1961-01-24

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the house will recall that in the debate on third reading of the Railway Operation Continuation Act on December 2 last I said that I would do everything I could to bring the parties together and regularly call them together to assure that discussions would continue and that justice would be done.
Accordingly I have written to the chairman of the negotiating committee as well as to the representatives of the railroads requesting the parties to the dispute affecting the nonoperating railway employees to meet together and resume their negotiations for the settlement of the dispute. The Minister of Labour will make available to the parties the conference room of the Department of Labour at Montreal, and will provide whatever other facilities are suitable so that, pending the receipt of the report of the royal commission on transportation, the position of the matters at issue may be reviewed and an endeavour may be made in the national interest to come to an accommodation that will resolve their differences.
Furthermore, I have advised these parties that the minister would provide any advice or assistance to facilitate the meeting. In that connection I pointed this out in the letter:
It is imperative when determined steps are being taken by the federal government to stabilize the Canadian economy and maintain its growth that every effort be made to avoid a cessation of railway transportation and the drastic dislocations which would result therefrom.
Accordingly I have asked the co-operation of Mr. Hall and those he represents and the presidents of the two railways and the other railways affected to co-operate in the resumption of negotiations.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, this announcement by the Prime Minister comes, of course, as no surprise. I can only say that I think it would have been much better to have done more to have this situation settled in December than to have the problem still with us. I express the hope of
this group that when the parties come together the government will not only make available to them the facilities of the Department of Labour, but that the government itself will take an active part in the negotiations by making proposals and by trying to bring the parties together so that in fact an agreement can be reached.
I would have liked the Prime Minister to elaborate a little in regard to his reference to the royal commission on transportation. Our view is that after the eventual settlement of this dispute it should be government policy, and we make that request, that in no circumstances should there be an increase in freight rates.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member, in going into a discussion of the royal commission and its report, is enlarging the scope of the statement which was made from the government benches.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order you have raised, I was not endeavouring to discuss, nor do I think I was-and I think you will agree on reflection-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: -the report of the royal commission itself, nor the report of the royal commission even in relation to the government's announcement. What I was discussing, however, was the statement of policy that the Prime Minister made last December, and I make the suggestion and the request that in no circumstances should there be an increase in freight rates.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It was at that point that I thought the hon. member, in going back to an earlier statement, was departing from the practice.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the announcement he made a few moments ago about the invitation to resume negotiations in connection with the railway dispute. Has the government any proposals to submit to the resumed meetings which may facilitate the search for a solution to this important and difficult problem?
1344	HOUSE OF
Threatened Rail Strike


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure the hon. gentleman would agree that any designation oi proposals on the part of the government would not be beneficial to bringing about that spirit of negotiation that is so desirable as between members of the labour unions and the railways. There was a full and complete discussion in this house on this matter, and I am sure the views that were expressed, as recorded in Hansard, by members on both sides of the house will naturally be known to the officials of the unions concerned and the railways.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
a supplementary question. In view of the statement the Prime Minister made a moment ago, and the fact that the hearings of the royal commission on transportation have just been completed and there will be a date fixed for argument, I wonder if the Prime Minister is still of the view, as he was on an earlier occasion, that it will be possible for the commission to hand down its report on the matters under discussion by March 31?


John George Diefenbaker: While I have not received official word in that connection, my hope is that there should be available, if not the complete report, an interim report in respect of those matters with which the royal commission was charged so as to enable the fullest consideration to be given by the house prior to the date mentioned as a target date during the progress of the debate on this matter.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask
a further supplementary question for clarification. Does the Prime Minister anticipate that this interim report will be sufficient for the carrying out of all the statements he made earlier this session, namely with reference to applications to the board of transport commissioners in connection with freight rates; or can the Prime Minister now say whether the freight rate freeze will continue until the final report has been made?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman would not expect me to engage in a hypothetical discussion as to what decisions might or might not be recommended by the royal commission, or indeed to cross that stile he asks me to walk over before we are actually in a position to see the stile.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: May I ask
a supplementary question regarding the proposed negotiations between the parties. I wonder if the Prime Minister is going to take


any steps to put into effect the statement he made on November 30, as recorded on page 359 of Hansard:
If there is an agreement to raise wages it shall go back to January 1, 1960.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to redebate the questions that were debated at that time on the orders of the day.


Hazen Robert Argue: You made a lot of commitments.



ANNOUNCEMENT RESPECTING TREATMENT OF ADDICTS

['The\nannouncement made by the Prime Minister speaks well for the Kennedy administration\n\nand for the dispatch with which that administration is prepared to consider problems of interest to both Canada and the United States. I hope the meeting will be successful, and that any future discussions with the Kennedy administration will have to do with defence and external affairs problems and, I must say, I hope very fervently that some arrangements may be arrived at in the field of the export of agricultural commodities.\nThe announcement of the Prime Minister is welcome. We hope that much will result from this meeting.']
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that the government has approved a new approach to the problem of drug addiction and the treatment of both criminal and non-criminal addicts in Canada. I am making this announcement also on behalf of my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The program has two main aspects; steps that will be taken by the federal government in the field of purely federal authority, and measures that may be taken in co-operation with the provinces, if they so wish, in areas where the authority is primarily provincial. The broad general outline of the second portion has already been laid before the provinces for their consideration.
Under the first head, important changes will be made with respect to the apprehension, trial and sentencing of offenders, as well as with respect to their treatment while within, and their supervision after release from, our institutions. The full program envisages the establishment by the federal government, as soon as possible, of special institutions for the segregation and treatment of drug addicts. The timing of the establishment of new institutions, and their nature, will depend to a considerable extent on the degree to which the provinces wish to co-operate, under the portion of the program to be mentioned later. In any event, however, it is of the utmost importance that facilities for segregation should be provided in the existing penitentiary system as soon as possible. Only by segregating the addicts from the general penitentiary population can adequate treatment programs be undertaken. Such segregation will also represent a significant step forward in preventing the spread of addiction.
In order to enable the system to produce the most effective results with respect to criminal addicts, legislative changes will be made to provide procedures for the determination of the question of whether an accused is an addict, and to provide further that if so found, and if convicted of the charge of illegal possession, appropriate sentence to "custody for

treatment" may be imposed. The legislation will also provide for release from custody only upon approval by the national parole board and under supervision for an indeterminate period and upon terms to be laid down by that agency. Those so sentenced will of course be committed to the new institutions as soon as they can be set up. The new institutions will be operated under the present federal penitentiary system, but will include the most up-to-date program for treatment of addicts.
This is not just a plan to hold addicts in custody, but rather an earnest attempt to treat their addiction by the most modern methods available, with the hope that a substantial number may be returned as useful citizens to society.
The program will also provide for increased penalties for those involved in trafficking drugs. Under this approach, the law and the enforcement of it will be based on the view that the trafficker who peddles drugs primarily to pay the cost of his own addiction is no less a menace to society, while at large, than the trafficker who peddles for some other purpose. Details of the legislation will be announced in due course, but it is generally proposed to provide that anyone convicted of trafficking may be sentenced to imprisonment for life, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence, will automatically receive an indeterminate sentence. The duration of the period of probation or parole for such persons will similarly reflect the view that narcotics traffickers require permanent supervision, and must not be allowed to associate with juveniles or other addicts. Other changes with respect to sentencing will also be made.
With regard to that field involving cooperation by the provinces, we are primarily concerned with the prevention of addiction and the treatment of those who may be prone to the use of drugs but are not criminals. The problem here is that the federal government has no jurisdiction over such a person unless or until he has committed a crime, but the main effort should be to treat him and prevent him from becoming a criminal. The full answer to this problem therefore depends upon provincial co-operation.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has established a committee to study and report upon improved methods for dealing with the non-criminal addicts, and this committee will be working in co-operation with the provincial departments of health. It is anticipated that a few centres will be established in suitable locations where a trained staff can study methods of treatment and guidance
Treatment of Drug Addicts of non-criminal addicts. These would be community based services with emphasis on follow-up and prevention of reversion to addiction.
In addition and in order to be able to deal with recalcitrant individuals who are not amenable to treatment in a community centre, we have proposed to the provinces that they provide a procedure, under provincial legislation, for the referral of suspected addicts for medical and psychiatric examination and for commital for treatment of those found to be addicts. Such persons could then be commited for treatment to the new federal institutions to which I have referred, if the provinces so desire, under appropriate financial arrangements to be worked out.
An important feature of this proposal is that those committed for treatment under provincial legislation will not have any form of criminal record nor be subject to the stigma attached thereto, but there will be available to them the extra care and treatment as well as the rehabilitative program which it will be possible to develop under a co-ordinated plan designed to achieve maximum results in terms of the prevention of crime, the treatment of addiction, the rehabilitation of offenders, and the curtailment of a social evil.
To us it is clear that the fullest benefit from the program can only be achieved if there is co-operation at both levels of government. Some of the changes can, of course, be proceeded with independently, but the full extent and effectiveness of the program can only be realized when we determine the extent of the co-operation that will be available. We are encouraged by the expressions of interest received so far, and are proceeding with the preparation of detailed plans as rapidly as possible.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: The extended statement made by the Minister of Justice today is one which the hon. gentleman was asked to make a year and a half ago in this house because of a declaration he had made outside parliament, speaking in British Columbia. The statement deals, however, with a matter of the greatest importance, and the house generally will regard it as one which should receive the most serious consideration, in the light, of course, of what specific recommendations may be made.
The minister has said there are two aspects of the problem of drug addiction; one which involves criminal jurisdiction and is assigned exclusively under the British North America Act to the federal government. Another involving administration, depends upon the exercise by provincial governments of the authority extended to them under section 92 of the B.N.A. Act. In any event, the treatment

Treatment of Drug Addicts of non-criminal addicts depends in the final analysis on the co-operation which prevails between the two senior levels of government.
The minister has said that a bill will be introduced this session, when we shall be given an opportunity of examining the details of this proposal. Consideration is to be given to an increase in the penalties proposed for illicit drug addiction. The house will recall that provision was made three years ago for an increase in such penalties. This further suggestion reflects what I think is a general conviction in this country that the penalty for illicit drug trafficking in Canada must be severe enough to discourage people from the practice, having regard to the grave social consequences which flow from such trafficking.
The minister has said nothing about offers which have already been made to the provinces in respect of treatment centres for noncriminal addicts. However, when this matter is discussed in detail and we have a specific bill in our hands, an opportunity will be given to outline the offer which was made some years ago to the province of British Columbia as a pilot case to provide for treatment of non-criminal addicts.
This is a matter of the greatest importance and the minister may be assured, I feel confident, that it will be viewed in that light by all members of the house.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: The
statement which has just been made by the Minister of Justice is indeed most welcome, and as far as this group is concerned collectively, and as far as I am concerned individually, I have no hesitation in saying that this is a memorable day, made so because of a memorable statement. At long last a logical, reasonable and scientific approach is being made to the serious problem of drug addiction.
There is no doubt that many members of both federal and provincial legislatures, as well as many organizations and individuals outside those bodies, have taken a keen interest in this problem in an effort to obtain recognition by the government that drug addiction is not solely a criminal matter but that it is a matter of sickness, and should be regarded as such.
We are exceedingly pleased that in the statement of the minister emphasis has been placed on co-operation between the federal and provincial authorities, and on prevention as well as cure. A point of particular interest to me is that there will be a definite and comprehensive policy of rehabilitation, an area in which we have failed in the past.
We welcome the announcement of the minister and look forward with interest to


the introduction of the legislation. We will deal with the subject in detail at that time. We assure the minister and the house that any step toward meeting the problem that has been a curse to the individual and to society will receive our whole-hearted support.



John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that the first meeting between members of the Kennedy administration and members of the Canadian cabinet will take place tomorrow. The Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance, accompanied by Mr. Ian McKinnon and Mr. Robert D. Howland, chairman and vice chairman respectively of the national energy board, and other deputies and officials will proceed to Washington for the purpose of meeting there tomorrow and of exchanging views with members of the new administration on oil marketing and other matters of mutual interest. The Canadian ambassador will participate in the talks as well.
I think this meeting represents a continuation of that relationship which was so characteristic of the Eisenhower administration with this government and its predecessor. It indicates that the co-operation of the past in the discussion of matters of mutual interest will be continued to the benefit of both our nations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure hon. members are interested in the Prime Minister's announcement of the first meeting between the members of the Canadian government and members of the new United States administration. We all hope that the frank and constructive co-operation which has existed between governments of our two countries over so many years will be continued with the new administration, as the Prime Minister has pointed out.
I understand that this meeting is to be devoted to energy questions in particular and not to general matters, which perhaps accounts for the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will not be going to Washington. In any event, Mr. Speaker, we on this side hope that there will be useful results for both countries from this meeting and from subsequent meetings.


Hazen Robert Argue: The
announcement made by the Prime Minister speaks well for the Kennedy administration

and for the dispatch with which that administration is prepared to consider problems of interest to both Canada and the United States. I hope the meeting will be successful, and that any future discussions with the Kennedy administration will have to do with defence and external affairs problems and, I must say, I hope very fervently that some arrangements may be arrived at in the field of the export of agricultural commodities.
The announcement of the Prime Minister is welcome. We hope that much will result from this meeting.



STATISTICS ACT


Mr. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-60, to amend the Statistics Act (distinctive flag and national anthem).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to authorize the governor in council to conduct a public opinion survey on the occasion of the next decennial census in Canada, concerning an entirely distinctive national flag and national anthem.
Since the census forms have to go back to press shortly, it would be a fine opportunity to include those two questions in order to learn the wishes of the Canadian people on this matter of great current interest.
(Text):
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CAPE BRETON


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that the government has accepted as final the dates of closure for three collieries in Cape Breton, and has reached an agreement with the company which rules out discussions with the unions and civic bodies on the future of those three collieries?
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): That is a rather lengthy question and one that would require a very long and complicated reply. However, I shall examine the question in detail and when it is considered appropriate to give a full answer it will be given.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question. Since the first question 90205-6-86
Inquiries of the Ministry seems to be too complicated for the Prime Minister's comprehension, may I ask him a more simple one. Did the officers of the united mine workers seek to arrange a meeting with the Prime Minister, and was such a meeting turned down by the Prime Minister or some other member of the government?


John George Diefenbaker: The last question the hon. member propounded bears no relationship at all to the first, although it is couched in fewer words than ordinarily are used by the hon. gentleman to state a simple question. In so far as that question is concerned, I may say that there have been meetings from time to time and those meetings will continue when and if it is believed that anything beneficial will result therefrom.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do I understand the Prime Minister to say that he has had such meetings with the unions, because my understanding is that is not the case.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman's understanding is something for which I am not responsible.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this matter I should like to ask the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I am sorry, but I recognized the hon. member for Chicoutimi.
(Translation):



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Vincenl Brassard (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour. Could he tell me who is responsible for the outdoor advertising of the winter works program and how is it that in a city like Chicoutimi where 99J per cent of the people are French-speaking, all outdoor panels to promote winter employment are in English only? I wonder what would happen if such advertisements were displayed in French in Toronto?
(Text):


Hon. Michael Slarr (Minister of Labour):: The hon. member gave me notice of his intention to ask this question. I should like to advise the hon. member that the outdoor panels relating to the "Do it now" winter employment campaign to which he refers are made available by the Department of Labour to the outdoor advertising association in both English and French. These panels are then supplied by the association as a public service to its member companies. The panels are available in both English and French, depending upon what the member company
1348	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry requests. We in the Department of Labour do not deal directly with the individual companies. My officials inform me that French panels are available on request.



ELLIOT LAKE, ONT.  INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED EVICTION NOTICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether he is now in a position to deal with the question I brought up last week concerning housing difficulties in Elliot Lake.
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for asking this question. In reply I would say that of the 1,399 National Housing Act home ownership loans approved in Elliot Lake, 1,119 were made by the approved lenders to the housing companies sponsored by the mines for sale to mine employees, and 280 were made to individual home owner applicants.
The mortgages relating to 264 N.H.A. houses are currently in default and the approved lenders have advised C.M.H.C. of their intention to claim on the mortgage insurance fund. Two hundred and forty of the houses with mortgages in default are owned by the housing companies sponsored by the mines and have been acquired as a result of buy-back agreements between the housing companies and the mine employees who have left Elliot Lake. These houses are vacant. The remaining 24 mortgages in default relate to houses owned by individual home owners. The majority of these home owners have voluntarily vacated and transferred their property to the lender. As far as I have been able to determine there is only one instance where the lender experienced difficulty in obtaining possession from the home owner.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Waller Pitman (Peterborough):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In answer to a question regarding retraining programs for unemployed workers, asked on January 20, the hon. gentleman replied that facilities were being set up under schedule M of Bill No. C-49, not under the Canadian vocational training act. I am not able to find schedule M. Would the minister be kind enough to clarify the situation?


Michael Starr: Schedule M is in the agreements which are made with the provinces.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But the minister said it was in the new act.


Michael Starr: The agreements are drawn up under the new act.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. As the official maximum interest rate was not stipulated in the statute setting up government guaranteed loans to small businesses, I wonder whether the minister has made inquiries to see what rates are now being actually charged under this statute, and whether they have proven to be uniform rates in all banks or whether he has found a variation, and if so what the range of that variation would be.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: This matter has been discussed with representatives of the banks. The rates that are being applied are, as I am informed, rates suitable to the creditworthiness of the particular applicants, less an allowance which I believe is taken as one half of one per cent of the interest rate on account of the federal government guarantee.


William Moore Benidickson: Does the minister know what the range in rates has proven to be?


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
William Moore Benidickson: Plus the insurance?


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question. The minister does not have any information to the effect that the banks are following a procedure which would give them in fact a rate above 6 per cent?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The banks have no power to charge a rate in excess of 6 per cent. That is the maximum established by the terms of the Bank Act. The prime rate is the rate, of course, established in favour of persons with the best credit rating. This rate at the present time is 5| per cent, as it has been for some months past.

(Translation):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer)? Is the minister aware of the fact that a concessionary at the Ottawa railway station forbids his employees to speak French under penalty of losing their job? If he is not aware of that, could he inquire about it and, if he is, would he be kind enough to act as he did at Dorval?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I did not know anything about what the hon. member has said, but I will inquire into it.
(Text):



MINOR HOCKEY WEEK IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that during this week the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association is sponsoring minor hockey week in Canada in which 200,000 Canadian youth will participate?


John George Diefenbaker: I am aware of that fact, Mr. Speaker. I gave to that organization a message which I know would represent the views of all hon. members on what is being done by that organization generally and in particular by emphasizing the importance of junior hockey. The setting aside of a week for that purpose is most helpful to Canadians as a whole.
(Translation):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? According to yesterday's Le Devoir, the Minister of Transport made the following statement at a Conservative meeting in the constituency of Vaudreuil-Soulanges:
Quebec advocates of patronage would give the Soulanges canal to their friends.
A little later he went on to say:
... "A bunch of patronage friends" ...
Inquiries of the Ministry
Would the Minister of Transport care to tell the house whether his remarks were faithfully reported by the paper, and if so, would he take the house into his confidence as to the details of such a dark scheme? (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the minister answers the second part of the question, I should like to call to the attention of the hon. member who raises the question the fact that it is not in accordance with the practice to ask on orders of the day for verification of the truth of a newspaper report. A question about the substance of the matter reported is in order, and I raise no objection to that part.
(Translation):


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, those remarks have unfortunately been reported accurately by the newspaper. I was carried away by the enthusiasm in the hall. If I used terms which offended some of my colleagues, I wish to apologize.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, as a protection against the big bad wolves who would try to appropriate the minister's canal, would the minister examine the advisability of incorporating in any future sale of the Soulanges canal, a clause which would prevent such a dilapidation of crown property.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure that the big bad wolves are any administrative responsibility of the minister. The question about a sale is purely hypothetical, and should not be asked.
(Translation):



THE CENSUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:

Mr. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees). Would the minister tell this house whether a copy of the statement he made in the house yesterday concerning changes in some of the 1961 census questions has been sent to the government of the province of Quebec.
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): No, Mr. Speaker. I am quite sure that they have already read with much interest the announcement published in the papers.
90205-6-86|

Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to statements in the Vancouver press that in future the British Columbia government is going to refuse to supply medical aid to employable unemployed drawing welfare payments because of the refusal of the federal government to share the costs? If this is so, has the minister any comment to make and will consideration be given to the situation?


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have not seen the article in question. I shall be glad to look into it and advise the hon. member.



LAKEHEAD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, notice of which has been given. This question is caused by concern expressed at the lakehead over the very large storage space, over 18 million bushels, available in the elevators there and the fact that deliveries from the west by rail are very slow.
I wonder whether the department has any information which would substantiate or indicate that this situation is merely a temporary one, in view of the employment that is involved.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving notice of his intention to ask this question. As of January 23, 1961, 76 million bushels of grain were in store at the lakehead terminal, an increase of 7 million bushels since January 11. A total of 4,488 box cars are en route to the lakehead. When these cars arrive and are unloaded the stocks of grain will total approximately 83 million bushels.
The total rated capacity for grain at the lakehead is 94,500,000 bushels, but it is recognized that working space must be kept available. It is estimated that the active working capacity at the lakehead terminals is 83 million to 85 million bushels.

(Translation):



HOUSING


Mr. C. E. Campeau (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, referring to the Montreal Gazette of this morning, I see an article entitled, "Ex-Slum Dwellers Snub Dozois Bid, 248 Units Empty".
May I ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) if he would inform the house whether or not these reports on the Jeanne Mance habitations in Montreal are correct?
(Text):


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I did read the article, and I am very happy to be able to say that these magnificent buildings, Habitation Jeanne Mance, in Montreal, have been a great experiment in subsidized housing. There are a total of 796 units, of which 524 units are already occupied, 174 finished units are vacant and 98 units are unfinished. We expect to have all units rented by May 1.
This project is administered entirely by the housing authority appointed by the city of Montreal, and it is true that many of the displaced persons have been placed elsewhere in satisfactory dwellings. That is quite often the way. These new projects are often slow in getting under way, as in Regent Park North, a similar enterprise in Toronto. However, we expect we will have a very happy experience in this greater Montreal experiment in subsidized housing.



INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS FOR SALE OF WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Have there been any negotiations regarding the sale of wheat to the U.S.S.R., and if so what is the present position of those negotiations?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, negotiations have been going on with representatives of the government of the U.S.S.R. I am hopeful that agreement will be arrived at in consequence of those negotiations for the sale of 150,000 tons of wheat.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister what has been the amount of deliveries to date under the 400,000 ton agreement made in 1959.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. gentleman realizes that I would not have that information. I will have it secured and made available.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Will provision be made on the agenda of the resources for tomorrow conference being held this year for member representatives of the Canadian tree farmers association to present a brief on behalf of the grass roots independent tree farmers?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his interest in this important conference. I can assure him that briefs will be welcomed from all provincial and national organizations interested in developing Canada's resources. We have not received a brief from this particular group as yet, but I can assure the hon. member that we will be very happy to hear from them.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the resources conference has solicited briefs from some 80 to 90 organizations, was any request sent to this organization to obtain their views in complete terms?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, the co-ordinating committee of this conference is made up of a representative from each of the provincial governments. Through that channel invitations have been extended to all provincial groups to make their opinions heard.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him in view of the statement made in .Montreal yesterday, I believe by the chairman of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation, that a cable will be constructed between Canada and Australia, whether he can inform the house how the work of construction will be divided among the participating countries, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, and how much of the work will be assigned to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have not the exact figures, but I will make inquiries and let the hon. member know tomorrow.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration arising out of a Canadian Press report dated January 27-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Hubert Badanai: -concerning protests by Indians at Grand Rapids, Manitoba, to the effect that they are not receiving the wages promised by the Drake Construction Company of Winnipeg. Can the minister inform the house whether her department has made any attempt to protect the rights-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If I understand the hon. member's question correctly it relates to the payment of wages by a construction company, which surely is not any part of the administrative responsibility of the department.


Hubert Badanai: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the hon. lady received any representations from the Indians of Grand Rapids, Manitoba, regarding their wage difficulties with the construction company for which they work?


Mr. Speaker:: A question about the receipt of a communication should, of course, be of sufficient importance to warrant its being asked. However, I think I might permit a reply to be made.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: No representations have been made by the Indians to my department. I would point out to the hon. member that the group concerned in the incident to which he refers includes many metis and people not of Indian blood. In these circumstances the whole matter is being handled by the provincial department concerned. However, in an effort to protect those Indians who are to some extent the responsibility of my department, we have been in constant consultation with the authorities of the province of Manitoba.

Inquiries of the Ministry BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



INQUIRY AS TO TABLING OF ESTIMATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. When are the estimates for the current fiscal year likely to be tabled?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Soon, Mr. Speaker.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Could I ask the Minister of Justice whether he is in a position today, or whether he will be in a position in the immediate future, to advise the house when the amendments which were forecast in the speech from the throne relative to capital punishment are to be introduced, in view of the fact that a second 14-year old boy has been sentenced to hang?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No,
T. am not in a position to give a definite an-,-swer to that question, but the situation to which the hon. member has referred is very much in our minds.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General; I regret that I was unable to send the hon. gentleman notice. Has the minister received reports or complaints from Timmins, Ontario to the effect that mail contracts are being carried out by strikebreakers at rates as low as 65 cents an hour and, if so, does the minister contemplate taking any action?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Posimasler General):: I am not aware of having received any such complaints.



MONTREAL-REPORTED UNUSED VACANT SPACE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: May I direct a question to the Postmaster General. Before I do so, may I express my joy at seeing his picture in this morning's newspaper. I looked yesterday but I could not find one, and I was worried because I thought the hon. gentleman was sick or something.


William McLean Hamilton: My
photograph was in two newspapers today. That makes up for yesterday.


Azellus Denis: Good for you. My question is this. Is the minister aware that in the Montreal post office almost 2,000 square feet were vacated and made available six months ago, since when the space has been used as a cloakroom. Will the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it that the hon. member's question relates to an event of six months ago. It does not seem to me of very great importance and I suggest that unless he has a question of urgency to ask-


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, this floor space is still available, and I want to know what is the purpose of retaining such a wide space without making proper use of it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member can get his answer on the order paper.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 20, consideration of the motion of Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
Mrs. Jean Casselman (Grenville-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, it is with much pleasure that I rise today to support wholeheartedly the budget presented before Christmas by our honoured and admired Minister of Finance.
In accordance with our system of government, those who receive the least support in the country find themselves obliged to find fault with the government. This obligation can impose quite an effort at times, and never has criticism been so confused and contradictory as it is at the present time. There are those who say the government has worked too slowly and those who say it is working too fast; there are those who say it is doing too little and those who say it is doing too much. I submit that the very confusion of the criticism is as great a compliment as the government could receive.
I have, naturally, known many members of the opposition for many years, and I like them personally. Since I have been sitting in this house as a member my respect has increased for those whose honesty of purpose keeps them so hard at work. But I have decreased respect for those who are irresponsible in placing upon this government a degree of responsibility which no thinking Canadian would want any government to accept, a degree of responsibility which was not accepted by the Liberals in 1938 when the unemployment figures were greater than they are at the present time-11.4 per cent- or again in 1939 when the percentage was

11.4, or in 1940 when it was 9.2 per cent. Other countries must look at us in amazement. They have their employment problems also, as all democracies do. I submit that it is bad enough to be making a political football of unemployment, but the lack of facts and realistic figures produced by the opposition sometimes makes me think the subject is being blown up into a political beachball.
This easy political approach is very understandable but none the more commendable for that. My learned and honourable friends in the opposition know full well the dangers of irresponsible and unrealistic criticism of any government-


Lester Bowles Pearson: We ought to. We listened to it for long enough.


Arza Clair Casselman: They should know better than anyone else in this house the basic impossibility of suggesting at the same time more and more government expenditure and less and less taxation. We are all very much aware in this house of the loss both to the country and to individual happiness which results from unemployment, but I submit that it is equally detrimental to Canada to try to lead1 more and more people to expect more and more solutions, more and more assistance from the government. If we are to continue with our free enterprise economy we cannot go on increasing government obligations indefinitely without increasing government restrictions and controls to say nothing of the taxation involved.
Anyone who has sat in this house for many years or who has analysed cause and effect has observed that some of our most insidious problems today have arisen from government succumbing to pressures and devising for their own immediate popularity solutions which have been detrimental to individual Canadian character, to pride of achievement, to ambition and to honesty itself.
I was interested in a press report of a statement made by my charming colleague from Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) when she said that her party should prefer to be right rather than popular. I should hope that anyone connected with politics would adhere to that principle.
The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) was reported during the Christmas recess to have suggested that if private enterprise could not cure unemployment he would approve of and agree with public ownership. I suggest that much of the question whether private enterprise can succeed depends on the individual Canadian's attitude. From anything I have seen, read or heard I do not think that socialization produces any more, if as much, efficiency. I want very
The Budget-Mrs. Casselman much to see the challenges of competition remain for Canadians and the satisfaction of meeting these challenges by individual initiative and energy.
I commend the government for accepting its share of responsibility for employment. I commend it equally for not falling prey to all the slick, comfortable, socialized recommendations that have been made, and for placing upon individual Canadians their share of responsibility, too. I know there are many who welcome this attitude. We have all heard in this house and outside the importance of small businesses as a source of diversified employment. I commend the government for its action in raising from $25,000 to $35,000 the bracket subject to 21 per cent corporation tax. As mentioned by my colleague and political neighbour, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), in his sound and excellent speech last week, this becomes doubly important when added to Bill No. C-40 passed before Christmas respecting loans to small businesses. If the percentage of small businesses interested in this legislation in Grenville-Dundas is any criterion, it is going to be welcomed and much used.
The fact that tourist business is included in this provision is of great importance to my area. Last September we opened the new international Prescott-Ogdensburg bridge over which we hope to attract many United States tourists next summer. We welcome all assistance that will bring these visitors to our country, that will assist our small businesses to give them service and do business with them.
In Grenville-Dundas we have historic sites that are among the earliest in Canada. Next July the Ontario St. Lawrence parks commission will open upper Canada village, which is already being visited as a wonderful example of historic preservation. Canada has many facilities for tourists, and with the sound policy of this government and the welcome and courtesy of our individual Canadians we can act Canadian, sell Canadian, see Canadian, enjoy Canadian and change the $200 million deficit in the tourist industry to a $200 million surplus. Without setting up restrictions or subsidization this government has improved the situation for this great industry so infinite in its expansion possibilities.
By making borrowing abroad less attractive our Canadian dollar is reaching parity with the United States dollar. The benefits of this situation are well-known to the people of my district, and we will benefit greatly next tourist season. Even now we are feeling the benefit in our export selling across the border.

The Budget-Mrs. Casselman
The people of Grenville-Dundas are representative of the best type of sane Canadian thinking based on social stability, and realize the interplay of cause and effect. We are indebted to Mr. McLaughlin, president of the Royal Bank of Canada, for recently reminding Canadians in clear and understandable language that the interest rate does not fluctuate by the winds of chance or by manipulation by goblins or fairies, but is the result of supply and demand. This was very obvious when the former government dipped into our money supply to an extent that is still being borne and will have to be borne for many years to come, and that contributed in no small measure to our present problems.
One does not have to be a particular student of economics to have observed with terror what happened in the past to the value of money in Germany and many other countries. We may not always find it to our advantage to live strictly within our income at any given moment, but let us recognize and not forget the effects of borrowing. Let us not become so accustomed to living on borrowed money that we become confused and blame other causes for the results it brings, or like spoiled children hope for a fairy godmother to make some wonderful arrangements that will change the hard realistic facts.
We are responsible for our own development, and if out of laziness and misunderstanding of the facts we allow others to take over more and more of it, we may expect that it will not be entirely to our benefit or our liking, and we will lose our identity as a nation. It is a hackneyed phrase but none the less true that he who pays the piper calls the tune. We show lack of faith in Canada if we express fear that Canada has not the strength to withdraw concessions to other countries when this is necessary for her own survival.
It is far from complimentary to our colleague in the western alliance, our friendly neighbour to the south, to suggest that she would have so little understanding of business that she would object to our concern for our own balance of foreign payments, our own future, a concern that she constantly has to deal with for her own economic health. Comments in large and respected United States newspapers show an understanding of our problems and an expectation that the time has come when Canada has to decrease her inducements to foreign investment. It was surely never intended that these inducements were irrevocable and should not be given critical appraisal, even when foreign capital owns about 70 per cent of our industries.
The financial critic of the official opposition, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. 

Benidickson), himself commended the Minister of Finance, as reported at page 1043 of Hansard of December 21, for proposals which will encourage further participation by Canadians in savings and investments in Canadian enterprise. I would hope that the government will give sympathetic consideration to further steps which will make investment by Canadians in Canadian stocks still more attractive. Deduction by Canadian corporations of their dividend payments from their taxable income-in other words removal of double taxation-is being widely discussed and recommended as one means, and it would seem to be a reasonable and flexible means.
There is one type of investment which interests me more than all others, however gold-plated they may be. Like all parents I should like to be able to provide a happy future for my children, but I see no sure way of doing this except through the highest possible development of their own indivdual potential so they may lead satisfying and productive lives. To do this I hope to instil in them the value of education, not in any one particular phase of education or education at any particular level, and not just schooling, but an acceptance of a continuance of the educational habit all their lives in the same manner that they accept habits of good health. I believe this is the greatest hope, not only for my children but for the whole world. Sympathy, respect for one another, understanding can only be increased by learning, and will be lost in ignorance.
We can learn from the communist countries, who do not waste time worrying about consumer goods or housing or clothing for so many millions of people, but reiterate over and over again how rich they are because of those millions of people. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in this country we must educate and raise to the highest levels of productivity our small number of 18 million if we are to expect to compete in world affairs.
The assistance given to vocational and technical training by this government is an excellent step in the right direction, but I should like to see more concentrated thinking toward economy and better organization of our educational facilities. I hear much criticism from new Canadians about the fact that we do not sort out soon enough the ambitions and the talents of our young people. Consequently they become discouraged and frustrated. The second criticism is automatic, that we do not expect the high standards that could be achieved and that are demanded in other countries. I believe that encouragement of excellence, challenge

to pride and self-sufficiency are essentials of schooling if it is to be any basis for lifetime educational habits.
We constantly hear and read of the need for excellence in workmanship if we are to be an exporting nation. The products of our universities must aim at equal excellence in higher mathematics, science and engineering if we are to compete in the research so necessary for new ideas, new processes and new patterns of thought. I would recommend that the federal government give more encouragement to research, possibly by tax encouragement to companies according to their staff and expenditures in this regard. This would serve the double purpose of increasing our productivity and making it possible to keep our highly trained minds in Canada.
Time does not permit me to digress into the involved problems of the electronics industry, but the research already done by this industry is very great and they are on the threshold of the most advanced developments. In the interests of Grenville-Dundas, where we have a large electronics plant, I urge the government to consider most seriously the effects of unfair competition from low wage countries.
I do not believe this ambition for excellence, which demands all-out effort, will likely develop if the way is made too easy. Free education at all levels is an attractive idea, but I doubt whether it is very practical at the present time when municipalities and provinces are already staggered by the tax burden for educational puposes. There is the strong psychological stimulus to obtain returns from investment, and this increases if the investment is made directly and voluntarily by the student himself. I fear that our high standard of living tends to lead all of us to feel that a great deal is due us, and we forget that this high standard came about by somebody's effort and will not be maintained without continued individual effort.
I should like to see federal loan banks for education available to all, young and old Canadians, not particularly based on need or the highest excellence in scholastic achievement, but on the prime requirement of a desire to learn. A revolving fund should be kept replenished by those who benefit most in this generation for those of the next generation, and who would be the first to recognize the enormous cost of university buildings, laboratories and libraries, and the competition for the best brains in the world, teachers and professors. It seems to me that if we have industrial loans, farm loans and loans for small businesses, we should certainly have loans for the development of the greatest resource we possess. I think the government's
The Budget-Mrs. Casselman investment in a bright, ambitious Canadian is just as safe as it is in any other loan, and personally I would much prefer to have a mortgage on a bright young Canadian than on any 100 acres of land. The benefits of education are not only in obtaining the best possible preparation for the demands of a rapidly changing world and in the self-confidence enjoyed by a trained and challenged mind, but in actual dollars and cents as well.
A United States survey last fall showed that a young person in the United States in 1960 could expect to earn about $200,000, more or less, in a lifetime, depending on education. The potential lifetime earnings of a grade school graduate were estimated at $139,000, of a high school graduate at about $243,000, and of a university graduate at about $343,000. We are grateful to the Minister of Finance for his tax relief to students and their parents in making university fees deductible from a student's earnings and in determining his qualifications as a dependant.
I hope that future budgets will show the results of continued study of education in all its facets. This is by no means a sudden or unexpected need in our society, but one that becomes more pressing with world competition and automation. I feel strongly that we should concentrate more on developing strength and pride in Canadians while they are young and ambitious. If we did this we would be called upon less to relieve suffering of various kinds later in their lives.
The encouraging and assisting of our young people to obtain more education will not only prepare them for the skilled jobs now available, but will immediately remove a considerable percentage from the numbers of the unemployed. Mr. Davidson Dunton, president of Carleton University, as reported in the Ottawa Journal of December 5, 1960, said:
The present university enrolment is about 10 per cent ol the 18-21 year old1 age group. It should be 25 to 40 per cent.
If Canadians are better educated it will facilitate the process of working together that is so essential for making use of our great opportunities. Excellent work was done by the Department of Trade and Commerce in setting up the recent trade conference, and it is being continued in the encouragement of our businessmen to export to the markets of the world. The budget provision to enlarge the tariff board to expedite its work and the reassessment of the interpretation of class and kind are excellent steps which the government has taken to encourage Canadian production.
These efforts at government level, good as they may be, can easily be killed by lack
1356	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mrs. Casselman of co-operation between management and labour. No one can force or order people to co-operate. The only means of obtaining more co-operation is to increase learning and understanding of one another's problems, one another's aims and a combined determination to make Canada a good place in which to live. If any group has more allegiance to profits for themselves, or to leaders in other countries, or to other ideologies, then we must expect a lack of co-operation, we must expect that we will not be able to be competitive in world markets, and Mr. Khrushchev's threat to ruin us without firing a shot will come true.
I believe the government's policy of sending representative groups of Canadians to other countries to study their techniques and their progress and to act as temporary roving salesmen and ambassadors should continue, but I should like to see these groups include management and labour leaders as well, because the facts should be equally impressed upon both these groups who together are responsible for the success of our Canadian enterprises. I have faith in Canadian labour. I believe if this were done there would be more Canadian leadership of our labour groups. This could not be considered unduly nationalistic; it is ordinary good business.
This equal knowledge of our competition will give both management and labour the increased determination which our Minister of Trade and Commerce has been pointing out is needed, and will also give them confidence in one another's goals and in one another's aims. It seems to me too much time has been wasted in this country in suspicion of one another's aims and much too little time concentrating on the effort needed in international competition, upon which one third of Canada's population depends for a livelihood.
Recently there has been increasing stringency in the demands upon their workers by East Germany and other communist countries. In the race for improved quality and increased quantity the people who actually work on the product are in control. Industrial workers in Canada are individually just as good Canadians as the members of this house, and every effort should be made by management and government to explain our problems to those who can do so much to assist us in solving them. In our democratic system Canadian workmen have the power, and with it the responsibility, to see that their leaders put Canadian interests first. The government's responsibility is to see that the way for this is cleared of the confusion and frustration of of international demands which may not apply to our Canadian situation.


Further to this effort to learn about and understand others' problems, I should like to see some consideration given to the possibility of all members of parliament taking an educational tour of Canada within six months of their election to this house. The potential impact would be enormous. Many members come to this house excellently qualified to represent their own districts but without any idea of the equally important problems of other districts. The process of co-operation and compromise so essential at the federal level would be greatly facilitated. This may not be a new idea, because it comes to me from the files of history. Many generations ago Plato pointed out that knowledge distinguishes the true statesman from the false, as knowledge distinguishes the physician from the quack, and that education is indispensable to a good state.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I should like to deal with three matters which I consider to be of capital importance.
Before doing so, however, I would ask the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) who has just spoken, to forgive me if I do not agree with her and do not support the views she expressed in the first part of her speech.
We, on this side of the house, were a bit envious because until quite recently we did not have in our ranks a member of the fair sex. We are proud now to have among us the member for Niagara Falls (Miss La-Marsh) who impresses the house by her charm no less than by her ability. I am convinced that, after the next election, we shall have more than one woman member on this side of the house.
The first matter I wish to deal with was mentioned by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) in his statement. I read very carefully the statement made by the minister about the census, and the changes he intended to make in questions 8 and 10. I also carefully read the dominion statistician's letter that the minister put on the official record. This letter shows the intention of the dominion statistician, Mr. Duffett, to rephrase certain questions that will be asked in the next census, and in particular, question 10 which will henceforth refer to the ethnic origin.
At first sight, the explanation does seem entirely satisfactory and acceptable to us on this side of the house. However, I must add that, before taking a final stand and voicing our opinion on the matter, we shall neces-

sarily have to wait until the dominion statistician has rephrased those quotations and until the revised form is issued.
Meanwhile, I congratulate the minister for his statement, which managed to pull him out of a bad spot. The problem was the government's own doing. The government created this crisis. The government, and the government alone, is responsible for the situation in which it finds itself. This action gave rise to a general outcry not only in the province of Quebec but everywhere in Canada.
It gave rise to a shower of protests. Today, in the face of these mass protests, the government has decided to back down, to give up, to retreat and to restore things as they were.
This crisis, Mr. Speaker, had harmful effects on national unity. In fact, the decision announced by the minister, quoting the director of the dominion bureau of statistics, should have been taken at the very start of the trouble.
Indeed, the census is first of all a scientific procedure designed to give us a true picture of the people of Canada, to reveal the true composition of the people of this country.
And precisely because of the scientific purpose of the census, it should be left in the hands of experts in this field, instead of being subjected to government interference.
The dominion bureau of statistics had decided on its own to proceed with a poll in June 1959. To that end, a form was prepared and submitted to the people in the towns of Brantford and Joliette. It contained the same words, the same question and the same suggested answer; in short, it was entirely similar to that of the 1951 census.
The poll taken in the two communities I just mentioned did not, however, contain the word "Canadian" as the first item on the list. Since the D.B.S. is administered by the same experts as in 1959, we are led to believe that the change made after 1959, with regard to that question, is the result of some intervention or direct interference on the part of the government.


Mr. Pigeon:: Tell us about Mr. St. Laurent.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, you heard, as we did, on several occasions, the interjections of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon).


Yvon Dupuis: And those of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay).


Azellus Denis: This is not the first time, Mr. Speaker, that we hear the cawing of those
The Budget-Mr. Chevrier crows. You have been tolerant with them.
I believe that it is now time that those hon. members be requested to keep quiet. If they have something to say, let them rise in their proper turn.


Mr. Speaker:: It is true that it is against the standing orders to make interjections when another hon. member is speaking, even on a point of order. I recognize the hon. member for Laurier.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. The hon. member for St. Denis used an unparliamentary expression, when he spoke of two hon. members in terms which he should apply to himself.


Yvon Dupuis: You feel the cap fits you.


Lionel Chevrier: As I said, the poll in both towns did not contain the word "Canadian". Consequently, it was after the 1959 poll, and before the 1961 forms first came out that a change took place which could only come from one source, the government.
In putting an end to such interference and deciding to refer the matter to experts in this field, the government is only trying to get out of a mess of its own creation. However that experiment will cost the Canadian taxpayers no less than some $100,000, as new forms will have to be printed.
I must commend the minister for recognizing his error and his willingness to rectify it. I know, he will hardly expect me to commend him for having, together with his predecessor, the present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) made this serious error which could endanger Canadian unity by depriving it of cultural diversity which is its essential factor.
May I hope that the minister will profit by that lesson and that from now on he will resort to expert advice. As a matter of fact, this was not the first of his mistakes. I recall that on one occasion he refused to accept a decision of the air transport commission, thus courting unnecessary trouble in this house and throughout the country. If he had followed the recommendations of experts in the matter, the government and the Conservative party would not have been out on a limb, as they were until yesterday.
I therefore say that, in future, the government will have to accept expert advice and take into greater consideration the history and traditions of this country which, according
1358	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Chevrier to what the Leader of the Opposition said on many occasions, may be summed up in these three words: "Unity without uniformity."
Before concluding my remarks on this matter, I should like to reply to those that I shall not call parrots, for I do not want to be impolite, but to the backbenchers who have constantly mentioned the name of Mr. St. Laurent.
What did Mr. St. Laurent do? I shall tell those hon. members: in 1951, there was only one question on ethnic origin. It was question 17: What is your origin? There was a choice of 18 answers. The Canadian origin, which, incidentally, is not an origin but a nationality, did not appear at all in question 17 in 1951. Here are the facts as they happened. Mr. St. Laurent or the government of the day was asked what should be done should an individual say: I have no origin, I prefer to say I am a Canadian. Mr. St. Laurent simply answered: There is an open space at the end of question 17; you may write: "Canadian origin".
But neither the former government nor Mr. St. Laurent have ever given instructions, as did this government, to place at the top of the list the term "Canadian origin".
I now come-


Mr, Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temisca-mingue):: Before the hon. member goes on to another matter, may I ask him a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, provided that I am allowed more than 30 minutes and that the time taken by this question be deducted of my allotted period.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously, I cannot agree to the request of the hon. member, unless the house gives its unanimous assent. Otherwise, the time taken by the questions would have to be part of the hon. member's allotted period.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, you will have to ask your question at the end of my remarks.


Mr. Martineau:: I believe the hon. member has been give the consent of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: In that case, I shall listen to the hon. member.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would the hon. member tell the house whether, in his opinion, the question concerning ethnic origin, as expressed yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, is better than the one that was used in the 1951 census form?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I do not know whether it is better or as good. The point is that the government, by its interference, has changed the nature of the question.


Paul Raymond Martineau: My question was addressed to the hon. member, and I expect an explicit answer.


Lionel Chevrier: I say that the government, by its interference has changed the nature of the question and has tried to confuse the distinction between nationality and ethnic origin.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The question is of a scientific nature and I would like a scientific reply.


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member would be good enough to put off his question until I have finished my speech, I shall have no objection whatever to it.
I shall now pass on to another aspect of the discussion, namely some of the statements made by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech.
Ever since the beginning of this session, the government has kept tooting its horn about what it has done, about the bold measures it claims to have taken to meet the situation. It has been doing it before the house met again in January, and since then.
There have been repeated references to this by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech, and yet the changes made in the budget for the current fiscal year show very clearly the government's failure to act in that regard.
In fact, the so-called emergency program was adopted by the house before the supplementary budget was introduced, but it had no effect whatsoever on the budget itself. As proof of this, let me briefly analyse the figures given to us by the minister. On the expenditure side, he had to add $100 million to his estimates of March 1960. Was this increase in the estimates designed to help the unemployed, to meet the present state of emergency? Not at all, Mr. Speaker.
As the house knows, this increase in expenditures is due to the increased deficit of the C.N.R., of the agricultural stabilization board, and to the one dollar per acre payment to western wheat producers.
If, therefore, the minister gave us an accurate picture of the financial situation of the government, the so-called special program adopted before the Christmas recess, will not cost a cent to the government during the current fiscal year.

It is the same with revenue. The Minister of Finance had to reduce by $200 million his estimated revenue for the current financial year. But why?
This revision is due first to the current recession, and then to an erroneous forecast on the part of the Minister of Finance. He made a mistake in his forecast by estimating a $12,000,000 surplus whereas, in fact, as he himself admitted, there will be a deficit of close to $300,000,000.
This means that the government, which claims to have done so much to fight unemployment at this time, is not even considering spending a red penny of its budget to straighten out the present economic situation and fight unemployment. There have been no special tax reductions during this fiscal year. The Minister of Finance still refuses to turn to the most important means of easing the economic situation, which are monetary and fiscal policies.
What is, therefore the government's policy? It consists in offering loans. Indeed, the government is specializing in loans; easier loans will be offered individuals towards the purchase of a house or for home improvements, loans are being offered to businesses, and subsidies to provinces for the building of technical schools. Loans will even be offered to universities. Yet, the Conservatives had promised to stop federal aid to education.
The program of the government before this session can then be summed up in three words: loans, more loans, and again more loans.


Mr. Graffley:: You voted for them.


Mr. Tremblay:: You voted for taxes,
and taxes and taxes.


Lionel Chevrier: It is obvious that because of those interruptions, and especially because of the new provisions of the standing orders, I will not be able to say all I would like to in the 30 minutes at my disposal. I will therefore revert to another point of my speech.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, we had a very remarkable performance on television not long ago by the Prime Minister of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lionel Chevrier: 
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member requests leave from the house to have this table printed in Hansard at this point. Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table referred to is as follows:]
Unemployment as a % of labour force Seasonally adjusted 1960
Canada* United States?
January 			5.2
February 			4.8
March 			5.4
April 			5.0
May 			4.9
June 			5.5
July 			5.4
August 			5.9
September			5.7
October 			6.4
November 			6.3
Canadian Statistical page S-3.	Review,	DecembertSurvey of Current	Business,	December
page S-ll.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There could, of course, be no objection to the hon. member putting on record any statement taken from 

any official Canadian government source. But so far as he is attempting to draw a comparison with figures-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister has no right to make a speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have a right to indicate whether consent may be given to the portion of those figures being put on the record which are not from Canadian government sources but from United States government sources. I think the house should know a great deal more about the basis of comparison because the statement made by the hon. member is not in accordance with statements which have come from the United States in the last 48 hours. As 1 say, I have no objection to the hon. gentleman putting on the record any figures from Canadian government sources.


Lionel Chevrier: Since the minister has no objection and since I have shown whence the figures come, I simply want to indicate that these figures show that for the first 11 months of 1960 unemployment as a percentage of the labour force, after allowing for seasonal factors, averaged less than 5 per cent in the United States and that during the comparable period Canada's unemployment averaged 7 per cent of the labour force.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Lionel Chevrier: At no time during 1960 did the United States have as much unemployment in terms of its labour force as did Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Is he saying that he has Canadian government figures which show the average unemployment in the first 11 months of 1960 to be 7 per cent of the labour force of Canada? There are no government figures which show that difference.


Lionel Chevrier: The government figures are here, taken from the Canadian Statistical Review, and during a comparable period they indicate that for the first 11 months Canada's unemployment averaged 7 per cent of the labour force. That is clearly what these figures say; that is what they indicate. In December, 1960, 8.2 per cent of our labour force was unemployed, or 528,000 people. It is true employment has increased over the 12-month period by 1.3 per cent, but nevertheless unemployment in December, 1960 is 30 per cent higher than it was a year ago.
Then we pass on to some more of these extraordinary statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). Toward the end of his speech he complained very bitterly about those who exaggerate the problems

in this country, those who criticize in opposition without offering any effective solution. If those hon. members who are here now were in the house the other day when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) spoke and put on record in Hansard the speech made by the Minister of Finance himself when he was in opposition, I would ask them this question: How could anybody have made the kind of statement which the Minister of Finance made then when the unemployment situation in Canada was a fraction of what it is at the present time? Moreover, the language used by the Minister of Finance at that time was far worse than that used by anyone sitting on this side of the house.
I have not time in which to deal with this matter more extensively but I do want to add one word with reference to this phrase in which the Prime Minister says we exaggerate and criticize in opposition. The Prime Minister or those who sit on the other side of the house must not have been listening- I will not say they must have been asleep- when the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and myself and so many others made submissions to the government which the Minister of Labour said he was going to study-


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


Paul Joseph James Martin: Did Your Honour take the interruption into account?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I took into account the agreement of the house and I have given the hon. member an extra three minutes. However, if the house is prepared to give unanimous leave for the hon. member to continue-
Very well, I recognize the Associate Minister of National Defence.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a point of order. I understand from the Chair that the figures which I asked permission to table have not been accepted; they have been returned to me. I was under the impression that those figures had been accepted.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The house agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Lionel Chevrier: I understood that the house agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There must be a misunderstanding. I understood that there was not unanimous consent. I will ask again whether there is unanimous consent and if there is I have no objection to the figures being put on record.
The Budget-Mr. Chevrier


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, it is a common practice in this house to give a member of parliament the right to put on record in Hansard tables of this nature, particularly when they are taken from government sources.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: To my mind, it is not so much a question of practice. The idea is that no document may be printed in Hansard unless unanimous consent is given by the house. Unless the house is prepared to say that there was unanimous consent, the Chair must consider that there was not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a most fatuous statement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What I sought to convey was that there is no objection to the printing of this table or any table when it contains figures drawn from Canadian government sources but I understand that the hon. member was seeking to add to his submission a series of figures drawn from the United States, it may be from an official publication -I think he indicated it may even be an official publication of the United States government. What I wish to draw to the attention of the house at this time was that the basis of comparison is not included in the scope of the tables. If the hon. gentleman chooses to put on record figures drawn from these United States sources and he is prepared to stand behind them, however, I think that the house would agree to give consent to those figures being printed, but this is not an agreement that these are figures which are capable of comparison.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the only problem the Chair has to decide is whether the table can be printed, because the hon. member was, of course, allowed to recite the table and put it on record in Hansard, accepting the figures as coming from a reliable source as far as he was concerned. The question was whether there was unanimous consent to their being printed at that particular point in the hon. gentleman's speech. If the house is prepared to say there was such unanimous consent that will be right now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the house would not withhold unanimous consent to a request made by the hon. member, with the proviso I have mentioned about the basis of comparison.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is not whether there is a reservation as to the content of the table but whether there is a unanimous consent to having the table printed. That is the only point.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sure that the house will give unanimous consent.



The Budget-Mr. Sevigny


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Then I record that there was unanimous consent and that the table should be printed at the point mentioned by the hon. member for Laurier in the course of his speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not believe it is the practice in this house for such a request to be formally put. The house indicates its consent in a general way. That has been the practice. It is not necessary, I take it, for the Speaker to put the motion formally.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the Chair has made the point very clear. If the Chair is putting the question more formally now it is because there was doubt as to whether or not the matter was clear previously. The incident is closed.
(Translation):


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, for the last 30 minutes, we have heard the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) criticize the policy of the Conservative government. Before I get down to the gist of the matter, I should like to single out certain remarks made by the hon. member about the decennial census, and most particularly about the statement made in the house yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees).
I thank my excellent friend, the hon. member for Laurier for the kind words he had for the government and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, concerning the attitude taken on that matter. Had he confined his remarks to the congratulations he addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I think his comments would have been much more appreciated than the rest of his speech, because the latter part of his remarks clearly reveals the Liberal opposition's spite against the government's attitude, such spite being provoked by the fact that the Liberal opposition, wishing to follow its well known tradition of dividing in order to better rule, was deadly intent on making a political football of that census question.
It is indeed unfortunate for the election purposes of our friends opposite that this political football should have exploded, but it is certainly preferable for national unity that our country should be led by a government which, because it is anxious to find the truth and to achieve the purpose of that census, should have decided to consult experts on the matter, so that the formula submitted to our people might be one based on scientific and accurate data. I repeat it is unfortunate that our friends opposite should

have wished to arouse public opinion about that matter and tried to resort to it for election purposes, but it is certainly desirable for national unity in Canada that the matter should have been settled along the lines suggested by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Mr. Speaker, these last few days, I have listened carefully and with a certain amount of surprise to the statements made by our hon. friends of the opposition about the steps suggested by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in the supplementary budget he introduced in the house in December last. That budget was prepared by the minister after lengthy studies of the economic circumstances prevailing across the country, and after detailed and toilsome consultations with financiers, industrialists and leading businessmen across the nation, as well as after consultation with representatives of the professions and labour organizations. That budget, so carefully prepared was well received generally across the country, and the opinion of our fellow citizens was reflected in the many editorials we have read both in our daily newspapers and in our weeklies and which, for the most part, commended the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker, that budget was not easy to prepare, because it had to include short term provisions in order to maintain the present momentum of the Canadian economy. Long term provisions had also to be introduced, whose benefits will be felt in years to come.
On the other hand, care had to be taken not to indulge in those ultra-socialistic excesses recommended by the Liberal party in the platform it submitted to its followers at its recent rally, the result of which would be to destroy our economy.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear enough that this budget was studied carefully by the members of the opposition, and it is clear enough also that they approve it in great part, and for many reasons.
I should like to say first that the congress committee established to study measures to meet the unemployment situation existing among our mighty neighbours to the south, the American people, suggested to the U.S. authorities measures identical to those we have considered ourselves to help the unemployed of this country.
If those measures which we adopted without any prior consultation with our neighbours to the south meet their approval, it is a sufficiently clear indication that they are efficient to some degree and that they are considered as serious by people who know about such things.

Another thing makes us believe that our friends opposite are probably not too sincere when they criticize the measures contained in the budget. Several of those measures are part of the very program announced by the Liberals during their recent convention here in Ottawa. As a matter of fact, their measures are copied from the measures mentioned in the speech from the throne and in the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance.
You heard the Liberals during their convention talk about increased pensions to veterans and about a program of urban re-development. Their supporters promised tax reductions and accelerated depreciations in order to attract the industry in the underdeveloped sectors of the nation. Those are measures already mentioned in the speech from the throne and in the budget of the Minister of Finance, measures which were criticized by our friends opposite, but which they adopted yet with enthusiasm during their recent convention. It is not therefore inconsistent to say that the so-called dynamic and imaginative measures which were to change the concept of Canadian political thinking and which the Liberals announced with great publicity are copied from the suggestions put forward by the Conservative government and are simply a plagiary of the thinking of the leaders of this party.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals, power thirsty and anxious to get votes at any price, have put forward many other measures during their convention, measures which on the one hand are ultra-socialist-in order to please the left wing of their party-and on the other hand, measures of an inflationary nature, and lastly economic measures which, if adopted, would increase the annual budget deficit of the nation to over $1 billion. However, there is one thing we must realize: it is impossible to over-increase expenditures while reducing revenues and expect anything but fantastic deficits.
Since I accuse the Liberals of having plagiarized measures put forward by the Conservative government, it must be said also that they have copied the program announced in this house by the right hon. Prime Minister when he said that a royal commission would be established to study the national health situation. In fact the very same Liberals outlined in high sounding words a health insurance plan which was only a repetition of the statement made in this house by the right hon. Prime Minister.
The Budget-Mr. Sevigny
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about this national defence policy announced by the Liberals during their recent convention. As you know, they long have accused this government of having a wrong defence policy. They accuse the government of not recognizing the basic principles which should govern the defence of our country. They had announced long ago that they had sensational ideas concerning defence, which were really to change the concept of public opinion on that question. We therefore all expected with interest some announcement with regard to such steps, and it was a matter of general surprise to find that the Liberal defence policy consisted in having no defence at all.
The speech of the hon. Leader of the Opposition was received with applause on one side and by an eloquent silence on the other. It was therefore in no way surprising that some American journalists did not hesitate to suggest a royal commission of psychiatrists to investigate the state of mind of Liberal leaders who could imagine such a dangerous defence policy. And it is indeed dangerous, because such a defence policy would leave our country completely defenceless against any potential attack by an enemy.
It is hardly surprising that other journalists should state that in the United States people did not believe that Canadians were foolish enough to pay serious attention to statements by people whose aim is to form the government of this country one day, more particularly as regards statements of defence policies and theories as fantastic as those advocated during the recent Liberal rally.
We must conclude from all that, that the recent Liberal convention was a resounding failure, and we believe that our hon. friends opposite will have to make a great effort if they want to regain the confidence of responsible citizens, who are very much disappointed by what happened during that rally which was to change and revolutionize everything.
Mr. Gerard Filion of Le Devoir gave a good summary of Canadian opinion on this matter in Saturday's issue, dated January 21, where he said:
The Liberal party has just wound up an important meeting in Ottawa. It has brought up a program which, obviously, will serve as the theme for the general elections of 1962. We find in it some good, less good, and definitely bad things.
The good things, Mr. Speaker, are those which have been copied out of the Conservative program; the less good things are those-
1364	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Sevigny


Mr. Bourgel:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I apologize for interrupting my hon. friend. He said he was reading an article from Le Devoir and, unless I am mistaken, I think he is adding his own interpretation to that article. In my opinion, he should tell us whether he is reading the article textually or whether he is adding to it his own impressions.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, allow me to be more explicit.


Some hon. Members:: Order. This is not a point of order.


Maurice Bourget: This is very important, for the minister may give us to understand that he is reading textually from Mr. Filion's article in Le Devoir. He should read separately the article first, and then add his own remarks.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, in reply to that interjection, I must admit the hon. member for Levis is right. I should have mentioned that Mr. Filion's article ended after the sentence: "We find in it some good, less good and definitely bad things", and that my interpretation began when I said that those good things are those which have been copied from the Conservative party's program; that the less good things are those ultra-socialistic suggestions recommending extravagant expenses; and that the bad things are those which clearly tend to the left, an unfortunate tendency of the present leaders of that party, which was once great but which now seems to have forgotten the principles of Laurier and other Liberal leaders who followed him.
And today, we find that our friends opposite have forgotten none of those mistakes which caused them to be swept out of office on June 10, 1957. And we find also that they have learned nothing. I think I am justified in saying that the Canadian people will not, for a long time, trust them once again as they did for 22 years.


Maurice Bourget: You seem to forget very easily the by-election in Labelle.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Levis is not entitled to speak from his seat.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, I think it is five o'clock. May I resume my remarks at eight o'clock?


(Text):


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



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chown (for Mr. Woolliams) for the second reading of Bill No. S-2, to incorporate Aurora Pipe Line Company.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it will be recalled that when this matter was up for debate initially a week ago, because of the time limit I had the opportunity to say just a few sentences. I should like to make a few other brief comments about the bill before us to incorporate Aurora Pipe Line Company.
When private bills such as this, which originate in the Senate, come before us we usually look to the debates in the other place and to the proceedings of the committees to which such bills are referred, for guidance as it were, or for information about the structure of the particular company, its objectives, its finances and all of the other details with which we would be concerned. Unfortunately, in this instance we are deprived of the opportunity of discovering what sort of discussion took place in the committee on transport and communication of the Senate because no verbatim report of the proceedings was kept there.
In reviewing the debate on second reading in the other place we find that the Hon. Senator Thorvaldson, who sponsored the bill and who moved the second reading of it, confined his introductory remarks to the reading of a press release issued by the petitioning company, and which was rather sparse in the information which it gave to the long range or short range effects which would flow from the incorporation of this company. I feel that the worst feature, perhaps, of this is the lack of a verbatim report of the Senate transport and communications committee. This fact does not give us a full opportunity to secure the information which members of that committee gleaned from the representatives who appeared before it.
I did undertake, as I am sure the hon. members did, to discover what I could by means of a telephone conversation with the committee branch of the other place. There were minutes kept of the proceedings, I give this as background information to indicate that this was not a bill about which there was

unanimity and to which there was opposition in the committee of the other place. This fact should make it incumbent on us to search the bill and ascertain its effects even more assiduously than we might normally. There was a Mr. Gordon Blair, a local solicitor, who appeared for the petitioners and who, I am given to understand, carried most of the discussion in the committee of the other place. He was supported in his stand by Mr. Kenneth H. Burgess, who is vice president of Hudson Bay Oil and Gas and by Mr. Bannicke.
There were people who appeared before the committee of the other place opposing this particular bill, and those people were representatives of the Pembina company to which my friend from Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) made rather extensive references when he spoke on the bill a week ago. Appearing for the Pembina people were Mr. James Scott, who I understand is president of the company, Mr. Charles Crawford and Mr. A. Douglas Arnott. I believe the fact that there were representatives of other concerns who appeared before this committee opposing the passage of the bill should, even more than other circumstances, impress upon the members the necessity for looking carefully at this bill before we decide whether to give it second reading and refer it to our committee. The members of this committee could engage in an intimate discussion with the representatives of the Aurora company and others who may want to appear in order to determine the full effects which might flow from the establishment of this particular company.
In this regard, I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Chown), who introduced the bill and moved second reading on behalf of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), did a fairly commendable job of explaining, from his point of view, the purposes of the petitioners. We are indebted to a far greater degree, I believe, to the hon. member for Vancouver East and to the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith), both of whom spoke on the bill a week ago and gave far more details of the intricacies of the corporate structures of these major companies who are interested in this matter. Beyond this, the house is not too well informed as to the full effects that would flow from the passage of this bill.
In this connection, I should like to refer briefly to a passage in the speech from the throne, without reading it. As you recall, Mr. Speaker, there was a very forthright reference to the fact that steps would be taken to encourage Canadian control of corporations in this country. The so-called baby budget introduced by the Minister of Finance
Private Bills
(Mr. Fleming) just prior to the Christmas recess also had this theme of Canadianism, as it were, interwoven throughout. One would assume that the ideal of Canada for Canadians was a part of government policy, and I think a commendable part. For many years we have been driven along the road toward foreign ownership and domination of our economy. However, the particular bill before us is not compatible with that ideal of Canadianism which we all agree should be developed in this nation.
Apart from the so-called Canada for Canadians theme which we are trying to promote, apart from the fact that Aurora is in fact dominated by United States interests, as was made quite clear by the hon. member for Vancouver East and by the hon. member for Winnipeg South when he introduced the bill, there is another facet of this particular bill which makes it somewhat reminiscent of that scandalous pipe line discussion we had a few years ago. I might say that my statement is the result of the scanty examination I have been able to give the bill, and without benefit of consultation with the individual petitioners because of the failure of the Senate to provide us with the information in a committee report. I should like to make a brief reference to Hansard in this regard and read some of the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South which will illustrate what I mean. I am quoting from page 1127 of Hansard of January 17, where I find these words:
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 would be built from Cut Bank, Montana.
I point out that the hon. member is referring to a specific by-product which is involved here, and about which I shall have something to say later on. This reference relates to the actual connections, and he goes on to say:
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.
I have had occasion to look at a map which I have here, and on which are shown some of the pipe lines in existence both here and in the United States, and I should like to make a particular reference to the system envisaged in this bill. I re-read the words found at page 1127 of Hansard:
The condensate would be delivered through Continental Pipe Line's system south to a connection
[366

Private Bills
with the Platte pipe line system in, Wyoming and through this system and its many connections it would gain access to refining centres-
And so on. I would point out that on looking at this map I find that the Platte pipe line system has a direct connection and that one of its chief functions is that of transporting these commodities or these materials to the Chicago market which is the same market sought by Pembina. Incidentally, I might say at this point that I understand that a plan or arrangement between Pembina and the Standard Oil Company of Indiana, who own another pipe line in the United States, has recently been consummated and accordingly these parties, or Pembina particularly, will be appearing before the Alberta conservation board on February 7 for a hearing in this regard.
From the intent of this company we find that what they are after is the Chicago market, the same market as that which is being sought and, if today's news is any indication, has been established or the same market that Pembina is also in the process of working towards. When we compare the
11.000	to 15,000 barrels of Aurora with the
70.000	to 75,000 barrels of Pembina, we wonder just what is going on and whether this is not another attempt on the part of our friends in the oil industry, those whom the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) before he became prime minister labelled as buccaneers, to destroy our Canadian participation by Canadian companies through milking the cream of the crop, as it were, and moving into the self-same market, namely the Chicago market in a quicker way, with less difficulty and not taking all the products.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South indicated, as did the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Vancouver East, that there are a number of by-products. They mentioned propane, butane, and sulphur which is intermingled with them in the condensate. The Pembina system, through their relationships with Standard Oil and their market, is geared to a comingled system, or one that will fully use and transport all of these by-products, namely the condensate, propane, butane and everything else and will use them all whereas Aurora's approach, as is evidenced by the information which I just read from Hansard given by the hon. member for Winnipeg South and others who have spoken in this debate, and sole concern at the moment is to deal only with the condensate and not with the others; to leave them out in the cold, as it were and to concentrate its activities in seeking for the cream and, as I said, because of their hook-up with the other system, transporting these to the

Chicago market in the hope that by skimming off the cream they will end up with the lion's share of the market while the other company, operating decently and taking them all, will be left behind.
There is another bit of information which I understand-


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Will the hon. member permit a question just before he leaves that point?


Frank Howard: Yes.


George James McIlraith: Where does the hon. member get this figure of 70,000 barrels per day? I ask that question because it is at variance with the information I get as to the evidence before the Alberta board.


Frank Howard: If my hon. friend will allow me to look for a moment in Hansard in order to pick it out from the information given I shall be glad to do so. It was placed on the record by the hon. member for Vancouver East. It was taken from a study by Stevenson and Kellogg, a management consultant firm. I am referring only to Hansard, not to the Stevenson and Kellogg report and I hope my hon. friend will realize that fact. I am reading from the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver East as reported on page 1129 of Hansard, where he quotes the Stevenson and Kellogg report at one point as follows:
-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.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I could clarify that matter a bit by another question. I think the hon. member will agree that the Stevenson and Kellogg report is one item of evidence before the Alberta board on an extremely controversial point where there is a wide variation in the evidence as to the amount available for export. There are two or three others.


Frank Howard: Yes. As the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) has pointed out, it may well be a controversial point before the Alberta board. I am quite sure that you, Mr. Speaker, having a discerning eye, will be able to see the hon. member for Ottawa West if he rises and puts forward this information in a definite way rather than by way of query. I think perhaps that would be the better way in which to do it.
If I may say so, this discussion points up the difficult situation in which we find ourselves because of the failure of the Senate committee to keep proper records of what it was doing in this regard. Perhaps if it did so we would have this information from the mouths of company officials themselves and

Division
those who passed it. But as the situation stands, to a degree we are obliged to resort to a report by Stevenson and Kellogg, what a group of engineers in Canada said when they studied this question and so on. The members of this house are put in an extremely awkward position. This is the information that I have. I must accept it as factual unless it is shown to be otherwise because it is the only information we have available.


Mr. Smith (Calgary South):: I wonder
whether I might ask a question of the hon. member?


Frank Howard: Yes.


Arthur Smith: I should like to ask if the hon. member would perhaps agree with me-and this is the point I attempted to make-that this is the advantage of having this matter in committee where this information can be produced and examined?


Frank Howard: I would not agree with it at all because there are other factors than that involved. What the hon. member is asking us in effect to do is to buy a pig in a poke and to say, let us give it second reading-which is endorsation in principle-and then we will find out what it is all about. I am one of those strange types who believe in finding out what it is all about before we decide to do something. That is one of the reasons why it is necessary to discuss now on second reading what would lead us to this end.


Arthur Smith: What about third reading?


Frank Howard: My hon. friend asks, what about third reading? I am sure he knows full well, especially now that Your Honour is presiding for a while, that debate on third reading is more restricted and confined than that on second reading. This has been the ruling given on a number of occasions.
I would agree with the hon. member for Calgary South that perhaps what we should do is to check the Senate up and express the hope that it would keep proper records of what committees do, especially in connection with a controversial matter such as this one about which witnesses appeared before the transport and communications committee in favour of the bill and opposed it. Perhaps we would then be in a better position to assess the facts. But to be asked to give blanket endorsation to something in the hope that we shall find out more about it later on is putting the cart before the horse. We might as well be debating the divorce bills which were allowed to stand a while ago.
There is one other point which might be cleared up. Although the hon. member for Calgary South is now fairly well restricted
from debating the issue, with his extensive knowledge in this field he may perhaps be able, by way of question, to clear up this matter. My understanding is this, and may I say that I am exhibiting my ignorance in this field when I say it. I understand that Aurora will be dealing only with condensate or what is known as condensate and as that is not classified as a gas, accordingly there is no need for it to appear before the Alberta conservation board. That is what I have been given to understand; I do not know whether it is factual information. However, there is on the record information to the effect that the company in fact has already appeared before the Alberta conservation board in any event. But that was one piece of information I was given, that it is not really necessary for them to do this because they are only dealing with one of the by-products rather than the whole range.
As I say, to a great extent we are devoid of factual information with regard to this matter. Private matters such as this, which have a great effect on the public and on the economy, should be seriously considered. I submit that these things should be considered before we give a bill second reading, and not discovered afterwards. Because we do not have this information available from its usual source-that is the Senate committee; and by that I am not in the least implying that the Senate is in any way inefficient in this regard, but we should have this information-I think we should preserve to the fullest extent possible our Canadian interest in this regard and have an opportunity to look further into this matter.
In order to ensure that everyone concerned has the fullest possible opportunity to look into the effects of this bill I think we should not give second reading to it without more detailed study and consideration, and I do not think the bill should be given second reading at this particular time.
In order that all of us may have the opportunity of investigating the full effects of this bill before we give it second reading, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Pitman), that the debate be now adjourned.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, we have just witnessed a demonstration oi some ol the measures that may be used if the new party or the C.C.F. ever came to power, a new idea of closure. The last time this subject was debated hon. members of that group indicated that they wanted more information on the subject, that they needed certain particulars dealing with the export of the product concerned, yet today they move to close the debate so that it could not be re-opened in this house. Is that a proper procedure to adopt? Is that the way to obtain further information on the subject? Is it wise to attempt to banish this measure from the House of Commons? If that is the type of thing hon. gentlemen of that group would do if they were in power I certainly would not like it and I know that many other Canadians also would object.
This bill seeks to incorporate the Aurora Pipe Line Company which would then apply to the national energy board for permission to export condensates. Perhaps no hon. member is able to give all the details sought by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) but that hon. gentleman after saying that he wanted exact details now seeks to close the debate. If this measure is passed it can go to a committee where the hon. gentleman may ask questions on every particular to his heart's content.
Last Tuesday the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) set out quite clearly the percentage of Canadian ownership of the company and its exact makeup. Certainly that question should be answered in the minds of the hon. members of the C.C.F. group.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Chown) in his opening remarks in introducing this bill stated that the Aurora Pipe Line Company would export its product into an area where no Canadian crude oil or condensates are now going. He mentioned that Pembina Pipe Line Limited, a large company in western Canada owned by the Foothills Company of western Alberta actually planned to build a pipe line with a potential capacity of exporting 100,000 barrels a day and an

estimated export of 70,000 to 75,000 barrels a day. Aurora Pipe Line Company wishes to build a line 41 miles long to the United States border. Running at full capacity the company feels it would be able to potentially export only 31,000 barrels a day with an estimated export of 11,000 barrels a day.
Those who are afraid that this pipe line is going to put everyone else out of business should closely examine the figures relating to total capacity. The export would be limited by the size of the pipe line of the company. In any case it seems to me that Pembina would go ahead and build their line and if Aurora thought it was feasible to build their line for an export of 11,000 barrels a day they would proceed to do so.
With the expanded exportation of natural gas greater amounts of condensates are becoming available. Soon or later we are going to have a surplus of this product in Alberta if we have not one already. Certainly two oil lines provide a greater area in which we can export these products to United States markets. I fail to see why there is so much objection to this on the part of some hon. gentlemen in this house.
The Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited have carried on in the past and will continue to carry on considerable exploration work in Alberta and elsewhere in western Canada. They have spent quite a bit of money in this respect. A great many Canadians are employed by this oil company and with the greater markets that would be available more Canadians would be employed in producing these by-products of natural gas. I see no objection to this and I hope other hon. members do not.
Some hon. members are bothered by the lack of full details. We have established a national energy board to look into the questions of Canadian ownership in these companies, the feasibility of the markets the companies wish to develop and explore and whether the product can be made readily available without injuring established pipe line companies and so forth. Certainly we should allow the energy board to do the job for which it was established.
Even after they have been approved by the Alberta conservation board they have to go before the energy board, and therefore all that this bill is doing is permitting this company to become incorporated. Certainly the more companies that are incorporated the greater chances we have of exporting more of a given product. That is the ultimate aim of every Alberta member here and I hope it is the aim of every hon. member.
We want to export more of these byproducts that are becoming available with
Private Bills
the export of natural gas because, if we do not export them, they will pile up, become surplus, and be of practically no value at all. Now that we have done away with this new form of closure, I urge all hon. members to support this measure and let it pass.


Mr. E. W. Brunsden (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), many of us in this house are not authorities on every subject that comes before the house.


Mr. Peters:: That is your misfortune. Don't blame the hon. member for Skeena for being so smart.


Edwin William Brunsden: Regardless of whether the subject is unemployment, housing, industry, trade or finance, from the far corner of the house comes a long drawn out, argumentative, discussion as to what this government should do.
With respect to this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I live, along with my friend from Acadia, in the heart of the oil country of Canada. I am a little older than the hon. member for Acadia, and I have seen the oil industry grow from infancy in southern Alberta. Never having had enough money to become interested financially I am not an authority on oil, but I do know that in Alberta, yes in every province of Canada, and in this house, we speak constantly of the need for wider markets for Canadian products. We are assured by our authorities in the oil industry-and there are one or two of them in this house-that we have ample supplies of gas and oil in our prairie region to take care of all the needs of Canada for many years to come.
We heard today something of the languishing coal industry in Canada. Coal no longer is a prime commodity, and with the tremendous development in nuclear research there could be a day in the future when gas and oil could be in a position somewhat comparable to coal today. If we have this valuable product available for a market, if we have a market available for the product, it seems to me to be only common sense to embrace now that market and increase and enhance our marketing position.
I am not concerned about the apparent dispute between supplying eastern Canada and parts of the United States. I believe our reserves will supply both. Certainly, so far as this bill is concerned, it should be adopted and work should proceed.
Here is an industry which each year attracts more and more men to it. In my own little town of Brooks I would say that 20 per cent of the enhanced population of the

The Budget-Mr. Sevigny last few years directly or indirectly are engaged in this industry. These people draw wages; they buy food; they buy necessities, and every time you develop a new outlet for gas and oil you are improving the employment and trade position of western Canada.
But my friend from Skeena seems to be quite concerned about whether or not this company may run away with something. My hon. friend from Acadia mentioned the national energy board. We recall the discussion on that board in this house; we recall the establishment of that board. It might assist the hon. member for Skeena if I placed on Hansard clause 5 of Bill No. S-2, which reads:
The company shall have all the powers, privileges and immunities conferred by, and be subject to all the limitations, liabilities and provisions of the National Energy Board Act, and any other general legislation relating to pipe lines enacted by parliament with respect to the transmission and transportation of oil and other liquid hydrocarbons.
The national energy board reports to parliament. There is the safeguard for the people of Canada with respect to the operation of this particular company after incorporation, and it seems to me that that should be sufficient for all of us.
May I call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Arnold Peters: I heard the hon. member call .it six o'clock. If that is not the wish of his friends I should like to call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is not six o'clock. Unless there is unanimous consent to call it six o'clock, I cannot call it six o'clock. Do I understand the hon. member for Medicine Hat has finished his remarks?


Edwin William Brunsden: No; I was deceived by the clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that I shall call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[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.
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, since the house resumed its sittings we have all heard the long concert of lamentations on the part of speakers from the official opposition concerning the state of the economy. We have heard speaker after speaker rise from his seat and blame the government for all the sins and omissions which may exist in our economy and for all the ills and troubles which may afflict this country. When we listen to these hon. members we have the impression that all that is happening has been caused by the government and that government actions alone are responsible for the conditions which afflict certain sectors of our economy. The fact that what is happening in our nation is provoked by a period of economic readjustment which prevails throughout the world and by the effects of automation which have deeply influenced the industries of our nation is ignored and, as I said before, the government is blamed for everything and the cause of all that is happening is not sought elsewhere. Yet the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) denies that this is so and as recently as January 20 he said, as found on page 1271 of Hansard:
I know quite well... that In a mixed economy with, the private sector quite rightly being the most important sector of the economy, the government alone cannot and should not be asked to ensure full employment. This depends on the work, energy and initiative of the citizens and on an association of all the economic elements in our society, whose co-operation with government and whose vigour and enterprise on their own are essential if we are going to have full employment in this country. There is no doubt about that. There has to be this kind of co-operation before the government can be blamed for the inadequacies of its policies.
In spite of this affirmation on the part of their leader, especially in spite of the fact, as I have said before, that the measures adopted by the government in order to reduce the unemployment that does exist in certain sectors of our economy are similar to the measures adopted by the committee of congress which advises United States leaders concerning the question of economic stimulation; in spite of the fact that the measures which we re-introduced in the speech from the throne and which are contained in the preliminary budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), and which were copied by the Liberals during their recent rally, you will nevertheless during the weeks and months to come see the Liberals rise one after the other, whether it be in this house or when they are making speeches throughout the nation or speaking over radio or television, and talk about unemployment and blame the present government for all that is happening in the nation.

(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, these last few weeks I said many times across the country and I want to repeat it again in this house that, in talking so often of winter unemployment, hardships and poverty, in misrepresenting the economic situation which after all is extremely advantageous to the great majority of our citizens, in repeating that this country is on the road to ruin, in fostering a climate of pessimism, our friends opposite, and the official Liberal opposition in particular, are creating more unemployment and hardship in this country.
In fact, we can already see in the various provinces of this country, industries setting aside expansion plans as a result of such gloomy speeches, because they are worried about the future.
In the business field, we heard about slowdowns and lay-offs because management is influenced by this atmosphere of gloom and doom which the Liberals both in this house and outside, have been spreading across the country.


An hon. Member:: Quite true.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: There may be people who would be willing to make certain necessary expenditures for their business or their family's welfare, but they are worried about the future and decide instead to cut down expenditures, thus depriving the nation of a buying power that could help reduce the number of unemployed.
The preaching of gloom and doom which is an integral part of our Liberal opponents' policy and which they threaten to continue is extremely harmful to the interests of the nation. If it goes on, the results may well be beyond repair,
Mr. Speaker, our friends in the Liberal opposition are waging an ideological war against the Canadian people. It is not a new war; it is based on psychological arguments that have already been used in this century, with disastrous and even fatal results, on several instances.
Thus, in exploiting the misery and distress which prevailed in their countries, Mussolini and Hitler managed to gain power and to impose upon the Italian and German peoples their dictatorial ideology. Finally- and that is a sad story that everyone knows- those two men put the world to fire and sword, and drove democracy as we know it to the brink of ruin.
Today, we see another ideology, that of the communists, spreading all over the world, through the exploitation of poverty, misery 90205-6-87
and unemployment. It is among those who suffer that communism is gaining ground.
Of course I am not accusing my friends opposite, whom I respect and like, and who have often contributed in the past to the development of our nation, of necessarily and wilfully playing into the hands of the communists. However, through their usual lack of foresight, and perhaps also because they are the victims of their desire to return to office, they have been behaving in such a way, with that policy of gloom which they are spreading across the country as to play into the hands of those communist adventurers who seek to get a foothold in this country and who, if successful, will certainly cause as much harm in this country as in every country where they have managed to spread their doctrine and gain control of the government.
Consequently, even if it is sensible to make some constructive criticism and to suggest methods which might help the workers in this country find jobs, I think it is a bad thing to speak constantly of unemployment and distress, as the members of the Liberal opposition are doing, because unemployment is aggravated by that very fact, and results in greater hardship.
In some quarters, it might be considered that such talk is efficient political manoeuvring. Unfortunately, the method is detrimental to national economy and certainly does not rouse in the Canadian people the respect which the Liberal opposition wants. And I am convinced that such practice will not succeed in earning for our friends opposite the people's trust which they seem to seek by every possible means.
Mr. Speaker, I should also like to say a few words on a certain policy which was announced by our hon. friends from the Liberal party during their recent rally. I refer in this instance, to the resolutions which have been passed in the field of education. I really wonder if the Liberals honestly think they can convince the Canadian people that it is just and reasonable for the federal government to interfere in this field of education which is exclusively a provincial matter.
No wonder that following resolutions moved at that convention, we could read in the various newspapers of this country and more paricularly in Le Devoir of Thursday, January 12, 1961, an article from which I will quote two excerpts:
The autonomists, if there were any among the delegates, must have received quite a jolt Tuesday night when the report of the Liberal convention committee on education was adopted. The party advances more and more deliberately and deeply on the road of federal interference in the field of education and of assistance to education. It must

The Budget-Mr. Sevigny
be said that it is rather surprising and painful to see that the resolutions contained in the report have been adopted without a single voice being raised among the 2,000 delegates to point out the danger of the policy stated in that document. In fact, the vote on the report followed three long speeches, one of which was made by Mr. Lionel Chevrier; the other interventions were also favourable.
For a man concerned about provincial autonomy and the spirit or even the letter of the constitution, as interpreted by the most competent courts, it is extremely difficult to approve, even on grounds of national emergency, the principles of the Liberal convention resolution. To recognize the principles of this report is like putting dynamite in our constitutional structure and setting fire to the fuse at the same time to make it explode. The Liberal party declared itself in favour of a mass offensive against provincial exclusiveness in the field of education. No other conclusion can be drawn.
This article which I just read and which was written by Mr. Clement Brown, indicates clearly the state of mind of all those who followed the activities of the Liberal party during its recent convention and who, like us, are shocked at this centralizing attitude on the part of the Liberals. They should have learned something from the experience of these recent years but it seems that far from learning anything-as I said previously in my speech-they did not forget aything and did not learn anything either.
It is evident that this centralizing philosophy of our opponents is in direct opposition to our own policy which insists on the respect of provincial rights and on the safeguard of the confederation agreement.
It was rather hard, Mr. Speaker, to find a solution to that problem of assistance to our universities. Are we going to start once again another similar debate? Are we going to let a Liberal group infringe upon the rights of the provinces in the field of education and restrict their rights in the field of primary education, which after all is what the Liberals suggested in the resolutions adopted at their recent convention.
Mr. Speaker, I think that my time has expired and I resume my seat.
(Text):


Walter George Pitman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin my remarks by quoting the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in his speech when he presented his baby budget to this house last December as reported at page 1015 of Hansard:
The government has its sphere of responsibility; the citizen has his.
No words could have greater truth; no words could possibly be less disputed by any party in this house. To begin in a rather philosophical mood, may I say that this is the problem that is facing every government

in every part of the world. Every government has to face the problem of freedom and efficiency. Freedom without efficiency may well create anarchy and chaos. It may mean freedom to be unemployed; it may mean freedom to be without education or opportunities; proper housing and so on. On the other hand, efficiency without freedom may mean that a man has lost his most precious possessions, namely that of initiative and that of personal opinion. Hence every government seeks to find a place between and a balance.
I would suggest to this house humbly tonight that we on the North American continent have not had to find this balance and that we have not had to face the stark reality of thinking dynamically about government since the second world war. This is the situation largely because prosperity has been handed to us on a silver platter. We have been able to have freedom and not to worry too much about efficiency simply because after the second world war the world sought our products. We were in a position of advantage, and not until the last few years has this position been in any way endangered.
The United States of America has had a similar advantage. Hence I would suggest tonight that this continuous concern about whether the United States unemployment is higher than that of Canada really has little relevancy. I would suggest tonight that neither of these nations is in a position to add much in connection with this problem of deciding what kind of government activity Canada needs.
A United Nations survey declared a short time ago that Canada and the United States are the only two nations in the world with a high economy which are unable to solve the problem of unemployment. I think this is a significant statement which makes somewhat unreal the great deal of concern we have had expressed over the last couple of days in connection with comparisons with the United States. It appears that we are both in the same boat and that neither country has come to grips with this problem. I believe it is we who are out of step with other nations in the world that have found solutions to unemployment because, since the second world war, we have not been driven to thinking and re-thinking our position, we have not sought these same solutions.
Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) spoke truly when he said that the government has its sphere of responsibilities.
I would ask tonight whether we have stopped thinking dynamically about the possibilities and the flexibilities of our democratic system in dealing with our economy in the

twentieth century? Have we indeed reverted to the 1930's belief that government cannot really do very much? If we accept as a slogan, at least on the government side, that prosperity is just around the corner, that all we have to do is to bolster confidence in the status quo, "Prosperity is just around the corner" might be called the slogan of the Hoover administration and perhaps the epitaph of the present administration.
We have been told that full employment is some kind of Elysian field, that Canadians are to be deprived from entering into it at least on this side of the grave, and Canadians have no right to expect that the government can provide full employment. Let us look a little bit further than the North American continent. Let us look at Norway, where in the 1930's there was 38.9 per cent of the working force idle, but today Norway accepts full employment as the basis of its economic system. It is quite clear that it is the duty of the state to ensure that full employment be obtained.
If you want to search in other directions, look at the commonwealth countries. In New Zealand-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Look at Saskatchewan.


Walter George Pitman: Look at the full employment in New Zealand since 1957. There full employment is looked upon as the basis of national economy.
In Canada we expect to be erecting a model of democracy. Indeed our system of unemployment insurance gave us to believe that we did have some security in the area of employment. But instead of providing insurance for the unemployed we should have put more imagination into providing full employment. Unemployment insurance, indeed, only works properly in Canada under a full employment system. So today we have the irony that whereas other nations see their gross national product going up 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or even 10 per cent, ours is lagging at 2 per cent. Indeed when related to the population growth it is going down and has not increased during the last three years.
While other nations expand and grow, Canada has paid out $415 million in unemployment relief; we are paying out millions of dollars in local welfare; we are losing millions of dollars in revenue in unpaid income taxes; we are losing millions of dollars in revenue in unpaid municipal taxes, and we are losing billions of dollars in productivity. What does all this capital produce? It produces nothing. It simply allows men to subsist rather than serve the community.
90205-6-874
The Budget-Mr. Pitman


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


Walter George Pitman: 1 certainly would.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Has the hon. member figured out what Saskatchewan has lost in terms of at least the population that has left that province because of the socialist-type government's failure to create jobs in that province?


Walter George Pitman: Yes, I read the article in the Globe and Mail this morning.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am not referring to the article in the Globe and Mail. I asked you a question.


Walter George Pitman: I think if the hon. member would look at the situation in Saskatchewan he might well find the reasons for this change.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I was born and raised
in Saskatchewan.
An hen. Member: We can't help it.


Walter George Pitman: Indeed, I think the economy has done very well in certain of its sectors.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And half of the citizens of Alberta were born and raised in Saskatchewan.


Walter George Pitman: The government has indicated that today there are more people at work than ever before. I suggest, rather, that there are more people in mental hospitals and more in jails as well.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They have to go to Alberta to find work.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind hon. members that they cannot interrupt the member who has the floor unless they have obtained prior permission to do so.


Walter George Pitman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the government will not wish to take the responsibility for this. But what we are really saying is that there are simply more people who need employment. Many of us on this side of the house looked to the Minister of Finance to reverse this trend. We looked to the ministry as a whole over the last three months to come forth with solutions. In many cases I think they have made an attempt to reverse this situation. I speak particularly of the legislation with regard to loans to small businesses.
Here indeed something has been done which has benefited certainly the Peterborough area. I am hoping that when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) brings down his legislation it will deal dynamically with that sector of our economy as well, because perhaps one of the things we have forgotten is that farm income has been going
1374	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Pitman down over the last ten years. Farms which once supported three or four young men now only support one, especially when a farm area is near an urban area, which means that three or four young men end up by going into the city, becoming part of the labour force there and eventually are laid off and find themselves in the line-up in front of the unemployment office. I think the legislation which was put through with regard to vocational training will have a long term effect; but surely we need to do something which will deal with this problem immediately.
When we look at this budget there are things which are indeed good; for example, the tax relief for university students. However, we have also looked for something which will put more money into the hands of the people of Canada for purchasing, not money that will lay idle but will be put immediately into the hands of the people of Canada and used in this respect.
We on this side of the house must express certain disappointments in respect to the budget. As a recommendation from this group we would suggest that we in Canada need to take a new look at fiscal and monetary policies. The minister has indicated that flexibility is the order of the day, and indeed it is. This government has dealt successfully with the threat of inflation, but unfortunately it is still carrying on the war against inflation when the enemy has gone and the battlefield is empty. We now have a recession, and the policies which successfully dealt with inflation are not policies which will deal with a recession.
The minister had hoped for a surplus, and found a deficit, much to the joy of the Liberal party. But I think this is essentially irrelevant. The point is that neither the hoped for surplus or the small deficit will do the job which Canada needs to be done today. We need an interim policy of deficit financing on a scale which has up until now been unheard of. I realize the Liberals have also suggested this, and perhaps this is where the new and the old meet.
It is strange that we expect individuals to plan their financial affairs and yet we regard governments as beyond the pale. If a man with a salary of $5,000 a year spent the whole $5,000 by October and then issued bad cheques for the rest of the year, he would find himself in jail. Yet we believe that governments can go on in this fashion and no real harm will take place. Why are we so convinced that individual planning is good but corporate planning is wrong? Why do we have so much faith that the businessmen of this country are able to solve the problem of unemployment for us? They are so much concerned


with trying to keep their business activities solvent that we can scarcely expect them to solve the problem of unemployment as well.
We live in an age when statistics are available and where expert advice is present, and yet we simply cannot use it to organize and plan our economy in a way which would give Canada the kind of economic organization she deserves. The Minister of Finance mentioned that the boys and girls of the 1940's were crowding the schools and now they have arrived on the labour market. But we knew that 15 years ago. We also know that recessions are a recurring thing and yet we are seemingly not doing very much about it on this side of the Atlantic. I think deficit financing on a short term basis can be good. I think it is the only way we can encourage the growth of our economy at this time. This can be done by putting men back to work and increasing the productivity of our nation. There is no danger of inflation so long as this recession continues.
What can be done with the capital which would be so created? Surely what we need in this country is an expansion of our public authority. We are paying out billions of dollars to remedy the situation, and yet nothing has been done about it. There are hospitals to be built; there are roads to be constructed; there are health centres, recreation centres to be constructed. Schools need classrooms. We know that within ten years, according to the statistics, we will need ten new universities. We realize that people coming out of high schools will soon be going into universities. We need low rental housing in this country. Yet we are paying to have men remain idle while there is so much to be done.
Surely these are things which we could be doing at this time. It has been proved that if works are begun and continued the whole process "snowballs" and the public sector benefits as well.
Our construction industry is operating at only 60 per cent efficiency. It provides 20 per cent of our gross product. A winter works program is not enough. Capital must be injected over a long period of time if the "snowballing" effect is to take place and the whole economy is to be strengthened.
I am inclined to suggest that even in such an area as athletics something could be done. Last year a great deal of regret was expressed because our athletes did so badly in the Olympic games. We see that according to the speech from the throne that the government intends to bring in, by legislation or otherwise, measures to encourage the youth of Canada to take part in amateur athletics. But, surely, the major problem in this regard is that there are no adequate facilities. Olympic failures are unimportant except inasmuch

as they reflect on the bodily health and development of the whole nation. It does not matter very much, for example, that Australian swimmers won most of the gold medals. The point is that many thousands of Australian swimmers had opportunities to train and prepare themselves. It does not matter that the U.S.S.R. won all the gold medals in the gymnastic field. The point is that 70,000 Russian gymnasts had been trained in this program and provided the pool from which the final team could be drawn.
How can Canada take a successful part in athletics with the facilities we have? There is not one single regulation track in my constituency. There is only one regulation swimming pool in the whole of Ontario. I would suggest that sending people to the Olympics on this basis is an exercise in futility. Here is an area where something could be done. Other countries have done it, and we could do much to improve the health' welfare, education and culture of the Canadian people. By expanding the public authority we could create and strengthen the private sector and provide capital for investment which in turn would strengthen the private part of our economy.
I think we would do well to look to other countries, not because we in Canada have not the same ability to solve our problems but because, perhaps, we have not been obliged to take such action in the past. In Sweden government projects are all planned to be carried out in the off season. Special funds are allocated to be released as soon as unemployment figures reach a certain point. Government orders are stepped up at certain periods and tax laws are designed to encourage industry to build up investment funds rather than to overexpand, and release funds when a recession begins.
Here in Canada we have a problem involving the mobility of workers. Many men refuse to leave their own communities because they are liable to lose welfare benefits and, perhaps, because there is a possibility that when they reach the new areas the jobs will have disappeared. In Sweden the government undertakes to move workers to areas where jobs exist. The cost of such movement is paid and, if necessary, prefabricated houses are erected to accommodate the men and their families when they arrive.
In Norway there is provision for dynamic public works schemes. Long term loans for housing are available at the low interest rate of 3 per cent and control is exercised over unreasonable prices and profits. In Britain they stop industries from settling in congested areas of low unemployment and
The Budget-Mr. Pitman induce them to settle in areas where unemployment is prevalent. I realize that the Minister of Finance has looked into this aspect of the question and promised double depreciation in respect to capital expenditure in the first year, applied to the first three years, in the case of industries settling in chronically depressed areas.
Three years ago Peterborough was named a model city in this nation. Especially it is regarded as a tourist paradise with its beautiful lakes and rivers and glorious countryside. But it was also noted for its economic health and growth. Today it is still a tourist paradise but, I am sorry to say, it may now perhaps be counted, in the terminology of the minister, as a depressed area. I find it very hard to speak of this constituency as a depressed area. I think it is deplorable that in a country with all the advantages we have there should be depressed areas. On the other hand I wonder just how it would be decided what are the depressed areas of this Canada of ours. Would it be based on unemployment figures such as four or five thousand unemployed in this city of 40,000 and its surrounding area? Would it be based on general welfare figures which are up by 400 per cent compared with the same month of last year? I hope some reasonable and fair method of determining what are to be called depressed areas may be adopted and that no cynical method based on political advantage will be introduced.
We have been thinking a great deal about this problem of unemployment in our constituency. It has been a matter of great concern, because the affairs of the country have, in a sense, been concentrated in Peterborough. As a result there has been a great deal of talk and writing. Those concerned with the industries of the community were asked exactly what is wrong, in their opinion, not with the Peterborough area alone but with the economy as a whole. As a result, the Peterborough Examiner ran a series of articles, and I should like in particular to quote one editorial which had this to say:
There is no political magic. A fundamental, radical, drastic reorganization of the economy is the prospect which, I think, faces us. There will be many to disagree. A plan for industrial expansion, tax reassessment, a drastic reduction of waste, a reduction in the cost, and undoubtedly the standard of living, a radical re-examination of political economy; these things are either needed or in the offing. If disarmament should come about they will be urgent.
These are some of the questions I will leave with both the minister and this government to think over. What would happen if suddenly disarmament were to come about. Are we going to approach the subject of disarmament with our tongues in our cheeks,

The Budget-Mr. Pitman our minds made up that it will not take place? What would happen to our economy it it did?
Second, what is going to happen when Canadian trade has to compete more openly and more often with what low-wage countries have to offer? The gap is widening, between the "haves" and the "have nots" and it is serious. The people of these countries know what the situation is; they are no longer ignorant of our wealth as they were some 20 years ago when tariff barriers were regarded as a solution. We live in a world where two people out of every three go to bed every night hungry. Will we raise tariffs and make the situation worse? How are we going to compete with these low-wage countries? Would it be by greater efficiency and automation which will, at the beginning at least, create still more unemployment, though it will cut down cost of production?
These questions will have to be answered in the near future. What will happen when the U.S.S.R. and communist China decide to disrupt world trade by entering world markets? Will the economic organization of the Canadian nation be able to deal with that situation? These are reasons why I think, we need, tonight to think and re-think far more about the very basis of our economy. Can we any longer afford an economy where waste and obsolescence are the order of the day? Such far-reaching questions as these will come before the people very soon. I sincerely hope the government of the day will have answers to them.


Mr. Speakman:: Would the hon. member permit a question. Has the hon. member made a comparison between Canada and some of the Scandinavian countries, countries of very small area and heavily concentrated population? Would he not be fair enough to carry his comparisons further and compare them with Canada geographically, on the basis of per capita income, population and so on?


An hon. Member:: And standard of living.


Walter George Pitman: I do not think that question is too relevant to what we are considering at the moment, this matter of relative populations and so on, but I suggest it is perhaps only a matter of degree and that the answers would not make any great difference.


David James Walker: I want to congratulate the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Pitman) and tell him that he is a very eloquent speaker and also that in time, with experience in the house such as many of us, including myself, still need, he will find that these problems are not solved as simply as he would indicate. I want to congratulate him anyway. I should

like to have an hour or so to spend with the hon. gentleman during which time we could compare the record of this government during its three years in office with that of the preceding government. We have loaned 16 times as much money to build housing. Since we came into office more than 500,000 new homes have been built in Canada including a great many low rental housing developments. It is my earnest hope that the present hon. member for Peterborough will some day attain the distinction, charm, warmth and kindness of his very distinguished predecessor the late Mr. Gordon Fraser in this house.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) made a speech in connection with this baby budget during which he made many references to the copious resolutions passed at the Liberal rally. May I briefly, dispassionately and in a kindly way make reference to some of those resolutions and draw a comparison between the words used at the rally and the actions of the preceding government.
Turning first to the question of foreign trade-and all of these subjects are applicable to the baby budget-the Liberal rally pledged;
-the exploration of the possibilities of Canadian participation in regional trade blocs-
They pledged to expand Canada's foreign trade, and yet for eight years under the Liberal administration that government failed to take any steps to implement its obligations in this respect under the North Atlantic treaty of 1949. When the opposition of that day entreated the Liberal government to take some action the present Leader of the Opposition who was then secretary of state for external affairs admitted that he had had a considerable amount to do with introducing into the North Atlantic treaty article II which became known as the Canada clause, the effect of which was to urge the creation of an organization for European economic co-operation and development. When the hon. gentleman was challenged about that in the house he said, as reported at page 1657 of Hansard of 1952 that this was not practicable, remonstrating that;
-in attempting to reduce the barriers to trade, we have to be careful not to introduce arrangements which would cut across arrangements already made between members of larger organizationssuch as the United Nations and GATT. The result has been, of course, that the European allies have now formed trade blocs among themselves and we are endeavouring as best we can to re-establish ourselves in our second largest export market and get our foot in the door through the organization for European economic co-operation and development.
In connection with the Bank of Canada that eloquent ghost writer for the Liberal party who writes so many speeches for so many of

the frontbenchers, Mr. Maurice Lamontagne, who was chairman of the rally's committee on this subject, submitted a resolution asserting in part that:
-a new Liberal government would reassert control over Bank of Canada policy and shift it sharply away from credit restraint. This would mean more easily available loans and lower interest rates.
All during the regime of the Liberals they maintained a hands-off policy with respect to the Bank of Canada. They maintained that they had no control over the monetary policies of the Bank of Canada. Referring in parliament to the tight credit situation that existed in 1956 no less distinguished a member of the former government than the Hon. Mr. Harris, the then minister of finance, as reported at page 2216 of Hansard of that year, when discussing tight money and higher interest rates, suggested that these undesirable conditions could have been avoided, admitting that:
-it is true that the Bank of Canada could have further increased the supply of money and credit.
In other words at that time the hon. gentleman blamed the tight money situation on the Bank of Canada and admitted that the government of the day was powerless to control it. Yet the ghost writer of the Liberal party at the recent rally suggested that the government should re-assert control over the Bank of Canada, an agency that the Liberals always failed to control.
The resolution in connection with the exchange value of the dollar was highly eloquent. As a step to create more employment, the rally approved proposals to reduce the high exchange value of the Canadian dollar. This indicates that that part of the resolution must have been written a month ahead of the convention, no doubt by Mr. Lamontagne, because it is completely out of date and was completely out of date when the rally took place. The Conservative government, due to the brilliant baby budget introduced by the Minister of Finance, had at that time already reduced the Canadian dollar almost to par.
In his 1957 budget speech the Liberal Hon. Walter Harris boasted of the 4 per cent rise in the exchange value of our dollar during the previous 12 months and sought praise for this rise as a factor minimizing price increases in Canada. The hon. gentleman said on that occasion as reported at page 2216 of Hansard:
I should add that Canadian, prices would have risen by more than they did had it not been for the 4 per cent rise in the external value of the dollar.
In those days hon. gentlemen opposite boasted about increasing the exchange value
The Budget-Mr. Walker of our dollar and yet in the recent resolutions they seek to reduce it to par even though the resolution appears to have been written a month before the rally was held because a reduction had already occurred.
In connection with Canadian ownership in Canada of Canadian companies the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has done a thorough job in imposing the 15 per cent withholding tax. The rally resolved that action be taken to encourage Canadian participation in ownership of Canadian enterprises and to extend the principle that the boards of Canadian companies should comprise a majority of Canadian directors. That, too, must have been written a month before the rally took place because that is exactly what our Minister of Finance did in the interim. May I recall to the Liberals who, after having been thrown from office, have had a change of heart because they did not think that way even in 1957 when, as reported at page 2214 of Hansard of that year, the then Liberal minister of finance, the Hon. Walter Harris said:
-the most striking feature of 1956 was the extraordinary increase in capital investment. 1956 was the greatest year of capital expansion in our recent history. A good deal of this investment program was financed from outside Canada.
The hon. gentleman was boasting about it at that time but now hon. gentlemen opposite would do away with this. The hon. gentleman also went on to say:
The net inflow of capital into Canada was $1.4 billion.
That year's inflow represents about one twelfth of Canada's foreign debt at the present time. There was no aid to Canadians at that time but there was 100 per cent aid to the people of the United States including the putting up of $100 million by way of a loan to foreigners to help them build the trans-Canada pipe line.
Just to show both faces of hon. gentlemen opposite, let me refer to what was said at the Liberal rally with respect to the question of unemployment insurance. The subcommittee on unemployment advocated the payment of higher unemployment benefits, including supplementary payments which would raise the benefits to two thirds of the previous earnings of any unemployed person undertaking a vocational training course to equip him for another job.
My hon. friends opposite went so far as to recommend that this assistance should be increased but they left it to the Conservative government to do so. Although the hon. gentlemen opposite recommend that these payments should be increased at this time I recall that not so long ago the hon. member for

The Budget-Mr. Walker Essex East (Mr. Martin) challenged the government by saying that the unemployment insurance fund was going to soon run dry and dared the government to attempt to replenish the fund by requiring:
-employers and employees to pay increased contributions on top of the 30 per cent increase put into effect last year.
In other words, my hon. friends advocate one thing and yet in the past they have always done another.
Turning to the question of industrial research I wish to pay a tribute to the Conservative hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy). Year in and year out that hon. gentleman has insisted in parliament that a great deal of the industrial research done by United States companies should be undertaken in Canada giving employment to Canadians, especially that undertaken by the subsidiaries of these foreign corporations. In vain the hon. member urged the former Liberal government to establish a committee to explore ways of encouraging more industrial research in Canada. The former Liberal minister of trade and commerce, Mr. Howe, brusquely rejected this proposal year after year and urged the voters in the constituency of Lambton West, on the occasion of a visit to that area, to "get that man Murphy off my back". At present, however, the Liberal rally has adopted a resolution urging that which the hon. member for Lambton West has been advocating for ten years.
Another inconsistency relates to the question of national defence. I might respectfully suggest here that the Liberal rally hit the international headlines through the support of our Nobel prize winner, the Leader of the Opposition, of a declaration made at the rally. The hon. gentleman gave his support to the rally's declaration in favour of a creative peace for Canada by withdrawing our forces from the active defence of North America and limiting our contribution to NORAD to air detection, identification and warning; in other words, to reduce Canada's role to that of bird watcher for the United States. But the same Leader of the Opposition told us in his comments in the 1957 debates-and I quote from page 1062 of Hansard, volume II-that the establishment of NORAD was:
-considered and, I think, approved by the officers ol the Department of National Defence and perhaps by the minister of national defence.
This was while the former Liberal government was still in office. Thus, the decision of this rally, supported by the Leader of the Opposition, is a volte-face from their attitude on the previous occasion.
I will not go into the question of a national flag-that was discussed at great length yesterday-except to quote from the book

by John Wesley Pickersgill that the question of a national flag was decided by an order in council supported by Mackenzie King on March 20, 1944, when an order in council was passed establishing the Canadian ensign as the national flag of Canada.


Mr. Pickersgill:: It was on September 5, 1945.


David James Walker: On September 5, 1945, yes.
I guess it was in the entry in the diary of March 20, 1944, when Mackenzie King said:
Before waking, I was dreaming of the union jack. Felt that it could be proclaimed the national flag of the United Kingdom, that the dominions could each have its own distinctive flag as well, with a union jack in the corner to show historical evolution and present association with the United Kingdom.
As the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate (Mr. Pickersgill) said:
At caucus a week later, Mackenzie King advised that Canada take the Canadian ensign and accept it at once as her national flag.
And, as he just said, on September 5, 1945 that order in council was passed and the French-Canadian secretary of state, the Hon. Roch Pinard, at page 3216 of Hansard of 1955, told the House of Commons:
The red ensign, as recently explained by the prime minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was adopted as a distinctive Canadian flag by order in council on September 5, 1945.
I should like to talk about health insurance also. The Liberal convention, not just this last time but away back in 1919, had as its most distinctive role at that time the advocacy of a national health scheme. Twenty five years later the public were still fooled on that subject. I quote from the "Mackenzie King Record" by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate at page 635, where he said:
The cabinet had never made a definite decision.
But the cabinet then agreed that Mackenzie King should look into the matter. He consulted the deputy minister of finance, and then he confided to his diary that at a time when Canada, with the rest of the world was having unprecedented prosperity:
Frankly, I did not think the treasury could stand it.
Still, years later-


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the midst of war.


David James Walker: -when the treasury built up big annual surpluses the Liberal government took no action, when it was in a position to do so. But now, with a deficit of $300 million, brought about in an effort to solve unemployment, we have the Liberal rally in the face of that advocating at this time the introduction of a national health scheme, regardless of the cost. They do not want

any royal commission; they want to investigate nothing; they want to get this thing under way at the present time.
I could go on and deal with old age pensions. The Liberal rally approved an increase in those pensions, and yet one of the last things Walter Harris did in March, 1957, and I quote from page 2222 of Hansard, was this, he expressed the Liberal government's approval of the addition of a mere $6 to the then monthly payment of $40 by saying:
We are happy to be able to improve old age security payments.
Hon. members know what happened.
To dispose of Canadian agricultural surpluses the rally recommended that support be given to the establishment of a world food bank. At the NATO council meeting in Paris on December 16, 1957 the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) made that suggestion. That is more than three years ago, and he reiterated it just a few months ago in probably the greatest speech ever made at the United Nations in reply to Mr. Khrushchev.
The Liberal rally adopted a resolution to cut personal income taxes "during the present unemployment emergency" and to increase immediately the spending money available. Now to cut it even slightly would result in a reduction of $500 million in government revenue. They advocated the cutting of the income tax and at the same time they adopted resolutions having to do with health insurance, increased pensions, increased vocational training and an increased public works program as well as increased urban redevelopment. They advocated measures and policies which, if inaugurated, would cost the Canadian taxpayers anywhere from $1 billion to $1.5 billion. It is almost impossible to work it out.


An hon. Member:: A year.


David James Walker: Quite right, a year. I appreciate that addition; it is a very helpful one.
The main thing is that they are going to cut down our income tax. What is the total income tax collection in Canada in one year? It is approximately $1.6 billion, and yet they are going to add $1.5 billion to federal expenditures. In other words, what they have suggested is that the net additional costs of the proposals put forward at the rally would call for higher taxation equivalent to double the present income tax. What do you think of that, Mr. Speaker? Do we wish our income tax doubled? Emerson wrote-I do not necessarily agree with him:
Who dares think one thing and another tell, my heart detests him like the gates of hell.
I do not apply this to the Liberals at all, but I am respectfully suggesting-and it is
The Budget-Mr. Walker very seldom that I am as respectful as I am tonight-that never in Canadian history was there a more shameless vote-catching exhibition than that in which the Leader of the Opposition indulged. I might expect it from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate. This Liberal rally was in reality a study in vote-catching.
I should like to touch on the question of unemployment. Nobody can overestimate the seriousness of this problem. I know it, and we all know it. I worry about it. We all hate to see people unhappy, particularly wives and children. We hate to see the demoralizing effect of unemployment on the poor unfortunate person who is unemployed. Let me say quite frankly, this situation is going to be worse before it is better. The hon. member for Peterborough will appreciate this as well. What I say is that it is no consolation for us to point out that under Liberal regimes in the past we have had very high unemployment figures. This is only playing politics on either side of the house. We know it is a serious problem and we know we must do our best to solve it. Also, it is no consolation to say that the figures in the United States are enormously high at the present time. That is no consolation. But perhaps the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) will not mind my pointing out to him that some of the figures that he slipped in this afternoon-and I did not see them until afterwards-were figures for only the first 11 months of the year. He forgot to tell us that. Perhaps he does not read the Globe and Mail. I have here an Associated Press dispatch from Washington which appeared in the Globe and Mail of January 23 and which reads in part as follows:
Labour Secretary Arthur Goldberg estimated the current number of unemployed at 5,500,000-
Not 4.5 million as has been bruited about.
-up one million from the reported mid-December total.
The total number of United States unemployed is 5.5 million. The labour force of the United States is 70.5 million and with 5.5 million unemployed in that country the percentage of unemployed is 7.8. Comparisons are difficult, Mr. Speaker. In the United States their armed forces have drained off the labour market 2i million young men. We have
120.000	in our armed forces. So you can see how difficult it is to compare these figures. Suppose even a part of the 2J million who are in the armed forces of the United States were on the labour market at the present time. What a tremendous change that would make in the percentage figures.
Again, is it fair to compare our figures of
528.000	at this season of the year in Canada,

The Budget-Mr. Walker the land of the north, where seasonal unemployment has always been one of the greatest bugbears right across Canada except on the west coast? We are greatly affected by seasonal unemployment whereas in the United States, with all their other unemployment, they do not have to contend in the same way with seasonal unemployment.
I am not criticizing. The hon. member for Laurier is putting his best foot forward. However, perhaps he could have helped us by bringing these figures up to date. Never mind. What can we do about the problem? Before we decide what we can do about it, what is the cause of it? We are not blaming it on the prior administration. We admit that when we took office in 1957 the government of Canada had been running down since the death of Mackenzie King but we are not stressing that at the moment.
We have an unemployment problem and on each side of the house it is admitted that it is caused largely as a result of the automation revolution by which machines have taken the place of manpower. In the pulp and paper business of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) one machine does the work which a short time ago was done by 200 men. Since 1947, 50 per cent of the farmers have left the land and yet the production of the farms is greater today than ever before. Machines are taking the place of manpower and great multitudes of men are unemployed for that reason. Farmers have come into the urban centres looking for jobs, and until that adjustment is made we are going to have the problem of unemployment.
The problem cannot be solved in a day. The hon. member for Essex East would have us solve it tomorrow but no less a person than their knight in shining white armour, Mr. Walter Gordon, is reported in this way in an article in the Ottawa Journal of January 20:
He expressed the opinion that little could be done to relieve unemployment within a short period of time-
There is no question that he is right about that. What can we do about the problem of unemployment caused by the automation revolution? First and foremost, we must educate for jobs the unemployed, 40 per cent of whom have not got past eighth grade. The day of the unskilled labourer in this country, particularly in urban areas, is almost at an end. Do not let any child leave school unless he has some trade, some vocation, some profession or is able to do something in which he is an expert. Even the farmer has to be an expert at the present time. So this vast federal program of vocational training is the finest thing that has

ever been done by any government to solve the age old problem of unemployment.
It is quite true that at the present time we would like to do something immediately. We cannot just leave this thing until everybody is educated for a new job and people are placed again in industry. We have to do something about it now. The $100 million winter works program in my Department of Public Works is an effort to do something in that regard. This magnificent municipal winter works program of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) is affording employment for hundreds of thousands of people and is a far greater success than was ever anticipated.
Then there is our new housing legislation. I am not boasting as its minister. I am simply giving facts. We are now allowing a new class of people to buy houses, people who have good, steady, but low incomes and are working hard and have never been able to get the down payment on a house. With the 95 per cent loan provision they can now buy a house and this is greatly increasing the demand for houses. Builders can build as many presold houses as they can get orders for. Here is a tremendous field if the Canadian people will accept the opportunity, because all we can do with these measures is to create the opportunity. Loans of $4,000 each guaranteed by the government can now be secured to improve a million and a half rental houses. If the owners of even one third of these houses would improve them during the winter months, just think of the great incentive that would be to employment, hundreds of thousands of jobs.
I could go on and mention the provisions of my department with respect to sewage disposal plants. Even the city of Toronto wants to take advantage of this and build a subway and class it as a sewage disposal plant. That subway sewage mix-up might happen some places but I would hate to suggest that could be said of my dear city of Toronto. Mighty incentives are being provided and we are getting immediate replies from right across Canada. We are going to create a lot of employment.
Then there is my department's provision respecting the construction of university residences. Each one that is built will create more employment. The government has also provided government guaranteed loans to small business. All we can do is to create opportunities. It is up to small business "to grasp the skirts of happy chance," as Tennyson once said, obtain their loans and start on the way to expanding their businesses. I had no ulterior motive when I said that.
The corporation tax is being reduced to 21 per cent on the first $35,000 of income. That is a great incentive to business to go ahead

and expand and create employment. The productivity council is one of our long range measures by which Canada is going to vastly increase its production. I am trying to deal with all these things in the time allocated to me. There is the matter of getting our dollar down to par, an objective in which the brilliant Minister of Finance has succeeded so admirably. The trade conference convened by the ebullient Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) should have a great effect on the economy of Canada and by increasing our exports result in a phenomenal increase in employment.
But, Mr. Speaker, the government cannot do it all. Last year our gross national product was greater than ever before but 5,000 municipal governments, 10 provincial governments and one federal government only accounted for 15 per cent of that gross national product. In other words, the goods and services produced by all levels of government only amounted to 15 per cent of our gross national product or our wealth.
Who then must solve the problem of unemployment? It falls upon the other 85 per cent who are engaged in free enterprise. The government is not shirking its responsibility. The government wants to lead, to encourage, to assist in creating opportunities for this 85 per cent by the legislation which we have passed. The problem is a tremendous one and I entreat the support of all the Canadian people in solving it.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate all those who have participated in this debate. The various points of view advanced, even by way of disagreement, should be helpful to all concerned. A sufficient time has elapsed since the supplementary budget, sometimes referred to as the baby budget, was introduced on December 20 last to formulate an accurate assessment of the event, the advance notices of which were full of optimistic predictions.
These predictions, like many others involving pieces of government legislation, proved to have been mere wishful expectations which failed to materialize. The minister, in a discourse an hour and a half long, took the occasion to deliver a stem lecture on the vital need for management and labour to hold back on wage and price increases and, at the same time, to strive for increased production. Indeed, in his effort to impress the Canadian people, the minister managed to impress only himself with the legal verbiage with which he hoped to cover important omissions which I shall endeavour to enumerate during my allotted time in this debate. First, however, I should like to indicate my 90205-6-881
The Budget-Mr. Badanai pleasure over the couple of measures the budget contains with which there is no quarrel on this side of the house.
We commend the introduction of the proposal to allow university tuition fees to be deductible for income tax purposes. We also welcome the decision to allow accelerated depreciation write-offs by firms which undertake to establish new manufacturing facilities for new products. However, in this connection, an idea advanced by Professor Stanley Surrey of Harvard University should have a great appeal and, personally, I think it would be a decided improvement on that proposal contained in the budget.
Briefly, the idea is this. Instead of giving business and corporations a faster write-off on plant and equipment, leave the depreciation deduction as it is and give business an investment credit that would cut a company's tax bill as its total investment expanded. Under this proposal a corporation or business would deduct from its tax bill a percentage of the amount by which its investment in new plant and equipment during the year exceeded its current depreciation deduction.
In that way, a company would benefit in direct proportion to the amount of increased plant and equipment that it creates. If this method were implemented the treasury would lose some revenue but would make it up and more by closing probable loopholes. This method could also mean the establishment of new industries.
I have tried hard to find a good reason to justify a reasonable degree of appreciation for this particular baby budget except to provide an opportunity for hon. members to speculate on the inscrutable working of the mind of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). I was rather astonished to hear the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Bell), in his speech on the debate, as reported at page 1077 of Hansard say this:
-seldom has a budget met such a universality of approval from objective critics.
If he had said "universality of disappointment", he would have been much closer to
the facts.
The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Best), the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Now-lan) and others have tried hard to create a diversion by confining their speeches to lopsided opinions of the Liberal rally and prophesies of doom for the Liberal party, intended more or less to draw the attention of the house away from the shortcomings of the budget.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne), who suffers from the illusion that the majority of Canadian taxpayers paid

The Budget-Mr. Badanai less in taxes in 1959 than in 1956, would be well advised to scrutinize the figures again. They are as follows:
Tax Collections Fiscal Year
Percentage
	1956-57	1959-60	Changes
(millions	of dollars)		
Personal income tax Corporation income tax Net federal sales tax	$1,525.5 1,335.6 717.1	$1,751.6 1,234.2 732.7	+14.8% - 7.7% + 2.1%Total	3,578.2	3,718.5	+ 4 %
The difference between the totals is $140 million.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order. I must ask that the members on the right side of the house abate their conversation in order to allow the hon. member who has the floor to make his speech.


Hubert Badanai: The Budget-Mr. Badanai .40 per cent over and above the normal depreciation allowance of 12j per cent. Grants are also made for new construction of some types of fishing vessels.
Australia allows a 25 per cent subsidy on all Australian built ships and the coastal trade is reserved to vessels whose wage rates and standards of accommodation are equal to those applicable to Australian ships. Italy has a policy of subsidy which she is now 'planning to increase in order to boost the shipping industry. This is an extension of aid to shipbuilding which was adopted in 1954 and which is meeting, according to reports, with most gratifying results.
Every trading nation of any importance has a merchant marine and a policy in aid of shipbuilding except Canada, and our heads should hang in shame when we read of landlocked Switzerland which has a merchant marine and is planning to expand. Since world war II she has acquired 27 cargo vessels which total about 200,000 tons, and the ships are manned by 848 crewmen.
Further evidence that the old crack about the Swiss navy is not true is the fact that Switzerland has ratified five convention agreements of the international labour organization on seafarers' working conditions.
' World commerce is still being carried by seagoing ships. During the last war Winston Churchill was forever urging the United States, among other things, to lend ships. Canada at that time was already building vessels of all types at a great pace, and young Canadians from the cities and from the farms were becoming mariners overnight. Soon their voices were heard on the seven seas.
The budget did not mention the fact that Canada is the third trading nation of the world, that her natural resources and products are still being carried over the seas of the world, but that the familiar Canadian voices are no longer heard. Men speaking foreign tongues and ships flying foreign flags are carrying our wheat, our iron ore, our nickel, our wood products and oil. The list of flags going through the Suez canal in 1959 included such countries as Costa Rica, Honduras and South Korea. Where was the red ensign?
It is one of the uncomprehensible paradoxes of our time that notwithstanding Canada's enormous coastline, fronting on three oceans, we seem to be the least ship conscious people In the world. According to a report issued by the Canadian maritime commission on November 18, 16 major Canadian shipyards employed an average of 575 people in each, where they should have at least a couple of thousand.

We agree with the minister that Canadians should be urged to invest more in Canadian enterprises, but we cannot help but view with alarm the curbs on investments in Canada by Americans and others outside Canada. By all means give Canadians preference in these investments, but if there is shortage of Canadian investments to meet the requirement of our expected expansion, which is essential to provide jobs for an increasing labour force, then I would say; let outside capital come in to take up the slack without hindrance.
In addressing the bank's shareholders the president of the Bank of Montreal, Mr. Hart, on December 5 last, referring to the monetary policy in the light of current economic conditions, had this to say:
Business activity in Canada during the year now coming to a close has, in many respects, failed to bear out the optimistic predictions voiced a year ago. Thus far, the "soaring sixties" have shown little inclination to soar.
This country has attained its economic stature and living standards in no small measure by virtue of having abundant natural resources for which there are markets elsewhere, and which must be developed on a large scale and by large infections of capital, if they are to be developed at all. It is not unnatural that to some extent the necessary capital has been provided from outside our own borders by those who need the resources that are being developed. Moreover, Canada as a world trader must keep pace with the technological advances that are going on around her. I suggest that if we are to continue to develop our resources and keep abreast of innovation and modernization by our competitors, we shall do well not to be too fearful of prudent expansion and improvements, and of the financing that is entailed.
The thousands Of Canadians who are unemployed cannot await the long term results of the minister's fiscal measures. They are going to take a gloomy view of the jump from a projected $12 million surplus to a $286 million deficit, without any immediate benefits which they can see.
It is generally conceded by a large number of well informed people that one of the major causes of unemployment and the general business slump is the government's policy of monetary restraints. The general reaction to the budget is that it was the worst speech imaginable to deal with the unemployment emergency which, after all, was the principal reason for the early start of the session and which, thus far, has been of little comfort to those who had reason to expect some help.
The suggestion that new tariff boosts may be expected is one which will not bring any cheer to the vast number of consumers. The announcement that it is proposed to increase the membership of the tariff board from five to seven can only be interpreted as foreshadowing tariff increases to come. It is the R. B. Bennett touch of the thirties over again, perhaps not as direct, but subtly moving

toward higher tariffs. We can only pray that it will not lead toward similar disastrous effects for Canada as it did then, though, fortunately, a Liberal administration, five years later, came to the rescue and paved the way to a period of unprecedented prosperity.
The timing of this budget just shortly before Christmas gave hope to many that it would contain some tax cuts and, certainly, the removal of the sales tax on soft drinks. This is a commodity which is largely consumed by children and by people who do not indulge in alcoholic beverages. The industry is faced with increased overhead in the form of machinery and higher wages. At the same time bottling works are reluctant to increase the cost to the consumers. Elimination of the tax would not only encourage expansion of facilities but would provide employment for more people and lead to a greater consumption of sugar products, thus helping the sugar beet farmer. In other words, the benefits would spread over a wide area to the advantage of many people, to say nothing of the encouragement to consume non-alcoholic beverages and thus promote sober habits with beneficial results to all concerned.
This budget will not help much in the promotion of jobs for the 3,250 unemployed people in my constituency. The Canadian Car Company plant in Fort William is one of the most spacious and modern manufacturing establishments of its kind in Canada. It has facilities for the employment of several thousand workers, and during the second world war it employed up to 7,000. It has a record for building aircraft of all kinds and description. It has built buses, trailers and ships, and yet approximately only 400 people are now employed. This company's engineers, with the assistance of technicians from the Department of National Defence, have developed an amphibious vehicle known as the Bobcat, which incidentally, was demonstrated to the new Minister of National Defence only a month or so ago.
It is true that the budget did not mention aid under the Colombo plan, but I suggest that in any future Canadian contribution under this arrangement serious consideration should be given to the inclusion of a number of these vehicles. Vehicles of this type would prove of great help to underdeveloped countries, and in the event that the production of this vehicle is proceeded with I urge the government to award the contract to the Fort William plant of the Canadian Car Company.
With all the sincerity I can command I wish to express the hope that the suggestions which have been made, such as the removal of the excise tax on automobiles, the removal of the sales tax on soft drinks, measures to
The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell keep the dollar at a level not exceeding that of the United States dollar, a loosening up of the availability of money, the creation of a municipal loan fund and a move toward the re-establishment of a Canadian merchant marine will be recognized by the minister. I hope the hon. gentleman will give serious consideration to including them in the next regular budget which, presumably, will be introduced during the coming months of March or April.


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I am
grateful, Mr. Speaker, for the warmth of my reception. I am not at all sure, however, that as I go along the feeling will be so good. It is difficult to believe that at this stage one has anything new to say but I do not feel that this budget needs to have much further said in its defence, especially after the blitz we have had from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) this evening.
Indeed, I had better begin my remarks with a confession. I am afraid I am going to give something in the nature of a sermon. It is said that every Presbyterian has at least one sermon in him. I have not yet preached my sermon so perhaps I shall do so this evening. If I fail to attract the attention of hon. members I shall have to resort to what Benjamin Disraeli said following his first speech during which he was given a very rough time. He said, "You have not listened to me now but the time will come when you will listen to me." At any rate, I have a text and my text comes from the inaugural address of the President of the United States. It is this:
To those peoples in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves-
-if the free society cannot help the many who are poor, it can never save the few who are rich.
I commend those last words to the house and ask that hon. gentlemen pay particular attention to the fact that the president in addition to his humanitarian feelings, which do him credit, had a hardboiled, realistic warning to sound, and I wish to indulge in both of those tonight.
I spoke on this a year ago but I cannot believe that I made a very profound impression. Indeed, I think I was regarded as a kind of egghead, possibly harmless but certainly not very interesting. I believe that to some extent public opinion has moved since then. At that time I quoted the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and I should like on this occasion to repeat their words which I quoted at that time. The Prime Minister said:
Economic assistance to underdeveloped countries is a major and mandatory need if freedom is to be preserved in the world.

The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell
The Minister of Finance said:
We are so dependent upon foreign trade and so closely linked in many ways with the fortunes of the United States and our other trading partners that we are bound to be affected, for good or ill, by the swings of economic activity originating outside our own borders.
The minister has repeated that in other words many times in the last year. For myself, I shall be satisfied if I can make a contribution, however small, to this question which I believe is urgent. I believe we disregard it at our peril as well as at violence to our better feelings.
We cannot leave everything to the government. The government has done well but public opinion has to do something. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) the other night in Toronto put this very question to the audience and found that only a few of them were really interested to the extent of being prepared to do anything about it. I deal with this question on the budget speech rather than in the external affairs debate because I wish to stress its economic aspects. I wish to stress its relationship to and influence upon unemployment.
I believe it can be said today, looking at the problem both from a humanitarian, political and business point of view, that we are justified in saying "the hour for dealing with this question has been long averted, has been long delayed; but it was always inevitable and it has come at last." I believe that with all my heart.
Hon. gentlemen opposite of the Liberal party have introduced a certain number of suggestions but their chief ideas seem to be financial devices of which the opposition are so fond. What I want to pin our attention to is what I believe to be the real need-this has been stressed by the Minister of Finance many times-for increased foreign trade.
I am tired of the words "emergency" and "depression". We all know how serious unemployment is. We on the government side of the house are as much affected by it as anyone-perhaps even more affected by it because of our responsibilities-and I think that bandying about the words "depression" and "emergency" will not get us anywhere. What I want to do is try to state in plain words what is the situation. Once we know what it is we will know where to go from here. For the sake of clarity I am going to read a short statement:
The first fact to be understood is that unemployment though serious in some places, exists in the midst of national prosperity, not as high as the government predicted but still high in the nation as a whole.
And further, relating to the unemployment situation:

It may require special measures and increased public expenditures out of taxes in some areas but above all it requires a readjustment of our economy to a changed situation, to new competition in the world market and to the buyers' resistance against high prices in the domestic market. It requires in short, a reduction in costs and prices to encourage the sale of goods at home and abroad.
I suggest without fear of contradiction that this is an apt description of the government's policy. It may interest hon. members to know that that is a quotation from the Winnipeg Free Press, a newspaper not notoriously partial to our party. It appeared in an August issue. It may be said, "Oh, but that was last August." I answer at once and say, "Yes, the statement appeared last August but the situation has not changed substantially since then."
I want to quote another witness, the president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, speaking at the annual meeting the other day. He deals in clear, crisp words with what I believe is the true situation.
After referring to aspects of international trade, particularly the common market in Europe, he goes on to say:
These developments on the international scene accompanied as they have been by slower growth in the Canadian economy have forced us out of the complacent mood which characterized the postwar years. Instead of an insatiable demand for our natural and processed products abroad, we face competition from many other countries, and the European common market may possibly soon be self-sufficient in many commodities which Canada has traditionally sold to some of its members. This outlook might dispose some of us to be gloomy but in fact there is no more room for discouragement now than there was for excessive optimism a year ago.
Here are really plain, accurate, intelligible words from competent observers which I believe describe the true situation.
My comments on the budget will be very short. This remarkable infant is tough and resilient. You might call it a "tough baby". It needs little defence because it does not pretend to work magic. As the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) has said:
It is a sincere, honourable and intelligent grappling with a dislocation, part of which is seasonal, more of which is technological, all of which will respond only to a variety of treatments.
Aid to underdeveloped countries is an additional treatment which I wish to suggest.
Let us briefly examine the contributions made by hon. members of the opposition. We must not be too critical. Hon. members of the opposition are still not perfectly at home in their role as the opposition. They still at times have a feeling that they are or ought to be the government. After a few years more they will feel more at home and will perhaps function more efficiently.

The Leader of the Opposition with echoes of the Liberal jamboree still ringing in his ears made a speech full of financial devices but the hon. gentleman evaded the plain questions put to him by the Minister of Finance. We were asked to take seriously a statement to the effect that if the opposition had only been in power they would have taken precautions, they would never have been led astray by any wrong figures. We are asked to believe that they would have had what they described as a planned deficit. They, of course, they assert would not have been deceived by the upturn in 1959 running into 1960 but would have seen beneath the surface and would have had their plans all ready. But when the Minister of Finance asked the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) point blank what size deficit he favoured he got nothing but generalities in reply.
The Leader of the Opposition said it was not so much the size that counted but that the deficit should be planned in advance to correct recession. This sounds to me like high-flown, thin-spun theory and I much prefer to use the more pedestrian words of common sense. I recommend that the Leader of the Opposition and his followers study the words of the quotations I read from the Winnipeg Free Press and the president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce.
I come now to the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). It is always interesting to listen to him. He was wearing a false face and using as his own the words of the minister of finance in 1955. The difference is that in 1955 the words were accurate. As far as I can discover at that time there were no plans made to deal with unemployment and, of course, the boom came along and bailed them out; whereas nobody can suggest-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman would not wish to be unfair. Perhaps 1 can ask him whether he does not recall that it was in the session of 1955 that the previous government established unemployment assistance?


Donald Methuen Fleming: With a threshold which denied the benefit to nearly all of the provinces.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am always ready to accept a correction by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate but I would just point out that that was rather a skimpy little chicken compared with what we are doing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was not as much needed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I just mention briefly some of the things the Minister of Finance
The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell has been responsible for, such as aid to small businesses, stimulus to housing, double depreciation, and so on.
Now the thing that struck me, because I am always interested in the use of adjectives by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, was the adjectives he used with respect to the Minister of Finance, which I think were singularly inappropriate. In one place he referred to him as reckless. I have known the minister a long time and I can say "reckless" is singularly inappropriate. It was singularly inappropriate to use two other words. The only two other words that I can think of which are more inappropriate than the word "reckless" to use of the Minister of Finance are the two other words the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate used, that is "sly" and "furtive". How utterly inapplicable. The Minister of Finance is always ready to come out in the open. I repeat that the words "reckless", "sly" and "furtive" should not be taken seriously. I make bold to say-and I am not going to dwell too long on this-that the Minister of Finance has made a reputation not only for ability but for courage and common sense, which will survive all these irresponsible criticisms.
I come now to the question of foreign aid, which has been described as the greatest question of the second half of the twentieth century. I ask anyone whether he can laugh that off? Second, I want to represent it as the greatest opportunity to deal with the question of unemployment because, as the Minister of Finance has said so many times, what we have to do is to increase foreign trade. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) has made a real contribution by the conference that was held here when all the trade commissioners were called together. Unfortunately, as was pointed out again and again by people like Stevenson, Hoffman and others, the real solution is to get those people-I saw the figure given as
2,000	million the other day-who have almost no buying capacity, into the economic position where they can buy.
I have one illustration which is so small that I almost blush to mention, but nevertheless in principle it is as sound as a bell. It shows what can be done. I asked the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether they could give me an illustration from the Eskimos, and they gave me a most beautiful illustration of a tiny community of 200 or 300 people living on the dole. They were in receipt of nearly $20,000 a year. By instruction and better methods of fishing, within a year or two, they were in a position where they had a buying capacity. Instead of taking money out of the treasury
1388	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell they were able to look after themselves. Although it is a tiny illustration, it is absolutely sound in principle.
This problem faces us, as we look around the world, in huge, overwhelming dimensions. Our own exports, of course, are going strong in so far as our primary industries are concerned but our secondary industries need stimulus. Already much is being done to assist. We have long term credits and assistance by government aid, but more is needed to face the tough competition from Europe and from the communists. I suggest there is no reason to believe that we can significantly increase our foreign trade in the face of all the competition there is unless the total of foreign trade is increased and increased substantially. If the cake is to remain the same size, well, then, it is going to be too bad for us.
I should like to read a statement, not from theorists, not from politicians, but from the president of the Imperial Bank, and I would ask hon. members to listen to what he says. This is a serious statement, coming from a serious man whose business it is to lend money and get it back. He has to face the acid test of balance sheets, and this is just one of many statements from similar quarters that could be quoted. He says:
We also need boldness and Imagination in our approach to foreign aid.
I ask hon. members to think that over. I ask, can you laugh that off, boldness and imagination? I continue:
For a nation of our productive potentialities and high living standards the aid we extend now to other countries is much too small.
This is a bank president speaking. I continue:
A great increase in non-military foreign aid could be fully justified on moral grounds alone; our status as a nation would be enhanced by such a policy. Nor is it discreditable to any nation following such a policy that providing aid to others will, by maintaining demand, help it to avoid the economic waste of large scale unemployment.
There you have it. To help to raise the growth of the economies of other countries is of prime importance in bringing about that world of expanding trade which is of such importance to our economy and economic well-being.
I see it is just about ten o'clock, and I shall adjourn the debate in a moment. I just want

to register one point because I believe there is widespread misunderstanding here. It is of great importance to know that foreign aid does not mean sending millions of dollars to underdeveloped countries. What it means is sending Canadian goods and services, natural products, manufactured products; in other words, it means employment of Canadians. Take the illustration of the Warsak dam in Pakistan where the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) took part in the inaugural ceremonies the other day. The sum of $36 million was spent there and 95 per cent of it represented Canadian employment. That is what we are talking about when we are talking about foreign aid.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I can get some enlightenment from the Minister of National Revenue as to the business for tomorrow?


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will not proceed with this debate but we will take up legislation. We will call first item No. 10 on today's order paper in the name of the Minister of Agriculture with respect to a measure to authorize the minister to enter into an agreement with the provinces respecting certain matters concerning loans. When that is completed tomorrow afternoon we will proceed with item No. 6 on today's order paper, a measure to amend the Canadian National Railways Act, and item No. 12, another measure with respect to the Canadian National Railways. I think these matters will take up the most of Wednesday afternoon. Since I will not be here when the house closes on Wednesday afternoon, I will say that on Thursday we shall resume the debate on the budget and if it is concluded on Thursday before adjournment we shall take up item No. 14 on today's order paper, the motion to set up the committee on broadcasting. In any event, we will proceed with that on Friday and also the motion in the name of my colleague, the Minister of Transport with respect to the Canadian National Railways. When these two matters are concluded on Friday we shall revert to legislation to which I have referred.


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

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

[Stage Direction]
Questions
2.	What quantity of such canned or otherwise preserved pork (a) has been sold to date, and for what amount; (b) has been disposed of by way of donations?
3.	What quantity of such pork had the agricultural stabilization board on hand December 1, 1960?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):
Mr. Boulanger: What has been the total loss incurred by the agricultural stabilization board for the fiscal year 1959-60, as a result of its operations for each commodity covered by the act?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):
Product
Net cost or payment during year
Creamery butter	 $3,408,614
Cheddar cheese	 110,180
Dry skimmed milk		8,108,049
Shell eggs	 4,810,277
Fowl	 137,762
Hogs	 27,861,833
Lambs	 360,980
Raspberries	 30,660
Milk	 9,844,110
Peaches	 357,214
Soybeans	 1,217,433
Sugar beets	 2,656,724
Tomatoes	 95,461
Wool	 1,219,461


CANNED PORK
Mr. Boulanger: 1.	Since April 1, 1958, what quantity of pork has been canned or otherwise preserved by the agricultural stabilization board?
1.	122,560,794 pounds from May, 1959 to January 9, 1960.
2.	(a) 48,627,234 pounds-$12,632,827.63.
(b) 38,074,482 pounds.
3.	As at December 1, 1960, the board had an inventory of 35,859,078 pounds of canned pork, all under contract for sale, subject to future deliveries.


AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS HELD BY STABILIZATION BOARD
Mr. Boulanger: What were the quantity and the value of each of the agricultural products held by the agricultural stabilization board, on December 1, 1960?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilion (Minister of Agriculture):
Product	Quantity
(lbs.)
Butter, including butter converted to
butter oil	 131,684,988
Dry skim milk ....	5,707,973
Cheddar cheese .	.	.	4,239,589
Canned pork		35,859,078
Lamb	 352,490
Raspberries	 972,356
Value

86,097,835.54
587,087.21
1,451,937.30
22,859,898.40
323.950.46
343.950.46
				
				
				
				


Wednesday, January 25, 1961