1961-01-26

MAIN ESTIMATES. 1961-62

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General, transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1962, was presented by Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon) moved:: That the message of His Excellency, together with the estimates presented this day, be referred to the committee of supply.


Mr. Benidickson:: I note the hon. gentleman is not making a speech. This time the minister is abiding by the rules.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I might inform the hon. member that I am not making a speech but I have prepared a summary concerning the estimates for the information of the house and the press. Copies of the summary in English and in French will be available at my office to all hon. members who are interested.


William Moore Benidickson: Reverting to the former practice.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, doing what we think is sound in the interests of understanding.


William Moore Benidickson: After criticism.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of Ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of reports in the press to the effect that the Secretary General of the United Nations has requested additional forces from other countries to take the place of those being withdrawn from the Congo. My question is whether the Canadian government has been approached in this connection, and if so what has been the reaction of the government to that approach?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I too saw the reports, but the Canadian government has not been approached in this regard.



CONGO-REPORTED REQUEST FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOOD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of continuing reports of widespread starvation in the Congo. The report on the radio this morning indicated that 50,000 pounds of powdered milk were ready for shipment but there was no means to get it there. Can the minister tell the house what action the government is taking to move food supplies to the Congo?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that report is not accurate in so far as it refers to Canada. We are giving serious consideration to this question. At the moment I am not in a position to make any report. One difficulty is that the main food of the Congolese is rice; they do not use wheat at all. However, we are working on the problem.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since people are dying daily in the Congo, I do not think this question should be delayed any longer.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I have already told the hon. member we are attempting to do something in this regard, but it is not as easy a matter as the hon. member thinks.



REPORTED BEATING OF MR. LUMUMBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On January 19 last I asked the minister a question concerning the reported beating of former Premier Lumumba of the Congo. Knowing of his concern with this problem, and that it is his usual custom to follow up such matters, I wonder whether the minister has any further information to report to the house.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This question was considered in the Congo advisory committee a day or two ago, of which committee Canada is a member, and our representative there made our protest on the treatment that had been meted out to Mr. Lumumba. Other members of the Congo advisory committee did the same thing. The Secretary General of the United Nations has
1426	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry written to President Kasavubu and also to Premier Tshombe of Katanga, protesting this maltreatment and dealing with the question of Mr. Lumumba being given a fair trial promptly.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. According to this morning's Gazette four persons have been arrested having in their possession:
Keys which police said could open almost every federal mail box in the city-and probably in the entire country.
The same newspaper also reports that:
In Edmonton police made an arrest in the case and said investigations indicate keys to the mail boxes have been manufactured in the penitentiary at Kingston, where repairs are made to the government mail boxes, and that there may be at least one master key in circulation that could open all mail boxes in Canada.
The question is this. For what silly reason did the Postmaster General decide to entrust prisoners with the manufacturing and repairing of mail box locks and keys?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Did I understand the hon. member to ask for what "silly" reason?


Azellus Denis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I admit I was wrong. However, I had that thought in mind.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the hon. member is prepared to withdraw that word he appears to have answered his own question.


Azellus Denis: Very well, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word "silly" and am prepared to let the people judge for themselves. Will the Postmaster General consider the advisability of having the locks of government mail boxes changed, by hiring this time honest people for the security of Canadians, as the underworld must now have copies of keys which could be used on existing mail box locks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member seems to be set on making a long speech rather than asking a question. Perhaps he would let the minister answer.


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I think I know what the hon. member has in mind even if he has some difficulty in expressing it. I am looking into this matter at the moment.


Mr. Chevrier:: He does not speak English nearly as well as the minister does.


William McLean Hamilton: C'est vrai, ga, c'est vrai. I am looking into the matter at the moment, and I shall comment further in a day or two. However, in the course of looking into it, Mr. Speaker, I did discover that mail boxes have been repaired at Kingston penitentiary certainly since about 1900, and I was interested to find out that in February, I think it was, or November, 1956, there had been a question of one of those keys having issued from Kingston penitentiary for illicit purposes.


Mr. Mcllraith:: And the minister never did anything about it in four years.


Azellus Denis: If the former government made a mistake, does the minister think this government should go on repeating the same mistake?


Mr. Hamilion (Noire Dame de Grace):: Perhaps in answering that question I might say that in November, 1957, one of my officials was in Kingston penitentiary-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: For how long?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -in
a visiting capacity in order to look into this matter and take corrective measures.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has yet not found the key I think at least he has had ample opportunity.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the disclosure, reported in today's press, that government keys and locks are being found in the possession of prisoners, can the minister give assurance to the house that keys and locks giving access to the royal Canadian mint are not being manufactured or repaired by prisoners?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps considering the hour of the question period some of the questions asked do not appear to be as serious as should be expected.


Azellus Denis: It is a question of urgency.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood the hon. member's question related to the royal mint?


Azellus Denis: Yes. There are locks and keys which give access to the mint. If it is true that these locks and keys are repaired byprisoners, I think it is a question of urgency. The people of Canada should be assured that those keys are not in the possession of prisoners.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member does not disclose any new facts which indicate any alteration of policy in this respect.



TIMMINS, ONT.    REPORTED CARRYING OF MAIL BY STRIKEBREAKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last I directed a question to the Postmaster General and I believe his reply at the time was that the matter had not been brought to his attention. I wonder whether it has been by now, and whether he can inform the house whether any action is contemplated?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, subsequent to the hon. member's question I received a copy of the telegram, and an official of my department is in Timmins today looking into the matter.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I think it will be observed that I have attempted to co-operate with the Minister of Finance and keep in order when the estimates are presented to the house. I might address a question to the minister at this time which I think is in order. The total of the statutory items and the amounts to be voted by this house last year amounted to $5,740 million. Will the minister just indicate what the total is for this year as compared with last year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is inquiring about information which is readily available to all hon. members by looking at the document which has been tabled, and which the house has directed to be referred to the committee of supply.


William Moore Benidickson: Just on that point I would simply say, of course, that information has been made available to the representatives of the people through the press, but those of us who are sitting here performing our duties as members of parliament will not be able to leave the chamber for some time to obtain that information.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether the hon. member raises that as a matter of privilege; if he does, perhaps it could be commented on.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance another question. Would he indicate to his colleagues
Inquiries of the Ministry in the house whether he informed the press at an earlier hour that the proposed budgetary expenditures as contained in the main estimates tabled today total $6,123 million as compared with $4,526 million when his last Liberal predecessor presented estimates to the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is seeking to give information. The first part of his question appeared to be an inquiry, but the latter part was not appropriate.


William Moore Benidickson: Is the minister going to indicate whether or not the figure of $6,123 million was given to the press?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking about a matter with which I have dealt twice now and I think he should accept the decision of the Chair. The hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member defer it until the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges has asked his question.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise for your consideration a matter that I believe affects the privileges of all hon. members. It has to do with the tabling of the estimates earlier today and the disallowance of questions which may or may not have been in order in the form in which they were asked.
We have had the practice adopted by the minister of distributing information to the press earlier this day, and at the opening of the house we were not permitted to get that information although the very subject on which the information would have a bearing is the item of government business which will occupy the rest of the sitting today.
The point that I think is worthy of consideration is whether or not some other method should be provided by the minister for making available to the members of the House of Commons that information which was made available to the press earlier today, so that members might use it where it would be properly used, in the debate on this main item of government business which is to come before us today.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is about as lame a question of privilege as hon. members are likely to hear. It is said that prior to the tabling of these estimates in the house, I have made available to the members of the press certain
1428	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry information in relation to the estimates which I tabled this afternoon. That is quite true. I did so. I have done it before. It was done before I became Minister of Finance. It has been done for years to the knowledge of hon. members opposite, that is those who have any knowledge of what has been taking place.
I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that every adult member of the house, at any rate, is quite well aware of the fact that, for instance, at the time of the budget address copies of that address are made available to the press several hours before it is made available to the house, but under terms of the strictest secrecy. Those terms of secrecy have never been violated by the press. This is a sound practice. I did not introduce it. It was the practice before I became the Minister of Finance. I think it is a good practice, and unless the house expresses disapproval I intend to follow that practice. It is a practice in relation to many matters, Mr. Speaker, that copies of announcements may be made available to the press in advance on condition there is no release of the information until the information is tabled in the house. This practice is followed-


George James McIlraith: No complaint about that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -not infrequently in relation to important statements in regard to government policy or as to things that have happened. This, again, is a sound, salutary practice and is by no means new.
What happened this afternoon, what happened last year and the year before, was that those members of the press gallery who were interested were given access to a copy of the estimates and to the summary to which I have referred which was prepared for their use. They were given that information under terms of the strictest secrecy, and they were not permitted to release any of the information until I had tabled the estimates in the house.
Back of this seems to be a suggestion that there is some feeling on the part of hon. members opposite that the press gallery should not be entrusted with this information.


George James McIlraith: No. That is a misrepresentation of what I said.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I say quite firmly that I have no qualms whatever about making this kind of information available to the members of the press gallery on the terms which I have mentioned and which fully reserve the rights and privileges of all members of this house. The members of the press gallery have shown themselves to be men of impeccable honour in this regard, and I do not see any reason why they should not be trusted as in the past.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the minister has of course followed his usual course of drawing extravagant, unwarranted and irrelevant deductions from what we on this side have said.


Mr. Hees:: Question.


Mr. Fulton:: Is it a question of privilege?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor. I have given the floor to the Leader of the Opposition to speak on this alleged question of privilege which has been raised. The Leader of the Opposition has been given the opportunity to deal with it before I come to a conclusion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No one on this side is questioning the propriety or the right of the minister if he sees fit, in confidence, to give the press advance information on this particular matter. I ask the minister, however, whether he does not think, as was the case in the past-and by "past" I mean before 1957, when different methods were introduced-it would have been appropriate to have shown equal courtesy to leaders of the opposition parties by giving them advance notice, in confidence, so that members of the opposition parties could have had that information available when they were debating the budget on the last afternoon of the budget debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter that affects the budget. What we are discussing this afternoon in the order that has been announced is a budget that has relationship to the balance of ways and means for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1961. The estimates which I tabled this afternoon are the estimates for the financial year commencing April 1, 1961.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is no relation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think there is another observation that may very properly be made in reply to the Leader of the Opposition. On two previous occasions I have made statements in the house at the time of tabling the estimates, pointing out the highlights in those estimates, thinking that this might be of interest and perhaps of assistance to hon. members of the house in reviewing the estimates when a copy came into their hands. But this attempt to give information to the house was met, on the part of the official opposition, with a storm of protest on all those occasions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Political propaganda.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Therefore I have sought today to economize the time of the house, not by making comment on the estimates but by acquainting hon. members with

the fact that if they are interested in having the assistance of a summary statement in this respect, copies will be available at my office in English and French.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Thank you very much.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are available there. Hon. members opposite seem to think they should have had advance information on this subject and be given advance copies.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure you that the Leader of the Opposition received a copy of these estimates just as soon as the Prime Minister did. I brought into this house this afternoon all the copies I could carry. I brought in the usual six copies of estimates. Whether they be main estimates or supplementary estimates, that is the practice. When you receive the message of His Excellency and read it, it is then that the six copies are distributed. One goes to the Prime Minister, one to the Leader of the Opposition, one to the leader of the C.C.F., two to the table and I am permitted to have one. Then copies are immediately available at the distribution office.
You may be aware, Mr. Speaker-and if you are not, I can tell you right now-that when the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River rose to ask his question about amounts, asking me about something that was in the estimates, a copy of the estimates was already in the possession of the Leader of the Opposition just three seats from him. If there is any liaison at all between them, he had that information right at his elbow.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, on the
matter of privilege may I make a remark or two. Everybody recognized the events this afternoon, but I want to draw attention to the fact that on a similar occasion last year the Minister of Finance took some pride in indicating to the house that he had advised the financial critic of the opposition, which he thought was a courtesy, that on a certain day, that day, he was going to present the estimates to the House of Commons.
I ask the Minister of Finance, did he do that this day when he claims he has been so generous in his treatment of his colleagues in this respect? I think it was observed by all members of the house that this particularly long document was received by me, not through courtesy of the Minister of Finance, at 2.30 or any other hour, but only by reason of the fact that I knew that perhaps at 2.30 it became a public document, and I took my own pains to obtain it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Moore Benidickson: But it is a document of intricate detail which I personally had to obtain. I do not want to put the hon. member
Inquiries of the Ministry for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) on the spot, but I would certainly assert that, knowing the predecessors of the present Minister of Finance, these difficulties would not have arisen if anybody had asked, as I asked at 2.30 sharp of the Minister of Finance in this house before you opened the proceedings, if he could have a document such as I obtained subsequently from friends outside the house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William Moore Benidickson: -a public document, after 2.30, from friends outside the house. May I make it clear that none of those friends were employees of the government of Canada. They were members of the press. It is now three o'clock in the afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member for Ottawa West, who raised the point, wish to say anything further before I rule on it?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that the part of the remarks of the Minister of Finance having to do with the press have no relevance to the point raised by me. The point I was raising was that the document was not made available to members of the House of Commons who would be expected to deal with related matters in the budget debate later today. He confirmed that in a later statement, when he said that if we would go to his office he would now, as minister, make available to us copies of the document.


An hon. Member:: That is not what he
said.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is what he said.


George James McIlraith: I understood the minister to say he was making it available to any member who went to his office. That is my understanding of his remarks.


William Moore Benidickson: "Come and beg for it".


George James McIlraith: I think he would be quick enough to correct me if I am wrong about that. My point of privilege is this. I know the Minister of National Defence is not understanding this, but perhaps I may continue to state it. The point is this, that it is not the obligation of any member of the House of Commons to have to go as a puppet to any minister of the crown to obtain public information that should be of record. The document should have been available.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa West has raised as a matter of privilege an alleged breach arising out of facts which are

Inquiries of the Ministry known to the house and which I need not repeat. This matter has been discussed; I have invited discussion on both sides because it is an interesting point.
The house is always jealous of its right to hear information and to have information from the government first and before others, and conceivably a matter of privilege might arise in circumstances where information had been withheld from the house.
Main estimates are tabled and a motion, which is not debatable, is made to refer them to a committee concurrently with the tabling of the estimates. The Minister of Finance has given in confidence, as I understand it, to the press a summary or statement of the contents of the estimates for release only at the time the estimates are tabled.
If there is any matter of privilege it is whether the Minister of Finance had any right or is offending the privileges of the house in giving the press that information in confidence, in summary form, in advance.
In the absence of any clear precedent and in the absence of any motion I think the matter might rest there. I do not find a prima facie right on the part of the house to insist that the government, when it tables the full information, shall not give a summary of it to the press; and, as I have said, there is no motion in this respect. If the hon. member wishes to present a motion I will give further thought to it; because it is important, as are all matters of privilege affecting the rights of members of the House of Commons. But I think it has been sufficiently discussed and might be left at that point, if hon. members agree.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I say one thing, because otherwise there is likely to be a misapprehension remaining on the record regarding what was said by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. I might say that on making inquiry I am informed that the practice which has been observed today is the practice that existed before I became Minister of Finance and which has been followed in the past. It was never the practice to give advance notice of these estimates or statements to the Leader of the Opposition or to anyone on the opposition side. That is not and has never been the practice. I have simply done in all respects today what has been done by my predecessors, both in making a copy of the estimates and a summary available to the press gallery in secrecy and in confidence, and in making the estimates available to hon. members when I did.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of
Finance if he is aware of the fact that the figures for expenditures shown in the estimates appeared in the local press, which went


on the street before 2.30 this afternoon, with the total amount in print before the estimates were tabled in the House of Commons?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, I am not aware of that, and I would want a good deal more corroboration of that statement before I would be prepared to assume that there has been any breach of secrecy in this respect. The release time which was given to the press gallery was the moment of my tabling these estimates in the house, and I would be very reluctant to believe for one minute that this information was given out by any member of the press gallery in any public form before I tabled it here this afternoon.
The Leader of the Opposition has sent me a copy of the Ottawa Citizen, which is the same newspaper that had an advance copy of a speech made in the house last session by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). I may say that this statement appearing in the Ottawa Citizen does not bear out at all what the Leader of the Opposition has just claimed in respect of it. It is headed by the following words: "Fleming Presents Estimates for '61", and continues:
Record estimates for the 1961-62 fiscal year to begin April 1 were presented to the commons today by finance minister Fleming.
Government spending in the current fiscal year, ending March 31-
That is not the present estimates; that is not the year in respect to which I tabled the estimates this afternoon.
-is already estimated at nearly $6 billions, and indications in today's main estimates for the next fiscal year point to an even higher figure.
As hon. members will note, it does not give the figure. This article is obviously conjecture in which anyone could have indulged, in advance of the release of the actual figures. Therefore I say this, Mr. Speaker. Not only has the Leader of the Opposition drawn a red herring here this afternoon, but these aspersions which he has cast on the Ottawa Citizen and its representative in the press gallery are contemptible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We were dealing with the business which arises on the calling of orders of the day. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question, and the Minister of Finance has given his reply. Was the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River rising to ask a supplementary question?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was about to ask the Minister of Finance, who has before him the Ottawa publication-


Some hon. Members:: The Citizen.


William Moore Benidickson: -at this hour of 2.45- 3.15, I guess it is-whether or not the article does disclose the fact that the estimates involve an increase of $383 million as compared with last year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The article is short, and I think, now that this question has been raised in serious form, that the whole of it should be on the record. It is headed: "Fleming Present Estimates for '61" and it says:
Record estimates for the 1961-62 fiscal year to begin April 1 were presented to the commons today by finance minister Fleming.
Government spending in the current fiscal year, ending March 31, is already estimated at nearly $6 billions and indications in today's main estimates for the next fiscal year point to an even higher figure.
The commons awaited the estimates with a great deal of interest to see if they indicate how Prime Minister Diefenbaker is going to make good on his "you ain't seen nothing yet" promise of last fall.
Main estimates tabled for the current fiscal year were $5,740,168,920, but these have been brought by supplementaries to over $5.9 billion. More sup-plementaries are likely.
There is likely to be a cut in estimates for defence, but whether this will be sufficient to overtake the increased spending on other accounts is doubtful.
In any case, the main estimates tabled today for the next fiscal year are certain to have many millions more added through supplementaries before the year ends.
That is the entire article. It does not contain any statement of fact in relation to the contents of the main estimates for 1961-62 which I tabled this afternoon, and I think the Leader of the Opposition owes an apology to the members of the press gallery for his insinuation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion that there should be an apology seems to me to be unwarranted. There was no reflection on the conduct of the minister except in so far as it was implied in the question of the privilege of the house which was raised earlier. As far as any statement affecting the press is concerned, this is not a matter where one hon. member has the right to ask another to make an apology.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was not suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition necessarily owes an apology to the house if he does not choose to make one, but I think he owes an apology to the press gallery.


Mr. Speaker:: That is what I understood the Minister of Finance to say, and to my mind it would not be proper to suggest in answer to a question that the Leader of the Opposition should apologize to anybody other than a member.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Finance a question? Does the minister consider that the words "record estimates... were presented to the commons today" to be a statement or a conjecture?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was known, I think by all that these estimates were to be tabled this afternoon. The members of the press gallery, knowing that the government carries out its engagements, in my opinion were not doing anything unusual in saying that the estimates were tabled in this house this afternoon.
Beyond that, the article, in so far as it purports to say anything about the 1961-62 estimates, is purely conjectural and nothing else. The Leader of the Opposition at one period in his life was clear enough mentally to see these things.



EDIBLE OILS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfori):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of the announcement the minister made in the baby budget to the effect that the government is going to direct the tariff board to examine the low tariff on edible oilseed and vegetable oils.
Have instructions gone out to this effect and, if so, will hearings be held by the tariff board? Are these to be public hearings open to anybody interested in this matter, or will attendance be by invitation only?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the statement I made in the house on December 20 in introducing the budget I did direct a reference to the tariff board. The reference was directed by a letter to the chairman of the board dated January 3. The board in accordance with its usual practice has, under date of January 11, given notice of these hearings and has sent the notice to all persons of whom the board has any knowledge who might be interested in the hearings. If there are any other persons or organizations who might be interested the board would be only too pleased to be made aware of them, because in such matters the desire of the board is that the notice of the reference be brought to the attention of everyone who may be interested in the hearings.
I have before me a copy of the notice signed by the secretary of the board, dated January 11. The notice quotes my letter to the chairman directing the reference to the board and states:
In a later notice the board will announce dates and places for public sittings to be held for the
1432	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry purpose of receiving representations from interested parties and dates for the filing of proposals and submissions.
No written submissions should be made to the board until dates of public sittings are announced and directions are given on the filing of proposals and briefs.
In the meantime, all who may desire to receive further announcements regarding reference No. 131-
That is the present reference. I continue: -and who are not already on the board's mailing list should communicate with the undersigned.
I hope that course will be followed by all interested persons and organizations.
As to the date of the public hearings, I cannot be at all specific in that regard. The board already has a substantial volume of work on hand, but if parliament is willing to pass the measure of which notice now stands on the order paper-the bill to amend the Tariff Board Act to enlarge the board so that it may begin to sit in two panels simultaneously instead of one-this will be of very great assistance to the board in expediting the commencement of the hearings on reference No. 131.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has his attention been called to a statement in the press to the effect that the Canadian government plans to push through a proposal whereby the United States will purchase 32 CL-44 transport planes from Canadair Limited in exchange for the Canadian purchase of 66 United States Voodoo jet interceptors for the R.C.A.F.? Has he any comment to make on that statement?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minisler of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen this particular press report, and I have no comment on it.


Lionel Chevrier: Now that the Minister of National Defence has had an opportunity to look at the press release which I referred to in my earlier question, I wonder whether he would care to comment on the statement of the proposed exchange of the CL-44 and the Voodoo jet interceptor?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is well aware of the fact that it has never been the practice in this house to comment on speculative articles in the press.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have the officers of the Minister of Defence Production been in contact 

with the United States authorities relating to an exchange between Canada and the United States of the Canadair CL-44 transport plane on the one hand and the Voodoo interceptor on the other?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Not recently, Mr. Speaker.



IMPORTATION OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLES FROM CUBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I have not read Le Devoir. I shall be very happy to look into the matter suggested by the hon. member.']
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of an article in today's Globe and Mail, in which the secretary of the fruit and vegetable growers' association of Ontario is reported to have said that the biggest club hanging over the market now is shipments starting to pour in from Cuba, and that the association feels that the Cuban goods are a government subsidized deal. Can the minister inform the house in what form the Cuban deal has been subsidized by the Canadian government?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, because of the talking which was going on in the house I had a great deal of difficulty in understanding the hon. member's question. Perhaps I might take it as notice and answer tomorrow.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether, following his conversations with the United States administration yesterday, he is able to make any report to the house on those conversations; and perhaps at the same time he might indicate, if he can, whether the government is prepared to announce a national oil policy for Canada.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as the house knows, my colleague the Minister of Finance and I visited Washington and had a very full and useful discussion with four members of the new administration; the secretary of commerce, Mr. Hodges; the secretary of the treasury, Mr. Dillon; the secretary of the interior, Mr. Udall and the under secretary of state for commercial affairs, Mr. Ball. The discussion ranged over a variety of subjects, including oil and other matters of interest to both governments.

The Minister of Finance and I were both much impressed by the very high calibre of the members of the new administration, and came away convinced that the very warm and friendly personal relationship that had been built up during the past three and a half years with the previous administration will be maintained, which will be beneficial, of course, to both governments.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: May 1 ask the Minister of Finance whether he has a supplementary statement to make in addition to that made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Only this, Mr. Speaker; that the visit to which my colleague has referred afforded an opportunity to raise the question as to when the next meeting of the continuing Canada-United States joint committee on trade and economic matters might be held. The last meeting was held in Washington in 1960, and we extended an invitation to the members of the United States administration to meet with us at an early date. They received the suggestion very cordially, and we expect to have arrangements made soon for the holding of the next meeting of the committee.


Arthur Smith: Mr. Speaker, I asked a two-part question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I wonder whether he would be good enough to indicate whether the government is yet in a position to announce a policy for the marketing of oil in Canada, and whether this will be done before the end of the month.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be able to announce something in this regard to the house in the not distant future.
(Translation):


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Bourbonnais (Vaudreuil-Sou-langes):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works.
I regret not having sent notice of this question to the minister but I am sure, because he knows his department quite well, that he will be able to answer it just the same.
Could the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) inform us of the contents of the telegram he sent to the minister of highways in Quebec concerning the change in lay-out of the trans-Canada highway through Vau-dreuil, as announced in the newspapers this morning?
Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): I have not read any such article, Mr. Speaker, but I shall be glad to accept the question as notice.
(Translation):


Marcel Bourbonnais: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister able to confirm that the proposal now made by the province would mean a saving of $500,000 for his department?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member's question to be more a matter of information, and scarcely supplementary.
(Translation):


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker,	I	should	like to	ask the
Minister of Public Works a question which, I think, is more sensible than the one asked by the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis).
We read in this morning's newspaper Le Devoir that the trans-Canada highway project calls for the building of a bridge east of the Jacques Cartier bridge, in Montreal. Could the minister tells us whether a final agreement has been reached on this between the federal and provincial governments?
If not, could he consider the suggestion previously made in this house to build a tunnel instead of a bridge at the chosen location?
(Text):


Mr. Walker:: I have not read Le Devoir. I shall be very happy to look into the matter suggested by the hon. member.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a perfectly straightforward question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the stern wheel steamer Keno now at Whitehorse in the Yukon been designated as a national historic monument by the historic sites and monuments board, and, if so, is the board accepting full financial responsibility for its preservation and maintenance?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: It is true that on the advice of the historic sites and
1434	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry monuments board the S.S. Keno, now at Dawson city, has been declared to be a national historic site. Negotiations are under way with the municipality at Dawson tor the maintenance of the Keno and its operation as an historic museum.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES INQUIRY AS TO EMPLOYMENT OF PILOTS LAID OFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask whether T.C.A. has made any provisions to find employment for the 104 pilots the company plans to lay off this year because of the change-over to its new jet services, and how many of them will find employment.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on December 14 last I explained to the house how T.C.A. was going about the laying off of these pilots. As the hon. member said, the lay-off has been brought about because of the switching over from one type of plane to another.
Management of T.C.A., the Department of Transport and I personally are extremely sorry at the laying off of these excellent pilots, who have rendered such great service to aviation in Canada. However, as I explained at the time, T.C.A. has established a laying off procedure so as to ease as much as possible the displacement that will occur following the lay-off. Also, every effort and energy is being expended by the management of T.C.A. to find employment for these pilots. At the present time I do not have figures as to how many have found jobs, but I saw in this morning's paper that some other air lines have been hiring a few of these pilots. I know that it is unfortunate that these pilots have to go outside the country to find employment, but on the other hand it shows that Canada at the present time has the best trained and most competent pilots in the world.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and inquire whether any consideration has been given by T.C.A. to using a crew of three pilots in their jet service, as I am informed foreign air lines are doing?


Léon Balcer: I could not say exactly, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure that solution must have been explored. In any event I will check with management and report back to the house.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition directed a question to the Prime Minister in which he asked whether the Prime Minister's attention had been called to the decision of the Northwest Territories council, as reported in the press, that it cannot afford the program aimed at recruiting badly needed doctors and dentists for the northland. The hon. member asked for any comment on the decision, and in view of the fact that the council reports through the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources I thought I might be allowed to answer.
May I preface my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by stressing that within its spheres of jurisdiction, which are substantially those of a province except for the administration of resources, the administration of the Northwest Territories operates autonomously. The decisions of the council are those of the council and relate to essentially provincial functions. They are not the responsibility of any department of the federal government.
I have consulted the commissioner of the Northwest Territories, and I am advised that the council had before it for consideration, at the session that has just concluded, a plan designed to provide increased public health services in the Great Slave lake region of the territories, and to establish arrangements that would make practice there attractive to doctors and dentists, whom it is now extremely difficult to secure. The plan would have cost the territories $129,000 per year over and above present health expenditures, plus an unknowable amount of added cost for increased health treatment. The council is already budgeting, I am advised, for expenditures of $1,242,600 for health services in 1961-62, and faces a total budgetary deficit of $1,273,398.
In all the circumstances the council decided that it could not, at the current session, adopt the health plan. It did, however, pass a resolution that may be of interest to the house, and if it were the wish of the house I could read the operative part of the resolution :
(a)	That it would be desirable, in the interests of the health of children and of people in the territories who are not at present covered by federal health services, to be able to introduce, at as early a date as possible, a plan based on the Great Slave lake health plan with the intention of extending it to cover, as soon as practicable, the entire Mackenzie valley and Mackenzie delta areas;
(b)	That it would be reasonable and acceptable to have some part of the cost of such a service

found from the revenues raised within the territories but that it would not be financially practical, in view of the other needs and the circumstances of the territories to raise more than a minor part of the cost in this way; and
(c)	That the officers of the territorial administration should do their utmost in the negotiations for the federal-territorial financial agreement for the period beginning April 1, 1962, to urge upon the federal authorities the importance of making provision through an increased grant for adequate health services along the lines referred to.
The financial arrangements between the federal government and the territories involve grants on a five-year basis somewhat along the lines of federal-provincial agreements, but adjusted to the special needs of the territories. Discussions concerning the basis for grants for the period beginning April 1, 1962, are now under way. The problem raised by the council of the Northwest Territories in the financing of adequate health services will be considered in connection with those negotiations.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, may I add, Mr. Speaker, that the council of the Northwest Territories does not have to meet the health costs of Indians and Eskimos in the north. This is a federal responsibility, and so also is the hospital insurance program initiated last year which covers all residents of the territories.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourgei (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works. Is the minister in a position to give a progress report on the proposed Prince Edward Island causeway?


David James Walker: No, Mr. Speaker.


Maurice Bourget: A supplementary question. Does the minister intend to give such a report before his estimates are brought down for discussion?


David James Walker: Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker.



ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. In view of the answer given yesterday by the minister regarding the conversion from coal to oil at the Renous naval base heating plant in New Brunswick, can the minister inform the house why this was done and has he any further information on the subject?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria may I say that the economy realized by the change which I announced in this house yesterday is of the order of $13,000. The amount of coal used under the former system was of the order of only 45 tons. This substantial economy indicates that the change is appropriate.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question. I can appreciate what the minister says, but if the change-over has not taken place will he give consideration to investigating whether it may be possible to instal an automatic coal burner?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If there are more detailed questions to be asked I think they might be taken up at the appropriate time, when the estimates are before the house.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Nipissing on January 18. Our final figures on housing for 1960 show that housing starts in all areas were 108,858, of which 76,687 were in centres of population of 5,000 or more. The completions for the year 1960 number 123,757, and houses under construction at year end were 65,773.


Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Since this figure of 108,000 is now available-


David James Walker: No; 108,858.


John Richard Garland: Since these figures represent the lowest number of starts since 1953, will the minister say whether the government has given any consideration to an early lowering of the National Housing Act interest rate?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, the government has given consideration to a great many things in the matter of housing. It has instituted a tremendous program which the hon. member knows about, and all other questions that have not yet been dealt with are constantly under consideration by the government.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: On Tuesday last the hon. member for Laurier inquired regarding the cable to be constructed

Inquiries of the Ministry between Canada and Australia, and how the work would be divided among the participating countries.
I am advised that the construction of the cable will be carried out in the United Kingdom; but subject to prices, quality and delivery all being satisfactory, Canada and Australia will, so far as they are able, supply all materials for the cable production in proportions to be agreed between them, taking into account that ideally those proportions should approximate to 50-50 in terms of value. It is expected that Canadian suppliers will be able to meet these requirements in most cases.
It might be added that the cost of material approximately equals the construction cost.



CANADIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION-SURVEY GRANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monleiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard asked me a question concerning the proposed grant to the Canadian Olympic association in order to assist them in determining the best Canadian site for the 1968 winter Olympic games.
Having somewhat misunderstood his question, perhaps I should say a word in clarification. Such matters as he mentioned, relating to cost and population factors for each of the possible sites, will undoubtedly be considered by the Canadian Olympic association before it decides which site would give Canada the best chance of being selected as the host country for this event. This information had been communicated to me earlier.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Could the minister say when his department might be able to undertake the much needed survey to create a suitable second harbour at Vancouver?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, because of numerous requests for a supplementary harbour for shallow draft vessels at Vancouver, the Department of Public Works is undertaking a boring and sounding survey to determine the feasibility of dredging Vancouver False Creek and, as a matter of fact, the survey was started on January 19.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. My question is based upon a letter received from unemployed shipyard workers at Pictou, Nova Scotia. In view of the unemployment situation in the town of Pictou, has the Minister of Transport had any requests for refit work at the shipyards there and, if so, what reply has he made and what action has been taken?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the situation at Pictou and we have been working very hard to try to provide work in this shipyard. I am very pleased to say that no later than yesterday treasury board approved the letting of a contract for over $200,000 to the Ferguson shipyard at Pictou.



REFERENCE TO ABSENCE OF NATIONAL REVENUE MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the Minister of National Revenue if during his absence from the house yesterday he succeeded in unmasking Sir John A. Macdonald?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minisler of National Revenue):: A reply to that question is not necessary, Mr. Speaker.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 24, 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.
Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have 13 minutes and perhaps a few seconds in which to try to drive home the argument which I began on Tuesday night, that increased aid to underdeveloped countries is an essential element in the battle against unemployment. First I want to say a word about the humanitarian argument although I wish to deal mainly with the economic argument. I think it is a self-evident proposition that if we had before our eyes the starvation, misery and so on of the underdeveloped countries we could not take it.

I support this proposition with a small incident from the first world war. In November, 1918, there was a Canadian battery which had advanced into Germany and which was still living more or less under service conditions, with the men getting their rations out-of-doors. A friend of mine who was an officer in the battery told me about this incident, and he made the remark that the men were, of course, short of food. I said, "Did the rations not come up?" He said, "Sure the rations came up, but the blockade was still on and when the men were eating their rations out-of-doors each of them had a group of hungry German children around him". He said, "The Canadian soldiers couldn't take that, of course, and the result was that the children got the food". I suggest that perhaps this is the kind of thing we can all understand.
I want to say a word also about the question of economic independence and political independence. The free nations have assisted the underdeveloped countries along the path to political independence in wholesale fashion, but help is still needed for them to obtain economic independence and there is great danger that if economic independence does not come about, political independence will perish too. I quote from a statement used by Chester Bowles, who is now in a key position in the United States. He is referring to what an Indian statesman said to him about four or five years ago. These are the words:
Our ability-
The ability of India.
-through democracy to surpass, or at least equal, China's development under a dictatorship will determine our ability to survive as a free nation, and if we fail, Asia goes too.
Chester Bowles goes on to say:
He was right, for on the Asian stage, where half the human race is seeking a quick solution to the problem of economic development with Africa and South America looking on, communist China already serves as the contrast and, in a grim sense, as the criterion for economic progress in India.
I come now to the economic argument. I think one may say there is agreement on all sides that increased trade, that is increase of international trade, is the final solution to unemployment, and that the greatest opportunity for increased trade lies in increased buying power in underdeveloped countries. I think there is no reason to believe that in the face of European, American, Japanese and communist competition we should expect to get a larger share of the present cake, so to speak; that is, of the present amount of international trade. Trade has got to be increased. Aid means trade, and one thing I want to underline is that aid means Canadian employment.
90205-6-91J
The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell
I gave an illustration the other night of the Colombo plan, where of a $36 million gift proceeding from Canada 95 per cent was represented by Canadian employment. That is what we mean when we talk about aid. I also quoted the president of the Imperial bank who called for "boldness and imagination in our approach to foreign aid". I quote another high authority in the business world:
We need the export stimulus of foreign aid in the short run and the good will and the markets it will mean in the underdeveloped countries as they grow and prosper in the long run.
There are favourable signs of increased assistance from the United States. There is the two edged remark I quoted the other night from the new president:
If the free society cannot help the many who are poor, it can never save the few who are rich.
I repeat that I think there is no reason to believe that we can fully deal with unemployment unless we can substantially increase the amount of international trade, and the obvious way to do that is to bring up the level of the underdeveloped countries.
In this connection I want to take the example of India. India is in some ways very discouraging; I know that. Nevertheless, we have the opinion of that internationally famous economist and world traveller, Barbara Ward. She says that in relation to the whole Atlantic world India stands caught in something of the same position as Western Europe in 1947. She explains that the European nations had done a great deal to restore their own position, but were absolutely at a standstill because of the need of foreign exchange. This was supplied by the Marshall plan. Barbara Ward goes on:
India stands caught in something of the same contradiction. Years of effort have set its economy in motion as never before, but for further expansions the essential component of foreign exchange is simply not available.
She says further, speaking of the attitude of the west:
-the kind of sustained decision underlying the Marshall plan-the decision to see the effort through to success-has yet to be made.
Now, the question will be asked, is the western world not doing enough? The answer is no. Mr. Hoffman, that great international servant, says that the result in the 1950's was disappointing. There was only a gain of $15 to $20 in per capita income in the one hundred less developed countries. The average increase in the western nations during the period, 1950 to 1957, was approximately $300, as against that small amount of $15 to $20 in the underdeveloped countries. In the United States it was $530. Speaking of this, Hoffman says that it is quite all right for
1438	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell the rich to get richer but disturbing and distressing to have the desperately poor people remain desperately poor.
I want to give one further figure here. The average per capita income in Canada in 1959 was $1,507, as compared with $110 in the underdeveloped countries in 1950, rising to $125 or $130 in 1959.
The question is, can we afford to do more? What is our present contribution measured in what we might call topical terms? Mr. Keenleyside, a former United Nations official and now president of the B.C. power commission said, jocularly but accurately:
The cost of the Canadian contribution to the Colombo plan is less than half the cost of cosmetics purchased annually by Canadian women.
The easy way out of this situation, and it is being put forward by many people, is to find the money by reducing defence expenditures. This is a very attractive solution. I wish I could put that forward as my solution, but I am not prepared to base my suggestion on that. As we know from the experience of Mr. Gaitskell, the leader of the Labour party in England, the responsibility of laying ourselves open to the communists is something serious men will have to consider very seriously. I have to fall back, therefore, on familiar words.
This ought ye to have done, but not to have left the other undone.
In other words, I believe we have to do both. If this argument of mine is sound-and it is an argument that has been advanced by abler, wiser and more experienced men than myself-then we have to do both. The excuse is often advanced that we are a small country. We are not so small as all that. Moreover we are not in the habit of saying we are small. We often say that we are very big. We often say we are the third or fourth trading nation, and that is true. In addition to this, our example would be very effective in the United States. We have reason to believe the United States is going to do a great deal more about this problem. Further action by us would have a significant effect there.
No one will deny the validity of these three arguments. I am sure no one will dispute the humanitarian argument, the political argument or the economic argument. In so far as the political argument is concerned, I want to read a short sentence which I forgot. I have here an article by Malcolm Macdonald recently back from India, where he spent years as Britain's representative, speaking of India and other Asian nations whom he described as non-aligned. The article reads in part as follows:
It is vital to the interests of the free world that these nations should not slip over to the


communist side. The issue is in the balance; it is at present uncertain whether the non-aligned Asians will move closer to the western camp or go communist or remain strictly non-aligned. If the west does not show adequate sympathy and give sufficient help to them, they will drift into the communists' arms, which are outstretched to give them a comradely, if suffocating, hug.
In either case the balance of political power in the world may be vitally affected.
The question remains, then, not whether we accept these arguments but whether we take them seriously, whether we are prepared to do anything about them. It may be that there is a different spirit abroad. It may be that we will develop some of the boldness and imagination for which the president of the Imperial bank calls. It may be that we shall take seriously what the Prime Minister said:
Economic assistance to underdeveloped countries is a major and mandatory need if freedom is to be preserved in the world.
If my argument is right, and I am following those who have thought so much about this problem, I would go on to say, do not let us miss the bus. People say, can we afford it? I use the argument which was used when we were considering a loan of a billion dollars to Britain in 1946. The argument was made then that the question is not whether we can afford to do it. The question is whether we can afford not to do it. This argument was accepted then and was triumphantly successful.
I would close by saying that we cannot leave everything to the government. Public opinion has to support the government. The other night the Secretary of State for External Affairs at a meeting in Toronto found slight evidence of support in public opinion on this question. I venture to say to those who create public opinion, the churches, the universities, the labour unions, chambers of commerce, farmers' organizations, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association: think on these things and reach your conclusions, then act accordingly. You cannot leave everything to the government. I close with the words once used by Lord Lothian, whom Churchill called the greatest ambassador to the United States, and who once said in a speech in the United States:
Under a democracy, the responsibility comes squarely down on the shoulders of every one of us.
I say, therefore, to the Canadian people, accept that judgment and act accordingly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the last day of the debate on the budget, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be fair to say that much of the criticism that has been levelled against the budget by the Liberal opposition has been confirmed by the criticisms made by corporations, individuals and institutions all

over the country. Only the other day there came across my desk a newsletter containing the views of a well known investment company in Montreal, the Jones He ward & Company. It is headed, "The Outlook for the Canadian Economy", and is dated January 12, 1961. On page 2 there is the following reference to the so-called baby budget:
It is curious that the December budget was almost void of measures to combat unemployment which could reach 12 per cent of the working force in the winter months of 1961. In this respect, this was "an emergency budget without emergency measures", and under the circumstances, difficult to rationalize.
Then on the third page of this interesting analysis of the economy of the nation, in the second paragraph, the report points out:
The budget raised more questions than it answered. It had anything but a settling effect on the bond market, many foreign investors regard the measures as only the beginning of things to come, and residents are disappointed that no positive action was taken to support business and arrest unemployment. It makes any forecast of the spring budget uncertain at best.
As we know, many views have been expressed as to why in fact, in view of its contents, the Minister of Finance brought in any budget at all at this time. The budget will be noted, I think, not so much for what it says but for what it does not say; not so much for what it does but for what it fails to do.
I think one good example of the latter was the nature of the reply given to the hon. member for Laurier by the Minister of Finance when the former asked what were the depressed areas in the country that the government had in mind in connection with its proposal for a double depreciation allowance for industries settling in depressed areas as an aid to unemployment. The Minister of Finance said, that, of course, he could not give a reply to that kind of question until all matters having to do with the budget in this house had been dealt with.
I want to take issue with the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance, in the announcement he made-in the only announcement that had any direct bearing on conditions of unemployment in this country, namely that of a double depreciation allowance for industries settling in depressed areas, as an aid to unemployment-should have accompanied the announcement of that policy with the definition that the government would require and insist upon in regard to the phrase "depressed area".


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


Paul Joseph James Martin: At the end of my speech. I only have half an hour.
The Budget-Mr. Martin


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is attributing to me the use of an expression about depressed areas. I say that he will look in vain for any such expression in my budget speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not a point of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is a point of order. You have misquoted me.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman has a happy faculty of trying to make his own speech when somebody else has the floor, and that will not happen in this instance. I say that the Minister of Finance should have told the country and the house what were the depressed areas to which this announcement would apply, and what would be the requirements before an area could qualify as a depressed area. I say that because the only reference in the budget-by implication, not directly-to unemployment was this particular provision, as a means of assisting in the relocation of industry or in the encouragement of existing industry to stay in a depressed area.
This conceivably, depending on the details of the policy, could be of very great help in the alleviation of unemployment in a particular district. So the Minister of Finance now, before this day is over, should tell the house what are the depressed areas that the government has in mind, and what are the definitions of a depressed area that the government purposes to have applied to this particular policy. We should know, for instance, what percentage of the labour force has to be unemployed for an area to be considered depressed. There is no difficulty in the government giving us this information, if it has settled on the criteria; and if it has not, it would be most unusual for the government to make an announcement of policy without having carefully considered all the factors involved.
Someone points out that the Minister of Finance will not be speaking again. In that event I hope that the Prime Minister or someone else who will undoubtedly have a word to say will be authorized by the Minister of Finance-as the Minister of Trade and Commerce was authorized today to speak about the conference in Washington-so that we will know exactly how we are to judge this particular provision.
The minister has very good precedents before him. There is now before the 87th congress of the United States a bill to alleviate the problem of economically depressed areas. That bill represents the determination of the new administration, in office only a

The Budget-Mr. Martin few days, to tackle a problem to which we have been urging this government to address itself for three years now. Then there is, of course, the practice in the United Kingdom. So I say to the Minister of Finance that before this debate is over we should know what are the depressed areas that the government has in mind. We should also know what will be the requirements in order for a particular community or area to constitute itself into a depressed area, to take advantage of this double depreciation provision.
The United States department of labour lists 99 areas in the category of "substantial and persistent labour surplus". What they have done there we can do here, and what they have done there quickly we should at long last, if we are going to do anything about this serious problem of unemployment, do at the earliest possible moment. This debate will terminate today, but all matters having to do with the budget will not be completed for possibly another month. Two months will have gone by during which municipalities and corporations could easily have made preparations to take advantage of what could be a very constructive way of dealing with this problem of unemployment.
The operative criteria in the United States for determining what is a depressed area is about 6 per cent of the labour force unemployed over a specific period of time. In Britain the criteria is between 4 per cent and 5 per cent. If we were to apply those criteria to this situation of course the whole of Canada would be a depressed area, because unemployment in our country now reveals the fact that 8.2 per cent of our labour force is unemployed.
Therefore I say to the Minister of Finance, if this government really wants to make a constructive contribution to the alleviation of unemployment let it address itself at once to the request that I make today. Otherwise we will be justified in saying to this government that it has announced a policy the value of which will be effective, if at all, only in the long term, just as the Vocational Training Act, just as the Productivity Council Act, just as the so-called small business act were all designed to deal with the long term, although the impression has been created and will continue to be created that they represent part of a vigorous campaign on the part of this administration to deal now, not tomorrow, with the problem of unemployment.
If the Minister of Finance wishes to give the house any indication of the government's concern for unemployment, let him not delay

any longer in meeting this particular request. Let the government name the depressed areas. Let us have all the definitions required, so that municipalities and industries can take the necessary steps to collaborate with the government in providing relief against unemployment which continues to grow day by day, as the figures of the government itself reveal.
There is one other matter with which I wish to deal. It is one of those matters not referred to in the budget but which has a corollary relationship to the problem of unemployment, a problem which I think should have been mentioned in the budget. This has to do with the state of the unemployment insurance fund.
It will be recalled that the day before we adjourned for the Christmas recess I asked the Minister of Labour if he would table the report of the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commission, following the meeting that was held by that body in October last. The Minister of Labour said the government had not yet studied the report, and until such time as it had studied the report it could not be tabled. We adjourned the following day at six o'clock, and we were informed by the newspapers and the radio at about seven o'clock that night that in a clandestine way the Minister of Labour, in the dying hours of the last day, had tabled the report which I had asked for the day before. He did not tell the house that he had tabled the report, and consequently it was not possible for speakers on this side, discussing the budget on the last day before adjournment to make any reference to this report. But the report is a significant document, and I am sure it will be read by every worker, every employer and every responsible Canadian, because it reveals the perilous condition which faces this trust fund. It is a trust fund; it is not a government account but a trust fund contributed to by the employers and employees of this country to the extent of 80 per cent, the contribution by the government of Canada on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer being only 20 per cent.
This device of the Minister of Labour, this slick trick in handling a report of great consequence in such a way as I have described, is not new. This is not the first time such a device has been used when information of this kind has been presented. The same practice was followed by the Minister of Labour in the dying days of the last session of parliament. A few days before parliament prorogued last August we asked for another special report of the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commission. We

were told that the government had not yet considered that report. Then in the dying hours of the last day of that session the Minister of Labour tabled the report in the same way by handing it to the Clerk of the House. Parliament was thus denied the opportunity of knowing its contents, and participating in debate based on its recommendations and commentary.
This clearly reveals one thing; that this government does not want a full disclosure made of the situation which presently confronts this fund. Why did the Minister of Finance himself not make reference to the financial state of this fund? He has an obligation, a duty as Minister of Finance to make a review of the financial situation in the country in all its aspects, particularly at this time; because we are told in the speech from the throne that the government intends to bring in amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to deal, among other things, with the financial state of the fund.
If I may make any suggestion to the Minister of Finance, may I say that I trust whatever he proposes to do will be done by way of replenishment of that fund from the consolidated revenue fund itself, for reasons I intend to indicate. In that event, unless no act is going to be done before the end of this fiscal year, there can be no justification whatever for the Minister of Finance not having referred to the state of the unemployment insurance fund in his budget speech.
It is interesting to note that the Minister of Finance said in his budget address that instead of a promised surplus of $12 million there is now to be a deficit of $285 million. I am going to suggest to the minister that the deficit next year, if he does what he should do about the unemployment insurance fund, will be not less than $425 million. If the recommendations of the advisory committee are followed, at least $137 million has got to be transferred from the consolidated revenue fund in order to give the government the opportunity of living up to its contractual obligations to the unemployed workers who are beneficiaries of the unemployment insurance fund.
This special report tells us some very significant facts, and since the Minister of Labour has not told us about them, and since the Minister of Finance has not discussed them in his budget speech, it falls upon us in the Liberal opposition to comply with an obligation which clearly under our form of government belongs to the Minister of Finance and his colleague. The report points out that as of September, 1960, there was $319.5 million in the fund. This figure represents the book value of securities held. The advisory committee recommends that this
The Budget-Mr. Martin amount be reduced by 8 per cent in order to allow for the loss on the sale of securities between October, 1958 and September 6, 1960. The report points out that the fund has had to absorb a loss on the sale of securities of close to $28 million. I point out again that this is money which belongs to the workers and the employers of this country, not to the people of Canada as a whole; and I make the statement now-one which should have been made by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech-that since this government came into office there has been an actual loss to the unemployment insurance fund of some $50 million, a loss to those two segments of the population who are the main contributors to the fund.
We are entitled to ask the Minister of Finance how this fund is to be replenished. Has the government arrived at a policy? We were told last session by the Minister of Labour that the unemployment insurance commission had made recommendations, that these recommendations were made last spring. If that is so, why did the government not bring in legislation before Christmas so that a committee of this house could be convened to examine the bill in order to determine whether the provisions recommended were satisfactory? Such a committee could not only have examined the financial situation and the proposed amendments to the act; it could also have considered the means by which so much financial loss might be repaired and the other proposals which no doubt would have been made. I venture the suggestion, that because of the way in which the business of the house is conducted by this government we shall reach the perilous period of the end of May with precious little, if anything, done about these amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Possibly nothing at all will have been done about means to replenish the fund.
The fund, to remain in existence, must be replenished according to the advisory committee, from the consolidated revenue fund in the amount of $131 million. But this minimal amount will only reimbure the fund for the direct losses it has incurred through the forced sale of securities and in paying abnormal seasonal benefits and payments to fishermen. So we should like to know from the Minister of Finance the answer to this question. How are payments being financed at the present time? Are they being financed through the sale of securities and, if so, what losses are being realized? Are they being financed by the government, and what effect will this have for, say, the months of November, December and January? Am I right
1442	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Martin in assuming that the unemployment insurance commission has not been selling its securities in recent days.
These are important questions, questions which the Minister of Finance cannot dodge and must not be allowed to dodge during the course of this very day if he is to be fair to the workers of our country, who are greatly concerned about the opportunity that will be available to them after May or after June next if they are to take advantage of contractual rights which they possess for maintenance assistance under the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The whole story of this fund during the period this government has been in office reflects the inept way in which the government has conducted its affairs. We know that in December, 1956 the fund amounted to $921 million. We know also that in May, 1960 it stood at $296 million. Here is what the advisory committee had to say in the report clandestinely laid on the table just before Christmas without the house knowing anything about it:
It is not safe to estimate that the fund will have a balance greater than $140 million to $150 million at the end of March 1961, and should unemployment be higher than last winter the fund may well be lower than the figures mentioned.
The report further states, and I ask the Minister of Finance to bear these words in mind:
By the end of May 1961 the fund will possibly be as low as $85 million and certainly at a most unsafe level.
This government has no apprehension about this matter at all. I say that by the end of June, unless the government acts, there will be nothing whatever left in the fund. That is obvious when you consider that the fund stood at over $900 million in 1956 and that it now faces the possibility, according to the report, of being practically depleted at the end of May. Surely one is justified in saying that this government shows a reckless regard for the implicit trust laid upon it to protect the integrity of this fund and the workers of Canada.
The Prime Minister and his colleagues brag about the magnitude of the drain on the fund. For instance, when speaking over television on September 21, 1960 the Prime Minister said:
-we have taken action to Implement that statement by providing new jobs and by making possible the largest increase in social justice payments to individuals, including unemployment benefits, in any comparable period in the history of this nation.
I ask the Prime Minister what these unemployment insurance payments have to do with his new concept of social justice and the present government of Canada. I repeat


that the money paid out of the fund is not money that belongs to the government of Canada. It is money it holds in trust for two groups, who are the main contributors. To take credit for this as a new demonstration of its interest in social justice reveals the character of this government and its real concern for the plight of the unemployed.
The Prime Minister in that statement gives us an opportunity to evaluate the tremendous drain on the fund. It is a significant fact that from the time this fund was first created until the former government went out of office, in a period extending over 17 years and ending March 31, 1957, benefit payments under unemployment insurance amounted to $1,458,288,979.24. In three years and eight months, since March 31, 1957 up until the present time, the period during which this government has been in office, benefit payments totalled $1,519,224,628.05, under $100 million more in three years than was paid out in the previous 17-year period. Nevertheless the Prime Minister had the audacity to say on television the other day that the present level of unemployment is not as great as it was during periods of Liberal government. This is an important matter. I call on the Minister of Finance to deal with this matter today if he speaks, or if he does not I ask him to delegate that matter to someone else. I ask him to bring in the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act as quickly as possible.
The minister has a responsibility in this matter along with the Minister of Labour. He cannot leave that responsibility to the Minister of Labour alone because it will be his responsibility to replenish the fund, to recommend the policy that wiU be adopted; and if this matter is not brought before the house at the earliest possible moment, if we wait until May, the government will be denying the workers of Canada and the employer groups a right that is theirs.
I warn the minister now that if he hopes to replenish this fund by the method he employed a year ago he will incur the wrath of the Canadian people and will receive an indictment all over this country. If he proposes to replenish the fund by increasing the contributions of the employers and workers as he did in 1959 he will be placing himself in jeopardy as far as the Canadian people are concerned.
The minister is now in that very insecure position. We have a right to request that this matter be brought before parliament at the earliest opportunity. The Minister of Finance should have seen fit to do so in December. The fact that he did not do so

only shows this government's complete disregard for the serious problem of unemployment that now faces us.
We have criticized the government for its policy on unemployment. We have been accused by one hon. member in this house of employing Hitlerite tactics because we dared to expose the nature of the problem. I regret that the Associate Minister of National Defence should have used the words he did when speaking of the Liberals as Hitlerites and communists, because they were raising the problem of unemployment. I know that that hon. gentleman has repeatedly, in private at least, dissociated himself from the former leader of the Union Nationale, Mr. Duplessis, but I am surprised to see him now using the same tactics and indulging in the same irresponsible accusations and slanders that were used a few years ago by those with whom he said he did not associate. The hon. gentleman did not add to his stature in this house in making those statements.
Instead, those who are playing into the hands of the communists and Hitlerites are members of a government now charged with the responsibility of doing something about this problem, and who will not listen to the concrete suggestions put forward by a group who feel it is their duty to point out the nature of this situation, and at the same time to recommend constructive approaches for the solution of the problem. That is what we in the Liberal party have done. We are not ashamed of having exposed this problem. We are proud of the constructive suggestions we have made, and we ask the government to take note and follow our example.
(Translation):


Mr. M. Deschambaull (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I must, in the first place, congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) for the masterly account he has given the house of the present economic situation.
However, may I say that I regret that no greater changes were made in the way of higher tariff in favour of some industries which I feel have a great effect on our national economy.
Let me refer, in the first place to the rubber footwear industry. As a result of absolutely unfair competition on the part of many European manufacturers and especially on the part of Japanese manufacturers, this industry is on its way out.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if we allow Japan to carry on its competition against our own footwear industries, those industries are bound to disappear in the very near future.
The Budget-Mr. Deschambault
In support of those statements, let me quote briefly from a speech delivered in my constituency late last year by Mr. Paul Smith, vice president of the Dominion Rubber Company Limited to the chambers of commerce of St. Jerome, Acton-Vale, Granby and other municipalities.
Needless to say, the alarm sounded by Mr. Smith on that occasion proved practically justified all along the line, and I am very sorry to announce in this house that the Dominion Rubber Company, the main industry of the city of St. Jerome and even of my constituency, had to lay off several hundred employees, then shut down completely by the end of the year.
So that the minister and all hon. members may realize the serious predicament of those industries, may I quote a few figures mentioned by Mr. Smith at that meeting.
May I add that our exports of those products were the first to suffer from foreign competition, and that those conditions began in 1949 and have constantly deteriorated since. May I be allowed at this point, to quote a paragraph from Mr. Smith's speech:
The following year, i.e, 1950, definitely marked the collapse of our export trade, one which had been established some hundred years. In 1937, for instance, we exported seven million pairs of rubber footwear. Now that volume was practically nonexistent in 1950. That year, Canada had to be content to export 384,000 pairs of rubber footwear, most of them of a more specialized type in which foreign manufacturers were not interested, and since then, this very small volume keeps decreasing.
There is, therefore, no doubt that our export market for rubber footwear has almost completely disappeared, perhaps forever.
Apart from that very substantial loss, our Canadian industry had to face a still greater and more acute danger, the arrival on the Canadian market of articles mainly of Japanese origin, at a retail price which was sometimes only a third of our production cost. Competition therefore became quite impossible for our people.
What did we do to help those industries? Again, Mr. Speaker, I shall borrow a paragraph from Mr. Smith's speech, and I quote:
Since 1955, representatives of that Industry have been constantly engaged in discussing the matter with the federal authorities. First of all, there was a special inquiry by a joint committee of representatives from the industry concerned, the union and the government. The following year, the tariff board held a series of investigations and public hearings. A few months later, the board admitted in its report that the industry was, in fact, in a bad way, but no recommendation was made for the government to intervene. Later, there were meetings with cabinet ministers and government officials, and the tariff board launched

The Budget-Mr. Deschambault another inquiry, this time being instructed by the government to submit recommendations as to what could be done for the industry. Again there was a report. Again the report conceded that the industry was in serious trouble but again the board made no recommendation regarding steps that should be taken, this time because the board seemed to think that any steps advocated to give efficient help to our industry would be of such extraordinary nature that they would exceed its jurisdiction.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention the names of a few rubber footwear manufacturers that gave up the fight, feeling completely out of the running with foreign imports.
In 1950, the Gutta Percha Rubber Ltd. was the first to go under. A little later, in 1951, it was the turn of the Cambridge Company. Two or three years after that date, the B. F. Goodrich of Canada Ltd. closed down its rubber shoe plant; then came the Superior Rubber Co. Ltd., a crown corporation set up by the Newfoundland government, which also had to quit in 1956. And quite recently again, Mr. Speaker, it was the turn of the British Rubber Co., of St. Laurent and Lachine, to stop operations and amalgamate with the Miner Rubber Co., of Granby, in order to be better able to stand up to competition.
I should add, Mr. Speaker, that a few companies kept operating but at great sacrifice and considerable loss. In particular, they had to dismiss many of their workers, which only increased the unemployment problem. So that you may realize the vastness of the problem, I would like to quote more figures. In 1950, the Canadian rubber industry sold 15 million pairs of canvas shoes and waterproof footwear in Canada. That same year, that is in 1950, we imported 280,000 pairs. In 1959, the import figures showed a total of 8 million pairs, as compared to 280 thousand pairs in 1950.
Of course, during this period sales in the Canadian footwear industry suffered a severe slump. Sales figures decreased from 15 million pairs in 1950 to 10 million pairs in 1959, that is one third of its total sales.
In 1950, imports were negligible but in 1959, imports of canvas shoes captured 70 per cent of the entire Canadian market, while that of rubber footwear accounted for 30 per cent of our market. This figure of 30 per cent represents a rapid gain of 11 per cent for 1958 and 1959 alone.
A major cause of concern is the fact that the breaking point for Canadian manufacturers is precisely between 30 per cent and 45


per cent. In other words our modern plants will no longer be able to meet their obligations unless we act promptly and efficiently on behalf of our manufacturers.
I would not want to deal at length with the textile industry, although that industry too has suffered heavy losses because of imports. The precarious situation of those Canadian plants has often been discussed in this house. However, may I point out that the Regent Knitting Mills Ltd., in my district, in St. Jerome, has been forced to discharge more than one third of its employees.
The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) have repeatedly told the house of the difficulties facing Canadian textile plants, especially in the province of Quebec.
I know that the government has taken certain steps to help this type of industry, but I must remind the Minister of Finance that the situation of the textile industry is still very precarious. I have it on good authority that for several years many owners of this type of industries have registered substantial annual deficits.
(Text):
I should like to comment on one of the branches of our industry which is also in need of our help, namely the hardwood plywood industry of Canada, which is faced with a similar problem. Here again I should like to give some figures which will throw some light on the situation and give information to hon. members.
I should like to emphasize the seriousness of the present situation. Statistics on imports and home production supply a clear picture of the imports of foreign plywood. We see that imports of Japanese plywood, which were under one million square feet in 1950, reached 50 million square feet in 1959. We can obtain an even better view of the situation if we realize that imports of hardwood plywood in the United States, which amounted to only 10 million square feet in 1951, had climbed up to 810 million square feet in 1959. I might add that these figures will be higher in 1960 compared with the few months of 1959 for which statistics are available. Such abnormal imports have already forced three plants to close their doors, and consequently have caused a loss of labour affecting many hundreds, if not thousands, of people.

Production of hardwood plywood in Canada is vital to our economy as this is a basic industry and I should like to think that all phases of the production of this material from the beginning to the end take place in Canada and are carried out by Canadians with Canadian materials. Everyone is aware, of course, that we are selling to Japan and other foreign countries more dollar value than we are buying from them. Let me point out that when we import from Japan, for instance, a country where the basic salary equals approximately one sixth of that in our country, we are thus importing six times more man-hours from that country than we are exporting. This means that for every single man-hour we export to Japan at the rate of a Canadian worker's salary, we are importing six man-hours from Japan in the form of the Japanese counterpart.
I could go on referring to more and more industries that are certainly facing the same problem, but no doubt the minister must know about them and intends to take drastic measures to protect our industries. But we must keep in mind that these measures must be taken now or very soon; otherwise we might find ourselves faced with the complete impossibility of coping with our industrial problems.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, the government also deserves credit for the legislation just adopted concerning loans to small businesses. I found with pleasure that those loans were available to the tourist industry which, according to me. ranks among the most important ones in Canada, and is, without any doubt, the most important one in my constituency.
I shall not elaborate this point as I propose to deal with it again on some future occasion.
Mr. Speaker, before resuming my seat, I merely wish to add that Canadian industries are not at all asking for undue restrictions on imports from abroad, far from it. All they want is a measure of protection and a fair share of sales in our country.
There should be quotas on certain of the goods we import, and those quotas should not exceed a fair percentage, so as to allow a reasonable amount of imports.
Our manufacturers are prepared to take their responsibilities, to increase the quality of their goods, to step up production, to cut down their costs and to face all difficulties 90205-6-924
The Budget-Mr. Clermont that might turn up. In short, they are prepared to face the present problems. What they ask for, however, is a minimum of business security, trusting in their skill and ability to face other dangers that might come up.
I have so much confidence in this government, in the know-how of our industrialists and businessmen that I know that if we can give them the least encouragement, that is all they will need to get over their present difficulties.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say how grateful I am over the decision of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) to change question No. 10 on the next census form.
The official opposition said that the government had to back track, and back down before the protests of certain ethnic groups in Canada. The members of the opposition are the only ones who think so. Newspapers throughout Canada, and particularly in the province of Quebec, far from looking upon this decision as a retreat, express great satisfaction about the changes made. I sincerely believe that the change in question No. 10 will do justice to all ethnic groups in this great country of ours.
I need not add that the Liberals who intended to make use of that anomaly in the census form for purely political purposes now feel crestfallen about it, and our opponents' old slogan "divide and rule" is now outdated and inapplicable.
The Conservative government has changed question 10 and, in so doing, strengthened national unity across Canada. All groups or organizations interested in the various cultural movements in our country are grateful to the Prime Minister and his government for having come up with a happy solution to this delicate problem.
I must add that the political football which our opponents intended to use against us is punctured. The only program they now have to offer the people of Canada are the contradictory resolutions adopted at the recent Liberal convention in Ottawa. After our fellow citizens have studied those resolutions and that program, I am sure they will be in a position to see the difference between the two large Canadian parties and that they will continue to give to the Prime Minister and this government the support and trust they deserve.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had the opportunity of

The Budget-Mr. Clermont expressing my appreciation to the Speaker tor his courtesy in welcoming me in this house, in November last. Therefore, at the beginning of my remarks, I should like to extend to him my most sincere thanks. I should like also to underline the ability and impartiatity which he has shown in the fulfilment of his presidential functions.
Since the debate on the speech from the throne has been cut down, at the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), who wanted the government to introduce as soon as possible all legislation which might improve the present unemployment situation, I take this first opportunity which is offered me to make a few remarks.
I should like to thank the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) for the kind words he had for me, in seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I congratulate the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) for her resounding victory of October 31 last, when she doubled the majority obtained by her predecessor in 1958. I wish her a long and fruitful political career.
My congratulations also to the hon. members for Royal and Peterborough (Messrs. Flemming and Pitman) who were elected at the same time as I, on October 31 last.
Mr. Speaker, among those members who preceded me as representatives of the constituency of Labelle in this house, there is one name which comes to my mind, and it is that of Henri Bourassa, who sat here as a Liberal from 1896 to 1906 and from 1925 to 1935 as an independent.
Imagine my surprise when I read in the newspapers, during the by-election in Labelle, that Conservative speakers had made wide use of his name in their speeches. As if Mr. Bourassa had been one of their partisans.
I wonder what Mr. Bourassa would have said today about the census questionnaire. Surely, like me, he would have been among those who opposed question No. 10. He surely would have opposed it, like the electors of my constituency, like the members of the legislative assembly of Quebec who voted unanimously against it, like the Montreal municipal administration, like the association of French language educators, like the St. Jean Baptiste societies, like the chambers of commerce, like the Franco-Ontarian farmers' union, like the school boards, and so forth,

who have asked this government to take the necessary steps to have removed from the questionnaire, in section 10, the words "Canadian" and "American," with reference to ethnic origin.
As you see, Mr. Speaker, the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) was wrong in claiming that the protests about the census were a balloon inflated by the Liberals. I would even go so far as to say that most groups that protested are independent, or possibly even supported this government in 1958.
Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday one hon. member opposite stated that this government had achieved wonders, and that he had great confidence in the future of this country. I share his optimism with regard to the future of Canada, but if we consider the results of the four last by-elections, I can assure you that the people of Canada have lost confidence in this government. Never in the history of this country has any government so rapidly lost the confidence of the people than has the present government. In proof of this I would refer you to the recent report of the Canadian institute of public opinion.
Mr. Speaker, in 1957 this government had more members elected than had any previous government. In 1958, it got 54 per cent of the popular vote. Now, the latest survey made by the institute shows that in less than three years such confidence has been reduced by 15 per cent.
In that short period of time the government managed to break all records in the field of deficits, unemployment, unfulfilled promises and it will soon break another record, that of unpopularity.
Mr. Speaker, during my election campaign of last October 31, six ministers of the crown and a great number of members supporting the present government came into my constituency to campaign in favour of the Conservative candidate. Among them were the Associate Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer), the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley), the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion), the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois), and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton). Other Conservative members also invaded the Labelle riding to extol the so-called achievements of the Conservative government and to make more promises, such as the construction of a television tower or satellite station at Mont Laurier.

In the early stage of the campaign, our opponents asserted that the work would start before election day, but since it had not started late in the campaign, they changed their minds and said it would be undertaken in the fall of 1960. A Mont Laurier newspaper which supported the Conservative candidate, went so far as to say how high the proposed tower would be.
In reply to a question of mine, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) stated in this house on January 18 that he was not even sure that a tower or satellite station would be built in 1961.
I hope that the minister will see that those promises made and not kept in 1960 will be carried out at least in 1961.
The people of Labelle, as well as throughout Canada, no longer believe the promises of the Conservatives. That is why the Conservatives suffered an overwhelming defeat in my riding.
In order to justify that defeat, the Conservatives made use of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and made him suggest that it was due to the intervention of the Quebec Liberal party. That is false.


Azellus Denis: But Mr. Jean Marie Beriault was there, indeed.


Gaston Clermont: Our friends opposite are trying to blame their bad administration on the Liberals, accusing them of leaving behind a sorry legacy.
They knew in 1957 and 1958, just as they do today that they would necessarily inherit this famous legacy they so often speak about if they ever acceded to power.
They should have then told the population that because of that legacy they would not be able to administer the affairs of the country as well as they would have liked to. They would have been more honest with the people if they had done so. But instead they said: "Everything is going wrong; vote for us and all will be right. No one will suffer".
Three years later the number of unemployed has doubled. What is their answer: "Blame it on the legacy".
Bankruptcies are increasing. Blame the legacy. The cost of living is rising. The legacy, again. Plants are folding up or are cutting down production. Once more, it is the legacy.
What have they done with this legacy? They have increased or doubled the liabilities and wasted the assets.
The Budget-Mr. Clermont
The Liberals had left them as a liability
197,000	unemployed. They have almost trebled this liability.
The Liberals had left them heirs to $900,000,000 of assets in the unemployment insurance fund. By next May, they will have reduced those assets to less than $100 million.
The Liberals had left them millions accumulated in successive annual surpluses. They succeeded in converting those assets into tremendous deficits.
Was the cost of living relatively high before? They have substantially increased this liability.
Interest rates which were normal under the Liberals have become prohibitive in the last three years.
Such uneasiness as existed in certain industries like the textiles, footwear and other industries has considerably increased.
The national debt is larger, and so are naturally, the interests we have to pay.
In this supplementary or baby budget, which is being discussed today, I find nothing which might, in the immediate future, help the farming, lumbering and tourist industries which are of special interest to the people of my riding; and I am sure that, in the other areas of the country, the budget was not found more satisfactory.
In proof of this, since I am not asking any one to take my word for it-I will quote newspaper opinions.
Contrary to the claims of the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny), as evidenced in Hansard for January 24, 1961, page 1362, I quote:
That budget, so carefully prepared was well received generally across the country, and the opinion of our fellow citizens was reflected in the many editorials we have read both in our daily newspapers and our weeklies and which, for the most part, commended the Minister of Finance.
English language newspapers reply: (Text):
The Calgary Herald, December 21, 1960,
states:
Its effects are to be long term, not immediate.
The Montreal Star, December 21, 1960, says:
To the average person's reaction a disappointment-so was corporation.
The Globe and Mail of December 22, 1960, stated:
-budget which itself is widely described as disappointing-
The Toronto Star of December 21, 1960, contains the following:
Budget ignores unemployed.

The Budget-Mr. H. E. Monteith
The Windsor Star, December 21,	1960,
page 2, reads:
To the ordinary individual it was just another Tuesday evening, as far as the baby budget of the Hon. Mr. Fleming was concerned.
(Translation):
I see in La Presse for December 22, 1960, an editorial entitled:
A stopgap budget.
This article reads as follows:
Mr. Fleming's biggest mistake is his failure to believe, last spring, in spite of warnings from all parts, that the unemployment situation was serious. If, at that moment he had taken the steps he is now announcing, the situation today would perhaps be better instead of worse.
(Text):
The following extracts appeared in newspapers across Canada, a resume of which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune, December 22, 1960.
The Ottawa Citizen states:
Canada's unemployed must be prepared to dig in for a long, tough winter.
The Vancouver Sun says:
Of immediate stimulation to the economy there is practically nothing.
Then the Victoria Times has this to say:
In his latest budget, Mr. Fleming attempts to cure three years of financial miscalculation.
The Toronto Star states:
Donald Fleming's supplementary budget may win a niche in history as the one which began to Canadianize our economy. But it does almost nothing about a more urgent matter-getting nearly 500,000 unemployed back to work.
The Toronto Globe and Mail says:
The essential problem of the Canadian economy remains-high prices caused by high costs, which are caused in large part by high taxes.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I could quote about ten other non-partisan opinions, all condemning the budget.
In conclusion, may I add that this budget offers so little in the way of new ideas, does so little to remedy the present crisis, that our hon. friends opposite have said almost nothing about it. They have wasted the time at their disposal on remarks about the Liberal rally which was so successful that it made them forget their baby budget.
That budget gives a true picture of the government with all its confusion and contradictions. It has, incidentally, contradicted the previous one, and it will probably be contradicted by the next.
(Text):


Mr. H. E. Monteith (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few humble remarks in connection with the budget. I also wish to compliment the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) for the excellent provisions he has

included in the budget. I will not go into detail as to the many acts which have been passed in this house to alleviate a situation which was well in the making before this government came into power. I shall only mention two acts which have been passed during this session which I believe will be of great interest to my constituents as well as to the nation at large.
We are living today in one of the wealthiest countries in the world and our big problem is how we are going to spread this wealth? We must all realize that this country is going through a great transition, from manual labour to automation, from one industry to another and from one district to another. Old industries are disappearing and new ones are cropping up. Old skills are losing ground while new skills are in great demand. While governments at all levels are doing much to ease the situation caused by these great changes which are taking place, I do believe that a great responsibility lies with the Canadian individual. When our ancestors settled in this country they had no social security, they had no unemployment insurance, no family allowances and no old age pensions. They had to create, build and plan for their own security.
The government through legislation, the scientist through research and the industrialist through venture are all putting opportunities before us every day. It is up to the individual to prepare himself for the challenge of this rapidly changing country. I personally believe that this government, through Bill No. C-49, an act respecting technical and vocational training, is putting before the Canadian youth an opportunity to avail itself of skills and trades which will fit them into the prevailing industries.
Also our older citizens who are unfortunate to be unemployed through changing times may now, while receiving their unemployment benefits, improve their present crafts or acquire others more in keeping with the requirements of the new industries. This act alone will do much for the present and future of Canada.
There is another bill which I should like to mention, an act respecting loans to small businesses. The small businessman who has invested his all in an enterprise now has the opportunity to expand and realize his ambitions. The small businessman has been the forgotten man for too many years. He was left on his own to sink or swim. Who knows but that this will be the beginning of many new and large industries.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, this is the concluding day of the debate on the baby budget and I think it can be said that the main question members can ask in

this debate is: Why all the fanfare; why all the build-up for a budget of so little substance and of so little significance to the Canadian nation?
In presenting his statement to the house the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) seemed almost totally unaware of the great national emergency that exists in the country at this time. He said at one time, against this background: How is Canada faring? On the whole it is faring well.
One of the first requirements of a government that would deal with an emergency is its ability to comprehend that an emergency in fact exists. Surely there should be no need for members of the opposition to bring forward evidence at this time that our country faces a grave national crisis, that our gross national product has remained almost stationary, that our country is failing to advance, that we are failing to meet the challenge from abroad, in an economic sense. The government has sat idly by while hundreds of thousands of Canadians face insecurity and inadequate incomes.
The recent figures show very widespread unemployment in the country. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) goes on television, and does he acknowledge the existence of this great emergency? Not at all. He says that in certain years under a former administration the statistics were even worse than they now are, and he apparently takes comfort from the fact that we are not yet quite as bad as we were in the 1930's.
The Minister of Finance, I noticed, in trying to alibi the unemployment situation, referred to immigration at one point. At another point he said that one of the main reasons why we have great difficulty in providing jobs is because there were so many babies born during the war years.
I am ashamed of a minister and a government that puts forward the excuse that there are too many Canadians coming of working age and the government is unable to do anything about providing work for our larger number of citizens. This is the lamest excuse that any government could possibly put forward as a reason why it is unable to deal with the situation today. The government says it arose back in the war years, there were too many babies in the early 1940's. There were too many for the Conservative party in 1961 to do anything about providing jobs and job opportunities for the people of this country.


Mr. Bell (Carlefon):: That is a fantastic distortion.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) has made a speech, and the Prime Minister is here. The Prime Minister
The Budget-Mr. Argue is to come on later. Somebody had better pull this government out of the hole it is in; somebody had better rescue the government in this debate. I am inclined to regard the Prime Minister would be as good as anyone in this endeavour, but even the right hon. gentleman will have the greatest difficulty rescuing the government from the facts of this great national emergency.
One of the reasons why the government is experiencing such difficulty now is that it believes wholeheartedly in the private enterprise system. This means allowing business to make the decisions while the government sits out in an irresponsible role. The fact of the matter is that the government has to play a role of leadership. The fact of the matter is that the government should bring forward at this time, in our judgment, a great national plan to deal with the many urgent requirements of the Canadian nation, requirements which if steps are taken to fulfil them would provide jobs for all Canadians.
There are many things which need to be done and which should be done at this time. Canadians need more homes. There should be a vast program of home building, a vast program of slum clearance instead of the halting, limping program adopted by the government which meant fewer starts instead of more starts in housing last year. Canadians need more schools and they need more hospitals. I think our citizens could use more automobiles. I think they could use all the automobiles that our factories could produce if they had jobs and incomes with which to buy those products. Go to any urban community in Canada and, I suggest, hon. members will find a community which needs more schools and more hospitals.
We need a vast system of modern roads in Canada and I suggest here is a place where the government should be playing a leading role at this time. As long ago as 1912 the United States initiated a great road building program which included transcontinental highways, interstate highways, main state highways and farm to market roads as well as roads over which school buses operate. Instead of having a vision in the field of road building, this government has carried on the one road policy of the former administration. The government has decided that nothing more is to be done until the trans-Canada highway is completed. I venture to suggest that Canada will celebrate its one hundredth anniversary without having so much as a single trans-Canada highway completed to adequate standards from one end of this country to the other.
Certainly, this forecast will prove justified unless we have a greatly changed policy in relation to highways and road building. Now

The Budget-Mr. Argue is the time when the government should say to the provinces: we are prepared to put federal money into a vast road network across this country which would include the trans-Canada highway, which would include roads running north and south, which would include farm to market and other important roads. Why does not the government go forward with a great plan of this kind to develop the Canadian nation and provide jobs for all our citizens?
Instead, the present administration has done a number of things which have been very worth while. We were glad to support them, but the things which have been done are patches; they are helpful, but they are just patches and patches will not be sufficient to arrest the upward trend in unemployment in our nation. I suggest the government should now deal with this national emergency as it was dealt with, in a monetary and financial sense, during the war.
I suggest that the government at this time would be fully justified in providing for an expansion of the money supply. The government should take steps at this time to bring interest rates down. Instead of the province of Newfoundland, as I saw in the paper a couple of days ago, putting forward a bond issue at an actual rate of 6.13 per cent, it should be made possible, through government action in this field, for such bond issues to be put out at a rate of less than 4 per cent. If a policy of lower interest rates were adopted in this country it would allow the provinces to go forward with a great program of expansion within their borders; it would enable municipalities to undertake necessary works programs which have been too long delayed. But as long as this government follows a policy of high interest rates and tight money national growth, national development will be choked.
The Minister of Finance sat on this side of the house for many years as the strongest critic of the high interest, tight money policy followed by the government in those days. Since he became Minister of Finance there has been a complete change; he has turned from an advocacy of low interest rates to a policy of the highest interest rates this country has seen for generations. I suggest that this has been a mistaken policy and that the mistake should now be corrected.
The money which is necessary in order to provide for a great program of national development could be obtained. It could be obtained by an increase in the money supply. It could be obtained by asking Canadians to invest in their country, to invest in government securities and put up some of the funds necessary for a great program of


national expansion. As far as possible, however, the government should follow a pay as you go policy in respect of an expansion program of this kind. I am saying that there has to be a measure of borrowing and an increase in the money supply, but full employment should be reached as quickly as possible and at that time, if not somewhat before, it should be a pay as you go policy.
I see the parliamentary secretary looking at me critically. If the hon. member would refer to some of the budget speeches which were made in the early part of the war I think he would see there an indication of the measures which a government should take in order to bring about full employment and a full production economy. I have in my hand the budget speech made by Mr. J. L. Ilsley on April 29, 1941, and I should like to quote two short paragraphs as follows:
In planning these policies, the government set for itself two objectives:
First, to bring the country as rapidly as possible to the full use of its resources and man-power. For this, financial policy could not be the sole nor even the chief instrument, but it was necessary that it should help and not hinder, that it should keep step with the work of industrial and military organization.
We do not want to have full use made of our economy for war, but we want a full production economy for peace in order to meet the needs of the Canadian people. I think if this nation could go forward with a full employment economy of the kind we were able to achieve during the war at a time when we had such a tremendous drain on our manpower we, the same nation, would today be able to deal in a sensible way with the problem of half a million unemployed at the present time.


An hon. Member:: We are.


Hazen Robert Argue: Somebody says: "We are." Every time they say "we are" the numbers on the unemployed rolls of this country increase. The quotation continues:
The government's second objective was to follow, as far as may be practicable, a pay as you go policy. This is derived not from any dogma of financial orthodoxy, whatever that may be, but from the known and proved inequities and the disorganizing and shattering effects of inflationary rises in prices and incomes.
Neither this nor any other government will be able to solve the present economic crisis unless it is prepared to take this kind of active leadership in our national economy. During the war it was necessary to bring about certain foreign exchange control. The government has tried to influence the value of the Canadian dollar. Greater emphasis is needed in the direction of reducing the value of the Canadian dollar and consequently increasing the prices of Canadian exports. All.

these things may lead to increased pressures. In an economy such as we have with an increasing control by large corporations this government should be prepared to take whatever steps are necessary to regulate the prices of the chief commodities produced here that are now controlled by monopolies or semimonopolies.
This broad attack by the government is in my judgment necessary for the functioning of democracy, to restore our economic health and to restore the self-respect of the Canadian nation among the community of nations of the world. In doing these things I do not suggest we should place all our emphasis on material matters. This government should consider some of the things that are of great cultural value. It should consider the creation of a ministry of culture and national objectives, a department which could give advice and leadership in the development of the arts and sciences, making it possible for Canadians to enjoy the benefit of this kind of cultural endeavour.
I have been endeavouring to put forward some of the things I feel the government should be doing at this time. Today the main estimates for this year were presented in this house. These show that the vision is a thing of the past, that the government has forgotten its many promises to the Canadian nation.
There is no indication in the suggested expenditures in the main estimates of any vast attack on unemployment or any of the programs necessary to bring about full employment to increase incomes in our country. That is not to say there are not significant figures. The high charge of public debt which was $680 million for the year 1959-60 and was up to $774 million for the year 1960-61 is down just $1 million in the estimates for the current year. This is an indication of the cost to the country of this government's high interest policy.
The measures I have suggested are in the opinion of this group necessary to deal with the economic crisis facing the Canadian nation today. These measures are not provided in the budget that is under discussion. However, there are certain things in the budget which should cause Canadians a great deal of concern. I have been disturbed by the proposals in the budget to increase the efficiency and speed with which the tariff board can deal with tariff questions, by the suggested changes in the Tariff Board Act which would give to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) arbitrary power and by the changed basis on which certain tariffs are levied.
Canadians have an ingrained suspicion that a Tory government is a high tariff government. This is more than an ingrained suspicion because contained in this budget are
The Budget-Mr. Argue proposals of this government to bring about the greatest orgy of tariff increases that this country has seen. In addition changes are proposed to give to the Minister of National Revenue arbitrary and far-reaching powers which should never be placed in the hands of a minister.
The Minister of Finance has made no bones about the need for the tariff board to expedite decisions in applications for tariff changes. The minister has gone so far in his proposals as to suggest the appointment of additional members so for all practical purposes the board will be split in two and sit in the form of two panels and instead of having one tariff board we will have two. The boards will be able to sit simultaneously and increase tariffs twice as rapidly as could one tariff board.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the hon. gentleman not wish the board to hear the application with respect to vegetable oils?


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member who interrupts may make his own position clear at a later time. I am presently making clear the position of this group. In the Customs Tariff resolution the following is set out:
(a)	in the case of goods other than goods custom-made to specifications, goods of approximately the same class or kind are made or produced in Canada;-
It further sets out:
(b)	in the case of goods custom-made to specifications adequate facilities exist in Canada for the economic production of such goods within a reasonable period of time.
The following is then set out:
(3) The decision of the minister shall be final with respect to the following matters:
(a)	the normal Canadian consumption of the goods described in subsection (2), and
(b)	whether goods are custom-made to specifications, and whether adequate facilities exist in Canada for the economic production of such goods within a reasonable period of time.
The minister will decide whether in his opinion 10 per cent of certain goods consumed in this country are produced in Canada, whether they are of a class or kind approximately the same class or kind as certain imports and whether adequate facilities for the economic production of such goods exist in Canada within a reasonable period of time.
We need to have not only a planned economy within our country with effective production and distribution at home but we also need planning in export markets and in international trade. No one suggests that this country should allow foreign countries to dump their goods here to displace Canadian workers who have been operating for many years in Canadian industry but we

The Budget-Mr. Argue suggest that the way to bring about an expansion and control of international trade is through export and import boards, through long term mutual agreements and not by the archaic method of increasing tariffs which will have the result of increasing production costs in Canada and instead of contributing to greater employment will bring about a larger measure of unemployment.
We need planning in our nation. We think enough jobs should be made available so that all our people will have an opportunity to work. In the days ahead as automation increases and production methods improve the Canadian work week should be materially reduced. Premier Khrushchev has made the boast that in his country the 30-hour work week will be a reality within a short time. As a nation we cannot achieve such a shorter work week unless in our judgment we have the necessary amount of planning to deal with all aspects of our economy, full production, full employment and a control of international trade.
This budget is an indication of the abject failure of this government to deal with the present national emergency. It suggests a failure by the government to bring forward an adequate national plan to provide full employment, full production and a reasonable distribution of our goods. I suggest to the minister, and I warn him, that he has taken the wrong course in embarking upon an outmoded high tariff policy that will spell ruin to the Canadian nation, to Canadian industries and to the Conservative party.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Utter rot.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: I should like to ask the hon. member a question. As leader of the C.C.F. party in this house, is he for free trade?


Hazen Robert Argue: 
Donald Methuen Fleming: Good-bye to the labour votes for the new party.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would suggest to the hon. member that we are waiting for the official reply of this government to the offer of Britain for a free trade area, and I tell my hon. friend also that we are going to be required as a nation to associate ourselves with a larger trading area, which will mean a reduction of tariffs and an increased market


for Canadian factories. The Tory party is following the assumption that 18 million people provide an adequate market for major Canadian industries. This is a fallacy. This government has failed the nation by failing to bring about a very major change in its trading policy.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: stone to union office has always been the C.C.F. party, and this is one reason why throughout the years I have often found it necessary to take exception with some of their representations. Yet here we have a bunch of Cape Breton miners who hope to place their faith in a man who has referred to coal as being obsolete.
As I was saying, it is not a true comparison to compare the situation in the Cape Breton coal fields with that in any other coal producing nation because these other nations are all exporting nations while in Canada the coal miners are engaged in the production of a product that cannot supply the Canadian demand. We could not supply our own domestic requirements if called upon to do so.
The situation we are faced with today is that Canadian miners are going to be sidetracked or whatever you wish to call it when the company sees fit to close collieries while at the same time this nation is importing far more coal than we produce. This is one reason why the situation in Canada cannot be compared with that in other coal producing countries which are faced with problems of an entirely different nature.
We in Nova Scotia are faced with the problem today that as a coal producing province we cannot market our production in our own country, and to me that does not add up to Canadian people supporting in every way goods produced in Canada. Probably I should not say it but it is true that if Nova Scotians and the people of the Atlantic provinces generally had the opportunity to deal with their American neighbours and were free to buy from them the lucrative market that we provide for Ontario cars would possibly not be available. We have a situation where we do not have the protection for the coal industry that we might desire. I am not suggesting for a moment that there should be anything in the way of a duty or quota placed on United States coal because this would be unfair.
If we were in a position to service the Ontario market fully we might have an argument for calling for further duties or controls over United States imports. This we cannot do, so all we are asking is that 10 per cent of the market in Ontario and Quebec be made available to the Nova Scotia miners in order that they may maintain their employment. As I pointed out, even if this 10 per cent were sold to the consumer at $2 or $3 more, it would not mean much to the individual. I am quite sure that Canadians across this country would be willing to accept something of this nature if, in turn, the miners would be provided with employment.
In closing these remarks, I must say that I have to take exception to the attitude of

Dosco. I feel their attitude is not the answer. I do not believe the effort has been put forward that should have been put forward to sell this coal. I believe Dosco has been lax in its sales promotion and its investigation of possible markets. I am not in a position now to mention some confidential information I have received which would have a bearing upon this problem. However, I believe there is every reason why the Cape Breton mines should be kept operating. In fact, the information I have even goes so far as to indicate the possibility of reopening closed mines and the further possibility of new openings. I do not believe that by mentioning this I have betrayed any confidence.
As I say, this confidential information would indicate that a large market for coal is about to open in the near future. However, the immediate answer would seem to be making a percentage of the Ontario and Quebec markets available. I believe that if it could be brought to the attention of the people of these provinces that with a slight expenditure they could help the Cape Breton miners they would be agreeable.
I do take exception to the fact also that Dosco has adopted the attitude that they do not want further federal aid to keep the mines operating. We all realize that the assistance given by the federal government in the last three or four years has been tremendous, in fact far beyond anything done by the Liberal opposition who today, in order to try to promote the idea they are supporters of the miners, pose what they consider to be embarrassing questions. I cannot understand the attitude of Dosco because they are already leaning on the federal government in so far as many of their operations are concerned. They are receiving considerable assistance in connection with steel. They receive considerable assistance, too, in connection with their shipyards. Dosco has maintained they lost $2 million last year and, because of this, the mines have to be closed.
During the last coal conference I put forward the idea that the coal from the Caledonia colliery, the one which is to be closed on May 30, could be treated as separate commodity and sold at 57 cents a ton cheaper. This would be an incentive to the buyers in Nova Scotia and eastern Ontario to purchase this coal. These consumers have put forward the idea that they would take coal of a lesser quality providing the conditions were right. When they speak of "lesser quality" of conditions it adds up to one thing only, and that is price. If it is possible to keep No. 4 colliery operation by setting up this coal as a separate commodity and selling it at 57 cents a ton cheaper I believe this would provide an incentive to the consumer and also further
The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis the development of the west side of this colliery. This side of the colliery will provide quality coal to which they will have no objection.
In making his representations on behalf of this company, Mr. Fairley maintained there had never been any excessive development work on the west side. The miners in that colliery inform me that the development of the west side has reached a stage where it is 85 per cent completed, and with very little effort they could be into this very good coal. The mine could be operated on a single shift basis. I appeal to Ontario and Quebec for this help, and I think it is not too late yet to bring about some solution to the problem. While Mr. Fairley indicates there has been no development work going on in this colliery the Cape Breton Post carried a release from Dosco which seemed to be an ultimatum-perhaps that is too strong a word-a directive to the management of this Colliery to complete this development work within nine months.
I am in a unique position because the leaders of the union at home do not see eye to eye with me politically. At times they take advantage of this situation to provoke political discussion and get political propaganda directed against me. As I say, my position is unique because I must do everything I can, to the best of my ability, on behalf of these miners. At the same time I am faced with the problem of denying some of the company's claims when they are advocating closure. In addition, I have to appear with the representatives of the company and the union when they appeal to the government for further aid.
I am placed in an even more embarrassing position when one leader of the union, namely the vice president, Steve Dolhanty

I do not want any mistakes about the spelling this time-praises the government at every opportunity when federal or provincial members are present. In fact, in answer to a criticism of me in a newspaper following a statement I had made he said he hoped I was not voicing government policy because the union got along very well with both federal and provincial governments. "They have been very good to us." Yet this very man when he appears before a local union will take it upon himself to tear apart the provincial government and the federal government. He will make statements to the effect that the million dollar hand-outs by the federal government are no answer to the problem. On the other hand, this very man will come to Ottawa, appear before the government and ask for this very thing in order to continue mine operations. What is my position? Do these

The Budget-Mr. Michaud supporters of the C.C.F. party think for one moment I am going to stand by-


An hon. Member:: That is two-faced.


Mr. Madnnis:: -and allow this type of sniping to continue? Somebody mentions "two-faced". Well, in another assembly I would use much stronger words. I have used much stronger words in referring to this same man. I do not intend at any time to stand back and watch this type of thing continue while I, along with other representatives from Nova Scotia, am doing everything possible to promote the welfare of the miners in Nova Scotia. At the same time I appear with these people to make such representations to the government as they care to make. This man goes home and tells the people, through the press or at meetings, that the millions of dollars handed out by the federal government are not the answer, yet that is the very thing federal representatives from Nova Scotia, provincial members and executives of the union have requested from this government and the very thing this government has provided.
I should like to ask the hon. member for Essex East and other interested members to go before their constituents and inform them that for less than a dollar a year each they can save the miners in Nova Scotia.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I leave the chair, may I ask the hon. member if he has completed his remarks?


Malcolm MacInnis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, as the first member from New Brunswick to speak from this side of the house in the budget debate I should like to offer my congratulations to the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Flemming) on his appointment to the cabinet and election to this house. The people of New Brunswick will expect him here in Ottawa to put forward with the same vigour the claims of the maritime provinces about which he spoke so frequently in his previous position.
It is with a certain amount of amazement that I have noticed in the course of this debate the great interest that all members on the government side of the house have expressed in the Liberal rally which took place here in Ottawa a few days ago. In his contribution to this matter before the supper hour the hon. member for Cape Breton South


(Mr. Maclnnis), like the rest of the government members who spoke on this matter, seemed to be obsessed with the success of that rally.
Obviously the hon. member could not have been reading the extensive reports on that rally given by the Halifax Chronicle-Herald during that time, or he would have found out for himself that the Atlantic provinces did receive a great deal of attention during the rally. He would have seen that we had a special committee on that special subject and that recommendations were made at that time in reference to highways, capital grants, the coal situation and the Chignecto canal.
If all those recommendations had been acted upon by the present government before this time we would now be in a happier situation in the maritimes and the people would not be as short of work as they are. Of course, we on this side of the house are very grateful for this publicity given to a very successful rally which at the time was hailed by every medium of publicity in the country. This conduct on the part of government members is but a sequence to a previous attempt made to dampen the interest aroused by that event. Indeed, we had all noticed with what a flourish a host of cabinet ministers scattered all over the country and strived to divert the attention of the Canadian people during the days that rally was held.
There is one evident conclusion to be drawn from these aroused feelings of the government members and ministers. If only they would show the same eagerness and spend the same amount of time trying to find a solution to the many pressing problems which now exist in the country, such as the grave unemployment problem, for instance, as they did trying to belittle that rally, they might well avoid some of the wrath which is mounting against this government at the present time.
The debate which is now under way deals with the supplementary budget presented to the house by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) on December 20 last. Some of the measures contained in this budget have been described as good in as much as they are designed to solve the alarming unemployment situation which now exists. But these good measures are all long term measures and are in no way designed to bring any immediate relief to this problem. This leaves one to wonder, therefore, what are the immediate views of the government on this matter of general unemployment.
Of course we know that the government dislikes to be reminded that such a situation exists. Ever since they assumed office, at which time unemployment started to increase,

until the present time government members have steadfastly maintained that there was hardly any unemployment at all in the country. When we remind them of the seriousness of the situation we are charged with what has now become a commonplace phrase, of being prophets of doom and gloom, though everything we have said is mild and factual, unlike the extravagant statements made by the present Minister of Finance in 1955 when only half as many Canadians were unemployed and when that unemployment was purely seasonal.
But recently there has been some sort of a new turn in the views of the leaders of the government with respect to this matter. Until recent date we were told there was no unemployment problem, that it was just an economic pause, and that the existence of a severe crisis was just a figment of the imagination of the opposition members. However, in a national telecast last week the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) finally admitted that there really existed an economic recession, but then he hastened to add that this recession was still due to the mismanagement of the Liberals prior to the advent of the present government in 1957.
If it has taken the government over three years to discover that there really was a serious problem, of course we should not reasonably expect that a solution will be found too readily. Haste, decision and readiness we know are not characteristics of the present government; so let us be patient, for we have the assurance from the Prime Minister himself that as long as he is Prime Minister of this country no one will suffer from unemployment.
In the meantime, in spite of these solemn assurances unemployment is mounting and people are suffering. In my own province of New Brunswick we are faced with a number of unemployed proportionally at least twice as high as in the province of Ontario. It is estimated that in some sections of the province at least 20 per cent of our labour force is unemployed at the present time, while our average per capita income is only two thirds of the national average and not much more than half of that of the wealthier provinces.
Small wonder if our people are leaving by the thousands every year in quest of employment in another land, a startling paradox in our immigration policy. But these are all matters which we must not mention lest we be accused of being unpatriotic to our country, of rendering a disservice to our country, of selling our country short, yes, of being prophets of doom and gloom. What a sham
The Budget-Mr. Michaud performance by a government wishing to conceal its own inefficiency and its complete bankruptcy of ideas.
Personally, I feel that I have received a mandate from the people I represent in this house. This mandate calls for me to voice fearlessly at all times the needs and requirements of these people. This I have always endeavoured to do in the past, and will always endeavour to do as long as I am entrusted with that responsibility. No amount of chiding on the part of the government will ever silence me or ever induce me to retreat from what I believe it is my duty to perform.
I state now that there exist in the riding I represent, as well as in other parts of New Brunswick, certain conditions which are intolerable in a country as full of resources as ours; and I further state that such conditions are an indictment of the government which allows them to continue. The people of my county and of my province deserve better, as a birthright, than the privilege, for a large number of them, of taking the road of expatriation as soon as they attain working age. I was told that last year over 50 people from one parish of some 200 families alone reluctantly had to leave for the United States of America to seek work. This is the pattern in every other parish of my county as well as in many other parts of the province.
I emphasize that this is an intolerable situation and I entreat the government to pay heed to it before it assumes still more serious proportions. The only thing I am asking for these people is an opportunity for them to get work and earn an honest living in the country in which they were born, in which they live, and, what is much more important, in which they wish to remain. They have an inherent right as good honest God-fearing citizens to ask that of the government of their country.
With respect to the economic problems in the province of New Brunswick I should like at this time to make some remarks in line with the recommendations and observations made by the premier of the province, the Hon. Louis Robichaud, at the dominion-provincial conference in July last. After reminding the conference that the province of New Brunswick was one of the original partners in the Canadian confederation, Premier Robichaud stated that when we united with Nova Scotia and the then province of Canada to form a new dominion in 1867 we did so with great expectations. Indeed, when we agreed to the confederation pact in 1867 we earnestly expected that at all times through the years of the development of this new country our economic growth would at least keep abreast of the growth of the other partner provinces.

The Budget-Mr. Michaud
This expectation, unfortunately, did not materialize and the maritime provinces as a whole are lagging far behind most of the other provinces in economic growth and economic expansion. This situation, we submit, is not conducive to national unity, and to national welfare. In his opening remarks at the federal-provincial conference of November 1957, the Prime Minister said the following:
We believe that this federation cannot thrive in a climate of glaring disparities in levels and standards of service and development as between the several provinces from Newfoundland to British Columbia.
This is a common belief everywhere in the Atlantic provinces. We also submit that the lack of economic and industrial development compared with the rest of the country is responsible, in the Atlantic provinces, for an unduly large proportion of our people engaging in marginal or submarginal activities. We believe that if the standard of living of our people is to be raised to the national standard the government of Canada must co-operate with the provincial governments of the Atlantic provinces in creating a climate which will provide an incentive for the growth of manufacturing industry.
In what way can the federal government co-operate with the government of New Brunswick and other Atlantic provinces to bring about these desirable incentives for the development of these provinces? First of all, we must stress the importance of having a more flexible monetary policy for our provinces. We have heard a lot about this matter in the course of the last two federal elections. It was then called the tight money policy. It formed a part of the famous Atlantic resolutions about which we heard so much at that time and about which we have heard so little since. Well, tight money is still with us in New Brunswick and in the other Atlantic provinces, and its paralysing effects are painfully borne by the provincial and municipal governments and by all areas of industrial activity. Special policies should be enacted which would render possible borrowing on easier terms and at lower rates by all these corporate bodies and by all levels of governments if we want to attain the objective of an expanding economy in the Atlantic provinces.
Besides the ability to borrow at lower rates we also need incentives in the form of tax concessions to promote the industrial development of our provinces. A capital project development fund, such as recommended by the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, is also pertinent to our economic and industrial growth. This commission recommended that the federal government agree


to contribute a substantial sum for capital projects in the Atlantic area to be spread over a relatively short period of years. The purpose would be to cover the costs of necessary capital investments some or all of which would normally be the responsibility of the provincial government.
In the field of transportation, we in the Atlantic region continue to stress the necessity of the Chignecto canal project as a national extension of the St. Lawrence seaway. Without it the impact of the seaway on the maritime region may well be adverse. Now that the federal government has the benefit of the views of the new Minister of Forestry, who always was such a strong promoter of this project, perhaps we can look with greater confidence to its early commencement.
Adequate federal-provincial fiscal arrangements are also vital to the welfare of New Brunswick's economy. A few statistics for the enlightenment of the subject might well be useful at this time. From 1950 to 1959 provincial government costs in New Brunswick showed an increase of $39 million while receipts from the federal government rose by only $20 million. The difference was met by the New Brunswick taxpayer. In the same period of ten years municipal expenditures, excluding school board expenditures, rose from $17 million to $38.6 million, another increase of more than $21 million added to the tax burden. I have stated that the costs of construction, maintenance and operation of our schools were not included in the above figures. These costs, of course, also increase the tax burden.
In the light of the number of people we have in New Brunswick with a population in the vicinity of 600,000 who are called upon to bear a tax burden of such abnormal proportions, the above figures are nothing less than staggering particularly when we know that New Brunswick's per capita personal income is $967 compared with a per capita personal income of $1,767 in Ontario. Having regard to the burden of provincial and municipal taxation in New Brunswick, neither the province nor the municipalities are in a position to increase taxation to meet the growing requirements of our people.
We submit that the government of Canada must face this fact in the light of a situation in which the brunt of increased governmental expenditures is falling on the provinces and municipalities. It should be pointed out that to the degree that the province of New Brunswick receives a larger

share under the federal-provincial tax-sharing arrangement the municipalities will benefit in that they receive approximately one sixth of the provincial revenues from this source.
For these and the other reasons I have mentioned I submit with respect that the federal government should lend adequate assistance to permit resolving the many serious economic problems besetting the people of the province of New Brunswick. We in New Brunswick do not like our position of poorer citizens of the nation. We demand the opportunity to raise ourselves in self-respect to the levels and standards of common national acceptance.
May I conclude with a piece of friendly advice inspired by the reminiscence of an event which happened in New Brunswick on June 27 last. On that day the fate of the provincial government was staked on the faith of its close and friendly relationship with the present federal government. The rest is history. Unless this federal government is ready to deal with the plight of the Atlantic provinces at the present time the grave forebodings now hovering over the blue Atlantic skies are threatening to engulf its existence with the woes of devastation and oblivion, come the day of the great reckoning.


Mr. W. F. Matthews (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, some of the hon. members of the opposition tonight must have a hangover from the recent convention. When I came into the chamber I noticed three of them sitting in the treasury benches.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How many cabinet ministers did you see there?


Thomas Miller Bell: One sure thing is that hon. gentlemen opposite will never be on this side under any other circumstances.


Walter Franklyn Matthews: I suppose those hon. gentlemen were sitting there dreaming out loud. It reminded me of the story I read in school years ago when I was a boy about the dog running across the bridge carrying in its mouth a small bone which it could handle. The dog made the mistake of examining his reflection in the water where he saw another dog with an even bigger bone.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming).


Walter Franklyn Matthews: The dog jumped in to try to get the larger bone and consequently lost the bone he had been able to handle. No doubt that is what those three hon. gentlemen were dreaming about as they were sitting in the treasury benches.
The Budget-Mr. Matthews
I am pleased at having this opportunity to rise in this house to speak in the budget debate. I should first like to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) for the wonderful job he is doing for Canada. His great ability has been singularly evident to all since he accepted this difficult and important office. The work of this government has appealed to the majority of Canadians. It seems to me that businessmen everywhere are grateful because this government is doing something that should have been done years ago for the good of all Canadians.
Without doubt we have had some fine contributions from hon. members in this debate. Some hon. members read their speeches in full, some refer to notes and still others refer to newspaper clippings. I am reminded of the remark made by Will Rogers many years ago. He said, "All that I know is what I read in the newspapers." I do not believe this was true of Mr. Rogers but it certainly appears to be true of some hon. members of the opposition.
Some hon. members opposite made up their minds some time back that they would not like this budget. No matter what they may think about it, they certainly made up their minds that they would not say anything good about it. That appears to be what has taken place.
I see good in the budget, just as I see good in the future of all Canadians. Whenever I hear anyone knocking a program or a sincere effort to do a good job I personally like to check and search for the truth. The truth is that this baby budget has been well received by most of the people of Canada. With the exception of some hon. members of the opposition to whom I have listened I have not personally heard one person say that he did not like it. It has given new hope to many businessmen in Canada. With respect to hon. members of the opposition who criticize the budget I can only say that they have an axe to grind.
Certainly prospects look good for Canada in 1961. We are very sure in my constituency that 1961 will be a very good year and 1962 even better. However we have to make sure that all Canadians are properly informed of the facts and I am sure that will be done by this government. Every effort is being made at the present time to give the Canadian people the real truth about what is going on in their parliament. I am very glad to note that there is a much more cheerful attitude among Canadians at this time. I believe that the work the Conservative government is doing is in large part responsible for that

The Budget-Mr. Matthews change. This bears out the fact that conditions are not as bad as some very poor painters have been trying to paint them for some time now.
During its long term of office the Liberal party failed the people of Canada by not building for the future. They were so busy building up a large surplus-no one will ever know why-that they caused a slump in Canada, the slump through which we have just passed. They now have the nerve to ask where this surplus has gone. Everyone knows where it has gone; at least every right-thinking person knows.
There is apparently no cure for unemployment. Even the Liberal party could not cure it in the 20-odd years in which they were in power nor did they make any attempt to prevent it. Now is the time for the government to make a full study of the subject and educate Canadians concerning how to train young people starting out on their first jobs.
I ask that this government also review the amounts that are paid to our senior citizens and to carefully check and revise war veterans pensions. The Canadian Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act should be revised to make possible payments comparable with the increased cost of living. All hon. members know that all the people affected by this legislation are entitled to every consideration. When one checks the records and sees how very little the previous government did for our senior citizens and veterans during the 20-odd years of their stewardship when the government had the large surplus about which hon. members of the opposition now brag one wonders how hon. gentlemen opposite could have the nerve to ever ask these people for their support.
I was surprised when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) spoke on the budget to hear him make the statement that half a million people in this country have no means to live on at all except unemployment insurance. That statement is not true; it is very misleading and I was disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition would ever make such an untrue statement. It must have been made to confuse and discourage the people of Canada.
A manager of an unemployment office in the west to whom I was talking a few weeks ago told me that of the people listed in his office as unemployed about 1,000 were not unemployed and certainly should not be classed as unemployed, and yet these are figures that the members of the opposition are using. Some of them were listed for better jobs, some were people who could not work, some were loggers who were off for Christmas,


some were fishermen who were off because their fishing season had closed down. The statement of the Leader of the Opposition that the unemployed have nothing to live on except unemployment insurance is not a statement that a thinking man would make. I would say right now I am sure the Leader of the Opposition, when he considers the matter, will acknowledge that it is a poor statement to make.
Some of the half million are wives whose husbands are earning good wages, and yet this man rises in his place in the House of Commons and says that the only thing the unemployed have to live on is their unemployment insurance. Some of the men are from the forest industry which closes down for Christmas, loggers who have worked most of the year, and the loggers in British Columbia make very good money. They are good workmen; they are worthy of their hire; some of them are on piecework. They are all really good workers. It is quite surprising the amount of money they can make during the season, and yet the Leader of the Opposition says that they have nothing to live on except their unemployment insurance. Some of the commercial fishermen are businessmen with boats worth thousands of dollars, and yet the Leader of the Opposition says they have nothing to live on except unemployment insurance.
This statement of the Leader of the Opposition serves only to discourage the people of Canada. We can well imagine the effect that this program of regain power by fear has on the unemployed. Some unemployed Canadians with families to support regain new strength and faith to try again. He rises in the morning, determined to go and seek employment. At breakfast time he hears the radio blast forth the dire predictions of the Leader of the Opposition. He sees the sombre face of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) glaring at him from the page of his newspaper, and then reads the message of gloom about the number of people out of work that the hon. member has uttered at some meeting the night before, numbers that have been stretched. I think the people of Canada have had enough of this type of politics.
This is 1961. Let us start an up-to-date, cheerful and helpful approach to the problems of our country. The opposition have time and again tried to make Canada's unemployed into a weapon to defeat the government. It is a shame that any group should use such a subject to harm Canada's wonderful future.
We have weather reports in our newspapers and on our radio and television every day.

These reports are as true a picture as the weather department can make them. They never tell us that there is a storm if there is no storm. To make sure that the opposition does not use the unemployed numbers game, which is just as dishonest as the numbers racket used by the Chicago gangsters, I would suggest that a weather chart type of report be set up for the unemployed. This chart would show how many are out of work because of seasonal shutdowns, how many are out of work because they are not able to hold a job, how many are working but are just listed for employment in a better position.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the Liberal opposition for the amusing aspect of the four-ring circus held recently. Most of the things that came out of that effort came strictly under the heading of comedy, and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) should collect amusement tax on it. Even over television it was apparent that it was a four-ring circus. One ring was at the Chateau; one ring was at the Coliseum and the other two rings circled the eyes of the Leader of the Opposition when the other mike would not work.
All hon. members will recall the good old days of the circus. They will remember the circus barkers who were always a drawing card with their exaggerated appraisals of the junk they tried to sell, but sold only to the unwary. We all remember those barkers and how they operated. Hon. members will recall how they dressed. They had a hard hat or Christy stiff. They worked in their shirt sleeves; they wore arm bands with bow ties to match. I can even remember the pitch they made. Step up, ladies and gentlemen; I have something that should be in every home; it will cost you only 50 cents, folks, half a dollar. Watch carefully; I will show you how this handy can opener works. It works on square cans as well as on the round ones. Do you know what I am going to do? I am going to give the first ten purchasers a roll of bandages and a bottle of iodine absolutely free with each and every can opener; a free bonus for you, folks. You say you are not satisfied; you say you want more for your money? Step up closer, folks, I have hardly started. Do you know what I am going to do? I am going to throw in one of those combination fly swatter and potato masher, all for 50 cents, folks.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the handsome ringmaster makes his announcement: Now, ladies and gentlemen, cast your eyes to the centre of the ring and you will see one of the wonders of the age, you will see the India rubber man of Essex East. Toss in a one and he will stretch it to ten. Toss in a 20 and he will stretch it to 90. Toss him 1,000
The Budget-Mr. Bourget and he will stretch it to 2,000. Give him an inch, and he will stretch it a mile. You have found this out, Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions.
The spotlight is now on the Bonavista magician, who will give a stellar and spectacular act of magic. He will draw an egg out of a hat. We do not say what kind of egg; it may be good, it may be bad, it may be only part bad; it may be a round egg, it may be a square egg; but, ladies and gentlemen, it will be an egg. There you are ladies and gentlemen, the trick has been done. Right before your very eyes, the Bonavista magician has removed his hat.
The barker of the Liberal party now talks like the circus barkers of old, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen we will give you absolutely free, at no cost, folks, free health care, free education at all levels, higher old age pensions, reduced taxes, lower tariffs at no cost to you, with the taxpayer's money. At the circus, Mr. Speaker, you pay your money and you take your chance. With the Liberal government you certainly pay your money and you certainly take your chance. (Translation):


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to follow the example of the hon. member who has just sat down, because I believe that, as a member of parliament we should show more responsibility when speaking in this house. I do not know whether I understood his words very well, but I seemed to hear him speak of "yappers". Now, if there has been any "yapping" done it has been done by the ministers or by certain Conservative members themselves, at the time of the rally which took place on the ninth, tenth and eleventh of January last, when they roamed about the country trying to steal the publicity in the press from us by repeating the same speeches over and over again.


Lionel Chevrier: And the same nonsense.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, in rising tonight to take part in this discussion, I do not propose to deal with the various measures suggested last month by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in his budget speech, or rather I should say with the absence of measures which characterized that speech.
I believe that the various Liberal members who took part in this debate have clearly and effectively pointed out the weak points in the present administration.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity of tonight's discussion to draw the attention of the government, and particularly that of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer), to two questions. I am sorry that the

The Budget-Mr. Bourget Minister of Transport should be absent at this time, because the matters I want to deal with come under his department.
The first question is of primary significance for some districts in the province of Quebec and also for a number of C.N.R. employees.
I know that the government-and more particularly the Minister of Transport-is aware that a policy of administrative readjustment was announced last summer by the president of the Canadian National Railways. The object was the decentralization of authority and the introduction of more modern methods of administration.
It is well known that the national railway network is now divided into five regions, i.e. the Atlantic region, the St. Lawrence region, the great lakes region, the western region and the mountain region.
As a result of that innovation, the Atlantic region extends westward as far as Riviere du Loup, on the former Intercolonial Railway route, and up to Chamy, in the riding of Levis on the route of the former transcontinental railway. That region with a main office in Moncton, New Brunswick, also includes the whole Newfoundland network. Divisional offices are located at St. John, Newfoundland, at Campbellton and at Moncton.
Since those changes were announced and even before representations were made to the management of the national railways by various municipal councils and public bodies, more particularly those located in the part of the province of Quebec which is now included in the new region.
Mr. Speaker, I myself, on various occasions, had the privilege of discussing the matter verbally, and even subsequently in writing, with the relevant authorities, and, to my mind, the representations made by those public bodies and others concerned were based on fairness and common sense.
The government will admit, as I do, that there is a greater chance of reaching a maximum of efficiency if the officials of the C.N.R. come to terms with people who have the same traditions, are ruled by the same laws and speak the same language. As things now stand, one can easily realize the difficulties that confront the various ethnic groups of this area, and I want to state now that I would not blame or criticize in any way the officials or the employees of that region, because I am sure they try to give the best possible services to the customers and to the population of their district.

However, it can logically be claimed that there is a risk that the part of the province of Quebec which is situated in that region, may not be served adequately in the matter of industrial development. Since the management is located in another province, it can be reasonably expected that disputes will arise which, in the final analysis, will not serve the best economic interests of our railways and of the regions concerned.
In fact, how can we hope that the rural population of the area I just referred to will quickly settle the many problems of its own jurisdiction, such as the matters of drainage, of railway crossings, culverts and so on?
As recently as two months ago, I personally had the opportunity of ascertaining that fact. The Quebec department of highways having decided to widen a road in a certain parish of my constituency, the C.N.R. consequently had to widen their right of way at the point where their two lines crossed that road. One of those railway lines was under the supervision of the Quebec division and the other under that of the Edmundston division, Atlantic region. The work on the line under the Quebec district was performed quickly and at little cost, while it took much longer, many phone calls and much correspondence to have the work done on the line under the Edmundston division, and this at higher cost.
This is an example, among many others, of a situation which certainly did not improve the relations that must exist between our population and the Canadian National Railways.
Mr. Speaker, I might add that there are also difficulties and disadvantages for the employees who have to go to work far from their homes. I know that, because of their duties, English-speaking employees as well as French-speaking ones, are regularly called to work in regions where the language spoken is different from their own. I need not add that this situation quite often causes regrettable problems.
At the beginning of my remarks I said that the system is now divided in five regions instead of the former three. Of all those new regions, the only one which apparently has been enlarged those last few years is the Atlantic region, as a result of the addition, in 1949, of the Newfoundland system and, today, of the Armagh division which formerly was in the central region.
For all those reasons, I believe that the western dividing line of the Atlantic region

should be changed so that this area of the province of Quebec, which now is in that region, may be made a part of the new St. Lawrence region by keeping its divisional office in Levis, and, if necessary, establishing another office in Riviere du Loup, Ri-mouski or Mont-Joli.
So, I ask the Minister of Transport-once again I am sorry not to see him here-to make direct representations to the management of the Canadian National Railways to have those changes made, and I can assure him even now that he has the unanimous support of all the people concerned.
I would also like to raise, Mr. Speaker,- (Text):


Mr. Creaghan:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question before leaving this point.


Maurice Bourget: Certainly.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: I am sure the hon. member is well aware of the fact that Moncton is, and has been, the Atlantic regional office and, since the days of the Intercolonial Railway, the rail centre of the east, and when you consider that fact and also that the north shore of New Brunswick and the east coast of New Brunswick is today populated by about 50 per cent French speaking people, you will realize that the railway management decision to establish the regional office in Moncton is a good one.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will have occasion to read my remarks. I do not know if he understood them because I was speaking in French. However, I hope he will read the reasons why this part of the province of Quebec, which is now part of the Atlantic region, should have been put into the new St. Lawrence region that has been created. I stated at the same time that we have no complaint to make about the administration given by the officers of this region. I just mentioned the fact it would certainly be easier if that part of Quebec comprising the area from Matapedia to Gaspe and from Riviere du Loup to Matapedia were part of the new St. Lawrence division.
My hon. friend knows, as I have stated previously, that the Atlantic region was extended in 1949 by the addition of the system located in Newfoundland. I would not say that I have discussed this with officials of the Canadian National, but I think the official of the Canadian National located in Moncton will tell my hon. friend that their region is now a little too large for effective administration.
The Budget-Mr. Bourget (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring up another point which has to do with the C.N.R., more particularly with their employees. I very often have the opportunity to meet some of them, as several of them live in my own constituency. During those conversations, I found out that many of them-and I presume that this experience of mine is similar to that of several of my colleagues on both sides of this house, in various circumstances, because I readily believe that conditions are the same in my area as they are elsewhere-at any rate, as I was saying, I had the opportunity of talking with several of those employees and I found in my conversations with them that, at the present time, they are fearful and feel insecure on account of the many lay-offs taking place in recent years in the company. In fact, if my information is correct in this regard, I believe that in these last few years an average of 4,000 to 5,000 railway employees have been laid off each year. I feel that in such circumstances, we cannot expect the morale of those people to be high, when they see their colleagues with 20, 25 or even more years of service lose their jobs. They are afraid, and rightly so, that the same thing will happen to them sooner or later.
If I raise that matter, it is because, in my opinion, those employees form a separate category, in the sense that they have more difficulty than others in finding new jobs when they are laid off.
In fact, they fulfill the same functions for years, functions which, in general, are particular to the railways. So it is rather difficult for them to find jobs in other industries that could be in need of their services.
Furthermore, most of them having reached or passed 40 years of age, that is an additional handicap in the process of finding new jobs.
In my humble opinion, three main reasons seem to be at the basis of those lay-offs. The first one is the reorganization and centrali-ization of services; the second is the result of new technical developments, the introduction of diesel engines and automation. The third one is due to the practice, which the Canadian National Railways has been following for the last few years, of having some works carried out by other companies.
As for the first reason, it seems to me that any reorganization should be done in accordance with a well considered plan, spread

The Budget-Mr. Bourget over a sufficiently long period, which would make it possible to foresee necessary lay-offs.
With those facts on hand, a special committee could be set up to find ways and means of re-educating the employees concerned, so that they may adapt themselves to other available jobs resulting from the changes that will have come about.
Now, let's consider the second reason. There is no doubt that the introduction of new developments and of automation has resulted in equal productivity with a smaller number of employees.
I wonder if, in that case, it would not be appropriate to set up a system whereby the employees would devote a few days each month to the taking of theoretical and practical courses, in order to improve their general culture and knowledge of their respective trades. The workers could thus become more efficient and insure at the same time an increased production.
Of course those workers should, in that case, get the same salary, plus the benefits I have just mentioned. Such a system would also improve the employment situation. Perhaps it will be felt that it would involve additional expenses. Even if that were the case, I am sure that it would bring about appreciable dividends in the long run and that it would help provide a highly qualified labour force.
About the third reason, I believe the Canadian National Railways should entrust to its own employees a good part of the works which are now entrusted to private enterprise, unless it is a case of specialized works.
Our national railways, in particular, now has engineers, architects, and employees, who have a vast experience in all fields of construction, and I have no doubt that they could carry out those works as well, and at a cost that would be as advantageous as private companies. In that way, the laying off of many employees could be avoided.
Without entering into further details, those are, Mr. Speaker, the few suggestions I wanted to make to the government, and particularly to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) in connection with the Canadian National Railways and its employees.
If the Minister of Transport feels they can be useful, I hope he will not hesitate to discuss them with the officials concerned.
[Mr. Bourget.1
Let me now briefly refer to another question of great importance for the areas where shipyards are situated.
As the representative of a constituency particularly interested in shipbuilding, I want to draw the government's attention once more to the conditions prevailing in that industry. It is generally recognized today that operations in this field have substantially decreased and, unless the government takes vigorous action, we might rightfully wonder if the industry will survive.
At Lauzon, we have two shipyards. One of them now has 746 employees, whereas there were 1300 at the same date last year, and almost 1250 in January 1959. I have been informed that, by the end of February this year, the present number of 746 will be down to 600. They are now working on two ore-carriers, one of which is due to be completed in four weeks and the other in 18 weeks. After that the shipyard will only have a tanker and an escort vessel to build for the government. As the work on the last two ships is not to be finished before 1962 or 1963, the company will be unable to employ all the labour normally working in the shipyard.
The situation is still worse in the other shipyards as there are now only about a hundred men working there. That number will gradually increase to 300, because of a repair contract. However, I am told that this repair work will have to be completed at the beginning of April, and that will cause an important decrease in the number of people employed by the shipyard, and the latter will be left with only a little ship 120 feet long to build for the government.
But, Mr, Speaker, the sad plight of our shipyards at home does not differ from that of other shipyards in this country. Apart, perhaps, from two or three shipyards, the situation is hardly more encouraging elsewhere, for the 16 or 17 which exist in Canada.
Last December, I had the opportunity of reading the brief sent to the leaders of the various political parties, by union officials who pointed out the urgency of helping that industry, and, who at the same time submitted interesting suggestions.
I also read letters from shipyard employees in British Columbia who complained of losing their jobs and deplored the fact that many qualified men were emigrating to the United States in order to find some work.

Some time ago I read an article dated August 1960 in the Vancouver Burrard News which was entitled "Challenges facing our industry", which reads as follows:
(Text):
No one even remotely connected with the shipbuilding industry in Canada could fail to note that it is going through very difficult times. Payrolls have been going progressively down and, at the moment, there is no clear indication that this will change. The full impact of the St. Lawrence seaway, with our coastal trade open to ships of the U.K. registry, is having its effect in eastern Canada and there are several yards on the great lakes with very precarious futures. As a matter of fact, shipyard mortality would have been earlier-and higher-had it not been for the naval program and government new construction of the past dozen years.
(Translation):
Now, here, Mr. Speaker, is an excerpt from an article by Mr. John Meyer, financial editor of the Montreal Gazette, dated September 9, 1960. I quote:
(Text):
There is no question that the industry needs assistance.
Speaking of the industry, he is speaking, of course, of the shipbuilding industry:
Employment is at a ten-year low at a time when contracts for seaway carriers are being placed abroad by Canadian operators. Quite apart from these considerations is the well established precedent of assistance given the industry by other maritimes nations. The Canadian industry, handicapped by high costs, should not be required to meet the second handicap unassisted by the benefits given its competitors by their governments.
(Translation):
As one may realize from reading those articles, they confirm exactly what I said a few moments ago, namely that this industry is now in an alarming situation.
No doubt the federal government can help by awarding contracts for the construction of the necessary ships for our navy and our various departments, but this assistance alone is inadequate. To insure the survival of this important industry and to prevent the lay-off of thousands of workers who will swell the already high figure of the unemployed, other measures than the existing ones will have to be taken.
Before I go ahead with the suggestion I want to make, I would like to call the government's attention to the fact that the northern area of our country is bound to experience a considerable development. Consequently, I think that right now, we should build or at least make plans for the construction of ships that will be needed for the transportation of
The Budget-Mr. Bourget the men, supplies and materials necessary to the development of our northern areas.
I am surprised and sorry to see that the government has not yet a program to put forward in that connection.
I said earlier that the government will have to take vigorous steps to insure the survival of our shipyards, since the assistance received by this industry is inadequate and much less than the assistance received by shipyards in other countries.
We all know also that shipbuilding is more expensive in Canada than in European countries. Consequently, ship owners prefer to have them built overseas. As an inducement to owners to have this work done in our Canadian shipyards, here are the suggestions I want to offer to the government.
Any company or individual who would like to have a ship built in Canada should make a down payment equal to 20 or 25 per cent of the total cost of the ship. The rest of the required money would be either loaned directly or guaranteed by the government and repayable in eight to ten years, at a reasonable rate of interest.
Under the existing act providing assistance to shipbuilding in Canada, the owner is entitled to 100 per cent depreciation over a period of three years. I believe that depreciation could be increased substantially-in Great Britain, for instance this depreciation is 140 per cent. Should this depreciation be substantially increased, the owner of the ship, or the person ordering it, could be forced to pay into a special fund a substantial part of his earnings from this form of tax depreciation. This special fund would be administered by the government and the owner could use it afterwards only for the replacement of his old ships, for their transformation or for the construction of new ones in Canadian shipyards.
This is the outline of the plan I submit, Mr. Speaker; I leave it to experts to put it in legislative form if it is considered an interesting plan.
I think that this proposal would encourage small and large owners to have their ships built here in Canada. At the same time, it would cost very little to the government since the government would have a chance to get that money back through sales tax and income tax. In this way, the government

The Budget-Mr. A. Smith would also help create new jobs by increased activity in our shipyards.
Quite recently I read an article in the Financial Post of January 21, 1961, indicating that our shipyards might in the near future be awarded contracts for the construction of submarines to be used by the Royal Canadian Navy. Towards the end of that article, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) was mentioned as having stated that a study of the matter had been made by the navy especially with a view to finding out whether our shipyards were able to build those submarines.
Well, I hope the minister is now convinced that it is possible. Our shipyards now have all the facilities required as well as the experts and skilled labour to proceed with that kind of work. I am told that they are even able at the present time to build aircraft carriers.
Those are, Mr. Speaker, the remarks I wanted to make on such an important question not only for our shipyards and the workers concerned but also for the nation as a whole.
I have only half a minute left, Mr. Speaker, and to conclude my observations, I shall quote what the President of the United States, Mr. Kennedy, said during his presidential campaign concerning assistance to shipbuilding. He said:
(Text):
If the domestic merchant fleet, so strategic to the nation's economy and to its defence, is to be kept alive-and it must be-government must lend a hand. Steps must he taken to insure fair treatment of domestic shipping vis-a-vis other forms of transportation.


Arthur Smith: My first remarks are, of course, in all sincerity, an expression of congratulation to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). I say this in no perfunctory way, but recognizing the responsibility which the hon. gentleman has to carry, and not only in the presentation of this preliminary budget. The Minister of Finance, perhaps more than anyone else, is responsible for both the economic and the financial aspects of state affairs; he is an individual who not only in Canada but throughout the world is recognized as one of the great men in public life and as one belonging to the generation which was privileged to serve with him I shall be proud to say in the future that I was privileged to sit in this House of Commons with him.
I do not propose to spend very much time on laudatory remarks which might well be


repetitious. I can say, though, with reference to the comments of my colleagues on the other side of the house, that since it is obvious this preliminary budget was developed some time ago to provide a stimulus to the economy it is not surprising they were not happy with it because I can recall the words of a commentator, Charles Templeton, a devoted defender of Liberal policy, he stated, that he hoped a depression would take place and that this would mean the return of a Liberal government. This, I suggest, is exactly the attitude taken by the Liberal party.
I intend to be extremely brief and to deal with only two main points, but it would be remiss of me, having expressed my view in support of the budget as a whole, if I did not say something of the concern expressed over one particular aspect of this budget and its impact on an area which affects the constituency which I represent and, indeed, the province from which I come. I would be unrealistic if I attempted to ignore it.
I am sure the minister and the government recognize that I am referring to certain provisions which might suggest a lessening of United States investment, or foreign investment coming into Canada to underwrite capital development, particularly in our extractive industries. I can fully appreciate the intention of the government and, in particular of the Minister of Finance, I can understand the desire that more Canadians should invest in Canadian undertakings and resources. That is a most commendable desire and one with which, I am sure, no one on this side of the house differs. With regard, then, to the impact of certain provisions which may affect borrowing from the United States and investment by United States investors, the eventual effect of the minister's decision, the long term view is, in his expectation, that it will prove of benefit to Canadians when weighed against the short term advantages, perhaps, of obtaining investment from the United States.
If we look at it in this light I think these long term advantages will be very real, but I suggest to the Minister of Finance that this action must be coupled with further incentives for Canadians to invest in the development of these resources, and this can be provided by amending certain of our taxation statutes so that Canadians will indeed be encouraged to invest in Canada. These statutes will be all too familiar to the hon. minister.
I could, of course, be more specific and take as an example the petroleum and natural gas industry with which I am most familiar. I suggest to the minister that when he brings down the main budget a provision should be

inserted which, in so far as depletion allowance is concerned, would permit Canadian investors to have the opportunity to participate in the development of their resources as have their United States counterparts. If this is done, our concern that Canadians may not invest in Canada will be reduced if not eliminated. Such a provision would, I suggest, be a necessary counterpart to the one provided in this connection in the budget which the minister has introduced.
There are two other aspects of this question which are equally important, and I think the most significant of them is one which relates to a psychological impact on our economy. We have, of course, heard and read the reviews and reports of every bank president reporting to their shareholders of their respective banks. They have made two basic comments. The first is the need for an easier money policy, as they describe it; the narrowing of interest rates as between Canada and the United States, again to provide an incentive for Canadians to invest in Canada. I think a great many people in this house could agree with that.
What is even more significant, they have pointed out that the Canadian economy is progressing and moving ahead. But, they have stated, there could be a state of mind brought about among Canadians which would discourage them from investing in Canada if certain groups of people continue to talk this country into a recession. I suggest in all seriousness Canadians must be optimistic. They must, of course, be aware of the difficulties which face our economy; they must recognize the problems which affect every aspect of our industry and of our development. But we should not place in front of them, especially, those of us who have a responsibility to give some leadership in this field, purely imaginary problems and difficulties which will only discourage people from investing in a country which has such a great future.
I had the opportunity in the past month of talking to a number of investment brokers, security analysts and representatives of similar organizations in the United States, and I think that we have perhaps created in their minds an impression that this country is opposed to foreign investment. For that reason I was extremely happy that the minister and his parliamentary secretary have made it abundantly clear that under the terms of this supplementary budget investment capital is still going to be required in great quantities. Obviously, when the minister states that we in Canada are attempting to encourage Canadians to invest to a greater extent in our own country, he has made an assessment of what our investment requirements are likely to be,
The Budget-Mr. A. Smith particularly with regard to our extractive industries such as gas, oil and coal and so on.
Looking at one sector of this industry alone, it is apparent that since the first year in which the government approved permission for the export of natural gas we have only just begun to acquire the quantity of capital we will need in the coming years. Obviously when you export a cubic foot of natural gas you must process it, and extensive capital is required for plant construction before this can be done. Then again the development of pipe line transmission facilities will also require more capital.
I think it is important, therefore, that each of us, regardless of political affiliations, should make it abundantly clear to the United States that we shall continue to need United States investment in Canada. We cannot have it on both sides of the plate at once. We cannot enjoy a high level of development and prosperity if we attempt to utilize only Canadian capital. We must continue to encourage the inflow of new capital if we are to enjoy those benefits from a high level of prosperity which for the most part we now enjoy. In this respect I should like to say what I have said to those with whom I have spoken in the United States, that I believe we-and I say "we" in the sense of Canadians as a whole-are too often prone to look upon ourselves as poor relations of the United States. We often find it difficult to realize the extent to which we have developed this nation and we continue to remain unconvinced by the impressive array of facts and figures that can be summoned to indicate the extent of our growth.
It seems to me that we Canadians still have an important selling job to do ourselves, not only in relation to the United States but in our many markets abroad. We have to make our people realize the advantages of investing still further in Canada. I think we should destroy any illusion to the contrary. I make this point as one who comes from an area that still requires a great deal of capital. We must still continue to encourage this investment at every opportunity and without regard to its nationality.
I say this coupled with one other thought. Quite recently our Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) took what was perhaps the most constructive action taken in many years by any former minister acting in that capacity, that of bringing to this country Canadian trade commissioners from around the world and saying to them through the deputy minister: Gentlemen remember that you are indeed salesmen and not diplomats. We must realize that Canada is in a situation in which we are experiencing a serious degree of competition. I refer to the development of
1468	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Boulanger the European common market, the inner six, the outer seven, the trade blocs of communist China and Russia, and the new impact of competition from the South American countries. Canadians will have to get out and sell themselves and their products as never before. Once again, in the same way in which I congratulated the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) I congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce and say that we in this house and indeed people throughout Canada are happy that the same leadership is being provided in the field of commodity trade.
I said I intended to be brief but I should like to make one additional point perfectly clear before I resume my seat. My point is that the type of budget introduced, designed to give a stimulus to the economy, is basically sound. I should like to make clear to the Minister of Finance, nevertheless, that all of us wish to see more Canadians invest in this country. I believe this will come about if we provide to Canadians incentives in the form of opportunities to compete with their United States and foreign counterparts. If this incentive is provided I believe the program of the government contained in this budget will prove even more successful than we dreamed possible today.
In the area of Canada which I represent we are approaching what is perhaps one of the most interesting developments of all time. For example, we very shortly expect to hear the government make an announcement with respect to a national policy for the marketing of oil. We have already seen the impact of the export of surplus natural gas and its byproducts. With the growing importance of this industry the western section of Canada is becoming something more than just an agricultural area. We require great confidence and great optimism about our future. I suggest we have no reason to look back but should look only forward to the future and the accomplishments that will be made possible under the policy supplemented as I have suggested, and which has been enunciated by the minister.
(Translation):


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words concerning the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and deal briefly with the textile problem in Canada. Because of the difficulties facing that industry in this country, I want to use the last minutes at my disposal to repeat what the governor of the Bank of Canada said:


The best way to check unemployment is to reduce imports in order to increase the production of those goods which are needed in our country.
That applies especially to the textile industry in Canada and more particularly in the province of Quebec. The number of people employed in the textile industry has decreased from 98,000 some ten years ago to 74,000 these last few years, or a decrease of 24,000. No doubt imports have something to do with the decrease in the number of those workers and yet that development occurred in a period when domestic consumption was on the increase.
Figures published recently in the periodical Textiles of January 1961 show that the share of our industries in our domestic market is now 47 per cent for various fabrics, from 48 per cent in 1959 and 66 per cent in 1950.
I could also give figures related to the production share of the Canadian market. For instance, since 1956 there has been a decrease from 75 to 70 per cent in the production of artificial or synthetic fibres. As far as cotton is concerned, while the production percentage was 51 per cent in 1956, it went down to 41 per cent in 1959.
As for woollens, production has decreased from 53.4 per cent in 1956 to 51.4 per cent in 1959.
Yet I remember that during election campaigns, especially that of 1957, when the Minister of Finance visited the constituencies of Sherbrooke and Drummond, he said: If you vote for the Conservative candidate, the question of textiles will be solved.
The Conservative government has now been in power for three and a half years and during that period we have seen a decrease in the number of employees and an increase in the volume of imports. Thus, last year we imported $45 million worth of textiles from Japan, an increase of $5 million a year since the Conservative party took over.
I should have liked to hear the hon. member for Sherbrooke on the question of textiles in this house. The hon. member for Sherbrooke-


Mr. Pigeon:: May I ask a question of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska?


Samuel Boulanger: When I have finished, of course.


Mr. Graffiey:: That is untrue. The hon. member for Sherbrooke often referred to that question.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Sherbrooke talks more often about textiles outside the house than he does here.


William Heward Grafftey: That is not true.


Samuel Boulanger: Every week, we read in the local papers statements made by the hon. member for Sherbrooke to the effect that the Conservative government has done much for the textile industry.


An hon. Member:: That is false.


Samuel Boulanger: While we know what the situation really is. The textile situation is worse in Canada than it has ever been.


Lionel Chevrier: Plants are closing down.


Samuel Boulanger: Plants have been closed down. Those of Cornwall have closed down two years ago. Some are being closed down all over Ontario, and those that do not close their doors move to the Dutch Indies. In fact, we have noted that two or three industries had moved last year.
What is the government doing?


William Heward Grafftey: Much, and you know it.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, what is the government doing to remedy this situation? There is much talk, but no action.


Lionel Chevrier: Much verbosity.


Samuel Boulanger: Yes, verbosity-


Mr. Martineau:: That is like the Liberals.


Samuel Boulanger: -and articles in the papers. We will remember that at the next general election, and most particularly the people of the province of Quebec.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are playing politics over the matter, like the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier).


Samuel Boulanger: While we have 528,000 unemployed in Canada, and the number of jobless is greater in the province of Quebec than in other provinces, textile goods are being imported-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is probably due to Mr. Lesage.


Samuel Boulanger: Here is what the government should do. There are means of controlling imports of textile goods. There are means of stopping the export of our labour force to other countries; we even have special legislation to that effect, providing that the 90205-6-93J
The Budget-Mr. Boulanger government may set up a price on imported goods which are being sold at a price lower than that of our domestic products.
We also have the anti-dumping legislation. But when is it going to be enforced? Two years ago, about 20 specialized inspectors were appointed to supervise imports, and most particularly those coming from the United States. Now a study of statistics reveals that imports from the United States are higher than ever.


William Heward Grafftey: That is not true.


Samuel Boulanger: What are those inspectors doing-


William Heward Grafftey: You are now at the other extreme.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Graff-tey) lives in an area where the textile industry is very important, and I wonder why he does not take the floor to talk about the matter, instead of interrupting others.


William Heward Grafftey: Do you want an answer to
that?


Samuel Boulanger: Why does he not talk about it in his constituency?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, could I direct a question to the hon. member for Drummond - Ar thabaska-


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member does
not state all the facts.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are afraid, I presume?


William Heward Grafftey: Would the hon. member allow a question?
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member who has the floor does not appear to be willing to permit the intervention. I would ask hon. members to let him continue. (Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, why don't they let me deal with matters of concern to the Canadian people in general and to the people of our region, the eastern townships, instead of showing fight. They are afraid to speak about the textile question. They have the right to do so as much as I have. The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) should come to the defence of the textile industry since there are a great many textile factories in his riding.
He should tell us what is happening to that industry in St. Hyacinthe, when two or three factories closed down last year.


Mr. Ricard:: Which ones?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Name them.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member is a joker.

The Budget-Mr. Boulanger


Samuel Boulanger: I could refer the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to the speech I delivered last year in this house. He would find in it the names of the industries that have closed down in the province of Quebec. I mentioned about 20 of them.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: How many have resumed their activity since then? Four of them and you should say so.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member reminds me of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier). He talks nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Samuel Boulanger: There is a great deal to be said on the subject of textiles. If I dealt with this matter for a few minutes, it was to awaken the suspicions of the members in whose ridings textile industries are found.
They will now have time to make ready to disprove the figures I gave tonight.
At that time, I shall take up again the subject of textiles at greater length.
In my region, the factories are reducing the number of their workers. The Dominion Textile had to close down for weeks, for want of orders. That happened mostly in Drum-mondville where the Dominion Textile specializes in the manufacture of fishing nets. This is because in the last few years, fishing nets have been imported from Japan and from other countries whereas those goods were manufactured in Canada three or four years ago.
The same applies to the material used in the manufacture of automobile tires. That material is now being imported.
As a result, workers find themselves out of a job. There are 528,000 of them in Canada and if the government does not take appropriate action, how many will there be in a month or two?
Those are the remarks I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, in order that urgent steps be taken to put an end to imports in the field of textiles.
There is another matter I wish to bring to the attention of the house and this is agriculture. Today the farm people are discouraged on account of the legislation passed by this government.
It was said that the Conservative government would rescue agriculture, the family farm, the marginal farm.
What do we see? The Conservative party has left the farmer to his fate. He cannot sell the products of his farm at a price that
[Mr. Grafftey.l
would give him enough to ensure the subsistence of his family. As a result, farmers are leaving the farm.


William Heward Grafftey: Were you here yesterday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order.


Samuel Boulanger: Now farmers are coming into the towns adding to the numbers of unemployed. They cannot find a job because they have no special skill nor the training required in industry.
What has the government done in this field to correct the situation?


William Heward Grafftey: Were you here or not yesterday?


Samuel Boulanger: I must say to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi that I was here yesterday and that I spoke on agriculture while he was absent. He is not here to be seen when we are discussing things which concern his riding. The hon. member was not in the house then and he is not interested either in agricultural matters.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He was here.


William Heward Grafftey: I am always here, my good friend.


Samuel Boulanger: But when I spoke on agriculture-


William Heward Grafftey: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. Some one just said that I was absent, and that I did not speak in support of the farmers in this house. Quite to the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I have often stood up for the farmers in this house. The hon. member should read my speeches.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that it is not relevant to the debate to discuss the attendance of other members and related matters.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I have been provoked by insinuations to the effect that I was not in the house yesterday, when in fact I delivered a speech on agriculture. That is why I took exception to the statement of the member for Brome-Missisquoi.
Mr. Speaker, the subject of agriculture evokes the same reaction on the opposite side as the subject of textiles. However,

both are subjects of particular concern to the two main groups of citizens in our area.
The government members remind me of a flock of homing pigeons. Every day, one or two ministers board a plane to India, Africa, England, or the United States. They travel so much that they have no time to consult each other. That is why their statements are so often at odds, and they have to reverse themselves.
I might add that some great speakers, often heard in this house, including the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm-


An hon. Member:: What are you reading?


Samuel Boulanger: Let me say to the hon. member who has just interjected that this paper I am holding is a blank sheet.


Some hon. Members:: You don't say. (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 9.45 o'clock by two out of three clocks it is my duty, pursuant to section 6 of standing order 58 as provisionally amended, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on the motion before the house.



INCOME TAX ACT

Jacques Flynn: House in committee of ways and means on a certain proposed resolution to amend the Income Tax Act. Shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the house leader what the business will be for tomorrow and Monday.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the house will resume the debate on the motion standing in the name of the Minister of National Revenue with respect to setting up a committee to deal with broadcasting. On completion of that item, No. 14, we will take up item No. 9, the motion standing in the name of my colleague the Minister of Transport to set up a committee on railways, airlines and shipping. On completion of that item we will resume the debate on the motion standing in the name of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture with respect to the legislation introduced by him. On Monday there will be a motion for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply.
It being 10.07 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Question



ANSWER TO QUESTION

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

Mr. Argue: 1. Are a Mr. W. B. Crombie and Mr. D. Forgan
employed with the St. Lawrence seaway authority as consulting engineers on claims?
2. If so, what are their salaries, and what claims has each (a) investigated; (b) settled, since January 20, 1958?
Answer by: Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	No.
2.	N.A.

Friday, January 27, 1961