a time when our economy needs a big push all we get is a soft little nudge. Our appeal is: Let us get moving. It is urgent that radical measures be undertaken to give our economy the necessary blood transfusion it badly needs. To sit back and nod to economic nationalism is not the solution. Economic nationalism in 1960 and even more so in 1961 is completely unrealistic. It is outmoded in the world of today.
The people of Canada and people in other parts of the world have lost confidence in the ability of the government to adequately manage national affairs. A few months ago I attended a dinner in the west also attended by most of the leading businessmen in the city of Vancouver. In the hour preceding the dinner not one expressed any confidence in the present government.
We recently had a visit to British Columbia by a United Kingdom investor who wanted to look at a number of his investments there. He was asked by the press whether he had any intention of undertaking new investments in British Columbia. In reply he said, "Anyone with any money to invest who at the present stage would invest it in Canada ought to have his head examined." That is the attitude of responsible people with money available for investment purposes.
The Budget-Mr. Regier
The average man on the street is even more disgusted with the lack of action on the part of the government. The businessman, housewife and the ordinary worker in Canada is now revolted at the very mention of the term "my fellow Canadians". I observe that the advisers of the Conservative party have advised against the continued use of that term because the Canadian people do not see this government as one with their interests at heart.
We have had one Peterborough. If present conditions continue there will be many repetitions of the events there in the coming months. The government claimed it had the answers. In the past number of years it has illustrated that if it has the answers it has no intention of applying the required remedies.
Let us examine what happened with respect to the natural gas pipe line. This thing labelled as a nefarious deal by the Conservatives when in opposition is being condoned by the government of the day.
There was no mention in last night's budget of an expansion of markets for Canadian products either at home or abroad. There was no mention of the problem of exceedingly high interest rates. There was no mention of a means to supply employment. Canadian agriculture was politely but firmly informed that with the rural development program they now have the whole program assured to them over the years and therefore they now have no reason to expect anything more of the government. There was no mention of social security. There was no reference to the policy of all-out production in Canada. There was no reference to intensified production, the needs in the field of social welfare, the needs of education, the needs of municipalities, transportation, and no reference to a possible reduction in defence expenditures.
I mentioned markets at home. I believe the government could have undertaken measures to enhance our markets. A reduction in income tax for the individual would have given our people greater spending power. There might have been mention of the long awaited new deal on social security that would assure all Canadians a basic minimum standard of living. There might have been reference to the new deal for which agriculture has asked over the years. There might have been mention of minimum wage laws and a program to support the policy of full employment. Much might have been undertaken by the government to enhance markets for Canadian products here at home.
What about markets abroad which the minister completely ignored? The minister marches across Europe like the abominable snowman with a great big stick attempting to

The Budget-Mr. Regier keep the European nations in line. He is advising them not to ignore our interests. It reminds me so much of the old R. B. Bennett policy, "We will blast our way into the markets of the world".
The western European nations are doing very well by themselves, and we have no right to go walking around with a big club. We have not even been able to do the decent thing and to reply to the offer made to us a number of years ago by the United Kingdom government for the establishment eventually of free trade between the United Kingdom and ourselves. Rather than reply, as I understand it we have informed the United Kingdom that if they dare to integrate the inner six with the outer seven and this results in hardships for Canadian exporters, we shall have to take retaliatory measures. This is a horrible attitude for Canada to take, especially when so much of our prosperity depends on our economic relations with the United Kingdom and with the nations of Europe. The minister is the one who has been walking around Europe with a club, attempting to club the nations of Europe into line.
The nations of Europe, especially those in the inner bloc, are having a rate of expansion that exceeds even the rate of expansion in either the United States of America or the U.S.S.R., and it is up to us to associate ourselves with those organizations and not be walking around and adopting the attitude of the late R. B. Bennett who said, "We will blast our way into the markets of the world". Our nation is so subject to every wind that blows because of the very nature of our economy. The United States of America has a closed economy, or it could have it if it wished to. However, we are unable to do that and we ought to realize that. Instead of attempting to dictate around the world we ought to offer a hand to those nations and ask them to grasp it.
I am very worried about the future of GATT if present attitudes are going to prevail. I feel Canada may be responsible even for destroying the benefits of that arrangement. The Conservatives, while paying lip service to multilateral trade, are allowing the old policy of higher tariffs to sneak in by the backdoor and I feel that this is harmful to the interests of the Canadian people.
The government is doing nothing in the matter of interest rates. I have with me a table prepared by the Bank of Canada, and the one for December 7 last indicates that the 4J per cent, 1983 bonds, which were initiated by the minister at the time of the bond conversion deal, now yield 5.5 per cent. These high interest rates hurt not only the government of Canada but the governments


of the provinces, of all the municipalities, all the municipal boards and all the school boards. They hurt every commercial enterprise and the individual taxpayer. Why the Tories have to repay election debts to the moneylenders of Canada these many years after the victory is beyond me. The only explanation I can give for the refusal of the government to assume responsibility and to ensure that interest rates will be lowered is that they are in hock to those moneylenders. They rob the consumer of the necessary purchasing power. They make it harder for us to carry on our housing programs, and they make it harder for all our levels of government to do business. After the recess, Mr. Speaker, I intend to move that the government has failed to adopt financial policies that would provide for lower interest rates and an expansion of the money supply commensurate with the full employment program and assistance to export and domestic industries by taking those measures necessary to reduce the premium on the Canadian dollar.
Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that it is six o'clock?
Some hen. Members: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Before Your Honour leaves the chair I wonder whether the house leader would indicate to us what the business is expected to be for the first week after we resume. Particularly I think it would be very convenient for hon. members to know whether the Monday and Thursday of that week would be private members days or would be taken by the government under the rules.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, we have come to the conclusion of the first 25 days of this session with considerable accomplishments in favour of parliament. I doubt whether any 25 days have been as usefully spent in recent years as they have been spent this year because we have dealt with five pieces of legislation and the budget. That was owing to the fact that the speech from the throne was terminated rather quickly. This shows what can be done in the way of a legislative program if the house is agreeable to shortening certain debates.
On resuming on January 16 the program will commence with the continuation of the budget debate on Monday and on Tuesday. Then, since Thursday of that week is by the rules private members Thursday I am suggesting that we consider interrupting the budget debate on the Tuesday night. Thus we would have two days on the budget in that week. On Wednesday we would take other matters of business. Thursday will be

private members' day and we would resume the budget debate on the Friday.
Then in the second week after we recommence, Monday of that week would be private members Monday again; according to the rules we are obliged to use it for that purpose. It would appear, then, that the budget debate, if not concluded earlier than that, would carry on, on the Tuesday and Wednesday of the second week after the return, followed then by government business for the remainder of the week. That is the tentative program. I think we can safely say that Monday, January 16, will be taken up with the budget debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the minister for going into this detail and I suggest to him that one of the reasons why we have made some progress in these days up until Christmas is precisely that the government has been willing to expose its program some days ahead so that there could be a little planning and organizing for the debates on both sides of the house.
Without in any way wishing to commit myself to any kind of support of the government, I think, sir, I might permit myself to wish the members of the government side who are here and those who are occupied elsewhere at the moment a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Of course, if I may be permitted to do so, sir, I do that without reservation in your case.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether the house leader will be able to tell us what business might be called for Wednesday of the first week?
Before he replies I want to say, with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, that one of the reasons we have been able to expedite the business during the current session has been that the government has been in a better position, better prepared, to present the program to the house. I feel there are two other reasons. One is the new rules under which we are operating and, the other is the great desire of both opposition parties to expedite the passage of any legislation that would help alleviate unemployment.
Before the house leader replies, Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself also with the remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and express to the members of the house, the staff of the House of Commons and the staff of this building, our very best wishes for a Merry Christmas and the happiest of new years.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In reply to the hon. member for Assiniboia, may I say that I should like to thank him and other members on the
Business of the House
opposite side for their co-operation in advancing the program that we had ready. Of course, he can always count on the government having its program ready.
The hon. member asked me a specific question concerning the business for Wednesday of the first week after we resume. There again, I think the sensible thing, with the co-operation of the other side, would be to set up the various special committees of which notice has been placed on the order paper, and that would give an opportunity to members to start quickly on committee work. There have been difficulties over this in the past, but once again the alteration in the rules made last year makes it possible to do some of these things. I would think that would be a sensible suggestion.


Hazen Robert Argue: Which motion might be called, could we be given that much information?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Of the committees?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have named them on several occasions in this order; One, procedure of the house which perhaps might not involve too much in the way of debate; second, the one on Indian affairs; third, research committee and then, I think I named broadcasting.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the qualities of the opposition members, the qualities and shortcomings of the government, I think it in order that I should now present greetings in French following the previous speakers. So, Mr. Speaker, I wish you all a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year and paradise after this earthly life.
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it would be a wonderful thing if the house were always in such good humour as it is at the moment when each of us speaks from the heart. While we have our disagreements from time to time and do not always see the same way, nevertheless we maintain the proprieties on occasions such as these and we speak with the utmost regard to each other.
I know I speak for the government when I say to all hon. members of the house, I hope the Christmas season will be one of joy and happiness and that the New Year will bring to each and all that measure of prosperity and that measure, so far as the house is concerned, of effective expedition that has characterized this session since we commenced some four or five weeks ago.
Then I must always, of course, not lose sight of the fact that we could not carry out our duties were it not for the assistance we receive from the staff of the House of Commons which does so much. When you

Business of the House
start on that subject, of course, you speak of the work not only of those particularly associated with us within this chamber. It is always a matter of wonder to me, the manner in which the Hansard secretariat and those who print it and make Hansard available so soon after the words are spoken. To each and all of them, I extend the warmest good wishes for Christmas.


Mr. Speaker:: Before announcing the
adjournment of the house, may I express the hope that those members who feel strong enough will pause at room 16 for a word of farewell. May I wish each of the members
a holiday free from all thoughts of points of order and questions of privilege. I wish all members of the staff, to whom our thanks have been expressed already, a happy Christmas and New Year.
(Translation):
I also wish a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis).
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
It being eight minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, until Monday, January 16, 1961.

Questions

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

Mr, Regier: 1.	What is the total cost, to date, of the construction on the St. Lawrence seaway project?
2.	How much of this total cost was paid: (a) by Canada: (b) by the United States?
3.	How much of the Canadian cost was ascribed to the power developments that were built in conjunction?
4.	How much of the American cost was ascribed to the power developments that were built in conjunction?
5.	Over what period of time were tolls estimated to repay the capital expenditures involved?
6.	Has the expectation expressed in question 5 been realized to date? If not, for what reason, and what are the statistics of operations to date in regard to this?
Answer by: Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of
Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
(N.B. The St. Lawrence seaway authority can supply the information requested only in respect of the Canadian portion of the navigation works of the St. Lawrence project. The power development was carried out by the Ontario government. Accordingly, the answers herein relate only to that portion of the navigation facilities constructed by Canada.)
1.	Total capital expenditures to December 31, 1959, were $310,650,000.
2.	(a) $310,650,000. (b) This is a matter which directly concerns the United States authorities.
3.	See "N.B." above.
4.	This is a matter which directly concerns the United States authorities.
5.	50 years.
6.	Although the traffic to date has been less than the estimate of the tolls committee, it will be possible to give a conclusive reply only after the first five years of operation, which is considered to be the development period. In 1964 a complete study and review of the tolls structure will take place.
Statistics of operations to date are as follows:


MONTREAL-LAKE ONTARIO SECTION
[Stage Direction]
Upbound
Downbound
Total
No. of transits 1960	
3,428	3,413	6,841No. of transits 1959	
4,068	4,074	8,142No. of transits 1958	
5,647	5,598	11,2451960 Cargo-tons	
8,775,176	11,503,830	20,279,0061959 Cargo-tons	
10,950,000	9,640,000	20,590,0001958 Cargo-tons	
4,670,000	7,092,000	11,762,000

[Stage Direction]
Upbound
Downbound
Total
No. of transits 1960	
3,738	3,634	7,372No. of transits 1959	
4,128	4,052	8,180No. of transits 1958	
4,405	4,331	8,7361960 Cargo-tons	
8,304,585	20,511,857	28,816,4421959 Cargo-tons	
9,660,000	17,870,000	27,530,0001958 Cargo-tons	
5,005,000	16,269,000	21,274,000

Mr. Boulanger: 1. During 1959 and 1960 for the three following countries: the United States, the United Kingdom and Western Germany, (a) what was the amount
of wood machinery imported from each of the said countries? (b) what classes of wood machinery were imported from the said countries? (c) what are the amounts and the quantity for each class of wood machinery imported from the said countries?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):


ST. LEONARD, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. Boulanger: 1.	Have tenders been called for the construction of a post office at St. Leonard1, county of Nicolet, Quebec?
2.	If so: (a) on what date were such tenders officially called? (b) what are the names of the tenderers and the amount of their tenders? (c) was the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer? (d) to whom was the contract awarded and for what amount? (e) on what date was the contract awarded?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) November 29, 1960. 1
(b)	Gilbert La Plante Inc. (St. Celestin, P.Q.), $17,698.97; Jacques Montplaisir Inc. (St. Leonard d'Aston), $19,000.00; Jean L. Beliveau (St. Gregoire), $19,472.00; Alfred Martin (St. Leonard d'Aston), $19,750.00.
(c)	Contract not yet awarded.
(d)	Answered by 2(c).
(e)	Answered by 2(c).



END OF VOLUME I


[Stage Direction]
House Of
[Stage Direction]
Commons
Speaker: The Honourable Roland Michener
Thursday, November 17, 1960

[Stage Direction]
The parliament which had been prorogued on the tenth day of August, 1960, met this day at Ottawa for the dispatch of business.