1961-01-17

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister in a position to report on the plane swap deal with the United States government?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no information to give the house in that regard at the present time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question. Would the minister confirm that the rejection of the deal at this stage is United States economic retaliation-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -for the procrastination, indecision and lack of co-operation on the part of the government of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know how much of the hon. member's assertion in the guise of a supplementary question is on the record, but it was an improper use of the question period.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think in view of the assertions made by the hon. member I should make it clear that he is apparently proceeding on assumptions which in my opinion have no foundation whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear hon. members shouting "order". There was a supplementary question which I considered to be out of order, and in the circumstances I suppose an answer would be equally out of order.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour and ask whether he has given any consideration to the number of jobs that will be lost to Cana-dair by reason of the loss of this order.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any order such as that to which the hon. member refers.



JAPAN-INQUIRY AS TO PROGRESS OF CONTROL AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister care to comment on a press report from Tokyo that Japan might have to apply its own system of control over exports to Canada because of difficulties in negotiating a bilateral control agreement with the Canadian government? In view of the great importance of the Japanese market for many Canadian commodities, could the minister say whether a successful agreement may be arrived at at an early date?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are
proceeding with representatives of the Japanese government in Ottawa with a view to arriving at acceptable quotas on exports of certain commodities from Japan to Canada for the year 1961. So far as this report from Tokyo is concerned, all I can say is that it is quite at variance with the statements that have been made to us by the representatives of the Japanese government here in Canada.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister say if he plans to replace the CF-100 interceptor squadrons, or is Canada withdrawing from the interceptor role?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, any answer to this question, as the hon. member well knows, would be a policy statement in regard to the air defence of our country. The hon. gentleman knows that this is not the stage in our proceedings at which such statements are made.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The lack of an answer is also a policy statement.


Michael Starr: What does the hon. gentleman know about airplanes?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the statements and assumptions the hon. member for Trinity

Inquiries of the Ministry makes along these lines are almost completely incorrect. I think he would be well advised to not base statements on these incorrect assumptions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know whether the minister is speaking to a point of order, but it does not seem to be an answer to the question.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. I apologize for not giving him notice, but I have been busily engaged on a television program this morning-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -giving my views on the Canadian flag. I do not know if I upset the apple cart or the bandwagon. My question is, in view of the fact that several small United States owned lumber camps in the Kootenays have failed in recent years and the owners have disappeared to the United States leaving their employees and creditors without recourse, and in particular in view of the recent failure of the Hilco Lumber Company where there are dozens of employees owed money, some to the extent of $900-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: [DOT]-and the rascals have gone off to the United States-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member's preamble is getting too long.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My question is, has the government contemplated introducing legislation that will protect Canadian citizens from this nefarious business practice?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member that this is a matter for the courts in British Columbia; one that should be dealt with through the regular judicial bodies.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I ask a supplementary question. I did not make myself clear. The point is that this is a federal matter, because these employees have put the firms into bankruptcy and there is no blighter on whom to serve notice. Everybody has disappeared. Should there not be some amendment to the Bankruptcy Act?


Howard Charles Green: There is provision in the law of the land for substitute service and service abroad. The hon. member should consult his lawyer.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I wish to direct a question to his parliamentary secretary. My question is based on a news item in the Globe and Mail of January 10, which indicates that Scarborough township received identical bids on insurance coverage for its buildings in the amount of $3,665.75 from five insurance companies that are listed. Has the attention of the minister or his department been directed to this set of circumstances, in order that the combines investigation branch might take action?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State):: will take that question as notice and advise the Minister of Justice.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of a report that the United Nations food and agriculture organization has requested a contribution of food for South Kasai province of the Congo, where 200 persons are reported dying each day. Has Canada received any such request, and what action is Canada taking to make surplus food available to prevent starvation in the Congo?


Howard Charles Green: This question is under consideration at the present time in the Department of External Affairs and in other departments of government.


Hazen Robert Argue: How soon may action be expected, since 200 people are dying every day that action is delayed?


Howard Charles Green: This government always acts with great dispatch.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on December 21 the hon. member for Assiniboia asked a question concerning

a report that certain non-operating employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the Revelstoke area who were laid off as a result of the threatened strike have not been re-employed.
I referred the question to the railway company, and the management have advised me as follows. When the grain handlers strike became effective on the Vancouver waterfront on November 8, it was necessary to make a reduction of certain employees on the Revelstoke division because of a considerable reduction in traffic. The strike continued until November 30. In addition there has been a general decline in traffic in that area. Also, with the advent of winter conditions, toward the end of November track forces were reduced and one extra gang was laid off.
Up to the present time traffic conditions on the Revelstoke division have not warranted the return to the service of additional staff. It is expected that very soon the extra gang that was laid off will be returned to the service for handling snow and, if traffic picks up, other positions will be restored.
The management add that no reductions were made that could be classed as due to the proposed non-ops strike and in contravention of the act of parliament passed in connection therewith.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask
a supplementary question. The minister's reply has to do with the grain handlers strike. My question had nothing to do with that; it had to do with the lay-offs which were made prior to the passage of Bill No. C-45. I wonder whether the minister would make further inquiries, since the information I have is to the effect that those employees were laid off in early December and not in November, which is the information he has been given.


Léon Balcer: As I have explained, Mr. Speaker, the grain handlers strike was one of the reasons for the various lay-offs in that area. There were also other conditions that brought about the lay-offs. I think I have covered the question in my answer.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask a further supplementary question. Does the minister feel that the C.P.R. management have given him a correct assessment of the situation, or are they giving the minister the run-around with an erroneous statement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt if it is an administrative responsibility of the minister to express an opinion on the C.P.R. management.
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



SUGAR BEETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: May I ask
the parliamentary secretary-the one from Ontario, I presume-to the Minister of Agriculture, in the latter's absence when we may expect an announcement from the government regarding the serious situation confronting the sugar beet industry, particularly that aspect which concerns the growers in southwestern Ontario.


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I might state to the hon. member that this matter is under discussion and a definite answer will be provided very shortly.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he any recent information as to when the royal commission on transportation will be handing down its report?


Léon Balcer: There is no change in the date announced earlier in the house.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Transport whether the government has yet reached a decision to build a car ferry for service to eastern Newfoundland, which matter was reported to be before treasury board in August of 1959.


Léon Balcer: To my knowledge a decision has not been reached yet.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 16, 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.
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Best
Mr. Alexander Best (Hallon):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy today to be able to make a few remarks during the continuation of the budget debate. First of all I should like to compliment some of those who spoke to the house last night, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) and the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Keays), for the interesting information they brought before the house on various aspects of the supplementary budget. The situation was covered to a great extent, as I have said, by these members and others such as the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), who spoke yesterday afternoon.
My own feelings over the Christmas recess, and the impression I gained from my constituents and others, was that the supplementary budget was indeed a sound one and brought forward most important changes in economic structure from Canada's point of view. As some have pointed out, it was not a budget that would perhaps affect directly the taxation position of every individual in this country in the most immediate sense but it was a broad and basic budget, one which in the long run and, indeed, in the short run in many cases, will affect us all. I feel that it was a national budget without being strictly a nationalistic budget, one which was Canadian in its scope, not anti-American, one which should help and aid the growth of our country in the months and years ahead.
It had as a most important secondary effect, and indeed one of the most important effects of all, that of bringing the Canadian dollar closer to par with the United States dollar. This is a problem about which I have received many letters, as I am sure other hon. members have as well. It is a most important matter, and the change in recent weeks is having and has had a very beneficial effect on the economic life of our country.
There are a few matters in this supplementary budget upon which I should like to touch briefly. The first is the increased depreciation applicable to new industrial plants either in areas in which there is a labour surplus or which will be manufacturing new products. I feel this important measure will have a healthy effect on many areas of our country. I can think of more than one manufacturer in my own riding who has mentioned this matter in recent months and years. I am convinced that these manufacturers will be taking positive action now as a result of this budgetary change.
Then there is the question of taxation in so far as the income of university students is concerned or the support they receive from their parents. This is another problem that has annoyed and frustrated people for many years. I believe this budgetary change is a


good one. It is one upon which I have received many letters in recent months. I think the Minister of Finance is to be complimented upon these and other measures brought about in the budget.
I believe all hon. members on this side of the house are glad indeed, Mr. Speaker, to see most members of the Liberal opposition back in good health. They seem to have had a rather rough time last week at the Coliseum. As a matter of fact I was wondering, as various members of the Liberal opposition struggled to head up or head off various resolutions, whether or not control of the party was leaving them behind, or where the control really lay. Of course the old timers were there, all the old gang. We saw the old faces; the members of the boards of directors, the people who have been in the background and the foreground of this party, guiding its destiny for many years. Nothing had changed.
Nevertheless there was an outcry from the young Liberals, who were there in large numbers. They really did not get their way. They were trampled, they were pushed into the corner, but they did make their voice heard. Perhaps, at long last, we are seeing a breath of fresh air blown into the Liberal party. I see the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) smiling. We did not hear too much from him. Perhaps he is waiting for some more propitious time to voice his goals and his aspirations. When we did hear from him, it seemed to be in a negative way. He did not seem to agree with the health and welfare resolutions. He did not want his hands tied because at some time in the future he may wish to introduce measures of his own. What really disappointed me, Mr. Speaker, was the fact that we heard nothing at all from him on the subject of agriculture. As the agricultural critic of the Liberal party, and as one farmer to another, I thought at least he should have given the meeting the benefit of his opinions on various subjects such as soybeans, sugar beets, rapeseed and other agricultural commodities. We did not hear very much about that. Their agricultural platform was a void.
As a matter of fact we heard very little about agriculture and about a good many other things. I was interested in fiscal and monetary policy. There were a number of resolutions brought forward about which we heard very little except some vague references to a national planning commission, socialism at its height. Various members of the press have said it is a question whether the members of the Liberal party lunged to the left, lurched to the left or were dragged skyward or the other way. It is still a question, because no one knows where the Liberal

party went last week. All that can be said is that it went off in all directions and in a lot of dust.
In so far as Liberal policy is concerned, I should like to refer to a clipping from the Globe and Mail of January 12, a newspaper which cannot be said to be biased toward us these days. The heading refers to the fact that fiscal policy remained on the agenda. Did it ever get off the agenda? I do not really know. Perhaps there are some Liberal subcommittees in some dark recesses of the Coliseum still trying to hammer out some fiscal or monetary policy. Nevertheless they were going to spend a lot of money.
There were lots of comments, of course, and lots of cures at this rally; there were comments about our budget and about other national problems. We only wish-and I say this with great sincerity-that these comments and cures would be voiced in this house and not just at rallies. We would like some positive enlightment from the opposition party as to what they really propose to do, and we would like that in this House of Commons.


Mr. Graffley:: That is asking too much.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: The Liberals proposed a number of things at the rally last week. I note, again in the Globe and Mail for January 12- because this had a fair amount of publicity- their comments on unemployment:	"An
eight-point program featuring easier credit, lower interest rates and personal income tax cuts". I ask you, Mr. Speaker, does this party really believe in tax cuts and all that sort of thing? Can the public of Canada really believe in this sort of thing?
All we have to do is look at the Liberal record in the years prior to 1957. Look at the huge surpluses that were taken from the pockets of Canadians everywhere, and how do we mesh this with the philosophy and the ideas put forward at the Liberal rally of last week? I think it simply cannot be done, and I question whether the public of Canada will think it can be done; that is, lower taxes, increased benefits and increased expenditures in every sense and form. The Leader of the Opposition and others pointed out that it was necessary to make something attractive to the public, something that they would vote for. But I think one can go too far in this direction. I think the public of Canada will also realize that.
I do not think I am being too unfair when I say to this house and to the Leader of the Opposition that there were a number of rather touching scenes at the Liberal rally last week. One of them I saw as I sat, along with many Canadians, watching the television performance which I think was on
The Budget-Mr. Best
Wednesday night last. There was a lot of noise and music and the Leader of the Opposition, the Liberal leader, was waiting to begin his speech. Some of his comments came over television just before that. He said he had only 20 minutes left; his television time was vanishing and vanishing, and all the while the band played on. Stop the band, he cried. It was a touching scene. That program was going out on this evening right across the country to Canadians everywhere, and it was indeed sad.
I sometimes watch the late show on television-


Lionel Chevrier: Are you speaking of the budget?


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: -which frequently lulls me to sleep. I am not sure which was more soporific last Wednesday night, the late show or the Liberal rally. I believe they ran tough competition one for the other; there were the good guys and the bad guys in them both, lots of guns popping off, and there was all the bluster, balderdash, and so on that one frequently sees on these late shows, these "go to sleep shows" on television.
There were other things. I was very pleased to see this, and I wish we saw more of it in this house. I am referring to the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). I was delighted to hear his bilingual baritone the other evening. One of my friends called it a bathroom baritone, and I think that is perhaps the way to describe it. He has an excellent voice, and if you would allow it, Mr. Speaker, I think if he would only confine his utterances in this house to singing he might carry with him the majority opinion of this house rather than that of a small minority.


Lionel Chevrier: You are doing pretty well on diverting.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: I will not divert, Mr. Speaker-


Lionel Chevrier: Keep right on.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: -because it seems to me that when we come to serious subjects such as defence, we have heard the hon. member for Trinity support in this house the case for manned interceptors and various principles through the last few months and years. But the other night he changed all this. No more interceptors. I think we should really be serious as we look back on the large flip-flop that the Liberal party had last week in its platform. I do not call that diverting, or perhaps it is diverting; perhaps that is a mild way of putting it. I call that pretty serious for anyone examing the record and platform of this Liberal party.
Something that interested me about the Leader of the Opposition was that in his

The Budget-Mr. Best television speech pointed out-I have forgotten the exact words-that his party had at last decided upon a position or a platform. Which position, Mr. Speaker? Which platform? Which of the 57 different varieties that were offered last week was he deciding upon? I do not know, and I could see in the audience behind him the puzzled, bewildered frowns of his delegates, wondering just which position they were deciding upon.
He said he had decided upon it, but a little later in the same speech, or again at this rally, he covered himself very well because he said something to the effect that "We will not really be committed to anything that has been brought up at this rally. We will take this merely as guidance. It will not hold us down in the house or when we form a government". So really we are getting the best of both worlds, are we not? There are a number of policies from which they can take their choice, and they will not be bound by any of them. I think it must require practice to be able to say and bring about this sort of thing.
The purpose of this rally was very well defined by the hon. member for Trinity at its inception, in his opening remarks and introduction. He referred-to its purpose, and I am quoting from a newspaper report-as "the well-being and happiness of the individual". If ever one could come upon a more generalized, a more vague, a more pleasant-sounding position than that, I do not know how. In a way it sounds like a conference of tranquilizer salesmen; "well-being and happiness of the individual". Perhaps that is what it was meant to do, to lull the Canadian people, to put on a performance.
I did not see them on television and I was disappointed, but I am told about the pigeons. They got out of this meeting and rose to the rafters, much to the consternation of everybody. The band was playing, the dust settled down and it took them quite a long time to clear up that dust.


An hon. Member:: They were homing
pigeons.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: Perhaps they were homing
pigeons. As the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pal-lett) pointed out to me the other day perhaps they were just chickens going home to roost. In any case they were part of the entertainment value of this performance last week.
There are a number of other things. Indeed, it must have been difficult for the Liberal party to attempt a policy statement last week, with our government going into so many fields with vigour and determination. It must be most difficult for the opposition to try and nail down just a little corner of the canvas on something new which they can


do, whether to be right or left. This presents a genuine difficulty, and I sympathize with the opposition in their attempts to do so.
I was delighted, of course, that among the coterie of notables there I saw the photograph of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate (Mr. Pickersgill) in the newspapers. He was beaming down at all of us across the country and I am sure he enjoyed his time; also the joint chairmen of the rally, the hon. member for Trinity and the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud). I am told though perhaps not on good authority, that the hon. member for Gloucester is getting a little jealous of the hon. member for Trinity because of his singing ability, but I am sure that with practice he can achieve something like the same level of tonal quality.
The Leader of the Opposition, with considerable vigour, championed his party's cause with comments such as, "Let us have an election this year; the sooner the better, and so forth. But knowing him as we do here in this house, I think we detect just a faintly hollow note in these utterances, because he has done this before, and he has suffered the consequences of what happened when he did it before. I do not think that this remark was really meant to be taken quite at its face value.
It was quite a performance, all told. They looked at various questions such as red China. There was talk here and there about that with violent disagreements. They did not talk too much about trade. How could they? Agriculture, as I have said, was disappointing to me personally and, I think, to many others, because of the lack of direction from the hon. member for Essex East. But there were other things. It reminded me- these pigeons and all that sort of performance; the Coliseum being used for various purposes-of	an opera house
of sorts. Some people pointed out that all this had a slightly operatic effect, with the hon. member for Trinity adding a somewhat Wagnerian touch. Perhaps this was meant to give comic relief, or relief of some sort from the tedious round of meetings. There were many odd birds; it had a certain zoo-like quality.
On subjects such as defence, we were puzzled. We have seen, as I say, a change in this Liberal party. A party which, in part at least, was the architect of such organizations as NORAD now swings violently away from commitments and co-operation with our neighbour to the south.


An hon. Member:: Bird watchers.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: Yes, bird watchers. They are getting out of the interceptor field. I admit

it is an interesting and difficult position for Canadians. There is a large body of opinion which is concerned, as indeed we all are in Canada, about our problems with nuclear weapons. This party has decided to commit itself to the fact that Canadian soldiers will not, I gather, in Canada or presumably in western Europe, use tactical weapons of this sort, or even possibly not use tactical weapons of this sort when the foe they might be facing is certain to be using them.
I question this very delicate, this very, in a sense, distinct line along which this party is moving; and in the opinion of many Canadians it must be moving toward a markedly neutralist position. I say this because our Prime Minister and our Secretary of State for External Affairs, as shining examples, are leading our country in international deliberations toward nuclear disarmament; toward peaceful and controlled disarmament; and I think this man, our Secretary of State for External Affairs, deserves the compliments of all Canadians for the work he is doing in this connection. This, I think, is the honest, the straightforward, the progressive approach that we must take rather than committing ourselves not to using certain weapons, even though we hope we never will, not to doing certain things, toward pulling out of certain negotiations and certain commitments. This is the stand taken by the Liberal party, and I hope it will not be ours.
I think the party rally last week might have gained useful experience from certain members of the New Party. I am quoting from a letter which appeared in the Globe and Mail of January 10, 1961 from the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). In it he emphasizes some of the remarks he had made earlier regarding the new party. He says:
I hope the new party will have success in its search for power; I hope to help prove some of my doubts wrong. It is a conviction, perhaps a delusion, of mine, that such hopes should not keep one from analysing things as they seem to be or may turn out.
I would recommend to the Liberal party that they try to take some of that philosophy for constructive and useful criticism in their party deliberations. There was a great lack of that last week, and it is only to be hoped that it may come in the future.
Regarding defence matters, one might quote again from the Globe and Mail of January 11. A lot of things were happening about the country around that date, it seems. The leader of the C.C.F. party in this house, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), is quoted as saying at Hamilton, Ontario that there is no defence in nuclear war and that our armed services should disband. Perhaps that is an
The Budget-Mr. Best
extreme point of view; no defence and no armed forces. What would we do? Would we just sit and wait, and get out of our commitments and decline to work with our allies? Are we seeing here an example of the Liberal party working toward these socialist principles of isolation and a complete withdrawal from commitments, from national defence, defence abroad and joint agreements abroad? Perhaps we are. There may be some further decision coming in the Liberal party's annals, some further planning in the dark recesses of their minds in preparation for getting out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and severing our commitments and relations with this powerful and traditional bulwark of freedom. These are the things I think Canadians will question in the months and years ahead in connection with this rally which we saw last week.
The matter of the flag, of course, wns brought up and a two-year time limit was set if they returned to power. Little was said about the decades of time during which they might have dealt with this matter before 1957, or of the committee which was constituted, I believe in 1945, and which was flooded with thousands of possible flags and which 12 years later, in 1957, had not made a decision. Little was said about this, but they set this two-year limit, supposing they should be in office. These are the things we saw.
In conclusion Mr. Speaker, I should like to make three constructive points unrelated to the entertainment event of last week. They are three points which are related one to another, and I hope the Minister of Finance and the cabinet may consider them. They are matters of interest to myself and I am sure to other members in this house and to people across Canada. First of all, I should like to make a few remarks about the Royal Society of Canada. This organization, which is a body of scholars in various fields, in the arts, letters and sciences, I believe, is one which could be strengthened in our country. At the present time it is my information that they use some office space in the national research council building. I think it might be a project for the government in the years ahead to promote the independence and strength of this important body, possibly by providing some funds, by which the society might have here in Ottawa a building as its own home. I put forward this suggestion. It is not a new one; it is one which has come from some of the members of this society.
Second, I should like to propose the idea of an agricultural research council for Canada. Speaking in this house last year I complimented the government on the establishment of a new council, the medical research

The Budget-Mr. Best council for Canada, splitting off, as it did, as a section of the national research council, the first and senior body. I know that in our country we have great room, great need for a medical research council, and also for an agricultural research council. We would not entirely be copying the British example in this field where there is a medical research council, an agricultural research council and a department, I believe it is called, of scientific and industrial research, but nevertheless there is a pattern there to follow. We would be fulfilling a need for co-ordination of the tremendously costly yet important agricultural research programs which go on in this country. We have huge amounts of funds spent in the federal Department of Agriculture in this field. We have the farm system, the research and administration stations. We have our various provincial departments of agriculture and their corresponding educational institutions and research stations. I know there is some measure of liaison among these bodies now, but I think a central council which might in itself at first not have its own research facilities but would at least be a co-ordinating and advisory group in the agricultural field would indeed be merited.
Perhaps I am presumptuous in mentioning my third point. It is that in the years ahead a new ministry might be considered for our government, a ministry for science with a minister for science at cabinet level. In this we would also be following the British tradition established in 1959, when Lord Hailsham was made the first minister for science. The American, and other governments, have cabinet level people in this position. There is some value in having at cabinet level a minister who would have responsible to him such bodies as an agricultural research council and, I would hope, the national research council and medical research council now established, probably also Atomic Energy of Canada and possibly other organizations as well. This might be a means of pointing up to Canadians the tremendous importance of research funds and activities and the results of research, and also making such ever more important knowledge directly available to cabinet. There are naturally research matters and research projects which cut across all departments, and which take place in many of them. I am not suggesting that they be taken out of such departments. At first a new ministry might indeed be an advisory and co-ordinating area, or person, to whom the various bodies I have mentioned would be responsible.
I put forward these three ideas in some humility and in the hope they may be considered in the months and years ahead.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as custodian of the rules of the house I am sure Your Honour will be relieved when I assure you that I do not intend to follow the example of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Best), who devoted 20 of the 30 minutes at his disposal to what I believe is the most important political event that has occurred in this country for some time, the national Liberal rally. I must say that we on this side of the house are exceedingly grateful for the amount of attention that hon. gentlemen opposite have already given to that important event in this debate, particularly when we compare it with their very sparse references to the speech made by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) on Tuesday, December 20, a speech which most of them would apparently prefer to forget.
It is also noteworthy that the hon. member spent another 5 of his 30 minutes grinding his own particular axes, which no doubt could have been done at some time or other but which should not take up time in the budget debate. I assume that is also another measure of the hon. member's evaluation of the importance of the present budget.
I, sir, intend to discuss the budget and matters related to it; and unlike the hon. member for Halton, when I talk about the budget I intend to talk about the reason we had a budget. That is the unemployment crisis that exists in this country at the present time. The hon. member for Halton did not allow the naughty word "unemployment" to pass his lips.
I am not going to say that this budget is all bad. It is like the curate's egg; it is only bad in parts. I suggest, however, that an egg which is only bad in parts is not a very attractive article. That is perhaps one of the reasons the supporters of the government are anxious not to talk about this particular egg which was laid by the Minister of Finance.
There seems to be some doubt in the minds of many people as to why there was an extra or supplementary budget at all. The only reason I can think of for this is that the Minister of Finance himself felt he was being eclipsed in the struggle for publicity, and that the only way he could hold up his end was to bring down a budget. While there are one or two things the minister is proposing to do which are not bad-and we will indicate our position on them when the time comes-there is no adequate excuse for having a budget at all.
If the minister had come in with that modesty which characterizes some of his colleagues and said, "We feel there are a few changes that might be made that would not

merit all the paraphernalia of a budget but which might be a little helpful," and had done this in a modest way and then allowed the results to speak for themselves, possibly six months hence there might have been some results to gratify the minister. But the minister cannot do things in that way. His method is the opposite one; he tends to blow things up into great balloons and, like all balloons, the minister's eventually burst. The expectations aroused by the minister both before and after the budget are of a character which cannot possibly be realized by any of the results that are likely to follow.
I am sorry that the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Flemming) is not in the chamber at the moment. He was here a few moments ago, and I wanted to make a reference to him. I think we from the Atlantic provinces all expected that when this great star from New Brunswick-perhaps I should call him a fallen star-came into this house, those fiscal ideas and those claims for the Atlantic region which he professed so loudly from Fredericton would reflect themselves in the budget of his namesake after he became a member of the government. It is pretty disappointing to everyone from the Atlantic provinces to see that the only reference to the Atlantic provinces is that we cannot have regional policies in this country. I paraphrase the minister's statement on that.
I want to say one or two words about one feature of this budget which I think is wholly bad. I may say that the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) correctly anticipated that I would say something about this. He correctly anticipated it, of course, because he was perverting history in his speech yesterday. The hon. gentleman was very anxious to suggest that the parentage of these made in Canada proposals of the Minister of Finance was wholly Liberal. He referred to Mr. Fielding in 1904 and even dragged in poor Sir Clifford Sifton by the heels.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: What was poor about Sir Clifford?


John Whitney Pickersgill: He was having a poor time in the government at that time, as the hon. member knows, and resigned shortly afterward. But then the hon. member attempted to cloak this proposal in the ample folds of the cloak of Mr. Mackenzie King, and said that this government was going back to 1936, to the position taken by Mr. King which had been eroded-I am not sure if that was the hon. member's exact word-


Mr. Pallell:: Chiselled.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. Of course the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett), who supplied
The Budget-Mr. Pickersgill the word, would know what that word means. I think I will accept the amendment; the word was "chiselled".
The fact of the matter is, of course, that what the government is doing is precisely what it did two years ago over dumping. It is going back just a little beyond 1936. It is going back to Bennett and arbitrary provisions giving all power to the minister, taking it away from parliament and taking away any appeal to the tariff board or on points of law to the courts, and going back to the fine old system they had in the days of Mr. Bennett when you could treat one firm one way and another firm another way, and one commodity one way and another commodity another way. I am not going to go on and debate that point today because there will be opportunity to do so on the resolution and on the bill.
I have a number of other observations I wish to make. There is one great difference; at least Mr. Bennett was not ashamed of what he was doing. In doing it he did not pretend he was a Liberal; he came out honestly and straightforwardly and not in the sly, furtive manner which is so characteristic of the Minister of Finance in dealing with trade. The Minister of Finance, of course, has emulated Mr. Bennett in another matter. He is now threatening the British; he is now waving a big stick at Mr. Macmillan, who apparently is cringing somewhere in Whitehall, fearing to have any closer relations with Europe because of the tremendous threat of retaliation from Eglinton.
What else is the minister doing? He is saying to Mr. Macmillan, "If you do not play ball we are going to rush into the arms of Uncle Sam". That is a shorthand version of the minister's speech at Ste. Adele.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is an erroneous Pickersgillian version, with no resemblance to the facts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Halton talked about Liberal isolation; he talked about Liberal isolation in relation to the Leader of the Opposition, a man who, as much as any other man anywhere in the world, was responsible for the North Atlantic alliance. He need have no worry about the Liberal party leading this country into isolation, but I think we have every reason to worry about the Tory government leading this country into commercial isolation if it continues to follow the line it is following, both in this budget and in previous budgets.
Of course I do not think these made in Canada provisions were the main reason that we had a budget or indeed that we had a session before Christmas in which to have a budget. In one of those candid moments

The Budget-Mr. Pickersgill which he reserves for his peregrinations about the country, the minister said something in Brantford which was quoted yesterday; but it is such a gem, sir, that I think I ought to quote it again. I have his text here as issued by the office of the Minister of Finance, press release communique division, something which did not exist before the present government came into office, and which I believe is priced at about $10,000 a year. I believe this is to give the minister a sense of humour. I would say that of all the expenditures of the present government this particular expenditure has been the most thoroughly wasted, sir.
In this speech the minister said:
Parliament was summoned in November to permit early action on the government's program for meeting Canada's economic problems, chiefly that of unemployment.
Then he went on, you know, balancing the one thing against the other, and said:
It is not in any sense an emergency session; there is no national emergency.
Well, sir, there may not be a national emergency in the mind of the Minister of Finance, but in that respect I do not think he finds himself in agreement with the country, and he certainly does not find himself in agreement with those of us who sit on this side of the house.
I am going to do something which I do not think I have done before in the house. I want to set out my views about the nature of this emergency, this unemployment emergency, and I am going to follow my notes fairly closely in doing so because I want to be very precise about what I am now going to say-


An hon. Member:: More sensible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -in view of the tendency of hon. gentlemen opposite both to condemn and to pervert what is said on this subject from this side of the house-
Mr. Pallet!: Written by the new P. R. man in the office of the Leader of the Opposition, no doubt.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would possess his soul in patience and see-


John Cameron Pallett: A professional.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certain facts have emerged from this debate. They are now crystal clear. First, widespread unemployment is a stark, ugly fact in Canada today ...
The second fact is that people in this country are suffering when there are evidences of prosperity, when many people are enjoying the largest incomes ever in their experience.
In the face of those facts we still have people in Canada suffering as a result of unemployment. There are people in Canada today who are going hungry as a result of unemployment. There are

ruptures in family life that are occurring day by day as a result of unemployment. In the great urban centres where unemployment is acute it is the experience of all those connected with welfare, church or philanthropic work in any capacity, or of those who hold positions of public responsibility, that men are deserting their families deliberately because that is the only way in which their families can qualify for relief assistance.
The third fact is that these large numbers who are out of employment today want work ...
They do not want hand-outs: they do not want cash given to them; they want work...
The fourth fact is that Canadian resources are ample. The Canadian future is bright with promise. We have not too many people in Canada. We would make no contribution to the unemployment problem if we had fewer people in Canada today. In the midst of abundance, in the midst of surpluses, in the midst of evidences of prosperity, this ugly fact of unemployment continues.
The fifth fact is that this is a special Canadian problem ... The situation that confronts Canada is not one that is paralleled in any other comparable country. The situation is quite unlike that of the days of the depression which began in 1929, when the tide of recession, the tide of unemployment, the tide of depression, struck over the entire world. That tide engulfed countries regardless of their resources and regardless of their form of government; it engulfed them all.
Sixth, the government has made no proposals to meet the problem of unemployment...
Not one proposal has yet been made by the government in relation to this problem. The government has hitherto made no preparation for a situation of this kind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why can you not
tell the truth?


John Whitney Pickersgill: But no preparation has been made by this government; it is a tragic fact...
There have been ample warnings to bring about a sense of urgency to any government that had a sense of realism and sense of responsibility. It is quite apparent and deplorably manifest now that the government has made no preparation in advance to meet the type of situation which confronts Canada today ...
I cannot go on, sir. I have three more pages, but every word I have just read-and I have read it, sir; I confess it- was uttered in this house in 1955 by the hon. member for Eglinton; every word.


Lionel Chevrier: Interrupting his own speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not change one single word, sir, because I could not paint such a picture of gloom and doom as the hon. gentleman did on that occasion when, though at that time the unemployment was the highest it had ever been up to then since the end of the war, it was not much more than half as high as it is today, when the same hon. gentleman from the other side of the house says there is no national emergency.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is the cure for this national problem? What is the cure offered by this government? An hon. gentleman says "water", and I cannot think of a better

description of the cure offered by the present government, but I think I will put it in slightly different terms, again in their own terms. The hon. member for Halton described the Globe and Mail as a neutral paper. I think perhaps it might be said that the Globe and Mail, while it is neutral with respect to the Liberal party all the time, has been driven into neutrality with respect to the government by the present government itself. I happened to be going out west, and while at Malton I bought a copy of the Globe and Mail for October 19 of last year. That was just the time when the P.C.'s, according to the Globe and Mail, were sharpening the focus. I hold up this paper for hon. members to see, because they will see here a picture of what purports to be the Prime Minister and the Premier of Ontario, and it certainly looks as though the focus needed to be sharpened.
What was the program to meet all these problems? What was the program to fight these things? The article by Mr. Godfrey Hudson has to do with a meeting of the Ontario Progressive Conservative association at which it is alleged they were not too keen to have the Prime Minister but to which he insisted on going anyway. He is quoted by Mr. Hudson as follows:
"We have just begun now to fight," he said in an apparent reference to the next election. Mr. Diefenbaker said the Conservatives would expand their information services.
Expand their information services. That is how you deal with unemployment; you expand information services. These are Mr. Hudson's words, of course, but I accept them as my own.
This is another way of saying that the government feels it has not been getting through to the public in the way it would like to and that it is going to try to relay its message with more telling impact. The image it wants is not in sharp focus.
There is a good deal more to the same effect. There is one gem here, sir, that I am sure you will appreciate, as will every member of the house:
Within the party there is a feeling that members of the cabinet have had to spend so much time learning the ropes that their public performances have suffered. They simply have not been able to get away from their desks-
This is the ministers-not able to get away from their desks. One thinks of "Oklahoma"; they have gone "about as fur as they can go".
They simply have not been able to get away from their desks often enough to do the kind of selling job that Conservative advisers-
Conservative advisers; Grosart and company.
1115
The Budget-Mr. Pickersgill
-regard as necessary. The pressure of the familiarization process has now eased and Canadians may expect to see a more aggressive approach by the government in defending its actions and explaining its policies.
I suppose that explains these missionary journeys around the country recently. Then these words:
The party feels that the government has had a good program but we haven't sold it.
As a matter of fact, judging from a lot of evidence I think that is quite true. They have not sold it. A few days later the Prime Minister had his own meeting here in Ottawa, and he was still on this theme of more publicity. Then he spoke in Quebec, not to leave out any part of the country and in Quebec he said, as reported in the Ottawa Journal of December 10, 1960:
We have done ... things but failed to advertise. We are going to carry the message across the country.
In Ottawa he had said something that will not be forgotten by the people of the country for a long time. He said "You ain't seen nothin' yet". I thought that was true, sir, when I looked at the newspapers yesterday and saw the picture of that big fish. It is not a very good picture, not a very good technical performance, and when I first looked at it I thought it was an advertisement for Stanfield's unshrinkables. But, sir, when I looked at it again I saw that that was just the effect of the tropical light. I also thought this was not the only fish that the Prime Minister was trying to stuff. I got a sample of the stuffing as soon as I could, the stuffing for the big fish that the Prime Minister hopes to catch in another election, and I have it here. It is called "The Record Speaks". If I had been naming it I am not so sure that I would not have said "the record shrieks". In line with its contents I think perhaps that would have been a more appropriate title.
The most extraordinary feature of this little volume, sir, is that whatever other works of fiction may have been produced in this country in recent months, this one surpasses anything else. I only wish, sir, that I had the time and you had the patience to let me take it to pieces as it should be taken to pieces. However, I simply draw your attention to the inside cover before you even get to page 1. On the inside cover there are what purport to be unemployment figures for what appear to be certain selected years since 1936. When you compare these figures with the figures that the Minister of Trade and Commerce put on the record in answer to a starred question, which will be found on page 1026 of Hansard, you find that there is very little resemblance between the two sets of figures. Which is the truth, what the Minister

The Budget-Mr. Pickersgill of Trade and Commerce told us in the house or these figures in "The Record Speaks"? I suggest, sir, that it is a shocking thing to produce something which purports to be a record, which the government that authorized its production are ashamed to put on the records of the house because they know it is fiction.
Now, sir, there is another measure of unemployment they give all unconsciously. In this beautiful summary on page 1 they say:
The Progressive Conservative government has increased payments as follows-
Listen to these two instances, sir, and I will only give you two; unemployment assistance from $8 million to $40 million, up 408 per cent. Why is it necessary to pay four times as much unemployment assistance today as it was when we were in office? Why? Because there are at least four times as many unemployed; either that or the government is wasting money. I do not say there are four times as many unemployed, but I say there are four times as many unemployment needing assistance or the government is wasting money.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You would not eliminate the threshold provision.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The threshold provision would only account for perhaps $1 million of that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are away out again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister had better go on and account for the other $28 or $29 million. Then they refer to unemployment insurance payments increased from $231 million to $415 million, up 79 per cent. Is unemployment insurance paid to people who are not unemployed? Surely this is the best evidence of the difference between the situation as it was and as it is.
If you want another measure of the fictional character of this work, not going beyond page 1, consider the state of the unemployment insurance fund. It is true that we had some seasonal unemployment, and in two or three winters it was quite serious when we were in office, but every summer and every autumn the fund was restored until it was full again. Now, in spite of the 25 per cent increase in contributions imposed by the government, the fund is nearly empty.
I could go on and quote a lot of other things, but there is just one other thing in this little pamphlet to which I wish to draw particular attention. That is a statement made three times, as found on page 17:
And yet more than 80 per cent of personal income taxpayers continue to pay less than under the Liberal administration.
[Mr. Pickersgill.!
To support that statement the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway put a table on Hansard yesterday in which he carefully gave the rates for 1959 and not the rates for 1960. Why? This is just another of the fictions of the supporters of this government. The rates for 1960 were higher as everyone knows, they were increased by the old age security increase. Perhaps I should not say this table was calculated to give this impression-I do not know why it was put in if it was not- but it was different from the facts. When you take the extra old age security tax paid by every income taxpayer, when you take the extra 1 per cent on the sales tax, and when you take the unemployment insurance increase, every taxpayer in this country is paying more today than he was in 1956, except those who have lost their incomes because they have lost their jobs. Unfortunately there are far too many of them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That statement is hopelessly untrue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister will have an opportunity to make his own speech in his own time. There is a quotation in this document to the effect that the government of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker has accomplished more for the ordinary man and woman in Canada than any government in our history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This quotation is not attributed to anybody. There is no author given. However, there is only one man in Canada who, with a straight face, could say that and that is someone who never has anything but a straight face. It was not said by the Prime Minister, as many of you may have suspected. The Prime Minister has a certain sense of the ridiculous which would have prevented him from making this statement, although no doubt he was quite happy to have it made. There is only one man in the whole country, sir, I suggest, who would have had the immodesty, the effrontery and total lack of any sense of humour, any sense of proportion, to say that, and that is the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming).


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, following the histrionic display we have just witnessed it is rather difficult to know where one should start or with what one should deal. Certainly the field is wide open, because the hon. member, having spent 10 or 15 minutes in castigating the hon. member for Halton for having dealt with the Liberal convention, then spent 28 minutes in dealing with an alleged Conservative handbook. There is, therefore, no question about what one may discuss in this budget debate.

The hon. member referred to the member for Halton and said something about the curate's egg which was only bad in spots. Certainly my hon. friend and his associates have had a lot of experience with bad eggs, so we will take his judgment on that at any time. I am not unmindful of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that it is a challenge to follow the hon. member who has just taken his seat, because he has not only progressed from the rank of statesman to a leading member of the opposition but he is now entitled to an award for Canadian fiction by virtue of the book which he has recently edited and published. It is on sale now, and I hope he is enjoying substantial royalties from its sale. His fictional ability, as exemplified in the editing of that book, has been demonstrated to a high degree by the speech he made this afternoon, which was fictional almost from beginning to end.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Including the extracts from the Minister of Finance?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was the only respectable part of the speech.


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member made a different approach to this problem from that which I expected. I thought when he came to deal with the budget he would deal with it seriously instead of on a fictional, partisan basis which was unworthy of the hon. member in dealing with such an important subject. He having blazed the trail, however, perhaps I can be forgiven for following along somewhat in the same vein.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Two wrongs do not make a right.


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member now having finished the display of his fictional ability, perhaps he will sit quietly and let me try to follow along. I cannot hope to emulate the high degree of fiction which he put into his speech, but at least I will try to deal with the facts and the record as it has been established and as it should be reiterated this afternoon.
The hon. member included some references to statements by the hon. member for Eglinton, the only serious reference in his whole speech, when he mentioned the matter of unemployment. As my colleague the Minister of Finance said a moment ago, that was the only part of the speech which was worthy of repetition in the house today. This government, Mr. Speaker, appreciates the problem of unemployment to just as great a degree as hon. members opposite. We know there is some unemployment in this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Some?


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, some unemployment in this country. We know there are pockets of 90205-6-71J
The Budget-Mr. Nowlan unemployment and that where unemployment exists, whether it is one individual, a family or a group of individuals, if it inflicts hardship upon people it is the responsibility of government to recognize that fact and, in conjunction with provincial governments, business and industry, to attempt to deal with it. I suggest, in that connection, that this government has done a very great deal. I suggest we have done more toward the solution of this problem than would have been thought possible or than has ever been done by any government in the past.
We discussed figures. My hon. friend has questioned the figures which apparently appear in this booklet to which he has referred and which I have not had the opportunity to scan. He knows that there are figures and figures dealing with unemployment. There are figures which have been used by hon. gentlemen opposite and which certainly were highly unrealistic. We have, for instance, a situation which I saw the other day when I was down in my own constituency. Years ago the fishermen came ashore in the fall, they worked in the woods or lived at home and milked the cow. They did work when they were ashore. Now the fishermen are unemployed and their numbers swell this great army of unemployed because they are drawing unemployment insurance. There are other classes who have been admitted to this group, so the group has been greatly increased during the last few years.
There are also, no doubt, a lot of people who are taking advantage of unemployment insurance and who are registering as unemployed. I had an experience the other day. I received a letter, and I am almost ashamed to say that it came from a constituent of mine. This person felt he knew me so well he started "Dear George". He said he started working last spring, worked all summer and last fall. Then he said "last week I went to the unemployment insurance office and asked for my unemployment benefits. What do you suppose they did to me, George? They offered me a job." He said, "George, why did they play this dirty trick on me? You have to do something about it." This is one factor in the unemployment situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a very small factor.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not saying how large it is. I am saying that that factor is the only one not exaggerated by the hon. member when he tramped up and down this country bewailing unemployment, or when he tramped up and down before the television cameras in the Coliseum in his bid for the leadership' of his party. Certainly, however, unemployment as he portrayed it is far different from
1118	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Nowlan the actual figures. There is unemployment, and we have been doing and are doing everything humanly possible for a government to do. There is not one matter that was suggested in this great convention which the Liberals held last week, no specific statement or promise offered by the Liberals for dealing with unemployment, that this government has not already embarked upon. I challenge them to name one. They talk about slum clearance and sewage projects-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -will allow me to accept his challenge. To accept his challenge I will name one right off, and that is to pay 90 per cent of the cost of completing the trans-Canada highway in the Atlantic provinces.


George Clyde Nowlan: Ninety per cent of the cost to complete the trans-Canada highway in the maritime provinces will make no great contribution to resolving the problem of unemployment; none whatsoever.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There were lots of things. You should1 have joined us and you would have learned something.


George Clyde Nowlan: My hon. friends on the one hand talk about cutting taxes to encourage employment. How much of a tax cut are we going to get; $50 million, $100 million or $200 million? It must be a very substantial amount if you are going to increase employment. Yet at the same time they say they are going to spend money on public works. They say there will be a tremendous expenditure on public works. How do they reconcile these two? These are like Grimm's fairy tales that little children read when I was a boy-I did, anyway-and I presume they still read them. Even Grimm's fairy tales could not compare with the Liberal platform that was drafted last week at this convention. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.
They talk to us today about unemployment and the solution for unemployment. I would like to see something produced in that direction. The hon. member talked about this special session of parliament, as he called it. He talked about the budget, and suggested that there was no reason whatsoever for dealing with this matter.
If there is unemployment in this country today-and there is; I admit that-where dbes the responsibility lie? My hon. friends opposite talk about the failure of this government-the government on your right, Mr. Speaker-to deal with the problem. I have an authority which I am sure will meet
i

with the approval of the hon. gentlemen opposite, because this gentleman has never been recognized as a great friend of this government. He is certainly not a political supporter of this government in any way, shape or form. Certainly in his talks, in his writings and in every reference he makes he usually criticizes this government and the Prime Minister. As we know the Liberals, in searching around for remedies somewhere or other, first had a convention of liberals with a small "1", and that was so discouraging that they decided to hold one last week for Liberals with a capital "L".
At the convention for liberals with a small "1", as one of their speakers they had Mr. Michael Barkway, who is the head now, I believe, of the Toronto Star bureau here in Ottawa. He is one who has been associated, as I have said, in his writings and talks with criticism of this government. I am sure he is one whose judgment my hon. friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and others will be very, very happy to accept. I could quote from various statements which he made before this Queen's University convention which met last fall. This is one thing he said. He was speaking about economic conditions and about the aberration, the insanity which characterized Canada, at least since 1950, and the results of it from 1950 to 1957. He said:
This places a heavy responsibility upon the Liberal party, which will not be easy to discharge because the Liberals are so closely associated with the Great Aberration of the 1950's.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was a boom.


George Clyde Nowlan: Then he said:
Nowhere in Canada have I heard any serious suggestion that the party has a better leader in sight than Mr. Pearson. But I have several times heard it said that the party cannot win public confidence until it has a leader completely disassociated from the old regime.
That is not a Tory speaking, Mr. Speaker; that is not someone-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nor is it a Liberal speaking.


George Clyde Nowlan: -who is sympathetic toward this government. This is a man addressing a Liberal convention, and I must say I admire his courage and I also appreciate his judgment in speaking as he did to that convention. Then Mr. Barkway went on:
It would be a ghoulish task to try to catalogue the dismal illusions and failures of the later Liberal years. They would fill a book-a history of the 1950's, which badly needs to be written.
Perhaps the hon. member, with the same fictional qualities he portrayed in editing a book the other day, might rewrite this history. Then Mr. Barkway says:
But for the present purpose it is vital to indicate some of them which hang like millstones around the party's neck.

And he identifies four millstones, dead horses, and so forth. Mr. Barkway then says:
This record of wilful blindness is the first of the millstones around Liberal necks.
My hon. friend referred to tariff protectionism and objected to what we were going to do in this amendment-I took him to mean the amendment to "class and kind" in the act. He said that we were going backward in this respect. History always repeats itself when Liberal members speak, because they are playing the same record over and over again. I am reminded of the speeches which hon. members made when you, Mr. Speaker, were in the chair two years ago. They said, when we brought in amendments to the Customs Act-that is, the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate, the Leader of the Opposition and I do not remember whether or not the hon. member for Essex East participated -that we were doing a horrible thing; we were going to raise tariffs as high as Haman's gallows. It was said that we were going to invoke this section and we were going to wreck Canadian trade.
We have not had any of these things happen despite the dismal gloom and doom prophesies of my hon. friend. They indulged in the same prophesies, of course, in connection with the C.B.C. when we brought in that act. We were going to wreck the C.B.C.; we were going to make it a political creature; that is what we were told.
We are getting the same spectre again this afternoon, the threshing of old straw and the repetition that we are going, by some tariff action, to revive the days of Bennett. This is the terrible thing that they hold in front of us all. But a worse thing would be to revive the days of the St. Laurent government; I do not think there is any question about that. I do not think the people of Canada are going to revert to that type of government for a long time to come.
With reference to tariff protectionism, this is what Michael Barkway says:
It is simply unrealistic nowadays to think in the simple theoretical terms of protectionism versus free trade. We might as well debate tran-substantiation versus consubstantiation. It is, therefore, distressing to find educated Liberals-
I include my hon. friend very freely in that category:
-reverting to the ancient familiar stereotype like an old friend with whom they feel at home. Their beloved bogey of protectionism is really one of the most puny and least terrifying of the hallowe'en apparitions which prevent us from tackling our real problems in the light of day.
As I said, that is not the statement of a Tory; that is the statement of a friend of the Liberal party who was giving friendly advice, which I regret to see was not accepted,
The Budget-Mr. Nowlan when he appeared before the Queen's University convention last fall and suggested to the Liberals how they might rectify the situation, which apparently they failed to do.
I think the only parts of the hon. member's speech which deserve comment are those matters referring to protectionism and the unemployment problem. The rest was simply making publicity. I am glad to see that he did it and I hope everybody reads that booklet-


John Whitney Pickersgill: So do I.


George Clyde Nowlan: -because it is authoritative, it is objective and it is factually correct, and I am sure that if we could get it into the hands of every person in Canada, come the next election the hon. gentlemen will find that the decimated ranks which they have today will not be increased. They will find that this government will be returned with a bigger majority than it has at the present time.
I am not going to deal with figures with respect to unemployment, or the moneys to be paid out. I am not going to deal with the 200,000 or thereabouts who are employed in the winter works program and the measures which the Minister of Finance brought down in the budget the other day; the applications which are coming in for the construction of residences for universities; the municipalities writing in with respect to obtaining loans for the construction of sewage disposal plants, or the score of things which are being done by the Dominion of Canada, in co-operation with the provinces, in order to give an impetus to construction. We are giving leadership, we are providing employment, and we are going ahead to build a better Canada than we have ever had before. The Minister of Finance will, I imagine, be dealing with this matter before this debate is over. He can go into the details. I do not intend to transgress in his field. In addition, the Minister of Labour will undoubtedly be dealing with this.
As I said, there have been references to the great convention, the great gathering, the great assembly, one of the greatest television shows we have seen for a long while, and perhaps I can refer to that for a moment or two before I sit down. As I said, it is a strange thing. They talk about new faces. They talk about young blood. It is true there was youth there. We saw the pictures of very fine looking youths in the television cameras. Some of them looked so intelligent that when they are a little older they will undoubtedly join the Conservative party. Hon. members will remember the words which were once used by an English statesman, that there was something wrong

The Budget-Mr. Nowlan with any young person in Britain who was not a socialist at 21, because he lacked sympathy, he lacked heart, he lacked other characteristics which every young person should have. But, at the same time, if he was not a Conservative by the time he was 30 there was also something wrong, because he lacked intelligence. I am sure this will be the pattern followed by many of the young people who were shown on television the other night.
But there is a tragic aspect to this talk about a new program and the great new light that is to be thrown on our affairs. What do we get? We get the same old hackneyed story; reduced taxes and increased expenditures. This has been the solution used by every opposition party throughout the years, including our own. It has never worked yet, and it will not work with those young people we saw before the television cameras the other day. As far as unemployment or a constructive program are concerned, there was not one thing which has not been advocated and carried out by this government.
There was one thing that was different. There was the situation with respect to national defence and the NORAD agreement. I wonder who was the secretary of state for external affairs before June, 1957? I wonder who carried out the negotiations with the government of the United States in Washing. ton with respect to these matters? I wonder who did not sign a treaty until after the election because they did not want to bring it down before, and then something happened and they did not win the election?
I should like, then, to put this question; and I admit that I am being guided by speeches which were made rather than by the resolution, because I can honestly say I have not had an opportunity of reading all the resolutions which were passed or discussed. In this regard I think I am in keeping with the mass of the Liberal delegates, who have not had a chance to read them either, most of them having been swept under the rug or handed over to the policy committee presided over by Mr. Gordon. The Leader of the Opposition, in refering to NORAD, said that we could man the radar screens but that we certainly could not do any shooting. So apparently the R.C.A.F., with their glorious traditions, are to become bird watchers. They can sit and watch the birds go by; they can count the birds, but they must not do anything more about it. If that is to be the role of the R.C.A.F. I suggest this part of the Liberal platform will not ring a bell too loudly with members of the armed forces.
The Liberal party has obviously tried to outflank the so-called New Party which proposes to come into this house as a result of

the marriage of the C.C.F. with the new group. They tried to outflank it by moving further to the left.


An hon. Member:: Impossible.


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member says "impossible", but that is not for me to say. But how can they outflank it? They have the same old generals. They have Gordon and they have Sharp and they have Drury and they have MacKinnon, and these and others have been the wheelhorses of the Liberal party, official and unofficial, for many years.
Speaking of wheelhorses, I think the hon. member named the gentleman who has been the publicity director for the Conservative party. Every once in a while I hear about the Madison avenue techniques employed by the Conservative party and what a terrible thing that is, a Madison avenue technique. But hon. gentlemen opposite, when they were in power, had a representative of one of the largest advertising firms in Canada, Cock-field Brown and Company, permanently retained at Liberal headquarters, at hand to keep them out of trouble. That is one reason hon. members opposite stayed in power during the terrible fifties that Mr. Barkway referred to. There is no Madison avenue technique as far as this government is concerned.
I noticed headlines during the first part of the convention stating that the Leader of the Opposition wanted a policy, and that he had brought his followers together to create a policy. Well, I think I can give him a policy, and I am thinking of what Sir Winston Churchill once said about blood, sweat and tears. There certainly was enough political blood shed by the Liberals in 1957. The carcasses and corpses of their defeated were lying all over the field of battle, and some of them have not been interred yet, which I think is a matter of regret for the Liberals. When it comes to sweat and tears, I suggest it is humility that is needed here.
That is one quality which hon. members opposite need to acquire. They are defeated, and at once they assume that Madison avenue had something to do with it; that there was some legerdemain on the part of the Prime Minister which unfortunately pushed them out, and the people of Canada are now sorry for it and want to restore them. They forget that the people of Canada kicked them out because they were sick and tired of their policies, and hon. gentlemen opposite have not shown any sign of reform yet. Certainly the conference did not indicate that there had been any change. The same old faces were in charge, and though there were some young ones present perhaps I could describe

the situation by saying that the voice is the voice of Jacob but the hands are the hands of Esau.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Esau Pickersgill.


An hon. Member:: What a pun.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The revised version.


George Clyde Nowlan: I was quoting from the old version, not from the revised version which is coming into play today.
When one reviews everything that has been said so far, one finds there is nothing which has been advocated or suggested which is in any way sharp or clear cut. They use words. One thing is sure; they cannot possibly talk about deficit financing now, because one minute we heard talk about the spending of huge sums of money and in the next we heard about the lowering of taxes as a stimulus to employment. There was a very cautious pronouncement: "We will not oppose consideration of the red China question." Then there was a daring promise of free education at all levels, without much respect for the British North America Act. Then again there was one resolution in favour of scholarships, bonuses, bursaries and loan funds; this at the same time as the promise of free education at all levels. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
I understand that reference has been made to a flag that is going to have a green maple leaf as the symbol of national unity. This is the safeguard, of course. It is going to be brought in within two and a half years after the election of a Liberal government. Well, the little maple leaf, in the words of the poet, will be sere and yellow instead of green, because I venture to suggest that many long years will elapse before a government represented by my hon. friends opposite will come into office to establish for us the flag with the little green leaf.
We on this side of the house are all very glad that our Liberal friends had a noisy and well attended convention. Their spirits were low and they needed encouragement. We know what that is like, because we went through it for 23 years and we have no doubt that they will undergo this experience for a longer period than we did. In the words of Joseph Howe, I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, and I have always followed Joseph Howe's advice in that regard. Nevertheless I venture to predict that no one sitting on the front benches of the party opposite today will ever again sit on the treasury benches in this house.
I will admit that is a prophecy, but I feel it is a very sound one. Personally I like hon. gentlemen opposite. They are amiable gentlemen, estimable characters, charming fellows and pretty good citizens. No doubt they will
The Budget-Mr. Caron learn in time and mature, and some day they may become a fairly effective opposition. For that reason we welcome the fact that they had this great and noisy rally attended by young people. They made lots of noise and thoroughly enjoyed themselves. Even if they did sing "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow" and upset the whole show, that was enthusiasm. We have all seen those things happen at political gatherings, and I am sure the delegates were delighted to see such enthusiasm.
We on this side of the house also believe in the two party system. We believe there should be two parties in this country and only two parties. Actually we want to see the two party system strengthened. We would like to see hon. gentlemen opposite mature to the point where they could effectively discharge the responsibilities of opposition, and perhaps even some day in the dim and distant future they will again become the government.
After all the noise and applause it was rather disappointing to hear the same old statements made about lowering taxes and increasing expenditures. They spoke of a lotus land where honey dripped from every tree. All you have to do is elect the Liberals and I suppose that even the water itself will be flavoured by some delightful concoction of liqueur and will taste more pleasant than the water that now comes out of the taps in the city of Ottawa. That was the illusion; that was the dream picture; that was the effect and the sum total of the Liberal convention after three days.
As I said, we congratulate hon. gentlemen opposite on their success in terms of the noise that was made, and we hope that as years go by they will enjoy success of another kind. I understand they will be meeting again in a year's time and perhaps on that occasion we will be able to congratulate them on having achieved some degree of maturity and judgment in terms of drafting a platform.
(Translation):


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with only one of the points made by the minister who has just spoken. In the first place, he was surprised that at one point the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) saw fit to criticize certain aspects of past Liberal policy. This does not prove very much except that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) is truly a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative. He cannot look back upon the past with a critical eye. Therein lies the difference, for we, members of the Liberal party, can look back upon the past in order to seek guidance for the future. If our party has made mistakes in the past, we are not afraid to admit it, because we are conscious of the fact

The Budget-Mr. Caron that man is a finite being and that in this world nothing is essentially good and nothing is essentially bad.
This is why I feel I can say the same thing about the baby budget, for it contains some things that are not bad, but the greater part of it is not acceptable to most Canadians. For that reason, when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate referred to past events, I was in complete agreement with him.
As I was saying during the Liberal convention last week, I feel that in the Liberal party, we have to be radical and daring. That, incidentally, was one of the failings of the former party, in my view. I felt it was not radical, and was not seeking, through effective action, to develop our policy in tune with the changing times. The minister was wrong in raising that point, and I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate for having had the courage to speak his mind, as he does at all times. 1 commend him for having done so in this case.
Mr. Speaker, reference has been made to the baby budget. It is indeed that, because it does not seem to have reached maturity; or is it the party that submitted it that has not reached maturity.
In the first place, was this budget necessary? This is a question which is on everybody's lips, and not merely on those of the hon. members who are sitting here on my left. In fact, I am convinced that if we could read the minds of all the hon. members of this house, we would find that several Conservative members too are wondering whether this budget was really necessary. They are wondering how it can help relieve the present situation. For my part, I say it was not necessary at all. It only served to prove that the party in power, the government, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) have all shown a lack of foresight during the three years they have been administering the affairs of this country.
The only thing this budget has offered the Canadian people is the evidence that, when the Minister of Finance made his budget speech on March 31 last, and predicted a $12 million surplus, he had not foreseen the possible difficulties and, while there was no actual prospect of a $12 million surplus, he nevertheless was proud to announce one.
When I took part in the debate, I said that despite the statement of the minister, if he wanted to replenish the unemployment insurance fund, he would create a deficit of at least $300 million. However he denied it at the time. On March 31 last, the minister said


an extraordinary surge was taking place in the economic forces of the western world, to which Canada was vastly contributing.
It is true that there has been a revival in the western world, and in Europe. There has been a new movement there. And what has this country done about it?
We have seen some European countries form a common market in order to strengthen their position and to develop their market so as to dispose of their surplus goods and avoid a possibly imminent depression.
And here we were silently looking on while this transformation was taking place.
The minister and his colleagues did not choose to look into the situation and see whether, on this side of the Atlantic, an organization of our markets would not contribute to rid us of our surpluses. Nothing was done. They remained mute before the facts.
The countries of Europe are prospering, and Canada is not. I have been to Japan. It is enjoying a remarkable prosperity. However there is nothing of the sort in Canada. Why? Simply because the administration is bad.


Mr, Georges Valade (St. Mary):: How much do the Japanese pay their workers?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, some time ago, England proposed, or rather suggested, that we establish a free trade area, the first time at St. Adele, during a meeting, and on another occasion, at some place the name of which has slipped my mind.
When the British minister spoke of a free trade area, did Canada stop and think about the setting up of such an area, which would help our foreign trade? Not in the least. Canada did nothing, it did not budge. We did not even set up a royal commission, as is generally done, to examine the situation.
Mr. Speaker the budget submitted to us showed an unheard lack of foresight. If we look up the minister's statements, we find the proof thereof.
This is what the minister stated on January 11, at the Canadian Club in Toronto with regard to the budget submitted on March 31:
The Canadian economy is in a period of pronounced expansion. We welcome this development. But we would not like to see it degenerate into a short-lived wave of prosperity which might result in an inflationary trend.
Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, the minister stating in January 1960 that he did not want an evolution which might degenerate into a prosperity he would have some difficulty in stopping.
What we want most of all, Is an orderly expansion without inflation. That is the aim of our policy in this year of development 1960.

Those were the statements the Minister of Finance made on January 11, 1960. He was afraid that prosperity might escape him, that it might expand to a point where he could not catch up with it.
Was that his only statement? No, Mr. Speaker. Let us read the New Year's message of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) on December 30, 1959:
Prospects for the coming year fill us with confidence.
At the end of 1959, or at the beginning of 1960, he saw everything through rose-coloured glasses; everything was fine. The Minister of Labour was confident with regard to the future. It was a mistake to nurture this belief and not to see that a stop be put to the wave of unemployment we are experiencing today.
Further on, we see that the Minister of Trade and Commerce not the present minister, but his predecessor-stated on December 28, 1960:
In the past, the accelerated rhythm has quickened again, and the main economic factors at this time indicate renewed expansion. The international economic climate seems very favourable at this time.
At the end of 1959, the Minister of Trade and Commerce foresaw great prosperity throughout Canada in 1960. And what did we have? Distress, ever and always unemployment. Plants are only working a few days a week, as they are unable to get rid of their surplus production. And this is what the Minister of Labour said, on page 512 of Hansard, of January 29, 1960:
And what about recession? Everybody knows that it is over.
Again, at the end of January 1959, the Minister of Labour stated:
Everyone is agreed that the recession is over.
Is that the statement of a responsible man, of a man who is studying the economic reports submitted by government experts? Those reports have simply been shelved and now they come back to the old rigmarole.
Further on, as we may see on page 1701 of the official record, the Minister of Labour said:
It is not only the government that claim that the recession is over ... I am very much surprised that the only people I hear expressing contrary points of view on this matter are the opposition in this house.
He was surprised to see that members of the opposition who although they lacked the same research facilities as the government were the only ones who knew more about what was to happen than they themselves knew in 1959.
The Budget-Mr. Caron
May I quote the statement made by the Minister of Finance on March 31, last, in his budget speech, and which we find at page 2670 of Hansard:
I am confident that employment will rise as the coming of spring opens up new job opportunities and as the economy continues its upward trend.
That is what the Minister of Finance said on March 31 and what happened? He was forced to change his statement because of his lack of foresight and to tell us that instead of a $12 million surplus he had forecast, he would have a deficit of some $300 million.
I could go on like this almost indefinitely, and quote the ministers who took turn in showing lack of foresight.
No mistake about it, none so blind as those who will not see. They do not see, Mr. Speaker, but tomorrow they will see that the Liberal party will form the next government of this country.
After the budget was presented, Mr. Speaker, I ran across an industrialist who told me that that very night he had made a $3,500 profit as a result of the changes that were made. I asked him if he intended to distribute those $3,500 among his employees. Here is his answer: "Not at all; they are all members of the union; they are being paid good wages".
That is what he said. For the little men, nothing at all. The profits go to average and big industrialists. Besides, we notice this tendency of this government to help the big fellow. When we discussed the combines act, the government did even more to help the big fellow at the expense of the little man; the industrialist is given the powers of judge and master of the whole situation; if he thinks somebody has done a certain thing, he does not even have to prove it.
This is the way the Conservative government has been running the country since 1957, and that is why we are in such a fix that the people of Canada regret the mistake they made and are anxious for an opportunity to rectify that mistake.
What is left to the public? What is being done for people who are in need, for the unemployed? Nothing. Has the government tried to reduce interest rates so that construction may pick up and create employment? Not at all. Has there been any attempt to reduce taxes to put more money in circulation, to revive the economy of this country? Not at all. This government is doing nothing at all.
Mr. Speaker, I have here some opinions of certain people who are independent from the government and who have carefully listened to the budget speech.

The Budget-Mr. Caron
In an editorial published in the Journal of December 21, 1960, Mr. W. E. Currier said:
(Text):
Eric W. Kierar.s, former economics professor now president of the Montreal stock exchange, said the budget cannot be expected to produce the economic growth Finance Minister Fleming wants.
(Translation):
A little farther on, there is an article by Mr. Rudy Usick-
(Text):
Rudy Usick. president of the Manitoba farmers' union, said, however:
"The government's trend towards higher tariffs is continuing. We cannot expect to increase grain sales to other countries by making it more difficult for them to sell goods to us."
Dr. A. M. McLeod, economist of the Toronto-Dominion bank, described them as relatively mild measures that would have little effect on investment by Canadians. The budget would not likely do much to reduce Canada's balance of payments deficit.
British Columbia finance officials said the increase in the withholding tax on Canadian bonds owned by foreign investors will "effectively raise interest rates" ...
Frederick G. Gardiner chairman of the council of metropolitan Toronto, also felt the budget's effect would be to increase interest rates on municipal borrowing . ..
G. Arthur Laseelles, Toronto metro finance commissioner, said there simply isn't enough money in circulation in Canada to satisfy all borrowers. H. A. McDiarmid of Vancouver, president of B.C. division of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, commented that if the budget tends to slow investment from the United States, business may also be slowed ...
Karl E. Scott, president of Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, said he hopes the government is not passing legislation that will be detrimental to the advancement of Canadian companies controlled in other countries.
(Translation):


Mr. Egan Chambers (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I cannot spare the time; I have only got half an hour.


Egan Chambers: May I-


Alexis Pierre Caron: I said no.
(Text) :


Egan Chambers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may we know from what the hon. member has quoted?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I said so when I started and if you will read Hansard tomorrow you will know what it is.


Egan Chambers: What document?


Alexis Pierre Caron: It is from an Ottawa Journal survey of those who were interested in the budget.


Mr. Martineau:: What date?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Wednesday, December 21, 1960.
(Mr. Caron.]
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I usually listen to the speeches of the hon. members across the floor without interrupting them; and I hope that they will show me the same courtesy and allow me to go on with my remarks.
I have here another editorial from the Gazette of December 21, 1960 of which I shall quote only one sentence, because time does not allow me to read a longer quotation:
(Text):
It might be said that such measures might better have been presented in the budget last spring, where their effect might have offset some of the subsequent economic decline.
(Translation):
Now this newspaper is certainly not known as a supporter of the Liberal party.
Unfortunately, time passes quickly. I shall probably not have enough time to show how Canadians across the country reacted to this budget, but I should like to quote the following which Mr. Norman Campbell wrote in the Ottawa Citizen of December 21, 1960: (Text):
The baby budget generally was soundly conservative in the classic sense of the word. As we understand conservative economic theory it is that if the economy generally is healthy then the benefits will distribute themselves to the population generally without specific transfer payments to individuals.
(Translation):
That is indeed the attitude shown by the Conservatives. A Conservative government, according to its theory, believes that prosperity must come from above rather than from below.
There has been an attempt to spread benefits among the wealthy of this world in the hope that it would fall back on the mass like a gentle rain; that is where the Conservatives are wrong.
Mr. Speaker, here is now a headline from the newspaper Le Droit, of Ottawa:
Budget no Christmas gift: Program to help the industry of this country.
And in the same newspaper Le Droit of the same date, that is December 21, 1960, Mr. Jean Taillefer wrote:
A budget for businessmen.
Once again the big fellows were not forgotten but no one gave a thought to the small man. If at least, there had been a tax cut on cigarettes.
Those are some of the objections which could be heard among the general public, Tuesday night, after the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) brought down the supplementary budget.
Then again we can read in the Gazette of December 21 an article written by Arthur Blakely in which he said:
(Text):
Economic Self-reliance Target as Canadian Business Aided. Fleming Impresses Himself.

(Translation):
That is the view expressed by this openly Conservative paper about the present minister.
I could go on and on like this quoting newspaper articles from responsible editors who give serious thought to such matters. But I see that my time is running short. Allow me to say, however, that on leaving this house, we wondered how we should describe the baby budget. As he was leaving the house on budget night, a young man said: "It is a bubble gum budget." That would no doubt be a proper expression, as the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) would say. It does really describe the budget. What is bubble gum? Something that is chewed, that is blown out and then gets you all sticky. That is what remains of the budget.


Mr. Tremblay:: It describes Mr. Lesage's budget.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The hon. member for Roberval is often sticky.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: It is an accurate description of Mr. Lesage's budget.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, what is provided in the budget for the unemployed? Nothing at all. Nothing in the budget is likely to help the jobless right now.
Oh, I admit that there are certain long term measures which could pave the way for things to be done in two, three, four or even five years. But we find absolutely nothing to deal with the present situation.
Here is an excerpt taken from an editorial which appeared in the Gazette on December 8, prior to this baby budget:
(Text):
In the same way-
(Translation):
They were saying that the Liberals were responsible for the unemployment situation, adding:
(Text):
In the same way, the Progressive Conservatives, now in power, will be weighed in the balance, not on the dismal argument whether they brought the depression in with them, but whether they are prepared to take the measures that the new conditions demand. Emergency measures are all very well in their way, as a provision of immediate relief. But the real test is whether the tax structure, and the economic policies generally, can be remoulded in time to give Canada a sound economic footing in a world that is far rougher to walk in.
(Translation):
This accurately describes the situation. The government is judged not by what it says but by its actions. So far, this government has not done anything. Yet for the
90205-6-724
The Budget-Mr. Caron past three years we have spent our time telling the government what to do and how to do it. In fact, at one time the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) has indicated no less than ten measures and we have repeatedly recalled at least twenty five such measures but the minister always came back with the same answer: we have no unemployment problem. This is only temporary. Come spring and the sun will take care of it all.
The government has always refused to hear the real facts and it has always shut its mind to it, which explains our record unemployment. If the Liberal party had not established the unemployment insurance to relieve the distress of the people, we would be worse off than we were under the Tory government of 1930-35.
Mr. Speaker, the minister says that there is an end to everything and that everything will turn out right. We say that there is no ending in sight and that nothing will turn out right unless the government has courage enough to take such actions as will help to correct the situation.
Liberals are accused from different quarters of going about carrying mourning bands and of being calamity howlers. The Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) was saying somewhere near Montreal that unemployment was a Liberal legacy. And that, after three and a half years. He is now speaking like Mr. Bennett in 1934. Well, if unemployment has been inherited, are they not intelligent enough and have they not the qualified men to find a solution to this problem that faces Canada today?
When in Canada the number of unemployed increases, and the increase is tremendous- I see some hon. members smiling, for example the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) a man of letters but a lesser mind-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: The hon. member for
Hull knows enough to spell the word stupid.


Alexis Pierre Caron: What is there to say about that statement from the Associate Minister of National Defence which is as childish as the one from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) who said that, after the convention, the Liberal party would be ready to take the New Party's place. Newspapers, even Conservative newspapers, answered him that it was all nonsense. What a way to work at correcting the situation.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, a Conservative government means poverty, unemployment, tottering economy. As the English say: "Conservative times, hard times". It is always the same thing.

The Budget-Mr. Baldwin
I was reading recently, what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said in 1871 in the Quebec legislature:
Does the picture outlined to you, he says, really correspond to the facts? I cannot accept that point of view. It is said that we are rich and prosperous. Are we really so? Ask all classes of society: merchants, bankers, retailers, professionals, farmers, simple workers, and everywhere without exception you will note some discomfort, some uneasiness, a state of suffering and dullness denoting there is something wrong somewhere . .. That is the truth! Blind are those who do not see it! Guilty are those who, seeing it, do not admit it-
That is the truth. "Blind are those who do not see it. Guilty are those who, seeing it, do not admit it". That is the present situation of the Conservative government. Blind are those who do not see, guilty are those who, realizing what goes on, do not take the necessary steps to alleviate the situation.
I say that this government is guilty, as seldom any government has been in the past. Guilty, because we still have, as in 1871, a depression under a Conservative regime, as was the case in 1896, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into office, a depression such as we have known under the Bennett regime, in the 30's, with soup kitchens on street corners, and such as we have known since 1957.
Will these people on the right some day open their eyes, will they ever try to bring in the necessary remedies to improve the situation? Will they open their eyes once and for all, at least to take into consideration the suggestions we have been offering for the last three years? Or else, are they going to keep on making extravagant statements as they have been making in 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960, when they were always saying that prosperity was just around the corner, while we never saw the sight of it, instead of putting money in the people's pockets, while unemployment increases and misery prevails all over Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Flynn):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
(Tex t):


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have followed with considerable interest the course of this debate and have heard what has been said by the speakers from both sides of the house yesterday and today. The unfortunate part about speaking at this stage of the debate is that the five speakers who have already taken part in the debate on behalf of the government have, with convincing arguments and deadly logic, demonstrated beyond doubt that the supplementary budget introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) is one that is needed at this time, one that is tailored to meet the requirements of this country. It is a budget

which is replete with statements of the intentions of the government to improve the economic condition of this country, thus adding even more lustre to the name of this government.
I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that after the events of the last week, to which reference has already been made by other speakers, the members of the official opposition would have come in here stripped for action and, figuratively speaking, with their fangs dripping with blood. I would have thought we would have had some valid criticisms to meet. I say this because the only criticism I have heard advanced by the last speaker was nonsense rather than factual. I prefer to make reference at this time to a statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) yesterday, in which I think he wrongly criticized the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) because they, in turn, had levelled factual and proper criticism at those members of the opposition who had spoken in this budget debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It now being five o'clock the house will proceed to a consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Gordon Chown (for Mr. Woolliams) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-2, to incorporate Aurora Pipe Line Company.
He said: This is a bill in standard form to incorporate the Aurora Pipe Line Company. The counsel for the company in Ottawa has prepared a brief statement which sets out the degree of ownership and several points of interest to the house, and which I will put on the record in order to save the time of the house and because I am acting for the hon. member for Bow River who is unavoidably absent at this time.
This petition to incorporate Aurora Pipe Line Company is in the standard form of such bills with which the house is familiar. The proposed company would be subject in all respects to the usual conditions set forth in the National Energy Board Act and its operation would be regulated by the national energy board.
It might be of assistance to the house to outline briefly the background of the sponsors of the petition and the immediate project which they have in mind should it become incorporated and should it be successful in

obtaining the approval of the Alberta oil and gas conservation board and the national energy board.
The petitioners are two vice presidents and chief counsel of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited which is sponsoring the application for the new company. Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited was established in 1926 and is the second or third largest natural gas producer in Canada and the fifth largest oil producer. It has invested more than $125 million in the exploration for and development of the oil and gas resources of western Canada. In common with other producers, it is vitally concerned with the problem of orderly marketing of the products which will be produced in association with natural gas.
Approximately 10 per cent of the shares of the company are held by 12,000 public shareholders, 22 per cent are held by the Hudson's Bay Company and 68 per cent by Continental Oil Company. Notwithstanding the disparity in shareholdings between the two companies, an agreement provides that they shall have equal voting power. The shares of the company are listed on the Toronto stock exchange and are available to Canadian investors.
The project in which the company is immediately interested is designed to assist a solution of a problem which is now arising in the province of Alberta as a result of the large increase in natural gas production consequent upon the expansion of sales under recently approved large scale exports of natural gas. In the wet gas fields, which form a major source of supply for the newly approved gas exports, condensate is produced in association with natural gas and must be separated from it. It is actually a high quality crude oil. Since condensate inevitably will be produced as a by-product of natural gas, it is obvious that new markets must be found for it in order to avoid distress selling and, equally important, the displacement of western crude oil in its present markets.
The Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company has advanced its project already by application to the Alberta oil and gas conservation board as a solution for this important marketing problem. It proposes to construct within the province of Alberta a pipe line system of approximately 41 miles, costing $1,600,000 which would take condensate from three important gas fields in southwestern Alberta, namely Pincher Creek, Waterton and Lookout Butte.
The condensate would be delivered through the proposed federal company across the international boundary to an extension of Continental Pipe Line Company's system which
Private Bills
would be built from Cut Bank, Montana. The condensate would be delivered through Continental Pipe Line's system south to a connection with the Platte pipe line system in Wyoming and through this system and its many connections it would gain access to refining centres in the Rocky mountains and mid-continent areas of the United States which are at present not served by Canadian crude. In the early years of the project it is anticipated that the throughput would be of the order of 11,000 to 15,000 barrels per day.
The advantage of this proposal is that it opens a new market for the condensate produced in southwestern Alberta without interfering with the movement of condensate from the central and northern areas of that province east or west through existing trunk pipe lines and without disturbing or displacing crude oil in any existing markets.
I have been at some pains to outline to the house the sponsorship and plans of the proposed company. The house will appreciate that in seeking incorporation the petitioners in no way ask for approval of their project but wish to disclose it in order to assure the house that the company is being incorporated for a proper purpose. As the house knows, two important boards have been constituted in Canada for the purpose of reviewing the merits of projects such as those proposed by the petitioners and finally deciding, after balancing all factors, which project is in the best interests of the nation.
As I have already mentioned, Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited has already applied to one of these bodies, namely the Alberta oil and gas conservation board, for a permit to build its proposed system in Alberta. If the Alberta permit is granted and if Aurora Pipe Line Company is incorporated, then Aurora would apply to the national energy board for the required approval to construct the line across the international boundary.
There may be detailed questions in the minds of hon. members which can be best answered in committee, in accordance with the standard practice of the house, by the officers of the company.
That is the statement prepared by counsel in Ottawa for the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company who are backing this proposed incorporation of Aurora Pipe Line Company. I suggest to the house that the more technical questions that arise can be dealt with in the standard way in committee, with the officers of the company present to answer questions. Subsequently they have to obtain clearance and approval from the board in Alberta and from the national energy board here in Ottawa.

Private Bills
Accordingly I move the second reading of this bill.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Chown) in sponsoring second reading of Bill No. S-2, an act to incorporate Aurora Pipe Line Company.
The second reading of a bill is important in parliamentary procedure. It is that phase of procedure where one is expected to and should discuss the principle of the bill, not only the principle of-as in this case-the incorporation of a pipe line company, but all principles allied to the incorporation of the company if it pass through all the procedures of the House of Commons and the other place. In other words, at this stage of second reading it is our responsibility, as members of this house, to consider all the aspects in principle that apply to this bill, as to whether its purport is such as to be in the general interest of Canada or in the particular interest of a phase of the economy of Canada or a part of Canada. We must also relate to its subject matter what it says it is going to do in the solving of a problem which the hon. member for Winnipeg South said has arisen in Alberta.
In other words, it is necessary, not only to consider the actual act of incorporation but to decide on second reading, in principle, whether in relation to its purport and all other factors and previous incorporations this one is in the interests of Canada and of Alberta.
I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that I feel the second reading of this bill is not something that can be passed over lightly, because its implications are such that very serious consideration must be given by the members of this house to whether it should or should not pass second reading, in the general interests of Canada, the economy of Canada or the particular interest and economy of Alberta.
I am very grateful for the fact that the notice of second reading of this bill was placed on the order paper prior to our adjournment for the Christmas recess. During the course of that recess we were therefore able, with regard to those matters on the order paper of interest to us, to make inquiries and to obtain information. Because I noted on the order paper the second reading of this bill to incorporate Aurora Pipe Line Company I remembered that some two years previously we had incorporated another *company, namely the Foothills Pipe Line Company, for what I think is exactly the :same purpose and to solve the same problem.
[Mr. Chown.)
Therefore I felt-and I am sure that all members will agree-it was necessary, if one had an interest, to obtain the fullest possible information as to why there should be the incorporation now of a new company to serve a purpose obtained by the incorporation of a company some two years ago which was going to meet and fill the same purpose.
So, over the Christmas recess, I sent out inquiries in all directions in order to have the fullest possible information on the purport and principles of this bill and in order to try to find out whether it was one which should pass on second reading in this House of Commons. I am very grateful to all those with whom I communicated for answering the questions I put to them and for supplying me with reports and statements of accounts, information concerning their plans and objectives and so on. After going over all this material I believe the principle of this bill is of such importance that it is incumbent upon me to introduce the entire picture in principle in order that we may have an understanding of the situation and then decide our course of action in this present debate.
Some two years ago, as I mentioned, this house and the other place, after hearing all the reasons and arguments, incorporated a company known as the Foothills Pipe Lines Company. Upon investigation I find that the sponsor of that company was a company known as the Pembina Pipe Line Limited. Thus, I think it is logical that I should start with the Pembina company, deal with its sponsorship of the Foothills company and the reason we incorporated that, and then relate this to the bill now before us. This is what I found.
I found that Pembina Pipe Line Limited is a very large company in western Canada, that the common stock of that company is owned to the extent of approximately 90 per cent by 2,000 Canadian investors with slightly more than 50 per cent of the outstanding shares held by Canadians in the province of Alberta itself. I am informed in writing, and I also have the reports, that as far as Pembina Pipe Line Limited is concerned 95 per cent of all its debt financing has been raised in Canada by Canadian investment houses. It is a company of many years standing which years ago became interested in this problem of the by-products because of gas utilization development in Alberta. Therefore, they employed a number of top notch Canadians to study the problem of these byproducts. The by-products, in the main, are propane, butane, condensate and sulphate and the intention was to see whether there would be a potential market in Canada and, further, if over and above the Canadian market there was a possibility of obtaining an

export market across the international boundary should there be a surplus available.
As a result of their studies, the experts felt -and I quote their own figures and also the figures of Stevenson and Kellogg Limited, a well known firm in Canada who made the analysis for the company-there was a possibility of a $50 million industry in Alberta from the proper collection, transportation, utilization and export of products which were in the main going to waste. When I say $50 million, I mean $50 million annually. Because of this finding, the Pembina Pipe Line Limited sponsored a bill before this house some two years ago to incorporate the Foothills Pipe Lines Company. They did this because of the investigation which has taken place by Canadian scientists and experts and because of the report by Stevenson and Kellogg that it was felt that in western Canada there was a potential utilization of between 20,000 and
40.000	barrels of these liquid gas by-products per day, but that there would still be a surplus of some 70,000 barrels per day.
It was recommended by Stevenson and Kellogg, and in the findings of the Canadian experts, that if it were possible to find a market across the border for those 70,000 barrels, between the utilization of the liquid byproducts in western Canada and across the line, the way would be clear to establish this $50 million a year industry in our country. That was the basis of the request to this house and to the other house for the incorporation of the Foothills Company. That request for incorporation was granted, and all the procedures which the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Chown) said the Aurora Pipe Lines Company are now going through have been undertaken by the Foothills Company and its parent company Pembina Pipe Line Limited. As a result, according to information I received only a short time ago, they have now been able to reach a contractual agreement with Standard Oil in the United States under which the United States company guarantees to take up to 70,000 barrels of these liquid by-products a day in the only place in which they say they can possibly be utilized, that is, in the area of Chicago.
As I pointed out, Pembina Pipe Line Limited is for all purposes Canadian owned and Canadian planned and is the pioneer in this new field. Naturally, some agreement has to be made if you are going to have a company in the United States undertake to receive
75.000	barrels a day compared with the 11,000 barrels mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg South which it is felt this new company would be able to export across the line.
Private Bills
Because I knew it would be of vital interest I asked for something official on that and my information is this. As soon as the planned investment now under way comes to fruition the plan calls for Pembina and the Canadian public to own and operate the pipe line facilities in Canada until such time as an export transmission line is built from Alberta to Chicago. This information is under the signature of Pembina. At that time Pembina will sell to Standard three sevenths of its interest in the Alberta facilities. In return, Pembina will purchase 35 per cent of the common stock in all of the United States facilities. On completion of this major transaction the Canadian public will own 30 per cent, Pembina will own 40 per cent, and Standard will own 30 per cent of all the pipe line facilities in Canada. It is estimated that the total project would cost approximately $130 million of which $40 million would be located in Canada.
To initiate the steps required to put such a plant in operation, two years ago Pembina incorporated by special act a company called Foothills Pipe Lines Limited which would be required to transport products across Alberta into the United States. Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited, controlled by the Continental Oil Company of Huston, is now trying to compete with Pembina by offering to take the surplus gas by-products liquids from the extreme south of the province of Alberta into the Continental facilities in the United States. It is my understanding that they have no present intention of extending the Alberta facilities to handle production from gas fields in the north. It is further my understanding that if this contention is correct, then Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited desires to skim off the easy cream of the product at the expense of the other production in the province.
What it is necessary for the House of Commons to know, if such action were permitted through the incorporation of the pipe line company which is now before us, is whether it would imperil the comprehensive and equitable system envisaged by the Pembina Pipe Line Limited and its ancillary company, Foothills Pipeline Limited?
The hon. member for Winnipeg South briefly mentioned the makeup of the company. I am glad he raised that question because if he had not I should have had to. In view of the background of this matter, the potentialities involved and the planning and work that has been done, I simply cannot understand how a Tory could sponsor this bill when one calls to mind the principles expounded with such verbosity by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in his baby budget relating to Canadian control and Canadian

Private Bills
development of Canadian companies. The minister said the government stands for encouragement and support of the development of resources in Canada by Canadian funds under Canadian control in the utilization of our natural resources. It is difficult to reconcile these two things.
Because this matter intrigued me I made an intensive study of it. We now have before us for second reading a bill designed to do exactly what we said we were going to do when we incorporated two years ago a company which, to the best of my knowledge, has seriously undertaken its responsibilities and forged ahead. We are asked to incorporate a company which suddenly realized the situation and wants to come in perhaps to the detriment of the development of the economy of Alberta and of the disposal of what are now waste products.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg South pointed out, the real sponsor of this bill is the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited. Hudson's Bay is a famous name in Canada. When we think of it, we think of something Canadian or relating to the United Kingdom. Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited is controlled by a United States company, the Continental Oil Company of Houston. I sent for the last report of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited on page 14 of which I find that the Continental Oil Company of Houston is said to own 67.8 per cent of the common stock of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited. The remainder is owned 22.6 per cent by Hudson's Bay Company of England and 9.6 per cent by the United States and Canadian public. In view of the statements of the Prime Minister, (Mr. Diefenbaker), the Minister of Finance and the rank and file backbenchers, it is unmitigated gall to sponsor, introduce and ask us to support the formation of a new company which is 67.8 per cent owned in the United States by the Continental Oil Company of Houston.
We cannot lightly pass over the second reading of this bill. It is of vital concern to us. If the findings of experts and oil engineers are correct, it could mean the development of a $50 million industry in Canada in the utilization of the products and the export of the surplus by-products of gas, propane, butane, sulphur and condensate. As members of this house we have a responsibility to give consideration to whether, in agreeing to the second reading of this bill, we are acting in the best interests of the national economy and of Alberta itself.
I honestly admit that I have an open mind with respect to this bill but as a result of my studies of the records and of the proposals made two years ago and of the work

that has been done since, I question whether we would be doing a favour to Alberta and to Canada by giving second reading to this bill.
I could say a great deal more because of the information I have on my desk, but I say in all sincerity I believe I have been able to give sufficient of the background and of the ramifications behind the introduction of what appears to be a simple bill to incorporate a pipe-line company to draw to the attention of hon. members the importance of the principle and the necessity of a far clearer understanding of what is involved before we give this bill second reading.


Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word not so much in rebuttal of the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) but perhaps to try to appeal to logic in so far as procedures are concerned which must be followed in relation to this bill. The hon. member made reference to what was in the best interest of the province of Alberta and Canada as a whole.
When a pipe line company, its sponsors or partners who may be producers, contributors to, or participants in a pipe line company introduce a measure it receives rather close and exacting scrutiny by the provincial authorities. In this instance the scrutiny was given by the Alberta conservation and natural gas board. They make an assessment based on the economic and technical aspects as they affect the jurisdiction or the responsibility of the boards of the provinces. As I say, in this case it was the Alberta conservation and natural gas board.
Then, of course, the sponsors make application to the House of Commons for incorporation. We are at this stage now. If we give this bill second reading it will go to a committee where members will have an opportunity to examine witnesses and discuss various aspects of the proposal. After the bill passes through parliament it will face its most difficult task by going before the national energy board. The responsibilities of the national energy board as we find in the act are to make an assessment similar to that made by the Alberta natural gas and conservation board. As a federal authority its responsibility, of course, is to deal with it from both the technical and economic aspect. After the application is dealt with by the national energy board, and if the application is granted, the company can then proceed to carry out its functions.
I am not suggesting for a moment that the House of Commons does not have a responsibility. Of course we do; but I do point out that by passing this bill we are not in any way losing control over the eventual disposition of the bill itself. First of all, it will go to a committee of the house for

further examination. At this committee witnesses will be called. After the committee makes a report this house will make a searching analysis of the report. I mention this only to point out the procedure through which the bill must go before it becomes law.
The hon. member for Vancouver East made two interesting points, and I am not in entire disagreement with him. But when he talks about the interests of the Dominion of Canada and of the provinces I say to him we must look at the problem that faces Alberta. We can relate this problem to the whole problem of marketing crude oil in its raw state and natural gas or, for that matter, any of the by-products, such as butane, propane, sulphur and condensate.
Reference was made to another pipe-line company which received incorporation in this house. Our problem in Alberta is one of markets. It can be summed up simply in that way. This house is aware of the fact that as far as crude oil is concerned we are able to market less than 50 per cent; the remainder of it is left in the ground. As a result the oil industry finds itself in a difficult position.
I hope to be able to show that if we obtain markets either for our crude product in its basic form or the derivatives from it, it will be to the advantage not only of Alberta but of Canada as a whole. We must keep in mind that the sale of the derivatives of oil may mean a replacement of crude oil. If we can sell these derivatives we will be assisting the general economy within the industry and thus benefiting the province as a whole. I do not think the hon. member will disagree with my last statement because I have discussed it with him personally. The desire to improve the marketing position of the petroleum industry is the general concern of hon. members.
Let us make a comparison of this pipe line company with the one which he has described to us. This pipe line company intends to act as a common carrier. They hope to market a variety of products, derivatives and by-products such as were described by the hon. member, butane, propane, sulphur and condensate.
But what is different is that this company has established for itself through Continental Oil Company a market for one of these byproducts and the important thing is that they have this market. It is not large but it is going to relieve some of the pressure on the rest of the producers in western Canada through the finding of at least this market. He mentioned that the Pembina company had passed through the usual processes of the conservation board. This is not quite accurate.
Private Bills
They have been before the board but the information I have is that no decision with respect to the hearing has yet been made known to the company.


Mr. Benidickson:: Is that a federal or a provincial board?


Arthur Smith: The Alberta natural gas conservation board is, of course, a provincial board and the decision, as I said, has not yet been handed down. So we are in the position that this house is being asked simply to give second reading so that we can send on for further examination the question of the construction in a small area of a line which may relieve part of the marketing problem of western Canada.
I suggest that if we refuse second reading we put ourselves in this position. First of all, we would in one sense be discriminating between one company and another. I have already said to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) that in the committee, assuming I am a member of it, I also intend to make a searching analysis once we have the witnesses before us. But it does seem to me that in this instance to refuse second reading would be to prevent the potential marketing of a product which in the long run is going to be of benefit not only to the province but tp the whole country. We would be refusing this company the right to be heard not by what I would describe as the proper authorities but certainly under circumstances where their plans would receive considerably more scrutiny than they will in a debate of this nature.
I am not denying for a moment that this debate serves a very useful purpose but I do appeal to the house that in fairness not only to the company but to producer and consumer alike we should send the bill on where it may receive the type of examination that it will before the committee and then eventually, of course, come before the federal authority which in the final analysis makes the decision with respect to whether the company will have the right to build the pipe line.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the hon. member a question?


William Moore Benidickson: The hon. member for Calgary South-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising to ask a question?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes. The hon. member for Calgary South referred to discrimination and I wonder whether he would indicate to what extent parliament has previously given the same thing to other companies and, if so, to what companies.

Private Bills


Arthur Smith: If I understand the question correctly, may I say that I merely suggested that by refusing to send the bill on for study by a committee we will then be establishing a principle under which we refuse the right to one company which will be marketing a comparable or similar product when we have already granted it to another. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) referred to the Pembina Pipe Line Company whose bill went through the processes of the house.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask the hon. member if he will agree that in any decision made in this house we should not, because of the 11,000 barrels per day which this company estimates can be sold through its operations across the line, imperil the contract already signed for the sale of 75,000 barrels a day in Chicago.


Arthur Smith: In answer to that question I would say that this shows the advantage of having witnesses before us at a time when we can examine them to determine the market area. There is very limited information in the brief presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Chown) and we would have an opportunity in the committee to make this decision on a sound basis. If we come to the conclusion at that time that the plans of this company will endanger the operations of another then the committee can, of course, report back to the house along that line.
But I do remind the hon. member of the fact, and he appreciates it, that the marketing of these products not only in Canada but also in the United States is a highly complicated process, one which takes a great deal of study, and I question very much whether, on the basis of a cursory examination such as we have been able to give the matter up to this point, any member of the House of Commons is in a position to make this decision without having full information available to him. Therefore, all I am asking the house to do now is to send the bill to the committee.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard two very fine speeches on this subject and I can agree with both speakers in many respects. However, I think there are a few other useful points that can be brought into the debate. Both the sponsor of the bill and the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) laid great stress on the fact that other procedures are authorized for dealing with this matter and they ask that we approve the bill in principle on the ground that it would then go to the committee where we would get detailed knowledge.
[Mr. Benidickson.i
The bill has already been before a committee of the other place and I can find no details whatsoever about it. There are only a couple of lines in the Senate Hansard and as far as I can determine there were, in fact, no minutes kept of that meeting. When it comes to a discussion of the principle I think we need to know more than we know now. The sort of argument that says that we should pass over our responsibilities to a committee is not one that I can accept. Approval of the principle on second reading is one of the safeguards of democracy, and I am not prepared to give approval in principle of this bill at the present moment with the knowledge I have.
From the information we have received this afternoon we do know that there are two companies involved, Aurora and Foothills. The hon. member for Calgary South has pointed out the need for markets. This need will become greater and more pressing as new gas pipe-line transmission facilities are completed. The by-product situation will then grow more acute because the gas must be transmitted dry without these by-products and we will have so much in the way of by-products in western Canada that marketing, which is now difficult, will in the future become almost impossible. From this point of view there will be room for a company which proposes to market 11,000 to 15,000 barrels a day as well as for the Pembina group with their 75,000 barrels per day.
As indicated by the hon. member for Calgary South, the point is that one company is working with one United States affiliate and the other company is working with another United States affiliate. Both of these affiliated or co-operating companies have their own market areas and marketing and transmission facilities within the United States. So it could well be that the production which the Aurora Pipe Line Company wishes to transmit is production which might not be touched by the Pembina people through their company, the Foothills Pipe Lines Company.
But we do not know. We do not know just how these two projects impinge one upon the other and it is quite important that we do know and know now. I do not know whether there are means within this house whereby this bill could be sent back to the other place for further study because from what I have been able to make out there has been no study in the other place. If there are such means, I would suggest that the bill might start all over again there.
One thing I do know is something that was brought out very forcefully by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). I compliment him upon the research he has

done and on his conversion to the Conservative position. He has been giving indications of that for over a year and a half now.
I compliment him on the detailed work he has done in regard to the ownership of Aurora Pipe Line Company and also the background as to Foothills Pipe Lines Company. It is my understanding that under the national energy board a minimum of at least one third of the common stock of any pipeline company must be sold in Canada. This was not followed out in respect of various pipe line companies prior to the formation of the national energy board. However, it has been followed out in the one offering of which I know subsequent to the formation of the national energy board. I refer to the Alberta Southern Gas Company. If this is a rule, and it is my understanding that it is, it is not being followed in the way the stock of Aurora Pipe Line is to be sold.
As has been pointed out before, 68 per cent of the Hudson Bay Oil and Gas Company is owned by the Continental Oil; 22 per cent by Hudson Bay Oil Company of England and the remaining 10 per cent by Canadian investors. On this basis, and on this basis alone, all other things being equal, there seems to be every reason in the world why this particular competition should not be allowed to enter the field against Foothills Pipe Lines Company. Let us not talk about free enterprise in this regard because-


Mr. Mcllrailh:: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question at this point. Would he not agree that the matter of the financing of the company to build the pipe line is a matter that is dealt with by the national energy board at the time of the hearing for permission to construct the line, and that the figures to which he has just referred relate to the ownership of the applicant for incorporation?


Ernest James Broome: I am not a lawyer as is my hon. friend opposite. However, it seems to me from a reading of this bill that it is a matter which must be dealt with at the time of the incorporation of the company. In fact, it is dealt with in the bill itself and within the articles of incorporation of this company. This company must be familiar with the national energy board regulations. Either I am mistaken in my assumption that one third of this pipe line stock must be offered to the Canadian public or this is not right and it is in their own articles of incorporation.


George James McIlraith: I think you are misreading the latter.


Ernest James Broome: It may well be. It might be well if the hon. member were to participate
Private Bills
in this debate and give the house the benefit of his legal experience to let us know where we stand on the particular point I have raised.
This matter does become one of markets. It is important that nothing be done by this house to stop the development of markets for these by-products, propane, butane, etc., and all these hydrocarbons which are produced in Alberta and which will be coming into production in northern British Columbia and are now already being produced in Saskatchewan. It is equally important also that we know what we are being asked to approve in principle. I say that at the moment I do not believe we have enough knowledge to make a judgment on the matter. I do not believe the brief presentation by the sponsor has covered the points about which we want to know.
Furthermore, they say, let it go to a committee. How many members of this house are members of that committee? I am not a member of the committee that will be dealing with this matter and I am very much interested in it. We approve the principle of the bill on second reading and during that debate any members who want to know something about this bill can be in their seats and can participate in the debate. I am waiting for some advice from you, Mr. Speaker, as to the type of motion I might move in order to refer this back to the Senate for further consideration, if that is possible. If it is not possible, then I suggest that the hour for discussion of these private bills will be exhausted in a few minutes and there will be time for the sponsor of the bill to secure the information we need.


Mr. Jones:: Send it to the committee, that is the way they will get the information.


Arthur Smith: You can discuss it again on third reading.


Ernest James Broome: This is the second reading and we are debating the principle of the bill. At the moment, with the knowledge I have, I am not in favour of this bill.


William Moore Benidickson: I think all members of the house recognize it is really six o'clock and since this is a controversial bill, I would suggest we call it six o'clock.


Frank Howard: There is not a great deal of time left. I, like the hon. member who has just completed his remarks, made inquiries concerning the proceedings before one of the committees of the Senate in order to ascertain whether some information was available on this bill. I found that the proceedings of the committee which dealt with this bill were not reported, which is
1134	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Baldwin unfortunate. Perhaps the Senate is concentrating more of its efforts on the divorce committee and has not the time to deal with these problems.
In any event, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the time for the consideration of private and public bills having expired, the house will revert to consideration of the matter which was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

At 8 p.m. the house resumed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, just before five o'clock I had dealt with what I considered to be the total inadequacy of the hon. members of the opposition in their attempts to deal with this budget and their absolute and dismal failure to come to grips with real, strong issues which are involved in the supplementary budget. I had just started to refer to a statement which had been made by the hon. member for Vancouver East.
I am always glad to listen to the hon. member. He, with two other members of his party -whom it might be embarrassing to name- are what I may call a group within a group. They are hon. members for whom I entertain at certain times certain hopes of salvation. They may well be brands, to be plucked from the burning. But every once in a while while I come to that conclusion they fall from grace with a dull, sickening thud, and yesterday was one of those occasions.
The hon. member had occasion to criticize the hon. member for Carleton and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who in their turn had criticized the text and the tenor of the remarks made by opposition members.
As I understood the hon. member for Vancouver East, he took the position that this government was arrogant and the members who supported the government were not entitled to engage in criticism of this kind. I take exception to that for three reasons. In the first instance I think this is a government


which has always invited and welcomed criticism. It has a capacity for listening to and acting upon valid criticism.
I think a demonstration of that can be found in the debate on the Combines Investigation Act of last year and the Criminal Code amendments which followed it. That was a perfect illustration, and I think there are no such attributes to be found in this government as suggested by the hon. member.
In the second place, when criticism is ill-founded, is unintelligible, is half-baked and is of no value, then I think not only is it a right but it is a duty which falls upon members who support the government to point these things out. Valid, constructive, intelligent criticism is always welcome, and when it does not fall into those categories I think we have a duty to point this out and in turn criticize those who have engaged in that form of argument.
There was a very excellent example of that yesterday when the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway in the course of his remarks had occasion to ask permission of the house to put upon the record certain figures with regard to tax rates which were falling upon individual Canadians. This statement, which I read with some care this morning, places an entirely different light on some of the arguments which were advanced previously by, amongst others, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson). That is an example of when we are justified in criticizing arguments of this kind.
I think I can give two other illustrations. Last night after I left this house I went home and I was just able to get in on the last part of what I suppose, for want of a better name, might well be called a post mortem on the Liberal rally held during the first three days of last week. I do not know what preceded this particular display, but when I got home Mr. Walter Gordon was being interviewed with regard to this rally and his participation in it.
When I first saw him he was rather happily admitting the suggestion that he had been the grey eminence behind the convention, and with a due modicum of modesty he was brought to admit that in the event this unfortunate country might ever be brought to the state of being inflicted with a Liberal government he would be the next minister of finance.
Having done this, he was then subjected to a very keen and very intelligent line of cross-examination by an interrogator who I believe was Mr. Davey. At this time Mr. Gordon no longer had behind him all the panoply, crowds, display and colour of a rally; he was all by himself and he had the challenge to meet on his own. He was asked1-

and I think this is where he fell down, dismally-to try and reconcile the differences, the deep gulfs which have to be bridged between his line of economic and political thinking, which he had indicated, the future planks of the Liberal platform which had been allowed to see the light of day, and the statements made from time to time by members of the Liberal party in this house. Of course, that is probably an impossible task. He could not do it. It was a complete failure, almost a massacre.
Having in mind that this gentleman, according to his own admission, aspires to be the next minister of finance should there ever be a Liberal government-and I should add, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a paid political advertisement on behalf of the member for Kenora-Rainy River-I think it is proper for members of this party to indulge in criticism of the sort of thing which was displayed there and to do our utmost to see that a Liberal government is not inflicted upon the people of this country.
I think that some time earlier it had been announced that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) had made a statement in which he had challenged the government to bring on an election and had indicated that beyond any doubt, if there was an election he would be successful. I know that is the sort of thing political leaders are supposed to do at rallies of this kind. I have no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) does not believe it. I have no doubt that no one in this house believes it, but it is the sort of thing the hon. gentleman is expected to do, and he did it.
Unfortunately, there may be a number of people in this country who are not aware of this practice and I can think of nothing more calculated to strike fear and apprehension into the minds of millions of Canadians than the prospect of another Liberal government. Feeling that way, as I do, I am sure that along with many hon. members on this side I am entitled by my actions and speeches here to see, along with my colleagues, that this is not brought about.
It is not only the actions and program of the government which are at issue. We must also consider, under our democratic system, the programs of those political parties which hope to offer an alternative, the character of the leaders of those parties and their ability to implement the programs which are proposed. For these reasons I take strong issue with what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) and when necessary I intend to continue to criticize the type
The Budget-Mr. Baldwin of specious argument which has been developed ad nauseam during this debate on the opposition side.
It would be all very well for me to say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) that this is a good budget and an opportune budget brought down at the right time and containing the right material, but I can go outside my own thoughts and outside the opinions of those who support the Minister of Finance. I have here the annual review section of Montreal Gazette of January 14. The leading article is written by Mr. John A. Meyer who, I think, is a reasonable, intelligent and well qualified observer in the field of political economy and one who, I think, takes an independent attitude. The headlines above this article read:
Nation on new tack. An economy shaped to national aspirations. Aim is sufficient independence, diversity and strength for maintenance of a political sovereignty.
I should like to read a few of the paragraphs from this very interesting article:
The Canadian economy never before was subjected to such searching scrutiny as during 1960. The process will continue through 1961. The supplementary budget was a first indication of new directions. The main budget should be even more definitive. A deliberate effort is now being tnade to shape an economy compatible with national needs and national aspirations. The process, in Canadian tradition, will be slow- evolutionary rather than revolutionary. All that really can be said so far is that a start has been made; with so much yet to be done the going now will not necessarily be easier.
The article continues:
The results of several enquiries now under way should be available by budget time. The government should be able to implement, with the certainty of thorough prior and public examination, findings on operation of the railroads, on conduct of the automobile industry, the periodical press and the coal industry. It will have the initial results of the Senate enquiry into unemployment. Most important of all, it will have the experience of the supplementary budget to draw upon in the preparation of new measures.
There are other items I should like to deal with, but time will not permit. However, there is just one statement I should like to extract from its context and read:
If the government's actions now appear to be extreme, it is because, in large part, so much is now being done which should have been done before.
That is a point to which I shall return, Mr. Speaker. This not only lends comfort to the Minister of Finance in connection with the bringing down of this budget and the legislation proposed to complement it, but I think it constitutes by implication a strong rebuke to those members of the opposition parties who have engaged in the form of criticism of this budget to which I have referred.

The Budget-Mr. Baldwin
I wish in particular to comment on a television appearance made, I think, in a program called "The Nation's Business" by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) on the eve of the national rally. I do not remember all that was said, and I did not catch it all, but one statement was made-I do not know which of the two hon. gentlemen made it- containing strong criticism of this budget and the related actions of the government on the ground that it was nothing but a long range program.
In the first place, I reject the suggestion that there are no short range programs of immediate value connected with this budget. If necessary, I could turn to this very authentic document which was branded by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) and which is known as "The Record Speaks" from which the hon. gentleman quoted. I think that having quoted from it he should have gone on to put it on record in Hansard for the edification of the people of Canada.
This is an accurate account, illustrated by chapter and verse with reference to the statutes of this country, indicating what steps have been taken by this government to increase the economic standards and the wellbeing and welfare of the people of this country. I could go outside this document. In the article to which I referred by Mr. Meyer, and in the articles following it, we find a number of expressions of opinion by various people in different areas of the political and economic life of this country. We find on page 4 of this supplement, for example-and I recommend the reading of this to all hon. members before they engage in further criticism-an article by Mr. H. W. Thomson, president of the Canadian Bankers' Association. Among other things, he said this:
Additional deposit accounts were opened at a rate of more than 2,000 every banking day during the 12-month period ending September 30, 1960. Personal savings accounts increased by 384,358 and other deposit accounts of the public by 156,780 making a total number of accounts at September 30 of 12,713,000. In the past 10 years they have increased by more than 50 per cent.
At September 30, 1960, personal savings in the chartered banks stood at $7,310 million, $71 million higher than the year before and the highest figure on record.
I turn also to a statement from a publication cited by the hon. member for Vancouver -Kingsway (Mr. Browne) last night and referred to as "Industry". In the same article which, I think, he mentioned is the statement:
How many of us, for instance, know that there are 250,000-one quarter of a million-more Canadians with jobs today than there were three years ago.

I think that constitutes an ample answer to those who say there are no short range characteristics of immediate benefit to this country in the government's program. It is my submission-and I submit this with confidence-that the long range programs envisaged in this budget and complemented by the legislation and planned action of the government are something we should have had many years ago long before the Liberal government was thrown out of office in 1957.
The period of gestation of many of the economic movements in a country like ours today is of long duration and the fruits we harvest at present are in many instances the result of seeds sown years ago. That has been a fatal error into which the former Liberal government fell. For that reason I think it ill behooves them to criticize the budget and the other measures introduced by this government because they show, in effect, long range planning. Three of those steps to which I will refer speak eloquently of the values and virtues that will stem from them.
The intention clearly indicated in the budget of enabling Canadians to enjoy a greater measure of participation in the development of their own natural resources and a greater share in their ownership is something which should have been commenced eight or ten years ago when it was fully apparent that a dangerous situation was going to come about because of what was happening with regard to the ownership of our natural resources.
One of the important measures to which I referred is the question of trade expansion under which additional financial guarantees to exporters will be implemented.
A second is the imaginative mass meeting held at the instigation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) under which trade commissioners from various parts of the world and thousands upon thousands of Canadian businessmen were brought together. This has already had a favourable impact. A few days ago I spoke to a person I regard as an informed observer of the economic picture who had just returned from Europe and the United Kingdom. His unequivocal statement to me was that there has already been as a result of this program a most beneficial impact upon the European and United Kingdom political and economic scene.
Finally there is the inquiry instigated by this government in the other place by a special committee of the problems of manpower and the related and integrated effect so far as unemployment is concerned and the direction our economy should take.
These are steps which should have been foreseen as being required eight, 10 or 12 years ago but I suppose it would be too much

to suggest that a government and party whose trademark was procrastination and delay, a party of day to day expediency and bits and pieces legislation, who were never comfortable when they had to take a stand and if they could not find a fence available when a decision had to be made would build one to sit on, would be the sort of government or party one would reasonably expect to launch measures of this kind.
Under the present administration these and other forward looking measures will, I suggest, take the people of this country far ahead in their search for prosperity and happiness.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, this budget seems to be remarkable more for what it lacks than for what it contains. That is probably the reason why the speakers on the government side have found it preferable to devote more of their time to debating the Liberal rally than to discussing the proposals which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has placed before the house. Even the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) this afternoon, after admonishing my colleague, the hon. member for Bonvista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickers-gill) for devoting some time to a Conservative pamphlet, proceeded to revert to form and spent the rest of the time at his disposal discussing the Liberal rally. All of this leads to only one conclusion, that the Liberal rally has really got the government worried.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Richard Albert Bell: It should have the hon. gentleman worried.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Chesley William Carter: Hon. gentlemen opposite find it a very convenient topic on which to fall back because there is actually little in the budget to discuss.
For example, this budget contains nothing at all for the Atlantic provinces and that in the face of those famous Atlantic resolutions which were drawn up and advertised so much in the elections of 1957 and 1958. It contains nothing to deal with high interest rates, one of the most pressing problems at the present time. Such measures as are in this budget are designed more to consolidate interest rates at their present high level than to lower them.
Most important of all, there is nothing in this budget that can be expected to produce any immediate effect on the unemployment situation which is the major problem confronting Canada today, and that in face of the fact that this budget was referred to in the speech from the throne along with other measures to combat unemployment,
The Budget-Mr. Carter and the impressions created by the statements made by spokesmen of the government both in and out of parliament.
These impressions together with the government's insistence on bringing down this budget before the Christmas holiday led us all to expect that this would be an important part of the program to combat unemployment. As for the general objectives outlined in the budget, there will be a wide measure of agreement. The objectives of reducing the premium on the Canadian dollar, reducing our international indebtedness, increasing Canadian ownership of our industry, inducing Canadians to invest more of their own capital in Canada and to borrow more at home than abroad, are all worthy objectives and will receive a wide measure of support.


An hon. Member:: Will you vote for it?


Chesley William Carter: Wait just a moment. However, when it comes to the means by which these objectives are to be obtained there is room for wide disagreement as to their adequacy. Indeed, the question arises whether some other and better methods might have been employed to obtain these desirable results.
Some of the means set forth in the budget are double depreciation for industry, the extension of the 21 per cent tax on corporate profits from the $25,000 bracket to the $35,000 bracket, Canadian income restrictions on investment corporations and pension trusts, the repeal of the 4 per cent surtax on income from Canadian investment, the increase on the withholding tax from 5 to 15 per cent and the tax penalties on bonds owned outside of Canada by non-residents. All these sound very imposing, but when we come to analyse them we find they are not so effective as one might be led to expect.
Take for example the question of double depreciation. We in the Atlantic provinces are keenly interested in this measure because it is specifically designed to attract industry into underdeveloped areas where there is a high level of unemployment. When we come to examine this measure we find it is applicable for only one year and it is hedged around with so many conditions that it is unlikely that many companies will be induced to bother with it at all. Even if a company does take advantage of it, what is gained in the one year is likely to be lost later on by a reduction in capital cost book value. Therefore, actually this measure is not really a tax deduction but a tax postponement, and that is a great disappointment to those of us who are interested in the development of our resources in the maritime provinces. If this is the best that the government can offer- and it is the only thing in this budget-then

The Budget-Mr. Carter we may as well forget about it because it falls so very far short of what is required.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: What would the hon. gentleman do?


Chesley William Carter: If the hon. member will wait a minute he will find out.


Mr. Batten:: A rhetorical question.


William Heward Grafftey: Tell us what your government did.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It gave the best government in Canadian history, and that is a fact.


Richard Albert Bell: You really smile when you say that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am smiling at you.


Chesley William Carter: The extension of the 21 per cent tax on profits from the $25,000 bracket to the $35,000 bracket will be a welcome tax reduction to those small businesses whose profits fall between these two figures, but it will be no help at all to the vast numbers of small enterprises whose taxable profits fall below $25,000.
Small business enterprises are the backbone of our economy, and if we are to make an all out attack on unemployment this, in my opinion, is one of the best ways of doing it because there are so many small businesses that if we can enable them to employ only one extra member on their staff, by the sheer force of their numbers alone they will make a considerable contribution toward solving the unemployment problem. If we add to them the people who would be employed indirectly by the enlargement of their premises and by additions to their equipment, then we can see that small businesses can make a very important contribution toward creating the jobs that we need if we are to come to grips with this unemployment problem. But to do that we must consider all the small business people who should receive some measure of tax assistance, and not merely those whose profits happen to fall between $25,000 and $35,000.
Restrictions on the pension trusts and on investment houses themselves cannot have very much positive effect on our problem because most of those companies or organizations already have a sufficient proportion of Canadian securities in their portfolios to enable them to comply with the law without increasing them. What we actually need is a more direct incentive which would pay the investor to buy common and preferred stock rather than bonds and mortgages.
The repeal of the 4 per cent surtax on Canadian investment income will help a
[Mr. Carter.)

number of individuals, widows and older people who are dependent on investment income, but it cannot be expected to exert any appreciable influence on the flow of equity funds.
The increase in the withholding taxes illustrates a new feature which is characteristic of the Conservative party, and that is its accent on Canadian nationalism. While it may sound patriotic, we know that forces are at work, ready and eager to exploit this emphasis in such a way as to generate anti-Americanism, and some of those overtones are already audible. The record of the Conservative party is not to be envied in this respect. My hon. friends remember their references to the Texas buccaneers when they were sitting over here in opposition, and they remember their references to the IS per cent trade diversion and the tough line that they were going to take with the U.S.A., all of which were planks in their election platform. They also remember their truculent reaction to the feelings of the people of the United States which arose in relation to the recent Cuban trade overtures, and now these measures emphasizing economic nationalism with their unfortunate overtones of anti-Americanism.
The United States investor can hardly be blamed if he gets the idea that his risk capital is not welcome here in Canada. The fact is that Canada cannot do without United States venture capital. We have somewhere around 500,000 people unemployed at the present time. Within six months time, after schools are out, around July or August, there will be another 200,000 additional people in the working force looking for jobs. Where are all those jobs to come from? They can come only from the investment of venture capital.
Someone in the United States has calculated that it requires $10,000 of capital to create one job, and I presume that the figure is pretty much the same for Canada. Canada simply has not enough capital to create all those jobs, and furthermore Canadians are not willing to invest what capital they have; otherwise, what would be the necessity for all these special inducements outlined in the budget?
I ask my hon. friends, where would Newfoundland be today but for the investment of United States capital? How much Canadian capital has been invested in my province since we became part of Canada in 1949? It is so trivial that it is too insignificant to mention, and that has been one of our greatest disappointments about confederation.
The United States can hardly be blamed if it feels that it is not obliged to continue the special consideration which we have enjoyed heretofore. A short time ago the Pentagon in the United States sent out orders to its armed

forces to restrict spending on purchases for United States troops abroad. As a special consideration Canada was exempted from that order, and that meant a lot to many communities in my province whose economies are tied in with the existence of United States bases.
In Newfoundland our fresh and frozen fish industry is completely dependent upon the United States market. On several occasions the fish lobbies in the United States having made representations to their government and to special committees set up for the purpose have succeeded in getting recommendations put through which would place restrictions upon imports of our fresh fish products. That was overcome on two occasions only by a presidential veto. If such a situation arises in the future the President of the United States would hardly, in my opinion, feel himself obliged to come to our rescue again and if he does not it is going to be very disastrous for my province.
Let us not forget too that the United States is the bulwark of our freedom. Canada is a part of the free world and the United States is the leader of that free world. The main policy of the Kremlin today is to divide Canada from the United States and to stir up disunity between our peoples. Anything that contributes to that disunity endangers the security, not only of Canada but also of the whole free world.
There were two other notable omissions in this budget which in my opinion should cause some concern. One is that there was no indication of coming to grips with the underlying causes of our economic trouble and the other is that there was no recognition of any need for a change in our financial machinery. One of the major causes of our financial troubles today is that the fiscal policy of the government and the monetary policy of the Bank of Canada are not in harmony and, in fact, they have been out of step ever since this government took office.
This raises the question of over-all responsibility. It is true that the Bank of Canada is charged under the Bank of Canada Act with the responsibility of maintaining the stability of our Canadian currency but since our dollar was freed on the international exchange its value has been at a premium abroad while at the same time it has depreciated in value at home by an average of about 2 per cent per year for the past 20 years. That suggests that perhaps we are saddling the Bank of Canada with a responsibility which it is impossible to discharge.
When the fiscal policy of the government and the monetary policy of the Bank of Canada were in close harmony, as they were
The Budget-Mr. Carter under the Liberal regime, there was positive leadership and direction which could be easily recognized by the business community, but when they are out of step, as they have been for some time now, confusion and chaos result. Since the monetary policy of the bank is subject to a large extent to the direct influence of the fiscal policy of the government, it is logical that the over-all responsibility should rest with the government and the Minister of Finance would do a lot to clear up the present confusion if he would plainly accept that responsibility.
A second major cause of our economic troubles is the fact that our financial machinery is out of date. Our present system is some 25 or 30 years old and during that time tremendous and fundamental changes have taken place in our economic life but there has been no change at all in our financial machinery. As a Liberal I believe in individual freedom. I believe an individual should be free to do what he wants provided he keeps within the law and does not restrict the freedom of anyone else. Above all, the individual should be free to meet the needs of his fellow men. But we are not free to do so. We may see needs around us, we may have the resources and the will to take care of them but we are not free to go ahead and do it.
The system or somebody behind the system determines what needs are going to be met and who is going to meet them. A young couple may wish to own a home of their own. The home may be worth around $15,000. They can find the $15,000 to lay out for the value of the house but they are not free to acquire that house because the system, in addition to the $15,000 for the house, requires them to pay another $15,000 in interest which they certainly cannot afford.
The fundamental problem facing Canadians today is to maintain and expand our standard of living in a changing world. Our financial system is one of the means by which this is to be achieved. But experience has proved that only on very rare occasions when very special conditions have happened to exist at the same time have we been able to enjoy prosperity without inflation. For the greater part of that time the system has operated so as to compel us to choose between two evils, inflation on the one hand and unemployment on the other.
The primary reason for the existence of our financial, industrial and commercial organizations is to meet the needs of the people. In Canada we have a vast reservoir of human needs crying out to be met, not to speak of the vast abundance of human needs elsewhere. Here in Canada we also have an abundance of natural resources, of materials,

The Budget-Mr. Carter skills and industrial capacity, a great part of which is now lying idle. Moreover, we have a huge surplus of manpower of somewhere around 500,000 people.
Surely a financial system adequate to present day conditions would function in such a way as to bring all these elements together and to act as a catalyst so that the industrial machine can start turning over to fulfil its primary function of meeting the needs of mankind. The fact that our industrial machine is slowing down and a large section of it has already come to a standstill, while at the same time we have approximately half a million out of work with millions of needs waiting to be filled, is in itself sufficient proof that our present financial system is no longer adequate.
In addition, no new production or at best very little can come into existence today without generating a corresponding burden of debt and more and more it is becoming the case that new production cannot be consumed without incurring an additional debt burden, so much so that many of our workers today have mortgaged a large part of their earnings for two or three years in advance. How long can this be expected to continue? Surely it is bound to catch up with us some day sooner or later and when it does the effects are likely to be disastrous.
Mr. Coyne has told us on a number of occasions that we are living beyond our means. Mr. Coyne's statements would be much more helpful if he would be more precise in defining his terms and exactly what he has in mind when he refers to "our means". If by "our means" he means our capacity to incur additional debt, then I think we must agree with him because it seems to me that there is something immoral about taking the easy way out by incurring a debt burden which we are going to pass on to the next generation, particularly if they are not going to derive any benefit from it. The next generation will have enough to do to cope with their own problems without inheriting problems from us. Mr. Coyne's statement, as does this budget, appears to be based on two assumptions.
One of these assumptions is that there is no alternative to the present system, and the other assumption is that the present system cannot be improved; that we are stuck with it and we must continue to live with it and adjust ourselves to it whenever necessary for all time to come.
Now, these two assumptions I, for one, am not prepared to accept, at least not with the information that has been made available to date. In my opinion, it is absurd that man can put a sputnik into orbit and guided mis-

siles into space, yet he has not the ingenuity to correct these obvious defects in our financial system or replace it with one that is even better. What should be done? Obviously, the first step is to find out where our financial machinery has broken down. I, for this reason, urge the government once again as I have already done on several occasions to set up a royal commission or some appropriate body to completely investigate and examine our financial system and to recommend what changes should be made to correct its obvious defects and inadequacies.


Mr. Brunsden:: Will the hon. member permit a question? He is recommending a royal commission, yet within the last few days it seems to me we have heard a lot of depredation about royal commissions. Does he really mean he wants one?


Chesley William Carter: Yes, I really mean it. There are two reasons for setting up royal commissions. The first reason is to postpone action on something and the other is to get information. The government is prone to set up royal commissions for the first reason I gave, but I want one for the second reason. (Translation):


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I take the opportunity offered me tonight to discuss the supplementary budget which has been designed to help the Canadian people itself by promoting the manufacture of goods essentially Canadian in nature.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just resumed his seat has stated that in many respects the supplementary budget is unfavourable to the United States and to the other nations as well. It is not so. This supplementary budget is merely a pro-Canadian budget. The measures adopted before Christmas give way to others which will soon be considered.
This supplementary budget, Mr. Speaker, is based upon real Tory principles. The Progressive Conservative party talks about principles, while the other parties, the Liberal opposition and the C.C.F. party, talk only and constantly of doctrine.
(Text):
This evening, Mr. Speaker, I should simply like to suggest, not necessarily by referring to the Liberal convention or their pronouncements inside or outside of this house, to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) that there is nothing really sacrosanct about indecision. I am reminded of the Eatmor candy advertisement, the more you eat the more you want. When I see the stand of the Liberal party on red China I would remind the leaders of the opposition party that the more decisions they make the more they

might want to make. As a result of this latter performance I am sure they have become more than ever like a Shakespearian Hamlet opposition; on the one hand, on the other hand, to be or not to be.
My greatest indictment of this opposition is that they have criticized this government time after time in the past and lately I expected they would have a mass of alternatives. However, what do we see? We see confused thinking and indecision. My very learned and hon. friend from Bonavista-Twillingate said this afternoon that the budget was not bad. It was like an egg, there was some good and some bad in it. I know that those who become addicted to punning often must visit a psychiatrist, but I must say that during his speech I did not hear one constructive or original idea "hatched".


Mr. Habel:: Are you going to hatch something now?


William Heward Grafftey: Perhaps I have taken a long time to realize this, but this afternoon I said to myself as I watched my very good friend from Bonavista-Twillingate perform, there is something of the maverick quality in him. A lot of the things he said are feasible, but the point is they have nothing to do with the program enunciated by his own party. I doubt if his cohorts on the front benches realize or have the perspicacity to detect the maverick quality in my hon. friend. When I hear the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) speak I really feel that these gentlemen who form a triad of the 1957 administration have not yet gone through that long purgatory of humility which will be necessary before they ever begin to think of assuming power and taking the reins of office to direct this country.
I have said that it is a great privilege for me to speak in the debate on this supplementary budget. It is a supplementary budget designed, with past legislative enactments put into force by this government before Christmas and with legislative enactments which we are going to put into force, upon Conservative principles. It is a supplementary budget designed to help Canadians to help themselves. It is a supplementary budget that is not anti-American or anti any other country, but it is pro-Canadian. It is a supplementary budget designed to produce more goods by Canadians for Canadians in Canada. In a moment I am going to enunciate what I think are Conservative principles.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That will be something new.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That really will be something new.
The Budget


Mr.   GraffteyMr. Graffley@: Hon. members opposite may laugh, but did you see any principles come out of their convention?


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Heward Grafftey: I am going to enunciate principles and I challenge them to enunciate principles of any sort. As a matter of fact, while we talk about principles, the C.C.F. and the Liberals talk about doctrine. Old world Liberalism under Gladstone might have had some doctrinaire benefits, but certainly after listening to the pronouncements of the leaders of this party I believe that Liberalism, especially in Canada, has become a hybrid mixture of expediency and overworked compromises.
What are the principles to which I refer, as contained in our recent legislative enactments and as contained in our supplementary budget? Conservative principles dictate that legislation should help people to help themselves; that central governments are not all-wise, not perfect. Unlike past Liberal administrations, we do not pretend we know all the answers or that we are working, as I have often said in the past, on an equal plane with the deity.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did you say you were or you were not?


William Heward Grafftey: Conservative principles work in co-operation with the municipalities and with the provinces. I ask you to pay attention to the fact that today we see the provinces and the federal authorities working together in a spirit of real progressive understanding and compromise in connection with the repatriation of our constitution. Conservative principles imply an understanding of local self-agency. So I now call our program a progressive program for partnership economic expansion. Hon. members opposite might snicker. At least that expression is original.
I, like hon. members opposite, listened to the debates during the United States election and to all the proceedings before the election. I noticed that the hon. member for Essex East came up recently with the expression that the Liberal program had something to do with Canadian frontiers. Surely my hon. friend, with all his wisdom and originality, can compose something on his own. At any rate, we all enjoyed looking at the United States election campaign.
We understand that this progressive program for partnership economic expansion realizes that modern, contemporary problems must be solved in co-operation with the provinces, in co-operation with industry and labour, in co-operation with the municipalities, in co-operation with agriculture and all Canadians.

The Budget*-Mr. Grafftey
I noticed that at the recent Liberal convention, while a great many of the older members of the party had a lot to say about Liberal policy and doctrine on the floor of this house, the old guard were largely forgotten. I hope I have the opportunity, in a friendly discussion outside the house, to discuss the experience with them of being exposed to the grass. I hope it was not too harrowing.
One of the things that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) mentioned during this debate was that so many of the legislative enactments and so many of the decrees passed by this government recently depended upon the initiative of the Canadian people. That is the crux of this whole debate; that underlines one of the major differences between this government and the official opposition. We have faith in the strength and the initiative of the Canadian people, while they do not.
Unlike the Liberal party, which said before confederation that confederation was almost an impossibility; unlike the Liberal party, which said that the Canadian Pacific railway could never be built from coast to coast; unlike the Liberal party, which has called our northern vision something of-I think it went this way, "igloo to igloo", our party-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nightmare.


William Heward Grafftey: -embraces an expansive optimism. We optimistically believe in a Canada moving forward. I am sure that when Sir Wilfrid Laurier said that the twentieth century belonged to Canada he never visualized, in the future, the present-day Liberal party saying that this country is really falling down and has no future. I believe, with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that the twentieth century belongs to Canada. I wish members opposite in the Liberal party would join in this progressive belief in optimism-


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: He did not know the Tories would be in office.


William Heward Grafftey: -with such philosophers as Plato and romantics as Coleridge-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Plato was not a romantic.


William Heward Grafftey: Our party is also built upon hope. Our legislative enactments are built upon optimism. The Liberals form their utterances around negation. I would like to say that however great the immediate popularity of the destructive philosophy may become, in the long run a demonstration of affirmation will conquer it unless the fabric of civilization first disintegrates.
I believe that the Canadian economy today is healthy. I also believe that pessimism


and saying that things are bad can psychologically have their destructive effects. I know that if I were in the peak of physical trim and feeling well every day, and every time I got out of bed one of my family came up to me and said, "You are looking awful"-


John Whitney Pickersgill: They may be right.


William Heward Grafftey: -and if this went on day after day, no matter how well I felt, if every day when in fact I was feeling well, when I was feeling fit, when my doctor said there was absolutely nothing wrong with me; if every day I got out of bed feeling that way someone in my family said, "Oh my gosh, you are pale, you are looking awful, Heward, are you feeling well, Heward?", that would make me feel bad. That is what the Liberal party is doing to Canada every time they say to the body politic, the people, "You are looking awful; you are pale; you are anaemic".


Paul Joseph James Martin: You look pretty sick.


William Heward Grafftey: If this were just party politics and political expediency I would not be so irate. But the hon. members opposite do not realize where politics stop and where statesmanship begins. I believe that this continual playing down of the future of Canada and our contemporary position is hurting us at home and abroad. No matter how good the government is, it will have that effect.
I would say that no opposition in the history of this nation has preached such a continual and concentrated sermon of pessimism as the Liberal party of today. But, again, we are a party of hope; they are a party of negation. We are a government of hope; they are an opposition of negation. We believe, with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that the twentieth century belongs to Canada. We believe that in the end our philosophy is the philosophy that Canadians in a realistic spirit want to hear about.


Mr. Regier:: Will you tell that to the unemployed?


William Heward Grafftey: One of the speakers this evening has also made reference to the "Annual Commercial Review and Forecast in the Age of Automation". This was got together by leading men from one end of this country to the other who have no political axe to grind, who in an objective way are assessing our situation today and looking into the future for tomorrow. What do they say? Going very briefly through these pages of this review and forecast issued by the Montreal Gazette we see, "Nation on new tack". This is by John A. Meyer, financial editor of the Gazette. Then he says, "An economy

shaped to national aspirations. Aim is sufficient independence, diversity and strength for maintenance of a political sovereignty".
Then, "Steel capacity increases"; this is Mr. H. G. Hilton, chairman and chief executive officer of the Steel Company of Canada. He also says, "Prices stable as efficiency gains." Then we have, "Steady banking growth. Accounts, loans, branches gain". That is written by H. W. Thomson, president of the Canadian Bankers' Association. I notice my hon. friends opposite are paying attention to these remarks.


An hon. Member:: Unemployment is growing too.


William Heward Grafftey: "Hydro-thermal increase
still 10.5 per cent." Then, "Chemical shipments rise"; "Wide gain in phones. Bell's services cross 31 million". Then we see, "$6 billion in new life insurance". I intend to keep going here, Mr. Speaker. Then we see, "Mining output up shade"; "T.C.A. sets records".
I think the hon. member for Essex East would like to hear these remarks by Edwin H. Walker, president and general manager of General Motors of Canada Limited, "Good auto prospects. Car-truck purchases at new record". Then we see, "Nuclear program expands. New plant construction is speeded"; "Baby budget approach constructive", by Fred C. Mears, Gazette Ottawa bureau. He also says, "Economic self-dependence the goal-[DOT] personal tax relief a possibility".
These are expressions of people from one end of the country to the other. Then we see, "Record nickel output. European consumption is heavier. Canada consolidates leading position". That is by Henry S. Wingate, chairman of the board of International Nickel of Canada Limited. Then we have, "Quebec economy stable. Main indexes retain upward trend". That is by the Hon. Andre Rousseau, minister of trade and commerce, province of Quebec. Then we see, "More farm mechanization. Implement sales are best in years". I will not be long-


An hon. Member:: Keep going.


William Heward Grafftey: I shall not be long. "Our fur trade progresses-Looming larger internationally". "Meat consumption gains"-by K. R. Graydon, director of public relations, meat packers council of Canada. "Beef market trend quite stable". "Aluminum diversifies -Ever-widening range of products-Long term outlook is optimistic".


Lionel Chevrier: How is the textile industry doing?


William Heward Grafftey: It is having its difficulties, difficulties which this government is facing with a realistic policy. "Oil industry records-
The Budget-Mr. Grafftey Some easing in rate of expansion". "More paint is sold-Dollar volume record set for year". "Iron Ore Company expands steadily". "Gains in asbestos-Volume higher, prices fairly stable".


Erhart Regier: And a high record of unemployment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What originality.


William Heward Grafftey: "Lumber outlook brightens -Dip in housing has severe effects, but good export volume seems likely".
I am sorry to take up so much time by reading so many of these facts into the record, but I underline that they are facts gathered together by leading men in industry, business and labour across this nation. They are facts which absolutely repudiate the pessimism and the doom and gloom which members opposite are preaching both inside and outside this House of Commons. So ask them to stop this nonsense and join with the government and join with all Canadians in our crusade of realistic optimism.


Erhart Regier: Where is the crusade? We have been waiting for it for a number of years.


William Heward Grafftey: Hon. members opposite have recently criticized the members of our cabinet for going from one end of this country to the other in past weeks. It is a fact that members of this cabinet were recently about the country for the simple reason that this government intends to stay in touch with the people. We are the party of the people, and the voice of the people is our strength. One of the reasons why the Canadian people decided to end the Liberal reign was that the former government became aloof from the people. I have heard Liberal backbenchers say they could hardly get appointments with ministers at the end of those long 22 years. The present ministers were out and about this country. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) was out and about this country. Members of parliament belonging to this party are going about their constituencies, because we have the intention of keeping in touch with the people. We know our mandate comes from the people of Canada, and unlike those who for so long behaved in a cool, quasi-intellectual way, we are going to keep in touch with the people. We are the party of the people and we understand what the aspirations and desires of all Canadians are.
Members opposite have criticized this government by saying its policies contain a high degree of nationalism. They say we are going to lose friends abroad. They say those policies contain a spirit of nationalism which can do nothing but harm Canada and lose our friends. I say that if the trend started by the

The Budget-Mr. Grafftey past Liberal administration were continued Canada would have become nothing but a banana republic. We believe that many of the things which have been done in this budget should have been done before. I repeat that this supplementary budget is anti-nobody; it is merely pro-Canadian. Let me briefly read some remarks which I have penned, with a friend of mine, in relation to the present budget.
The federal budget, like the early legislation which has been introduced at the present session, gives the impression of having been well conceived and planned. Regarding this spirit of nationalism of which some hon. members have made mention, I say the government's position is made clear in two paragraphs of the speech made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). I should like to quote those two paragraphs because I think they are of primary importance:
It has sometimes been asserted that the participation of foreigners in Canadian business and in our capital markets should no longer be welcome and that investment from abroad should be sharply curtailed by policies directed to this end. This is not the view of this government. The result of blocking out foreign investors and foreign investment would be to produce a "little Canada", cut off from many of the contacts with the outside world that have enriched our national life. We would become comparatively isolated, and most of us would be disappointed by the effects of our economic development.
The minister went on to say:
As I have already made clear in this speech, and frequently on other occasions, it is my view that the Canadian economy has derived great benefits from the inflow of capital from abroad and benefits still continue to accrue. Our national development has been accelerated thereby; the breadth and depth of our industrial structure have been increased; the scope of productive occupations for our own citizens has been extended. There is no intention therefore of recommending policies antagonistic to foreign capital. To do so would not be in the best interests of Canada.
I think these two paragraphs must be underlined and borne in mind during this debate. They must be borne in mind by those who in an irresponsible fashion would like to pretend that this supplementary budget has undertones or overtones of narrow nationalism in it.
I should now like very briefly to discuss what are, in my opinion, some of the more important technical enactments contained in this supplementary budget.
The imposition of a 15 per cent withholding tax on the interest of federal and provincial government bonds represents one important legislative change. Federal government issues were previously exempt and provincial issues subject to 5 per cent. This action will deter the non-resident buying of treasury bills and short term government

securities to take advantage of discrepancies in interest rates in the international money-market. It thereby provides the Bank of Canada with freer action in monetary policy without being concerned that the action that should be taken would contribute to a strengthening of the false premium on the Canadian dollar.
Second, incentives earlier were introduced to enable provincial and municipal governments to finance in the New York market. In order to obtain a good reception to such issues legislation was introduced that such issues in United States funds would not be subject to the withholding tax applicable to other non-residents in the payment of Canadian dividends and interest. It is broadly accepted that it is no longer as desirable to have provincial and municipal governments financing in New York, in part because of our already high deficit in international payments-and in part because it adds to the false premium strength of the Canadian dollar. The reasoning is soundly based and it thereby makes sense to eliminate the incentive and to make the financing, regardless as to where it takes place, subject to a 15 per cent withholding tax when the interest and dividends are paid to a non-resident.
Thus the application of the 15 per cent withholding tax on the dividends of wholly owned non-resident subsidiaries only removes an inequity and makes the factors equal for all non-resident investors earning an investment income from the Canadian economy. The United States investment withholding tax with countries with which it does not have a reciprocal tax agreement, such as France, Switzerland, the Philippines and many others is 30 per cent.
A third thing I should like to mention is that the change in the customs tariff is complex but without transgressing the agreement of GATT. It gives the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) discretional authority to more effectively rule with respect to the provisions of section 6 of the Customs Tariff containing the anti-dumping clause which applies only to goods of a class or kind made or produced in Canada. It deals with a qualification of this last clause and defines class or kind more specifically and eliminates the loopholes under which small modifications are made and under which it is then claimed such goods are not produced in Canada. The new resolution proposes that in the case of goods custom-made to specifications they should be deemed to be of a class or kind made or produced in Canada if adequate facilities exist in Canada for the economic production of such goods within a reasonable period of time. It is further provided that goods shall be

deemed to be of a class or kind made or produced in Canada if goods of approximately the same class or kind are made or produced in Canada. The change strengthens the antidumping clauses in the tariff structure.
I think these facts should be tabled at the present time to clarify general understanding in relation to the intentions of this supplementary budget.
The supplementary budget enacted tax considerations for those individuals who have children at universities. This enactment, coupled with the present government's attitude toward vocational schools in cooperation with the municipalities, underlies the real importance of education in our contemporary society.
(Translation):
And now, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal quite briefly with the Small Business Loans Act. During the recess and the holiday period I received many letters and telephone calls. Several people of my riding also came to see me about this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is meant to provide employment for our Canadian workers this winter. Banks will be ready this month to grant loans.
(Text):
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) suggested to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) yesterday that the banking officials were not aware of this legislation. How completely ridiculous. This is just not according to the facts. I recently received a phone call-


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


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the vociferous, volatile and vehement hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey). I listened with great interest to his inspiring innocence. As I listened my mind went back to my freshmen days in college and the freshmen's debating club of 1909.


An hon. Member:: Barber college?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I did not attend the same college as the hon, member for Cariboo (Mr. Henderson). I was also reminded of a remark made, by a former prime minister of Great Britain, Mr. Disraeli, when referring to a speech to which he had listened made by the Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone who had spoken with great confidence and assurance. Prime Minister Disraeli said-and this applies very well to the hon. member who has just taken his seat-"The hon. member when he is speaking speaks with
The Budget-Mr. Herridge much assurance, as if he had the political ace of trumps up his sleeve and the Deity had placed it there".
My topic this evening will be wrong-doing, wickedness and water and I shall relate those three words to the discussion of a subject which to some extent comes within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). I am pleased that the perceptive, patient, perambulating parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Bell) is in his seat. I trust he will bring my remarks to the attention of the minister tomorrow.
I wish to mention first of all the question of the repeated failures of small United States lumber companies in the interior of British Columbia whose owners and operators after bankruptcy disappear across the United States border. I have been asked to mention this by a large number of the persons affected. I bring it to the attention of the Minister of Finance in the hope that the situation will be reviewed to see if amendments can be made to the Bankruptcy Act to cover up what appear to be present loopholes and to see if some legislation can be introduced to protect the interests of Canadian working people and other Canadian creditors.
The most recent case brought to my attention is the failure of the Hilco Lumber Company, near Fruitvale, British Columbia. I attended a creditors' meeting. This is not my responsibility but my constituents have considerable confidence in my advice and in my willingness to do what I can to assist. I attended this meeting of about 100 people. There were present some 60 workingmen who had been employed for several months by this company. In addition there were storekeepers and other creditors. Some of the workingmen were owed as much as $900. They had been asked to continue working without pay from month to month. The scamps gave them some cheques and disappeared across the border. The lumber, of course, had gone across to the United States. These employees were left without anything in the nature of reimbursement for their services. Storekeepers, oil companies and other suppliers were left without payment for their goods. It was brought to my attention at the meeting that the company had collected income tax from the employees over a period of two years. Approximately $14,000 is owing to the income tax department.
When the employees went to the unemployment insurance office it was found the company had not purchased unemployment insurance stamps. There is some laxity in this respect and checking required for the protection of the workers involved.

The Budget-Mr. Herridge
To show the indignation of the citizens of the district in addition to those directly affected I shall read excerpts from letters received by me from various persons and organizations. Here is a letter from the minister of St. Paul's United church at Fruit-vale, one paragraph of which reads:
With the other leaders of this community, I share their concern in the way the Hilco Logging Company has run off with the profits without paying their employees. I believe that you will be having a letter from the local ministerial association, for we have all been in homes badly hit by this. Please feel free to ask any help that we might give you so that this cannot happen again.
I have another letter from the Beaver Valley ministerial association addressed to me as the Hon. H. W. Herridge. I appreciate that this title is a little premature although possibly I am in the budding stage. The letter reads:
Dear Sir:
We ministers of the Beaver valley ministerial association feel a deep concern in finding many families in our community unjustly treated by the fiasco of the Hilco Lumber Company.
The injustice caused by the non-payment of wages has brought great hardship to families and businesses. The moral impact is something that is hard to gauge but the idea that "Hilco got away with it, so can we" is something to consider.
We are writing you in hopes that something can be done to clarify this situation and to prevent its recurrence anywhere in Canada.
Yours sincerely,
Hev. M. A. Switzer,
Fruitvale Full Gospel Assembly
Pastor W. D. Turnbull
Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada,
Beaver Falls
Rev. D. N. Robinson
St. John's Anglican Church, Fruitvale
Rev. L. C. Hooper
St. Paul's United Church, Fruitvale.
In addition to this, I was supplied with a resume of the situation as it exists at the present time. I am not going to deal at length with this except to bring sufficient facts to the attention of the parliamentary secretary so that the matter can be reviewed to see whether something can be done to stop this recurring practice-


Richard Albert Bell: Would the hon. gentleman suggest the nature of the legislation which he proposes?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not a member of the legal profession, I am a forest farmer.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have been following the hon. gentleman with very great interest and I have been hoping that he would come to the point.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not qualified to suggest what act should be amended or what legislation should be introduced but I am asking

that the matter be reviewed. I am sure the parliamentary secretary to the minister and other hon. gentlemen of the legal profession on the other side, with their experience and knowledge of these things, are much more capable of, shall I say, discussing the technical and legal aspects of this question than I am. I am simply bringing the facts to the attention of the house and making the suggestions which have been brought to my attention by these people and by the leaders of the community and of other communities in southeastern British Columbia.
This company goes broke owing over half a million dollars. About $19,000 is due to the workers by way of wages. Many local businessmen are creditors. Federal and provincial governments are creditors, as I mentioned.
During the last 18 months about 12 million board feet of lumber was taken from the woods, most of same consisting of tamarae, cedar, fir, hemlock and balsam and was shipped to the Hill Lumber Company, also owned by Mr. Pidge, at Curlew, Washington.
Small shipments were made to other companies in Canada.
An unknown number of cheques have been issued which are in excess of the $19,000. They were issued to pay workers, subcontractors and creditors. Many have been returned in an insufficient funds condition. Some have been passed into local businesses which are unable to claim money from the men.
A study of accounts payable would indicate that moneys are owing to the federal and provincial governments. It is believed that seizure proceedings have been taken of the rough lumber remaining.
1 bring this matter to the attention of the parliamentary secretary on behalf of these unfortunate people in the hope that consideration will be given to them. This is only one instance. I am informed that this rascal has done this twice before. I am informed he also operates lumber companies in the United States;
It seems to me there is a need for legislation that would protect Canadian citizens under these circumstances. It is the same old story. Wages are left unpaid; the operator ships the last 12 million feet of lumber across the line and disappears with it, telling the men that he will be back on Monday to pay their wages.
This is happening repeatedly. On this account, because of its recurrence and the unnecessary hardship that it creates, I do suggest that the government give consideration to amending the Bankruptcy Act. I say that because first of all the company went into voluntary liquidation. Then the creditors began to realize that voluntary liquidation might mean administration over a long period and there would not be much left for them, and they attempted to enter a petition of

bankruptcy. The creditors informed me that they could find no one on whom to serve a summons of petition of bankruptcy; there was no local agent, no officer and no office. There must be a loophole there. With respect to the Bankruptcy Act, some consideration should be given to amending it to prevent this type of thing happening, if it is at all possible. In addition to that, I suggest that possibly there could be some legislation which would require persons operating under those circumstances, who are not Canadian citizens, and who are obviously able to disappear overnight, to post some bond or something else with some provincial or federal authority to assure the payment of income tax, unemployment insurance tax, provincial taxes, wages and so on.
I have dealt with the case rather briefly, but I promised my constituents that I would bring this matter to the attention of the house and the minister, and I do urge that this problem be given some consideration.
In the few minutes time remaining to me, Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak about the proposed development on the Columbia river. I am not going to deal with the issue at stake, whether this is good or that is good, but I have been asked by those opposed to the high Arrow dam in my district to mention this in the house and to give the house some idea of the organized opposition. When hon. members receive literature, as they will from now on from this committee, and possibly have representations made to the caucuses of the various parties, and the government and others receive representations they will understand the well organized opposition that exists. This protest arises out of the building of the high Arrow dam. I am not going into that except to indicate that it means the destruction of 18 communities and the flooding of 40,000 acres of forest and agricultural land and the displacement of 1,700 people, the most of whom have nowhere to go because the water will come up the mountainside.
I have seen references in the press to the fact that I am the owner of property that might be flooded. This is incorrect. My wife is the owner of the property; I live there under sufferance. We are more fortunate than others. We are losing a beautiful beach and besides that we shall probably lose a log cabin. However we can move back a thousand feet or so and rebuild, but many people cannot. Their beaches will be destroyed, their orchards, their fields, their houses and so on. In addition to that, the whole of the industrial area of Revelstoke will be flooded and destroyed. Nothing will be left but the upper town if this flooding occurs. The lumber mills, the pole yards,
1147
The Budget-Mr. Herridge the peeling plants, the treating plants and the shipping facilities for all these forest products will be flooded.


Mr. Macdonnell:: I am puzzled by one thing. We know that this matter has been under review for years. Has there been no opportunity for representations such as the hon. member is now referring to, to be made in the past?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, when this
matter has been mentioned to members of the present government I think up to this time they have rightly said the place to go to, or the responsibility is that of the provincial government. Fundamentally, the natural resources are the responsibility of the provincial government. Representations have been made. I might say that I have a telegram here tonight from the president of the Conservative association who wants to know when they can come here and go before the external affairs committee. I am speaking for many people who support all parties in this house. This is a completely non-partisan presentation on my part, Mr. Speaker. The people for whom I am speaking support General McNaughton's view. They are good citizens. They would not object to this destruction of natural resources and dislocation if it was necessary, if there was not some other way of developing the Columbia. That is their point. General Mc-Naughton says it is only necessary to raise the water level of the Arrow lakes for 130 miles to mean high water and that it can be done so as not to flood out anyone and then store the rest of the water behind Mica creek dam. However, I am not going into that. I want to deal with the organization of the people. It is a rank and file movement and we have some interesting and capable characters in our organization. I am a member of the committee.


Edwin William Brunsden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is discussing the honest people who live in his constituency, apart from those who have left for the United States. He is discussing the Columbia river program and I ask you, sir, in all humility whether this matter comes within the purview of the budget debate.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I think I am quite correct because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) will be the minister chiefly responsible for concluding the financial arrangements with the provincial government to make possible the building of these dams. I think the practice is that a general discussion is allowed on a budget debate.

The Budget-Mr. Herridge


Mr. Speaker:: Unless there is some rule against the subject matter the debate is fairly wide ranging as is the throne speech debate, the time allotted for which was not used this session. Therefore I would think it would not be out of order to discuss affairs fairly broadly provided one does not anticipate discussion of a matter which is on the order paper so as to create duplication. There was a suggestion that this matter would be discussed but it is not on the order paper and I think it would be too severe to restrict the debate.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to thank the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Brunsden) for his assistance in proving that I am even more in order than I thought I was. I wish to bring to the attention of members of the house the people who are involved in this organization. The organizations who are opposed not to the development of the Mica creek dam or the development suggested by General McNaughton but to this high Arrow dam are: the chambers of commerce of Revelstoke, Nakusp, lower Arrow lakes, Castlegar and Nelson, the city council of Revelstoke, the mine, mill and smelter workers union of British Columbia, the B.C. federation of labour, the B.C. auto courts and resorts association, the west Kootenay farmers' institute, the west Kootenay's women's institute-God bless the women- the Arrow boat club of Castlegar, the Nakusp launch club, the Nakusp livestock breeders' association and numerous other local organizations. You can see that there is solid foundation of people from all walks of life, business, labour and farmers.
These people have met and have elected what is known as the Arrow lakes and Revelstoke city water resources committee. The members of the committee were elected to represent these groups and the people for the purpose of making representations to the federal and provincial governments, and I am very glad to hear that they will have the opportunity to make representations to the external affairs committee of this house.
They have secured as their engineering consultant Mr. F. J. Bartholomew, a consulting electrical engineer of Vancouver who has had a lot of experience with hydro developments and construction. In addition, they have Mr. Boyd Affleck, an engineer from Nelson, B.C., and the assistance of quite a number of other engineers who are turning up from all sorts of places and who are willing to assist in the preparation of briefs some of whom have also indicated that they are willing to come to Ottawa with Mr. 
Bartholomew and others to explain their views and give their opinions before the external affairs committee.
I might say at this time that the committee is raising money and it is surprising how concerned and interested people are. They are collecting funds. They have collected nearly $1,000 on the Arrow lakes and the city of Revelstoke is now collecting funds. The people are behind this movement. I happened to visit Revelstoke on the way to Ottawa and addressed a public meeting at the invitation of the chamber of commerce at which members of the municipal council, the chamber of commerce and the public were present. They were representative of all political parties and I never saw a group of people in a city so solidly behind a movement no matter what their party politics are. Once this flooding happens the economic life of the city of Revelstoke will disappear with the exception of the trade from a declining number of C.P.R. employees who stop off there between trains because the divisional points are now Vancouver and Calgary.
To illustrate the interest in the campaign I might say that on Christmas morning a pioneer rancher on the upper Arrow lakes by the name of John Nelson telephoned me and said, "I want to tell you that I was up until Christmas day posting literature on the Galena bay wharf opposing the high Arrow dam and I am sending a cheque for $100". That is the way it is up and down the lakes. If hon. members know of anyone who is willing to subscribe to the fund for the campaign against the destruction of the natural resources of the Arrow lakes, tell them to write to the secretary of the water resources committee, Nakusp, B.C., or the secretary of the committee of the chamber of commerce of Revelstoke. They would be very pleased to receive donations. I may say we have had donations from the Okanagan and from some persons on the coast who are interested in this matter.
Literature is being printed and distributed to members of parliament and members of the provincial house. I urge you to read this literature so that you will have some understanding of this most difficult problem. It is a difficult problem to understand thoroughly unless one lives in the area. I have travelled in Indian canoes on the Columbia. No member of the house knows more about the Columbia than I do, not because I am a wiser person but because I happen to have lived there the greater part of my life. I know the circumstances, I know the depth of water in all the different channels, where the bays are and the dam sites will be and that sort of thing. I should know that because I have lived there. I ask members to study this

literature and get some grasp of the attitude of these people in the district which I have the honour to represent because their attitude is completely non-partisan and Canadian.
As a matter of fact, if my own party supported the high Arrow dam I would vote against it but thank goodness my party stands for the preservation of our natural resources and is opposed to any unnecessary destruction of the same. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will say in reply to the hon. member for-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Greenwood.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -Greenwood-I always think in terms of his former constituency-that the Arrow lakes and Revelstoke city water resources committee did go to Victoria on December 28 and met Mr. Williston, the minister of lands and forests. A brief was presented by Mr. F. J. Bartholomew, the consulting engineer. He had sent the brief a week previously to Mr. Williston and his engineers had studied it. As a matter of fact, after four and a half hours' discussion they had very little criticism of the brief except on two points. One was that his projections of power use in British Columbia for the next ten-year period were not correct, that he should have based them on the expansion period in the states to the south during the war. I cannot see that because that was an abnormal period. The second point was that the storage in low Arrow was not entirely artificial because we have natural storage owing to the water being backed up by the narrow channels but the water there is not held to be used at the time it is required.
I am very interested in this because lately we have received an analysis and progress report initiated by the negotiating committee of the United States. It is a report on the proposed treaty arrangements and as soon as they showed it to the committee Mr. Williston said, "That is just Eisenhower propaganda; the Americans admit a lot of mistakes in it".
I notice, however, Mr. Speaker, that in the copy of the treaty that I have on my desk and the appendix, the figures in the report, are based on table 3. This table in the appendix to the signed treaty is stated to be an extension of the table appearing in the analysis and progress report issued by the United States Columbia river negotiator on October 19, 1960. The report was prepared by the Bonneville power administration and the United States army engineers who are responsible for this type of document in the United States. Mr. Williston was wrong, therefore, in saying that this was Eisenhower propaganda and inaccurate.
Then, Mr. Williston addressed a meeting in Nelson on January 9 and he said there was
90205-6-73J
The Budget-Mr. Aiken still much work to be done by the committee and he was reluctant, for various reasons, to say that they would be able to proceed. I have a copy of the stenographic notes taken at the meeting in Victoria with Mr. Williston and the question was asked, what about contingencies such as earthquakes or the discovery that Mica, for example, might cost twice the estimate. Did Canada still have to build? He said no, and alternative sites were suggested such as Calamity curve, and so on. When I read this sort of thing I am very suspicious that this Mica creek dam is going to be built at all.
There are a good many other things mentioned in these notes. Incidentally, he made reference to the proposed treaty in terms which indicated that he did not necessarily agree with all its terms. When it was reported to me, I said, surely this must have been initialled or accepted by a representative of the government of British Columbia. In any event, I mention these things to indicate the reason for the concern of the people in my district.
Now, I was very pleased, and the people I represent were very pleased, to note that these organizations will have an opportunity to make representations to the external affairs committee. I am certain they will receive a courteous and sympathetic hearing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: In the few minutes that are left before ten o'clock there is one point I should like to make.^ During this debate we are actually speaking on the budget and on the amendment which was made. Several questions have been asked, and several times the same question has been asked, why did the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) bring down a budget at this time and what good did it do? There is one thing that a budget at this time did, Mr. Speaker, and I think it deserves the commendation of everyone. While the Canadian trade balance has been adverse, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) has made tremendous efforts to increase our trade.
One of the most difficult things that we have had to meet has been the currency exchange rate. The fact that the Canadian dollar has been high in relation to the United States dollar has been one of the difficulties facing our exporters. It has caused a great deal of trouble. As a result of the announcement made by the Minister of Finance in the budget, the dollar has very nearly reached par. At the moment there is only a difference of five eighths of one per cent between the

Business of the House
Canadian and the United States dollar. This makes it very much easier for the exporter to sell his products outside Canada at a price which will compete with goods offered in other countries.
Then, too, the achievement of near parity with the United States dollar will be of great assistance to the people in the tourist and catering industries in this country. This has always been one of the things to be met when United States visitors came to Canada. There may be only a few cents difference and the visitors do not mind paying. However, in Canada we have those people who will collect the odd few cents, and in some cases this is necessary, but in so doing they lose a great deal of trade. This achievement of near parity with the United States dollar will do a great deal for our tourist industry and our catering industry during the coming season. We hope that the dollar will remain at par or very close to it. If it does, I am sure it will be a great spur both to our tourist industry and to our exporters in this country.
I have other remarks to make, Mr. Speaker, and I have a plan to evolve arising out of the budget, the speech from the throne and the items of legislation that the government proposes. When this debate resumes 1 should like to deal with these subjects in greater detail, but I should like now to call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I have some indication of the business for tomorrow, and will the acting house leader be good enough to indicate the order in which these resolutions will be taken?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we intend to leave the debate on the budget and proceed with the setting up of committees. Speaking now from the routine proceedings and the numbers stated therein, the first item
with which we will deal tomorrow will be No. 6, the setting up of the committee with respect to procedure of the House of Commons. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister's plane coming from Washington was very much delayed tonight and I have not consulted with him about any commitments he may have for tomorrow. I assume he will be here and we will deal with that as the first item of business tomorrow.
The next item will be No. 9, the setting up of the joint committee on Indian affairs. The next item will be No. 10, which is a resolution in the name of my colleague the Minister of Transport concerning the sessional committee on government railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines. The next one, No. 8, is a minor matter dealing with the setting up of the committee on broadcasting.
After we have concluded the setting up of these commitees tomorrow, we will then proceed with item No. 2, an act in the name of my colleague the Minister of Finance; No. 3, an act in the name of the Minister of Finance and No. 4, an act in the name of the Minister of Transport. I assume that by that time we will have arrived at nearly six o'clock, and we will then consider what we will do next.


Lionel Chevrier: May I have some indication of the business for Friday, in view of the fact that Thursday is a private members' day?


George Clyde Nowlan: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but at the moment I do not want to be definite with respect to Friday. Thursday, as my hon. friend knows, is private members' day. I assume-at least I do not want to be definite, so let us speculate on the fact that we will be dealing with legislation on Friday. I do not want to make a definite commitment on that until tomorrow.


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

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


Mr. Howard: 1. Since January 1, 1954, have any fees or remuneration been paid to legal counsel for activities pursuant to the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act?
2.	If so, what are the names and addresses of each person, the amount paid, the purpose of each payment, and the date upon which each was made?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):
1.	Yes.
2.	Names and addresses of each person, the amount paid, and the date upon which each was made are listed hereunder. All payments related to legal fees and expenses incurred by legal counsel retained as agent of the Minister of Justice to act for this department in prosecutions for offences committed under the Opium and Narcotic Drugs Act.
Name and Address, Date and Amount-
Adam, G., 60 St. James St. W., Montreal, P.Q., September 1956, $408.00.
Agro, Cooper, Zaffiro, 15 King St. W., Hamilton, Ont., September 1957,	$64.75;
March 1958, $66.00.
Barrette, Raphael, 44 Ste Cecile St., Valley-field, Que., October 1959, $140.45.
Bence, A. H., Birks Building, Saskatoon, Sask., January 1960, $557.90; March 1960, 866.20; June 1960, $329.00; June 1960, $913.85; June 1960, $276.21.
Blackwell, Hilton, Treadgold & Spratt, 372 Bay St., Toronto 1, Ont., February 1958, $122.00; May 1958, $45.00; May 1958, $112.00; June 1958, $134.50; July 1958, $129.25; July 1958, $91.50; August 1958, 58.00; August 1958, $143.50; October 1958, $306.00; November
1958,	$364.00; December 1958, $199.75; December 1958, $76.00; January 1959, $81.00; January 1959, 107.50; January 1959, $2,687.50; February 1959, $177.00; March 1959, $342.00; March 1959, $1,250.85; March 1959, $28.00; March 1959, $1,583.25; May 1959, $916.70; May 1959, $55.00; June 1959, $295.00; June
1959,	$910.00; June 1959, $7.00; July 1959,
$671.65; July 1959, $555.00; July 1959, $120.50; August 1959, $519.50; August 1959, $249.25; August 1959, $640.10; October 1959, $42.00; November 1959,	$546.60; November 1959,
$71.00; December 1959, $2,329.49; December 1959, $111.00; December 1959, $228.80; December 1959, $418.50; January 1960, $283.00; January 1960, $215.75; February 1960, $638.00; February 1960, $63.25; February 1960, $25.50;
Question
March 1960, $232.25; March 1960, $100.50; April 1960, $251.00; April 1960, $2.85; April 1960, $491.25; April 1960, $706.30; May 1960, $110.75; May 1960, $78.00; May 1960, $3,194.50; June 1960, $273.25; June 1960, $370.75; June 1960, $211.01; August 1960, $1,391.65; August 1960, $70.50; August 1960, $153.00; September 1960, $84.00; September 1960, $170.40; October 1960, $70.50.
Brent, Harvey, M., 17 King St. E., Cobourg, Ont., May 1960, $669.50.
Brown, D. M., 850 Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C., January 1954, $618.70; January 1954, $546.30; January 1954, $823.75; February 1954,	$839.41;	February 1954,	$1,025.90;
March 1954, $1,701.71; April 1954, $588.20; April 1954, $262.00; April 1954, $2,420.42; June 1954, $1,101.43; July 1954, $1,766.90; July 1954, $21.50; July 1954, $2,783.00; July
1954,	$616.05; August 1954, $343.78; September 1954, $1,297.15; December 1954, $3,716.21; December 1954,	$37.00;	February 1955,
$776.24; February 1955, $331.06; February
1955,	$2,348.52; March 1955, $1,343.38; March
1955,	$1,409.58; April 1955, $573.56; April 1955, $620.73; May 1955, $1,007.81, June 1955, $4,108.73; June 1955, $2,401.45; July 1955, $1,938.00; August 1955, $640.16; August 1955, $394.00; October 1955, $206.50; October 1955, $622.98; November 1955, $626.84; November 1955, $1,848.36; December 1955, $2,906.38; December 1955,	$77.00;	December	1955,
$719.83; December 1955, $35.00; December
1955,	$1,036.12; January 1956,	$1,879.45;-
January 1956, $887.83; February 1956, $362.68; February 1956, $709.50; March 1956, $3,502.07; May 1956, $727.50; May 1956, $827.52; May
1956,	$1,304.64; May 1956, $1,154.54; June
1956,	$1,603.57; July 1956, $1,395.26; August 1956, $616.28; August 1956, $1,390.64; August 1956,	$148.80; September 1956,	$113.68;
October 1956, $77.90; October 1956, $198.90; November 1956, $1,371.77; November 1956, $1,044.24; December 1956, $430.86; December
1956,	$1,080.18; January 1957,	$4,411.92;
January 1957, $969.59; January 1957, $812.04; March 1957, $620.50; May 1957, $630.00; May
1957,	$351.00; May 1957, $1,598.76; May 1957, $211.05; August 1957, $808.77; August 1957, $41.06.
Calbick, Calbick, Timmins, Ont., June 1959,

Chevalier, Francois Me., 119 Hotel de ville St., Hull, P.Q., January 1955, $327.70; February 1955, $62.00.
Cowan, Twining, 702-475 Howe St., Vancouver, B.C., February 1958, $888.42; February 1958, $1,318.28; February 1958, 1,049.04; February 1958, $58.40; February 1958, $98.94.
Cowan, Twining & Collins, 702-475 Howe St., Vancouver, B.C., May 1958, $190.00; May
1958,	$107.00; May 1958, $609.31; May 1958, $1,149.12; May 1958, $58.00; June 1958,

Question
$725.16; June 1958, $69.50; July 1958, $759.70; August 1958,	$275.00; September 1958,
$2,186.48; September 1958, $1,100.50; September 1958, $411.50; October 1958, $118.95; October 1958, $455.50; October 1958, $308.50; October 1958, $82.50; November 1958, $727.85; November 1958, $400.35; November 1958, $76.80; December 1958, $129.50; December
1958,	$378.86; December 1958, $906.70; January 1959, $512.76; January 1959, $325.16; February 1959,	$1,392.71; February 1959,
$1,069.55; February 1959, $537.45; February
1959,	$98.00; March 1959, $1,057.31; March 1959, $614.90; March 1959, $252.16; March 1959, $44.50; March 1959, $288.20; March 1959, $101.00; March 1959, $211.50; March 1959, $366.32; June 1959, $578.50; June 1959, $213.05; June 1959, $897.10; July 1959, $76.00; July 1959, $446.45; July 1959, $381.00; July 1959, $481.00; July 1959, $1,149.00; September 1959, $165.00; October 1959, $171.75; October
1959,	$51.00; December 1959, $909.05; December 1959, $166.80; January 1960, $404.50; January 1960, $387.50; January 1960, $168.00; January 1960, $933.10; February 1960, $311.25; March 1960, $410.95; April 1960, $61.25; April
1960,	$1,121.82; April 1960, $672.60; May 1960, $1,346.25; June 1960, $1,055.77; August 1960, $1,122.50; August 1960, $1,894.10; October 1960, $2,380.45; October 1960, $1,367.95.
Crease & Co., Victoria, B.C., January 1958, $83.50; January 1958 $27.15.
Cromarty, J. D., Welland, Ont., May 1954, $545.88.
Cragg, E. F., Halifax, N.S., April 1955, $40.00; March 1956, $40.00; May 1956, $87.00.
Craig & Black, Vancouver, B.C., May 1958, $163.00.
Cullinane, T. R., Prince George, B.C., September 1954, $169.00.
Cunningham & Cunningham, 34 Clarence St., Kingston, Ont., October 1958, $100.00; November 1959, $535.20.
Dansereau, Dollard, 507 Place d'Armes, Suite 810-811, Montreal, P.Q., January 1958, $302.75; May 1958, $1,607.00; October 1958, $230.00; October 1958, $183.00; March 1959, $86.00; August 1959, $457.00; January 1960, $92.00; April 1960,	$54.00; August 1960,

Dave and Williams, P.O. Box 1621, Duncan, B.C., July 1958, $35.20; November 1958, $567.90.
Deacon, Thomas, R., 357 Bay St., Toronto, Ont., December 1957, $85.00; January 1958, $85.00; May 1958, $125.00; May 1958, $445.00; June 1958, $202.75; July 1958, $91.25; July 1958, $61.25; August 1958, $117.50; October 1958, $523.75; October 1958, $318.75; October 1958, $52.50; November 1958, $162.50; November 1958, $172.50; December 1958, $105.00; December 1958, $162.50; February 1959,
$95.00; February 1959,	$754.70; February 1959, $110.00; March 1959, $818.06; March 1959, $102.50; March 1959, $184.00; March 1959, $270.00; June 1959, $315.00; June 1959 $112.50; August 1959, $145.00; September 1959, $102.50; September 1959, $102.50; September 1959,	$500.00; September 1959,
$647.50; December 1959, $350.00; December
1959,	$120.00; December 1959, $205.00; December 1959, $915.50; February 1960, $147.50; March 1960, $77.50; March 1960, $102.50; April 1960, $102.50; April 1960,	$412.50;
April 1960, $195.00; April 1960, $502.98; May
1960,	$1,838.35; May 1960, $747.90; May 1960,
$1,387.46; June 1960,	$97.50 June 1960,
$495.00; June 1960, $210.00; July 1960, $83.50; August 1960, $178.75; August 1960, $544.25; August 1960, $52.50; August 1960, $232.50; September 1960, $207.50; September 1960, $132.50; October 1960, $75.00; October 1960, $65.00.
Desjardins, Ducharme, Beauregard & Choquette, 261 St. James St. West, Montreal, P.Q., May 1956, $597.75; February 1957, $3,765.45; March 1957, $603.75; April 1958, $961.00; May 1958, $802.75; June 1958, $841.75; June 1958, $512.25; June 1958, $69.50; October
1958,	$1,002.95; March 1959, $217.00; May 1960, $114.50.
Dingwall, G. William, 600 University Ave., Toronto, Ont., November 1957, $30.00; December 1958, $862.25.
Donovan, J. L., Winnipeg, Man., November 1955, $5.00.
Dorfman, Irwin, 306 Paris Bldg., 259 Portage Ave., Winnipeg, Man., March 1955, $242.04; April 1955,	$534.47; May 1955,
$454.26; May 1955,	$405.79; June, 1955,
$259.10; July 1955, $775.62; July 1955, $358.00; September 1955, $390.54; September 1955, $65.04; September 1955, $287.44; October 1955, $113.04; December 1955, $492.50; December 1955, $367.00 December 1955, $1,029.63; January 1956, $895.09; February 1956, $248.50; February 1956,	$694.73; February 1956,
$159.54; May 1956, $2,356.45; May 1956, $181.50; May 1956, $506.00; June 1956, $291.54; July 1956, $1,002.46; July 1956, $284.82; August 1956, $96.00; October 1956, $163.00; November 1956,	$702.39; November 1956,
$472.00; February 1957, $672.50; April 1957, $235.25; April 1957, $304.50; May 1957, $259.00; July 1957, $1,073.00; July 1957, $189.50; November 1957, $514.25; November 1957, $1,478.75; January 1958, $1,562.35; January 1958, $1,920.88; January 1958, $8.60; May, 1958, $705.30; November 1958, $994.25; December
1959,	$2,373.16; August 1960, $936.55.
Downey, D.F., 1306 Canada Permanent Bldg.,
Toronto 1, Ont., January 1954, $73.00; February 1954, $44.50; March 1954, $33.00; April 1954, $288.00; April 1954, $63.00; April 1954, $355.50; July 1954, $29.50; July 1954, $260.05;

Question
September 1954,	$47.00; November 1954,
$86.50; November 1954, $362.60; December
1954,	$321.75; January 1955, $181.00; February
1955,	$128.50; March 1955, $103.50; March 1955, $62.00; March 1955, $309.15; April 1955, $60.00; May 1955, $172.50; June 1955, $165.50; July 1955, $58.50; August 1955, $85.00; August 1955, $56.50; November 1955, $37.00; December
1955,	$205.00; December 1955, $70.50; January
1956,	$31.50; February 1956, $147.00; March
1956,	$65.75; March 1956, $52.00; March 1956, $48.25; May 1956, $28.25; June 1956, $194.00; June 1956, $58.25; June 1956, $216.00; July 1956, $58.25; July 1956, $38.25; August 1956, $128.50; September 1956,	$47.00; October
1956,	$50.75; November 1956, $85.75; November 1956, $125.25; November 1956, $167.75; November 1956, $45.75; January 1957, $30.75; February 1957, $68.25; March 1957, $97.75; March 1957, $39.50; April 1957, $159.25; June
1957,	$234.00; June 1957, $8.10; July 1957, $146.00; July 1957, $48.25; August 1957, $98.25; May 1958, $357.50; June 1958, $470.00.
Drost, Drost, Coultas, Pearkes, 202 Inns of Court, 678 Howe Street, Vancouver 1, B.C., March 1960, $566.00; May 1960, $1,024.50; May 1960, $1,022.00; June 1960, $724.00; May 1960, $930.50; September 1960, $3,244.50; October 1960, $857.00.
Duffy, P.S., 171 Yonge St., Toronto, Ont., December 1957, $85.00; December 1957, $60.00; December 1957, $110.00; February 1958, $70.00; May 1958, $85.00; May 1958, $2,264.00; June
1958,	$75.00; June 1958, $75.00; July 1958, $910.00; July 1958, $145.00; August 1958, $530.45; August 1958, $40.00; August 1958, $65.00; October 1958, $270.00; October 1958, $140.00; November 1958, $322.50; January
1959,	$233.00; January 1959, $100.00; January 1959, $547.80; March 1959, $85.00; March 1959, $180.00; March 1959, $1,051.70; March 1959, $80.00; March 1959, $278.10; June 1959, $70.00; June 1959, $270.00; July 1959, $65.00; July 1959, $935.75; August 1959, $170.00; August 1959, $65.00; September 1959, $255.00; September 1959, $28.00; September 1959, $275.00; September 1959, $190.00; December 1959, $393.00; December 1959, $90.00; December
1959,	$30.00; January 1960, $425.00; January
1960,	$110.00; January 1960, $86.20; February 1960, $290.00; February 1960, $130.00; March 1960, $100.00; April 1960, $355.00; April 1960, $125.00; April 1960, $185.00; May 1960, $60.00; May 1960, $60.00; June 1960, $65.00; June 1960, $100.00; June 1960, $50.00; August 1960, $435.00; August 1960, $466.40; August 1960, $85.00; August 1960, $60.00; September 1960, $125.00; September 1960, $125.00; October 1960, $75.00.
Duncan & Alexander, 28 Mary St., Hamilton, Ont., March 1958, $108.00; May 1958, $70.00;
July 1958, $41.00; October 1958, $135.00; October 1958, $272.00; November 1958, $74.75; August 1959; $90.00; January 1960, $45.00; August 1960, $105.00.
Duncan, Wasson & Ross, 717 West Pender St., Vancouver, B.C., January 1958, $217.50; January 1958, $3,694.50; January 1958, $289.00; January 1958, $21.30; February 1958, $22.50; March 1958, $914.50; March 1958, $75.13; May 1958, $698.00; July 1958, $227.50; July 1958, $282.50; August 1958, $397.50; August 1958, $90.00; August 1958, $218.90; October 1958, $542.50; October 1958, $127.50; October 1958, $265.50; November 1958, $206.50; November
1958,	$1,199.90; November 1958, $241.00; November 1958,	$1,909.10; December 1958,
$278.00; January 1959, $546.00; January 1959, $969.30; January 1959, $1,515.27; January
1959,	$437.00; February 1959, $1,988.20; March,
1959, $150.00; March 1959, $2,463.35; March 1959, $125.00; March 1959, $530.00; March 1959, $736.00; June 1959, $582.10; July 1959, $486.00; July 1959,	$59.50; August 1959,
$313.50; September 1959, $59.50; September
1959,	$70.00; September 1959, $298.70; September 1959, $387.50; September 1959, $192.00; September 1959, $90.00; September 1959, $59.50; October 1959, $282.50; November 1959, $41.80; December 1959, $383.00; January 1960, $1,626.70; January 1960, $1,486.00; January
1960,	$1,482.00; February 1960,	$2,134.25;
March, 1960, $1,062.00; April 1960, $120.00; May 1960, $2,467.25; June 1960, $1,982.00; August 1960, $1,273.50; August 1960, $1,574.25;
Drury, J. S., Royal Bank Bldg., Dartmouth, N.S., March 1958, $228.40.
Dynes, Charles G., 21 Main St. E., Hamilton, Ont., March 1953, $276.00; April 1953, $137.00; February 1955, $35.00; October 1955, $53.00; February 1956, $72.00; May 1956, $98.00; August 1956, $227.50; October 1956, $86.00; June 1957, $291.50; June 1957, $10.35; January 1958, $7.50; January 1958, $339.00; February 1958, $23.00.
Edwards, T. A., 241 Tegler Bldg., Edmonton, Alta., January 1955, $95.00.
Edwards, Edwards & Edwards, 3613 Kings-way, South Barnaby, B.C., March 1957, $85.00; April 1957, $290.00; July 1957, $310.00; July 1957, $28.66; July 1957, $180.00; July 1957, $18.83.
Facer, Shea & Mossop, Room 221, Stevens Bldg., Sudbury, Ont., September 1960, $217.50.
Fanjoy, Robert J., Minto, N.S., June 1960, $43.42.
Farquharson & Daly, Peterborough, Ont., February 1958, $30.00.
Ferguson, G. A., Saskatoon, Sask., February 1956, $100.00.

Question
Mathews, Norman, L., 372 Bay St., Toronto, Ont., April 1954, $357.60; March 1955, $470.47; April 1955, $1,292.30.
McGivern, H. J., 305 Crown Bldg., 615 Pender St., Vancouver, B.C., October 1955, $350.00.
McLaws, McLaws, Bancroft, Deyell & Floyd, 301 - 8th Avenue, West, Calgary, Alta., September 1957, $5.00; July 1958, $213.50; February 1959, $40.00; March 1959, $220.00; February 1960, $315.00; April 1960, $260.00; August 1960, $220.00.
McMillan, Binch, Stewart, Berry, Dunn, Corrigan & Howland, 80 King St. West, Toronto 1, Ontario, December 1957, $176.00; December 1957, $52.00; February 1958, $52.00; May 1958, $122.00; May 1958, $127.00; July 1958, $205.00; August 1958, 150.00; October 1958, $63.00; November 1958, $52.00; November 1958, $101.50; December 1958, $25.75; December 1958, $136.75; March 1959, $1,114.00; July 1959, $42.00; September 1960, $740.50; September 1960, $85.00.
McNeil, D. F., Quesnel, B.C., November 1956, $135.00.
McTaggart, L., Moose Jaw, Sask., January
1953,	$66.00; June 1954, $98.00.
McTague, Deziel, Clark and Helland, Windsor, Ont., June 1960, $408.15; June 1960, $378.00.
Mercier, P., 18 Rideau St., Ottawa, Ont., March 1956, $353.65
Millward, Robinson & Fetterly, 304 Victoria St., Kamloops, B.C., August 1959, $366.00.
Milner, Steer, Dyde, Poirier, Mortland and Laton, Edmonton, Alta., December 1957, $59.00; July 1958, $411.20.
Miquelon, Jean, Suite 315, Transportation Bldg., Montreal, Que., January 1957, $465.50; May 1958, $304.00; October 1958, $644.30; October 1958, $371.00; June 1959, $157.00; June 1959,	$423.70; June 1959,	$293.00;
August 1959, $50.00; February 1960, $482.33; August 1960, $840.00; August 1960, $365.00; October 1960, $251.00.
Monteith, W. Berkeley, 709 Bank of Toronto Bldg., Victoria, B.C., December 1957, $235.00; December 1957, $3.06; January 1958, $15.00; September 1958, $94.65; April 1959, $383.80; April 1959, $186.50; June 1960, $59.30; June 1960, $338.90.
Moore, G., 11 Adelaide Ave, Toronto, Ont., April 1959, $50.00.
Neilson, C. James, Stratford, Ont., July 1954, $267.90.
Nitikman, I., 703 - 5 Confederation Bldg., Winnipeg 2, Manitoba, November 1958, $133.00; June 1960, $1,633.40; June 1960, $449.50.
Noble, C. Emerson, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta., April 1954, $25.00; June
1954,	$100.00; June 1954, $150.00; June 1954, $60.00; July 1954, $25.00; November 1954,
$60.00; January 1955, $25.00; March 1955, $25.00; May 1955, $50.00; October 1955, $30.00; October 1955, $25.00; February 1956, $25.00.
O'Reilly, & O'Reilly, 16 James St. S., Hamilton, Ont., July 1954, $175.00; March 1955, $85.00September 1955, $412.00; May 1956, $2,013.50; May 1956, $226.75; October 1956, $146.00; November 1956, $191.00; January 1957, $1,425.85; June 1957, $792.50; December
1957,	$333.75.
Ouimet, Roger, Old Court House, Montreal, P.Q., March 1954, $16.00; May 1954, $333.15; May 1954, $174.50; July 1954, $22.50; October
1954,	$119.25; November 1954, $273.00; April
1955,	$103.00; April 1955, $868.00; March
1956,	$1,131.50; July 1956, $48.20; July 1958, $184.00; December 1958, $3,517.96; December
1958,	$1,110.30.
Phillips and Phillips, 314 Hammond Bldg., Moose Jaw, Sask., September 1960, $445.20.
Riordon, Mousseau & De Marco, 711 Canada Trust Bldg., Windsor, Ont., May 1960, $40.00.
Robins, S.L., 133 Richmond St. W., Toronto, Ont., August 1954, $135.00; August 1954, $175.00; October 1954, $52.00; November 1954, $31.00; December 1954, $145.00; March 1955, $107.00; April 1955, $48.00; May 1955, $89.00; June 1955, $37.00; July 1955, $57.00; September
1955,	$162.00; November 1955, $84.00; December 1955, $156.00; February 1956, $38.00; February 1956, $73.00; March 1956, $229.50; March 1956, $239.60; March 1956, $29.50.
Robins and Robins, 133 Richmond St. W., Toronto, Ont., June 1956, $40.50; June 1956, $389.50; July 1956, $254.40; August 1956, $79.00; August 1956, $61.50; August 1956, $109.00; September 1956, $121.00; October
1956,	$292.50; November 1956, $153.00; November 1956, $29.50; November 1956, $122.00; December 1956,	$174.50; December 1956,
$29.50; January 1957, $38.50; February 1957, $79.50; March 1957, $39.50; March 1957, $531.10; April 1957, $42.50; May 1957, $42.00; May 1957, $38.00; July 1957, $38.50; August
1957,	$833.00; September 1957, $156.00; September 1958, $259.50.
Ross, J. F. W., Box 538, Room 7-9, Rultan Block, Port Arthur, Ont., December 1958, $267.20; September 1959, $46.00; May 1960, $38.00.
Ross & Keenan, 1 Queen St., St. Catharines, Ont., July 1958, $99.00.
Rowan, Hugh W., Room 1207, 50 King St. W., Toronto 1, Ont., August 1958, $42.00; August 1958, $116.00; October 1958, $251.50; November 1958, $39.00; January 1959, $40.00; March 1959, $524.00; March 1959, $163.00; March 1959, $1,943.00; August 1959, $1,265.00; October 1959, $406.99; December 1959, $196.50; December 1959,	$737.00; December 1959,
$54.50; January 1960, $48.50; January 1960, $39.50; January 1960, $156.50; January 1960,

$75.00; February 1960, $215.00; February 1960, $426.60; April 1960, $1,364.35; April 1960, $369.00; April 1960, $60.00.
Russell & Dumoulin, 850 West Hastings St., Vancouver, B.C., April 1955, $58.10; April 1955, $1,295.50.
Shinbane, A. M., 306 Paris Bldg., 259 Portage Ave., Winnipeg, Man., January 1954, $382.76; March 1954, $1,800.97; March 1954, $866.78; April 1954, $610.12; April 1954, $422.92; April 1954, $274.15; June 1954, $124.56; September 1954, $329.45; November 1954,	$1,202.34; November 1954,	$151.62;
January 1955, $234.54.
Ste Marie, Jean-Paul, Room 203, 333 Craig St. East, Montreal, P.Q., December 1958, $1,557.00; February 1959, $1,819.90; March
1959,	$139.50; August 1959, $1,875.70; February
1960,	$5,886.70; May 1960, $1,602.00.
Straith, Ruttan & Davidson, Victoria, B.C.,
November 1954, $240.40.
Streight, J. M., New Westminster, B.C., March 1954, $87.00; April 1954, $30.00; November 1954, $312.00; January 1956, $199.24.
Stringer, Alex J., 209 Bank of Nova Scotia Bldg., Winnipeg 1, Manitoba, November 1957, $62.00; December 1957,	$190.50; January
1958,	$124.00; January 1958, $84.00; January 1958, $5.00; February 1958, $250.00; June 1958, $107.00; August 1958, $262.00; August 1958, $185.75; October 1958, $333.75; November 1958 $67.50; December 1958, $82.50;
Question
January 1959, $71.25; February 1959, $131.25; March 1959, $93.75.
Thompson & Wilson, Windsor, Ont., February 1958, $50.00.
Tobin E. and Maurice Guay, Montreal, P.Q., January 1957, $63.00.
Tourigny, Lucien, Box 447, Val d'Or, P.Q., January 1958, $18.33.
Trepanier, Hagey & Kneale, Brantford, Ontario, September 1954, $40.00; October 1954, $177.65.
Twining, R. C., 702-475 Howe St., Vancouver, B.C., October 1957, $587.50; October 1957, $94.50; October 1957, $471.50; October 1957, $1.70; December 1957, $403.50; December 1957, $1,606.50; December 1957, $604.63; December 1957, $21.87; December 1957, $4.71; December 1957, $6.32; January 1958, $93.50; May 1959, $51.00.
Tysoe, Harper, Gilmour, Grey, DeVought & Levis, 471 Granville St., Vancouver, B.C., February 1958,	$42.00; February 1958,
$157.00; February 1958, $94.50; May 1958, $297.50; May 1958,	$544.00; June 1958,

Vincent and Addy, 110 York St., Ottawa, Ont., June 1953, $482.00.
Willis, H. A., 600 University Ave, Toronto, Ont., October 1957,	$45.00; October 1957;
$26.00; December 1957, $35.00; May 1958, $25.00.
Wintermeyer, John, J., Kitchener, Ont., July 1956, $245.00.
90205-6-74i

Wednesday, January 18, 1961