1961-01-20

Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform hon. members that the Canadian government and the governments of the republics of Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama have agreed to establish diplomatic relations. The Canadian ambassador to these four republics will be appointed shortly. He will normally reside in San Jose, Costa Rica, but will spend some time each year in the capitals of the three other republics to which he will be concurrently accredited: Managua, Nicaragua, Tegucigalpa, Honduras and Panama City, Panama. The four governments have indicated their intention to be represented in Ottawa by giving double accreditation to their ambassadors to neighbouring countries until such time as resident ambassadors can be appointed to Canada.
I wish also to announce that the Canadian government and the government of the republic of Ecuador have agreed to exchange ambassadors. The Canadian ambassador to Columbia, Mr. Jean Morin, will be accredited as Canadian ambassador to Ecuador. Mr. Morin will continue to serve as Canadian ambassador to Columbia and will normally reside in Bogota but will spend some time each year in Quito. During the ambassador's absence from Quito, the Canadian embassy in Ecuador will be under a resident charge d'affaires ad interim. The Canadian government is looking forward to receiving the first Ecuadorean ambassador to Canada in the near future.
Representation at this high level reflects the intention of the Canadian government and of the governments concerned to strengthen and improve diplomatic, cultural and commercial relations. It is a further recognition of the importance of the growing ties between Canada and Latin America.
Finally, hon. members will be pleased to learn that the Canadian government has now formally accepted an invitation from the council of the Organization of American
States to send an observer to the eleventh inter-American conference, which will be held at Quito later this year.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the members of the house will have listened with considerable interest to the minister's announcement regarding the extension of our diplomatic representation in Latin American countries. I gathered from his remarks that this extension of our Canadian diplomatic representation will now cover practically every Latin American country, although I understand there are four still outside the diplomatic field. I do not know how the minister is going to be able to explain to them their exclusion from this relationship.


Howard Charles Green: If I may interrupt, I should point out that moves are under way with regard to these other countries.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the extension is a desirable one because it underlines the friendly relationship we have with these countries and the growing importance of that relationship to Canada. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it represents another stage in our approach to membership in the organization of American states. There seems to be some doubt about government policy in that regard, but with our extension of diplomatic representation and with our acceptance of the invitation to be an observer at the next meeting of- the organization of American states, I believe a decision on this matter will have to be made before long.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this group welcome the announcement which was made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, which indicates the growing importance of an increasing number of the Latin American countries, coincidental with the growing importance of the African and Asian countries, and the development of democracy in those nations, their influence and their prestige in the world. We welcome this announcement which will provide another opportunity for Canada to work with these nations in a spirit of good will and co-operation.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF NEXT MEETING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him

Inquiries of the Ministry if a date has yet been fixed for the resumption of the dominion-provincial conference.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Are discussions being carried on by correspondence between the federal government and respresentatives of the provinces?


John George Diefenbaker: There has been some correspondence, and discussions naturally continue from time to time in that regard.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the great interest of Canadians in his announcement that a royal commission on national health requirements would be set up. I ask the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to announce the terms of reference of this commission and the full personnel, as he indicated he would be prepared to do early in the beginning of the new session.


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the Prime Minister could give some indication to the house as to when he may be in a position to make this announcement.


John George Diefenbaker: I will let the house know as soon as I am in a position to do so.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. C. Fairfield (Portage-Neepawa):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of a press release which states that the government is now ready to call for tenders on contracts for construction of underground bunkers to house priority government and military personnel in time of nuclear war. Would the Prime Minister be prepared at this time to make a statement on this matter?
Righf Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): The hon. member gave me notice that he intended to ask this question. I presume he was motivated by the fact that the Financial Post set forth in rather dramatic form a description of what was being done or was anticipated or at least, in so far as that article was concerned, the view of the


editor or the writer in question. Because of the fact that it was rather overdramatized I have a statement in this regard which, with the leave of the house, I should like to make in answer to the question.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the Prime Minister has the leave of the house to make a statement at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: The article in question refers to the program of building regional centres for emergency purposes in wartime. That program was announced by me on May 31, 1960 and in the announcement I set forth in part the situation in these words, which will be found at page 4359 of Hansard of that date:
The plan is to provide in each province a centre from which a small core of federal, provincial and army personnel can direct emergency operations within the province, even in the presence of radioactive fall-out, the loss of normal means of communication and possibly the destruction of some provincial capitals.
Then later on I said this:
Regional centres will be established speedily in each of the provinces.
In accordance with that announcement work has gone forward on the preparation of designs and specifications for these centres and the choice of sites for them. No further announcements have been made since the announcement in question because it was necessary to acquire property in certain provinces for construction purposes with regard to six of the sites. The properties are now acquired. The designs are completed, and the army will be ready within a few weeks to have Defence Construction Limited call for tenders. This program has been discussed in detail with the provinces, and the provincial governments are co-operating in the preparations for carrying on government under conditions of nuclear war with the assistance of the use of these various centres.
Again I point out in this regard that the fact that these precautionary measures are being taken and action in this regard is being proceeded with is not in any way to be taken by the Canadian people as evidence of a worsening of the international position or of imminent fear of possible nuclear attack.


Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question based on the question asked by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa. Can the Prime Minister indicate to the house what action is to be carried out by the government to maintain the processes of government, in the event of a nuclear attack?


John George Diefenbaker: On July 17, 1959, I stated that facilities were being made ready from which a central corps of the dominion government would carry on under conditions of nuclear war even if there was a serious fallout in the area. All I can add to what I said then is that we are now considering dispersing a number of key persons who would carry on emergency government functions in wartime in small groups outside Ottawa, so there would not be a concentration within the city of Ottawa. I think I can go no further than that.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Waller Pitman (Peterborough):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, and I apologize for not having had time to send him notice of it. It arises out of an announcement in the Toronto Star of a metro Toronto program for the training of unemployed workers. It reports that federal officials of the Department of Labour are vague about the details of the retraining program.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Walter George Pitman: Can the Minister of Labour indicate the reasons for the vagueness of his department in a matter of such great importance?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: There does not seem to be any vagueness about the plan in the other provinces because of their activity in this field. No other province has indicated that there is any vagueness at all about this program.


Walter George Pitman: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate why these programs of retraining of unemployed workers are being set up under schedule M of the Canadian vocational training act, 1952 rather than under section 3, article (1) (a) of Bill C-49 recently passed in this house?


Michael Starr: The training is under the new act, under schedule M.



ELLIOT LAKE, ONT.    INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED EVICTION NOTICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Public Works whether he is now in a position to deal with the question I put to the Minister of Labour yesterday concerning the housing situation at Elliot Lake?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: This morning on my return from Toronto I learned of the question which had been asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I shall be very glad to get that information for him.



THE CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourget (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister inform the house whether changes are going to be made regarding question No. 10 of the census. If the answer is in the affirmative, can we hope that the changes will be announced before the beginning of the census?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recall, as I do, that two questions were asked yesterday on this matter. As I recall it, the reply given was that it was a question of policy, to be announced when any decision was made.


Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister recall having promised the opportunity for a discussion on this matter of the census, and if so, when can we expect this discussion to take place?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting to hear some discussion on this. We have a debate on the budget proceeding at the present time and every opportunity is available to hon. members to voice their views on this or any other matter.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege respecting the question of the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) and the answer of the Prime Minister. The undertaking was given in the house by the Prime Minister, when the supplementary estimates were before the house, to the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) that an opportunity-not the budget debate, but an opportunity-would be given for this debate. It was on that basis that those supplementary estimates went through the house with great expedition on that occasion.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to let Hansard speak and not to accept the misinterpretation that has become the prominent and effective means of criticism on the part of the hon. gentleman. I ask him to read where I said that a day would be set aside or the opportunity would come. For some reason, with the opportunity here

Inquiries of the Ministry for the fullest discussion in the budget debate, silence has been the order of the day of the opposition in this regard.


Lionel Chevrier: On the
question of privilege, sir, I think we will be quite happy to take a look at Hansard and recall what was said on that occasion. But I cannot let the words of the Prime Minister go unchallenged when he says that silence of the opposition is the order of the day. In so far as this question is concerned-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: -silence of the government has been the order of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the hon. member for Laurier wishes to make a new question of privilege out of the comment of the Prime Minister, what he says about silence does not relate to the original question.


Lionel Chevrier: I was asking to be allowed to speak on the question of privilege which was raised by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Hees:: There is no question of privilege.


Lionel Chevrier: And, sir, I was taking this opportunity to say that on the question 01 the census there has been greater silence from the Prime Minister than from this side of the house, and he has an opportunity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not entitled to raise a debate on the question of privilege. I have not yet found that there is a prima facie question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, so that the record will be clear and so that even hon. gentlemen opposite will understand, I would refer to Hansard of December 20, page 989. This is the question asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate:
In view of the fact that the leader of the house did not object at all when we had a debate about the parliamentary restaurant on an item dealing with the Senate manpower committee-
We were at that time dealing with the question of the expenses of a royal commission on Canadian magazines. That was the item before the house at the time the hon. member for Levis asked the question. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate then followed and said:
In view of the fact that the leader of the house did not object at all when we had a debate about the parliamentary restaurant on an item dealing with the Senate manpower committee, in which debate no one in this house participated-*


Mr. Benidickson:: It is "this party".


John George Diefenbaker: -I suggest that we would save a great deal of time if the hon. gentleman were allowed to proceed.
In other words, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked that this matter should come up under the heading of the expenses of the royal commission. The Hansard report continues:
As a matter of fact, I should like very much to hear this matter discussed. We shall have it discussed immediately after we resume in January. We are going to have a debate on the baby budget. I presume that if the usual course of discussion is allowed and is followed, every opportunity will be given for the fullest discussion of this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In view of what has been read by the Prime Minister it is quite obvious that the Prime Minister is right and that my memory is mistaken. I express regret that my memory was mistaken.


An hon. Member:: What about the hon. member for Laurier?


Lionel Chevrier: Since the Prime Minister invites me to comment on his statement, I have no comment to make because, as the record makes clear, I said we would abide by what was said by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: Silence would have been much better this morning.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask a question supplementary to the original question, occasioned by representations made to me by some members of the Native Sons of Canada. In the consideration being given to the 1961 census, question 10, and possible changes in it, would the Prime Minister and his colleagues keep in the forefront of their awareness the thought that many Canadians think of themselves as Canadians, not as hyphenated Canadians, and would so wish to declare themselves?


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the hon. member is presenting an argument to be taken into consideration when a decision on this matter is reached. I think it would be more appropriate if he were to take advantage of future opportunity for debate.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. With a view to having the Department of Labour operate in the most efficient manner possible

at this time, will the Prime Minister say when the appointment of a deputy minister of labour may be forthcoming?


John George Diefenbaker: That will not be long delayed.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In the light of the applications now before the air transport board for air service as a milk run between Montreal and/ or Ottawa and Oshawa and/or Windsor, will the department or the government build airports at intermediate points between two large centres such as at Cornwall and Brock-ville?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: These applications are before the air transport board at the present time. They are being discussed. So far I have not been approached about the building of those airports. I do not know what decision will be arrived at on this subject. Of course it will depend on the decision of the air transport board.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. What is the policy of the government with respect to the construction of airports at intermediate points, such as the two I have mentioned?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Department of Transport, so far as airports are concerned, has been to give excellent service to Canadians as it is needed and I am quite sure that that policy will be carried on in this case.



INTERIM PAYMENT ON 1959-60 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture on his return to the House of Commons. In view of the very difficult cash situation on the prairies, will the minister be in a position at an early date to announce an interim payment on the 1959-60 wheat crop?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is the plan of the wheat board to continue as usual. I think the payment the hon. member refers to will be forthcoming about the middle of February.
The Budget-Mr. Aiken


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question. Has the minister or his department given any consideration to the possibility in the future, if not at this time, of having those payments made at an early date instead of following this very discreditable pattern set by the former administration?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: All I can say
in answer to that question is that we do not like the pattern of the previous government in so far as borrowing money and making payments is concerned. It certainly is the plan of the government to follow the procedure of making the payments when the money is available.


Hazen Robert Argue: The money should have been there.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 17, consideration of the motion of Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Benidickson.
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated my approval of the budget proposals which, coupled with the governments's legislative program, will do much for the national economy and to stimulate employment. I have a proposal to present to the house-perhaps you might call it an idea-which I believe would more closely be the next logical step in this development. In presenting this proposal I hope that hon. members will permit me to refer to my notes more closely than usual.
I wish to call this plan the Canadian products plan. It is a plan designed to improve the Canadian internal economy and to make better provision for those Canadians on welfare assistance. It is put forward as a beginning only, and can be enlarged and developed to encompass additional segments of the economy as circumstances require.
The plan is based on several assumptions. First, Canada is rich in food, clothing and products for shelter and comfort, all the basic necessities of life. There is no economic reason why any needy person should be deprived of these basics. However, it is much too simple to literally reach into our wheat bins for bread, into our orchards for fruit and into our mills for lumber and textiles. On the other hand the mere handing out of increasing sums of money to be spent in an economy overbalanced with imported goods, makes the situation worse instead of better. We must find a way to get our Canadian

The Budget-Mr. Aiken products into the hands of the welfare recipients for the benefit of the Canadian economy which provides both products and money.
The second assumption is that the needs of those receiving welfare payments are constantly on the increase in an expanding economy. The government is now facing demands from all sides for increased welfare and pension benefits in order to maintain recipients on the standards reached even three years ago. These demands will have to be met, and in the course of the development of human betterment policies, new categories may be created in the future.
The third assumption is that in the past, two methods have been attempted in order to sell Canadian products to the Canadian public. The first has been the control of imports by arbitrary methods such as tariffs. Experience has shown the futility of relying solely upon such external pressures. We are a trading nation, and we must not jeopardize our export markets. We are also legally bound by the general agreement on tariffs and trade, and the cumbersome methods of international amendment make external changes difficult.
The second method has been that of trying to stop Canadians from buying imports with "buy Canadian" campaigns and by appealing to the patriotism of the public to buy Canadian, even if the product costs a few cents more. Sad as it may seem, these appeals largely fail. A housewife working on a limited budget is more interested in saving a few cents here and there than in inquiring about the source of the product.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I should like to ask for a little better attention for him. There seems to be more conversation than usual going on in the house. I hope hon. members will give the hon. member who has the floor a courteous hearing.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am presenting what I consider to be a very important and even spectacular proposal. It may not be as interesting to listen to as some of the debates we have, but I feel it is a proposal that deserves very serious consideration.
The situation of the housewife in trying to save money here and there applies even more to welfare recipients. We must, therefore, devise a plan to be applied internally in Canada, without imposing direct trade barriers, to provide recipients with an incentive to buy Canadian products. This will provide Canadian markets for the industries and producers who are paying the taxes, without depriving them of their export markets. Quite aside, Mr. Speaker, from the

question of welfare payments, it is surely a basic principle that when public funds raised by Canadian taxes are being used in public works the content of such works must be Canadian in order to provide full employment and continuing tax revenues.
My plan is divided into two separate parts. The first I call the Canadian products incentive plan. Simply stated, this plan would provide for payment by the federal government to pensioners of a bonus, which I have set arbitrarily for the moment at 10 per cent, on all purchases of certified Canadian products made with pension or welfare funds. The plan would extend to non-contributory pensions provided or subsidized in whole or in part by the government of Canada, including such welfare payments as old age security, family allowances, veterans pensions, war veterans allowances, old age assistance, blind and disabled persons pensions. This plan, if it were thought fit, could also be extended to contributory allowances such as military, R.C.M.P. and civil service pensions and unemployment insurance, or to any other segment of the economy as circumstances might require.
This plan would envisage first the setting up of a Canadian products certification board; second, setting up a paying authority and, third, the application of the plan to such Canadian products as are required for food, clothing, shelter and household furnishings but not including items generally regarded as luxuries.
The second part of this plan would be called the Canadian products requirement plan. This would require that all materials provided and labour performed in buildings and works for which the federal government provides funds or lends funds in whole or in part shall be Canadian labour and Canadian products as defined by the Canadian products certification board. This plan would extend to residential or commercial buildings constructed under the National Housing Act, with industrial development bank loans or with any other public funds of Canada, and would apply to all contracts for public works awarded by the government of Canada, defence contracts for armaments not available in Canada excepted. Where Canadian products are not available or for aesthetic reasons imported materials are considered advisable or necessary, non-Canadian products up to 15 per cent of the total contract amount could be used, but a penalty of 10 per cent of the cost of such non-Canadian goods would be imposed, payable to the paying authority under the Canadian products plan. This plan could be extended to any other classification

of public spending now or hereafter established, such as the small business loans recently provided by the house.
In connection with administration, simplicity of administration is a primary object of the plan. There would be three separate phases of administration, the first being classification of products. For this purpose a new agency known as the Canadian products certification board would have to be established. Every manufacturer or producer of a Canadian product could apply to the board for a certificate bearing an identifying number upon proof that any described product is a Canadian product. Where practical, a distinctive marker bearing the certificate number could be applied to the product or printed on the label. Otherwise the product would be identified by a certain certificate number.
The board could classify products as Canadian in the following manners or in such other manner as they may adopt:
1.	Products wholly produced, processed, fabricated, packaged and distributed in Canada.
2.	Products not native to or normally produced in Canada, which are in common use and accepted as necessaries, and which are imported into Canada in raw form and wholly fabricated, processed, packaged and distributed in Canada so that at least 50 per cent of wholesale cost is developed in Canada, and for which there is not a similar product or substitute available in Canada.
3.	Products fabricated, processed, packaged and distributed in Canada, partly of imported raw products and partly of Canadian raw products, provided that the Canadian raw content be not less than equal value with the imported raw product.
The second phase would require certification of purchase. One might ask how, if these products are so classified, purchasing would be controlled and on what basis. My plan would be that every retail dealer in Canada could apply for and receive authority to act as a certifying agent under the act, with the appropriate responsibilities. Upon request such retail dealer would provide a purchaser with a separate invoice or sales slip for certified Canadian products, giving the identifying number of each item and certifying that all goods shown on such invoice were Canadian products certified under the act. Wholesalers dealing directly with contractors could obtain similar entitlement.
As to payment, having established that the recipient had purchased a Canadian product, attached to each cheque issued under the Old Age Security Act or other qualifying statute would be a duplicate or additional voucher, in the form of a carbon copy if required, certifying that such payment qualifies for bonus
The Budget-Mr. Aiken under the Canadian products incentive plan and giving the date, amount, pension number and name of payee. This voucher, when accompanied by properly certified invoices of purchase, would support payment by the paying authority. In the event of doubt, however, the name and pension number would permit speedy cross reference.
The bonus cheque issued as the result of this payment would be redeemable in certified Canadian products at an authorized dealer's premises, and would bear a printed endorsement so certifying for signature by such dealer. The paying authority could be either a special branch in existing paying offices or a special authority set up under the plan, and possibly quarterly applications would be more convenient to handle rather than monthly.
Under the Canadian products requirement plan, the second of those I have mentioned, final payment of any loan or contract amount would require certification by the architect, government inspector or other supervising agent that the provisions of the plan had been complied with. This plan, Mr. Speaker, has a number of direct objectives. They are:
1.	To move toward self-sufficiency in Canada, commencing with the welfare field where the taxpayers, the Canadian public are providing the funds.
2.	To grant welfare increases on a useful basis.
3.	To stimulate Canadian production in a natural manner.
4.	To stimulate employment by the creation of industries to supply the market.
5.	To restore trade balances by internal application and without special tariffs.
6.	To mark clearly Canadian products and make the public conscious of them.
7.	To establish the habit of purchasing Canadian products, with a bonus incentive. Such habit may naturally extend to normal purchases. I should add, Mr. Speaker, that it would only be welfare or other federal government funds to which this plan would apply initially.
8.	To establish a system which could be extended into other categories as circumstances indicate.
9.	With regard to the Canadian products requirement plan, to circulate public funds strictly within the national economy so that employment and taxes would be created for the benefit of the national economy.
10.	To offer a bonus incentive for the purchase of Canadian goods, but providing no limitation on the freedom of spending.
11.	The plan would not underwrite excessive prices of uneconomical Canadian production. If the price were too high, this 10 per cent

The Budget-Mr. Aiken incentive bonus would be applied to other Canadian products or to competitive or noncompetitive products.
Now, with these objectives in mind and with this background plan, we have to consider whether there would be any real impact on the Canadian economy. My effort is to set up a system whereby within Canada the spending would be upon Canadian goods by those people who receive the benefit of public assistance. I feel this is the only fair way in which such public spending can be justified. The value of the foregoing plan would depend entirely upon its impact on the economy. I have used the dominion bureau of statistics booklet, national accounts, income and expenditure 1959, which is the latest booklet, also the Bank of Canada statistical summary, financial supplement, 1959, and the 1959-60 spending found in the estimates.
Now, referring to the estimates and to these booklets, we find the following figures. Personal expenditures on consumer goods in Canada in 1959 amounted to $14,058 million; personal expenditures on consumer services, to $8,203 million, making a total expenditure on consumer goods and services of $22,261 million. Comparing that with the total of consumer goods imported into Canada, as found in the bank summary, page 153, we find that amounted to $1,799 million. Then I should like to relate this to the welfare payments and other payments that potentially would come under the incentive plan. We find that the federal government's transfer and welfare payments, not including interest, as shown on the dominion bureau of statistics table 44, amount to $1,801 million. We find that all governments, federal, provincial and municipal, have transfer and welfare payments, not including interest, amounting to $2,785 million.
Taking first the Canadian products incentive plan, we find that imports of consumer goods amounted to about 12.8 per cent of the total expenditure on consumer goods in Canada. Therefore if we assume that the federal government contributes directly or indirectly to all government welfare spending, which amounts to $2,785 million, we can assume that 12.8 per cent thereof or $356.4 million of goods would be purchased in Canada under this plan which would otherwise be imported. This is relating the plan solely to imported goods and solely to the spending of the Canadian public who are welfare recipients.
Taking next the Canadian products requirement plan, that is the plan under which you would require absolute use of Canadian products in all government supported spending, we turn to the figures on gross national expenditure as found in the dominion bureau of statistics booklet at page 20. We find that

imports of goods and services valued at $8,065 million represent about 18.9 per cent of the gross national expenditure of $42,655 million. We find also that government spending represents 15.1 per cent of the imports of goods and services of $8,065 million, which is $1,217 million that would be redirected into the local market.
These two figures, while no doubt subject to error adjustments because of factors which are not obvious to me, total $1,574 million, which is more than sufficient to balance the 1959 international current account deficit which amounts to $1,429 million. It may be said that much of the incentive plan funds would be spent on Canadian goods which would have been purchased anyway. This is true, and in fact the above figures are based on the premise that Canadian goods are normally purchased in 87.2 per cent of the cases anyway. It is the other 12.8 per cent which would make the difference. These are estimates of the amounts of goods and services imported into Canada which are purchased with welfare funds. The same applies to the requirements plan in somewhat a different ratio.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have given a great deal of thought to this matter over the last couple of years. As I stated at the outset, this is not the sort of speech that one finds perhaps as interesting as others which have been made in this debate. However, I have had a feeling for some time that we were moving in the wrong direction in connection with such things as welfare spending and Canadian products. I feel that this plan could be extended. The welfare field is only a beginning, and it is a logical beginning because we have the goods, we have the national assets and in addition the money is coming from the Canadian taxpayer and the Canadian manufacturer. There is no reason why this money should not be used for the purchase of Canadian products.
However, I recognize the fact that you cannot force people to do things in a free economy. You cannot force them to go out and buy Canadian products. For this reason I feel it is better for the increase in welfare payments to be by way of a bonus incentive to buy Canadian products. In this way the funds will be used for the benefit of the Canadian economy.
By way of summary may I say that the total cost of this plan to the federal government would be a 10 per cent increase in welfare payments. As I stated, this is an arbitrary figure. It might very well be more. However, it is the amount which I feel will be required immediately. All of this increase of 10 per cent will be funnelled back into the Canadian economy. It must be funnelled:

back because it is redeemable only for Canadian products. In addition to the 10 per cent which will be funnelled back, 100 per cent of the basic payment will also be funnelled back into the Canadian economy because it is with these funds that purchases of Canadian products will be made. Those people who prefer to use imported products will be free to do so. They merely will not qualify for the bonus. I feel that the administrative costs would not be heavy, requiring only the establishment of the certification board. I would not anticipate any payments to retail merchants because their appointment and duties would be a matter of routine. Their appointment as agents would be of benefit to themselves as well as to those people who are purchasing these products.
The benefit of the plan, however, could be of the financial order which I have already set out. If correct, this sum would be sufficient to offset our international deficit on trade balances. I think this plan can offer an incentive for new businesses and an expansion of existing businesses which would coincide with the announced plans of the government and which are, in fact, in the legislative program for this session.
I am submitting this plan for consideration. If my figures are in error, then the extent of the initial impact may be varied or may be less than I have stated. However, the application of the idea would still be just as valid.


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


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister reminded us this morning that this debate roams or can roam over all aspects of the state of the nation. When I use the expression "state of the nation" I do not mean that caricature of the state of the nation which was obtained from the Prime Minister the other evening on television, when he confirmed once again the thesis that seems to be held by himself and so many of his colleagues and supporters, namely that the history of Canada began three years or so ago.
It is quite true that some bad history began at that time. It is not true-and it is a caricature of history to try to make it true-that the expansion and the development of this country ended with Right Hon. R. B. Bennett and began again in June, 1957 after 22 years of sterility and stagnation. The answer to that thesis, Mr. Speaker, was given very well the other day in a speech from which I will quote just one sentence. That sentence is this:
In past years-
The Budget-Mr. Pearson
I may say that this speech was made on January 9.
-when our economic capacities were stretched to the limit in the process of unprecedented economic expansion-*
Unprecedented expansion in past years.
-we supplemented our own resources both financial and physical with goods and capital from abroad but today our resources are not stretched.
That statement, which is a true one was made on January 9, 1961, in Toronto by the Minister of Finance, whose past statements seem to be arising to haunt him these days.
When we discuss this special budget, this baby budget or whatever you wish to call it, the first question we ask ourselves, of course, is why there is a special budget at this time at all in view of the fact that the government denies that there is any special emergency which would require this kind of special treatment. Of course a special budget in December gave the minister an opportunity, if he had desired to take advantage of it, to recant his wrong predictions of earlier months. I suppose it would have been a little bit less embarrassing for him to do that in December than to do it in March or in April when the regular budget would be introduced, and when he might well have even more to recant than he had last December.
He took a more realistic view of the economy in his speech last December-I am referring to the Minister of Finance-than he did earlier in the year, but his confession of mistaken predictions was certainly only partial. He was less naively optimistic than in his budget speech in March, but he still flatly refused to recognize or to admit the seriousness of the situation which this country now faces. That makes his position now only a little bit less realistic than his optimistic predictions of a few months ago made it.
With ignorance of what was happening then and with a refusal to face the facts now, the proposals which have been put forward by the government are naturally inadequate to deal with this situation of employment emergency which they deny. Of course the Prime Minister and his supporters may get some comfort out of the statement by the Prime Minister the other night that the situation was worse in 1936 and 1937. It certainly was worse in 1936 and 1937.


John George Diefenbaker: Up until 1940.


Lester Bowles Pearson: At that time the Liberal government inherited a situation with 17 per cent or 18 per cent of the labour force unemployed, and it took a few years to get that figure down.

The Budget-Mr. Pearson


An hon. Member:: It took a war.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If he would not be misleading in these comparisons, let the Prime Minister take comparable figures in the last 10 or 12 years and see whether the Canadian people will get any comfort out of those figures in comparison with the present emergency.


Mr. Rowe:: Will the Leader of the Opposition permit a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


William Earl Rowe: If his party inherited that situation in 1935, what does he think the Conservative party inherited in 1930?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In 1930 the Conservative party inherited the beginning of a great depression; and when the Conservative party left office in 1935, after promising to cure that depression, it was worse than ever.


William Earl Rowe: That is definitely not a fact.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The question arises as to where the Minister of Finance gets the information on which he bases his economic forecasts. The main source of this information used to be the report known as the Canadian economic outlook, that report which we know as a confidential document which we were accused of hiding in 1957 and which, after removal of the word "confidential", was in that year made public in carefully selected passages out of context.
What has happened to that report now? It has been abolished, destroyed and buried. The reason is quite obvious. The kind of economic analysis and economic information based on the researches of experts, the kind of prediction of trends which would appear in a report of that kind now would be extremely embarrassing to the government as a reminder of their own false predictions and inadequate actions. Therefore the report has been cancelled.
If the Minister of Finance took a somewhat more realistic view of the situation in December than he did in earlier months of the year, he is still not prepared to admit that there is a recession in this country. Indeed, the very idea of a recession was denied very vigorously by his parliamentary secretary in his contribution to this debate.
"There is no recession", say the minister and his parliamentary secretary, echoing other members of the government, including the Prime Minister, who told us last spring and summer that all was well, that we were going through a pause out of which we would soon emerge, and that in 1960 everything was going up and up and on and on in the

economy. He also told us that the gross national product would be up 6 per cent in 1960. That was the prediction, and that we would have a surplus, after successive deficits, of $12 million. We all remember the banging of desks when that announcement was made in the House of Commons, a banging and excitement which was only equalled a little later in New York by Mr. Khrushchev when he banged his desk at the United Nations.
Those members who took part in the debate last spring and summer will remember that we on this side refused to accept this easy optimism of the government spokesmen. We warned the minister at that time-and he must be aware of the warning-that his rosy predictions were not likely to be realized. In return for these warnings, which have turned out to be correct, we were accused of being prophets of gloom and doom.


An hon. Member:: Correct.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We were accused of being prophets of gloom and doom, and last March, April, May, June and July we were accused of selling Canada short.


An hon. Member:: Correct.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We were accused of being subversive; it was said that we must not mention these difficulties and dangers. Well, who was right last spring and summer, and who was wrong? Who was blind? Who were the false prophets?


Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon):: You were.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Who had their heads in the sand last spring and last summer, and who now worship the sand their heads are buried in? Let the facts speak. We said the gross national product would not likely be up 6 per cent. We warned the minister it would not; and what are the figures?


An hon. Member:: It went up just the same.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It went up just the same; it went up by 2.9 per cent in value in the first nine months of last year and 1.6 per cent in volume, which is a far cry from the 6 per cent prediction on the basis of which the minister made his calculations for a surplus, which we told him at that time was unrealistic.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not a far cry
at all. Have some sense of proportion here.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There was an increase of 1.6 per cent in the volume of the gross national product, which itself is the explanation for the unemployment we are now suffering in this country. And the Prime Minister now tries to take our minds off this question of

unemployment by pointing out that we have the highest employment at the present time in the history of this country.


An hon. Member:: It is true.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is not true. It could not be less true. The dominion bureau of statistics figures for January 18, the day before the Prime Minister spoke on this matter, show that employment, not unemployment, decreased by 127,000 between November and December. Is it true, then, that we have the highest employment in our history, as the Prime Minister said?
Instead we have unemployment which is the highest in this country since the 1930's, and no manipulation of facts and figures by government spokesmen can alter that hard and cruel fact. The figures published on December 10 show that 528,000 men and women in this country are out of work. And these are figures with which we all agree; the dispute over calculations I hope is over. On the basis of agreed figures we have 528,000 people out of work, as compared with 406,000 a year ago. The figures show that 8.2 per cent of our labour force was out of work in December, as compared with 6.5 per cent a year ago, or indeed as compared with 7.6 per cent in 1958, when conditions were so bad.
In 1960 the per capita national production in this country was 5 per cent lower in volume than in 1956. If present trends continue, by March we might well have in this country 14 per cent of the labour force jobless and an unemployment insurance fund diminishing rapidly.
When we predicted this trend, as we did, we were jeered at. But unhappily our predictions have been shown to be correct-


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and the minister's predictions almost invariably, in almost every respect, wrong. The seriousness of this problem which hon. gentlemen on the other side do not seem to yet realize is confirmed by even more significant quarter to quarter comparisons with 1960 made on the basis of seasonally adjusted figures at annual rates.
What do they show? They show that the picture is very different from that painted by the minister or the Prime Minister in March, July or last December. I know that in putting these official figures on the record we will again be accused of gloom and doom. The government would like to silence this kind of talk in this house, but there is no possibility of dealing with this situation unless the facts are made clear, until the government become aware of the facts and aware of the seriousness reflected by these facts. Until
The Budget-Mr. Pearson they are aware of these things, how can they possibly deal with a situation which they refuse to admit exists?
The first quarter of 1960 was relatively good; it was encouraging and it marked, I suppose, the peak of the 1957-59 cycle. During the second quarter the gross national product declined by 1.5 per cent, which was the first decline since the last quarter of 1957 and the biggest drop in any quarterly period in the post-war years. This record reduction marked the beginning of the 196061 recession and was accompanied by lower exports, mainly to the United States. Then during the third quarter of 1960 the overall depressed conditions of the second quarter continued to prevail, with one very significant change; the value of our exports during the third quarter increased by more than $400 million.
Since our gross national product remained at about the same level during those two quarters, it means that the domestic sector of our economy continued to weaken during the third quarter. We were saved, at that time at least, from a further over-all decline by increased exports, especially to Europe. This is the exact opposite of what the minister stated in his budget speech, when he attempted to blame our depressed conditions on external forces and on the slowing down of economic activity in Europe.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not true; that is not even half true.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister can interrupt all he likes, but he cannot deny the logic of facts and figures.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the hon. gentleman is purporting to attribute certain statements to me. He has not chosen to read what I said. He is choosing to take some things I said and turn them as though they were all I said, and so I say his statement just now is not even a half truth.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That has nothing to do with privilege. We can easily get the position from the minister's speech. I have plenty of time, and I shall be very glad to take it. The minister left the impression, I repeat, and his words can convey no other impression, that one reason, indeed the major reason, for our present depressed condition was external forces in Europe and the United States. Does the minister deny that he gave that impression in his budget speech?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I reviewed the whole situation and I pointed out those factors both external and domestic which accounted for the change in conditions in

The Budget-Mr. Pearson Canada. I gave the whole story. If the hon, gentleman is going to attempt to deal with my remarks, I suggest that in all fairness and fidelity to the truth he should deal with them in a balanced way and not in this selective way.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am being perfectly fair to the Minister of Finance, and his own words will prove my fairness. He attributed our present depressed situation in large part to the European situation, and before I conclude I shall be able to put on the record exactly what he did say in that regard. In any event I should not have attributed to the minister words which mention our depressed situation, because the hon. gentleman does not admit we are in a recession. He says there is no recession in this country and in this, as I mentioned, he was echoed by his parliamentary secretary. But his view in this regard is denied by the Prime Minister, who the other night talked about "a recession which was foreseeable back in 1957"-a recession which, according to the Minister of Finance, does not exist.
Is there any outside, objective evidence on this point? Perhaps the minister does not feel we are objective witnesses to the existence or otherwise of a recession.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I certainly do not.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, let me put on record the views of some of the minister's friends, or at any rate the views of those who, if they are not his friends, have no reason to be unfriendly toward him. There is the Letter Review of Fort Erie, a respected publication, and it had this to say on December 26, 1960:
I960 has been a year of doubt, uncertainty, grave difficulties so far as Canadian economy is concerned. Unemployment has begun to haunt the country as at no time since the thirties.
Was the man who wrote that selling Canada short? Then there is the Toronto publication Saturday Night, which had this to say on January 7, 1961:
By any meaningful measurement, the Canadian economy is in recession.
Is the man who wrote that selling Canada short?


Donald Methuen Fleming: He was mistaken.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has acquired the habit over the years of assuming that if he keeps on saying things often enough they become true, in his own mind at least. However, the facts are against him. Here is an American magazine, Fortune, an authoritative enough magazine in business and financial affairs, as the minister will at once admit.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You have run out of
Canadian ones already?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There are plenty of others, but I shall produce evidence from all over the world as well. Fortune had this to say:
In Canada nobody minces words about it-
I admit the author is wrong when he says nobody minces words about it.
The economy has run out of steam.
Canada is in a short term cyclical recession.
Then there is the evidence of the Economist and the Financial Times in London, and the Manchester Guardian, which is dismissed by the Prime Minister and by the minister as being founded on biased and inaccurate reports based on opposition speeches. It is really quite a tribute to the intelligence of these particular publications to say that they have been misled in their comments by what we have said in opposition in this house. That is the situation, Mr. Speaker, and the minister's budget shows no appreciation of it or of the need for emergency measures to get expansion going again.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could protect us from some of these chattering primitives on my left?


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are referring to your own members, you know.


Mr. Speaker:: May I remind the house that there is a good deal of interruption of the Leader of the Opposition from all parts of the chamber. This is not in accordance with the rules, and hon. members might recall that standing order No. 12, paragraph 3, specifically says:
When a member is speaking, no member shall interrupt him, except to raise a point of order.
I hope hon. members will take note of that and give the Leader of the Opposition the rights to which he is entitled.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Thank you for intervening, Mr. Speaker. I hope that will make it a great deal easier for those members of the house who are so disposed to hear what I am saying.
The minister and his parliamentary secretary who take this optimistic view of the situation now, though it is not quite so optimistic as it was, have stated in this house, especially the parliamentary secretary, that the general reaction to this particular budget was most favourable and that everybody praised it. I do not wish to misquote the parliamentary secretary, but he was certainly very emphatic in his claim that there had been general and widespread approval of this particular budget. I could quote editorial after editorial in support of the

opposite view, but I will mention only two. The Vancouver Sun of December 22 stated:
Mr. Fleming's budget does not meet the needs of the economic crisis.
Indeed it does not. I might also quote the Conservative Globe and Mail of December 22, 1960 which said this:
It was his own optimism that led the minister astray back in March.
To this disappointment (falsification of his hopes) the Finance Minister has responded with a supplementary budget which itself is widely described as disappointing.
This particular budget was, of course, heralded in advance. It got a great build-up as dramatic evidence of the government's realization of the situation even at the last minute. We were led to believe that something exciting was going to be brought down. There were press predictions based on the usual informed sources that at last something really worth while was to be done about unemployment. Our hopes were deceived, as the minister's predictions were falsified earlier. There is nothing in this particular budget which deals in any adequate way with the unemployment emergency. Indeed, it increases the over-all tax burden. It fails to recognize the recession. It fails to recognize that there is an unemployment emergency. It is without planning or direction in dealing with this recession, this emergency. How could it be otherwise when the government is not aware of it?
There is, of course, a deficit now. The $12 million surplus is gone with the snows and we now have a $287 million deficit. But that is in no sense a planned deficit such as might have been justified at this time to deal with the emergency. How could it be a planned deficit when there was to be a surplus only a few months ago? This deficit is not the result of any policy decision brought about for the kind of purpose in a recession for which a deficit could be useful. It is not a remedy for a recession; it is the result of a recession. It is a very good example, to use the phrase of the parliamentary secretary, of budgeting by accident.
We shall be reviewing the proposals in this budget in detail when we get to the resolution stage. As my hon. friend from Bonavista-Twillingate has indicated, there are some good things in this budget. There are some proposals which may be very useful from the long range point of view even though there is nothing which could deal effectively with the emergency at the present time.
Even those good proposals, as we will point out when we come to discuss them in detail, are for the most part too limited, too little and too late. The special encouragement to small business is an example of this. The
The Budget-Mr. Pearson encouragement of new business activity in depressed areas is another example of something which is good in itself, but which is too limited in its application to deal with the situation we face at the present time. The proposed use of double depreciation is another example of something which is good in itself but, as we will point out, should go farther. If, for instance, this device is used merely to overcome temporary difficulties by accelerating development which would in any event occur, that effect will be purely temporary and inadequate.
Another measure which is good in principle but unsatisfactory in application is the tax concession offered in this budget to students and to parents of students. This particular measure is regressive in this sense, that it offers the most assistance to those who are in the best position to help themselves.
Then there are the proposals to discourage the inflow of foreign capital. The method adopted by the government in this budget is apparently to make it less attractive for nonresidents to invest their funds in Canada.
The Minister of Finance was pretty emphatic in New York the other day in telling his audience down there that it is not the purpose of the government in this budget or in any aspect of its financial policy-I think I am paraphrasing what he said-to discourage foreign investments, to discourage United States investors in particular. What is the particular provision if it is not to cut down on non-residents' investments in this country? One result of this is that it will be more expensive, not less expensive, for Canadians, especially the provinces and the municipalities, to finance their own needs.
I admit, Mr. Speaker, that it is difficult at this stage, of course, to assess the effect of the measures, but surely it is clear that they will increase the financial difficulties of the provinces and the municipalities. If they do seriously discourage long term foreign investment in this country, they will delay our development and they will delay that expansion which is so necessary for the cure of our present economic ills as well as for our long term prospects.
The other day the governor of the Bank of Canada, who is making some very interesting speeches these days-whether with the knowledge and approval of the Minister of Finance I do not know, but he is the governor of the Bank of Canada and naturally his relations with the government and the Department of Finance must be very close- said this in one paragraph of a speech he made in Ottawa, I think on January 17:
I venture the proposition that it is not healthy and will not be fruitful or successful for a

The Budget-Mr. Pearson
country such as Canada to pursue any other course than to stand on Its own feet, finance its development out of its own savings ...
There could hardly be a more important statement in respect of Canadian economic development than that. It will be interesting to know-perhaps he will tell us-whether the minister agrees-


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he cares to comment on it and tell us if he agrees with it or not?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I will comment on it. I think it is not possible for Canada to finance the kind of development which we must have in this country; it is not possible, and therefore it is not desirable, to try to finance that kind of development exclusively out of our own resources.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Tell us what you think.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I refer to the speeches on this subject where the matter is very plainly dealt with; the speech on the budget, the speech in Toronto on January 9, and the speech in New York this week. The hon. gentleman has the speeches.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have quoted from the statement of the governor of the Bank of Canada, which has a very important bearing on this question of national development. There are two methods which can be adopted by the government to reduce the inflow of foreign capital and incidentally to eliminate the premium on our dollar which the minister said not so long ago could not be done except by controls.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say that. Will the hon. gentleman point to where I ever made such a statement? Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman if he will indicate the source of the statement which he ascribes to me. I never said that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the minister denies that in the last year he has ever said that action by the government to reduce the premium on our dollar could be taken only by the imposition of controls, I accept his denial of that fact. Does the minister deny that he ever made that statement?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I made several speeches on this subject. I pointed out in very plain terms about five different courses which could be taken. I dealt with each of them, and this was one of them. I said that in the circumstances then existing, with respect to each of them, the damage, the harm that would be done by any of those courses would greatly outweigh the benefits that might accrue from them.
[Mr. Pearson.)


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there are two methods by which this inflow of foreign capital can be reduced. One is to reduce the supply of foreign funds and increase the cost of borrowing abroad. That is the method adopted in this budget. The other is to make borrowing in Canada easier and less costly by easier credit and lower interest rates at home, which in our view is the better way of doing it. We are confirmed in that view by some impressive financial, and economic experts and businessmen in this country.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member be telling us how?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be coming to this. On December 5, 1960, the president of the Bank of Montreal had this to say, and I quote from Mr. Hart's speech:
A restrictive credit policy designed to offset the consequences of the excessive creation of debt could go beyond the salutary checking of a boom to become a deterrent to normal and desirable economic growth.
He went on:
A policy which was necessary and inevitable when inflationary pressures were active may have been maintained too long and may even have been unsuited to a situation characterized by unemployed productive capacity and, more seriously, unemployed people.
We on this side agree with that statement, Mr. Speaker. That is why the method advocated by us in this present situation, which I have just mentioned, in our view is much better adapted to our present economic conditions. It is a method also advocated by many other respectable and experienced banking and financial experts. It would not discourage long term foreign investment, but it would prevent the inflow of international-* and I mentioned this when I spoke on the budget a year ago-hot money coming to Canada for speculative purposes only because of the higher interest rates prevailing in this country. Moreover, this method that we prefer would help meet the borrowing requirements of the provinces and the municipalities in a way that would reduce rather than increase their financial burdens. In our view the method proposed by the government is restrictive. It is likely to prolong the recession and the present stagnation. Our method is expansionist, and it would promote prosperity and growth.
I think, Mr. Speaker, the time has come to question the validity of traditional thinking on monetary and fiscal matters; the kind of thinking that keeps money tight and interest rates too high at a time of recession and high unemployment; the kind of thinking which relates, if you like, living beyond our means as a danger to this situation where half a million people in this country have no means

to live on at all except unemployment assistance. Perhaps in this connection I might quote an authority who is often quoted with approval by hon. gentlemen opposite and I think has already been so quoted in this debate. I refer to the financial editor of the Montreal Gazette, Mr. Meyer, who wrote this on December 15, 1960:
Traditional thinking dominates the government's approach to economic problems. The way must be found to achieve flexibility of application-
He was talking of fiscal and monetary policies.

within the broad lines of constant policy.
We are not likely to have this, Mr. Speaker, until we once again have close, constant and constructive co-operation, togetherness, if I may use that word, between the federal government, which has the ultimate responsibility in fiscal and monetary matters, and the Bank of Canada, whose policies must be acceptable to and in harmony with the policies of the government if the right kind of relationship between them is to exist, for if the right kind of relationship does not exist this country suffers.
There must also be confidence and a frank and constructive relationship between the Bank of Canada and the private financial institutions of this country. It seems that something has gone wrong in this field of government and bank collaboration. The governor of the Bank of Canada, for instance, continually emphasizes-and I am not quarrelling with his right to emphasize, or suggesting that there is not some validity to the emphasis-the danger of living beyond our means. But spokesmen for the government take the opposite point of view. Indeed, last spring the minister of trade and commerce, who is now Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill), took direct and definite issue on that statement with the governor of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance himself. On March 31, 1960, as found on page 2672 of Hansard, the minister had this to say:
Over the years of our history economic growth has taken place at a faster rate-
"Has taken place at a faster rate."

than the additional net financial indebtedness to the outside world which has been incurred in the course of achieving it.
What is apparently a lack of complete understanding between them makes it difficult to appreciate whether the governor of the Bank of Canada is or is not speaking for the government in his public appearances when he discusses monetary policies in terms which, quite rightly, command a great deal of attention. The uncertainty on this point seems to me to be bad for economic and
The Budget-Mr. Pearson financial confidence in the country. If the governor of the Bank of Canada does not speak for the government in these matters and his words have no relationship to government policy we should know this. We should also be told, and perhaps we will be when the minister winds up the debate, the views of the government on credit policy and on the dangers of our current imbalances which are so emphatically and so continuously pointed out by the governor of the Bank of Canada and, indeed, by others.
Does the Minister of Finance, for instance, agree with Canadian bankers and officers of the Canadian Labour Congress, who have more than once in recent months expressed surprise that under present circumstances measures to limit inflation have not given greater way to measures to cope with unemployment? There is another feature of this budget-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. gentleman goes on to another subject, which I understand he is about to do, I wonder whether he would now come back and deal with the matter I raised when he spoke about the desirability of lowering interest rates and other measures. Would he tell us how he proposes to accomplish this purpose? Would he give us the means and particulars?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has the resources to do this, and I will come to this point later in my speech. I could spend a great deal of time on that one point alone, but we will be dealing with it when the budget resolutions come forward. I do suggest at this point, seeing that he has brought up the matter, that he has made it much more difficult for himself and for the government by the mistakes in financial policy that were made two or three years ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is a question.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Leader of the Opposition yields the floor, yes, but at the moment both hon. gentlemen were standing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I asked him earlier if he was going to tell us how, and I meant in the course of his speech today. I gather he has made his statement and is turning to something else. Would he tell us today, now-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will make my own speech in my own way.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -how he proposes to bring about a reduction in interest rates?

The Budget-Mr. Pearson


Lester Bowles Pearson: In spite of the interruption of the minister I will repeat what I said a moment ago, that the minister's policies of some time ago, especially his conversion loan policy, have made it more difficult to do this now than it otherwise would have been.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are running
away from your own statement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister might also pay heed to what had been said on this matter by my colleague the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan), who is not in the house this morning. He gave the minister some very good advice on this matter and in detail, not only in this debate but in previous debates; advice that was sneered at by the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let us hear you make good on your promise to tell us how now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The worst and probably the most far-reaching proposal contained in the budget is that relating to changes in the application of the definition of goods of a class or kind made in Canada. This, Mr. Speaker, certainly is Tory budgeting with a vengeance. The proposed changes, if they meet with parliamentary approval as no doubt they will, will confer new, wide and arbitrary powers on the Minister of National Revenue, without any appeal from those powers, in determining the tariff on a great variety of goods but mainly on machinery. Whenever these new powers are used, and they can be used now by an arbitrary decision of the Minister of National Revenue from which there is no appeal, they will mean an increase in the tariff from 7.5 per cent to 22.5 per cent. Since a great increase of this kind will apply in most cases on goods used in Canadian production, and I am thinking particularly of machinery, surely that will weaken the competitive strength abroad of our export industries and of our manufacturing industries in the domestic market, because it will increase the cost of production.
This proposed step announced by the minister is inconsistent with and, indeed, is in direct contradiction to some of the warnings issued by the minister himself, including one contained in his budget speech. How can the minister reconcile this proposed change with his own words in his budget speech when he said, as found on page 1001 of Hansard:
* . world markets are becoming increasingly competitive, and unless we can keep our costs of production in line with those in other important trading countries we shall find it increasingly difficult to sell our goods abroad and meet the competition of imports at home.
Those words are true. That is a good and salutary warning. How can the minister reconcile that with this proposal to give arbitrary powers to the Minister of National


Revenue which, on commodities such as machinery, can result in increasing the duty from 7 per cent to 22 per cent? The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) has been talking about this policy. He has been talking about a lot of things these days, but this is a remark which is more sensible than some he has been making lately. I am reading from a Canadian Press dispatch of the minister's speech in London, England, on January 7, in which it is stated:
The trade minister said that Canada's living standards and her ability to provide full employment depend on her ability to remain competitive in international trade.
If this is the kind of government action that is taken to help us become competitive in international trade, it is more likely to invite retaliation from other countries and especially from the United States. We should not refuse to take action in this country in this field or any other field merely because it may invite retaliation, if we are sure the action is wise and good. But to invite retaliation because of an action which is neither wise nor good does not seem to me to be a very sound government financial or economic policy.
We intend, Mr. Speaker, to oppose this particular provision with all our strength. I warn the Minister of Finance that we will expect much more detailed information from him than we have now or than he gave us in his speech, before we are prepared to come to a final decision.
In the face of all these shortcomings in this budget, in the face of these inadequacies and these inconsistencies, the minister still says, as reported on page 1015 of Hansard for December 20, 1960:
Here are measures to overcome the deeper causes and manifestations of unemployment:
You may ask what our policy would be in this matter. This is a question that is continuously being addressed to us by hon. gentlemen opposite. But, having asked it, they never bother about reading the proposals we have put forward or are putting forward. When we tell them what we would do, they come back again six months later and say, what would you do?
I will tell you what we would have done, Mr. Speaker. For one thing, we would have begun our anti-recession or anti-unemployment policies three years ago. We would have based those policies on certain principles, the most important of which is the obligation of government to accept the requirement of full employment in the economy. By "full employment" I do not mean 100 per cent employment, because that is not the economic

The Budget-Mr. Pearson
meaning of the phrase. I think that, in Can- This was in 1955. A Liberal government, ada, anything below 3 per cent would be Mr. Speaker, would confirm and restate considered as reasonably full employment. those principles in the handling of budgetary I know quite well, as the minister would trficT economic policy, "as ~iL did m the past, no doubt point out to me if he cared to It would confirm and restate 'them in a interrupt again, that in a mixed economy special employment bill which would be the with the private sector quite rightly being 1945 white paper on employment and income the most important sector of the economy, the brought up to date and put in legislative government alone cannot and should not be form as laying down objectives in reaching asked to ensure full employment. This de- which a government should lead. In the pends on the work, energy and initiative of implementation of those principles there the citizens and on an association of all the must be more careful planning, better reeconomic elements in our society, whose cooperation with government and whose vigour and enterprise on their own are essential if we are going to have full employment in this country. There is no doubt about that. There has to be this kind of co-operation before the government can be blamed for the inadequacies of its policies. But the government can, and the government must, as almost a first obligation, provide by its actions and by its management of affairs a climate of confidence based on sound policies for expansion and growth in which full employment can best be achieved, and indeed can only be achieved.
Only by, and only in, an expanding econ-
\
search and continuous consultation and cooperation at all levels of government and, as I have said, between government, labour, industry, business, consumer and expert.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Lester Bowles Pearson: The Budget-Mr. Pearson
officials of government who can give the government advice in these matters, it is becoming increasingly necessary-and other governments and countries have recognized this fact in their machinery of government- to set up some kind of over-all advisory planning body, not to interfere with government responsibility but to assist government in discharging that responsibility.
In brief, Mr. Speaker, our major economic goal as a party would be full employment in a mixed economy such as that which we have, through careful planning. To that end, of course, it is obvious that no single tool, governmental nor non-governmental, will do the job. All the tools of trade, fiscal and monetary policy, must be used with full co-operation between governmental and nongovernmental agencies. The correct use of these tools is the art of government.
More specifically, Mr. Speaker, a Liberal government would accept what this government refuses to accept, namely ultimate and overriding responsibility for monetary policy and would direct that policy to promoting healthy economic expansion, something which in present conditions certainly requires easier credit and lower interest rates.
We would also separate the existing industrial bank from the Bank of Canada and would hope that it would act vigorously in order to provide risk capital for the purpose of assisting enterprising Canadians in starting new businesses. In addition, we would establish a municipal loan fund

and we have been advocating this course for years-to make additional finances available to municipalities on a long term basis for every kind of municipal improvement. Such measures would surely stimulate increases in output and in employment immediately and on a much broader basis than could be done by grandiose and expensive federal public works projects.


Mr. Pigeon:: Will the Leader of the Opposition tell the house whether he is in agreement with the views expressed by Mr. St. Laurent concerning "Answer Canadian" to question No. 10 on the census?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will ignore that interruption, Mr. Speaker, which is worthy of the hon. member.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member is afraid to -answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There would be deficits in time of recession and there would be surpluses in times of boom. It raas-en-that-that Mr. Walter Harris, as I mentioned this morning, planned for a deficit and in order to stimulate the economy proposed tax cuts amounting to more than $200 million in a full year. Surely that is in contrast to the
planless drift of the present government which predicted a surplus in this current year and budgeted for that surplus when it was obvious all along that there would be a deficit.
When a recession begins a government must inevitably face a deficit. It must plan for that deficit at once so as to stimulate the economy and thereby lessen or shorten the recession. The opposite course, the passive, planless course followed by this government results
I in a larger deficit and a longer recession. The Liberal party believes that in conditions of emergency, but only in conditions of emer-i gency, deficit financing that gets the econ

 omy rolling is better than a depressed ' economy and mounting deficits resulting only from the depression.
But that kind of deficit-and I want to emphasize this-should be planned in such a way as to produce quick results and should be ended with a balanced budget as soon as the emergency situation ends.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the Leader of the Opposition permit a question?
In the field of fiscal policy, as I already statedTa Liberal government would so man-a.gp its affairs, as., to- balance its budget only at high employment levels. I know that during a period of economic emergency with high unemployment that policy will undoubtedly result in deficits but they will be planned deficits for a good social and economic purpose, and not accidental deficits. There would also be surpluses in boom years, as there were during our period of government, when they were derided by hon. members opposite.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.
(Translation):


Mr. J. A. Habel (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-
(Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have the leave of the Leader of the Opposition to ask my question.


Mr. Speaker:: There is an intervening point of order. Perhaps I should hear it before the minister proceeds with his question.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I should like to ask a question of the Leader of the Opposition. I should greatly appreciate being allowed to ask it. May I do so?
(Translation):


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Speaker, some members of the Union Nationale on our left are engaged in a quarrel and prevent us from hearing what is being said in the house. Would you please call them to order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Mr. Paul Marlineau (Poniiac-Temiscamin-gue):: Mr. Speaker, I must remind the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel) that those are not members of the Union Nationale but representatives elected by the Canadian people in the same way as members on the other side of the house.


An hon. Member:: They are still quarrelling.


Mr. Tremblay:: Mr. Speaker-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order is a simple one. It is a question whether there is order or disorder, and hon. members well know better than I whether they are interrupting.
It is quite improper to interrupt the speaker who has the floor, particularly from one's seat. If an hon. member wishes to ask a question, and the speaker who has the floor is prepared to yield the floor and take the question, that is in accordance with our practice. But to interrupt, particularly with words or phrases, from a member's seat is not conducive to effective debate. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) wishes to ask a question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have the permission of the Leader of the Opposition to ask him a question.
Would he indicate to the house what size deficit he considers to be appropriate to the economic conditions of the country at the present time, as he assesses them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is a very stupid question coming from a man who of course knows better than I do that-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then would you answer?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is not so much the size of the deficit; it is important that the deficit should be of a character planned in advance to correct the recession.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But what amount?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister of Finance asks me, the Leader of the Opposition, to make a declaration during the budget debate on the amount of deficit we should have at this particular moment, to do the job that I am saying should be done by the government, which has a deficit that is accidental, was not planned. They did not even know the amount of it themselves three months ago, because they thought it was going to be a surplus. In the face of that, the minister asks me this afternoon what the deficit should have been.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What would you plan?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are afraid to answer my first question.
The Budget-Mr. Pearson Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member who is interrupting has no right to comment from his seat, nor to rise for a question unless he can secure the attention of the member who is speaking and the member who is speaking resumes his seat.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we-and this has some bearing, no doubt, on what the Minister of Finance is driving at-would propose four fiscal measures, among others, which could be easily adjusted so that they could be brought to an end when the circumstances made that desirable.
The first one would be a temporary reduction of the rates of personal income tax. That is not-as the minister and others have indicated "In their public utterances-an irre-spoujibte"prBposal. It is a sound economic proposal for the present emergency situation.
This method of dealing with a recession is not new. We used it with good effect in this parliament in 1954 and 1955. We on this side advocated it in 1957 and 1958, when it was ignored by the government, who preferred what they called a billion dollar public works program. It is being advocated today by economic and financial experts in this country, a great many of them, objective economic expert?. It is being advocated today in the United States by the economic adviser to the new democrat administration, Professor Samuelson. It is being put forward by the governor of TTew York in the budget he is going to introduce in a few weeks time, and he is no long haired, left wing reformer. It is an eminently sound and sensible proposal to make in circumstances such as we face today, and only in those cir-*^Bsistances.	r-
Our second proposal would be that unemployment benefits should be increased for those taking vocational courses. That would have both an economic and a socially bene. ficial effect.
v-Our third fiscal measure would be accelerated depreciation allowances to help all business firms that wish to expand and put in new equipment, without the limitations placed on this device in the minister's proposal. <*. ' -^Ttur fourth measure would be that federal contributions to municipalities undertaking urban renewal projects should be increased - and broadened.	*4
These are all emergency, anti-recessionary and employment measures and they are put forward only in that sense. Other Liberal proposals which we have recently put forward do involve new, long term financial commitments, as contrasted with the emergency measures which I have just mentioned. Perhaps the most important of those would be a medical health plan.

The Budget-Mr. Pearson
But these long term measures, these long term proposals, should be implemented during an expanding and not a receding economy. That is the only way it can be done. But they should be implemented when the present emergency ends, because they correspond to the needs of Canada in the sixth decade of this country, and because in an expanding economy we can carry the financial burden that they involve. After all nobody can carry it but the taxpayers of this country.
As I have already said outside this house, all the money for these things, these long term measures and indeed the short term measures, comes out of one pocket, the taxpayer's pocket; and if we are going to take it out of his pocket-and in these circumstances that is the right course to adopt-* then we should arrange our economy so that we put more money in his pocket from which we can draw. Only then would the burden be supportable.
Careful and sound planned requirements with priorities should be established. The present unemployment emergency comes first. That is the greatest evil, the greatest social, economic and human evil that we have to face. That is why we Liberals advocate, as we have for three years now, an all-out planned attack against unemployment in order to get Canadians back to work. Such a program will be an emergency one and should be an emergency one. It will not be needed when our economy starts to move forward again and full employment has been restored.
There is one other subject which I wish to touch, because the minister devoted a good deal of time to it in his speech, and indeed in that speech he related it to the present position in Canada. I am referring to our export trade. While we have talked in this house during this debate mostly about domestic trade problems, it is impossible to underrate the importance of the problems of our external trading relationships.
The expansion of our exports is essential, and restrictionist policies which might prevent such expansion are bad and dangerous. I mentioned one of them this morning, and there are some others in this budget. We must do everything possible to encourage exports. Before I say a few words about the general problem I will make one concrete proposal. It is this; to encourage domestic manufacturing industries to increase their exports, tax incentives should be offered, including a reduction in corporation income tax on the profits earned on increased export sales.
It is quite clear to every member of this house that export trade is more important 

than ever. It is also encouraging and a cause for satisfaction that it has held up so well during 1960. But there are circumstances at the present time-and the minister has mentioned some of them-which give us some cause to worry about the prospects of export trade in 1961.
The trend in regard to our increase in exports over the years is interesting. The physical volume of exports rose between 1950 and 1953 by about 20 per cent. From 1953 to 1956 it rose 13 per cent, and from 1956 to 1959, 5 per cent. This year, as the minister has pointed out, an expanding European market proved, I do not think it is an exaggeration to call it so, a life-saver. But the United States market continues to be the most essential factor in the development of our export trade, and there are certainly dangers here. One danger would be to prejudice increased access to that market by adopting trade policies with regard to some other markets which, though they might have certain immediate benefits, might injure the long range development of our access to the United States market.
It is impossible to talk about the export trade and our markets abroad without talking about the regional associations which are now developing all over the world and particularly in Europe. There are today international trade developments taking place in the building up of regional trade associations, common markets and free trade areas which must disturb and, possibly, dislocate the customary pattern of multilateral trade from which Canada in the past has benefited as much as any single country in the world.
These developments, especially those in Europe, could have important and far-reaching potential effects politically and economically. They could also, as has been pointed out, if they are carried out in the wrong way, weaken instead of strengthen the free democratic countries, especially if they result in increasing rather than decreasing the obstacles to trade between the free nations within these associations and the free nations outside. That is true, but it is no good Canada or any other country trying to protect itself against that kind of result by giving irritated lectures to the British or other European governments on the sanctity of special arrangements.
Canada should take a very different kind of leadership in this matter in the advocacy of closer integration on the widest possible basis. We should seize that kind of initiative, help break through these European developments in the interest of making them Atlantic developments before it is too late. Surely, this is a strategic moment at which to do

this, with a new and forward looking administration taking office in Washington.
Surely this is the time-and it may not persist over many months-when we should make such a break through in the direction of converting these European associations into an association on a broader basis than that of Europe alone. We had a wonderful opportunity to begin that process in this country three years ago when the British made their free trade offer. That is gone. Let us try to manufacture new opportunities now, because if these developments take the wrong course we shall suffer more than perhaps any other country. Let us try to build up an Atlantic trade area with nations cooperating closely together in an association which would be open to others who might wish to join.
What has this government done in pursuing such an objective? It has threatened our friends in Europe that if they take certain steps we may have to retaliate. The Montreal Star of November 18 quotes the Minister of Finance as saying-and this speech has .been referred to already in this debate-that a common agricultural policy for Europe if adopted by the United Kingdom in whole or in part would be totally unacceptable. The report goes on to quote the minister as saying that if that happened:
-the pressure for Canada to embark on closer trade associations with other countries, particularly the United States, would understandably be increased.
I take it that is a kind of threat of massive retaliation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was not a threat at all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, it has been interpreted in practically every country, which has commented on it as a threat.
Even more peculiar was the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees), among other recent peculiar statements which he made in Paris on December 15 when he entered for the first time into the international economic club, that if the E.C.M., that is, the European common market, put their announced tariff schedules into effect, we would retaliate. I may be wrong about this, but 1 understand that these tariff schedules have been put into effect.
According to the Paris correspondent of the Winnipeg Free Press of December 15, the Minister of Trade and Commerce went even further. He warned European ministers at the O.E.C.D. signing, this report states, that unless the European common market substantially reduced its announced tariff affecting imports from Canada at the GATT 90205-6-81
The Budget-Mr. Pearson negotiations in Geneva Canada would retaliate by increasing its barriers against imports from the six European countries.
I suggest that this kind of talk is not very sensible economic diplomacy as, indeed, was pointed out by the financial editor of the Gazette who wrote, referring to the speech made by the Minister of Finance on November 24, and I quote from Mr. Meyer's editorial:
Mr. Fleming must be very careful, however, not to become a victim of his own forthrightness. Retaliation has its place in international dealings but it can never substitute for policy. One would wish Mr. Fleming were more forthright about the alternatives. He does recognize at least one alternative-"Closer trade association with other countries, particularily the United States"-but there is no indication this would be any more satisfactory than retaliation.
A correspondent of the Financial Post, Mr. Clive Baxter, writing in that paper on December 10, goes further. He is writing from Brussels after having talks with officials of the European common market, and he has this to say, quoting an E.C.M. executive:
Please explain to Canadians that while we sympathize with your problems you cannot scare us with the sort of threats Mr. Fleming used.
If you don't like what we are doing you are, of course, free to take whatever measures your government sees fit. ..
Much as we like Canada and Canadians, don't ever think that a market of 17 million people can threaten us into changing our basic plans...
Please don't lose your sense of proportion. You are going to have to live with us in the future, and to withdraw into an angry protective shell can only mean more and worse trouble for your economy.
I should like to give the minister a little piece of advice, namely that he will not be successful in blasting his way into the markets of Europe at this time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to give the hon. gentleman some advice, not to misinterpret what other people say.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The language is plain.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is reckless misinterpretation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have reported what has appeared in a very influential Canadian economic newspaper.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was not accurate then, and it is not now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If that is the kind of interpretation which can be placed on the statements of ministers they ought to look into the wisdom of their statements. Instead of using this kind of verbal threat, it would be much more constructive if they took the initiative in trying to project this European common market into an Atlantic market. There is a
1276	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. O'Leary good opportunity for it now. With new developments in Washington, I suggest it would be a great thing if the Canadian government could take the initiative in realizing this opportunity.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that this particular budget does not recognize the seriousness of the problems we face. Our country will solve these problems, of course. We on this side have faith and confidence in the Canadian people and in the destiny of Canada; but we have no faith or no confidence in a government which is not giving leadership, steady and wise administration, and which has not played its full part in the solution of those problems.
Our worry is not about the Canadian people; our worry is about the government, and that worry is shared by an increasing number of Canadian people. We have no illusions about the complexities and difficulties of the problems. We know there is no single solution for our problems. In this respect, maybe I can quote with complete approval another paragraph from the speech of the governor of the Bank of Canada. He said the other day:
Our difficulties have a variety of causes, and some combination of a number of various lines of attack will no doubt provide the best solution. It is important to realize, however, that there is no single easy solution, no method which does not involve effort and thought and the adaptation of earlier ideas to the actual conditions of the day.
The lead in such effort and thought and in the adaptation of earlier ideas to the problems should be given by this government. That is not being done. That is why we moved this amendment, and that is why we will vote for it.


Mr. Brunsden:: Will the Leader of the Opposition permit a question? Mine is a very simple mind, particularly with respect to finance. The Leader of the Opposition deplores federal deficits; he advocates cuts in taxation, in corporation and personal income tax. He advocates more spending. How does he reconcile these three?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would not try to reconcile what the hon. member has just said because I never advocated any such thing.


Mr. Clement O'Leary (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: Mr. Speaker, I will not undertake to comment at any length on the remarks just concluded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). I will simply say I was deeply disappointed that he continued to parade that note of pessimism so characteristic of the party that he leads. I was also a bit amazed and surprised at the inconsistency obviously shown when he indicated certain agreement with the principles of this


budget and yet at the same time he continued to criticize the policies set forth in it.
On Tuesday evening the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) commented that this budget contained nothing for the Atlantic provinces. When I have concluded my remarks I believe I will have proved conclusively that this statement was inaccurate. I will refer to direct benefits that will accrue to my constituency from this budget, and I will also refer to indirect benefits, and I would ask the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo to put the two of them together and recognize the fact that these indirect benefits apply to us in the Atlantic provinces as Canadians. I must admit there were a number of years when I doubted whether Ottawa did recognize the Atlantic provinces as Canadian provinces. However, this government, in one of its first acts, very quickly dispelled any doubts that we had in our minds. I refer, of course, to the special grants of $25 million to the Atlantic provinces.
I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) first of all on having seen fit to introduce this supplementary budget at this time; and, second, on the nature and content of it. That it was timely was well expressed by the minister himself in his opening remarks when he said, as reported at page 999 of Hansard:
Not only must policies be flexible from year to year, but there are occasions when it becomes appropriate to reassess the economic outlook and to adjust fiscal policies between the main budget dates. This is such a time.
The recognition of the need for flexibility in our economic policies to which the minister referred both last month and on introducing this present interim budget is the reason we have this budget before us. I noted that on Monday my respected friend, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) did not embrace too warmly the concept of flexibility that the minister pointed out; but I sincerely believe that this hon. member is the type of person who, if he were in the minister's position, would not permit changing economic conditions both at home and abroad to take place without taking what he would feel would be appropriate action as quickly as possible to cope with such a fast changing national economy. This is exactly what the Minister of Finance has done.
During my few years in this house I have gained the impression that the Liberal party on more than one occasion felt, or at least attempted to convey the idea, that this government did not act promptly enough or was too inflexible or did not adapt itself readily enough to change. Obviously the hon. member for Welland does not support this idea.

On Monday last the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Bell) neatly summed up the objectives of this budget. He did this in five propositions and I feel they are well worth repeating here. I quote from page 1079 of Hansard:
To provide immediate stimulus to employment; to intensify the impetus to balanced economic development; to encourage more effective use of Canadian savings in the development of our resources and industry; to assist in the improvement of our balance of payments situation and to keep a tight rein on inflationary pressures.
So far in this debate I have not heard any of the opposition members provide anything by way of conviction that such objectives could not or would not be attained.
It is quite true, Mr. Speaker, that this supplementary budget, because of what it sets out to do in order to meet the challenge of the times, will mean a deficit at the end of the fiscal year rather than a modest surplus as predicted by the Minister of Finance last March. I ask, what is the reaction of the people of Canada to this deficit as forecast? I think it is obvious that they recognize it as a further indication of the Progressive Conservative party keeping faith with the people and, more specifically, with the Prime Minister's pledge to the effect that the welfare of Canadians would be a prime consideration, deficit or no deficit.
Certainly no one in this nation should be shocked by deficits as such and certainly not in this instance when the budget provides for these worthy objectives which I have already outlined. As has already been pointed out by speakers on the government side in this debate, deficits have been experienced many times in this country both under Liberal and Conservative administrations. Then too, it has been quite correctly pointed out that the present forecast deficit represents but 5.6 per cent of our total expenditures for this year whereas under Liberal administrations in the past we have had deficits representing 14.6, 19 and even as high as 35 per cent of the total expenditures in those days. These reflections should cushion the pretended shock of even the most pronounced opposition critics.
The tax and fiscal measures outlined in the budget plus the legislation already passed by the house during the pre-Christmas session provide for an increased program of assistance to municipalities for winter works projects; improvement in the terms of mortgage lending; Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in partnership with provincial authorities undertaking the purchase, improvement and rental of existing housing; loans to universities for students' residences; establishment of a productivity council; loans to 90205-6-81J
The Budget-Mr. O'Leary small businesses; generous assistance to provincial vocational training programs, plus a further 21 measures to come before the house, all this adds up, Mr. Speaker, to a program of such a nature and of such magnitude as should allay even the voiced fears of the gloomiest of opposition members.
Representing a constituency of farming, fishing and small businesses of various types and, incidentally, the seat of a university world renowned in the field of adult education, I know that the people of my area will quickly recognize and appreciate the several items in the government's program which directly apply. I will not labour the matter by reciting the entire field where these various measures directly apply, but considering the productive components of my constituency as I have already stated them it is obvious from which measures it will benefit most.
However, I do feel that I must make brief reference to the rural rehabilitation and development program referred to in both the throne and the budget speeches. In so far as my constituency is concerned, this legislation and the ensuing action will be warmly welcomed. I know this will be true right across the country, and I would point out that it is but one more of many progressive steps toward a well-rounded national agricultural policy as announced by the Prime Minister on August 30, 1958. I wish to quote briefly and in part the words of the Minister of Finance with reference to this item in his budget presentation on December 20, as found at page 1003 of Hansard. With reference to the rehabilitation and development program, he said:
This measure envisages a far-reaching program of rural development which taken together with existing facilities and program for assistance to farmers adds up to a well rounded and comprehensive agricultural policy for Canada. Under this program, to be undertaken in co-operation with the provinces, we may look forward to a general betterment in the quality of our agricultural resources through projects for soil improvement and water conservation; the diversification of economic opportunities available in rural areas; the more effective use of marginal lands by converting them to community pastures and woodlots. These and other related activities encompassed in this program are directed to the long standing objective of the government to raise the standard of living and improve the economic opportunities of our rural population.
In view of the fact that at the present time a large section of our rural population is trying to make a living on marginal and submarginal land and that approximately one third of our farmers across Canada have a gross income of $1,200 a year or less, the need of such a program goes unquestioned. Incidentally, in the province of Nova Scotia and in my constituency the number who have

The Budget-Mr. O'Leary a gross income of $1,200 or less considerably exceeds one third of the total number.
I know that the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacLellan), the constituency adjoining mine on the east, will agree with me that this measure is timely indeed. I refer to the $40 million pulp mill being constructed in his constituency directly across the strait of Canso from Guysborough county and which it is planned will be in operation in the first quarter of 1962. Both our constituencies can provide ample scope for the conversion of marginal and submarginal land into specialized use for forest crops and thereby provide an additional source of wood supply for this new mill.
In addition, of course, to the forestry aspect of this legislation, we hope that there will be embraced such other urgent matters as farm surpluses, more productive use of our land and water resources, drainage, erosion control and the establishment of many of our farmers on economic family farm units. I believe the hope of this legislation is to provide new and diversified opportunities that are at present not available to traditional agriculture. Those farmers who have not classified as at least reasonably productive in the traditional field will be afforded an opportunity to move into other new and specialized fields, and those whose higher productivity warrants their remaining in traditional agriculture will as a result immediately increase their opportunities to pick up markets formerly supplied by an aggregate of these low productive farmers who have moved into other than traditional fields of agriculture. Thus we see that all farmers in all regions of Canada will benefit by this legislation.
The Nova Scotia federation of agriculture in its 1960 annual brief presented to the Nova Scotia members of the house recommended practically the identical solutions which we understand will be part and parcel of this rural rehabilitation and development legislation as outlined in the budget.
At this time, because it is directly related and is of vital concern to our farm woodlot owners, I wish to commend the government on its establishment of the Department of Forestry last year. I compliment the Prime Minister on his excellent selection of a minister to head this department. At the same time I warmly congratulate the minister on his appointment.
Like other members, I have received numerous inquiries for information with respect to the small business loans legislation and I was very pleased to hear the Minister of Finance say on Tuesday in replying to a question that the regulations and application forms had been distributed to the banks and it was expected that lending
IMr. O'Leary.]
operations would commence yesterday. I am pleased too and I know that all across Canada our university students and their parents welcomed the budget announcement with respect to the allowance of tuition fees before calculating taxable income where applicable.
When listing the items of legislation enacted during the pre-Christmas session I included loans to universities for students' residences.
I do not think I need remind the house that such a measure is much appreciated by almost all Canadian universities so hard pressed to accommodate their ever-growing student bodies. Unprecedented numbers of students are entering our universities. As a matter of fact, the annual increase in enrolment since 1955 has considerably outpaced the forecast of the statisticians. This would lead one to believe that even though the granting of scholarships offer desirable opportunities to Canadians and therefore have genuine merit the great problem in this field today is the plight of our universities in attempting to provide facilities and accommodation for the increasing numbers of our young people who presently have or may secure the funds with which to attend university and who cannot be accommodated.
The Canadian Universities Foundation made this very clear when presenting its brief to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in October, 1960. This brief states in part, and I quote:
Scholarships to aid the individual are good in part, but it must be remembered that a scholarship, like a cheque, is valuable only if the institutions possess the assets to back it up.
The brief goes on to say, and I quote:
The present preoccupation of the universities is to find sufficient funds to look after unprecedented numbers of students.
Obviously the Liberal party, in its recent pronouncements outside of this house, almost wholly ignored this important fact. It is true that in their resolution on this subject they did indicate that present federal grants for the support of universities would be continued and extended as necessary. I wonder, however, if they would not have exemplified a greater grasp of the problem if they had included something more akin to this government's recent action in introducing the loans to universities legislation.
Appreciating this splendid legislation, never forgetting to be grateful to this government for being the first administration to tangibly recognize the special needs of the Atlantic provinces by making available to them some $25 million annually; not losing sight of the fact that this government since taking office has increased direct assistance to universities by 20 per cent of the total grants made between 1952 and 1957 or paid 60 per cent

of the total grants made between 1952 and 1960; not overlooking the fact that in 1958 this government increased per capita grants to universities from $1 to $1.50, I now call to the attention of the Minister of Finance the unique and unfortunate position of Nova Scotia universities with respect to these per capita grants. I would point out immediately that the formula for these grants was not set up by this government but rather by the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences in 1952. I know that the minister is already aware of this situation and would welcome an immediate solution.
Simply stated, the problem results from the fact that all the universities of Nova Scotia draw their students from outside the province to a greater extent than universities in the other nine provinces. For example, the rates of student population to total population in the university year 1959-60 was 1 to 136. By contrast, the rate for Newfoundland was 1 to 424. In terms of dollars received, this meant that for 1959-60 Nova Scotia universities received $203 per student or $432 per student less than Newfoundland. This amount was $63 less per student than the average grant per student for all Canada which was $271. I realize that comparing the per student grant for the province of Newfoundland is scarcely fair in view of the circumstances. However, I do so only because Newfoundland receives the highest per student grant of any of the provinces. The case I wish to make here is that Nova Scotia university grants should immediately be brought up to the national average, if at all possible.
If Nova Scotia universities had received grants equal to the national average they would have received an additional $359,312 in the academic year 1959-60 alone. St. Francis Xavier University at Antigonish would have received approximately $100,000 more for that year alone. Recognizing the great need for steadily increasing operating income for all universities, as is illustrated by Edward Sheffield in the publication entitled "Financial Needs of Canadian Universities", it is not difficult to understand why the position of Nova Scotia universities particularly is becoming precarious.


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


Mr. O'Leary:: Certainly.


Chesley William Carter: Before the hon. member finishes his speech, would he be good enough to explain to the house which of the budget resolutions arising out of this budget are going to be of special benefit to agriculture
The Budget-Mr. O'Leary in his province, which of the resolutions is specially designed to take care of development problems in the Atlantic provinces, and how they are going to work?


Clement Augustine O'Leary: I will send the hon. member a copy of Hansard tomorrow, and he can look for it himself.
If Nova Scotia universities had received a grant equal to the national average, as I have already pointed out, they would have received $359,312 for the academic year 1959-60. Lest there be any misunderstanding of my argument for Nova Scotia universities by hon. members from British Columbia, Manitoba and New Brunswick, the other provinces where the per student grants to universities fall below the national average, I believe it best to quote from the Canadian Universities Foundation brief of October, 1960, in which it was noted that Nova Scotia constituted a special case. Arguments were advanced as to why this was so. Appendix C was added to this brief entitled "The Nova Scotia Universities: A special case". I will quote briefly the appropriate extracts from both the brief and appendix C. On page 12 of the brief, we find the following, and I should like to emphasize that this is not a Nova Scotia brief but the Canadian Universities Foundation brief:
We would like to emphasize here the point that Nova Scotia constitutes a special case, and that the problems in that province would not be solved even by the increase in per capita grants that we recommend. Dalhousie University, for instance, is responsible for a large part of both the professional and the graduate education, not only in Nova Scotia but in all the maritime provinces. All the universities of Nova Scotia draw their students from outside the province to a greater extent than universities elsewhere.
Then, on the same page the brief continues:
For this unusually large student population- the largest proportionate to provincial population of any section of Canada-there exist resources substantially lower than in any other area of Canada.
Then going to appendix C of this brief, page 1, we read:
-because this province has a large number of universities for its size and consequently a larger number of students in proportion to its population than the other provinces, its universities are inadvertently being penalized under the present system of federal grants in receiving a smaller grant per student than those of any other province.
Nova Scotia differs from the other provinces that also receive federal grants per student below the national average in that all of its universities are private foundations, except a provincial technical college which provides only the last two years of the engineering course. They are not therefore in receipt of the very extensive provincial support accorded to the provincially-oper-ated universities by other provinces and extended to their private universities as well. Moreover, the very existence of the larger proportion of students in relation to provincial population in

The Budget-Mr. O'Leary Nova Scotia would make such an undertaking more onerous than in the higher income provinces of central and western Canada.
On page 2 we find the following:
Not only are the Nova Scotian universities hampered in cultivating the province's most precious resource-its people-they are, in educating many young people from other provinces and many young Nova Scotians who move to other parts of the country, trying to discharge a national responsibility under a severe financial handicap. The national outlook and function of Canadian universities, referred to earlier in this submission, is no less characteristic of Nova Scotian universities than of those of other provinces. Indeed, the relatively greater pressure of increased enrolment in central and western Canada is bound to induce more and more students from other provinces to enter Nova Scotian universities and thus to enhance their national character. Here then is an added reason for assuring the universities of this province of adequate support.
Then on page 3:
It has been pointed out that even though the need for federal financial support has, if anything, been greater in Nova Scotia than in the wealthier provinces, the federal grants to Nova Scotia per student have been, since their inception, not only below the national average, but the lowest received by any of the provinces.
Then in its conclusion the appendix states:
Only extraordinary financial assistance can save Nova Scotia's universities from severe deterioration in the next few years.
I fully realize, Mr. Speaker, that this whole subject of per capita grants to universities is an integral part of federal-provincial agreements and I have no doubt that under the new agreements of 1962 a more equitable formula will be set up. However, in view of the emphasis which the Canadian Universities Foundation, voicing the sentiments of the majority of our universities across Canada, has given the subject of Nova Scotia universities with respect to these grants, I hope that the Minister of Finance and this government may see fit to offer some alleviation of the problem at the earliest opportunity.
I stated earlier, Mr. Speaker, that I would not recite in detail all of the measures in this budget which directly affect and offer assistance and relief for the people in my constituency, the people of Nova Scotia and the people of the Atlantic provinces. I have mentioned but a few of those direct benefits. I will now conclude by way of a general statement indicating that those measures to which I have not referred, those measures which indirectly affect not only my constituency but my province and Canada as a whole, are but further positive proof of this government's genuine concern for the people of Canada, for Canadian ownership and control of our country's resources and industries, for expanded productivity and full employment and its determination and ability to carry out its pledges to the electorate.

(Translation):


Mr. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) for the masterful speech he just made in this house. I know that others among my follow members will have the opportunity to air their views and say whether they consider the opposition leader's allegations justified.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, before coming to the point of the matter-I say to the point of the matter, because some of my friends will find in it matters that are rather pointed-I would like to rectify a statement made this morning by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker), when he asked in this house why we, the Liberals, were not bringing up that famous question of national census, which has aroused so much protest. First of all, Mr. Speaker, it is not because the Prime Minister mentioned the matter that I am dealing with it. I might say to the Prime Minister that if he had taken the trouble of reading the official record or if some of his friends had done so, he would have found that the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) did refer to the matter of the census and expressed some very clear and concise views on the subject. He was one of two Liberals in the house who dealt with the matter. His share was 50 per cent, whereas on the Conservative side, the percentage is zero. Mr. Speaker, this is the proportion of those in the two great parties who are discharging their responsibilities in the house, and that is not all.
I now come to what I shall call "the Pigeon incident." When the Leader of the Opposition was speaking a moment ago, an hon. member rose and said: "Tell us about Mr. St. Laurent and his view." I am delighted that my good friend should like to hear our views on Mr. St. Laurent's statement. He will realize that inside the Liberal party, we are free to express our opinion.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I shall say that I, for my part, am proud of my ethnic origin. That ethnic origin is French and I am proud of it. I owe it to my ancestors, while for my Canadian nationality, of which I am also proud, I am indebted to Mr. St. Laurent, the former Liberal prime minister, who caused that origin to be recognized in this house.
Now, since our friends are anxious to hear about Mr. St. Laurent, may I say this: When Mr. St. Laurent was prime minister of Canada he assumed his responsibilities.

When, in 1961, he gives his personal opinion as a citizen of the province of Quebec, I respect that opinion to which he is entitled. But I would point out to my friends opposite that if Mr. St. Laurent assumed his responsibilities when he was prime minister, the present Prime Minister should also assume his. And the outcry arising from various parts of this country at the moment is directed against the head of the present government and the arbitrary decisions taken by his government, and he is the one who must assume any responsibility, so long as he remains the head of the government.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, with reference to Mr. St. Laurent, I should like to compare the 1951 census taken under Mr. St. Laurent to the coming 1961 census. Mr. St. Laurent's government, like all former governments, always respected ethnic origin. Question 17 in the 1951 census read as follows:
What Is your origin?
In answer to that you have:
English, French, Irish, and so on.
How can our Conservative friends from Quebec remain complacent or at least silent while the 1961 census, under their administration, is about to do away with ethnic origin completely and while such data is essential if the census is to have any historical significance?
Mr. Speaker, I am definitely against this item which has been introduced into the 1961 census form, item No. 10 which says:
What is your origin on your father's side?
The first answer suggested to that question is "Canadian origin".
Mr. Speaker, my own ethnic origin is French, and I am proud of it. At the same time, I know that people whose ethnic origin is other than mine are also proud of theirs. If anyone anywhere is ashamed to say that he comes from Germany, or elsewhere, let him use, as was indicated on the 1951 census form, the last square of question No. 17.
Did you know, that in the 1951 form, a special clause or space was provided for anyone ashamed to say that he came from Germany or elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, this concludes my remarks on the census. I am anxious however to see our friends opposite assume their responsibilities.
As for Mr. St. Laurent, I shall be forever grateful to him for giving Canadian citizenship to Canada, and I shall keep calling him
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis a great Canadian. I respect his personal views, knowing that he respects ours.
I shall now deal with the speech delivered on television the day before yesterday by the Prime Minister of Canada. Yesterday's issue of La Presse reported that speech as follows. The Prime Minister stated:
The Progressive Conservative government has been criticized for its inability to provide an answer to the unemployment problem since it came into power three and a half years ago. But far from being a new problem, unemployment had been a chronic uneasiness, affecting the Canadian economy for a long time. Because those things were not done when they should have been, the entire Canadian economy found itself defenceless against the foreseeable effects of the recession that was already in progress when we came into power in June 1957.
I like it very much when the Prime Minister says he was defenceless against the effects that were nevertheless foreseeable. Therefore he did foresee the effects he mentioned. If he did foresee those alleged effects, why then did he proclaim throughout Canada during his 1957 and 1958 election campaigns:
(Text) :
"No one will suffer as long as I am Prime Minister".
(Translation):
Why did he state to the whole country that he, John Diefenbaker, was able to settle all those problems in no time?
Why all those mutual commendations and rejoicings on the part of our friends opposite, after the first budget? Why did they claim that the worst was over and that we would recover from that temporary recession.
What those hon. gentlemen were calling a temporary recession in 1958, has now become, in the Prime Minister's own words in a T.V. broadcast, a situation into which he claims to have been pushed and against which he is powerless.
I would like to recall, for a few minutes, how right people are to say of the Conservatives that the more they change, the more they remain what they were. As I said before in this house, under the Conservative rule of Bennett, Borden, Bracken, Meighen et al-


Mr. Fortin:: The hon. member was not born at the time.


Yvon Dupuis: Nor were you yourself born at the time of Napoleon, and yet you know about him. As I said before to your colleagues-


Jean-Noël Tremblay: All repetition loses in savour.

The Budget-Mr. Dupuis


Yvon Dupuis: Last year, the member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) recommended to certain fellow members to read the "Journey of Mr. Perrichon". As for me, I advise the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet to read "The True Face of Maurice Duplessis". This will hold him for a while.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, the more things change, the more they remain as they were before.


Louis Fortin: As in Quebec.


Yvon Dupuis: Now listen to this.


Louis Fortin: As in Quebec.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Bennett, prime minister of Canada, stated on March 17, 1931, that is, a few months after he came to power in this country-you will think, Mr. Speaker, that it was the present prime minister speaking. This is what Mr. Bennett said in 1931:
Why is it that present conditions prevail in Canada? Do you realize that this new land, in the present world-wide depression, should have been able, had its policies been adequate, to escape such results? Do you realize that if this country had been making thoughtful provision for the future, if its leaders had been looking into the future, with eyes of vision, there should not have come this disaster to the Canadian people?
And Mr. Bennett added:
Do you realize that this government has been in power eight months and that whatever conditions prevail in Canada today are attributable, not to it but to the governments that preceded it?
Mr. Speaker, the more we compare Mr. Bennett's words with those of Mr. Diefen-baker, the more we realize that they are similar, to the point of completely merging together.
Mr. Speaker, here is another gem spoken by Mr. Bennett, who was still prime minister, but by then he had been in power five years, since the statement is dated 1935. Four years had elapsed since the first and the second statement. In the first instance, after eight months in power he had said: "Blame that on the others, and give me time."
The following statement was made four years later. In January 1935 the same R. B. Bennett shortly before his notorious downfall said this:
Is there one hon. member opposite who is so unfair as to ignore the circumstances under which we found ourselves In 1930?
Just imagine-
Does he not recall the words spoken by the prime minister of that time when he denied that there was any unemployment in this country, and read statistics to back up his statement? Is there one fair-minded member in this house who fails to understand that those were the circumstances we had to deal with?


The laments of the 1935 prime minister, we find them again in the mouth of the present Prime Minister, and in the words he spoke on television. The 1935 prime minister said: "We have been in power for only four and a half years and if things are not so good, others are to blame".
As for the statements made by the present Prime Minister during the last election campaign, I will not refer to them again. I quoted about thirty of them last year. I could quote three or four hundred of them.
Instead of statements by the present Prime Minister, let me quote Mr. Bennett's. You would definitely think that the words are from the same man. The present Prime Minister has probably delved into history to learn the art of achieving power quickly by means of promises.
What he seems to forget is how one falls from power when promises are not kept.
On June 25, 1930, speaking at a meeting at Cobourg, Mr. Bennett also said-and again you would think that the words are from the present leader:
If we are elected, we will undertake and complete the St. Lawrence seaway.
On another occasion the same Mr. Bennett said:
This is a young country and there is no reason why there should be unemployment in the country, if the government knows its business.
And here is another statement by Mr. Bennett dated July 13th, 1930:
There was no need to call a conference to settle the unemployment problem; the solution to the problem is quite obvious. Is it work you want instead of conferences? You are going to get itl I do not want to get into power at the cost of broken promises.
The same words have been uttered by the present Prime Minister.
Here is another statement made by the same Mr. Bennett on June 25, 1930, at Woodstock. The present Prime Minister seems to have drawn inspiration from it.
Promising that, if elected, he would immediately call a special session to put a stop to unemployment, Mr. Bennett stated:	"During the special
session, we plan to pass legislation to create jobs for our people."
And we are able to do so.
On highways, on large canals and on our great seaways:
"Vision, vision, vision." And Mr. Bennett goes on:
We must undertake great work projects such as branch lines or projects of that kind to provide jobs for our people.

One would think that those were the words of the present Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, I still have many quotations, but my time is running short. They are all equally amusing and they prove that the more the Tories change the more they remain the same.
Mr. Speaker, I come now to the Prime Minister's speech, in which he states that there is nothing he can do. Yet, he had promised work for everybody.
(Text):
"No one will suffer as long as I am Prime Minister".
(Translation):
He had also promised to build highways to the north, to venture on the discovery of the great north. That was the "vision" about which he said so much.
Mr. Speaker, we witness now the woeful failure, the fourth consecutive woeful failure of the Fleming-Diefenbaker budget.
The Conservative party has been in power three and a half years now and this is its fourth deficit. I remember last year hearing the Minister of Finance, rising and with his pleasant smile and his set teeth, as you know him, tell the house: Next year, at last, we shall have a budget surplus of $12 million, because we finally managed to get through the recession period and we are now entering upon the good Conservative days.
Mr. Speaker, the same Minister of Finance comes back this year, his teeth set even closer, and tells us: I am forced to confess now that the $12 million surplus I had forecast has now become a woeful $287 million deficit. This is the fourth consecutive deficit of a government that made so many promises.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the public is becoming aware of those things.
Now, I should like to refer to another French Canadian minister, that is, the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny). Oh. he left before his chief, that one. His chief started, the day before yesterday, by blaming the Liberals for his present misadventure, but the Associate Minister of National Defence beat him to it by a few days-which shows that they had conferred beforehand. That minister stated last Saturday, in the constituency of Laval, that if things went wrong, that if there was unemployment, that if the economy was unstable, it was the fault of those bad Liberals who had preceded such a good and competent Conservative government.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. minister-and I regret he is not here at this time-whether the Royal Military College 90205-6-82
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis of St. John is now the responsibility of former governments or of this government. I would also ask him, before he goes about preaching across Canada that we, Liberals, made mistakes four years ago, to look into what goes on in his own department, in the province of Quebec where he lives, and in one of whose constituencies he represents in this house. I would suggest to him to ascertain what is going on at the Royal Military College of St. John where French Canadians who are registered for officers' courses find themselves in an unbearable situation because they cannot complete their courses there.
Further, I say to the Associate Minister of National Defence that, if we did not bother him too much when his last estimates were considered, it is because we pitied him; but I warn him right now to prepare himself for his next estimates, because he will have to reply to questions we will put to him in this house, and he will not be able to blame former administrations, because his own responsibility will then be under scrutiny.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word to another French-Canadian minister-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker would the hon. member allow me a question?


Yvon Dupuis: With pleasure.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Since the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville is talking about responsibility, would he mind referring to the responsibility shouldered by the premier of Quebec, the Hon. Mr. Lesage, with regard to the settlement of the unemployment problem?


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I have no time to talk about that right now, but if you want me to reply to that question, I shall do so, because it is very easy to reply to such an idiotic and inappropriate question.
The Hon. Jean Lesage, premier of Quebec, has inherited a financial situation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh. oh.


Yvon Dupuis: So, the hon. members do not want me to reply-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Answer the question.


Yvon Dupuis: Will you let me answer?


Some hon. Members:: Yes, yes.


Yvon Dupuis: Hon. Jean Lesage has come into a deplorable legacy which looks like-

The Budget-Mr. Dupuis


An hon. Member:: The same as we have here in Ottawa.


Yvon Dupuis: Hon. Jean Lesage has come into a deplorable legacy which looks a lot like the financial situation we too can expect to inherit from this government when we take power.


An hon. Member:: Tell them that the Lesage government is paying for a good part of those winter works.


Yvon Dupuis: They all know that the Quebec premier is paying 40 per cent of the cost of those winter works, compared to the Duplessis government which did not do a thing. They all know that, and it is because of that knowledge that they want to draw a red herring across the trail.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to address myself to another of their idols, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer). Let me say to him that when he will be sent to the four corners of the country by his chief, in an attempt to make the people believe that the Liberals are to blame for the present plight of the government, he will have to give accurate answers to the questions we shall put to him when his estimates are up for consideration, and he will not be able to clear himself of the charges brought against him.
Perhaps the Minister of Transport might then draw inspiration from the statements made by Mr. Bennett saying:
If we come into power, we will undertake and complete the seaway project.
On the 23rd of June 1930, the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett stated in Brandon:
We must develop our agriculture, our basic industry, and lower transportation costs by way of the St. Lawrence seaway.
That was a promise made by Mr. Bennett. We shall undertake the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway.
The St. Lawrence seaway was in fact built by a Liberal administration which thus kept a promise that Mr. Bennett did not care to keep.
Mr. Speaker, today, in our area, which includes part of the St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville electoral district and both the Brome-Missisquoi and the Chambly-Rouville districts, there are thousands and thousands of unemployed, and it is nevertheless a rich area and most certainly one that lends itself to further development.
The Minister of Transport who is from Quebec, should have endorsed-


An hon. Member:: Say that to Mr. Lesage.


Yvon Dupuis: the request from the chamber of commerce of Quebec asking for-

(Text):


Mr. Graffiey:: Mr. Speaker-


Yvon Dupuis: I heard enough from you last year.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport- (Text):


William Heward Grafftey: Unemployment is down in Brome-Missisquoi compared with last year.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you kindly call to order those who are interrupting me.
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member whose riding-but only for the time being- adjoins mine, wishes to ask me questions once I am finished, he knows very well that he may do so, and that his questions will never embarrass me.
Mr. Speaker, I am saying to the Minister of Transport that there is unemployment in our area. As a matter of fact, each winter, approximately 3,000 men register for unemployment benefits at the St. Jean office of the national unemployment service, while there were less than 800 under the Liberal government.


Louis Fortin: There were the armed forces.


Yvon Dupuis: Everyone agrees, Mr. Speaker, that to help the area the deepening of the Richelieu river should be undertaken. This project was thoroughly examined by the chambers of commerce and recommended by them to the minister. He was even invited to go to a Montreal hotel and give a lecture on that vital subject. What did that French Canadian minister from Quebec do? He came and told the people present who had confidence in him: "Forget about the deepening of the Richelieu; it would not be a self-liquidating project for the government".
Since when, Mr. Speaker, is the government an organization which, before undertaking any project, will ask what immediate return it will get out of it? Is it not the duty of the government to get busy and take its responsibilities whenever an emergency prevails in an area and jeopardizes the economy? The government should say this: If the deepening of the Richelieu may result in industries settling along its shores, allowing the area to expand and to relieve the unemployment situation, then we shall promote such a project. If the government had wished to show some courage, that is what they should have said, but just like Mr. Bennett, Mr. Borden and the present Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport is not shouldering his responsibilities.

The Budget-Mr. Tremblay
Before resuming my seat, I would say this to the Minister of Transport: Mr. Minister, we have not bothered you during the previous sessions because we meant to give you a chance to get used to present your estimates; but this year you will not be in a position to say in this house that governments of the past are to be blamed for not undertaking the deepening of the Richelieu, because both Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Che-vrier had stated that, as soon as the St. Lawrence seaway-a Liberal accomplishment- was completed, they would immediately consider the advisability of the Richelieu project. There have been many Liberal undertakings in this country, all of them successfully completed.
Mr. Speaker, we will have the Richelieu waterway. If it is not this year, it will be six months or a year after the present Prime Minister yields the reins of government, before it is too late.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I have only four minutes left, I would like, before resuming my seat, to hearten my friends from the province of Quebec, whom I specially favour by asking: What have you done about your promises to do away with unemployment? Nothing. The difficulties you claimed you would solve in no time at all are increasing. The economic difficulties we are facing, you were to solve them, but they are increasing; the railway dispute that you were to settle was merely put off until May. And what about the appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican? All those things are summed up by your position with regard to the 1961 census. The flag, the national anthem, are discussed, but nothing is done about them. The matter of assistance to universities which you were to disapprove, you voted for it with a smile of satisfaction.
Mr. Speaker, if hon. friends on my left want evidence of what Quebec and the rest of the country feel about their promises they only have to recall the by-election in Labelle. The member for Labelle (Mr. Clermont), who sits on our side of the house, is a living example of the prevailing opinion.
Mr. Speaker, under the Diefenbaker administration everything is going wrong; everything is becoming worse. And about the name Diefenbaker, the prefix "Dief" announces stagnation; difficulty, different, differently, deformity and difficulty in getting re-elected the next time.


Louis Fortin: Will the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napi-erville (Mr. Dupuis) allow a question? At the start the hon. member pointed out that one of two of the opposition members spoke of 90205-6-82J
the census, which would give an average of 50 per cent. Now, there are two out of three, which gives us 25 per cent. The average was lowered when the hon. member spoke.


Yvon Dupuis: 
Louis Fortin: The hon. member spoke of the views expressed by the hon. Mr. St. Laurent. Now here is my question. Since the Leader of the Opposition did not express his opinion to us in his capacity as leader, I shall ask the hon. member if the views stated by Mr. St. Laurent are those of the Liberal party?


Yvon Dupuis: I am happy to say that the opinion of Mr. St. Laurent-you want to know if it concurs with the views of the Liberal party?


Louis Fortin: Is there agreement between yourselves?


Yvon Dupuis: We do not share all the personal views of Mr. St. Laurent. Those he expressed as a private person are strictly his own. However, I maintain that Mr. St. Laurent assumed his responsibilities as prime minister, and that when he occupied that post he did better than the present Prime Minister who sticks his head in the sand in order not to see anything.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the spoken language of the hon. member who just sat down was such that I did not quite grasp his meaning.


Yvon Dupuis: I will not allow myself to get caught in the trap he is laying.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: This house will admit, however, that he has given us an excellent demonstration of what cheap theatricals probably were like at the time of the caveman. His loquacity is in strange contrast with the silence of his leader on this matter of the census. That is a question that I, for my part Mr. Speaker, would not hesitate to discuss in this house.


Yvon Dupuis: Do not discuss me.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Some moments ago, while the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, my friend from Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Pigeon) rose to ask him if the opinion expressed by Mr. St. Laurent concerning the census was that of the Liberal party.

The Budget-Mr. Tremblay
I am amazed that the Leader oi the Opposition found nothing else to say but this: "I will not answer that question."


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He is afraid; he is a coward.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Under the circumstances and in view of the demagogy used once again by the Liberals, I find it enlightening that the Leader of the Opposition did not dare to assume his responsibilities and tell the Canadian population clearly what he, as leader of the Liberal party and Leader of the Opposition thinks of that census problem which is being dramatized.
I think this is an important problem. And if I have chosen to deal with it today in connection with the budget, it is because I meant to express my opinion on the matter.
The problem is an administrative one, which is both technical and scientific in nature. It is too bad that some people had to drag politics into it for reasons that are quite obvious from a partisan viewpoint.
Organizations for the preservation of French culture in Canada and a number of other societies for the promotion and defence of French culture in America have made representations to the government in an effort to have question 10 changed.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat what I said on another occasion on this matter. I told a newspaperman in reply to his questions that I was willing to work with French organizations and to do everything in my power to bring about the changes desired by those organizations.
I carefully studied the many suggestions made, one of which recommends that the term "Canadian" be stricken from the census form.
According to newspaper reports, that would still appear to be the opinion and desire of those French organizations. As far as I am concerned, I think that if that solution was to be reached, I should accept it, but in my opinion it would not solve the problem completely, because the whole census form, as pointed out by a newspaperman in the morning issue of Le Devoir, is wrong from a demographic viewpoint, since it leads to no conclusion of any scientific value.
I think that a special commission made up of capable demographers and statisticians should be set up for the purpose of reconsidering the whole problem from the start,

reviewing all the census forms and reaching rational conclusions, so that proper authorities would get suggestions that would give the Canadian decennial census an unquestionable scientific value.
Mr. Speaker, having worked for many years among French organizations I know how important that census problem is to them. I know that they want the census clearly to show the extent of French culture in Canada. They want the census to determine the total number of the French Canadian group. They also want this census to show the trend in the development of the French Canadian group. I for one am willing to do everything possible so that their request is met and the census give the very results they expect.
Mr. Speaker, before passing to another subject, I should like once again to express my regrets of the fact that even in this house an attempt has been made to mess up that vital and important subject. I should like to express my regret, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that attempts are being made to play politics with this important question, and I deplore even more the fact that some people are taking this opportunity to criticize the intentions of the Conservative government, criitcism which can only result, Mr. Chairman, in impeding the national unity which we are striving for.


William Heward Grafftey: Divide and rule.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: There has been an attempt to indict the intentions of the hon. Prime Minister. He has been charged with questionable intentions and just a few moments ago I heard the previous speaker direct cheap innuendoes at the Prime Minister of Canada.


An hon. Member:: He is a boor.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am proud to say in this house, before my colleagues of the Conservative party and before those members of the Liberal party who still have some self-respect and political honesty, that the Prime Minister of Canada has given to the whole Canadian nation unmistakable evidence of his sincerity, most obvious proofs that he had no other desire than-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: -to promote Canadian
unity.
Mr. Speaker, has there been a prime minister in Canada, before the present Prime Minister, who dared choose a French Canadian and a Catholic as Governor General of

this country? Was there ever a prime minister of Canada who had the courage to translate into action that section of our Canadian constitution which enables members of this house to speak in their own language? Is there a prime minister, Mr. Speaker, who has been a better ambassador of good will and national unity across the country than the present Prime Minister?
What a contrast between my leader's attitude, and that of his predecessor as the administrator of the affairs of this country, that man whose testimony was used a moment ago in order to better repudiate him and stab him in the back.
Never, Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister of today had the perfidy of saying one thing in one province and something else in another province. He never travelled across the western provinces, and the province of Ontario, stating: "You know, I am considered as being too sympathetic towards French Canadians." He never came round in the province of Quebec to say: "You know, in the other provinces, I am considered as not being very sympathetic towards the English speaking element in Canada." And that, Mr. Speaker, because the present Prime Minister follows a philosophy which, a long time ago, made short shrift of the tricks of that kind of electoral demagogy to which the previous speaker has again resorted in this house.
And I say that the Liberal members' approach at this time is but diversionary tactics. They have been in a position to appreciate the disastrous results of some resolutions of the Liberal congress, particularly in the field of education. They have realized that, already the people of Quebec were about to denounce the Quebec-Ottawa axis which Premier Jean Lesage is about to forge again. They have realized that the centralizing policy which originated with and was developed by the Liberal party, is about to be resumed, thanks to the complicity of the premier of Quebec. They have realized, Mr. Speaker, that the electoral impact of their recent congress is absolutely dangerous. They have realized, Mr. Speaker, that resolutions such as the ones they have adopted, declaring, first of all, that the federal government has a responsibility in the field of university education, cannot be accepted in the province of Quebec, because they are unacceptable and contrary to the Canadian constitution. That is why they are resorting today to diversionary tactics, in
The Budget-Mr. Tremblay order to make us forget that they have taken a dangerous course. In the province of Quebec, the evil effects of that last congress will soon be felt.
Mr. Speaker, I have here an article which, I am sure, did not please the former member for Cornwall, the Quebec visitor, an article by Mr. Gerard Filion of Le Devoir, entitled:
Once a drunkard always a drunkard.
I quote from that article:
The Liberal party has just wound up an important meeting in Ottawa. It has drawn up a program which, obviously, will serve as the theme for the general elections of 1962. We find in it some good, less good, and definitely bad things. The resolution about education underlines the policy which it has never ceased to promote since the last war. It contains the most specific statements, not to say the most impudent on the matter. First of all, they state that "education is strictly a provincial responsibility". But right after that, they add that such jurisdiction is limited to primary education.
And the writer goes on to say:
And there is still more cause for wonder. One of the leaders of the Liberal party, Mr. Lionel Chevrier, and a member of parliament besides-
Yes indeed, Mr. Speaker.
-for a Quebec constituency, raked his mind to find some explanation. He referred to scholarships as a logical extension of family allowances. In that case, old age pensions could be mentioned in the same breath. Why not make both ends meet by setting up an assistance program under which family allowances would stop when old age pensions begin?
I proceed with the quotation:
After delivering such nonsense, Mr. Chevrier states from the heart:-
As he often does in this house.
-Never would a Liberal government in Ottawa interfere directly or indirectly in this field which, as I said, comes exclusively within provincial jurisdiction.
This is how those people make light of specific sections of our Canadian constitution and, above all, how they come to the rescue of the merchant of dreams that the Quebec premier showed himself to be by launching not so long ago an extravagant assistance program for education for which he must now seek support from his former Ottawa colleagues.
I said earlier that the Quebec-Ottawa axis was being set up again on the basis of an efficient and practical centralization. Just as under the former Godbout government, that axis is being re-established because the province of Quebec is headed by a political leader who is of the same stamp and shares the same views and the same political and constitutional ideology as the Liberals here

The Budget-Mr. Tremblay in this house, who last year left no doubt as to their centralizing constitutional philosophy during the debate on university grants.
Last year, the Conservative party settled an extremely delicate situation created by the Liberals. At that time, Mr. Speaker, we found a solution that did justice to the province of Quebec. But I hope, as I said then, that such a solution is only the first step toward a final settlement through which the provinces will be allowed from now on to exercise their full jurisdiction in the field of education.
Mr. Speaker, the recent Liberal convention tried to give a new lease on life to the Liberal party. The sittings of this congress were unusually advertised in an effort to prove that the party had changed. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party today is still exactly what it was in 1957 when the people lost faith in it. This party, Mr. Speaker, is the centralizing party which was defeated in Quebec in 1957 and again in 1958.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: We won in Labelle.


William Heward Grafftey: It was a by-election.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: A moment ago, the census was mentioned and forgive me for coming back to it, it was said that if the Conservative government were to accept certain proposals it would eventually amount to a retreat.
Mr. Speaker, should the Conservative government accept the proposals put forward by French-Canadian associations, not only would it not retreat but it would once again show the people that it is a democratic government, a government of the people for the people, a government which has been able once more to take into consideration the representations made to it. A democratic government, Mr. Speaker, is elected by the people and as such must take the wishes of the people into consideration. In accepting the proposals submitted to it by its citizens, the government does nothing but show that it respects our democratic institutions and that it intends for them to be respected.
Whatever they say or do, our colleagues from the Liberal party will never succeed in making the least change in the policies they have advocated and which repeat word for word the ones put before the nation in 1958 by the Leader of the Opposition. That program was rejected by the nation in a resounding way and that is why we on this side are here in such great numbers.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that a political party is a free association of free men. I have always been free in my party to say what I wanted to. And if today, I took the liberty to say openly what I felt about that question of the census, it was because I knew that no one in my party, not even the Prime Minister, would blame me. However I have noticed how a member of the Liberal party had humiliated the former prime minister of Canada by rejecting-


An hon. Member:: Never.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: By declaring, Mr. Speaker-


Yvon Dupuis: To whom are you referring?


Jean-Noël Tremblay: -that the former prime minister was no longer expressing the Liberal-party philosophy. If that is the case, why then did they drag him on the hustings during their recent rally.


An hon. Member:: Only that?


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Their aim once more, Mr. Speaker, was to try and use demagogy in-


Yvon Dupuis: In the Pigeon way.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: -the province of Quebec, and then to repudiate later on their actions and their words in the other provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to go on. I would have liked however to talk about some of the features of the budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). I will only say in concluding that the Minister of Finance has found a perfectly constitutional means of helping education in the province of Quebec by allowing certain tax deductions for university students.
Mr. Speaker, this is a constitutional measure. It indicates a political evolution towards a solution which will definitely settle the thorny problem of aid to education that is once more jeopardized by the Liberal party.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, allow me to express the wish that the problems we now face will be solved to the satisfaction of all, and above all that the solution will contribute to national unity.
I believe in national unity because I belong to a racial group which has perhaps paid a higher price than others for the privilege of free expression in the Canadian confederation.
Because I was young and trusted those dynamic men who once in a while offer

themselves to the nation to realize great projects, I believed that the Prime Minister of Canada was the man who would enable us to make great strides towards national unity, which is the aim we all want to attain, and I do not intend now, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw the confidence I placed in him.
(Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, because this debate permits a rather unusual latitude, I had hoped to use most of the half hour to make some comments on the official opposition, the Liberal party, its leader, and the party image, real or fancied. Unfortunately, I outsmarted myself in finding a spot on the debate roster, and I have not enough time to do the job properly. I can only promise the members I shall try to carry on later and complete the job at a proper time in the house.
First, however, I should like to note that a previous member for Port Arthur, the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, died as last year ended. The normal eulogies and services have taken place, and perhaps it may seem superfluous or impertinent for me to comment now. However, C. D., as he was known in Port Arthur and beyond, was, and perhaps justifiably so, considered the greatest person our community has put on the Canadian public stage. I say "perhaps", not niggling, because another former M.P., for our area, who has tended to be very much admired by many people, was a great Canadian and was also an engineer. I refer to Mr. S. J. Dawson who built the famous Dawson trail westward and opened up the west in a way that set a tradition for Mr. Howe. In any case, the name of Dawson appears in Canadian history books as a pioneer developer. I think it likely that Mr. Howe's name will also do so.
If that seems over-cautious, you should check your history text and find out little attention has been paid to other great nation builders of the past. One might hazard that Mr. Howe's place in history books a half century from now will be secured by two things, namely his role in the political controversy of the pipe line debate and the subsequent electoral upheaval and by his creation of quasi-socialistic entities such as T.C.A. and Polymer Corporation. There may be an irony and a lesson in this because C. D. was thought of as a rugged individualist rather than a creeping socialist and also because the incidents that destroy an administration linger longer in memory than do its achievements.
The Budget-Mr. Fisher
By most people in the lakehead Mr. Howe was immensely respected, although I think it would be a fair generalization to say that he was not generally beloved. His integrity as a powerful minister in relation to his community was a model. There were never stories of graft or personal interference in the handing out of jobs as far as Mr. Howe was concerned. Mr. Howe was a grand loser as a politician defeated in his own constituency. I met him a few minutes after he had conceded defeat. His manner was brusque, but not because he was downcast or hurt but because he was already restless to get on to something else. His comment to me was "Young man, young man, there are so many things I want to do; we're really going to enjoy ourselves". I think he meant by that he and his wife. One felt that the whole future was ahead of him.
That aspect of purposefulness, the refusal to be petty or morose were fine characteristics of Port Arthur's most famous citizen. His memory as a member and as a man will last there for a long long time. The historians and the economists will in time set out his national significance. I felt it incumbent upon me, with respect to this famous member for Port Arthur, to give that analysis and to pay that tribute.
The second topic I wish to touch on briefly relates to my constituency, the pre-Christmas legislative program and the baby budget. In an area where unemployment is high, there was interest and approval for several items enacted, particularly loans to small businesses, the vocational training program and the subsidies for municipal sewage projects. I found in the recess that this approval was tentative because the effectiveness remains to be seen. The budget has made little impact of a positive kind, in my opinion, because it has so little direct bearing on the average taxpayer personally. In a sense it seems to have been taken by my constituents as a mysterious exercise in monetary and fiscal policy which will be judged not even on results but on what more concrete steps may be taken in the spring regular budget.
The third point upon which I wish to touch relates to the census of 1961 which has developed somewhat of an issue, as witness the motion unanimously adopted in the Quebec provincial legislature protesting the federal government's acceptance of the word "Canadian" as an answer to a census question on ethnic origin. The assembly is to

The Budget-Mr. Fisher forward a message to Ottawa asking that "Canadian" and "American" be deleted from the printed list of possible ethnic origins on the next census forms.
We will hope that some accommodation can be made to French-Canadian wishes to have statistical information on their particular language and cultural group. However, I hope the government appreciates the fact that many Canadians think of themselves as Canadians rather than as members of some ethnic group of hyphenated Canadian. In my own case, I happen to be a fifth generation Canadian. Probably my paternal ancestors came from England but if you came to figure out my ethnic nationality, what is it? What about the Irish, Scotch, Pennsylvania Dutch or any of these others that entered the strain? I would have a hard time in detei-mining it.
To take my own constituency as an example, I may say that it is a real swirl of national backgrounds if you were going to carry the matter back and examine each citizen's antecedents. In one class a few years ago I happened to make this check. I had children whose paternal line apparently or actually-apparently as far as they knew -was linked with Ukrainia, Finland, Poland, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Serbia, Macedonia, France, Russia and the British Isles. What were they, even for statistical purposes or any other real purpose, but Canadians? I believe it is right that people like that should have the right to consider themselves as Canadians, simply as Canadians to declare or to register as such. I hope that point of view can be confirmed in the arrangement or in the change that may be made in order to accommodate this kind of protest that has come from the province of Quebec.
It is not in the same way that the governor of Alabama said, "Some of my best friends are niggers", that I say that some of my best friends are Liberals. It is not in that way at all. I was brought up in a Liberal family; I have voted for Liberal candidates; I have run errands as a boy for Liberals during elections; and I am sure some of my closest relations still vote Liberal. I took a full year at university studying Liberalism in its Canadian context. The biggest files I have in my filing cabinet relate to Liberalism and the Liberal party. It is with that intense interest that I should like to move on to an analysis of the Liberal party, especially in the light of the rally it has just had.


The Liberal party has not had too many rallies but I would suggest to the majority of the members of the house who are Conservative that they should go back and take a look at the previous records of such rallies which took place in 1893, 1918, 1948. There was a smaller convocation in 1943 that might be considered a rally and there was one in 1958. I think the Liberal rally of 1961 was a most important political event. I do not downgrade it at all. Political rallies are going to become more and more important in our democratic process. I think one of the reasons -and I will say this offhand-is that people notice their circus aspects possibly more than they do the traditional development of party position each day in the House of Commons.
This rally was an important event. It would seem to have confirmed the party leadership and made partial steps at least to a new party platform. One of the things it did was the bringing of several thousand Liberals from across the country to engage in open discussion. A sizeable achievement. I cannot comprehend the pundits amongst the Liberals or the press who have said they felt there were some risks in these open discussions. Surely the process of democracy is always risky, being in the open, but that is what the party should be doing, namely democratically discussing things out in the open. I would be shocked if at the convention that our group is going to enter into this August the discussions of policy were not out in the open. I would be surprised if the Conservative party rally in March holds its discussions in secret. It seems to me that the rally, in this sense of bringing people together for the exchange of ideas was a success for the Liberals and should be so recognized. I am delighted, of course, that it means that their organization is going to be strong and they are going to be able to go out to the hustings with a better organization and bags of money. I was elected in a good tight three-way fight and I think most members will be elected in the coming election in a three-way fight. We want the Liberals to have some strength for such battles.
At this point I should like to ask this question. What have the Liberals? They are a party that has a tradition of power in the country. A great many families pass it on from father to son. These loyalties endure for a time. That is one of the reasons why they will continue to have across the country a modicum of support. That support is no longer as important as it was, but it is important.
They have a great deal of strength in the province of Quebec, and it is very apparent

from the Liberal administration there now that Quebec is still in that tradition which dates back to Riel, was buttressed by the conscription issue in the first world war and follows on to the present day. So many members of the Liberal party in this house are from Quebec, a further indication of continuing strength there.
Another source of Liberal strength, in our part of the country at least, is among those immigrants who came into Canada from 1896 to the first world war, and their descendants -I do not mean the French Canadian-and these immigrant groups, were exclusively Liberal or have so continued, but these, plus those Irish-Catholic grouping have kept the Liberal tradition very strong. Their thinking and feeling-except for those who may have become radicals-is perhaps the greatest Liberal asset. Another is that, until recently it has been the party in power and there is the fresh memory of jobs, emoluments and money that have been handed out. Many of the lawyers in our community are still staunchly Liberal, still hoping, I think that they will be handling C.M.H.C. mortgages again, will be considered for judgeships, and so on.
I know many of the intellectuals, the academic people in the universities fairly well. Many of them are continuing Liberals because they were consulted and had jobs from the Liberals, a practice so well-instituted by Mackenzie King.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 4.45 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 5 of standing order 58, as provisionally amended, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on the amendment now before the house.



AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT PUBLICATION OF STRAW POLL RESULTS

Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-13, to amend the Canada Elections Act, (publication of straw poll results).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is not new; it has been discussed in the house over a period of time. Its purpose is to prevent the publication of the results of straw polls conducted after the issuance of a writ for an election. Some provinces, notably British Columbia, for many years have had on their statutes legislation which prohibits the publication of the results of straw polls. British Columbia has found that this has produced no hardship and has left the people of that province free from the erroneous results which sometimes flow from opinion polls conducted to ascertain what the wishes of the people are going to be at election time.
One of the good things that flow from polls conducted for election purposes is that eventually the people themselves do have some say as to whether the poll is right or not and they do settle this problem. It is unlike some of the results of opinion polls which are conducted in the commercial sphere, where people never have the opportunity of deciding whether they as the majority wanted whatever the opinion poll suggested they wanted and got. While there is this final answer, the answer that will be given on election day, it seems to me that for a number of reasons the influences that are afforded by various media of publication can be misdirected during an election period.
The main discussions that have taken place in this country and in other countries in recent years concern the election between Mr. Dewey and Mr. Truman in which all the opinion polls, not only the opinion polls as we hold them in Canada but polls that were conducted among various news commentators, radio people, television commentators and others, indicated overwhelmingly the election of Mr. Dewey. Since that time a great deal of study has taken place into why the results of the opinion pollsters-all of them, of course supporting Mr. Dewey-should have been so overwhelmingly in error, and why those opinion pollsters should have been taken in by the pseudo scientific polls that took place.
When we had this bill before us the last time I was very interested in the discussion by members of the government and their defence of the newspaper industry and why they considered this to be placing a limit on the freedom of the press. Since that time I have taken upon myself the duty of examining into how opinion polls are formed. I have

read some of the discussions that have taken place between pollsters and commentators with respect to the disreputable position in which they found themselves by having put forth pseudo scientific information which they later found to be no real information at all.
If any hon. member wishes to read the explanatory notes of the bill he will see that some of the things I was accused of wanting to accomplish by the introduction of this bill were just not so at all. I have no objection to the taking of polls on elections because, as I have said, the final decision rests with the voters, and we can check the pseudo scientific examination made by the pollsters against the actual record that is available after the election has taken place. Therefore, we have no objection to the polls being conducted, but we do have objection to the results of those polls being published.
This raises the question of why we should be opposed to anything which indicates that the voters are all going to vote for one particular party, or 41 per cent of the voters are going to vote one way and 43 per cent another way, and 16 per cent are going to vote in a still different way. Why should we object to this? I hasten to suggest that we have no objection to this; but if we are to form an opinion on opinion polls and the results of those polls, then we must ascertain for ourselves-and the press has an obligation to assess for us the honesty and the integrity of the people taking the polls-how accurate those polls are. When we are told that the people are going to vote one particular way, then we should be told how the pollsters know they are going to vote that way, what questions were asked, how much of the general public was sampled, in what areas the sampling took place, how general it was and what was the multiplication factor that applied to all the people of Canada, or to whatever country the polls happened to be taken in.
In the recent election in the United States- and it is too recent for us to find out what was the actual error in the so-called scientific polls-according to some of the articles I read, there was a difference of opinion, or an indication of a difference of opinion, among the voters of over 3 per cent.
As we know, in the recent election in the United States there was a difference of much less than 1 per cent in the results of the vote. Therefore, it is quite possible, although I am not suggesting this was the case, that those voters represented by the over 3 per cent could have been influenced when it came to casting their votes in the United States election.
I have here volume 80 of American Mercury for 1955 and I should like to refer to

an interesting article on page 134 by Joan Tara. It is headed "Can You Trust Opinion Research Polls?" She gives some consideration to this matter. She points out that opinion pollsters are always highly educated and that she and most of her fellow workers were educated in the academic sense. She herself has a bachelor of arts degree and I believe that of all those whom she knew only one had specialized in statistics. She says that she studied under a professor who scarcely knew what he was talking about and consequently she says that she knows even less. She goes on to say:
I suppose you are curious to learn the inner workings of a poll. It is a very curious business. The most spectacular polls are of a political nature. What percentage of the adult American population wants to throw brickbats at Senator Bosh this week as compared to last week? How many farmers favour the price of putty in New Zealand as compared to the price of coals in Newcastle? These are the opinion findings that make front page (second section of your newspaper) headlines.
Then she goes on to talk about the bread and butter polls in industry. She points out some very interesting facts. I do not want to read everything she says but if anybody is interested I would recommend that he read this article. On page 135 she goes on to say:
How does the pollster go about prying the answers loose from the great American public? First of all, he and his hired experts hammer out the list of questions which they believe will best elicit the required information. Armed with these preliminary questionnaires, the experts approach the man in the street. Sometimes the client prefers or needs, instead, the opinion of the man behind the plow, the man in the factory, or the man who owns a $15,000 ranch type house in the suburbs. If so, the experts get 100 questionnaires answered. This is called a sampling. From this sampling flows all the rest.
This is the interesting part as to how they arrive at the sample.
Back in the office, with its imposing views of the New York harbour, east and west, the experts study the questionnaires, smooth out the kinds, clarify questions that are too vague, misleading or unprofitable information-wise. They then compose a list of questions as near ideal as possible. Meanwhile, the official statisticians break down the answers from the sampling into categories, and the categories into percentages based on 100.
She uses an example of polls with regard to commercial activities and points out that once these are made the real pollsters go to work. They go out and ask questions of people across the country in more or less minute numbers and these samplings are returned to the office. On the wall before them always is the indication of the answers of 100 American people, so many having answered this way and so many that way and no matter how vague the answer appears to be it must fit into that pattern. When they
Canada Elections Act
arrive at the total, those that do not fit into that pattern are considered to be too vague to be of any importance to the poll and are discarded.
It is her contention that when the results of the poll are arrived at they are never more than 1 or 2 per cent out from the original sample because they have been tailored to fit into the sample which is always before the people who are compiling the statistics. She points out that the people compiling the statistics are also well educated in the same way she was and therefore she places no reliance on the results of these polls. She ends her article by saying:
It is time the nation's economic mills cease to depend upon largely imaginary figures to tell it what and what not to produce. It's time to put quality ahead of quantity. Either you have faith in your ability to produce the best possible mousetrap, faith in your own integrity to give the best you are capable of creating to the public, or you are cheating. Statistics mean nothing.
These words, of course, can easily be applied to politics and it is here that we do not agree with many of the people who spoke against the bill the last time it was before the house. We believe in the integrity and the intelligence of the man in the street. We know that if he is given the opportunity to decide for himself he will make a decision according to his own likes and as he sees the question. We think this is the way it should be done.
In the last year or so reference has been made in the House of Commons to an instance where the head of one of the largest polls in Canada was also engaged in other activities and was the head of another organization which certainly allowed no opinion to be expressed but decided itself what the view of the public should be on the matter. I refer, of course, to the trading stamp issue that came before parliament in several forms last year. These are the type of people whose integrity has already been questioned and is doubtful, people who are mainly concerned with such things as selling automobiles, ties, new hats and other things of a commercial nature.
I think that the people of Canada are entitled not to be confused as they are in the commercial field by high pressure gimmicks of one type or another used by high pressure pollsters but rather are entitled to all the facts and to make their own decision on those facts. I suggest that many occasions will arise, as happened in the United States particularly in the election contest between Truman and Dewey, when you will find a great deal of influence exerted. We will never know in that particular case how much influence was exerted by the newspapers through their adherence to polls of various kinds and the

Canada Elections Act
views of commentators who conducted other polls of a different nature. We will never know how much influence that had on the people and what the results of that election might otherwise have been.
All we are suggesting is that we do as British Columbia has done with no particularly bad effects, prohibit the publication of the results of these polls prior to election day so that the people themselves can vote with all the facts before them and without undue influence being exerted on them through being told that 1,217,000 people are going to vote for John Doe's party on election day and so many other people are going to vote for somebody else.
It is impossible for these pollsters to say this, Mr. Speaker. They never at any time take a poll of that number of people. They are estimating that according to the sampling they have taken this is the number of people who may vote in a certain way and their estimate is based on the questions they have put to these people. They are giving the people a false impression. They do not say how many people have been questioned. They are saying that this is the percentage of the whole. They may have sampled only a very minute part of the whole.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be advantageous to the freedom of the press if they curtailed their activities in this field. If they use the Gallup, or other national polls, then by all means they should tell the people after the election, we conducted a poll at such and such a time and this was the result. This was the question asked and this was the result as we projected it into the national total. This is the indication that we received. If they do this, and if their statement proves to be relatively correct, then I think they will reap benefits in the future from any predictions they may make in other fields. I believe if this course was followed the public will give much more consideration to these polls than they are going to give if mistakes of the nature to which I have referred are allowed to continue.
In closing, I should say that I believe the Canadian people are democratic enough, are smart enough and have the integrity to assess all the facts, without the necessity of pollsters giving them false impressions. The people are able to assess the facts and make their own decision without undue pressure from these statisticians.


Mr. Baldwin:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is there any particular reason why the bill makes reference to a company, person or corporation in any province but does not refer to the two territories, each of which returns a member to this house, the

Yukon Territory and the territory of Mackenzie. Is there any particular reason why that is so?


William Arnold Peters: It was my understanding that, in the legal sense of the term, they are considered to be provinces under the Canada Elections Act. However, if the hon. member wishes to make this amendment and include them, I would be very pleased to accept it.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had before us what was described as a perennial bill. Although it did not come to a vote because of the number of members who wished to speak on it, the bill had a very commendable purpose, namely the limiting of interest. Today we have before us what could be described also as a perennial C.C.F. bill. The purpose of this bill is not so commendable, although its passage would also limit interest. Bill No. C-13 would limit interest in elections, and along with this limitation of interest it would also have the effect of reducing public information.
The mover of this bill made his purpose very clear. He said he wanted to make sure that people were not taken in by the public polls. He believes that the polls are taken to fit a certain pattern. High pressure pollsters was the way he described those who conduct these polls. He also makes his purpose, and I imagine it is the agreed purpose of the C.C.F. group of eight in this house, very clear in the wording of his bill. The bill reads in part as follows:
No person, company or corporation shall, in any province after the issue of the writ for an election, or after the dissolution of parliament or the occurrence of a vacancy in consequence of which a writ for an election is eventually issued, and before the hour of closing of the polls in such province, publish the result or purported result of a straw vote or poll of the political opinions of the electors or any of them in any electoral district or districts in Canada,-
He also makes his purpose even clearer in the explanatory note, which reads:
The purpose of this amendment is to prohibit, and to make punishable as an illegal practice, the publication in any manner before election day of the results of a straw vote or poll of the political opinions of the electors. The proposed amendment does not prohibit the taking of such a poll for private purposes.
Let us look at this explanatory note a little closer.
The purpose of this amendment is to prohibit, and to make punishable as an illegal practice, the publication in any manner before election day of the results of a straw vote or poll of the political opinions of the electors.
Then, there is the usual C.C.F. joker.
The proposed amendment does not prohibit the taking of such a poll for private purposes.

In other words, a political party can take its own straw vote and make use of it for its own private purposes. Coming from Saskatchewan and knowing the tremendous publicity organization of the C.C.F. out there,
I can see that party taking advantage of privately conducted polls and broadcasting favourable comments only all across the country. It would be a case of, we want to tell you only what we want you to know and only what is in our favour. I do not believe such high-handed information censorship is in keeping with our system of free expression of opinion in a free democracy.
I am sure that there are few in this house who would be party to instituting such a flagrant attempt at controlling press, radio and T.V. coverage during an election campaign.
I know the press, radio and T.V. of Canada can very well present their own defence against this attempt of at least some form of censorship, and they need no champion of their cause. However, as a former newspaperman I should like to make a few comments with regard to the freedom of the press, one of the main bulwarks of our way of life. I certainly do not agree with everything that appears in our press or everything that comes over our radio or T.V. In fact, I disagree most forcibly with many of the comments by the columnists. I do not agree, for instance, with the latest Gallup poll results because I have just returned from the prairies. I know from personal observation and personal contacts that the government's popularity in the west is much higher than the latest published poll would indicate.


Mr. Howard:: That is why you ran last in Medicine Hat.


James Ernest Pascoe: I repeat, I find myself in disagreement with a lot of the writing from the press gallery and a lot of other newspaper stories. Perhaps I am a little closer to the actual facts than they are and know how the stories might better be written. Although I disagree with the latest Gallup poll results, I will not agree that these forms of expression of public opinion should be abolished.
We had this same attempt at censorship from the same member in 1959. The Hansard report of that debate makes interesting reading. On page 2897 of Hansard for April 21, 1959, the sponsor of this bill said:
For some odd reason, possibly a quirk of the Canadian mind, quite often our people have a tendency to accept these polls and decide that they have to vote in an election for the party that is going to win.
What a concept of the Canadian mind. What a concept of the Canadian people. In
Canada Elections Act
the opinion of the sponsor of this bill, the voters in our country cannot be trusted to make up their own minds and are waiting to be spoonfed with someone else's opinions before they can cast their votes. I do not think the Canadian people will welcome this assessment of their intelligence and common sense.
Public opinion polls are part of our election campaigns. These polls are conducted in other countries, that is to say in other free countries. They are not conducted in the U.S.S.R. or in soviet dominated satellites. Communist leaders will not tolerate such expressions of public opinion there.
Another interesting suggestion arises from the statement of this bill's sponsor that a Gallup poll might cause the Canadian people to decide they have to vote in an election for the party that is going to win. Coupled with this remark the move to prevent publications of Gallup polls is an admission that the sponsor's party is not going to win. This, it would appear, is the main reason for the bill before us.
I referred earlier to the freedom of the press. On other occasions in this house I have referred to this freedom which, as we all know, carries with it responsibilities of fair and accurate reporting. I do not need to elaborate on this matter because these facts were all brought out during the debate on the bill of rights.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am opposed to this bill. I am opposed to the expressed purpose as stated by the sponsor.
I would hope that this bill would come to a vote because I want to vote against it. I know, however, that others will wish to express their opinions and I am sure the whole hour will be taken up in these expressions of views.


Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, every year the socialists keep bringing in this bill to prohibit the sampling of public opinion just before elections and I can never understand why they do so. This is legislation against freedom of speech and freedom of the printed word. It is a direct contravening of the bill of rights. If a government banned the printing of election polls, would the next step be the banning of opinions of editorial writers or columnists or by radio and television commentators?
I suppose a time comes to all of us in public life when we do not like what the polls tell us. We look upon polls then with scorn because the opinion disclosed is not our opinion. The time has certainly come many times when the C.C.F. party has had a right to be scornful about polls on that basis, but that is certainly no reason to legislate against

Canada Elections Act
them. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) is insulting the Canadian people every time he brings this bill before the house. He is in effect saying that the Canadian people have no individual convictions and that they follow the majority blindly. He is saying that the Canadian people are a lot of sheep. He is exposing a personal superiority over the elector that does not become him.
Public opinion polls have been functioning around this world for 25 years and I think we would be a laughing stock in Britain, France and India if we suddenly decided that our people were so much influenced that public opinion polls were a menace.
There is now an international association of public opinion institutes which can and does poll 17 or more countries within 72 hours. The idea is that if a world-wide crisis develops an almost immediate reaction can be obtained. I think this international polling association was used during the Suez crisis. Dr. George Gallup of the United States was the founder of this international organization and in a speech he made last year he said this:
It takes courage, as well as ability, to stand up and be counted. The awful drubbing we pollsters received in this country-
He meant the United States.
-in 1948 is ample proof of this. Therefore,-
Dr. Gallup concluded.
-we salute those hardy souls who are willing to stake their reputation in this toughest of all fields of research, the prediction of human behaviour.
Incidentally, may I say that the hon. member for Timiskaming mentioned a figure of 3 per cent in speaking of the margin of error in the last United States election. I think it is much closer to .03 per cent. The margin of error was less than 1 per cent. This prediction of human behaviour is, I believe, big news especially around the time of an election. Hence the hon. member for Timiskaming is asking this government to legislate against the circulation of specific news.
I noticed that the hon. member kept throwing out innuendos about the integrity of polls and the objectivity of polls. I can only say that the polls, whether they be political or commercial, always have to prove themselves. If they are consistently wrong, no one will believe in them. As for objectivity, may I say that this is done all over the world. Anything of current interest-that is news, whether it is controversial or otherwise- must find its place in every worth-while poll. In our personal election campaigns we all conduct straw polls. Would this bill make it
[Miss Aitken. j
illegal for us to mention our findings from a platform and thence to the press?
The hon. member for Saint Antoine-West-mount (Mr. Webster) asked that question when we debated a similar bill in 1959. He asked: Are we to make this a crime? Are we to make it unlawful to mention from a platform predictions regarding our own election?
I know that most Toronto newspapers before an election send reporters right across the country with instructions to find out what people are thinking and how they are going to vote. These findings are always published in the newspapers before an election. Is this legitimate news gathering assignment also to become illegal? Indeed, Mr. Speaker, what people think and what people do are the two most important areas of news all over the world. Even to contemplate legislation against these facets of news is not only nonsense but dangerous nonsense.
As I said the last time we debated this subject, the mere introduction of this kind of bill by the socialists is a warning to the Canadian people. If this is what socialism would do if it should ever gain power, I say this: Let us be warned and see that socialism does not gain power.
This bill is definitely an infringement of freedom. It is a demonstration of gross arrogance in which the elected representatives would be saying to the Canadian people: You are so stupid that we must save you from yourselves and not let you know what your fellow Canadians are thinking.
The hon. member for Timiskaming, as reported at page 2898 of Hansard of April 21, 1959, said that publication of polls during an election:
-is eliminating one of the basic rights which the people possess-the right of choice.
If that is not an insult to the Canadian people, I do not know what is. He is saying that the elector is incapable of making up his own mind and that the thinking of others should not be published because then everyone would think the same way. I have a healthier respect than that for the elector's capacity to think for himself, and I shall certainly vote against this bill.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has suggested that the passing of this bill would be contrary to some of the rights set out in the bill of rights. In view of that I was wondering if she does not feel that she has an obligation to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) whether this is an infringement against the bill of rights and the legislation that has been in effect over the

last 20 years in the province of British Columbia which enacts what we are asking to be enacted nationally.


Margaret Aitken: I do not know anything about British Columbia; I have enough to do here. But I do say that I do not think I should ask the Minister of Justice, because I believe it is an infringement against the bill of rights in the freedom of the press clause.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the hon. member who has just resumed her seat, by her own admission says she does not know much about British Columbia, and I am sure that British Columbians throughout the province would be quite pleased to have her visit the province at any time. We would benefit by that visit and I am sure the hon. member would also.


Miss   Ailken@: Mr. Speaker, may I just say that when I said I did not know much about British Columbia I was referring to her laws, not to her beauties.


Frank Howard: I am quite sure from that statement that the hon. member realizes it is the most beautiful province in our nation.
I listened very carefully to what the hon. member who has just concluded her remarks said about this bill, and I think it is extremely unfortunate that the two members who have spoken had to resort to innuendo type accusations about the motives of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters') who introduced this bill.
There was the insinuation that it represented some desire to restrict the freedom of the press, to control people and to rigidly dominate them in some fascist type of way. This is, of course, just puerile silliness on the part of hon. members who use this type of argument which they know themselves is not valid. It is only designed to take up a bit of time so that we might not have to vote on this particular issue.
I can understand the views of the hon. member who just resumed her seat on this matter of public opinion polls and people who conduct public opinion polls, because of her very gentle affection and close relationship to an individual in Canada who participates in conducting this type of poll and who rigged a particular question at a poll in order to produce a particular answer and misinterpreted the results in order to prove a particular point. This was a misuse of a public opinion poll on the trading stamp issue, so I can understand what the hon. member says because of the gentle relationship which exists between her and this individual. I can understand that the hon. member would want to protect this sort of activity.
Canada Elections Act
I do not know whether or not they realize it, but I also understood both hon. members who spoke to condemn themselves quite roundly for doing precisely the same sort of thing that they now accuse my hon. friend for Timiskaming of trying to do. I will use their words. I think they are the wrong words to use, but these hon. members used them in this application and so I will use them also.
During the last session both of them supported wholeheartedly the idea of the restriction of people's rights, the idea of restricting the freedom of the press, the idea of rigidly controlling when particular radio broadcasts should be made when it came to election results. If one looked at the Elections Act, which we reviewed and revised and spent many hours on in the privileges and elections committee, and if he looks at the revisions we made-some changes were necessary because some things had not been changed for years-he would find, for instance, if I may use this as an example, that on election day it is completely contrary to the Elections Act to broadcast the results of an election in the eastern part of Canada when, because of the time zone difference, the election has not been completed in the western part of Canada.
It is illegal to report that sort of thing until the results are finally in from British Columbia and all across the nation. This is a restriction on the freedom of the press. The hon. members supported it without any qualms or hesitation at that time. They have supported year after year, practically every time the Elections Act has been amended, and again last year, the provision that restricted the press and radio in regard to using radio broadcasting for political purposes for a certain period of time before election day. That is a restriction on the press and certain individuals who want to get across their point of view. This attitude that has been taken is just silly nonsense, as I said a moment ago, levelling these accusations at the hon. member for Timiskaming.
They also supported this new legislation last year that we should not use certain kinds of radio stations to broadcast election material. This was endorsed unanimously by this house. It was a restriction on the right of an individual to use a particular radio broadcasting or television station in a federal election in order to get across points of view to the public.
This house endorsed that legislation, including the two members who have just sat down. The use of posters in our election headquarters. the use of buttons, ribbons, and so on

Canada Elections Act
to be worn on election day are all, in the words of the hon. members who have just completed their speeches, restrictions on the freedom and the rights of individuals, but they support those things unanimously.
They come into this matter now merely because one of the hon. members might disagree with my hon. friend for Timiskaming in another field, namely the field of divorce. They come along and drag out all these cliche phrases of "rigid, fascist type control", and it is just a lot of silly nonsense.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marqueiie):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) first attacked the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) and then the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Pascoe) on what they said. He mentioned a list of restrictions that we have in the Elections Act. Practically all the restrictions he mentioned refer to the day voting takes place. This bill seeks to restrict certain publications from the day parliament is dissolved or the writs issued, and before. That is a considerable length of time.
Gallup polls of one form or another disseminate information. Before condemning or proposing a piece of legislation we should be familiar with its contents. I think previous speakers in this debate have laid particular stress on what effect this legislation would have on the press. But this bill goes further than that. It makes one guilty of an illegal practice under the Elections Act-and the penalties under that act are, I would say, pretty stiff-to do these things from the time parliament is dissolved, or the writs issued in the case of a by-election. As a matter of fact, it even refers to a vacancy in a constituency, I presume on account of the death of a member.
It prohibits Gallup polls or straw votes being broadcast over our radio-not only newspapers-by means of a news sheet or by means of a poster. I presume the law under this bill would go so far as to prohibit a class at school from putting up on a bulletin board the results of, call it a straw vote if you like, elections that schools are in the habit of taking amongst their students.
I think everyone is interested when an election is on. All parties are interested in the outcome. Notification must be given on billboards, in handbills or in some other manner. I presume anyone who took a straw vote could not even communicate it by way of a letter to his sweetheart. That is covering a lot of ground. That is a lot of prohibition. Nevertheless, this measure does not make it illegal to conduct such a poll, and if you could whisper the result around, if you could get the information around by

word of mouth, or from house to house and get away with it you would not be liable to be punished under the provisions of this bill.
I was very interested in what the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) had to say in his introductory remarks, and I tried to find the reason that prompted him to introduce this bill or what prompts him to introduce it annually. We have heard nothing on that score. We have not heard that any section of the Canadian people or any individuals have asked for the enactment of such a law as he proposes. The hon. member referred to the fact that the legislature of British Columbia has passed such a law prohibiting the publication of straw polls or Gallup polls. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) interjected that it was the Conservative party that did it. Well, it is a long time since British Columbia had a Conservative government.


Frank Howard: And it will be a lot longer yet.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: That is what you think.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I know the British Columbia legislature passed a bill prohibiting the publication of polls of this type in 1939 and I am going on the authority of the hon. member for Timiskaming who in his address to this house on April 21, 1959, said, as reported on page 2897 of Hansard:
British Columbia faced this matter in 1939 when they passed section 168 of the British Columbia elections act which reads:
"No person, corporation or organization shall after the issue of the writ for any election take any straw vote which will, prior to the election, distinguish the political opinions of the voters in any electoral district."
I have not had time to call for the British Columbia statutes but I know from memory, without calling on the statutes, that in 1939 there was a Social Credit government in British Columbia, and I have a recollection that a government of the same political colour in a sister province to the east had tried to censor the press by passing certain legislation-
I appreciate interruptions. I want to be set right if I am wrong in saying this was passed in 1939. I am only going on the authority of the hon. member for Timiskaming.


Frank Howard: That is not what I said, and you know it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I have not much time. I consider that this piece of legislation has nothing else in mind but controls, controls

and more controls. If we are going to control public opinion we might as well start by controlling the press. We might as well abolish the press gallery and keep the newspaper men out. We might as well censor everything they write. We might as well pass a law censoring everything that is said on radio and on television. We might as well censor everything. Then what? Mr. Speaker, then we would be nearer to that socialist heaven behind the iron curtain where everything is controlled.


Frank Howard: That is a wrong interpretation, and you know it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made his contribution to this debate and he has no right to interrupt from his seat.


Frank Howard: Even if what the hon. member is saying is false?


Mr. Speaker:: No matter what the provocation is. If the hon. member wishes to speak, he must rise.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: One step leads to another, and the hon. member knows it.


Frank Howard: That is just not true. It is misinterpretation.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member finds that he has been misinterpreted he will have an opportunity at the conclusion of the
Business of the House
remarks of the hon. member who has the floor to make an explanation.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: In concluding, because our time is limited, may I say there are some people in this house and some people in this country who are suffering from control phobia. They would like to control everything.


Mr. Speaker:: I see it is six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I have some indication of what the business is to be on Monday, Tuesday and the rest of next week?


Mr. Nowlan:: I think I can oblige the hon. gentleman, at least to some extent. Under the rules, Monday is private members' day. On Tuesday we shall continue with the budget debate, and on Wednesday we shall proceed with item No. 10 on today's order paper, the resolution in the name of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture dealing with certain measures of co-operation between the federal government and provincial governments. Further, I cannot go at the moment.


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