1961-06-28

[Stage Direction]
Third and final report of special committee on broadcasting-Mr. Fairfield.

Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform hon. members of the grain delivery quota position
in western Canada. As at June 27 there were 62 stations on a 4 bushel quota, 607 on a 5 bushel quota and 1,325 on a 6 bushel quota. The railways have been instructed to give priority to those stations on a low quota, and those producers on 4 and 5 bushel quotas can be assured, therefore, that box cars will be available shortly.
Hon. members from western Canada in particular will wish to have some indication of the maximum quota levels which may be reached this crop year. I discussed this subject with officials of the Canadian wheat board yesterday and can now inform the house that an effort will be made to have all stations on a 7 bushel quota by the end of the crop year.
I wish to make it perfectly clear that no complete assurance can be given to producers at this time that it will be possible for them to deliver a full 7 bushel quota. There are several hundred stations presently on a 6 bushel quota where space is now available, and in order to take full advantage of the situation the board will issue instructions today that producers at these stations may deliver grain against a 7 bushel quota. As space becomes available at other stations the elevator agents will advise the Canadian wheat board when there is sufficient space to warrant an increase to a 7 bushel quota.
Under the extremely adverse conditions now prevailing in western Canada it is impossible to predict with any degree of accuracy the extent to which producers may wish to avail themselves of delivery opportunities. Many producers may in fact wish to retain supplies of grain on their farms for feed and seed purposes. In other areas where crop conditions are more favourable producers 90205-6-4531
may wish to deliver their grain to the maximum extent possible. It is for this particular reason that, whereas producers are assured of a full 6 bushel quota, the extent to which deliveries may be made against the 7 bushel quota may vary as between stations and areas.
With my full approval the Canadian wheat board will endeavour to equalize delivery opportunity to the extent possible, consistent with the No. 1 task of ensuring that supplies of grains and grades of grain are available to meet export and domestic commitments.



AGRICULTURE


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister informed the house of the grave drought conditions prevailing in western Canada and outlined certain actions to be implemented by the government to assist farmers in obtaining adequate supplies of fodder.
In addition to fodder requirements the government and the Canadian wheat board have received requests from certain areas for the retention of stocks of wheat, oats and barley in store, country elevators, to fulfil anticipated local requirements. Following discussions with officials of the wheat board I am pleased to inform the house that the board is now prepared to facilitate the holding of necessary grain supplies for local sale purposes provided prior arrangements are completed with the local authorities with respect to the payment of carrying charges on stocks held for this purpose.
Accordingly the Canadian wheat board will issue instructions today authorizing local elevator companies, when approached by municipal authorities requesting stocks of specific grain to be held for local side, to immediately contact the board. The board will then enter into provisional sales contracts with the company on the understanding that carrying charges are for the account of the municipality. In the event that more stocks are contracted for than are ultimately required, the board will agree to cancel the provisional sales contract and the balance of the stocks will be reclaimed by the board, which will again assume the carrying charges.
I have had discussions with the provincial ministers of agriculture of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and I am today trying to contact

Starred Questions
the minister of agriculture of Alberta, to let them know of this action immediately. I do not think I need tell the house that this action is now being taken to avoid a recurrence of what happened in 1937 and 1938 in the prairies.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Assiniboia will be delighted to know of this favourable response on the part of the government to his representations.



STARRED QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
floods; etc.-federal assistance

Mr. Herridge: 1.	What is the policy of the federal government with respect to assistance granted to the provinces suffering flood and other disasters beyond their financial capacities to meet?
2.	(a) What is the total amount of money granted by the federal government to each province since 1945, in connection with assistance to meet the costs of flood, and other disasters? (b) on what date was each grant made, what disaster had occurred, at what place, and what was the amount of the grant made for each disaster?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to this question. It is very lengthy and embraces many figures. I wonder if it would meet the wish of the house if it were placed on Hansard without being read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: the answer referred to above is as follows:]
1.	Federal assistance for disaster relief is granted only if a request for assistance has been made by the provincial government and if the amount of the damage is beyond the financial capacity of the province.
Where these basic conditions apply, the policy which has been developed and applied in the last two instances of flood damage has been to share equally with the province a portion of the cost of building repairs on privately owned homes and associated structures (outbuildings, business premises attached to the home, etc.) In both these instances, the eligible portion of the cost has not exceeded 80 per cent of an amount equal to the total damage suffered by each individual less $100 deductible; in addition there was a maximum on the eligible portion for each establishment of $5,000. There have also been various arrangements in past cases for taking into account any insurance recovery.
Where non-flood damage has been concerned, there has been no standard formula

and federal aid has depended largely on the particular circumstances of each case.
[For answer to part 2 see table on following page.]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-RECIPIENTS OF BENEFITS
Mr. Deschaielets: What are the latest figures showing the number of persons drawing benefits from the national employment service offices?


Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the number of active claimants as at May 31, 1961 was 340,950.


TARIFF VIOLATION, OKANAGAN HELICOPTERS LTD.
Mr. Bourbonnais: 1.	Why has the air transport board granted an extension of 8 days (from June 19 to June 27, 1961) to Okanagan Helicopters Ltd. to provide the information requested by the board relevant to the tariff violation filed against them?
2.	What are the reasons given by the legal adviser of the air transport board for granting this delay?
3.	Who are the legal advisers of the air transport board who made such a recommendation?
4.	What are the qualifications of Mr. J. L. G. Morisset to be a member of the air transport board?
5.	Has Mr. Morisset any experience in the commercial aviation field?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: In reply to parts 1 and 2, I am advised that the extension was granted in accordance with normal practice upon the request of the solicitors acting on behalf of Okanagan Helicopters Ltd. for a further period of time to prepare a reply.
With respect to part 3, the legal adviser to the board in this respect is L. J. Shields of the board's legal branch.
In reply to parts 4 and 5, member J. L. G. Morisset is a lawyer, admitted to the bar of the province of Quebec in 1940. He has been with the air transport board since 1946, and occupied senior positions on the board's staff before being appointed to the board in January, 1955.


BANK OF CANADA PENSION PLAN AMENDMENT
Mr. Peters: 1.	On what date was the contributory pension plan for the employees of the Bank of Canada amended?
2.	How many employees were contributing to the pension plan: (a) before March 1, 1960, (b) after March 1, 1960?
3.	How many employees have retired since March 1, 1960 (a) under the old plan (b) under the revised pension plan?
4.	What was the lowest, highest, and average rate payable under the Bank of Canada pension plan: (a) previous to March 1, 1960 (b) since March 1, 1960?
Province

Starred Questions
Disaster	Fiscal Year Amount

British Columbia	... Flood in Fraser valley 1948 (costs are for the period on or after May 15, 1948)	1948-49	5,000,000Manitoba	... Flood in Red river valley 1950	1950-51	12,500,000Quebec	... Fire in Rimouski, May 1950	1950-	51 1951-	52 1952-	53 1953-	54 1954-	55	1,000,877 1,177,519 257,389 615 2332,436,633Quebec	... Fire in Cabano, May 1950	1950-	51 1951-	52 1952-	53	218,270 80,439 530299,239Ontario	.. .Floods arising out of hurricane Hazel on October 15 and 16, 1954	1954-	55 1955-	56	330,258 434,379764,637Manitoba	... Floods in the spring of 1955	1956-57	17,770Saskatchewan	... Floods in the spring of 1955	1956-57	31,779Grand total	
21,050,058
In addition the following grants were paid directly to boards and disaster funds:
Disaster	Paid to	Fiscal Year	AmountFlood in Fraser valley-costs on and after May 15, 1948	Fraser valley dyking board	1948-	49 1949-	50	$ 4,500,000 4,024,1868,524,186Floods in Red river valley and Winnipeg area generally-costs in planning and construction of emergency works	Greater Winnipeg dyking board...	1950-	51 1951-	52	1,922,208 1,585,5533,507,761Springhill mine disaster	Springhill mine disaster relief fund	1956-57 1958-59	25,000 100,000125,000New Brunswick fishermen's disaster	New Brunswick's fishermen's disaster fund	1959-60	50,000Grand total	19,352,739
Starred Questions


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answer is as follows:
1.	Established March 12, 1936. Amended on the following dates: September 15, 1938, September 11, 1939, January 10, 1941, October 20, 1944, October 24, 1947, November 30, 1953, July 7, 1954, December 3, 1954, February 4, 1955, September 13, 1956, February 20, 1959, and February 15, 1960.
2.	(a) As at February 29, 1960, 1,114; (b) As at June 22, 1961, 1,177.
3.	(a) Nil, (b) 13.
4.	(a) As at February, 1960, the lowest, $7.87 per month; the highest, $1,145.83 per month. That happens to be the pension of the former governor. The average, $128.92 per month, (b) As at June, 1961-$7.87 per month, $1,145.83 per month, $139.08 per month.


C.N.R. SALE OF LAND, ST. HENRI, MONTREAL
Mr. Lessard: 1.	Has the Canadian National Railways offered for sale, or does it intend to offer for sale, the lands and lots which constitute the Turcot yard in St. Henri, Montreal?
2.	If so, have public notices to that effect been published?
3.	Has the city of Montreal stated in writing its intention to purchase these lands and lots? If so, when?
4.	Has the C.N.R. received any bids from other corporations or companies? If so, from which corporations or companies?


Léon Balcer: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	In the eighth land exchange between the city and railway covered by deed passed before L. A. Marchessault, notary, on June 7, 1960, the city has an option to acquire from the railway before January 1, 1962, some lots and parts of lots adjoining the northerly boundary of Turcot yard between Brock avenue in the town of Montreal West and Decarie boulevard in the city of Montreal. The option has not as yet been exercised.
4.	No.


FLYING ACCIDENTS, POLAR CONTINENTAL SHELF PROJECT
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Have there been any flying accidents on the polar continental shelf project?
2.	If so, what were the nature of the accidents?
3.	Which company was involved?


Hon. Paul Comlois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: 1. Yes.
2.	An Otter aircraft equipped with skis broke through sea ice on landing.
3.	McMurray Air Services Limited, Uranium City, Saskatchewan.


OKANAGAN HELICOPTERS LIMITED
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Are the contracts for helicopter services in Canada negotiated by the government of Canada, the United States air force, and the federal electric corporation, with Okanagan Helicopters Ltd., approved by the air transport board?
2.	If so, what is the total value of such contracts currently held by Okanagan Helicopters Ltd.?
3.	What is the total value of all such contracts which have been held by Okanagan Helicopters Ltd. during the years 1954 to 1961, both years included?


Léon Balcer: The answer to part 1 is yes.
In reply to part 2, the total value of such contracts currently held and being carried out by Okanagan Helicopters Ltd. on the D.E.W. line and in respect of the Pine Tree operation is $1,007,860, which amount includes $103,500 for fixed wing air transportation services being provided by Wheeler Airlines (1960) Ltd. acting as subcontractor to Okanagan Helicopters Ltd. in this respect in connection with the Pine Tree requirement for the period July 1, 1960 to June 30, 1961.
With respect to part 3, the total value of contracts carried out by Okanagan Helicopters Ltd. in respect of the D.E.W. line and Pine Tree requirements to June 30, 1961 is $2,293,661.



EASTERN ROCKIES


Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	In whose custody is information in regard to forest potential prepared by the office of the eastern Rockies conservation board?
2.	Is such information available to members of the public, and, if so, at what charge?


Hon. H. J. Flemming (Minister of Forestry):: 1.	Information in regard to forest potential in the area to which the jurisdiction of the eastern Rockies forest conservation board applies is contained in a forest inventory which is now being prepared by the province of Alberta, and which is expected to be completed this fall. This information is in the custody of the department of lands and forests of Alberta.
2.	Yes. The charge for air photographs is 50 cents each, and for forest maps 75 cents per township. The charge for area and timber volume summaries depends on the time required to prepare the data.



LA MACAZA-ESTABLISHMENT OF BOMARC BASE

Mr. Roberge: 1.	Is the government In possession of lands In La Macaza area to be used for the establishment of Bomarc bases?
2.	If so, what is the technical description, and the cadastral designation of such lands?


Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Bomarc site.
Part of lots 30, 31, range B; part of lots 2, 3 and 4, range E; part of lots 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6A and 7A, range D, township of Marchand, county of Labelle.
(b)	Easement and power line.
One hundred feet wide through part of lot
20,	range southwest Riviere Rouge; part of lots
21,	22 and 23, range northeast Riviere Rouge; part of lots 24, 25 and 26, range A; part of lots 27, 28 and 29, range B, and part of lot 1, range D, township of Marchand, county of Labelle.



ANGOLA-GOVERNMENT ACTION ON REQUEST OF CHURCHES

Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	What action has the Canadian government taken on the request of the Canadian council of churches, Canadian Baptist foreign mission board, and United Church of Canada, on May 29, 1961, to "Use its influence through all possible channels to the end that the excessive punitive action being carried out in Angola be brought to an immediate halt"?
2.	What action has the Canadian government taken on the request of the Canadian council of churches. Canadian Baptist foreign mission board, and United Church of Canada, on May 29, 1961, to "Urge the Portuguese government to initiate consultations with responsible African leadership"?
3.	What action has the Canadian government taken on the request of the Canadian council of churches, Canadian Baptist foreign mission board, and United Church of Canada, on May 29, 1961, to "Impress upon the Portuguese government the legitimate claim of the African people of Angola to fundamental human rights and to participate in the processes of government"?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
1. This request was discussed on May 29 when I received a delegation including representatives of the department of overseas missions of the Canadian council of churches, the Canadian Baptist foreign mission board and the executive of the general council and the board of overseas missions of the United Church of Canada. I gave a report of that meeting to the house on May 30.
The representatives of the churches concerned were informed that Canada supported the resolution of April 22 of the general assembly which set up a subcommittee to inquire into the situation in Angola because the government considered that the resolution offered a moderate and helpful approach to a complicated subject, and the Canadian government hoped that the subcommittee would be able to make recommendations
Starred Questions
which would ease the situation. The subcommittee consists of Finland, Dahomey, Sudan, Bolivia and Malaya.
On June 9 the security council approved a resolution on the situation in Angola which, among other things, asked Portugal to extend every facility to the subcommittee set up by the general assembly and requested the subcommittee to implement its mandate without delay.
The security council also expressed the hope that a peaceful solution will be found to the problems of Angola. The Canadian government is awaiting with interest the report of the subcommittee on Angola and, in the light of that report, will consider what further action might usefully be taken.
Parts 2 and 3 to the question are answered by the answer to part 1.



CANADIAN MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO PORTUGAL

Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	What military assistance has Canada provided Portugal under Canadian mutual aid each year since the program was established?
2.	What form has this military assistance taken?
3.	Is any consideration being given to additional military assistance to Portugal under mutual aid?
4.	Has Canada sold any arms, ammunition, or other military equipment to Portugal since NATO was established?
5.	If so, what material has been sold?
6.	Have there been any Portuguese requests to purchase Canadian arms, ammunition, or military equipment this year?
7.	If so, what material was requested?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts 1 and 2 of this question, the information is contained in a table and I ask leave to have that printed without reading it. The answer to part 3 is as follows.
As the Prime Minister stated in the house on June 22, the Canadian mutual aid program was designed for the purpose of helping our European NATO allies to build up their capacity to resist aggression. It is carried out under NATO sponsorship, and allocations are made on the basis of recommendations from the central NATO military and civilian authorities.
Under this program Canada has given assistance to Portugal. Such assistance has been provided on the understanding that it be used only to strengthen the capacity of NATO to deter or resist aggression and only for the defence of the NATO area as defined in article 6 of the North Atlantic treaty. The question of future mutual aid shipments to Portugal will be determined in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time such requests are received, taking into account the principles I have just outlined.
4.	Yes.

Starred Questions
5.	Since NATO was established export permits for commercial sales have been issued for aircraft engine and other parts for shipment to the Portuguese air force, totalling $71,000, and for military vehicle parts for the Portuguese army, totalling $445,000. In addition export permits have been issued for arms to the Portuguese army totalling $31,000.
6.	No.
7.	Answered by the answer to part 6.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to incorporate the table referred to as part of his answer?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to is as follows:]
DELIVERIES OF MUTUAL AID MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES TO PORTUGAL FROM INCEPTION OF PROGRAM (millions ol dollars)
Cumulative . . to Deliveries from stocks Dec. 1953	1954	1955	1956	1957	1958	1959	1960Armament	8.313	15.262	2.479	15.122	5.854	.185	.003	.086Ammunition	3.044	6.548	.390	2.018	.635	.227	.076	Mechanical equipment	5.020	1.277	2.062	.754	.092	.055	.335	.516Electronic and comm, equipment	1.725	.285	.584	.001	-	-	.006	Aircraft and engines	-	~	.008	-	-	.001	.338	-Deliveries from new production	Ammunition	.171	.531	.240	1.955	.001	.394	1.780	Electronic and comm, equipment	-	.395	.099	.046	-	.204	.015	Aircraft and engines	-	.334	.113	.082	.003	-	.914	.294Armament	-	-	-	-	-	.540	.248	*Total value of shipments	18.272	24.632	5.974	19.979	6.585	1.607	3.714	.896
* This statement is based on actual shipments of materials and supplies by calendar years commencing December, 1953.



BOMARC MISSILE BASE, MONT LAURIER   PURCHASE OF LAND

Mr. Herridge: 1.	On what date were negotiations commenced for the purchase of the land on which the Bomarc missile base near Mont Laurier is situated?
2.	By whom were negotiations on both sides conducted?
3.	In whose name was the land registered at this time?
4.	Were options taken on this land at any time?
5.	If so: (a) on what date? (b) what was the acreage involved, and how was it described? (c) what were the terms of the option? (d) who were parties to the agreement?
6.	Was this land purchased by the government?
7.	If so: (a) on what date? (b) in whose name was the land registered on the date of purchase? (c) what was the acreage involved? (d) who negotiated the transaction? (e) what was the purchase price? (f) what were the terms of the purchase contract? (g) how much money has been paid, and on what dates? (h) to whom was each payment made?


Egan Chambers: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question consists chiefly of lists of names, dates, 
acreages and amounts of money, and I ask that it be printed without being read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreeable to the parliamentary secretary's request?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
1.	June, 1959.
2.	Officers of the Department of Transport and the owners.
3.	E. J. Miller, E. Chagnon, N. Savard, V. F. Peiffer, A. Pilon-Bertrand, C. E. Lafrance, A. Lapointe, Mrs. E. Tungate, The Province of Quebec.
4.	No.
5.	Not applicable.
6.	No, this land was expropriated on September 14, 1959.
7.	(a) Settlement of compensation claims was negotiated with the owners on the following dates:

February 1, 1961, E. J. Miller; March 16, 1961, E. Chagnon; March 16, 1961, N. Savard; March 16, 1961, V. F. Peiffer; June 2, 1961,
A.	Pilon-Bertrand; March 30, 1961, Mrs. E. Tungate.
(b)	These properties were registered in the following names on the dates of expropriation:
E.	J. Miller, E. Chagnon, N. Savard, V. F. Peiffer, A. Pilon-Bertrand, Mrs. E. Tungate.
(c)	E. J. Miller, 73,640 square feet; E. Chagnon, 3.21 acres; N. Savard, 72.79 acres; V. F. Peiffer, 34,810 square feet; A. Pilon-Bertrand, 104.75 acres; Mrs. E. Tungate, 7,423 square feet.
(d)	Officers of the Department of Transport.
(e)	and (f) The expropriatees agreed to release the crown from all claims arising out of the expropriation upon payment of the following amounts:
E. J. Miller, $1,700; E. Chagnon, $130; N. Savard, $5,000; V. F. Peiffer, $1,200; A. Pilon-Bertrand, $9,000; Mrs. E. Tungate, $150.
(g)	No money has been paid to date.
(h)	Payments will be made to the registered owners.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Regier: 1.	On what dates and for what railways has the British Columbia government, or other interests, within the last fifteen years, requested federal assistance?
2.	What was the amount of such assistance requested in each case?
3.	What has been the response of the federal government on each such occasion?
4.	Have any such requests remained unanswered to date?



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	Has the government received representations from any organizations or groups of civil servants requesting pay for statutory holidays which fall on Saturdays, with particular reference to Dominion day and Remembrance day 1961?
2.	If so, from what organizations have such representations been received?
3.	What reply has the government made to such representations?



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask whether there is a Canadian team from his department in Washington renegotiating the Canada-United States 90205-6-454
Inquiries of the Ministry bilateral air agreement. If so, what success has that delegation had?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes, we have a Canadian delegation in Washington at the present time to renegotiate the bilateral air agreement. As far as the success of the delegation so far is concerned, I have not received a report this morning, but of course we accept the fact that the present talks are only preliminary.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Is Canada seeking to obtain fifth freedom rights on a Montreal-Los Angeles route as well as on the Montreal-Toronto-Miami route?


Léon Balcer: The position of the Canadian delegation is that we are insisting on a complete renegotiation of the bilateral agreement in all its facets. This is a long, involved discussion, and that is why I said the meeting is only preliminary. It is my understanding that the matters raised by my hon. friend will be discussed.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr,
Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question is prompted by inquiries from Vancouver. In view of the fact that Juan Garcia, former chief of the secret police for the late dictator Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, has reportedly been cooling his heels in Vancouver for some time while en route to a diplomatic post in Japan, and in view of reports that he is being watched or guarded by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, can the minister inform the house as to this man's status and whether he is travelling under a diplomatic passport or visa or as a visitor? Have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police been instructed to watch or guard him? If so, for what purpose?


Howard Charles Green: The status in Canada of the Dominican citizen, Juan Abbes Garcia, is that of a transit traveller. He is travelling on a diplomatic passport with a diplomatic visa for transit through Canada to Japan where he has been appointed counsellor at the embassy of the Dominican Republic in Tokyo.
I have no knowledge of any instructions issued by the R.C.M.P. in connection with Mr. Garcia's transit through Canada.
7182	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Herridge: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary question. Has the minister any knowledge of such instructions?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: No,
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I even knew the gentleman was in the country.


INITIAL PRICES FOR 1961 CROP YEAR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister inform the house when the initial prices will be set for wheat delivered in the new crop year beginning August 1? Will these initial prices take into account the recent increase in wheat board selling prices?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I cannot give the time when the government will announce the new initial prices, but when that decision is made it will be announced in due course. In so far as I am concerned, there is no intention to change the initial price for wheat owing to the new high prices. What really counts with the farmer is the final payment.
(Translation) :


REPORTED PROTEST AS TO TRANSPORTATIN COST
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Following the brief submitted to the federal authorities by the "Federation de l'UCC du Saguenay" and the "Chaine cooperative du Saguenay" concerning discrimination in freight rates on feed grains and grains generally, could the Minister of Agriculture indicate whether a favourable decision has been taken with regard to these representations?
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. members for Chicoutimi and Lake St. John have been discussing this question with me in the last month or so. I hope to make an announcement in the not too distant future about some adjustment to be made in relation to this matter.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the 

Minister of Labour, notice of which was sent to him earlier. Has the minister received a request from Mr. Terrence Whitfield for permission to prosecute Canadian Marconi Company under the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act? If so, what decision was made with respect to the request?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I did receive a letter from Mr. Whitfield on about June 9, in which he voiced his complaints against the Canadian Marconi Company and asked for clarification of his position with regard to the Canadian Fair Employment Practices Act. There was no formal or direct request for permission to prosecute. Following Mr. Whitfield's letter my officials have been in contact with the department of northern affairs to ascertain the facts of the case. I am waiting for a further report from my officials on this matter.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. H. Phillips (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister in a position to report to the house on the negotiations for assistance to Prince Edward Island potato growers?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to get in touch with the government of Prince Edward Island today to tell the minister of agriculture that the government has agreed to share with the province in the cost of compensation to those who have suffered losses greater than 15 per cent due to fu-sarium rot, to a maximum of $600 per farm.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked about the returns concerning which the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate inquired on Saturday, as recorded at page 6988 of Hansard. These returns, it should be noted, call for orders in council for which no statutory authority exists. They are not, as he described them, returns for which no legal authority exists. These returns will require the examination of tens of thousands of orders in council running back for many years. This work has been commenced but it will take a considerable time for completion. Consequently I am not able to inform the hon. member just when the returns will be ready.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and ask whether she is aware of any negotiations going on between the Sarnia band of Indians and Dimensional Investments Limited? If so, are such negotiations being carried on with the hon. lady's approval?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member I only know what I read in the newspapers. The reported negotiations if there are such, are at this stage being carried on between the Indians and the interested parties themselves, and have not reached the stage where the department is involved.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. lady inform us whether the surrender that was executed for the purpose of making this deal is still in effect, or whether there would have to be a new surrender if there was a new deal?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There would have to be a new surrender.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Has the Postmaster General informed United States publishers that the remailing rate on United States periodicals in Canada will be raised 25 per cent on August 1?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: We do propose, Mr. Speaker, to increase the rate for United States periodicals placed in the mails in Canada. The new rate will be 5 cents per pound. I am not sure whether the effective date is August 1 or September 1.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statements in the report of the royal commission on publications to the effect that these remailing rates seem to have no legislative or statutory basis, is it the intention of the Postmaster General to seek such legislation to regularize this rate?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, we will follow the same practice which was followed when the rate was introduced some years ago.
90205-6-454i
Inquiries of the Ministry



REQUEST FOR PAID HOLIDAYS FOR PART TIME EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that part time postal employees are now required to pass examinations because, according to the minister, their wages have been increased to the wage level of regular postal clerks, for the same reason would the Postmaster General explain why part time employees do not enjoy holidays with pay as the regular postal clerks do, which I am sure the minister would agree would be the humane thing to do?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the hon. member's preoccupation with holidays at this stage in our parliamentary session. I think many hon. members are preoccupied with the same consideration. I must say this is the first time I ever heard an increase in salary argued as the basis for holidays as well.
In this particular case these people are working three or four hours a day. It is not full time employment. They are perfectly free to arrange for holidays if they wish. There would seem, with respect to part time employees, no obligation to pay them for their holiday time under our present regulations.


Azellus Denis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that in the province of Quebec the employers of part time employees have to grant holidays to their workers? In the case of those who have worked for less than six months they grant at least 2 per cent of the wages earned during the time they have been employed. The Postmaster General must know that those part time postal employees are working seven days a week-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has completed one question, and I think he should give the minister an opportunity to answer if the minister wishes to do so.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in pursuing this debate at this time. There are appropriate occasions when this subject might be raised on my estimates.
(Translation) :


Mr. H. Pit Lessard (St. Henry):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a similar question of the Secretary of State? Would he consider the possibility of giving all part time government employees the same right to paid holidays as permanent employees get?


Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, I think the question actually con-

Inquiries of the Ministry cerns so many departments that I could not answer it. In fact it is rather a matter of government policy.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Is the Postmaster General in a position to reply to the question I asked him two days ago?


William McLean Hamilton: The Ottawa postal district includes the eastern Ontario area up to Peterborough and only a small part of Quebec.
The largest post offices in the area are those of Ottawa, Hull, Cornwall, Brockville, Prescott, Kingston, Belleville, Picton, Trenton, Cobourg, Peterborough, Perth, Smiths Falls, Arnprior, Renfrew and Pembroke.
Consequently, bilingualism is not an essential requirement in the competition for the position of district director, but as always, a bilingual candidate would have an advantage in the competition.
Under the district director there are four regional superintendents, and most of the Quebec section of the district is under the jurisdiction of a bilingual regional superintendent who also looks after that part of eastern Ontario where most of the communities mentioned by the hon. member are located.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Will applicants in this competition have the privilege of answering the questions either in French or in English, as they prefer?


William McLean Hamilton: That question, I think, is a matter for the civil service commission. However, I think the usual practice is that the applicant is allowed to answer in either of Canada's official languages.
(Text):



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General and ask him whether he has [DOT]been advised by Reader's Digest that if the recommendations of the O'Leary commission are put into effect, Reader's Digest will lay off some 400 employees in Canada?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I understand that representations have been made to various ministers within the cabinet by Reader's Digest and their employee associations. I have received some representations. I am not completely conversant with the details, but I remember that a claim somewhat along those lines was made.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I wish to
direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask him whether there is presently before him an application for the merging of the Bank of Nova Scotia and the Toronto-Dominion Bank.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have no application.



BIRTH OF DAUGHTER TO WIFE OF MEMBER

[Stage Direction]
for st. John's east
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance relating to an increased demand on the consolidated revenue fund in the form of a family allowance which will be paid to Mrs. James McGrath, wife of the hon. member for St. John's East, who gave birth yesterday to a nine pound two ounce girl.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all hon. members will agree that no family allowance was better earned.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 27, consideration of the motion of Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Benidickson.
(Translation):
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last night I was dealing with the rather unpleasant records to whidh four years of Conservative administration in this country had led. Yet, in view of those records I mentioned last night, the Conservatives persist in saying that the situation in Canada could not be better. As

I cannot believe that the government is either blind or in bad faith, let me say this-the Conservative party has beaten another record, that of naivety.
In the light of all those rather unenviable records and their disastrous results for the nation, it is not surprising to find that the Conservative members are reluctant to participate in this debate. When you see them so silent, you would think they are attending someone in the throes of death. There is not even a whisper. They are awaiting the demise of this government and trying to keep it alive a little longer by giving it shots in the arm like the Coyne affair, which I am sure, will have no effect whatsoever.
After months of anguish and hesitation on the part of the Minister of Finance and of anxious expectation on the part of our people, the Minister of Finance, in all his greatness, has at long last condescended, at the very last moment, to submit a financial report on the country's business together with the budget for this fiscal year which is a few months old already.
Considering how long it had taken to prepare it, we were entitled to expect, if not a masterpiece, at least a decent piece of work, but the minister just gave us a daub, and a bad one at that.
As Mr. Paul Sauriol wrote in Le Devoir of June 22, 1961:
That document scarcely answered the public's expectation. It contained no surprise and hardly any changes in the taxpayer's yearly return- Such a budget should make one think, because it reflects disquieting problems in our national economy.
The minister had indicated an expansionist fiscal policy, but as I said last night at the beginning of my remarks, the expansionist trend of the budget only applies to the deficit.
There are, of course, new tariff barriers in it and on the whole it will add to the burden for the Canadian taxpayer.
The average Canadian will suffer from the devaluation of the Canadian dollar more than he will benefit.
Anyhow, that fluctuation is a new contradiction, or rather a new about-face in fiscal matters on the part of the minister.
In his budget speech, last year, the minister had objected to all suggestions in favour of a fluctuating Canadian dollar on the world market, and vehemently denounced it, stating that such a policy would necessarily require the purchase of uncalculable amounts of American dollars, which would be a bad thing for our economy.
Yet, this year, he advocates the policy which Ihe had radically rejected at that time.
The Budget-Mr. Rouleau
What will be the direct results of this policy for the Canadians? We will have to pay more for imported goods and heaven knows how much we must rely on imports for our day to day requirements.
This is what was written by Mr. Norman Campbell, parliamentary reporter for the Ottawa Citizen in the June 21 issue of that paper:
There is nothing much in the budget for the consumers except the prospect of higher prices.
This is where we stand after four years of a Conservative administration. From its prosperous position of 1957, Canada has now fallen to the depths of an economic slump. We are facing all kinds of economic difficulties resulting in unemployment and concern for thousands of families who only ask to be allowed to work, to live and to share in the tremendous resources with which this country was endowed by Providence.
We are all the more entitled to demand from the Conservative government an account of the administration of the nation's business entrusted to them by the people, since the present government had promised them the moon and stars.
Everybody remembers the famous statement made by the Conservative leader:
As long as I am Prime Minister of Canada, no one will suffer.
In another sermon delivered before the young Conservatives of eastern Quebec, in Quebec city, on December 8, 1957, he made the following statement as reported in La Presse for December 9:
The Conservative party considers it its mission to rebuild the country from its ruins... You can be sure that it will not fail in its task and that, in its activities, it will never forget the beauty and greatness of our dear country.
Mr. Speaker, I am willing to believe the Prime Minister when he claims that he has the beauty and greatness of our dear country at heart, but I readily maintain that the result of his four years of administration has proved that he and the members of his government do not have the required administrative qualifications to achieve that purpose.
They took over a prosperous Canada and are leading it to bankruptcy. If the government has its reasons to demand the resignation of the governor of the Bank of Canada, if it passes a special act to remove him, the Canadian people are justified in withdrawing their confidence from the present government and they are logical in doing so. They will be justified in replacing this government by another at the next rendering of accounts when we go to the country.
Yes, members on the government side should indeed be hesitant to participate in the present debate.

The Budget-Mr. Rouleau
In order to distract the public's attention from the sad state of the nation's affairs, the Conservative government has been making, through its Minister of Finance, a lot of fuss about the Coyne incident, and this just before the budget presentation.
If that incident were not so tragic, it could be called: A comedy in* three acts by Donald Fleming. Producer: Donald Fleming; Star actor: Donald Fleming; Publicity: Donald Fleming.
In the first act enters the Minister of Finance cast in the part of an offended virgin; he goes into a tirade-the governor of the Bank of Canada had a $25,000 a year pension voted for himself, without my knowledge. What a shame. He must resign, he has to go at once.
But the strange and bewildering thing is that this pension was voted 16 months ago by the board of directors appointed by the Minister of Finance himself, and in the presence of the assistant deputy minister of finance. Surely all these people must keep quite a lot of secrets from the Minister of Finance, since, during a period of 16 months, he was kept unaware of what had been going on in an organization of which he is the boss on behalf of the Canadian taxpayers.
Then the curtain rises on act two. The scene has changed. Enters the same actor in a new part and with new lines.
The governor's pension hovers in the background. Now, the governor must quit because he and the government do not agree on economic and monetary policies.
All this is quite hard to follow. The plot of the play is getting complicated. In 1954, the present Minister of Finance who then sat on the banking and commerce committee agreed* with Mr. Graham Towers, who was then governor of the Bank of Canada, that in case of a serious difference between the governor and the government in matters of economic and monetary policy the governor was bound to resign.
Since he took over as Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Eglinton went through a certain evolution and has been contending for the last four years, especially when faced with criticism concerning credit limitations, that he could not do a thing because monetary policy was outside his realm and within the exclusive province of the Bank of Canada.
And yet in February 1961, he asserted in the house that there was no dispute between him and the governor of the Bank of Canada. So, according to the minister, they were on good terms then. In February 1961, there was the brotherly hug and the curtain fell on the second act.


Then the curtain rises again on the third and final act, to wind up the play.
It was the budget speech. The minister gave a good performance. His lines kept him going during two and three quarters hours, and the minister did not even stop for a drink. During those 165 minutes of speech, he barely spoke a few minutes in French for the gallery.


An hon. Member:: That was more than previously.


Guy Rouleau: That torrent of words did not give rise to a strong reaction. To hide the omissions, the deficiencies of his speech, the minister wound up in a high voice, he looked up, pointed an angry finger and ruthlessly condemned the governor of the Bank of Canada: "There is the man responsible for all our ills. It is because of him that we have deficits and unemployment, his policy is wrong, he must go, he must resign. If he does not resign, I shall throw him out." Exit the governor. The minister calmly resumes his seat and the curtain falls. The volunteer firemen gratefully enter to put out the fire.
The audience-in this case the Canadian taxpayer-remains puzzled and again it has to pay the cost.
Deficits will continue to accumulate; the debt will continue to rise; the servicing of the debt will continue to increase; consumer products will be more expensive; unemployment, unfortunately, will still exist, and next year, before the election, someone will be found to bear the blame for the government's deficiencies.
For the characteristic of this government is to find someone on whom to cast the blame. There must be a scapegoat to explain the bad administration of the nation's business, resulting from inexperience, incompetence, lack of any sense of responsibility, indecision and complacency.
We could forgive all that to the present regime when it took over four years ago. The government was then progressing timidly, like a child taking its first steps. But today, the government, without ever having reached adulthood, is proceeding with the clumsy gait of a centenarian. The government is already suffering from senility.
Four years ago, our friends opposite made their first faltering steps, tripping on the minutest speck of dust, accusing their Liberal predecessors of being the cause of their failure or throwing themselves into the latter's bosom saying: "Tell us what to do, save us please."

Today in the throes of death, they are looking for scapegoats and behaving like old people who, having made a mess of their own lives, are in despair and blame both God and men for their failure. But they are the only ones to blame.
Still, they received a nice inheritance. The finances of the country were in order, prosperity was the attribute of Canada which caused the nations of the world to wonder in awe.
If, during those four years, the opposition have been critical-as it had good cause to be-they have also expressed their views and put forward concrete suggestions. Those suggestions fell upon deaf ears.
And now the governor of the Bank of Canada is being blamed for the whole thing. Long before today we have had occasion to say how much we disagreed with his policy. The minister used to reply that he was in agreement with the governor. We had no call to demand his resignation. We feel that when a public servant, whoever he might be, is called upon to advise the government, he has a strict duty to carry out its orders, or else he ought to tender his resignation. If he fails to do this, the government must immediately take action.
According to the minister in February 1961, only four months ago, there was no disagreement between him and the governor. Suddenly, just before the budget is brought in, the conflict breaks out.
Under those circumstances the opposition and the people of Canada have a right to ask that light be shed on the matter, that the governor and the minister be summoned before the banking and commerce committee to explain their positions so that facts may be assessed on their merits.
To our fair request the minister's answer is no. He will have only himself to blame if we harbour doubts and if the people of Canada are not satisfied.
Because of the conflict between the two men, the budget was introduced without the assistance of the governor of the Bank of Canada. He was not consulted nor even advised. This is a further source of concern to Canadian taxpayers, businessmen, industrial leaders, financial institutions and nations that do business with Canada. In the last few years, the Conservative government should have been fighting unemployment. Instead of this they have been fighting inflation through credit restrictions. Today we are faced with the results of that mistake.
The last budget is leading the ship of the nation into uncharted seas.
The Budget-Mr. Chevrier
The experience of the last four years prevents us from trusting the pilot, in this case the Minister of Finance.
Our only hope now is to change the pilot before the ship goes down.
Directors who commit error upon error and accumulate deficits would not be kept long at the head of any corporation. The same thing applies to the government. This country's shareholders do not want to face bankruptcy; they look forward to the day when they can change their board of directors, before it is too late.


Mr. Paul:: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Guy Rouleau: Certainly.


Rémi Paul: The hon. member blamed the Minister of Finance for having spoken very little French during his budget speech.
Would the hon. member name a minister of finance in any Liberal administration who spoke French when introducing his budget in the house and, if so, would he give us the reference?


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Abbott did give part of his speech in French when introducing a budget.


Rémi Paul: In what year?


Guy Rouleau: I cannot give the hon. member the exact reference, but I know that he will be able to look it up himself.
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the budget is always a subject of major interest in any session. This year a desperate government, well aware of the political erosion it has suffered in the last two sessions as a result of its haughty contempt for parliament and its unbridled lust for power, has staked all its chances on the budget. It is the kind of budget that might be expected under those circumstances.
It is a budget full of pretence. It claims to be anti-inflationary. It is nothing of the kind. It is a delusive budget. It seeks to make people think they will be taxed less when the fact is that they will be required to pay more in taxes. It seeks to make people think that the government is holding the line against inflation when it is not.
It is a cynical budget. It contradicts what the government has been saying and doing. It is an opiate budget. The government openly boasts that the public has a short memory and can be made to forget the past as well as the present welter of the government's own contradictions.

The Budget-Mr. Chewier
It is a transparent budget. Its pose cannot hide its timing and purpose. It is an illusory-budget. It proposes changes, large in number but small in individual extent in every case, and seeks to create the impression of importance by their mere multiplicity. The banquet table is long. It is well dressed. The best silver and china are used. The lackeys are well trained, but the fare is thin. The guests have left unsatisfied.


Mr. Churchill:: What is the quotation from?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, those are not my words. They are the words of the Minister of Finance when in the opposition he spoke in this house during the consideration of the budget on March 21, 1957. They were words which he addressed to the house four years ago concerning the last balanced budget which this country has seen.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I now wish to turn to another matter and address myself particularly to the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion), because he did take part in the budget discussion.
In fact, he spent minutes congratulating the Minister of Finance for his masterful speech.
It is usual for an hon. member to congratulate the Minister of Finance, but when a member of the same cabinet commends his colleague, it is something rather strange, because in fact, he congratulates himself.
Does that not show a lack of solidarity as between members of the same cabinet? We had occasion in the past to witness a deep seated difference of opinion between the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) and some of his colleagues. I refer to the case of the C.B.C. producers' strike in Montreal. The Minister of Transport said the strike was legal, while the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) called it illegal. Placed between the two was the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), who did not dare to say whether it was legal or not.
The Secretary of State spoke of last year's budget. It matters little, he said, if the December forecasts met with adverse winds.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, last year's budget met with highly adverse winds.
In analysing this budget, there are four different aspects to consider.
First, let us look at the forecasting errors of the Minister of Finance. Last year, he predicted that we would have a surplus of $12 million. What happened? He first said there would be a deficit of $285 million, and it finally reached $345 million.

Surely, that is a very serious error, which had never been committed before by a Minister of Finance in bringing down his budget.
Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that in the circumstances the estimated deficit of $650 million for the current year will prove more accurate?
Last year the Minister of Finance told us that unemployment would disappear with the melting of the snow. Yet we have now a greater number of unemployed than we ever had in the past 20 years.
The Conservatives claim that this is something they inherited from the Liberals.
The truth is, they cannot stand on their own feet, they cannot accept their own responsibilities.
They always have to find an excuse, the Coyne case for instance.
The Minister of Labour stated in early March, 1960 that the 1958 recession was over.
That statement was true. How, then, can the Conservatives claim that the Liberals are responsible for the new recession which began only in 1960?
Last year we were told that the recession was over, that there would be prosperity throughout the country. Unemployment is on the rise. It has now reached 7 per cent of the labour force in Canada. Who should be blamed for that situation?
In 1957, the Liberals left the Conservatives a legacy worth recalling.
The Liberals left an unemployment insurance fund of $900 million. That fund has dropped to less than $100 million and yet the government does not make the slightest move to improve the situation.
The minister stated that the national product was going to increase by 6 per cent, but the increase was only 3 per cent.
Are we, in the circumstances, to put faith in the minister's budget forecast, when he says that the deficit will reach between $600 and $700 million?
Is it not more likely that the deficit will reach the billion dollar mark?
Another point: the omissions in the budget. The minister did not provide anything for farmers.
What cure did the Minister of Finance propose to the Canadian farmers? Not long ago, he made a speech in which he told farmers to work and to save money.
How could Canadian farmers, especially those from the province of Quebec, work and save money when they barely earned enough to make a decent living?

The dominion bureau of statistics has supplied figures to show it. In 1959, farmers net income was down 11 per cent; during the session, the Minister of Agriculture forecast that farm income in 1960 would be still lower than in 1959.
What is happening today, in 1961? At a time when farm income is steadily decreasing, the Conservative government advises the farmers that they must save and work; it provides nothing at all for them in the budget.
There is nothing either in the budget for underdeveloped areas. The budget provides nothing for our trade policy except for the maintenance of protectionism.
With one hand, the Minister of Finance promotes freer trade and with the other hand he leans towards protectionism.
Third, he said that interest rates would go down. If he actually has to borrow $1 billion, how will he manage to reduce interest rates? Moreover, he will have to get funds for the C.N.R., for all the crown corporations and for a number of non-budgetary items which I cannot enumerate because I have not enough time at my disposal.
That is, therefore, contradictory. If, on the one hand, interest rates are to go down, while the interest on the debt keeps on increasing, on the other, how will he succeed in borrowing those huge sums of money and reduce interest rates at the same time? Unless, of course, the person who is appointed as governor of the Bank of Canada increases the money supply, becomes the government's handyman and does exactly what the government tells him to do. If, by any chance, that happened, we would have inflation. Prices would go up, the cost of living would go up and, consequently, pensions would lose a great deal of their value.
Fourth, I should like to speak of the exchange rate. The devaluation of the Canadian dollar has been mentioned. The minister advocated a significant reduction in the value of the Canadian dollar. But when asked, in the house as well as during a press conference, what would be that significant devaluation, he refused to answer. However, his present stand is in direct contradiction with the one he adopted last year. Here is what he said about devaluating our dollar in his budget speech of March 31, 1960:
The Budget-Mr. Chevrier
An attempt by the government artificially to lower the external price of the Canadian dollar would involve borrowing or raising by taxes very large sums of money with which to buy up foreign exchange.
In other words, we would have embarked upon a gigantic financial speculation without any chance of success. Yet, this year he is embarking himself upon that gigantic speculative action he condemned last year.
Mr. Speaker, this gigantic speculation is the only action spelled out in the present budget. As the minister said, to significantly reduce the value of the Canadian dollar, we must buy American dollars. For how much? We do not know. How? We do not know either. Apart from the billion already referred to I do not think this is the right way to go about it. It is better to let the Canadian dollar finds its own level than to resort to artificial means of devaluating it.
The directors of the international monetary fund have already reminded the Canadian government of engagements entered into with that institution and, more particularly, of its pledge to maintain our currency at par. This will therefore entail heavy buying of American dollars. To reduce the value of the dollar is, consequently, to increase the cost of living, the cost of everything we import into this country. And everyone knows that we import much more than we export. This means, therefore, an increase in the cost of living. Recently, a probable one cent increase in the price of bread has been forecast.
The minister also favours an expansionist budget. It is obvious that this expansion will directly lead us toward inflation. The capital of the industrial development bank is to be increased from $160 to $400 million. But while the government propose to increase the capital of that bank, what steps are they proposing with respect of the economically underdeveloped areas? Not only is there not a single word in this budget about the underdeveloped areas of Canada, but no assistance is provided for them. No municipal fund where the municipalities could borrow. The municipalities will find it difficult to borrow in Canada. For a few years they have been borrowing in the United States at rates lower than in Canada; today, due to the devaluation of our dollar and the premium on the American dollar, they will not be able to borrow in the U.S. any more.
The real cause of the present economic stagnation is the fiscal and monetary policies of the government. They have increased long term expenditures instead of reducing taxes. They dealt with the recession as if it

The Budget-Mr. Chevrier were a depression. Long term expenditures have brought about budgetary deficits; we have now reached the fifth budget and the accumulated deficit reaches $2 billion. The government had to sell bonds to make up the deficit. The Bank of Canada had to increase the money supply by $1,700 million, or 16 per cent. The result was inflation, and the bank had to check the inflation.
The government had to borrow to make up its deficit, and in doing so, found itself in competition with private enterprise, corporations, companies, municipalities and provinces all across Canada. What did this mean? It had to raise interest rates, to the serious detriment of the small borrower, to the man in the street.
Interest on the debt went up by $300 million. The public bodies borrowed in the United States, as I said a moment ago.
The tightening of credit had disastrous effects on small borrowers, on trades people and merchants.
As for secondary industry, it suffered more than anyone else. All we have to do is to compare the present situation with conditions prevailing from 1945 to 1957 to know where things stand. Indeed, the London Economist, in an editorial dealing with the way in which Canada managed its business and budgeting, said this:
No country in the world has managed its economy as efficiently as Canada has done.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State spoke about textiles. He upbraided the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) for what the latter had said with regard to that industry. Yet, no member in this house is as keen and shows greater interest in this matter which affects the people in his riding, as the hon. member. On several occasions, he rose in this house to defend their interests. He is interested in textile workers and has shown it on many occasions.
With regard to the textile industry in Canada I shall say that, in the last four years, several plants had to close down. I have a list here and can name them. To quote a single instance, in Hamilton, the very riding of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough), that industry was employing 1,000 workers. There are also textile plants at Grand'Mere, at Cornwall, three of which at least closed down-but never mind.
In the last four years, as was said in committee of the other place, the number of textile workers has decreased by 25,000. However, the crux of the matter is that the present government, whose members are facing me, had promised to settle that problem. The Prime Minister himself, when he travelled

through all ridings with textile mills, stated that, as soon as he took over he would protect that industry, thanks to his good management and adequate methods.
I lack the time to read those statements into the record, but as everybody knows, the Prime Minister of Canada declared that, once in power he would protect the textile industry as well as he had protected agriculture.
In 1958, he submitted to the house a bill known as the anti-dumping legislation in order to help the textile industry. Here is what a parliamentary correspondent, Mr. Richard Gwyn, had to say on June 1, 1959, under the heading:
(Text):
Government has means to curb textile imports
The government now has in its hands an instrument which could save the textile industry without any further action. This is Bill C-51, known as the "anti-dumping legislation."
C-51 gives revenue minister George Nowlan power to slap high tariffs on any goods dumped on the Canadian market at prices lower than production costs plus a fair profit mark-up.
More important he has the power to place prohibitive tariffs on goods coming in from countries where production costs are far below those of Canada.-
Only trouble is the government hasn't used C-51, though it has been on the statute books a year.
(Translation):
That legislation was passed by parliament almost three years ago. Why is it not used?
(Text):


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Did the hon. gentleman vote against it or for it?


Lionel Chevrier: The point is that the Minister of Finance said at the time that this was going to be of tremendous assistance to the textile industry, but why has the government not used it? I doubt very much if it has used it on more than half a dozen occasions.
(Translation):
The Secretary of State referred to what the Bennett government had done with regard to textile mills. Let me say to him that from 1930 to 1935, when the Bennett government was in office, textile workers suffered as they suffer today, and notwithstanding the assertions of the minister, it does not seem that the problem can be settled through increased tariff protection. And to prove my point, I shall quote from a statement made by the president of the primary textile institute, Mr. Berry, before a Senate committee:
(Text):
Our position on the tariff could be put quite briefly, and it is this: We have just barely completed a three-years' review by the tariff board of tariffs on textiles, and whatever we might think

of the results, we must conclude that the revisions that have been made have been made within the framework of the present Canadian policy. We only have two comments to make on that policy, and one is that a policy which allows penetration into a market to the extent which has become apparent in our business is not likely to be a good policy for Canada for an indefinite period. Our views on that are somewhat supported, we think, by an observation that the tariff board itself made, in their first report in the textile series, having this to say: "There may be recommended for the industry a measure of assistance that will permit it to continue to fight for its existence at least until such time as there may be initiated by the proper authority a carefully considered decision on high policy regarding the future of the industry." This indicates to us that the board was probably then in need of policy direction, and in so far as we are aware none followed.
That was the statement.
(Translation):
Mr. Berry made that statement in reply to a question. When someone asked whether he anticipated any tariff assistance, he said no, just as he had said in the Senate committee, as reported on page 1014 of the record of proceedings.
(Text):
I see that my time is fast coming to a close. I did not want to complete my remarks without saying a word about the statements made yesterday by the hon. member for Stormont. Unfortunately, he is not in his seat. I told him I had a few nice things to say about him.


Mr. Calhers:: Why?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I have never said any unkind things about the hon. member for Stormont, and if the hon. member follows me closely he will see that I will do the same thing again today, unlike the manner in which his colleague proceeded.
The hon. member for Stormont seems to be very jealous of his prerogatives as a member of parliament, and that no one should interfere in his constituency. Well, Mr. Speaker, do you think even if you are invited by the constituents of the hon. member you should not interfere? I have been invited on numerous occasions. I should like to say to this house that I receive perhaps as much mail from the constituency of Stormont as does the hon. member himself. I cannot explain why the hon. member's constituents come to me for advice. They do, they have and they will continue to do so. It is easy for me to understand why the hon. member is annoyed. He is annoyed not so much at me-


An hon. Member:: Just bragging again.


Lionel Chevrier: He is annoyed at himself because his constituents will not come to him. The proof of this lies in the fact that on matters concerning the St. Lawrence seaway, particularly those having to do with
The Budget-Mr. Chevrier pilotage, they came to me. Is it not strange that they came to the member for Laurier and not to the member for Stormont? A debate took place on that legislation for almost two days. The member for Stormont was not even in his seat. The bill was referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. We had a discussion that lasted two days. Again the member for Stormont was not in his seat except in the dying hours, and then only at the request of the hon. member for Port Arthur who said, "Where is the member for Stormont?" He came in and this is what he said:
I am vitally concerned with anything having to do with the seaway but I am not directly concerned with the pilots as there are none of them residents in my area.


Lionel Chevrier: There are several sitting right behind you now.
The hon. member did not even know there were pilots in his riding. There have been pilots in the constituency of Stormont since time immemorial; since I was a child I remember seeing pilots walking up and down the streets. Furthermore, the Minister of Transport was asked whether there were any pilots in Cornwall and he said "Yes, sure, there is a pool of pilots that has been established there; there are 21 or 24."
Here is this man who makes a vicious attack on me, and I understand why. Again I say it is not because of me. He is annoyed at himself, and he is doing his constituents a great disservice first when he says there are no pilots in his riding. I am sure they would like that. Second, he is also doing his constituents a great disservice when he says that the constituency of Stormont, particularly Cornwall, is a depressed area. Imagine a member of parliament rising in the house and so maligning his constituency by saying that it is a depressed area.


Mr. Pallell:: What about the member for Niagara Falls?


Lionel Chevrier: What do you think industry is going to do in that respect? Then again he complained bitterly about the locks being on the United States side, and the place being stranded, and so forth. He seems to forget entirely that there is a 27-foot waterway right in front of Cornwall on the Canadian side from St. Regis island right up to the dike. It is so patent that the Minister of Public Works would not be spending $400,000 and perhaps more to put a wharf there if there was not a deep-sea channel in order to bring deep-sea vessels. Therefore when he suggests there are no 27-foot facilities again he is maligning his constituency and doing his constituents great harm. He is not only
7192	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Chevrier doing them great harm but he is causing a great deal of embarrassment to those who have supported him since he was elected.


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


Lionel Chevrier: At the end of my remarks. He says the seaway building which has been erected there is not appreciated. Well, the seaway building employs almost 150 people. I see he has been not only firing some of those who were there before but he is employing, I am sure, friends of his in this building. There is no doubt that this building which he depreciates on the one hand is one in which he is most anxious to put workers on the other.
Again, he does not like the idea of a power block having been set aside for United States industrial development and no power block for the province of Ontario. He says that is the fault of the then member for Stormont and the former minister of transport, who should have seen to that. Well, we all know who is in charge of the government of the province of Ontario. Premier Frost is the head of that government. I am told he is a very close friend of the member for Stormont. They are great buddies; they see each other quite frequently. I hope the member for Stormont will make the required representations so that Cornwall and the whole St. Lawrence valley in that area will get a block of power for industrial development in the same manner and to the same extent as did the New York side of the line.
I say the member for Stormont has ignored the pilots who live in his riding. He calls his constituency a depressed area. He emphatically states no 27-foot facilities are established there. In saying these things he is doing great harm to the constituency. He says that the canal ends in a high wall 80 feet in length. But a turning basin has been made available there in the same way as there is a turning basin in the Lachine canal so that ships can move in and out. I say that no one is doing more harm to his constituency than is the hon. member by his statements.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is it not true that most of the mail from the riding of Stormont-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The time of the hon. member having expired, questions may be put to him only with the consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the hon. member for Laurier if it were not true that most of the mail directed to him from the riding of Stormont was to tell him


to stay away because of what had been done to the city of Cornwall under his administration.


Lionel Chevrier: The senior hon. member for Halifax must be living pretty close to the member for Stormont. No, that is not the kind of mail I receive; otherwise the pilots would not have come. It is not the kind of mail I receive; otherwise I would not be invited into the constituency, and I could be there quite often. No, that is not the kind of mail I receive. On the contrary, I receive every week from the constituency of Stormont demands for assistance and advice. I can only conclude one thing, namely that if the member for Stormont were looking after his constituency in the way he should, I would not be receiving that mail.
(Translation):


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), in a desperate effort, tried to have the house believe that the new budget did not have the support of the Canadian people.
You need only read the comments in the press, the statements made by businessmen in various segments of the economy, to realize that the Canadian people support this budget.
In fact, according to the Canadian Press, the primary textile institute has stated, following the tariff changes announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in his budget speech, that some aspects of those changes are encouraging for the primary textile industry in Canada. The institute stressed the fact that the government's decision not to lower tariffs on textile products was particularly welcome in view of the competition from Asian countries.
Ever since he has been in this house, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) has been the champion of the textile industry in Canada and I wish to commend him for that.


Azellus Denis: Without success.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: In fact, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin) even commended last year the hon. member for Sherbrooke for his courage and efforts in favour of the textile industry.
When this government took over, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals had completely sabotaged the textile industry. Everything had to be built up again. I have here a brief of the primary textile institute which praises the Minister of Finance because, in his budget,

he began to put the tiller right so that the textile industry may live again the life of yesteryears.
Besides, the Canadian exporters, according to Mr. John McDerby, general manager of the Canadian exporters association, find the Fleming budget satisfactory, generally speaking.
The Canadian automobile association, which has a membership of 600,000, commended the government for having granted its request for the abolition of the 74 per cent excise tax on passenger cars.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) did not mention that. He said that the Fleming budget did not meet the needs of Canadians.
However, I have here the many statements made by businessmen in this country.
In the cigarette manufacturing industry, for instance, Mr. J. H. Devlin, chairman of the Rothman company, said he was satisfied with the change announced in the excise tax on cigarettes. He said that the decrease in excise tax would result in longer cigarettes and an increase of tobacco purchases by the Canadian industry. Mr. Devlin added that tobacco purchases will increase by nearly 10 million pounds compared to last year.
Speaking for the farmers and the tobacco growers of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm riding, I should like to congratulate the minister for having taken this step which will prompt the tobacco growers to increase their production and thus to obtain higher returns.
Mr. John Magee, secretary of the Canadian trucking association, spoke very highly of the decision taken by the government in its new budget to increase the capital of the industrial development bank so that it will now be able to lend up to $400 million. Before, the credit margin was only of $160 million. Moreover, the new budget gives the bank the right to loan money to all groups of industries.
Mr. Speaker, I have only given the testimony of a few Canadian industrialists. The newspapers are filled with them, as one can see in reading the financial pages.
Only the Liberals are disappointed. They are not satisfied, because they realize that their popularity is now going down in the country. They know that they are disappearing from the electoral map and that they will probably disappear for good unless they amalgamate with the New party to have at least a few representatives in a corner of the house.
I have here a copy of Le Devoir of Tuesday, June 27, 1961, where I find this:
The Budget-Mr. Pigeon
Liberal party and N.P. amalgamation recommended by Liberals.
Milford Bay-To the dismay of the majority of the delegates who were at a dance party, a group of young Liberals of the Ontario association of young Liberals adopted a resolution recommending the amalgamation of the Liberal party with the New party in order to defeat the Progressive Conservatives.
The Liberals themselves admit they are defeated. They know that the voters have no more confidence in them, but, in order to stay in the opposition after the next election, they want to amalgamate with the New party, for they know that they will disappear from the electoral map, because they have lost contact with the people. Besides, they have always been remote from the people, they have never cared for the people.
Here is what I read, Mr. Speaker:
Wheat producers favoured by the budget.
The farmers form an important class. The Liberals speak of unemployment, but they forget the statement of their leader (Mr. Pearson). Time magazine of February 17, 1958 reported the following on page 14:
It would be stupid and unfair to blame the Conservatives for the present unemployment.
Therefore, the present Liberal leader criticizes the hon. member for Laurier, as well as all Liberal members in this house who claim that the Canadian government is responsible for unemployment. They are condemned by a statement of their own leader.
Then again, La Presse of September 23, 1960, reports a similar statement by Mr. Pearson:
Unemployment, he added, is the concern of all levels of government; it cannot be considered the sole responsibility of the federal government.
That is a further condemnation of the hon. member for Laurier and of the Liberals who sit in this house. That is why the young Ontario Liberals are right when they say their party should merge with the New party; they know that the political ground is getting slippery under their feet.
There is talk about unemployment. But here is what Mr. Georges Villeneuve, a former Liberal member of parliament for Roberval, had to say when the Liberals were in power, as reported on page 614 of Hansard for January 27, 1955:
Mr. Speaker, I find that in my constituency unemployment does not cause as much concern now as it did last year.
Not as much concern as last year. That means that in 1954, under a Liberal administration, unemployment was causing concern.
He added:
However we have seasonal unemployment and it is a problem which requires our attention as well as all our ingenuity if we want to solve it.
7194	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Pigeon
That is a further condemnation by a Liberal member, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), and their colleagues in the cabinet for the efforts they are making to stimulate our economy.
Once more I encourage labour unions and industry to launch a campaign in order to have Canadians buy Canadian products.
Are we aware, for example, that each Canadian buys an average of foreign products amounting to $262 a year, when the corresponding average is only $48 in England and $28 in the United States?
I ask my fellow citizens to buy Canadian.
Canadian manufacturers of capital goods will now be in a better position to compete on foreign markets. To finance their sales abroad they will have the support of a company put up jointly by the larger banks of Canada and the federal government with a view to extending credit facilities to our exporters. It will be easier this way to find buyers for our products.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) is to be commended for such enterprising spirit.
Mr. T. R. McLagan, president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association said in Montreal as reported in La Presse of October 28, 1960:
A strong policy promoting the sale of Canadian products remains one of the most realistic measures against unemployment.
He also added:
The lowering of production costs also seems to be a vital question, when we consider it in the light of exports. Canada is having difficulties getting into foreign markets, because her products are expensive and face very stiff competition. To answer that problem, we would have to sell cheaper, and we can do this only by materially reducing the production costs of our exported raw materials and finished products.
Of course, the cost of production is not the only barrier to the balance of our economy, but it does seem to be the main one, the most difficult one to overcome, because to do so, we must count on the co-operation of most of the people and of the leading labour and employer groups.
Mr. Speaker, there is much talk about unemployment. I have here a copy of the newspaper La Reforme, for November 19, 1960, which says:
Unemployment-a family problem and a provincial responsibility.
It is clearly stated in La Reforme that unemployment is a provincial and family responsibility.


Let the provincial government, which controls various sectors of the Quebec economy, highways, public works, construction of schools and hospitals, take its responsibilities.
Let it fulfil its promises, let it solve the unemployment problem.
Unemployment-a family problem and a provincial responsibility.
Let the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier reread the statement made by his leader, the Hon. Rene Hamel, minister of labour, on November 23, 1960:
The proportion of unemployed is going down in Quebec.
I also advise him to read an extract from the open letter published in La Presse of August 20, 1959, signed by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard), which read as follows:
The fight against unemployment is the concern of the government as well as of the governed, of management as well as of labour, of the public man as well as of the businessman, of industry as well as of banks. In a word, everyone must constructively co-operate in abolishing that social ill, while avoiding demagogy.
By the way, the hon. member for Laurier should carefully listen to this:
What must be avoided is any attempt to promote a political cause or ideal at the expense of those who are victims of a scourge like unemployment. There are too many demagogic politicians whose main ambition is to sell their product or to promote their own advancement by taking advantage of the least social disorder which, in their eyes, becomes only an accident, or a further opportunity in their prearranged pursuit of political aims.
These are formal statements; they are meant for the hon. members for Laurier, for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau), for St. Denis (Mr. Denis), and for St. Jean-Iberville-Na-pierville (Mr. Dupuis), and for all others of their ilk.
There are too many demagogic politicians whose main ambition is to sell their product or promote their own advancement.
The hon. member for Lapointe protests against the political ambitions of some of his colleagues.
Nevertheless, the hon. member for Laurier has no confidence in the future of this country, under a Conservative government.


An hon. Member:: No.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is under the Conservative
administration, Mr. Speaker-
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must inform hon. members that it is contrary to the rules to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor, either by voice or otherwise.

(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member for Laurier has no confidence in Canada's future.
Yet, it was under a Conservative administration that the hon. member for Laurier became a director of the Provincial Bank of Canada. We find this appointment in La Presse of September 15, 1960, where there is a list of the bank's new directors.
In Le Devoir of September 22, 1959, we find the following:
The Hon. Mr. Chevrier has been appointed to the board of directors of the North American Fund of Canada Ltd., a mutual investment fund in operation both in Canada and the United States.


An hon. Member:: What has that got to do with the budget?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member for Laurier
is opposed to the construction of a Bomarc base at La Macaza. It is dangerous, he says. Should a war break out, this base would be the first objective of the Russians and it could cause destruction for 100 miles round.
He was trying, in his remarks, to frighten the Canadian people, trying to blackmail them.
As a matter of fact, in criticizing the construction of that Bomarc base, the hon. member for Laurier was playing the game of the communists in this country. On September 10, 1960, the communists organized a march against setting up that Bomarc base at La Macaza.
In short, every means is welcome to reach one's own ends.


Lionel Chevrier: How do you connect this with the communists?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You play the communists' game, who denounced the Bomarc base. You therefore acted in their interest.
But the hon. member for Laurier does not stop to consider that this project creates many hundreds of jobs for the workers in the province of Quebec.


Lionel Chevrier: How many workers exactly?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I shall answer the hon. member for Laurier in the words of Mr. Jack Wallace, assistant director of the federal emergency measures organization who stated this in La Presse of November 9, 1960:
I disapprove of the defeatism of those who think Canada would be destroyed and its whole population liquidated by the explosion of nuclear bombs.
The hon. member for Laurier, in opposing the Bomarc base, tried to deprive Quebec workers of hundreds of jobs. Curiously enough, however, he was at the same time confident in the future of Canada, in its development and prosperity, because he
The Budget-Mr. Howard accepted a directorship in the Provincial Bank of Canada in addition to the directorship he has held since last year in the North American Fund of Canada Ltd.
The Liberals are pessimistic, and the young Liberals are defeatists. They want to merge with the New party because they know they are doomed.
Their leader is not as brilliant as they and the hon. member for Laurier thought at one time.
The mayor of Portage la Prairie, Mr. Henderson, a candidate to the leadership of the Liberal party, made this statement in Winnipeg on January 7, 1956:
The Hon. Lester B. Pearson will be the choice of the convention, but he will not conquer the voters. He does not know the ordinary voter.
Mr. Speaker, I see here a sad thing and in concluding my remarks I wish to quote the following words of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent in the newspaper Le Devoir of September 4, 1958:
I miss active politics.
Mr. Speaker, do you know of any one member from the province of Quebec, including the new citizen of the province of Quebec, the ex-member for Stormont and present member for Laurier who took Mr. St. Laurent's defence when he was vulgarly excluded? No, they were all mute as a fish.
Mr. St. Laurent misses political activity. I think the young Liberals of this country are right when they think of joining the New party so that some of them at least might sit in the opposition.
(Text):


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it is always refreshing to listen to the Union Nationale member from Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm. I can appreciate how frantic he, the Associate Minister of National Defence, the Secretary of State and others must be when they think in terms of what may happen to them in the next election when they will not have-
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Skeena said that I have been a member of the Quebec legislature-


Mr. Habel:: That is not what he said. (Text):


Frank Howard: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I was unable in the hubbub to get the earphone to my ear in sufficient time to hear what the hon. member said. However, I can still appreciate that he and the cabinet ministers whom I mentioned must be looking with a great deal of apprehension to the next election, because they will no longer have the forces of the corrupt Union Nationale
719S	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Howard political machine to help them. I will say further that I am not too fussy about accepting the Liberal party and its adherents as such, as I see them in this house, into the New party; they are certainly Liberally minded people. But when it comes to accepting Union Nationale members, I say "never".
This is a somewhat strange budget debate, Mr. Speaker. We see how much reluctance there is on the part of Conservative members to associate themselves with the budget. They want to concern themselves more with engaging in smear tactics against a particular individual who has been in the news lately, and about whom I intend to say no more at this stage.
There was some thought that parliament might recess at the end of this week. It appears, though, that the suggestions or requests-perhaps one should call them demands -made by the Prime Minister earlier this week have pretty well eliminated that possibility. I am sure all hon. members at least from one point of view will not be too upset about that for it will afford them the opportunity to accept the warm and gracious invitation issued by Mr. Arthur Blakely of press gallery fame to attend a gathering this week end.
I was reading some debates of the house in earlier times-1954 was one-when some mention was made of reform of the other place. In that particular debate, in which the present Prime Minister took an active part together with Mr. Drew, the then leader of the Conservative party, reference was made to a period at least back to 1926-27 when Mr. Mackenzie King had made some efforts toward reformation of the other place, and how it was not too long ago that the present Prime Minister was campaigning on the basis of Senate reform.
I would say that this need for reform is no less urgent now than it was when the Prime Minister made those promises before 1957. In fact I think it is even more urgent in view of recent developments which have been taking place in the Senate. Perhaps I may indicate a case in point. I think the disdain and contempt with which Senator Roebuck treats other hon. members of the Senate divorce committee would indicate that some reformation is necessary. If that honourable senator seeks to develop his pet hobby to the point where he establishes himself in effect as a judge of divorce in the other place, that would indicate that we need even more movement in the direction of some reformation there, but not the type of reformation that the Prime Minister has engaged in, which was that followed by his predecessor, of merely


filling the Senate with people partial to his own points of view. However, Mr. Speaker, I intend to go no further into that matter. I saw that you were becoming a little active in your seat, and I took that as an indication that perhaps I had gone just about far enough along that line.
I should like to make reference, in so far as this budget is concerned, to a previous budget introduced by the Minister of Finance in 1959, and read just two short sentences from that budget speech as contained on page 2408 of Hansard of April 9 of that year. When dealing with one phase of economic matters in this country the Minister of Finance had this to say:
Advancing technology might have been expected to reduce the cost and selling price of many products to consumers. It is evident, however, that developments in corporation pricing policies, in labour organization and even in our political democracy are producing increased rigidities which inhibit the free play of competitive forces and thereby promote inflation and price increases.
Two years ago the Minister of .Finance, if we are to believe what he said in those statements-and there is some doubt that we should believe everything the minister says- had knowledge of the fact that, as he put it, there are increasing rigidities in the pricing policies of corporations which tend to depress what he called "the free play of competitive forces and thereby promote inflation and price increases".
I think it is commendable that the minister should have understood the force which is brought into play upon our economy by corporate price fixers and by what is perhaps loosely referred to as a system of administered prices, or in other words activities which are criminal in their operation and contrary to the statutes of this nation. Even more surprising, though, than the budget we have before us is the fact that the Minister of Finance two years ago recognized these factors and did nothing about them or was denied the opportunity to do anything about them by other members of the cabinet who would like to see other situations develop. However, I believe the Minister of Finance is a strong enough individual to get his point of view across on a number of occasions, and I am inclined to think that even though he recognized this two years ago, he really did not believe that his government wanted to do anything about it because it was contrary to the philosophy and intent of the Conservative party.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether at this stage I might call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Frank Howard: I do not know whether it is a portent of things to come but I notice there is an equal number of Liberals and C.C.F. members in the house at the same time, or there was a moment ago.
There is a large contingent of members in the house who are advocates of what is known as the free enterprise system. I think it is unfortunate that the prescience of the Minister of Finance in 1959 in calling attention to the effects upon the economy of rigidity in price structures and price fixing was not carried forward in this particular budget, because the danger has not diminished during the passage of the last two years. In fact, it has increased as I shall show in a moment. There is a tendency on the part of the advocates of the so-called free enterprise system to equate free enterprise with lower prices, a better quality of goods and materials, more durable goods and the like. However, I think a much better case could be made for saying that the predominant relationship is of an altogether different kind. In other words, we can equate it with price fixing, with restrictions on production, with the carving up of markets for certain products and the like. Let me give hon. members a brief account of the record here in Canada during the past 11 years since 1950. This information was tabled in the house last year but I am afraid I do not have the reference to the specific sessional paper. It showed that the following industries and corporations in those industries have been found guilty of conspiracies and illegal actions under the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code. I find they include the glass industry, bread, baking, matches, rubberwear, tires, rubber footwear and all kinds of rubber goods; papers, both fine and coarse; electrical materials, wire and cable; farm fencing and other types of fencing; bedding, quilts, coal, roofing materials, pulpwood, culverts and transmission and conveyor belts. Companies in all these fields have been found guilty of illicit practices under the Combines Investigation Act and have been fined in the courts for engaging in price fixing.
It was not more than a couple of weeks ago in the United States, for instance, that attorney general Kennedy issued a statement to the effect that preliminary investigations there had indicated that in practically every major industrial field in the United States companies were engaged in the practice of fixing prices and increasing them by agreement without regard to the cost of production
The Budget-Mr. Howard of those commodities. Here in Canada I think this government has proven by the failure of the Minister of Finance to give concrete expression to those two sentences he mentioned in the 1959 budget that it is not really concerned with the welfare of consumers in this country, not really concerned with protecting them against encroachments upon their rights by corporate monopolies and oligopolies. This view is, I suggest, borne out also by this government's action in ramming a particularly obnoxious bill through the house amending the Combines Investigation Act in such a way as to make it easier for corporations to engage in these illicit practices and easier for them to escape detection. The sanctions and authorizations given, in effect, by last year's amendments to the Combines Investigation Act will illustrate this contention more clearly as time goes on.
On the general question of the operations undertaken under the Combines Investigation Act I should like to say it is extremely unfortunate that an investigation into the production and distribution and sale of raw fish in British Columbia has been postponed and delayed by a series of legal manoeuvres and skirmishes in the courts to prevent the restrictive trade practices commission from hearing the charges made by the director of investigation and research and coming to a determination with regard to them. That situation has existed because parliament has agreed to continue to extend the moratorium in respect to the activities of the fishing industry. That industry on the west coast is faced with continuation of a restrictive agreement regarding the number of boats which may engage in the herring production and fishing industry. I mention the herring fishery because of the restriction that exists in regard to it. The longer this continues the more difficult in an economic sense this will be for the fishing industry on the west coast.
We too often tend to think that competition brings benefits to the citizens of this nation through so-called free enterprise. We think of this free enterprise competition in relation to a number of different fields and often feel that it applies to different industries in a like manner. I suggest we have a number of different types of competition some of which may be beneficial but others which may be detrimental.
There exists competition in the field of prices to consumers and, I submit in this regard, there is very little which takes place in relation to major industries. There is perhaps a good deal more among smaller businesses because there does not exist there the same control in respect to competition and quality of goods.

The Budget-Mr. Howard
In terms of competition we can think of advertising in regard to the quality of the commodity which takes place in an attempt to make the products more attractive to the consumer. I submit that is all that is taking place in the way of competition. In Canada over the past number of years the original concept of competition which involved the price and quality of products has been misdirected and now relates almost exclusively to the field of advertising. I suggest that competition in the field of advertising does not in a general way result in benefits to consumers. We are all being inundated with advertisements appearing in newspapers, heard over the radio and seen on television, for example in regard to the various beneficial aspects of different types of toothpastes. I suggest that there is very little difference between the different brands except differences such as one being red, one being striped, one containing a special mint flavour and so on. Such toothpastes include a bit of glycerine, but in essence they are all the same. However, there is a great deal of competition regarding this particular product in the field of advertising which results not in any saving or increased quality to the consumer, but an increased cost. This same situation applies in respect to various other commodities. An individual may have a preference for a certain brand of cigarettes but, after all, cigarettes all contain tobacco and very likely have the same deleterious effect, if any.
An example of this type of so-called competition with lack of resultant benefits to the consumer was reflected by a report tabled in the house by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton). I might say that the tabling of this particular document was in direct contravention of an order of this house, but that did not seem to bother the minister at that time. That report indicated that so-called competition in industry had the direct result of increasing prices rather than decreasing them. I suggest when we find 25 per cent of the activity of the average drug company taking place in the field of advertising, which involves the inundation of doctors and others with gimmicks of all types, we also find this competition increases costs.
As I said earlier, smaller companies do not have the same control in regard to quality or price of products the larger corporations do, nor have they the control over the primary products involved. As an example of this suggestion, one might consider the local service station, which is a relatively small operation with no control over the primary product, because that control remains with


the oil companies. I suggest this same situation applies to all small industries and operators who are helpless against the large corporate structures. They are not being helped by this government at all in this regard.
In recent years there have been many comments heard in regard to a recession and a collapsing economy. In recent times this government has begun to think in terms in line with these comments and, after four years in office, it has decided to curtail this and that, in an attempt to correct the situation. I do not understand how this is going to help our economy, particularly in light of the extremely high degree of unemployment that has continually affected this country since this government took office. The Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) suggested that this problem was a chronic one.
I suggest that in light of the unemployment picture and the economic position as it exists today we should consider how the corporate elements of this nation, which control our national resources, have fared during this period when so many people have attended bread lines and walked the streets day and night looking for work.
On page 32 of the Financial Post of May 13, 1961, there appeared an analysis of the economic conditions of a selected 313 companies, showing the changes which have taken place over the years, and particularly those changes which have taken place between 1959 and 1960; that period of time when the level of employment in this country was at its lowest. This is a statistical table of averages and accordingly individual companies may not fit into the picture presented here. However, we find the net value of the oil industry during this period of high unemployment, poverty and misery among the consumers increased by 3.8 per cent. We find the value of the metal industry increased by 6.8 per cent; the iron and steel industry by 2.8 per cent; the pulp and paper industry by 8.6 per cent; transportation by 1 per cent, merchandising by 8.2 per cent; the textile industry by 1.6 per cent-we heard a good deal about the difficulties of the textile industry today-the milling and grain industry by 4.1 per cent; construction by 3.4 per cent, and public utilities by 5.2 per cent. We also find that the food industry, representing a basic requirement of everyone in this country, increased in value by 15.5 per cent; the beverages industry by 6.1 per cent, miscellaneous by 4 per cent, and the lumbering industry by 4.1 per cent, with a total average increase in respect to 313 companies involving all our basic resources of 4.7 per cent.

All this took place at a time when, as I said, unemployment was rampant throughout the nation and when people were practically starving to death and getting rid of their furniture and other household goods and equipment which had been bought on a credit basis. In the face of this the Associate Minister of National Defence has the unmitigated gall to say that it is impolite to talk about unemployment; that it does not do a service to the country to talk about it. I can appreciate that he and his government, having the attachment that they have to certain vested interests in this nation, would not like to have unemployment discussed. They would like to see the working class continue to be subjected to this sort of illicit piracy which exists among corporations generally in this nation.
If the Minister of Finance two years ago had the foresight to say that the rigidities of the price system permitted inflation and higher prices and then did nothing about it, it is another indication why we have less and less reason to believe his statements and certainly not the forecasts and prognostications of the minister or of anybody else in the government of the day.
A number of phrases have been used and a number of words have been groped for to describe this particular budget. The Minister of Finance called it an economic budget, whatever that may mean. It is certainly a "deeper in debt" type of budget. One interesting development arising out of it I should like to mention is that a few years ago a bond conversion program was entered into by this government after a massive sales pitch by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, which had the direct effect of increasing interest rates. It was also supposed to regularize the debt picture of the country so that it would be easier to cope with it as the years went by. We are now in almost the same situation we were a couple of years ago out of which this bond conversion program was supposed to take us. In the 1961-62 fiscal year this government is going to have to find by borrowing one way or another $2,610 million. This amount is more than 40 per cent of the expenditures of this government for this particular year. This is an indication of what is happening with the government we have in office. Its sole concern is the paying off of election commitments made to those who financed the party to office. Coupled with the concern to continue in office is the intoxicated feeling that it received by virtue of the fact that it has power. That is its sole concern; in addition, stay in office regardless of the circumstances and how they affect anybody else, including the people of this country.
The Budget-Mr. Walker
The first impression I had with respect to classifying the budget by name when I listened to the Minister of Finance that glorious evening last week when he took so long to say so little was a word connected with his baby budget of last fall. I think we can properly classify this budget as a miscarriage.


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: I have been trying to decide what all the sound and fury are about, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this budget. I have heard the opposition speakers and I have taken home their speeches to read at night, but I cannot find that any useful point has been raised in criticism of the budget of the Minister of Finance. If you will read it at home, Mr. Speaker, as I have read it-I know it was a long speech but it was a fascinating one; it cannot be digested all at one sitting-you will find that the answers are all there. It was a masterful exemplary presentation that we had the other night. For instance, everybody admits-the Leader of the Opposition and his party admitted it

that there should be an expansionist budget. The C.C.F. group admit that there should be an expansionist budget and there is. It is designed to increase the gross national product of Canada. This is the primary object of it and it comes at a time when it is very necessary to do that. It is designed to increase employment by hundreds of thousands and the minister has explained how this will come about. It is designed to lower interest rates, for which, of course, we need the co-operation of the Bank of Canada. Primarily, it is designed to lower the value of the Canadian dollar so that we can get our share of the export market.
Of necessity it is a deficit budget. Under these circumstances, when the government has these matters in mind, there is no other way of having a budget. The only other alternative is to increase taxes and to do so at this time would be to do harm to business by taking away capital which could be used in the plans of Canada for great expansion.
It is interesting to note that since this government came into power 80 per cent of all the tax-paying public, the people paying income tax, are paying less income tax than they did when we took over from the Liberals. May I also say that the Liberals advocated this. There is no criticism of us for having a deficit budget. There has been no criticism from the Leader of the Opposition. The other night in his press conference, when he was pressed by those able newspapermen who did not get anywhere with the Minister of Finance the night before, the Leader of the Opposition agreed that the government was right at this time to have a deficit budget.

The Budget-Mr. Walker Therefore, as far as policy and principle are concerned, we seem to be ad idem with the official opposition.
I make this statement. There would be no deficit even this year in our expansionist budget if we had not increased the social benefits to Canadians, the social justice payments, and if we had not increased the federal-provincial grants.
It is said that there will be a prospective deficit of $650 million. Well, the two items I have just mentioned make up $1 billion. When we took office the federal-provincial payments for 1956-57 were $689 million. In this current year they will amount to $1,470 million. When we took office old age pensions amounted to $379 million. In this current year they will be $607 million. In other words, in these two items alone there is a difference in excess of a billion dollars. If we had kept the even tenor of the Liberals' ways over the 22-year period and denied Canadians the social justice payments to which they were entitled and denied the provinces the payments to which they were entitled, instead of having a deficit of $650 million, we would be budgeting for a surplus of $350 million this year. Is there anybody who would want to take away hospital insurance which amounts to $274 million?
The other matter on which we have been criticized a great deal is the delay in the budget. Well I am not blaming any particular group or any particular member in the house but it is a fact that only recently were we able to get through the baby budget. We have in this session of parliament been delayed interminably. This is not a personal attack on anyone, but let us all examine ourselves and what we have done.
The longest session in the history of the House of Commons was in 1903, when the session lasted for 155 days. I believe that this is the 144th day of this session and the end is not in sight. May I just cite some examples? I had a statistician check some figures to ascertain certain things. Up to June 21 of this year the total number of pages of Hansard, Mr. Speaker, from November 18 to June 21 amounted to 6855. Let us take a member of parliament and ascertain what his contribution was. Let us take the last speaker, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). The estimated number of pages that the hon. member for Skeena filled in Hansard amounted to 125. The percentage of the hon. member's contribution to the total contribution of parliament in the way of words was 1.8 per cent, nearly 2 per cent. The number of days in the session up to June 21, my latest figure, was 138. The number of days consumed by the

hon. member for Skeena if he had started talking before the orders of the day when the house convened at 11 o'clock in the morning and continued through until 10.30 at night, would have been 2-J days.
The daily cost of operating the House of Commons, on the basis of an estimate appearing in Hansard of August 8, 1960, page 7757, is $20,000. The total cost, therefore, of having the benefit of the wisdom, advice, understanding, sympathy and kindness of the hon. member for Skeena would be $50,000. This is the cost to the taxpayers of having the hon. member for Skeena in parliament. This cost, of course, does not include the $10,000 which the hon. member receives annually. There are 265 members. If each member spoke at the same length as the hon. member for Skeena, the session would last 662 days per annum.


Mr. Leduc:: What about the Minister of
Finance? What is he costing this country?


David James Walker: I will come to that, and I will come to you, too.
As I have said, this would mean 662 days per session, that is full days up to 10.30 at night. Even on the basis of six days a week, this would be equivalent to approximately 110 weeks a year, if all hon. members spoke as long as this very modest member for Skeena. The aggregate estimated cost to Canada of such a session would be $13,340,000. If the average member of the house consumed as much time as the hon. member for Skeena, the session each year would last for more than two years. I understand there are approximately 1,000 words on a page of Hansard. The number of words contributed by the hon. member for Skeena so far this session-this does not include the time he was excluded from the house-amount to
125,000	at a cost of 40 cents per word. In other words the hon. member for Skeena, and it is his right to do it and in his wisdom he has done it, talks five times as much as the average member of parliament, as one can see from the number of pages of Hansard consumed.
Now, this results in delaying tactics. I suggest, with the greatest respect, that in some instances the delay is deliberate, and for no other purpose except to delay. I am not ascribing this to any member, I am not naming anyone. I have just been using an example for the purpose of illustration. I have been noting how some contributions by some members are constructive, and some contributions are not. In addition to this the hon. member for Skeena-we have to take some example and there is nothing personal about this-who insists on talking five times as long as the

average member, also insists that the average member should not have any extension of his time at six o'clock when we ask for five minutes or ten minutes to complete some item of business. The rules of the house enable the hon. member to call it six o'clock. As I say, these calculations do not include the time during which he was excluded.
Let us take another example. I am just picking these out of the hat. I refer now to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). Up to June 26, there were 7,103 pages in Hansard. The number of pages which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate had filled amount to 276, so the percentage of the total number of pages of Hansard attributable to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was 3.8 per cent. The number of days which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would have filled if he had started talking at 11 o'clock in the morning and continued through until 10.30 at night is 5.3. He would be talking for a solid week without stopping. Now, the daily cost of keeping the house in session, as we know, is $20,000. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate made a contribution to parliament, therefore, which cost the Canadian taxpayer $106,000. This is the cost of keeping this precious flower in parliament. In addition, of course, he gets a nominal consideration of $10,000.
Now, if the average member of parliament spoke at the same length as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, every session of parliament would occupy four years. It must be obvious that the hon. member speaks twice as long as the hon. member for Skeena and about ten times as long as the average member of parliament. If he assessed his value to the house at twice as much as that of us ordinary mortals, I could understand it. Perhaps the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate considers himself and his contribution to be three times as valuable as the rest of us, or four or five times as valuable.
However, Mr. Speaker, I ask you with great humility-and at the moment my heart is full of humility-has any member, no matter how brilliant he may be and no matter where he comes from, no matter what regime he is representing in that pocket borough, particularly when he sits in opposition and has nothing to do with the business of the country except criticize it, the right to talk ten times as much as the average member? Now, you can give your own answer to that question. I am not going to suggest he has not because I know that he is highly esteemed in certain circles-particularly self-esteemed. I have heard from him about his greatness and his
The Budget-Mr. Roberge ability so often that I am sometimes convinced he perhaps has a right to talk longer than ordinary members. But not ten times longer.
This is my contribution to this budget debate. It is a pleasant one, a happy one and ends on a happy note. However, it might explain to the members of the house, Mr. Speaker, why we are here going through these dreary days and evenings; why as July 1 approaches we are here when we had contemplated that we were going to get home to our families and plan those things which since November last we have been prevented from doing; and why we are now promised with breaking all records and being in session longer than any other parliament. I say to you that "the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves". That is where it lies. This speech is not political; it is factual. I obtained those figures from a statistician.


Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with as much care as possible to what the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) has just said. I am greatly surprised that a minister of the crown has taken about 25 minutes in participating in a budget debate and that, of those 25 minutes, he has used 15 minutes in criticizing other hon. members of this house, particularly the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). Even though he has statisticians to work for him, I would have thought that a minister of the crown would work on the statistics dealing with the economy of the country. I think the minister should also have told us that since 1960 we have been here in this house in this parliament for at least 15 out of a total of 18 months; and if the business of this nation during those 18 months was not carried out in less than 15 months it is on account of the mismanagement of the business of this house. He should have told us also that with respect to some measures on which everybody agreed those on this side of the house could have had many speakers. I have reference especially to the resolution with regard to increasing the pensions of veterans, and on which everyone was in agreement. The government had 48 speakers. (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, there are several conflicting theories on Canada's economy. There is the theory of cyclical budgeting, the theory of deficit budgeting and finally the theory of surplus budgeting.
It seems that the longer the speeches made by the present Minister of Finance, the
7202	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Roberge heavier the deficits. Apparently, it was necessary for the government to drown its incompetence and mismanagement in the flood of words spoken by the Minister of Finance on June 20 last.
Since 1957, when the present government was elected to office-that was four years ago-we have heard six budget speeches, though the Minister of Finance refers to his December 1957 budget as being only financial proposals.
Since 1958, or over a period of 3i years, five budget speeches were made by the Minister of Finance. Four of those budgets predicted deficits; only one forecast a surplus, that of March 31, 1960.
The December 1960 budget was labelled the baby budget. I am inclined to believe that the baby budget was rather that of March 31, 1960, but that the real budget, that was concealed at the time, was the budget brought down on December 20, 1960.
The $12 million surplus that the minister expected in March 1960 had turned into a $345 million deficit by December 1960. This represents a difference of $357 million, or a million a day, as pointed out by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer).
Mr. Speaker, if we look at what the present government has cost us since it accepted the responsibility of office, we find that there is a tremendous difference between what the Canadian taxpayers have to pay and what we have been told by various members in this house.
In 1957-58, a $38.5 million deficit; in 195859, a $609.5 million deficit; in 1959-60, a $413 million deficit; in 1960-61, a $345 million deficit. And with the $650 million deficit expected for the current year by the Minister of Finance, we have a grand total of $2,056 million.


Mr. Tremblay:: Keep in mind Mr. Lesage's policy.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Speaker, in this house I deal only with federal policy and not with provincial policy, with all due deference to my hon. friend for Roberval.
If we add to the last figure I mentioned the depletion of the unemployment insurance fund in the amount of $900 million, and of the national defence special fund which reached $165 million, we get a total of $3,121 million.

In the budget he presented on June 20, the Minister of Finance told us that each and every one of his budgets were aimed at solving current problems. In fact, here is what he said as reported on page 6639 of Hansard:
The circumstances attending each budget have differed from those associated with the others. Each was aimed to meet the financial and fiscal problems of its time. Tonight's budget is designed to meet Canada's present needs and difficulties.
Everyone will recall the electoral campaigns of 1957 and 1958. Everybody also will recall the promises made by the Prime Minister of Canada and his supporters, especially concerning unemployment.
One of the main problems facing this government ever since it took over is no doubt unemployment. During his electoral campaign, the Prime Minister spoke about it quite often. In fact, he spoke about it in this very city of Ottawa on February 1, 1958. He spoke about it in Prince Albert, on February 14, 1958. He spoke about it also in Brantford, on February 17, 1958. And on February 18, he spoke about it again in a national television broadcast when he said, as reported in the Montreal Star of February 19, 1958:
(Text):
As long as I am Prime Minister of Canada everything that can be done-everything without regard to limit-will be done to the end that no one will suffer.
(Translation):
We all remember this solemn pledge of the Prime Minister:-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Add to that the deficits piled up by Jean Lesage.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Speaker, I thought that since the relocation of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay), we would be rid of his interjections.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: What about Mr. Lesage?


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Speaker, what was the unemployment situation in Canada when the latest statistics were issued by the dominion bureau of statistics or published in the statistical report on the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act?
On May 20, and I am quoting the figures from the statistical report of the dominion bureau of statistics for May 1960, there were in Canada 439,000 people unemployed and in search of employment; this does not include workers on temporary lay-off, because then the figure would be higher; in fact, it would be 457,000.
On April 22 of this year, the number of unemployed people in search of jobs reached a total of 590,000. On March 18, the figure was 664,000.

Now, taking the figures provided by the unemployment insurance commission, in March 1961 a total of 807,000 people were receiving benefits. In April 1961, there were
708.000	people receiving benefits. If the people receiving benefits are not unemployed, I wonder what they are.
There is therefore one sure fact, namely that the most impressive figure is the last one I quoted, the one provided by the unemployment insurance commission. However, for my present purpose, I shall use only the figures found in the statistical review of Canada, which repeats the monthly manpower statistics of the dominion bureau of statistics.
If there was unemployment in 1958, there still is today. If there was unemployment before 1958, and there was, it is even worse today.
Allow me to give certain percentages contained in this publication with regard to the rate of unemployment before the Conservatives took office. In 1946, 3.4 per cent of the labour force were unemployed; in 1947, 2.2 per cent; in 1948, 2.3 per cent; in 1949, 2.8 per cent; in 1950, 3.6; in 1951, 2.4; in 1952, 2.9; in 1953, 3.0; in 1954, 4.6; in 1955 4.4; in
1956,	3.4 and in 1957, 4.6.
Let us now see how those figures went up in the following years. In 1958, 7.1 per cent; in 1959, 6 per cent; in 1960, 7 per cent, and in the first five months of 1961, 9 per cent, 9.98 per cent.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Let us have the figures for the province of Quebec.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Speaker, if the budgetary measures advocated by the Minister of Finance are designed, according to him, to solve current problems, and if we consider that previous budgets have not solved this problem, I wonder how the present budget will provide an answer to the unemployment problem this year and in the future.
The Minister of Finance presented his first budget on June 17, 1958. What had been the situation for the last year, at that time?
According to the January 1959 issue of the Canadian Statistical Review, there were
164.000	unemployed in Canada when the present government came into power on June 21,
1957.	Everyone knows that under the normal trend, unemployment in Canada reaches its lowest level in September, and its highest point in March. Now, we know that in June 1957, when unemployment was at its lowest level for that year, there were 164,000 unemployed in the country; there were 166,000
The Budget-Mr. Roberge in July; 176,000 in August; 197,000 in September; 211,000 in October; 296,000 in November; 392,000 in December; 527,000 in January 1958;	563,000 in February and
597.000	in March. The number of unemployed went down after that. In April, it was 522,000; in May, 370,000; in June, 324,000. It is at that time that the Minister of Finance made his first budget speech, that is on June 17,
1958.
What kind of economic recovery did we have? The employment situation continued to improve until September, which was the best month of that year. In July, there were
291.000	unemployed; in August, 281,000; in September, 271,000; the figures went up again in October: 313,000; in November, 361,000; in December, 440,000; in January 1959, 538,000, that is the highest figure for the winter of 1958-59.
The second budget was introduced on April 9, 1959. I am still quoting figures from the Canadian statistical review and from the dominion bureau of statistics.
February, 537,000; March, 525,000; April, 445 000-May, 334,000; June, 234,000; July, 228,000.	'
According to the Minister of Finance, the budget introduced on April 9, 1959 aimed at bringing solutions to the problems of the time. One of those problems which we had often brought to the government's attention during the session was unemployment. Well, contrary to the normal tendency of employment in Canada, in July, the number of unemployed increased to 228,000; in August, the number was 239,000; in September it was down to 213,000; in October it was up again to 237,000; in November to 296,000, while in December it had reached 370,000.
In January 1960, there were 504,000 unemployed; in February, 555,000 and in March,
566.000	while the number levelled at 517,000 in April.
On March 31, 1960, we had our third budget. Let us see what the budget did that year to settle unemployment.
In May, we had 399,000 unemployed and
300.000	in June; in July, when unemployment is usually lower than in September, the unemployment figure went up again in August,
1959,	and in August 1960, the situation was even worse since there was an increase over the figure for June which was 300,000 unemployed and that for July, 311,000 unemployed. This increase continued in August and reached
322.000	while another reduction was registered in September with 305,000. In October,

The Budget-Mrs. Macdonald the number went up again to 347,000; in November, it reached 401,000 and in December, 489,000. In January 1961 the figure went up to
630,000	and in February and March, it set the new record high of 664,000.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to include in those figures the unemployed who were laid off on a temporary basis.
The fourth budget introduced on December 20, 1960 was also supposed to solve the problems, according to the Minister of Finance. Furthermore, this budget we are now discussing is also supposed to clear up difficulties. Judging from the figures I just gave and from past experience, I am afraid that, in fact, our unemployed will not be able to find jobs during the coming season. But our friends opposite will say we are prophets of gloom. Nothing could be more inaccurate. We have had, especially during the last session, an exceedingly long debate on the problem of unemployment. We have made innumerable proposals to this government but, at that time, the Minister of Labour replied that the proposed solutions did not make any sense. There is particularly-and those who want to read it can do so-that summary given by the hon. member for Laurier on the occasion of that debate in which he made at least 25 suggestions to solve the unemployment problem.
It is the crucial problem of our times. I do not think that the budget introduced by the minister on June 20, will make it possible to improve the situation, although, Mr. Speaker, I do hope that every Canadian will find a job.
(Text):
I think this government has mismanaged the affairs of our country. I also think the Minister of Finance has miscalculated the effects of his successive financial proposals. It is my belief that the electoral promises made by the Prime Minister and his supporters in 1957 and 1958 were misconceived. This government, in other words, is a complete mess. But the Canadian people now know what to do and they will not miss their chance when the next time comes.


Mrs. Margaret Macdonald (Kings):: On rising for the first time to speak in this house I cannot but recall and repeat the words uttered by my late husband in his maiden speech in the twenty third parliament:
I enter on my duties here with a deep sense of humility, with the highest respect for this house and an earnest desire to do the best possible job

as the representative of my constituency of Kings of the province of Prince Edward Island, and of this great country of Canada.
It is also for me an honour and a challenge to be selected by my constituents to follow in the footsteps not only of my husband but also of his father who for many years represented Kings county in this chamber and the province of Prince Edward Island in the parliament of Canada. It is my desire and my intention to follow, as best I can, the course which they set.
I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, my feelings of humility but I must also say that I am filled too with sentiments of deep gratitude, first, to the loyal friends of my husband and myself who so faithfully supported me in the difficulties and trials of recent months, and then to those members of the House of Commons who have greeted me so warmly and kindly as I take up my duties as a new member of parliament.
It is the custom for new members to refer in detail to their constituencies in their maiden speeches. It would indeed be easy for me to describe the beauties of Kings county, but because I am aware that this has been done often and well in this house I shall not at this time follow the familiar practice. I should like to say a few words, however, about some matters of particular significance to the economic life of my constituency and province.
Although I have long been interested in the development of Prince Edward Island I have watched with particular interest the events that followed the change of government in 1957 when my husband and three of his colleagues came to Ottawa as supporters of our distinguished Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker). Prince Edward Island-the smallest province in the dominion and the one with the narrowest base for provincial revenue-is extremely dependent on financial relations with the dominion government to provide the necessary level of services for our people. In these times when all governmental costs are rising a new attitude was required. It was, I think an awareness of this need which made such a great difference in Prince Edward Island and the maritimes generally after June, 1957. Our people were much impressed with the Atlantic provinces adjustment grant of which Prince Edward Island received $2,500,000 annually. This was by far the largest single grant ever received from Ottawa. Under the new dominion-provincial agreements the amount will be substantially larger and the benefits to the citizens of Prince Edward Island will be great.
In our province, where the basic industries are agriculture, fisheries and the tourist trade, transportation is tremendously important. The roads to resources program initiated by the

dominion government has given Prince Edward Island the greatest road building program in its history. It will account for 158 miles of pavement in my constituency of Kings county.
The roads to resources program and the camp site and picnic program, which is also a joint dominion-provincial program, have greatly benefited Kings county which until recently was much neglected as a tourist area. We look forward to an increased development of the tourist trade in our province. In this connection I cannot refrain from a word about the causeway, a subject of such great interest to my husband and his colleagues. I am in full agreement with what the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) said the other day and I join with my three colleagues in urging the minister to do everything possible to press forward this tremendous undertaking.
More and more tourists will be coming to Prince Edward Island. Statistics covering the last ten years reveal a sharp annual increase. The existence of new and improved facilities in the province and more and better roads will contribute to the greater importance of the tourist industry. Better markets for the excellent island products require better transportation facilities and it is my hope that this government, which has already done so much for our province, will provide for us the most up-to-date transportation facilities we have yet had.
Members of parliament are always interested in public works projects within their own constituencies. I recently travelled throughout Kings county to see at first hand some of the required projects which could be of assistance to our economy and especially to the fishing industry. In the last four years an impressive number of wharves, breakwaters and warehouses have been built which have resulted in great improvement.
Kings county is one of the important fishing areas in Canada and from time to time I shall urge upon the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) improvements and extensions of facilities to provide greater accommodation and security to our fishermen. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. lady on her maiden speech and suggest that she paid perhaps too much heed to the argument which has been put forward in this house very recently by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) who, I am sure, is trying to make all members of the house conscious of how much they are costing the taxpayer when they open their mouths.
There is very little I wish to say about the budget at this time because the budget 90205-6-455
The Budget-Mr. Fisher speech presents an opportunity to members to speak on almost any topic within the purview of House of Commons business. The subject I wish to address most of my time to today is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the report which was tabled today by the special committee on broadcasting.
Before I do so I should like to say, in relation to the budget, that one aspect of it has found a great deal of favour in the area that I represent. People involved in the pulp and paper industry are very pleased with the indication that the devaluation of the dollar will improve their position in terms of trade with the United States. However, I should like to underline a criticism that has been made in regard to this step in that direction. We are left with a very indefinite idea as to how this devaluation procedure is going to take place. If the devaluation which we have already had is merely a psychological drop and there is not going to be certain control and direction on the part of the government to maintain this difference between the Canadian and the United States dollar at some definite figure, we are going to be in a most difficult situation with respect to our basic industries.
It is very hard to know what is the right figure for the Canadian dollar, but the pulp and paper industry is the bellwether industry in Canada at the present time, especially in terms of export sales. When the Canadian dollar is below the United States dollar, there is a bit of pump priming in that industry both on its capital side and job creation side. I have no doubt at all that if the dollar is devalued below the United States dollar to the tune of five cents or six cents it will lead to the extension of pulp and paper plants and perhaps also the creation of completely new pulp and paper operations in northwestern Ontario.
However, we have not that kind of indication from the minister, and the value of the Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the United States dollar is a complete mystery at the present time. This situation seems to be too tentative and indefinite for the purposes of the basic economy in our regions. I suggest we must know just what the dollar is going to be pegged at. If this is not done I suggest we will have a further period of haze and doubt in the pulp and paper industry.
Perhaps it is almost blasphemous to refer to one of the kudos which was handed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) during this debate, but yesterday the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Campbell) made reference to something in an attempt to equate or draw analogies between our Saviour and the Minister of Finance. When one reaches a situation

The Budget-Mr. Fisher of such hyperbole as this, it behooves one to go very, very slowly. I keep looking over there, and have for some time, but am unable to see a halo. Somehow it does not seem to have manifested itself. It seems to me, however, that the hon. member for Stormont in going to such lengths to indicate what a marvellous minister of finance we have should have taken a lesson or two from the sermon on the mount himself and not been so harsh and severe in referring to the head of the Bank of Canada. After all, I am sure that an individual so close to someone who might deliver something similar to the sermon on the mount would not turn around and send the head of the Bank of Canada to jail. It seems to me that he is blind to all the advantages of having such a religious and halo-type figure close to him.


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: May I ask the
hon. member a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes.


Grant Campbell: Does the hon. member not think that every one of us, including the Minister of Finance, should emulate that Teacher who gave us the sermon on the mount, and that anyone who believes in Him should endeavour to reduce arrogance when it reaches such unseemly proportions?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I quite agree with the hon. member but he seemed more like Pontius Pilate yesterday, and he was a pretty tough specimen.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I hope you will excuse me from this theological discussion.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. minister says he would like to be excused. I am not suggesting because I cannot see a halo that he is sprouting horns.
Today we had laid before this house the final report of the special committee on broadcasting. I should like to say immediately that I think it is a very unfair report which continues something that was very much in evidence two years ago when the committee met, and represents a very definite attempt on the part of certain members of that committee to do away with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I am not critical of their views, but of the method they used in developing those views. It seemed to me those members were more than suspicious of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, more than suspicious of the efficiency of that corporation, and more than suspicious about the way it carries out its programming. I believe they want to destroy the C.B.C. as a public corporation. I believe they would be happy to see the C.B.C. sold or disposed of through

some method. I believe they would like to see the C.B.C. completely detached from either programming or distribution, in other words, wiped out. Because this particular attitude of their does not have general support, they proceed on a course of niggling, nose punching, hammering and continually downgrading the organization as such. I should like to return to the report to indicate why I think this is so.
Does the hon. member wish to ask a question?


Mr. Lambert:: Will the hon. member permit a question? He made a flat-footed statement about the attitude of members on the government side with respect to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and, as he says, of their desire to sell the corporation. Will he give us concrete proof of that?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker,-


Norman Platt Lambert: Otherwise he will be running away-


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am not running away. I am not saying that government members as a whole want to do this, but there are certain government members whose attitude toward the C.B.C. is completely destructive. I am saying that this report, like the report of two years ago, is a victory for this group. I am not saying they are a majority within the government party, but they are strong enough to get recommendations through that, I will argue, have no relation to the evidence that we heard and the investigation that was carried out this summer.
I should like to turn to one example which I think is the most serious of all, and it relates to recommendation No. 3, which reads:
That the number of directors of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation be increased from 11 to 15 for the purpose of assuring adequate representation to the French language network.
This is the part I have in mind:
That the directors be appointed on a rotating
basis-
This part is fine, but this is what I want to draw to the attention of the house:
-and a chairman be named from among their numbers by the governor in council for a period not to exceed five years. Further, that no executive officer or other employee of the corporation be a director of the corporation.
To me, Mr. Speaker, this is nothing more than a downgrading of the president of the C.B.C. to the role of manager. It means the elevation of the chairman of the board, as I conceive it, if this recommendation is carried out, to be the policy spokesman of the C.B.C. And yet it is very well argued-and I know the hon. member for Greenwood is an example-a member whom I respect tremendously-that this will be an improvement

because he can give examples of private corporations where such a situation existed. I believe this can do nothing but harm to the C.B.C. because of the role it plays in relation to the public. Who from now on, if this recommendation is accepted, is going to speak for the C.B.C.? Who is going to be the spokesman? The policy-making board will be detached from the executive officers in any real sense in so far as the operating is concerned; the operating officers will be detached from the board so far as policy is concerned. It seems to me, in a situation like this, you are going to create immense difficulties for the C.B.C. in achieving the kind of flexibility that is required of a public corporation that is always in the public eye and always under public criticism. It seems to me it robs it of the flexibility that it has under the present arrangement. There is one thing about it. The thing that really bothers me most about this recommendation, Mr. Speaker, is that the president of the C.B.C., Mr. Ouimet, a gentleman of whom I have been critical in some aspects of his work, made an excellent presentation before our committee for a period staggered over about three months. He did a magnificent job. I know if I were a French Canadian I would be particularly proud of the way in which this man from a French Canadian background, with a magnificent vocabulary and a great deal of information, marshalled and presented it to our committee. He handled himself splendidly in both languages and you felt that here was a person carrying on a magnificent job. I can only regret that through illness he was not available two years ago, at the time the C.B.C. was previously before our committee. As a result of that fine job he did in providing us with information and putting up with us for a day of examination and cross-examination, what does he get? A punch in the nose. He is going to be downgraded to something in the nature of a manager or general manager, and we are going to have a chairman over him.
It seems to me there is an inconsistency in this recommendation in that it does not indicate whether the appointment of the chairman by the governor in council is to be a part-time or a full-time appointment. We had the Auditor General give evidence before the committee in relation to the C.B.C. Some members of the committee seemed to be very impressed with his evidence in certain sectors. Here was an instance where the Auditor General felt that if we were to have a chairman of the C.B.C. he should be a full-time person, but for some reason the committee did not take this into account. It seems to me 90205-6-455i
The Budget-Mr. Fisher the recommendation makes sense only if this is a full time appointment.
We have to accept the fact that Mr. Ouimet has been punched in the nose or given his little bit of punishment; I do not know for what reason. But you must have someone speaking for the C.B.C. full time. In an organization of this scope which deals with day to day problems which are cropping up all the time which affect policy, how can you have a part-time person in this kind of role? Certainly the Auditor General, if you respect the advice he had to give, felt that it should be a full-time appointment. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as I say, I interpret this as another punch in the nose for the C.B.C. and particularly for the president of the C.B.C. who came forward and gave evidence.
To me the real irony in all this is that after Mr. Henderson, the Auditor General, gave his evidence suggesting a management consultant should examine the C.B.C., after he had made his recommendation about a fulltime chairman of the board, the committee asked, as a result of a motion that I introduced, which was supported generally, that we bring Mr. Dunsmore before the committee, who is I suppose what you might call the acting chairman of the board. I would like to point out that Mr. Dunsmore is an appointee of this government. He came before us and gave evidence for a considerable length of time. Every member had an opportunity to question him. It was not a case of his dodging in and dodging out. In his testimony at which I should like all members who are interested in the problem to look-* it appears in the minutes of proceedings and evidence No. 27-he gave no indication that the board of directors was satisfied with things in the C.B.C., but he did point out to us, and in his evidence showed, that he had a great deal of business experience, and his associates on the board, particularly the finance committee, had a great deal of experience. They are not rubes; they are not duds. They were appointed by this government. Did he give any indication anywhere that they wanted this kind of recommendation? Not a bit of it. You cannot find anywhere in the evidence here that the chairman of the board appointed by this government felt that the board was not operating well. You cannot find any evidence at all that I can see that can be brought forward to indicate that Mr. Dunsmore felt the corporation was not operating well. I challenged him with the question, is the C.B.C. a bad corporation from the point of view of efficiency? He said he certainly did not think so, or words to that effect. To me he gave an affirmation in the performance of the corporation and the

The Budget-Mr. Fisher role of the board. And here we are, without any support from this particular group whose spokesman we had before us, with this recommendation from a parliamentary committee that no executive officer or other employee of the corporation be a director of the corporation.
Well, Mr. Speaker, in regard to this kind of attack on the C.B.C. let me say this. I have never been critical, and never could be as an individual, of any member of parliament who wants to say his piece in public about what he believes in relation to any organization over which the government has any control. All I can say is that if a member believes that the C.B.C. should go, if he believes that it should be doing just programming or just handling the distribution of programs, if he believes that it no longer has a role to play; that private enterprise or private stations and private networks can do the job, then he should come forward and make that point and not proceed by this process of niggling, cutting away and undermining.
I will give another example to indicate what I mean by this undermining in the committee report. As many members know, the C.B.C. has most of its production facilities in Toronto and Montreal. In Montreal these facilities are scattered in over 20 places and in Toronto in over 12. A great deal of cost is involved in terms of communication and transportation. Anyone who visits the various Toronto headquarters cannot help but be overwhelmed by the expensive crazy quilt setup. The C.B.C., it seems to me quite properly, had plans to consolidate these facilities and had a capital investment program in relation thereto. Paragraph 6 in the committee report reads, in part:
Your committee commends the caution of the board of directors in its policy toward large capital investments at this time in Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa.
What the committee is commending is the information Mr. Dunsmore gave us that the board is seized of the changes and transitional effects with regard to broadcasting at this time and, therefore, is not going to rush into anything. In other words, the people the government appointed were aware of the situation. The committee then recommends that this course be pursued until all studies and investigations are completed. Well, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the committee is underlining again the fact that it does not really feel the board of directors who are directing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are in control of things. I am prepared to accept Mr. Dunsmore's assurance that the board is watching these matters very carefully. Apparently the other members of the committee-they have this right because they are


in the majority-do not feel this way. We have, therefore, a suggestion going out again that the C.B.C., which desperately needs expansion of these facilities in Montreal and Toronto in order to consolidate because of the extra cost involved, is given an O.K., to delay, postpone and procrastinate. This spirit, on occasion, is ideal because of the changing television situation. However, it seems to me there is an attitude of, damned if we are going to allow the C.B.C. to consolidate any more.


Mr. Fairfield:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes.


George Clark Fairfield: Does the hon. member consider that caution should be used in connection with expenditures of approximately $70 million?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member is quite aware of the fact that I helped to bring out, by the questioning of Mr. Dunsmore, the position that is involved. I am willing to leave it to the board of directors. I seem to be the only member of the committee who has faith in the appointments made by this government.
Another kind of niggling which is involved in this report, Mr. Speaker, is illustrated by paragraph No. 8. This paragraph reads:
There Is evidence to indicate that the supervision and control of scripts and programming has not reached the levels envisaged in the recommendations made by the broadcasting committee of 1959.
There is a honey, Mr. Speaker. I do not know what it was that was envisaged by the broadcasting committee of 1959. I do not know what the evidence is to indicate that the supervision and control of scripts and programming has not reached the levels envisaged in the recommendations made by the broadcasting committee of 1959. This recommendation really does not say anything, except to indicate again that somehow there is something haywire with C.B.C. scripts and programming. If hon. members feel that C.B.C. programming is far afield, if they feel the C.B.C. is getting into what an hon. member from Newfoundland called a lot of subversive stuff, if as other members charged the C.B.C. is dealing too much with indelicate matters such as in the Zoo Story, dealing with homosexuality and other immoral things, why do they not say so? No, they say there is evidence to indicate that supervision and control of scripts and programming has not reached the levels envisaged in the recommendations made by the broadcasting committee of 1959.
Then, the committee, in turn, recommends that every effort be made by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to exert a stricter

control in this field of public information and entertainment. What are these things of which we want stricter control? What do we want to do, keep more people off the air? What kind of programming is it that is so bad that we need stricter control? Is there something immoral, indecent, improper or subversive in the general level of C.B.C. programs and scripts?


Mr. Macdonnell:: I have stated repeatedly, Mr. Speaker, and I state again that I am a strong supporter of the C.B.C. However, it seems to me obvious that there are programs on the C.B.C. which deeply offend a large number of people in this country. I do feel that it is desirable, although I know it is difficult, that more scrutiny be given to these programs.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the hon. member who has put that question, how could you have freedom for the producers and writers if you are always going to be calling for stricter control? Our evidence did not reveal anywhere that there was any crisis or anything seriously wrong in this field. If the hon. member will look back he will find that any broadcasting organization that is doing any kind of job in the field of public information and entertainment is going to be rubbing the feelings of some people the wrong way. I am a politician, and I want to get along with people, particularly the people in my constituency. However, I am always rubbing some people the wrong way. I would expect any live, public institution, whether it is a newspaper or a periodical- or a politician, because he is a public institution in a way-would cause dissent and offend people at certain times in certain areas.
Is the C.B.C. a tremendous offender? I would sooner have the C.B.C. occasionally pull a bad rock in its programming in terms of something that does not come off, than to be airing a lot of things such as we have on private broadcasting systems, the 40 top hits of the day and commercial announcements bursting out every so often.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will agree. I have to confess that there would be programs on the C.B.C. which I know should be carried and which I will not like. Nevertheless, this does not mean there should not be every effort made to improve the scrutiny which is being given. There have been some programs which I have heard about and which I do not believe any reasonable person would like. But I repeat: I am sure there are many things which a competent board would approve, and which I would not like. I accept that fact. I am not infallible.
The Budget-Mr. Fisher


Douglas Mason Fisher: The point which I am trying to make is that the committee makes this kind of criticism without giving any indication where the evidence was. We did not have any evidence before our committee that I could find anywhere to the effect that the C.B.C. had fallen down in this particular regard. Where were all the scripts and programs? There were a number of cases brought up. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) was interested in a rodeo announcer who came up from the United States. We had considerable talk about the Zoo Story. In 1959, we did have quite a bit of evidence about programs. This year, we had very little about individual programs and scripts. There was nothing to indicate that the C.B.C. was falling down on the job or that we were in any great danger or that there was a continual push of C.B.C. programs and scripts that were offensive.
There are two other points which bother me that I wanted to comment upon in relation to this report. These are omissions. There are two that are important, and one I cannot fathom. In 1959, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was urged by a parliamentary committee to do what the Fowler commission recommended, that is to have a more aggressive commercial policy.
We received evidence before the committee to a degree that this commercial policy is having effects upon the C.B.C. staff, and upon its relationship with private stations or its competition with private stations. We had indications that it has some effect upon affiliates of various kinds of the corporation. However, we received no recommendation on this matter and this is linked with another omission.
The C.B.C. brought forward the idea that was recommended by the Fowler commission, namely that it be put on some kind of financial basis that had a formula, that was not dependent upon what took place each year when it came before treasury board. The C.B.C. and the Auditor General made this recommendation too, namely that some kind of formula be developed for the financing of the C.B.C. upon a per head basis or a per capita basis. I do not know what happened. We had opinions from the Auditor General. We had evidence from the C.B.C. However, in the report there is nothing about that matter. There is in it not a thing about this very difficult question of a commercial policy of the C.B.C.
I should like to make it perfectly clear that a couple of years ago I and our party were against the C.B.C. going out further into commercial operations. However, it is now out there. It is now doing the chore, and commercial revenue is becoming more
7210	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Fisher and more important as a part of revenue to keep the C.B.C. operations going to the extent that they are going. It seems to me that this is one of the key points in the review of the protests we had and the evidence we received that this whole commercial revenue is in an attenuated situation because of the impact of competition from other media and from the private television stations. However, the committee did not get around to making any recommendation in this regard or even any comment upon it as, it would seem to me, would have been quite proper. Those are the two omissions.
I wish to turn last to one point. The board of broadcast governors earlier in the proceedings came before us and asked that the act be changed, section 13, subsection 4, clause (b), in relation to network affiliations so that there could be cross programming. Right at the end of our hearings the B.B.G. came back with a letter. The C.B.C. had indicated the weakness of this recommendation. The
B.B.G. came back and changed its mind. Here is the authority that this government appointed, and whose fairness all of us I think should accept, coming back and telling us that they want to change that recommendation, that they do not want it. But does this submission have any effect upon the committee? It has not a bit of effect. We went right ahead. We therefore now have recommended a change of which the B.B.G. is not in favour, and of which the C.B.C. is not in favour; and I was not perfectly clear that the Canadian association of broadcasters were in favour of it in this form.
These are some of the criticisms I have of this committee report. I thought it was important at this time for one member of the committee to rise in his place and express his disagreement with the general line of the committee report.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Why at this time?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Because it is just at this time that it has come forth. I know what the whole line is going to be. The hon. member for Greenwood I am sure knows that over half the newspaper circulation in Canada is owned by publishers who also own and control radio and television stations. Anything that is critical of the C.B.C. they seize upon, explode and spread it out. This report is critical of the C.B.C. It suggests a lack of confidence in the C.B.C. in a number of its recommendations. I felt that, if I could do so,
I should take the first opportunity to rise in my place and indicate that this was by no means a unanimous report and that some of us have very grave doubts about its fairness.


Mr. F. C. Stinson (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, while in this budget debate it is open to any hon. member to speak about any of the activities of the government of Canada or about anything which is of interest to parliament and while we have listened, I think, with interest and profit to the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) who has just delivered what might be called a provocative speech, in the few minutes available to me I propose to confine myself to observations on some of the financial proposals made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in the budget address.
Before I do that, however, I should like to welcome to the house the four new members, in particular the hon. member for Kings (Mrs. Macdonald) who so graciously addressed the House of Commons earlier this afternoon and also the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) who is a friend of mine of 15 years' standing and for whom I have especially tender feelings. Thirteen years ago he and I walked the floor of the Toronto General hospital together on a spring afternoon awaiting the arrival of his first son and my only daughter. It seems to me that at that time we were talking politics, Mr. Speaker. Since that time we have had a very friendly relationship although disagreeing entirely on political questions. I should also like to say this, and I hope it will not be terribly embarrassing to the hon. gentleman to whom I refer. I think that the government and Canadians generally are greatly indebted to the distinguished Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell). I have known this hon. gentleman for some 13 years. Over that time I have watched his service to our party and to the country. I have admired the diligent way in which he has conducted himself and the great efforts he has put forward to serve his minister and his country. About his minister I shall have something to say in a few minutes.
The purpose of the budget proposals put forward by the minister was to help to create in this country conditions which would give rise to greater employment and steady and sensible growth in the Canadian economy. One of the standards by which our kind of society is judged is the success or otherwise we have in providing jobs for people who desire to work. In my opinion in North America recently we have not come up to a particularly high standard in this respect. When the budget proposals are implemented and when the effects of many of the other measures passed by this parliament are felt, I think we can look forward to a gradual increase in employment opportunities in this country.

Related to expanding employment is the objective of promoting growth in the economy. A mix of reforms, monetary, fiscal and economic, are before the house for consideration and I think that each of these in its own way should be helpful. In the next few minutes I intend to speak briefly about certain developments in the Canadian economy which have had an adverse effect on its growth in recent years and to indicate how I think the proposals put forward by the Minister of Finance may arrest these developments. These developments do not fit into any geometric pattern and one cannot speak with certainty as to the effects they have had or as to the results the budget proposals may have by way of providing solutions to some of these problems. In some respects they are related to each other and in other respects they are not related. They have different causes. Some economists refer to these developments as cyclical, structural and technological, but I do not propose to use these terms. I think that Canadians generally are becoming aware of what these developments are, but I do not think it is yet clear enough that in the 1960's we have quite a different kind of situation within Canada and the world of the 1960's is drastically different from the world of the 1950's.
Of course, one of the factors which has had an important effect on Canadian business is the strengthening of the economies of the countries of western Europe and the resurgence of the economy of Japan. Earlier this year I had an opportunity to see something of this industrial development in Japan and I was terribly impressed by the zeal, drive, enthusiasm and acumen of the Japanese businessmen whom I met. In Europe it is becoming more and more difficult to sell our goods because the countries of that continent are becoming increasingly more capable of satisfying their own needs.
In the case of the western European countries an important impetus was given to industrial expansion after the war by the Marshall plan, and in the case of Japan by United States economic assistance. Developments in these countries have tended to slow down some business activity in Canada, but in the long term I think they will be helpful to Canada. A healthy European economy is needed by our country, which looks to European markets for export trade.
It has been suggested that something akin to the Marshall plan is now required in the less developed areas of Asia and Africa to give them the capital required for a take-off similar to that displayed by the western European countries in the 1950's. I do not think the analogy is a particularly good one, but certainly capital investment in these
The Budget-Mr. Stinson areas will help them get into a position where they will be better able to purchase Canadian goods. Many of the budget proposals will help Canadian indusry to become more competitive, especially, in my opinion, those designed to bring down the exchange rate, reduce interest rates and those having to do with research carried on in Canada.
May I turn, second, to the question of the balance of payments. This is an extremely complex and difficult field. On June 20 the minister told us that in the past five years we have had net inflows of capital from outside of from $1 billion to $1,500,000,000 each year. Each year the value of goods and services we have bought outside the country has exceeded the value of goods and services we have sold to others. It has been said by some that this shows Canadians are living beyond their means. Certainly it would be a good thing if Canada had all the capital required for developing our own resources, and it would be to our advantage if we had a favourable balance on current international account. But the fact is that now, and for as long one can see into the future, it is going to be necessary for this country to borrow money abroad to develop our resources.
Surely it is obvious that United States investment has been one of the main reasons for our post-war prosperity, and as I say we are going to require and welcome investment by financial institutions in that country for a long time. As to the surplus of exports over imports, it seems to me that this is a problem more easily corrected than that arising from foreign borrowings. At least it is a field where individual Canadian purchasers may help out by wherever possible purchasing Canadian goods and services.
To help correct the imbalance of payments the government proposes to use the exchange stabilization fund. The minister said that the fund would be used "to neutralize, at least to some degree, the effects of the continuing capital inflows". To make any significant change in the rate there would have to be very heavy buying of United States dollars out of this fund, and the minister himself has recognized that the advantage that can be expected by using this technique is very limited because of the huge sums of money which would have to be expended to make any really significant change in the rate.
It seems to me that more important are the government's proposals to encourage borrowings within Canada. Anyone who has had any connection with the financing of capital works of the municipality of metropolitan Toronto will know how dependent that municipality has been on borrowings from the United States to finance its program. It is
7212	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Stinson the hope of the government that to a greater extent than before municipalities such as that will be able to find in Canada the resources they need for their capital undertakings.
Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes left to me I should like to say something about the co-operation asked for by the minister between government and secondary industry, and in particular about the proposal for expansion of the activities of the industrial development bank. The industrial development bank can be of limited help to secondary industry generally in this country, but it can be of some help, and unless we see greater opportunities for employment in the manufacturing industries of this country we are going to be looking at unemployment figures of something like 7 per cent to 10 per cent of the labour force for a long time to come. I do not believe these figures are acceptable to the Canadian people. In the European countries there has been intimate co-operation among government, labour and management. It seems to me that this kind of co-operation is something that has to be fostered and encouraged by each of these three groups.
I think the work of the national productivity council can be helpful in this regard. In that connection I think it was unfortunate that there were not appointed to that body younger men who have more time to devote to the work of the council than its present members. The members of that council are big names; they are great Canadians in their own fields, but they are too busy to be expected to carry on the amount of important work which that council should do. I can think of a number of young Canadian businessmen who are anxious to serve their country. They are well informed and experienced in their fields and they have not yet had an opportunity to serve their country on a council of this kind.
With regard to the industrial development bank, it seems to me that the managers of the branches of that bank have to start to get more in tune with businessmen who are coming to them with loan applications. I think, also, they have to start to show something of the sense of urgency which we find shown by managers of the large branches of the chartered banks when dealing with applications for loans from the businessmen among their customers. I would like to see some of these people show some of the same kind of drive and enthusiasm which we see displayed these days by the distinguished Minister of Finance. Speaking of that honourable gentleman, I would like to say that I consider him a man of steel, a skilful parliamentarian, a leader of men and one of the great Canadians of our time.


Another field where the government is showing initiative in assisting manufacturers is in the field of tariffs and quotas. Under this administration many sections of the tariff have been revised and at all times the government has fulfilled this country's obligations under the GATT. The quota arrangements recently completed with Japan have relieved to some extent the concerns of Canadian manufacturers of radio sets and tubes. While I know the negotiations have been delicate and difficult-and the Minister of Finance is to be congratulated on a reasonably good result

I sometimes think the government shows undue concern over a country such as Japan cutting down on its purchases of Canadian wheat. There are no price supports on unused tubes and resistors and no public money is used to pay storage bills on the inventories of the electronic and electrical industry. I think these facts should be kept in mind when the government is considering the position of farmers and other Canadian citizens in the course of these trade negotiations.


Mr. Benidickson:: You had better come across to this side.


Frederick Coles Stinson: Toward the end of his budget speech the Minister of Finance said that this budget challenges all people to hard work and self-discipline. It is trite but none the less true to say that governments cannot make this a prosperous country. The Canadian nation will be prosperous if Canadians work hard and exercise those old virtues of being resourceful and exercising self-control. Earlier in the year there was a round of salary increases in my municipality for public officials who were already well paid, and the thought came to my mind: Why should these people be asking for and receiving substantial increases in their pay for this year when they are doing no more work this year than last year? The answer to this question, of course, is that they should not have asked for or received more money. As the minister has said so often, for people who have a good rate of pay there is no justification for a pay increase unless there is a matching increase in productivity.
I do not think we should work in parliament or elsewhere for prosperity for Canada alone. Hon. members know that I am an advocate of foreign economic aid. One of the reasons I would like to see all Canadian workers employed is that then we would have more resources with which to help the economic development of less advanced countries. While some of the problems confronting us in the Canadian economy are difficult and baffling, they look comparatively unimportant when set alongside the difficulties facing the emerging nations in Africa and

Asia. I wish we could send our excellent Minister of Finance to help them out. He is giving great leadership to Canadians in these exciting days and he has earned the respect of statesmen throughout the world.


William Moore Benidickson: May I ask the hon. member a question? He has referred to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, as a man of steel. I would ask him whether he would not agree that the policies which have come from this man of steel in the last three years have been policies which are opposed to the policies which the minister proposes in this budget?
I point out that the programs for which the hon. member has expressed support today are programs which were advocated on this side of the house last year and this year.


Frederick Coles Stinson: The answer to that question is that the Minister of Finance is a man of steel in that he is unbending in pursuing policies and programs always espoused by the Conservative party for the benefit of this country.


William Moore Benidickson: Myopic is what he is. (Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, before starting my remarks on the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), I would like to thank the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) for the free publicity he gave my products.
As a matter of fact, I can assure him that the coffins manufactured by my industry are of the best quality; that they are made of good sound wood and lined with velvet. Moreover, I have manufactured enough of them to be able to accommodate all Conservative members who will lose their seats in the next general election.


An hon. Member:: You will go bankrupt.
Another hon. Member: You should keep one for yourself.


Samuel Boulanger: Yet, I may assure you that the coffin I am keeping for the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, like the one for the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) will be quite comfortable and fit the measure of their mind.
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Roberval wants to ask some questions or make some remarks I would ask him to do so from his seat.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I listened here with attention, to the remarks of the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion), especially when he dealt with a matter which is of particular concern to me. I am speaking of the textile industry. He had some words for me which I did not treasure very much, and I might reply that it would have been better 90205-6-456
The Budget-Mr. Boulanger if he had not mentioned textiles, because he was unable to answer the questions we asked. Yet, those questions were very simple ones.
However, I can commend him for the tone of his speech and the manner in which he presented it. It was a well written and well delivered statement.
Yet, if he had been well versed in textile matters, he would have spoken differently.
I see that he is not at all familiar with that industry. Yet, he only had to read the newspapers and skim through the various magazines to follow the reports of some textile organizations to be aware of the present situation of that industry.
May I quote an item published in the Montreal Star of September 21, 1960, just for his own information. This is what it says: (Text):
Unemployment at present is at a dangerous level and no doubt the large influx of Japanese products at low prices has tended to create the situation as these imports have jumped at least from 500 to 600 per cent in the past two years or so.
(Translation) :
It is also stated in a Vancouver newspaper:
(Text):
Japanese textile and clothing imports to Canada were 92 per cent higher in 1959 than they were in 1957.
(Translation):
I could quote many more. Last April it was stated in La Presse that Grand'Mert Knitting, and GM Handcraft of Grand'Mere recently closed down, which left 300 workers out of a job. That brings me back tt, a speech delivered some time ago in the town of St. Hyacinthe by the Secretary of State.
He said then, in a speech which was probably well delivered because it was well written:
In the field of textiles, the minister explained, history proves that the Conservatives have always been leaders in government action designed to protect this basic industry. Apart from helping to set up one of the first textile unions in Canada, the Conservative party has constantly sought to protect this industry. Since 1935, however, the rights that protected it have been steadily eroded by Liberal governments. Since 1939, the protective tariffs voted by the Bennett government have lost their effect. Protection for our textile products against imports from low wage or soft money countries was partly removed after the war. The Liberal party is responsible for the present problems, due to its failure to endorse the policy of Mr. Bennett.
Since its election to office in 1957, the member for Bellechasse asserted, the Conservative party has made it a point to take important steps to promote and protect this industry which had been neglected by the Liberals.
I should have liked the minister to quote figures. But he did not, probably knowing what has happened to the textile industry since 1957.
7214	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Boulanger Let me quote a few figures. Since last year, cotton imports from the United States have risen by 240 million yards. It is the first time in Canadian history that we imported more cotton than we manufactured.
From 1954 to 1960, Japanese imports jumped from $4 million to $41 million. From 1958 to last year, imports from Hong Kong jumped from $3 to $10 million.
General imports from Japan increased by approximately 170 per cent.
I could have told him also that since the Conservative party took over, some 30 textile industries have closed down in Ontario and Quebec.
I could have told him that only this past year 900 workers have lost their job.
I have here a pamphlet from the primary textile industry association which has its headquarters in Montreal. Here are a few paragraphs from that pamphlet:
The demand for Canadian textile in 1970 would secure jobs for some 110,000 workers only, someone stated at the special Senate committee on manpower and employment on February 23, 1961.
The only hope of substantially increasing the present number of some 74,000 workers employed in the Canadian textile industry would be to replace imports by domestically made products, says a brief of the primary textile institute. We have to choose between imports and jobs.
The 33 page brief, signed by the chairman of the board, Mr. George H. Dobbie, and by the president, Mr. W. M. Berry, says: The rapidly growing labour force in Canada will need more jobs. While lucrative jobs are commendable objectives, no doubt they must be created to a certain degree within the professions where they are supplied in suificient number in comparison with investments and sales.
That study prepared by an outstanding economist shows that the manpower natural growth is such that within the next five years we shall have to provide jobs for one million more workers. That represents 200,000 new jobs a year until 1965. In 1960, only half that number has been provided.
That shows that there is a backlog in the creation of 200,000 new jobs a year.
I should like to tell the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion) that textile manufacturers are not satisfied with the result of discussions held with regard to the establishment of quotas on goods imported from Japan.
Indeed, in certain sectors, quotas have been increased, while in others they have been cut down.
Quotas on blouses and shirts have gone up by 3 per cent for 1961 shipments.


The quotas on knitted goods have been increased by 10 per cent.
There was a decrease for other goods, such as table linen, ranging about 10 per cent. There was also a reduction of 10 per cent in the case of knitted goods of textile fibre, etc. But on the whole, imports from Japan have not been reduced as much as we would have liked in the interests of the textile industry.
A greater number of jobs could have been provided in Quebec and in Ontario where 80 per cent of those industries are located.
Mr. Speaker, other basic industries will be affected as well. I refer particularly to the shoe industry. I would have liked the Secretary of State also to mention that primary industry of the province of Quebec.
In 1956, two and a half million pairs of canvas shoes were manufactured in Canada. In 1960, we were importing 69 per cent of our requirements in that field.
In 1956, we were importing a million pairs of rubber shoes; in 1960, we imported 4,750,000 pairs or 36.8 per cent of our requirements.
As far as electronics is concerned, a report handed out to the Prime Minister and to all the members gives figures indicating that before long, electronics will have disappeared from this country.
In 1956, we had 28 electronics plants. In 1960, only 18 of these remained.
From 1955 to 1959, the number of jobs in that industry went down by 28 per cent. I am told that there was another substantial decrease in 1960.
Imports of radios started when the Conservative party came to power in 1957.
In fact, in 1956, we were not importing radios. We imported 69,000 in 1957; 156,000 in 1958; 395,000 in 1959 and 692,000 in 1960, that is 77 per cent of the Canadian demand.
Besides creating unemployment, those imports made us lose revenues resulting from sales and excise taxes. In fact, in 1959, we lost on radios, $750,000 worth of taxes which we would otherwise have had if those radios had been made in Canada.
This is how it works. The 11 per cent sales tax and the 15 per cent excise tax apply on the basis of $20.35 for a radio made in Canada whereas for a similar 6-transistor radio made in Japan, those two taxes apply only on $13.20, which means a difference of $1.87 in

the yield of those two taxes. If this figure is multiplied by the number of imported sets, we get a total of $750,000 for 1959 and $1.3 million for 1960.
The Canadian electronic appliance manufacturers association made recommendations to which I give full support.
The first one is to eliminate the excise tax of 15 per cent on products from our industries.
Second, to limit imports to 10 per cent of the sales of our industries.
Third, to use the same valuation for purposes of taxation in the case of imported products as in the case of Canadian products.
If we turn now to the situation of the electronic tube industry, we find that in 1956, no electronic tubes were imported from Japan. In 1960, we imported $3.9 million worth of these tubes at a price of 29 cents each, that is 45.6 per cent of the total Canadian production. That means that we are now producing only 54.4 per cent of our needs, when in 1956 we were producing 100 per cent.
United States imports amount to only 1.7 per cent of their total production, while ours represent nearly 45.6 per cent of our requirements.
This means a lesser number of workers in electronics. In fact, between January 1, 1959 and October 31, 1960, there was a reduction of 34.5 per cent.
The federal treasury also suffered a heavy loss of revenues derived from excise and sales taxes, owing to those price differentials and the disappearance of our Canadian industries.
The recommendations submitted by the electronic tube industry association were the same as the ones put forward by the Canadian electronic industry association.
Recently, following an exchange of correspondence with the Canadian General Electric Company Limited, I received a letter dated November 30, 1960 over the signature of Mr. A. F. Johnston in which the latter made very appropriate observations on the electronic tube industry in Canada. He said, among other things:
Today, the electronic tube industry and the Canadian people are faced with serious problems arising from the imports from Japan of certain types of electronic tubes. In 1956, no such tubes were imported. We figure, however, that those imports will reach 5.7 million units for the year 1960, that is 45.6 per cent of the total Canadian production. Those figures illustrate the serious disruption caused by those imports to our Canadian production.
That situation only makes worse the ills already affecting the electronic industry and the whole of Canada.
90205-6-456i
The Budget-Mr. Boulanger
1.	Unemployment extending to 23 per cent of the electronic industry is growing constantly.
2.	The electronic industry cannot succeed in establishing profitable operation bases for the future -the present situation, in that field, is worsening and cannot be readjusted unless the government takes the necessary measures.
3.	Closing of plants producing material which is essential to national defence.
4.	Eventual dissolution of the electronic industry.
5.	No benefit to the consumer.
6.	Loss of revenue for the government on:
(a)	sales and excise taxes
(b)	corporation tax
(c)	personal income tax
(d)	customs tariffs underestimated as a result of too weak a market value if, of course, the statistics given are accurate.
That situation can take even more alarming proportions, because as soon as the Japanese manufacturers have succeeded in closing down the electronic tube industry, they can and will surely rapidly develop the export of electronic components including complete electronic frames. Those new tactics will force the assembly plants of the Canadian electronics industry out of business, and undoubtedly other sectors of the secondary Canadian industry will eventually have the same fate.
Still, Mr. Speaker, last year the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) made definite efforts to increase the production of Canadian secondary industries. Many conferences were held to develop our markets and encourage our industry to increase production. And what do we see now? In the budget that he revealed to us some time ago, there is no measure capable of encouraging industry, and the efforts of the Minister of Trade and Commerce are futile. Just to prove that what I am saying is right, I shall quote some figures I take from the publication "The Agricultural Situation in Canada" of May 1961, where it is shown that total industrial production for the month of January 1961 was 4.2 per cent lower than that of January 1960.
The same publication indicates also that corporate profits, before taxes, have decreased by 5.9 per cent for the year 1960 as compared to 1959.
The publication also says that our exports for the first two months of 1961 have decreased by 3 per cent.
I might add that the volume of durable goods produced in January 1961 is 11.2 per cent lower than that of January 1960, and 6 per cent lower than the monthly production in 1959.
It is obvious from these statistics that there is no co-ordination between the policies of the Minister of Finance and those of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
7216	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Boulanger
Mr. Speaker, there are other remarks I could make on the textile industry. The reason I spoke at some length on this subject was to answer the Secretary of State's claim that I know little about this matter. I can tell him there are many textile mills in my constituency, and that I have been concerned with this problem ever since my election to this house. I even listened to the speech made by the Minister of Finance in 1957, when he came to Drummondville, in my constituency, to discuss the textile problem.
However, I would not want to end my remarks without reverting to another matter that is close to my heart: agriculture.
Agricultural problems have been discussed at great length in the house. They have been studied in committee of the whole, in the committee on agriculture and colonization, and suggestions have been made. Today, the agricultural situation is no better than six months or a year ago.
On the basis of the policies announced in the budget, it is not expected that the agricultural situation will improve under a Conservative government. In fact, according to page 6 of the May 1961 issue of Agricultural Conditions in Canada, the index of agricultural prices on the farm dropped 2 per cent from December 1960 to February 1961. Moreover, here is what I find on page 7 of the same publication:
Price indexes for goods and services used by farmers-in 1960, the composite index for all ol Canada excluding the "living cost" factor rose by 2.7 per cent, or 7.2 points, in relation to 1959. reaching 276.7	(1935-39 = 100). The index for
January 1961, at 271.8, is lower than the average for 1960, but is higher by 1.9 per cent than the corresponding index of 266.7 for January 1960.
I could speak at length on the question of revenue and farmers in this country, but I have a few words to say about the Canadian wheat board. I am not critical of the Canadian wheat board because it has played a role in the past and will in the future. I agree with the statement of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Milligan) who said on April 11, 1961-and he should be commended because 1 feel he knew what he was talking about and spoke in a consistent and intelligent way. He said:
I surely agree that the grain commission is doing an excellent job concerning the sale of grain. I think we have there an example of planned marketing which has proved to be good. My only wish is that we could apply the same marketing system to a number of other products because then agriculture would not be in its present bad situation.


And the hon. member went on to say that the wheat board was a fine organization. I readily endorse his remarks. However, I might ask what the Canadian wheat board has done to help eastern farmers, especially last fall.
When the estimates of the Department of Agriculture were under consideration, I talked about the Canadian wheat board and more particularly about the losses incurred last fall by eastern farmers with regard to the delivery and the prices of feed grain. Last fall feed grain was hard to get and when we succeeded in getting some, we had to pay quite a high premium. The reason was that the Canadian wheat board had no authority to store grain for the milling of feed for eastern farmers. This matter was dealt with at length during consideration of the Canadian wheat board report which was concluded yesterday.
I must say at this stage that I was most disappointed to notice that few members of the province of Quebec attended the four meetings of that committee. In fact, there was only one Conservative member and he stayed only an hour.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has run out.
(Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, after having trespassed upon the patience of the house at very great length in introducing the budget on June 20, it is with some diffidence that I rise now to conclude the debate on the main opposition amendment. However, Mr. Speaker, I say in extenuation of this circumstance that, under the rules, this is the last opportunity that I have to speak in the budget debate or offer a reply to anything that has been said in the debate up to this point.
I thank those hon. members who have spoken in this debate, and especially those who have spoken in a kindly fashion about the budget. May I say that the reception accorded the budget generally throughout the country has been unusually favourable and is indeed very gratifying. It is evident that the country welcomes the broad and comprehensive program of constructive action put forward in the budget. Today, Mr. Speaker, by reason of the limitation of time I must confine myself to several points that have

The Budget-Hon. D. M. Fleming
been raised in the discussion by hon. members of the opposition who have spoken. In coming to those various matters, of which I shall be discussing several, may I ask hon. members to consider first what are the results of the budget as visible to date in the eight days that have passed since its delivery.
First of all, in regard to the exchange rate on the Canadian dollar, which measures the external value of the dollar and not its internal value in terms of domestic transactions in Canada, may I say that in keeping with the purpose of the budget the Canadian dollar has moved to a discount of approximately 3 per cent in terms of the United States dollar.


William Moore Benidickson: At the moment only by talk. We will see.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will have to ask the hon. member to control himself because time is limited and I am trying to conclude my remarks so that there may be an earlier vote, which I understand is the wish of hon. members opposite.
In this regard, Mr. Speaker, a considerable measure of stability has been developed which I think is very gratifying. The next observation, Mr. Speaker, has been the view taken by the financial markets of this country in the eight days that have passed. It must be, in the light of the alarm sounded by hon. members opposite, gratifying that in the eight days that have intervened since the budget the financial markets of this country are stronger than they were before the budget was introduced.


William Moore Benidickson: Equity grabbers after
your budget reacted to fear of inflation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member is going to persist, then I am not going to be able to finish in time as I was endeavouring to do. I shall have to deal with these silly and misleading interjections. It rests entirely with him.
In all categories of Canadian bonds, short, medium and long term, the fact is that these Canadian issues are stronger now than they were when the budget was introduced. Correspondingly, the interest yields on these bonds in the market today has been reduced accordingly. I think this is a very good test of the degree of confidence engendered in the government's financial program in the appraisal to which the country has submitted it.
I now come to these specific criticisms. The tenor of observations of hon. members opposite has revolved around first, the reduction in the external value of the Canadian dollar; second, the deficit; and third, the danger, as they see it, of inflation. Let me
say that while I propose to reply to their observations, it is not because they put them forward with any semblance of a constructive approach. Indeed, the observations of hon. members opposite on these subjects have been singularly unproductive of ideas or proposals. Indeed, I think it not unfair to say that hon. members opposite have avoided suggesting solutions like the plague.


William Moore Benidickson: Last year and the year before.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it is up to the hon. member.
Let me speak now about what hon. members say with regard to the dollar. Their criticism has been harsh. They have viewed the decline in the external value of the Canadian dollar by these three percentage points with fear and foreboding. There has been a great confusion on the part of hon. members opposite, a cacophony of discordant and contradictory voices. I take you back very briefly, Mr. Speaker, to the national Liberal convention of December last. It was stated there, and it has been stated elsewhere by what were thought to be authoritative voices in the Liberal party, that this party opposite wanted a lower exchange value for the Canadian dollar. It is commonly understood that Mr. Walter Gordon, who is regarded as a very important spokesman for the Liberal party on financial questions, favoured this course. He was chairman of the resolutions committee of the Liberal national convention. What has Mr. Gordon been saying? He has been reasonably consistent on this subject. On March 17, 1961, he stated:
We need instead an expansionist approach to economic policy: easier credit, lower interest rates and a lower exchange rate for the dollar.
Again, we have Mr. Gordon saying this on June 5, 1961. He decries what he calls the tight money policy and then he goes on to say this:
The government should state its firm intention to see that the present artificially high exchange rate for the Canadian dollar is reduced in order to stimulate business activity in Canada.
This should be brought about by the proposed changes in monetary policy and reduction in interest rates, coupled with skilful operation of the foreign exchange fund. However, if in the opinion of the authorities more direct action would be needed in addition to accomplish some measure of devaluation, they-
Meaning the government.
-should not hesitate to take it.
Mr. Speaker, these are the things we have proposed in the budget. These are the things that hon. members opposite are criticizing. May I say that I will take Walter Gordon's opinion before I will take the opinion on
7218	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Hon. D. M. Fleming such questions of any hon. members opposite who have spoken in this debate.
Here is Mr. Gordon on this same occasion again on June 5. He states:
But at present much of our own resources are idle and unemployment, not inflation, is the main problem that confronts us.
I ask hon. members opposite to bear that in mind when I come back to that theme. Again here is a report on that Liberal meeting, the meeting of Liberal minds in Kingston last September. It is a report in the Ottawa Journal of September 7, 1960. Here we have a reference to Mr. Gordon's statement there:
The best immediate step to assist such industries he thought would be in reducing the present high value of the Canadian dollar.
Here we have a report of January 10, 1961, reporting on the Liberal national convention. They are advocating lower interest rates to remove the premium on the Canadian dollar. Again, here is the Toronto Telegram of January 10, 1961, reporting a speech made at the convention by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). This is what he advocates:
Maintain, through a "flexible monetary policy", lower dollar exchange rates to aid both the tourist industry and export trade.
Again here we have, on January 11, 1961, another report from that convention:
New monetary policies would stimulate exports and improve Canada's position by lowering the value of the Canadian dollar.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite cannot have it both ways. They have turned their backs on what was said at the convention. That is only five months ago. They have thrown the convention platform overboard if they mean what they have been saying in this debate so far on this subject, and it is evident they have thrown overboard what Mr. Gordon has been saying, presumably on their behalf. They have repudiated their platform in this regard. They have repudiated Mr. Gordon.
We say that this movement of the Canadian dollar to this present position is going to aid trade, to aid employment and to aid in redressing the imbalance in our international payments. In this respect the policy of this budget is a continuation of the same policy that was put forward before the house in the two budgets introduced in 1960. Following the budget of March 31, 1960 there was a reduction in the external value of the Canadian dollar. Following the supplementary budget of December 20, 1960 there was a further reduction. This present budget carries further the same progress. This budget is completely in accord with the purposes of those two budgets of 1960.


I pass now to the next subject which has engaged the attention of hon. members opposite. They complain about the deficit. They see no virtue in the deficit that has been proposed in this budget. They picture the country as going to blue ruin because of this deficit.
It is a large deficit admittedly, Mr. Speaker. It could have been reduced. I could have recommended to the house a budget that would have contemplated a smaller deficit. I could, for instance, have proposed that there would not be any tax reductions. We would have had a smaller deficit if I had not proposed tax reductions. We would have had a smaller deficit if we had not proposed to increase the benefits to veterans in the form of pensions and allowances at this session. Do hon. members opposite wish to see the deficit reduced by denying those pensions and allowance increases to the veterans? My colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) this afternoon reminded us that in the aid this government has given to the provinces and their institutions since we came into office we have moved up, as compared with the last fiscal year before we came into office, the payments to or for the benefit of the provinces from $690 million in that year to $1,470 million in this year. Is it any wonder that we have a deficit? The deficit has arisen by reason of the tremendous increase we have made in these payments to and for the benefit of the provinces. These are transfer payments.
Hon. members opposite cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. They talked out of both sides of their mouths throughout this debate. This is not a new tactic. They proposed deficit financing at their convention and they have been saying the same thing since then. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) will not mind if I remind him of a report in the Toronto Daily Star of last September in which he is reported as saying that he would not favour deficit budgeting in normal times. He was asked if these were normal times and he said no, that they are not normal times. He is on record elsewhere. Here he is at the Liberal convention last January proposing a deficit. He calls it a planned deficit. Ours is certainly a planned deficit.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is a result of deliberate policies and decisions. Make no mistake about that fact, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition has advocated deficit financing for times like these. However, it seems that his followers believe in deficits when Liberals bring them in but that they

do not believe in deficits in these circumstances when a Conservative government brings them in. That is the difference.
Do not take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. I have here a statement made last week by Dr. Donald E. Armstrong of McGill University, in a speech he made over the radio. He was speaking first of all about the program proposed by the governor of the Bank of Canada in the statement he put out a week ago Monday, June 19; that is the one that had been sent to me in confidence last February. Of it he says this:
But judged on its key recommendations, the Coyne budget is just sheer nonsense. The idea of balancing a budget and increasing taxes in order to fight a recession is ridiculous. As far as I am concerned the Coyne budget has shown me that Mr. Coyne's area of incompetence extends far beyond monetary policy, and that he is equally badly informed on matters of trade and fiscal policy.
And further:
Mr. Coyne is really only the chief propagandist of bad economics. He has achieved that position partly because he is a forceful and persuasive speaker, and partly because he has control of the central bank's propaganda machinery which enables him to spread his nonsense effectively at the expense of the taxpayer.
And further:
Against this back drop of stagnation, how does the budget look? To me it looks just fine. In its total effects it is very much what the country needs.
And further:
A $1 billion cash deficit is just about what the economy needs to lengthen and strengthen the upswing. The cash deficit is a measure of the additional spending power which is being pumped into the economy. Provided that it is accompanied by an appropriate monetary policy, this additional spending will be translated into additional employment.
Mr. Speaker, that is what we have in mind and that is what we have proposed to the house in asking the approval of the house. Hon. members opposite will have their opportunity of being judged by what they have said in this debate or the things they have said outside which are contradictory of the things they have said in this house.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) -if he does not mind my reminding him of what he said in the T.V. press program last Thursday night-said, speaking of what would have happened if he had been leading the government at this time, "We would have had a deficit too". So, Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite who have been critical of the deficit apparently have decided to repudiate what has been said on their behalf by their leader and elsewhere.


Mr. Pearson:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the minister has quoted me. I know he would like to quote me accurately and I dislike interrupting him, but he stated that
The Budget-Hon. D. M. Fleming I said we would have had a deficit. What I said in this broadcast was that we would have had a deficit in 1958, when we were in a recession; but now, according to the minister, we are not in a recession any longer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, I simply quote the words of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. By reason of the limitation of time I cannot dwell on this. He said last Thursday night, "We would have had a deficit too".


Lester Bowles Pearson: In 1958 and 1959.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the Leader of the Opposition say now that he would not be budgeting for a deficit if he were doing the budgeting today? If he does say that, Mr. Speaker, he is contradicting what the Liberal national convention proposed and he is contradicting what Mr. Walter Gordon has been saying. Here is what Mr. Walter Gordon said on June 5, 1961, and here he was laying out in his speech at Simcoe his proposals for the coming budget:
The Minister of Finance will be budgeting for yet another deficit, and it is difficult to see how, in the circumstances, any over-all reduction in taxes could be justified at this time. This is particularly true if the authorities really believe, as the Prime Minister suggested in a recent speech, that the end of the recession is in sight. In fact, if the authorities expect a substantial improvement in business conditions in the near future, some increases in taxation even may be called for.
Are hon. members opposite calling for increases in taxes? Well, Mr. Coyne did. He called for increases in personal income taxes; he called for increases in corporation taxes, indeed such a rate of increase in corporation taxes as would have set back recovery in this country perhaps very seriously; he called for increases in tariffs on everything coming into the country; he called for a federal gasoline tax, and other things.
These are the contributions to the solution of our existing problems that hon. members opposite appear to be advocating. So far as I am aware, hon. members opposite have chosen to ignore what has been said in the budget speech; the concrete proposals for dealing with the problem of maintaining confidence and strengthening the financial markets. They have not been saying very much about the constructive proposals put forward here with regard to providing a purchase fund so that $100 million may be available this year for purchases of bonds in the open market to strengthen that market, particularly the medium and long term end of it. They have not said anything about the constructive proposal to remove the overhang upon the market in the form of the securities held by the unemployment insurance fund. They have not said anything
7220	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Hon. D. M. Fleming about the constructive proposals we have put forward in regard to the marketing of new issues. They have chosen to ignore these.
They have chosen instead to try to break down confidence and make the country think that we are in for a horrible experience of inflation. That leads me, Mr. Speaker, to say this. They are talking as though the finances of this country are in a shaky condition. Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the house at this point, in trying to save time, to put on the record figures that have been taken from official government records calculating the net debt per capita in this country in the years 1950 to 1961 and as a percentage of gross national product. May I have leave, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to incorporate this table?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Just one clarification, Mr. Speaker, before those figures are tabled. Did the minister say, the net debt, or the net and government guaranteed debt?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said, the net debt on a per capita basis and as a percentage of gross national product.


William Moore Benidickson: Prepared by whom?


Donald Methuen Fleming: These are from government records, Mr. Speaker. The net debt per capita in Canada in 1950 was $849.23; in 1961, $687.98. Net debt. As a percentage of gross national product, in 1950, 70.7; in 1961, 34.6. Is this country going to the bow-wows? Is it heading for blue ruin, as hon. members opposite picture it? Is there any need for lack of confidence in the future of this country?


William Moore Benidickson: Sound as a bell.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are the answers. Briefly, Mr. Speaker, I must say a word about inflation.
[Editor's note: the table above referred to, follows:]
Net	Debt Per Capita and Percentage of GNP	as a .
	Net debt	Net debt
	per	as % of
	capita*	GNPt
1. 1950	
849.23	70.71951	
816.14	62.81952	
773.59	52.11953	
751.88	48.01954	
727.15	45.41955	
717.49	45.31956	
701.47	41.61957	
663.55	36.0
IMr. Fleming (Eglinton).]

	Net debt	Net debt
	per	as % of
	capita*	GNPt
1958	
647.95	34.61959	
669.56	35.51960	
678.63	34.71961	
687.98	34.6Based	on estimated population as at June	
1 nearest to fiscal year-end except 1961 where March estimate of population was used.
t Based on gross national product for the calendar year ended in the fiscal year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order. The minister has been courteous enough to discuss with me the possibility of an earlier vote to meet a personal convenience. I think in the circumstances I would like to withdraw that request and give him the full time for his remarks.


William Moore Benidickson: Give him the other 15 minutes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Go ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition. The matter of accommodation here is one in which I think hon. members wish to extend mutual co-operation. I will try to be brief in my comments so that there may be no uneces-sary time taken. Mr. Speaker, the third matter is inflation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Do I understand that the vote is to be taken when the minister has finished?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think in the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, the minister should not feel inhibited by any request I made and he should be allowed to go on until a quarter to six.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that I will endeavour to finish before a quarter to six.


Mr. Hellyer:: He is not saying anything; let him talk on.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is very helpful indeed, as one would expect.


An hon. Member:: You were not here when he started; you just got in.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My third subject, Mr. Speaker, is inflation. Hon. members opposite have referred to speeches I have made over the past several years on the subject of inflation. Let me make it abundantly clear here and now that I take back not one word that I have been saying in any of those periods on the subject of inflation. Two years ago we were faced, in the view of many people in

this country, with a serious threat of inflation. Indeed, I have had a good deal to say on this subject. But the climate has changed now and what I am saying now, and what leading Liberals have said in their better and clearer moments, is that the major problem now is not inflation; that the threat of inflation has eased and we can address ourselves now more directly to the problem of unemployment.


William Moore Benidickson: That was last year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is what Mr. Walter Gordon said recently; he said that very plainly; and that is what hon. members opposite have said in their clearer moments. Hon. members opposite in this debate, however, have been telling us we were wrong to fear the threat of inflation a couple of years ago. They were telling us then that there should have been expansionist policies; they would have introduced expansionist policies then. If they had had the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, the results would have been very serious and damaging. But conditions are different now. Now is the time, however, when hon. members opposite are standing up and criticizing a budget that, in response to the conditions of 1961, aims at expansion of the economy. Now they are critical of an expansionist budget and they have said the most extraordinary things. They have held out the picture of the government turning on the printing presses. Every hon. member opposite knows in his heart that there is no thought on the part of this government of extending any countenance whatever to inflation or turning on the printing presses. An hon. member of this house resorting to the worst kind of buffoonery stood up here not long ago and tore pieces off a dollar bill. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that as soon as he got out of the house that evening-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not tear it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -he patched up the dollar bill with scotch tape and probably rushed off to the bank, perhaps even to the Bank of Canada, to present it as a damaged dollar to get back a brand new dollar bill in its place. But after he had finished his performance here he sat down and pounded his desk in applause of his own speech.
They picture this budget as threatening inflation. Well, here is Mr. Walter Gordon who wrote for the Toronto Daily Star on October 15, 1960. He said: "It is unemployment and not inflation that is the immediate menace." How can members opposite contradict Mr. Walter Gordon? Here again the Daily Star sets forth Mr. Walter Gordon's proposals, 12 of them, with illustrations. No. 4 says: "Produce more goods and import less." Hon. members opposite have very short
The Budget-Hon. D. M. Fleming memories. In fairness to Mr. Walter Gordon who has been doing his best to help them they should not repudiate him now in the way they have been doing in this debate. This is a scandalous way to use a very important ally.
They are pretending that the cost of living is going to rise as a result of this budget and they seize on an observation made by a man in the baking business suggesting that the result is going to be an increase in the cost of bread. They have been trumpeting this all over.


William Moore Benidickson: Every economist says so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member opposite had better not call himself an economist yet.


William Moore Benidickson: I did not say I was. I said every economist says so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And I say every economist does not say so, and when the hon. member makes that statement he is talking plain, unadulterated nonsense.


William Moore Benidickson: Oh, you have said that before.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, following upon the budget and the decline in the exchange value of the Canadian dollar, the wheat board raised the price of wheat by five cents per bushel. The action taken by the wheat board in increasing its asking price for all grades of wheat and in all positions followed traditional policy and, what is perhaps more important, is justified under existing circumstances. If Canadian wheat prices had not been brought in line with the new exchange value of the Canadian dollar, we would have, in effect, offered wheat on the world market at a lower price and this would have had several results, all of which appear undesirable.
First are the international aspects. Wheat is an international commodity and prices are highly competitive. Any major reduction in the overseas price of Canadian wheat would undoubtedly have been met by our competitors.
Second, there are domestic aspects. It follows that as far as wheat exports are concerned, an increase in the price of wheat was the only feasible alternative if our western farmer is to benefit from the downward adjustment of our dollar. And, Mr. Speaker, the benefit to the western wheat farmer was one of the purposes of this budget. Make no mistake about that.
Let us see this matter in its true proportions. Of course, this meant that Canadian millers would also have to pay a higher price for wheat. However, the impact of this on the cost of making a loaf of bread is very
7222	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Hon. D. M. Fleming small, and it is difficult to see any justification for the claims of at least some elements of our baking industry to the effect that they would have to increase the price of bread to the consumer by one cent per loaf. I understand that an increase in the price of wheat by five cents per bushel will account only for about one eighth or one ninth of a cent per loaf of bread, and a 24-ounce loaf at that. Consequently, the change in the price of wheat, taken by itself, should not lead to a rise in the price of bread. Unless there are other and additional factors which make it difficult to hold the price line, the bakery industry should be able to absorb this increase of one eighth or one ninth of a cent for a 24-ounce loaf of bread. So I do not think we need to be much impressed by these bogeys which are being raised by hon. members opposite.
I have said in the budget speech, and I repeat it now, that in my opinion the effect on the cost of living in Canada as a result of the reduction in the exchange value of the Canadian dollar will be minimal. I repeat that.
I shall not have time to go into detail on the subject of the alternative proposals put forward by the governor of the Bank of Canada but I think I have said on other occasions enough about this to indicate why they were in their principal aspects unacceptable. Let me make one further observation on this subject. When the governor of the bank, in the shocking statement which he put out the day before yesterday and which has been distributed since all over Canada in envelopes of the Bank of Canada bearing the mark of the postage meter of the Bank of Canada, each worth 17 cents postage-when he says in that statement that the budget had been changed as a result of his putting out that statement on Monday he is uttering a monstrous and total untruth.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: But the budget has been changed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The budget has been changed many times up to the last minute and there were many changes in this budget, but not one of them had anything to do with anything that the governor was putting forward or with the statement the governor put out on the Monday in violation of the confidence in which that statement was sent to me in February. So this statement on his part is completely untruthful and misleading.
Finally-and I am compressing my remarks-we have before us and are now about to vote upon an amendment which invites the house to express its lack of confidence in the government. It winds up by saying the govern-


ment is not entitled to the confidence of the elected representatives of the people. Nothing could be plainer than that description of an invitation to the house to express want of confidence in the government. It was interesting, however, to find that one new hon. member of the house went a step further. The hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss La-Marsh) went a step further. She was not content to ask the house to say that it has no confidence in the government but she said, as reported at page 6923: I can only say, Mr. Speaker: "Take us to the country."


An hon. Member:: She meant to the cleaners.


Donald Methuen Fleming: She continued:
"How hon. gentlemen opposite would then find out what the feeling of the country is... with respect to the trifling proposals which were placed before us on Tuesday night."
And then, when she was asked the question by another hon. member of this house whether she was speaking for her party when she made that remark, she replied:
I am a member of my party. I know they are people of courage, that they have been responsible for a great government, and will be again shortly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hon. members opposite did not take in quite as much territory in their amendment. This amendment invites the house to say it has no confidence in the government. It could just as easily, if hon. members had wished to do so, have asked the house to say that the country had no confidence in the government. That would have been the fulfilment of the kind of statement which the hon. member for Niagara Falls was purporting to make and she seemed to suggest that she was speaking for her party. Other hon. members opposite have been a little more cautious in this respect but in view of the fact that there has been an example here again of hon. members opposite trying to have it both ways, talking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time, perhaps the house should understand that this is a challenge that goes all the way and we are prepared to meet it on any basis.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Aye.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion.
On motion of Mr. Mcllraith the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business will be for tomorrow and the rest of the week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: A continuation of the debate on the budget tomorrow, and perhaps the house will be agreeable to concluding it on that day. Depending on the progress made tomorrow, I will announce the business for Friday and Saturday.


George James McIlraith: Tell us now and then we will know what progress is being made.


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