1962-11-02

DELAY IN DISTRIBUTION OF ORDER PAPER

Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wish to apologize to the hon. members for a delay in the distribution of the French version of the orders of the day which was held up for some reason. I regret this inconvenience and I wish to apologize on behalf of those concerned. The orders of the day have now been received and they will be passed around.
(Text):
I would like to say there has been a temporary delay, as the result of gremlins or what have you, in the receipt of the requisite number of copies of orders of the day for distribution in the house. They have now been received and are being distributed. Apologies from all concerned are extended to hon. members of the house.



NEW MEMBER

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the House has received from the chief electoral officer a certificate of the election and return of Thomas Clement Douglas, Esquire, for the electoral district of Burnaby-Coquitlam.



NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Thomas Clement Douglas, member for the electoral district of Burnaby-Coquitlam, introduced by Mr. Stanley Knowles and Mr. H. W. Herridge.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the house I should like to take this opportunity of extending a welcome to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). When I came into the House of Commons 22 years ago he had then been a member of this house for a period of five years. Since then he has occupied the high position of premier of the province of Saskatchewan. Indeed, the length of his service there in that capacity gave those of us of other political parties some idea of
the meaning of eternity. I welcome him to the house and assure him that in the days ahead we shall look forward to the contribution he will make.
The House of Commons has little changed in the past few years. From generation to generation it remains much the same, subject to those changes that inevitably must take place. But in one particular it remains the same; the spirit of good fellowship prevails at all times irrespective of the differences that separate us. The hon. gentleman, for many years in my province and now in another province, comes to the House of Commons knowing he is returning to a place where the spirit of democracy prevails. I welcome him.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be able to agree with the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -especially in a matter so controversial in more ways than one, as the return to the house of the leader of the New Democratic party. We on this side of the house welcome him and we are sure, Mr. Speaker, that our debates will be more lively and stimulating because of his presence.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege to welcome the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam to our midst. I am sure he has a very definite, positive contribution to make here in this house. As I look back over the years I realize that he will find many changes since he was here last. In fact many things have taken place since 1936, that year which now seems so long ago. At that time I too was an aspirant to this house, although perhaps not so successful as was the hon. member.
It is amusing to recall the fact, as I remember it recorded in the papers, that at one time he carried a dual candidature into the federal election. In fact, on one side of the car there was a Social Credit banner and on the other side of the car there was a C.C.F. banner. I am not quite as old as the hon. member, but being interested in these things I remember the conversation that took place around the breakfast table at home. My dad had commented on this and my mother, rather in horror, said, "I think that gentleman must be two-faced". My younger

Introduction of Member brother spoke up and said, "My, I would like to be like that gentleman because it would be fun to travel on a train; you could see out of both sides at the same time."
In the changes that have taken place he will find in his own group, as I have been very interested to find in the past few weeks, that many of the members he is now privileged to lead have gone a long way afield from the Regina manifesto, which might have had something to do with taking the hon. member away from his place in that hallowed hall in Saskatchewan. But he will get used to that. I think probably his experience will help him in solving some of these problems.
He will also find changes on the government side. He has not had to put up with very many members from that noble party in the Saskatchewan legislature. I think, however, if he had done a better job in that province there might not have been so many of them here as there are now. Then with the Liberals too he will find a great deal of change. Out in Saskatchewan the members of this noble party tried to kick down the doors of the legislature to get in. Here in Ottawa, in our national parliament, they try to kick down the doors and blow off the roof to get out. Such are the changes which take place, Mr. Speaker.
I was very disturbed last week when I read in the press that it was on Monday, November 5, that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam would be introduced in the house. I was very relieved the other night, I think in the wee hours in the morning, when the hon. member who served as house leader of the party across the way mentioned to me that he thought it would be today rather than then. I am grateful to the chief electoral officer that this is possible, because on November 5, which is next Monday, we will be celebrating the 357th anniversary of a certain gentleman by the name of Guy Fawkes who attempted very hard to blow the roof off another parliament.
Mr. Speaker, we welcome the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I am sure, as has already been expressed by the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition that the full and cordial welcome which is customary in this house will be extended to him by all of us.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Burnaby-Coquitlam.


An hon. Member:: Stand up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, it has been requested that I should stand up. I am sure the rules would

not permit me to stand on a chair. I am now at my full height, which is not very imposing. Fortunately there are houses of debate where the measurement is from the shoulders up rather than from the shoulders down.
I should like through you, sir, to express to the Prime Minister my sincere thanks for his kind words of welcome, and my thanks also to the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Red Deer, the leader of the Social Credit party. I am extremely grateful for their kind words of welcome. I should like to thank them and also to express my appreciation on this occasion to the people of Burnaby-Coquitlam for their vote of confidence; and to the former member, Mr. Erhart Regier, for making it possible for me to contest an election in that constituency and to enter the House of Commons.
I am pleased, along with the hon. member for Red Deer, that my entrance into the House of Commons was not on Monday, that being Guy Fawkes day. I remember, and some of the older members will recall, Mr. Gerry McGeer, who entered the House of Commons in 1935. After he had been here a year he stood up in the house one evening and said: "Mr. Speaker, after having sat in this chamber for one year I am convinced that the only person who ever approached parliament in the proper frame of mind was Guy Fawkes". I am very glad that I am not entering the house on Guy Fawkes day.
Mr. Speaker, it is just 27 years ago that I was first elected to this chamber. It is 18 years since I left it. I would think that any person who started as a private and wound up as a private could at least say that he was holding his own. As the Prime Minister said, many things do not change. Certainly the unfailing courtesy of this house has not changed. A great many things have not changed, including the accommodation for M.P.'s. I want to say that the good will and the marvellous esprit de corps of this house has not changed. I am very happy to be back in it. I want to thank all members for the warmth of their welcome.
(Translation):



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Last night I attended a debate between the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caou-ette). In the course of that debate, reference was made to a point of the Social Credit labour policy and it was suggested that the quotation was taken from the 1945 Hansard.

I think this matter is of concern to the house and that I should inform the hon. members that the quotation was not from Hansard but from Maclean's magazine of April 15, 1945. The hon. member for Laurier did indicate that Mr. Solon Low had stated the following:
(Text):
The time may come when a scientific economy will automatically do away with the need for collective bargaining.
(Translation):
It is not what Mr. Solon Low said, but rather the question he had been asked. Surely, the hon. member for Laurier, with all his experience, will accept to give us the true facts-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Certain things having been said, it is my duty to grant the hon. member for Laurier a few moments to explain the situation. However, I draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that in the circumstances, it is not in order to raise a question of privilege on this point.
What has been said outside during a political debate-after all, contradictions are an everyday occurrence at political meetings or even in this house-can never be made the subject of a question of privilege. This house cannot be converted into a forum where members would keep on protesting against what has been said by political opponents, because, then, this could go on forever.
Since the hon. member raised the question, I shall allow a few minutes to the hon. member for Laurier, not in order to launch a debate but to give an explanation.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I have not quite finished. Because the question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not a question of privilege.


Raymond Langlois: He said according to the official report-


Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that under the rules the hon. member has no right whatsoever to rise on a question of privilege, since the discussion, having taken place outside the house, cannot give rise to a question of privilege.
However, he made certain statements that should be taken up.
I said yesterday that Social Credit was against labour unions, against the right to strike and against the right of association.
Statement on National Housing Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think that the hon. member for Laurier has understood the meaning of my invitation. I wanted to permit him to state the source of the argument that he put forward last night. In short, he may give an explanation as to the place where he got his information.


Lionel Chevrier: I would like to add that in last night's debate I used Maclean's magazine and that I obtained my information from a truthful source.
It is not to be compared to the statements published in the book "Real Caouette vous parle".


Mr. Speaker:: I think that justice has been done to both parties.



MR. DUMONT    STATEMENT RESPECTING LETTER TO NEWSPAPER CONCERNING MR. SPEAKER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. First of all, I should like to tell the house that, because we do not have the French version of Beauchesne's, I did not know that members are not allowed to discuss, outside this house, the Speaker's decisions.
Therefore, I apologize for whatever statements that might have given offence to the Chair. I hope that the Speaker will continue to be fair-minded in his decisions for the good of mutual understanding between the two nations in our country.
All I can say is that unlike some people I feel compelled to voice my inner thoughts.
I hope, however, that our demands with regard to the French language will not be a cause of disagreement and dispute.
(Text):



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the question of extension of the cut-off date for forgiveness of a portion of federal loans to municipalities under the National Housing Act for the purpose of construction of sewage treatment projects.
Hon. members will recall that the National Housing Act was amended in December, 1960 to enable Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make long term low interest loans to assist municipalities in financing the cost of these projects. The loan is up to two thirds of the cost and, as a special incentive, the government was authorized to forgive payment of 25 per cent of the amount of
1214	HOUSE OF
Statement on National Housing Act the loan committed and 25 per cent ol the interest paid or accrued due thereon in respect of all work completed up to March 31, 1963.
The purpose of the legislation was to launch a program constituting a first real co-ordinated attack on the three problems of conservation of water, prevention of pollution, and assistance to municipalities in providing services essential to the maintenance and expansion of municipal growth. The purpose of the forgiveness provision with a deadline of next March was to serve the dual ends of providing an incentive to make an early start on these problems and thus of providing additional employment at a time when it was and still is a national objective.
The success of the program can be judged by the fact that between December, 1960 and October 19, 1962 some 335 loans have been approved to 273 municipalities, in which one third of the population of Canada lives. The amount of these loans has aggregated $79.5 million, and it is estimated that the earned forgiveness by March 31, 1963 will be $15 million for two full years of operation. In addition, 16 formal applications for loans totalling nearly $2.4 million are on hand and inquiries relating to 202 other projects, with a loan potential of $55.7 million, have been received.
It so happens, however, that the bulk of loans so far applied for and approved has been made to municipalities in only three provinces. In the main this appears to be because those provinces had systems under which they were able to encourage and assist their municipalities to take advantage of the assistance offered. Some other provinces are now so organizing. We have accordingly been receiving very pressing representations from municipalities, from some provincial governments and from members of parliament to extend the cut-off date so as to avoid hardship and discrimination against those areas where municipalities, in spite of a sincere effort, would not be able to complete work now in hand, or have not found it possible to complete plans and specifications and call tenders, in time for the March 31 date for discontinuance of the rebate.
The government is fully conscious of the program offers to municipalities in meeting their development problems. We have therefore decided to ask parliament at this session to extend the expiry "date for partial debt their development problems. We have therefore decided to ask parliament at this session to extend the expiry date for partial debt cancellation on this type of loan to March 31, 1965-an additional two year yeriod.


It should be emphasized that with or without the forgiveness feature this is a continuing program of municipal assistance. The proposed extension of the forgiveness period should, however, provide an additional incentive to take an early part in this important anti-pollution measure, with consequent further advantages with respect to employment, while at the same time enabling municipalities to plan their programs in the most effective manner.
I would also ask the co-operation of hon. members on all sides of the house in bringing this proposed extension to the attention of the municipal authorities in their areas, so there may be the widest possible participation in what is proving to be a most effective antipollution measure and an urgent contribution to the health and well-being of all Canadians.


Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house welcomes the announcement we have just heard from the Minister of Public Works. All of us must recognize, from the number of requests we have received, in the last few months especially, the need for this type of extension.
There is a pressing need throughout the country for work of this kind to be done, and there is a need for the jobs that it will create. I know the municipalities will welcome the measure, and I can assure the minister of all necessary co-operation from this side of the house.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on behalf of our group and assure the minister that we are behind the principle of the measure which he has announced. Certainly everything possible should be done to assist the municipalities in the very difficult problems they face. I trust this is just a forerunner of more measures directed along the same line. Not only will this meet the pressing needs of the municipalities themselves, but it will assist in relieving the difficulties ahead of us this winter in the matter of unemployment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate this group with the remarks that have been made in commending the minister for extending the date within which this program for antipollution measures may be undertaken. The other day I had occasion to read a very detailed report, prepared by the government of the United States, which shows that the rivers of that great country have virtually become sewers, not only because of the sewage discharged from large cities but also because of the drainage from agricultural

areas where tremendous quantities of insecticides and weed killing chemicals have been used.
This whole question of river pollution is one which the country will have to face up to, and it is certainly something which neither the municipalities nor the provinces can adequately handle on their own. The steps which are being taken by the minister will be a move in that direction, although it seems to me a much larger program and much greater planning of the program will have to be undertaken to meet it effectively.
I also think that when we come to speak of assistance to municipalities we shall have to think in terms of a broad program that will include a number of things, rather than a piecemeal program, but this is something we can discuss on some other occasion. I simply rise to associate this group with the remarks made and say that we are in complete agreement with the proposal made by the minister and wish to commend him for it.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an announcement to the house concerning the quarantine measures being applied by the United States against shipments of offensive weapons and war material to Cuba.
The United States navy has been directed to stop and search and, if necessary, divert ships of any nationality entering the quarantine area around Cuba. The United States government has now instituted arrangements whereby, as a service to international shipping and in order to avoid delays due to stoppage and search at sea, advance clearance may be obtained at the last port of call before entering the quarantine area. Application for a clearance certificate may be made by a ship's agent, or other ship's officer, to a local United States consular officer who is empowered to issue a clearance certificate after inspection of the ship and its cargo. These procedures are available to ships of any flag, including those of the Soviet bloc.
The Canadian government has agreed to these advance clearance facilities being made available to ships in Canadian ports for as long as the quarantine arrangements are in force. There is, of course, no question of compulsory inspection of any ships when in Canadian waters, but rather of their being free to take advantage of these facilities in order to avoid possible subsequent delay and inconvenience.
Royal Commission on Pilotage TRANSPORT


APPOINTMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON PILOTAGE
Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an announcement regarding the appointment of a commission to inquire into matters relating to marine pilotage. Hon. members will recall that last spring certain difficulties arose between ship operators and pilots on the St. Lawrence river. In the course of the discussions with both parties which led to the resolution of those difficulties, I informed the house that it was the intention of the government to appoint a royal commission to look into matters of marine pilotage generally.
It had, in fact, been apparent for some time that, on the one hand, the various marine pilotage groups across Canada and, on the other hand, the ship owners and operators felt that a general review by an independent inquiry of all matters relating to marine pilotage would be desirable. The rapidly changing technological, social and economic conditions of the twentieth century had raised many new problems in this regard which could not be foreseen when earlier legislation regarding pilotage matters had been developed and brought into force many years ago. The appointment of the commission was, in fact, desired last spring by both the ship owners and the pilots connected with the difficulties which occurred then, and the desirability of this course of action was specifically confirmed to me in my contacts with pilots and shipping interests generally.
The members of the commission will be as follows: chairman, Hon. Yves Bernier, judge of the Quebec superior court, of Lau-zon, province of Quebec; members, Mr. H. A. Renwick, vice president and general manager of British Columbia Manufacturing Company Limited, of Vancouver, B.C., and Mr. R. K. Smith, former chairman of the national harbours board, of Waterloo, Ontario, and Parrsboro, Nova Scotia. Its terms of reference will be sufficiently broad to allow it to deal with all relevant matters relating to marine pilotage in Canada, but rather than take the time of the house by reading them in full, if the house agrees I will now table the order in council appointing the commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister unanimous consent to table the order in council referred to in his statement?


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


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the investigation mentioned by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) was announced by himself several months ago-

Royal Commission on Pilotage at least six months ago-during a debate in the House of Commons.
I also believe that it was promised to the pilots and shipowners as an incentive to putting an end to a work stoppage several months ago.
We, on this side of the house, are happy to see that the minister has decided to have this investigation because there are a number of matters concerning not only the pilots but also the shipowners which have been in abeyance for several years. It is, therefore, essential that such an investigation be carried out.
I would have liked the minister to tell us in a few words the substance of the order in council, I mean the substance of its provisions, so that we might be aware of the orders of reference of the investigators.
As for the investigators, they seem to have the necessary qualifications and I am convinced that if they get down to work as soon as possible, this investigation will give good results.
There is something else I wish to bring to the attention of the government and of the minister. When this matter was discussed in the house, the minister said that he would submit many proposals from the government to the investigators, in relation with the difficulties with which pilots and shipowners on the river, the great lakes and the gulf were faced. I am wondering whether such proposals were submitted.
As a matter of fact it would be in the interest of the house to know those proposals. Anyhow I repeat to the minister that we are happy that he has announced this investigation and I would like to know, immediately or as soon as possible, what are the terms of reference of the investigators.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that this motion cannot be the subject matter of a debate, but I think that it is my duty to set only one fact in its true light now: it is that my hon. friend regrets that this commission was formed only six months after I made the announcement. But I wish to tell the house that it was at the request of the pilots themselves that we delayed it, because the pilots did not want the sittings of the commission to interfere with their work during the navigation season. (Text):


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could begin by asking that the order in council be printed in Hansard, if possible. As the minister is aware, I am one member who is concerned with the great many pilots in Port Weller, Sault Ste. Marie and my own area. This would be the simplest way of enabling hon. members to study the

terms of reference, which are going to be of a great deal of interest both in connection with shipping and more directly with pilotage.
One of the other points I should like to make is this. While we welcome this move I should like to argue-though this is not the time to argue-that one of the most important problems relating to pilotage is our relationship with our neighbour across the lakes, the United States. Since I cannot argue, I can at least hope that there will be opportunities for United States witnesses to make representations and appear before the commission, because the problem is that we are moving toward a pilotage based upon servants of the crown, and they have a pilotage based upon trade union organization. When there is an interlocking of responsibility, as does exist on the great lakes, there is a great possibility of conflict and confusion, and even labour tie-ups.
We welcome this commission and would hope that, unlike many of the other commissions we have had, its hearings will go quickly and we will have a report before next spring. I say this because I think we are all aware that there is a great deal of discontent amongst pilots, not only in the St. Lawrence river area but in the Port Weller-Sarnia area, and this same discontent has spread into the upper lakes and is rife amongst the United States pilots and their organizations who share the duties with Canadian pilots on the lakes.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the order in council being included as an appendix to Hansard.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gaie):: Mr. Speaker, just before a decision is made on that point I should like to raise for the consideration of Your Honour, and not for an immediate decision, a point of order with respect to it. I have no objection whatever to having this order in council printed; I hope it will be printed. However, when my hon. friend from Laurier rose Your Honour interrupted him to ask the consent of the house to having this paper tabled.
I would ask Your Honour to consider whether any such consent is necessary and whether the government has not always a right to table official papers in this house; because it seems to me that was always the practice in the past and it would be an undue restriction upon hon. members if one hon. member, or even a group of hon. members, could prevent the government from tabling these official documents. I would like Your Honour to give the matter consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has proposed, rather than tabling the document, that it be printed as an appendix to Hansard. Is that agreeable to the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of order in council above referred to, see appendix.]

On the orders of the day:


Mr. T. S. Barneli (Comox-Alberni):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. In connection with the commission, the establishment of which he announced earlier this morning, could the hon. gentleman indicate where it is anticipated that sittings of the commission will be held and in particular whether it is anticipated that any hearings will be held in the Pacific coast area?


Léon Balcer: It is a matter for the commission to decide but I am quite sure the commission will sit in the areas of Canada most concerned with this problem.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him whether he has any comment to make on the report from New York that the Canadian delegation made a proposal on disarmament on Wednesday that angered the United States, disturbed the Indians and won little sympathy anywhere else in the United Nations first political committee.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that report was very much more pessimistic than the facts warrant. The amendment in question, together with some subamendments, are under consideration today. The amendment was not attacked by the United States at all. Some suggestions were made about it by the Indian representative. This is a good example of a newspaper report which portrays a far blacker picture than the actual facts.
I am hopeful that as a result of the Canadian initiative there will be agreement reached at the United Nations which will result in the disarmament committee reconvening in Geneva on November 12, and which will also facilitate reaching an agreement on the question of the cessation of nuclear tests.


Lionel Chevrier: In the light of the statement alleged to have been made by General Burns, is it the intention of the Canadian government to support the amendment and vote for it?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member for Laurier has misinterpreted the report. General Burns is speaking for Canada in the first committee on this dis-
Inquiries of the Ministry armament question, and of course he is getting his instructions from the department.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that General Burns is reported as saying that Canada would not be voting for the amendment in any case?


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid the hon. member is all mixed up about the amendments. It is a little difficult for me to straighten him out. General Burns proposed the Canadian amendment. I think the reference in this report is to some other amendment, not the one General Burns proposed. If it is not, then the report in the press is completely inaccurate.


Lionel Chevrier: I will send it over.


Mr. Lewis:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope it is reasonably supplementary, because otherwise we are getting into a debate here.


David Lewis: It is better than that, Mr. Speaker; it is truly supplementary. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs inform the house how the Canadian delegation have been instructed to vote if the Canadian amendments are not accepted by the committee?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, that is a hypothetical question. As any one knows who has had experience at the United Nations, things move very quickly there; the position at 11 o'clock Friday morning may be completely different by noon on the same Friday morning. I would be very unwise to try to answer hypothetical questions of that kind. I think the Canadian amendment is going to carry.


Lionel Chevrier: I would not think so, from that report. I will send it over.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I should like to ask him if he is prepared to make a statement in the house with regard to the very many serious things which have gone out in the press in the last few days, which indicate that he made a blanket appeal to people across the country to let him know their criticisms and suggestions with regard to the Combines Investigation Act.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Justice):: I do not know if this is the appropriate occasion for me to make any statement

Inquiries of the Ministry on this matter. I have indicated that I am prepared to study any suggestions which any persons have to bring forward concerning either the terms of the present legislation or the administration. I have asked that these be not general but specific. I have not attempted to indicate what would be the outcome of the study, but I have said I will welcome any informed suggestions, providing they are definite and concrete, and that I will study them thoroughly.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Has the minister given any consideration, in view of the fact that a committee of the house dealt with this act not long ago, to having the act brought before a house committee for full appraisal?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not at this session.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister contemplated bringing amendments to the act before the parliament of Canada at this session?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, there is one amendment which was announced some time ago, and I hope when the other business of the house permits we shall proceed with it. It is the one respecting the fish packing industry on the west coast. The present legislation expires on December 31 next, and the purpose of this amendment will be to extend it for another year. Further amendments to the act are not proposed to be brought before parliament during the present session.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles M. Drury (Si. Antoine-Wesimounl):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. During the recent Cuban crisis did the United States government or any of its agencies or the military forces seek to move into Canada United States-manned aircraft or nuclear weapons, or did they further seek permission to arm with nuclear weapons United States aircraft already situated on United States bases in Canada?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I recognize these questions as being based on a highly speculative newspaper article which I hold in my hand, an article containing a number of inaccuracies and incorrect statements. It has never been the custom here on orders of the day to confirm or deny reports of that kind.
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) .1



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Addison (York North):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance, but in his absence I will direct it to the former minister of finance. Has the Canadian government committed itself to the United States government to any schedule for the removal of tariff surcharges?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think that question should properly be directed to my colleague the Minister of Finance, but since he is unable to be in the house today, for a very good reason, perhaps the hon. member would see fit to put his question on the order paper.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andre Bernier (Richmond-Wolfe):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the house that in formulating Canada's policy with respect to the invasion of India by communist China he will take into consideration the tragic situation of Tibet?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman asked the same question the other day. Naturally, in arriving at any decision all pertinent matters are considered. The hon. member has twice brought this up, so I am sure it will be kept in mind.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address to the Minister of Public Works a question of urgent importance to many Canadians. In view of the fact that the present policy and regulations of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation deny many Canadians who live in communities without sewerage systems the opportunity to obtain loans from the corporation, would the minister consider bringing about a revision of this policy?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not able to appreciate at once the full implication of the hon. member's question, which seems to ask for a statement or indication of policy. All I can say in reply

at the moment is that the announcement I made this morning about enlarging sewage system loans, indicates that we have been studying this question and that we recognize the importance of the program, not only as assistance to municipalities but as a co-ordinated attack on the problem of pollution. These and related problems are under study at all times.


PENSIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government of Canada had any communication from the government of either Quebec or Newfoundland regarding the proposal to amend the constitution with respect to contributory pensions. Does the government still hope to proceed with this matter at this session?
John George Diefenbaker: No further communication has been received.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question relating to the recent crisis and the discussion which has taken place in our southern neighbour. I want to ask if in the recent crisis he found it necessary to use the press of Canada as part of his weaponry system.


INQUIRY AS TO HOLIDAY FOR STAFF ON REMEMBRANCE DAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the leader of the house. In view of the fact that Remembrance day is to be a holiday given to civil servants on November 12, will it also be a holiday for employees of this house?


John George Diefenbaker: Consideration will be given to that question and an announcement made at the appropriate time.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Chown in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Resolved,-that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Income Tax Act to provide among other things:
Ways and Means
1.	That for the 1962 and subsequent taxation years the amount deductible in computing taxable income in respect of a child qualified for family allowance be increased to $300 and the amount deductible in respect of other dependants be increased to $550 each.
2.	That with respect to income earned after March 31, 1962 a corporation whose principal business is manufacturing or processing (not including a corporation whose principal business is ship-building, mining, logging or the operation of oil or gas wells) be allowed to deduct from its tax otherwise payable an amount equal to 50 per cent of the tax on the first $50,000, of its taxable income attributable to increased sales and an amount equal to 25 per cent of the tax on the remainder of its taxable income so attributable.
3.	That with respect to its first taxation year ending after April 10, 1962 and the next succeeding four taxation years a corporation be permitted to deduct in computing income 150 per cent of the amount by which expenditures of a current and capital nature on scientific research in Canada incurred by it in the year exceed expenditures of a current and capital nature on scientific research in Canada incurred by it in its last taxation year ending on or before April 10, 1962.
4.	That for the 1962 to 1966 taxation years both inclusive the deduction from tax allowed to corporations in respect of taxable income earned in a province be increased from 9 per cent to 10 per cent in a prescribed province in which arrangements exist for the replacement of federal grants to universities by additional provincial grants in accordance with the proposed amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.
5.	That with respect to taxation years commencing in 1962 a taxpayer be allowed a deduction from tax on an amount equal to the lesser of two-thirds of the amount payable for the year to a province as a tax on income from logging operations or § of 10 per cent of the taxpayer's income from logging operations in the province, and the right to deduct in computing income amounts paid to a province as tax on income from logging operations be repealed.
6.	That with respect to expenses incurred after April 10, 1962 any corporation be allowed to deduct in computing income the drilling and exploration expenses, including all general geological and geophysical expenses, incurred by it on or in respect of exploring or drilling for petroleum or natural gas in Canada and the prospecting, exploration and development expenses incurred by it in searching for minerals in Canada not exceeding its income for the year from oil or gas wells in Canada.
7.	That with respect to expenses incurred after April 10, 1962 an individual be allowed to deduct in computing income the drilling and exploration expenses, including all general geological and geophysical expenses, incurred by him on or in respect of exploring or drilling for petroleum or natural gas in Canada not exceeding his income for the year from oil or gas wells in Canada.
8.	That with respect to acquisitions after April 10, 1962 amounts paid by
(a)	a corporation whose principal business is production, refining or marketing of petroleum, petroleum products or natural gas, or exploring or drilling for petroleum or natural gas, or mining or exploring for minerals,
(b)	an association, partnership or syndicate formed for the purpose of exploring or drilling for petroleum or natural gas,
(c)	a corporation (other than a corporation that qualifies under (a)), or
(d)	an individual for a right, licence or privilege to explore for, drill, or take petroleum or natural
[Stage Direction]
Ways and Means
gas In Canada shall be classed as drilling or exploration expenses for purposes of computing deductions from income.
9.	That with respect to sales of property acquired after April 10, 1962 there shall be included in the income of a taxpayer any amount received as consideration for the disposition of a right, licence or privilege to explore for, drill for or take petroleum or natural gas except where the right, licence or privilege was acquired by inheritance or bequest.
10.	That the right of a successor corporation to deduct drilling, exploration, prospecting and development expenses incurred by a predecessor corporation from the income of the successor corporation attributable to the production of petroleum or natural gas from wells, or the production of minerals from mines, situated on property acquired from the predecessor corporation shall not be lost by reason of the fact that the successor corporation assumed liabilities of the predecessor corporation.
11.	That a joint exploration corporation may renounce an appropriate share of the drilling, exploration, prospecting and development expenses incurred by it after 1956 in searching for oil, gas or minerals in Canada in favour of a shareholder corporation whose principal business is
(a)	production, refining or marketing of petroleum, petroleum products or natural gas, or exploring or drilling for petroleum or natural gas,
(b)	mining or exploring for minerals,
(c)	processing mineral ores for the purpose of recovering metals therefrom,
(d)	a combination of
(i)	processing mineral ores for the purpose of recovering metals therefrom, and
(ii)	processing metals recovered from the ores so processed, or
(e)	fabricating metals,
and in such case the expenses renounced shall be deductible by the shareholder corporation and not by the joint exploration corporation.
12.	That the right of a successor corporation to deduct drilling, exploration, prospecting and development expenses incurred by a predecessor corporation from the income of the successor corporation attributable to the production of petroleum or natural gas from wells, or the production of minerals from mines, situated on property acquired from the predecessor corporation be extended to a second successor corporation which has acquired the property from a predecessor corporation which was itself a successor corporation.
13.	That for the 1962 and subsequent taxation years income earned in Canada by a non-resident corporation whose principal business is mining iron ore in Canada, be exempt from the additional 15 per cent tax imposed by part IIIA on profits earned in Canada by non-resident corporations.
14.	That where an employee who is a member of one deferred profit sharing plan becomes a member of another deferred profit sharing plan the amount to his credit in the first mentioned plan may be transferred to his credit in the second mentioned plan without attracting tax on the amount so transferred.
15.	That the amount to the credit of an annuitant under a registered retirement savings plan may be transferred at any time before the maturity of the plan to another registered retirement savings plan or to a registered pension fund or plan without attracting tax on the amount so transferred.
(Translation):
Mr. Rouleau:: Mr. Chairman, when at
five o'clock last Wednesday I sat down, after having spoken only for a few minutes, I had come to the chapter of commendations.

May I now congratulate Mr. Clement Brown, the defeated candidate in the riding of Dollard, for his promotion in the press gallery when he changed over from Le Devoir to Montreal Matin. I wish him the best of luck, and I hope that he will be as fair-minded in the Montreal Matin as he was in Le Devoir. I am sorry not to be a steady reader of Montreal Matin, because I will not have the pleasure of reading his articles as I did before. But, anyway, I wish him the best success.
During the last election, Mr. Brown repeated on several occasions, on the radio and on television, that, for several years, he had attended the house as an observer, and as such, he had chosen the Conservative party.
I always found it difficult to understand such a choice, because the record of the Conservative party is in no way to be envied.
During this debate we have heard many speakers from all sides of the house and, more particularly, we have heard government members commending the government and expressing their pride in its achievements.
We have heard the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny), with superb oratory, extoll the merits of the government of which he is a member and, to prove his statements, he quoted from an article which was published in the American magazine Time on October 26 last. As my fellow member for Essex West (Mr. Gray) pointed out, the Associate Minister of National Defence, as seems to be the practice among government members, quoted only part of that article which can be found on page 15, while omitting as can be seen, the part in which the Diefenbaker administration was con-denmned.
The hon. member for Essex West quoted the rest of that article and, for everybody's information, I shall read again that passage of the article:
What Diefenbaker did not go out of his way to mention was that some key indicators are unhappily slowing up. The index of industrial production rose steeply to 186.6 in May, from 169.2 a year earlier, but slowed to a crawl by midsummer. Unemployment, while lower than it has been, was still, at 3.9 per cent of the labour force, not low enough. A 4 per cent rise in public spending during the first six months, mostly on a crash program to build vocational schools, was flattened by Ottawa's $228 million austerity cut-back-and that, said a Montreal economist, is $228 million worth of jobs.

In short, the Canadian people will be deprived this year of $228 million, because this amount was lopped off the estimates.
Therefore, many employees of private enterprise will lose their jobs as a result of the government's maladministration. Many industries have already been forced to close their doors and lay off a great number of employees. In support of my statement, may I, Mr. Chairman, tell the house about the difficulties confronting Canadair. At the beginning of the year, it was compelled to dismiss 2,400 workers and it will be forced, before the end of the year, to dismiss about another 1,200, thus increasing by 3,600 the number of jobless in Canada. These 3,600 workers in the metropolitan area thus will be deprived of their salary and such dismissal will deprive also the merchants and the industrialists of an amount of $265,000, representing the salaries those employees would have received.
Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that if this government had wanted to take a specific and constructive measure in that respect, it could have asked the directors of T.C.A. to purchase planes manufactured by Canadair and paid for with the Canadian taxpayers' money, instead of buying them in the United States or in England. It could also have compelled the R.C.A.F. authorities to purchase airplanes made by that important Canadian aircraft company instead of British or American made aircraft. That is another example of the negligence of the Conservative government we have in power in Canada.
Since the return to power of the Conservatives, in 1957, our country has had unprecedented unemployment and our economy has slowed down considerably. A few days after the last general election, the government which no longer had the confidence of the public and which was in a minority position in the house, had to admit to the Canadian people that our finances were not as good as they were led to believe during the electoral campaign and that, because of its fiscal and monetary policy, the government had to impose an austerity program without delay.
Mr. Chairman, that situation has been directly brought about by a lack of administrative efficiency on the part of the members of the cabinet, by their inconceivable carelessness in managing the business of the nation, by a lack of cohesion among themselves, by the want of confidence which they have brought upon themselves on the part of high officials of the civil service and, as a result also, by a constant hesitancy on the
Ways and Means
part of Canadian and foreign businessmen who have never been able to know where they were going.
To cope with this economical decline, the government should have taken drastic steps and established a specific program, on a short term as well as on a long term basis. It has not done so. There is nothing surprising in the fact that the Canadian people have shown their discontent by voting, in the proportion of 63 per cent, against the Conservative government.
But, on account of certain factors, the government has not been completely overthrown, as the population was hoping it would, and we now have a minority government, supported by those new Conservatives, the Social Crediters. Our greatest surprise, in the beginning of the session, and ever since, came from the union of the Conservative party with the followers and white caps of Mrs. Gilberte Cote-Mercier and of Mr. Louis Even, who have schooled the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), blindly followed by the other Social Credit members from the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, the Social Credit members from Quebec are Social Crediters in the province of Quebec. They put forward a Social Credit doctrine in the house, but they vote in favour of the Conservative party each time they can do so. To my way of thinking, that attitude results in the greatest political concubinage ever seen in Canada since confederation.
When they came forward as candidates in the province of Quebec, they took a formal commitment to fight the government. They condemned the policy of the Conservative party. After the campaign, after the election of a certain number of Social Crediters, the hon. member for Villeneuve, leader of the group, at a press conference on the French network of the C.B.C., committed himself to overthrow the government at the first opportunity. To support what I am saying, I should like to quote from page 76 of a book entitled "Real Caouette vous parle". In answer to a question from Mr. Gerard Morin, parliamentary correspondent for Le Droit, who asked him if the Social Crediters would put forward a non-confidence motion, the hon. member for Villeneuve stated:
Perhaps not, but if somebody comes forward with a non-confidence motion, you can rest assured that I will vote against the government, whether it is headed by Diefenbaker or Pearson. There is no possible coalition between the Social Crediters and any federal political party.


Mr. Cook:: And there has not been any.


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Caouette goes on to say:
It is with our principles and for our principles that we are elected, and we will maintain our stand.

Ways and Means
Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that the era of principles is over, and while the Social Credit members keep on expounding their strange theory in the house, they wilfully and constantly maintain in power a government which they had themselves asked the people to condemn, fight and topple down.
In the last election campaign, they had promised to fight unemployment which, according to them, was a Conservative evil. But today, in the house, they maintain in power a Conservative government which is responsible for the most serious unemployment situation we have ever known in this country, and for their part, the Conservatives are happy. They show it by their smile, their embraces and their delicate attention towards the Social Crediters. They are happy to be maintained in power by these spiritual sons of Mrs. Gilberte Cote-Mercier and of Mr. Louis Even.
The Social Crediters had promised the people to fight against credit restrictions.


Jean-Paul Cook: That is what we have done.


Guy Rouleau: But they are maintaining in power a Conservative government which has imposed upon us the greatest credit restrictions ever known in Canada, and the Conservatives, for their part, are happy to be maintained in power by these spiritual sons of Mrs. Gilberte Cote-Mercier and of Mr. Louis Even. The only thing left for the Conservatives to do would be to wear the white beret of the union of electors.
Mr. Chairman, during the election campaign, the Social Crediters made biting criticisms and promised to raise the standard of living of eastern farmers, most particularly that of Quebec farmers. We have been here for several weeks already, and yet nothing has been done, nothing concrete has been done in that direction. The Social Crediters merely maintain in power a Conservative government that has done nothing concrete for eastern farmers-


Mr. Pigeon:: May I ask a question?


Guy Rouleau: -and the Conservatives are always happy to be maintained in power by the Social Crediters.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I put a question to the hon. member?


Guy Rouleau: No, no.


An hon. Member:: It is not written in his text.


Guy Rouleau: In the last election campaign, the Social Crediters had promised to have cancelled the wheat sales made by this government to communist countries. Now, not

only those contracts have not been cancelled and denounced, but the government said it was prepared to grant other contracts while the "cretinists" maintain in power-


An hon. Member:: Tell us something about the "cretinists"!


Guy Rouleau: -while the "creditistes"
continue to maintain in power a Conservative government. On behalf of the province of Quebec, of the people of Canada, the Social Crediters had formally committed themselves to bringing in without any delay monetary reforms, according to their creed-


Mr. Mariineau:: Tell us about your 22 years in office.


Guy Rouleau: -but they are still contributing to maintaining in office a Conservative government who will never agree to implement such reforms.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Tell us about your banker.


Guy Rouleau: Sure, I will talk about the banker-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He also happens to be the hon. member for Laurier.


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Chairman, I see that the hon. member for Joliette-l'Assomption-Mont-calm is reverting to his old tricks. One must admit that since the beginning of the session he has remained very quiet, especially since he has received a small promotion, but there seems to be something wrong now.
The Social Credit members have also repeatedly attacked the hon. member for Laurier. The hon. member for Laurier is a Canadian who has served his country well over the many years he was the member for Stormont-


An hon. Member:: You should say that he served himself well.
Another hon. Member: A million dollars a year.


Guy Rouleau: He was the initiator of the greatest project ever carried out in the country.


Jean-Paul Cook: The construction of bank buildings.


Guy Rouleau: The hon. member for Laurier is the person responsible for the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway and he has served his country well. Moreover, he is assistant to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and we are proud of him. In my opinion, Canadians of all the sections of the country, and especially those from Quebec, should be proud of the leadership given by the hon. member for Laurier.
A great many members would be well inspired-


The Chairman:: Order. The hon. member for Lisgar is rising to speak to a point of order.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. gentleman would carry on his eulogy of the hon. member outside the House of Commons. I think it is completely out of order here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a word on the point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think we could make a bargain from this side of the chamber. If hon. gentlemen opposite would cease these phony eulogies of their leader, I am sure we would not say anything more in praise of the hon. member for Laurier. (Translation):


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Chairman, now that order has been somewhat restored in the house, with the permission of the house, I shall proceed to say that if the Canadian people, and the province of Quebec in particular, supported Social Credit to some extent in the last election, it is mostly because they withdrew their confidence in the Conservative party. Yet it is the Social Credit members alone who keep the Conservative government in power, a political party repudiated by the Canadian people.
The Social Crediters have betrayed the mandate entrusted to them by their electors, especially those of the province of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Guy Rouleau: Instead of assuming the responsibilities entrusted to them, they prefer to live in concubinage with the Conservatives and keep them in office. But I am convinced that this marriage will not last long because the lovers of today will not get along and will become, in the more or less near future, bitter enemies fighting desperately against each other, and that might prove to be the downfall of both of them.


Mr. Perron:: May I put a question to the hon. member?


Guy Rouleau: No. Since the beginning of the session, Mr. Chairman, when I see what both of them do, I always remember the song "Autumn Leaves", which represents very well what will happen to those two parties. In a verse of that song it is said that the sea erases in the sand the footsteps of separated lovers. Well, as early as the next election, the popular tide will erase on the electoral map the steps of Conservative and Social Credit lovers.
As I said when I started my remarks, Mr. Chairman, there are now positive indications, 27507-3-78
Ways and Means
as mentioned in Time magazine, that we are heading for a very serious economic crisis during the coming year, and yet neither the Conservative party nor the Social Crediters seem ready to take the necessary steps to counter it.
Instead of giving us easier money, they restrict credit. And the Social Crediters, who said they wanted to facilitate credit, nevertheless support through their votes that tight money policy.
To prevent this new economic crisis, we ought to undertake immediately important works throughout Canada. The Social Crediters in their remarks also request works, but by their action in voting with the Conservative party, they are also voting for a reduction of public works of the order of $228 million, as announced by the government.
To free their Social Credit friends from the obligation of casting a vote in this debate, the Conservative administration found a way to have a budget speech submitted to us by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan), without allowing a regular debate, which would have enabled us to submit amendments and given us an opportunity to vote.
Under the circumstances, it is impossible for us to positively find remedies for the situation, and our Social Credit friends seem to condone the procedure.
As for us, the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon) and the other Liberal members who spoke before me in this debate, all offered constructive suggestions to the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Guy Rouleau: Like the people, we have no confidence in this government and when we had an opportunity to cast our votes, we did so in keeping with the wish expressed by the population and with our own pledges, contrary to our friends the Social Crediters.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What did you do during the 22 years you were in office?


Guy Rouleau: We did ask and we continue to press for a comprehensive program of public works that should be carried out throughout the country in order to relieve unemployment. As for myself, I think that instead of paying unemployment insurance benefits, we should undertake works that would not only give men employment and

Ways and Means
allow them to earn money-thus taking into account human dignity-but would also be profitable, such as projects which would be monuments to the Canadian people and to future generations.
As I said earlier, we, on this side of the house, shall remain faithful to our principles and to the people who cast a vote of nonconfidence in this government.
The Conservative party has already been condemned by the people. As for the Social Crediters, they will bear the responsibility for having maintained in power the government which had been rejected by the people.


Jean-Paul Cook: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


An hon. Member:: No.
(Text):


Mr. Thomas:: Ways and Means
prices at equitable and stable levels. Currently United States sugar beet prices are approximately 2 cents per pound higher than Canadian prices.
Australia protects her domestic sugar industry by controlling prices and prohibiting imports. Austria, West Germany, France and the Netherlands protect their domestic sugar industries by a tariff, a flexible duty sufficient to equalize the costs of domestic and imported sugar, and they also use import controls. The duty amounts to the difference between the domestic supported price and the cost of imported sugar. Denmark protects her domestic industry with a small tariff and an import monopoly. The Irish protect their sugar beet industry by consumer price control, and import licences are issued only to the Irish Sugar Company. The Mexican sugar industry is protected by a 50 per cent ad valorem duty and a fixed valuation for duty purposes of $10 per 100 pounds. Consumer price control is also in effect.
In summing up, it is admitted that the sugar beet industry cannot compete with raw cane as a source of sugar supply. It just is not possible for a great many reasons. That fact is accepted by all concerned; and practically all countries which are situated in the northern temperate zone, countries which are industrialized and where living standards are fairly high, for the purposes of national defence as well as to guarantee at all times a diversified source of sugar supply have made arrangements to protect their own sugar beet industries.
The sugar beet producers of Canada say that the time has now come when the government must decide whether the sugar beet industry in Canada is worth saving. If it is worth saving, then additional support will have to be provided. A great deal of support has been provided in recent years. The government has studied the situation carefully and since 1958, I believe, subsidies have been paid to the sugar beet industry. The method of paying subsidies has been varied several times in an effort to find a formula which will best serve the purpose. No formula so far has completely satisfied the requirements.
The method being used for 1962 is too new to be fully appraised. The present method may be satisfactory, but it is felt by the sugar beet producers that, as they have recommended, the support price should be raised from 4| cents to 5J cents per pound. I recommend wholeheartedly to the members of this committee, to the house and to the government that the fullest consideration be given to the sugar beet industry in Canada. A

decision is urgent as to whether this industry is worth saving. If it is worth saving, then means will have to be found to provide adequate encouragement for producers of sugar beet to continue their operation.


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question just to keep the record straight? Did I understand the hon. member to say that the price paid to beet growers was about $11, and is that true of Alberta and Manitoba as well as Ontario?


William Howell Arthur Thomas: No, Mr. Chairman. The
method of supporting sugar beet production, as I said, has been changed several times to try to find a formula which would satisfy the requirements of every area. This has been found most difficult. Until last year the workings of the support price system were found to be much more satisfactory in Alberta and Manitoba than they were in Ontario. Ontario had a terrific growth of beets in 1961; the average crop was over 17 tons per acre, which is very high. However, due to the climatic conditions prevailing in 1961 the sugar content was exceedingly low.
Therefore the formula and the method of subsidy used did not fulfil the requirements of the Canadian industry. Let me repeat; the method of subsidization has been changed on several occasions in an effort to find one which would cover the conditions prevailing in each of the four sugar beet areas. Quebec is best off at the present time. Quebec sugar beet processing is done by a crown corporation and they pay the growers, I understand, $13 a ton regardless of sugar content. In addition, the growers of Quebec receive from the federal government any subsidy which is given to producers in Ontario.
The sugar beet growers have met the government every year, and sometimes several times a year. This year there is complete unanimity among the Canadian sugar beet growers association along the lines I have stated, that this industry cannot continue without additional support.
(Translation):


Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Chairman, as this is my maiden speech in this house, I take this opportunity to congratulate you and your colleagues on your appointment to the very important offices you hold in the house.
I listened with great care to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) when he explained the financial situation in Canada and were it not for the fact that I was born in Canada and that I have always lived here, I would have been led to believe that our country had never known better times. The spokesman for the government

drew us a picture of that beautiful vision, and of that beautiful dream, in which he and his colleagues have believed since their accession to office.
I think, like many other members, that it is high time the members of the ministry cease deluding themselves and recognize at last the situation with which our population is faced.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that in the light of the results of the election of June 18 last, and the implementation of the austerity program from June 24 on, the minister is a bit daring when he claims that the economic situation has improved in Canada as much as he would want us to believe.
I admit that the minister is absolutely free to build up the administration he belongs to, but I doubt that he had any success in convincing several hon. members of this house of all the attributes of the government.
The revised estimates he submitted to us are in every way in accordance with the doctrine formerly adhered to by the Liberal party, a doctrine the Conservative party seems ready to adopt. Such a doctrine would have been justified in the fifteenth century, but it is not adapted to our own era. In my opinion, the philosophy of both parties is 100 per cent identical in the sense that it does not take into account the facts pertaining to this century and all those who adhere to this philosoply tend to reduce the purchasing power of the consumer to the level of production.
Mr. Chairman, the government's fiscal policy aims to cut down the estimates of the various departments responsible for public works in Canada. The government's policy in this respect will bring about a further cut in the number of jobs available to Canadians. Like several other members, I believe that the administration is wrong, and that it should, instead, favour and undertake, as soon as possible, large scale public works, as could easily be done throughout the country.
The Saguenay district, of which I am a representative, provides presently, as in the past, a good source of income for the government, as compared to the population. In view of the natural resources in our district which are exploited by large corporations, I am entitled to claim, on behalf of my fellow citizens, that the government invest sizeable amounts in public works, since those amounts come
Ways and Means
from taxes levied against corporations which live off the resources of our district.
The city of Alma, where I live, has spent a lot of money to build a very modern municipal air terminus, and all there is left to do now is to pave the runway. That airport could easily become the centre of all commercial activities in the northern part of the province. The military airport in Bagot-ville, which will be increasingly called upon for the national defence of the country, does not meet any more the requirements of commercial and civil aviation. The tragedy which happened there recently is one of the most striking proofs to support that view. The Alma airport is some 60 miles west from Bagotville, right in the heart of the kingdom of the Saguenay. It could very well become the port of call of commercial as well as of T.C.A. airplanes on their way to the north. That would be an excellent development for our area. It would enable all surplus farm production to be shipped to the north shore, an area which is bound to expand more and more, thus requiring an ever increasing quantity of farm commodities.
Our area also has retaining walls to protect from erosion a large portion of farm lands; but every j'ear, those retaining walls crumble into the magnificent lake St. John. Those walls had been built by the Liberal government but, alas, during the five years the Conservative party has been in power, it has not found it advisable to add a single stone to them.
I could also insist upon a great many other improvements by the government; but let me tell you only that the Saguenay area-as you may have read in the Labour Gazette-is considered as having a manpower surplus. I also would like to point out to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) that, according to the Labour Gazette, the Saguenay area and the town of Oshawa where he lives are considered as the two regions where labour is affected the most. Surely, this is not to the credit of the Minister of Labour.


An hon. Member:: Defeat them.


H.-Pit Lessard: We ask the
government to consider at once those problems facing the areas thus defined.
Mr. Chairman, the constituency of Lake St. John, which I have the honour to represent in this house, is composed in equal parts of farmers and city dwellers.

Ways and Means
Agriculture would be fairly good, but unstable low prices, and the difficulty of marketing farm products, added to a constant increase in production costs, render the farmer's position rather difficult, not to say impossible.
The farmers of my area, who are hard working and active, and who appreciate the need to unite and to group themselves to protect their interests, have set up in my constituency, on a co-operative basis, a somewhat important complex of animal slaughtering and pork butchery which in the last few years, has had an increasing turnover. Last year, if I am not mistaken, that organization made more than $10 million. I think it is a fine achievement on the part of the farmers of our area, and I am sure that with the help of the government they will be able to keep on improving their situation.
I consider that the main problem at present facing the farmers of my area is that of feed grain. In our district, it is possible to obtain feed grain by water transportation. But I believe the government will have to help those organizations facilitate transportation of grain by water up to the harbours of the Saguenay area, that is Bagotville or Chicoutimi.
I am sure that, at present, this co-operative organization is headed by people who are conscious of that problem. In fact, they even have at their disposal, at present, an expert in the matter, who has had the opportunity of travelling in the various western provinces to study on the spot the possibility of buying on behalf of farmers of my area, what they need in the way of feed grain.
I think that I should point out here that the Saguenay area consumed, last year, over 70 million pounds of feed grain, which were shipped to us by rail.
I am sure that those people will soon approach the officials of the Department of Agriculture, to suggest something now under study, which is to set up locally in our area a complete storage system in the deep-water harbours of Bagotville and Chicoutimi, as well as a flour mill to answer grain and feed needs in the Saguenay district, which will result in doubling the consumption of grain in our area in the near future.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if you would call it one o'clock?


Mr.   Chairman@: As it is now past one o'clock, I shall leave the chair.

(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Charman, I wonder whether I may be permitted to put a brief question to the Acting Minister of Finance. Is it the intention of the government today to make the returns to orders Nos. 29, 30 and 31 in the name of Mr. Turner? If so, could they be made as quickly as possible?


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: I shall have to make inquiry. I will inform my hon. friend later in the day.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m. (Translation):
H.-Pit Lessard: Mr. Chairman, when the committee adjourned at dinner time, I was dealing with the farm problem in my constituency and, before changing the subject, I should like to finish what I have to say on the matter.
The government has always tried to increase our markets for farm products, and more particularly for feed grain. And every discussion we had in this house on that subject dealt with this aspect.
I should like to point out to the Minister of Agriculture, and also to the government, that they would stand to gain by turning to the east. If some research was done and some expenditure made to increase consumption of feed grain in the east, it would become apparent that that district-and more particularly the Saguenay area-presents a considerable potential for consumption, which might be doubled by an improved organization.
I submit that point of view to the department responsible for these matters, as it has, indeed, often been brought to its attention in this house.
Before tackling another theme, I want to congratulate the government for having at last appointed a French Canadian parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, in the person of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). The appointment of the hon. member is a wise choice, because I am sure that he is well prepared to fill this position. We, and more particularly the representatives of the province of Quebec, were glad to hear it.

On the other hand, I would like to add that, as the government, at a given moment, chose to name an Associate Minister of National Defence while Canadians had not asked for it, then I think it should grant the wishes of the Canadian people by appointing an associate minister of agriculture who would alternately represent the great areas of this country, the east and the west.
Thus we would have the assurance that the eastern as well as the western farmers would be fairly treated by the department and the government, in all relevant fields.
Mr. Chairman, the federal government is more and more called upon to look after education. The problem of education is under provincial jurisdiction according to the confederation pact, and, on that account, the federal government should not be too much involved in that field.
It is clear that, if the Canadian people are turning more and more towards Ottawa to find a solution to the financial problems of education, it is mostly due to the fact that provincial governments are not sufficiently able to pay the ever increasing amount which Canada's development requires, more particularly in that field.
If the federal government has enough money to subsidize education at the provincial level, this is due to the fact that it keeps too great a share of taxes, thus making it impossible for the provinces to perform effectively the duties devolved to them by confederation.
Mr. Chairman, I trust that the government will consider that it is urgent to give back to the provinces their sources of revenue so as to enable them to carry out their responsibilities in all respects.
I know that the government has increased and intends to increase even more the deductions on personal income tax, for provincial income tax purposes, and I trust that in the next budget-if one is introduced-it will pursue the policy which consists in restoring part of the rights and privileges which the previous administration had taken away on the occasion of the last war and which it neglected to return, through a minor oversight, once the war was over. I know that a commission has been established to consider the problem of our taxation system.
However, like many others, I deplore the fact that the provinces were not invited to appoint their own representatives on that commission, which will have to suggest solutions big with consequences for their development. If I can rely on the figures that I succeeded
Ways and Means
in obtaining from various sources, the federal government collects yearly in Quebec some $2 billion through various taxes, but it gives back only $500 million. If those figures are correct, I suggest that we do not have to look any further for the cause of the financial problems of the various provincial, municipal and school authorities. The provinces will have to be given back as soon as possible their taxation fields, and I invite the present government to act along those lines, because I feel certain that it will then meet with the approval of all people in Canada.
At this stage of my remarks, I should like to quote an extract from a statement made by the premier of our province, last Friday, in Hull:
On the other hand, I would ask those who are governing on the other side of the river, I would ask my federal Liberal friends-
That is for you, gentlemen.
-who are on the other side of the river to realize it is time-
He was asking you to realize it is time.
-for the federal government to understand that provincial priority needs, in the field of taxation require that those rights be handed back to the provinces.
Now, listen to this:
During the war, priority needs-


An hon. Member:: You suffered no losses for 20 years.


H.-Pit Lessard: -to defend democracy may have required that taxation rights be handed over to the central power. Today, if our democracy is to survive, if the economic expansion of provinces and municipalities is to be achieved, Ottawa must hand back to the provinces those rights which had been lent to the central government.
Our Liberal friends on my right-


An hon. Member:: They stole them.


H.-Pit Lessard: -like to applaud to the words of the Quebec premier which is one of their good friends and we, from this part of the house, would fully agree with Mr. Lesage's words, if only he would today keep his word.
It seems that at the time when he was part of the Quebec representation here, and that he was a minister, his opinions were-I would not say diametrically opposed, but they were not similar to those expressed in the statement I have just quoted.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He was a centralist.

Ways and Means


H.-Pit Lessard: But, however, I would not like to minimize what he said last Friday in Hull, because I think and hope he was sincere.


An hon. Member:: That does not happen often.
Another hon. Member: Oh, that is not certain.


An hon. Member:: There is nothing certain.


H.-Pit Lessard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take advantage of the latitude granted to us in relation to the discussion on the budget to raise a matter which is controversial at the moment, and I mean the federal civil servants.
It is inconceivable that, in 1962, more than 50,000 civil servants should still be at the mercy of the government and of the dictatorial decisions of government members, while everywhere else in the country, employees of private enterprise have been granted the legal right to unite and make representations about their working conditions, salaries and promotions. Now, such a right is being denied the servants of the crown.
Mr. Chairman, I think the time has come to render justice to that group of workers, so that they may be treated like any other group of Canadians.
The recent Glassco report emphasized many deficiencies in administration which resulted in a waste of public funds, but I do not believe we should refuse to increase the civil servants' salaries in order to remedy that situation. In my opinion, to do so when the rate increase had been agreed upon in principle would be likely to aggravate the situation. I also do not find it normal that an organization which employs so many people should not have established long ago its own personnel training school as every important enterprise in this country has done.
I should not like to leave the subject of the public service without saying a few words on the bilingual character of our country. There is no need to repeat here all the legitimate grievances we have heard concerning the way French is treated in the administration generally. One has but to read the Glassco report to find a few concrete examples. What strikes me in all this is to hear Her Majesty the Queen and her husband Prince Philip, as well as Sir Harold Macmillan, Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing what I believe is a non-bilingual country, speaking perfect French, right in front of our leaders who do not even understand that language and that, in an officially bilingual country. It is a shame, at a time when in every country of the world, people endeavour to speak two

languages, to see that in Canada, only Quebec citizens have to be bilingual in order to succeed in the administration of our nation. It is high time that bilingualism should cease being theoretical and become a real fact in the interests of Canada.
As an actual recommendation, Mr. Chairman, we suggest the grant of a bonus to any bilingual employee for his better services to the nation. We hope that will urge everybody to become bilingual. I think that suggestion deserves consideration.
Mr. Chairman, since we started discussing new legislation, two projects were introduced. The purpose of both is to extend credit in order to assist production and marketing. Within the framework of today's economic concepts, it is obvious that those measures were necessary, and I would even say that they do not go far enough because they will not enable our industries to sell all the production surpluses that cripple them.
At this time the government should extend credit to all friendly countries, especially those in Latin America, to enable them to obtain in our country what they need to increase the standard of living of their people. That would undoubtedly be the best weapon ever used by a country to fight the rise of subversive ideas in our hemisphere.
While the people of Canada would be busy producing to meet orders for various goods that would follow the implementation of such a policy, the problems of unemployment and economic instability would solve themselves to the greatest advantage of all.
I know that many in this house will say that those countries have not the means to pay for all the goods we would put at their disposal. In my opinion, it would be the very way by which we could greatly improve the present state of our economy. I know that those countries have not the means to pay, but at present in Canada, we have a certain number of workers without jobs. We could use that policy to put people to work, to produce some consumer goods and export them into friendly countries. We would contribute to improve the situation.
If we have accepted during the last wars to work unstintingly in order to provide for all the necessary materials of war, I believe that we would accept to work in order to provide those friendly countries with anything they need, and even if we were doing it without compensation we would have, at least, the satisfaction to know that we had contributed to the building of those countries,

that we had assisted people in need instead of killing and demolishing as we did during the last world war.
To conclude, since my time is practically over-


Mr. Walker:: May I ask you a question?


H.-Pit Lessard: When I am through with my speech; my time is running out.
To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the government that a country may declare a state of emergency or set itself up on a war footing when it is threatened or attacked by an enemy. That is normal and we accept it. However, since we are on this topic, I should like to add that unemployment seems to have become the normal state of affairs in Canada, that the number of unemployed is going up and that far from improving, things seem to be getting worse. That puts some of the people concerned in a spirit of revolt which could well lead to a national catastrophe.
I would therefore suggest that the government acknowledge that Canada's public enemy No. 1 is the present unemployment which is the cause of all this, that a state of emergency be declared and that war be waged against this menace which is threatening our country right now.
Some may say that those are drastic means, but to settle such a problem as this, I do not think that the people of Canada shall cease from considering this government responsible for the administration of the country and that it is its responsibility to take drastic means to resolve the problems that face this nation.
Mr. Chairman, I am aware that my time is almost ended, but I wish to thank the members of the house for their kind attention. We now have a democratic government in the true meaning of the word. We were elected in a democratic way. The house as it is composed gives the best picture of democracy we could have, but when a government holds 200 seats out of 265, democracy is no longer existing because the government becomes a dictatorship in such conditions. I believe that we can draw a certain advantage from the present composition of the house. We are here to work, not in the interest of political parties but in the best interests of the Canadian nation.
Ways and Means


The Deputy Chairman:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member allow a question? The hon. member talked about bilingualism. Does he want the leader of his own party, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) to speak both official languages fluently?
(Text):


Rémi Paul: Order. To have this privilege I believe the hon. member has to receive the unanimous consent of the house.


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


H.-Pit Lessard: I am happy to answer that question for the member for Bonavista-Twillingate and I congratulate him for his excellent French.
I can assure him of one thing, and it is that our leader, the hon. member for Red Deer is learning French. We had an opportunity to talk French with him, and he understands the language and is making some progress; he shows good will and above all sincerity. I wish to thank and commend him. (Text):


Mr. McGee:: Mr. Chairman, I am rising to ask a question under the same privilege that was granted to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. In view of the hon. member's commendable interest in bilingualism, I wonder whether he would explain why a recent publication of the Social Credit party is available only in French.
(Translation):


H.-Pit Lessard: Unless I am mistaken, the hon. member is asking why some of our own publications are in English?


An hon. Member:: In French only.


H.-Pit Lessard: As far as I know, our publications are issued in both French and English. This may not be true of some documents, and I admit that we are not 100 per cent perfect, but we are trying to improve, and I would suggest that all other members do the same.


Mr. Rock:: Mr. Chairman, it is not without some misgivings that I take part for the first time in the debates of this respectable assembly.
As a new member, I find it difficult to speak on the budget without a budget having being submitted, and, Mr. Chairman, it will be realized that this will be even more difficult if I am to abide by the standing orders.
As a Canadian of Polish extraction, my first statement will be the following:	I
sincerely believe in bilingualism and national

Ways and Means
unity, as has been advocated for years by the Liberal party.
Mr. Chairman, mine is the constituency of Jacques Cartier-Lasalle, which recalls the names of two illustrious explorers in the history of Canada.
My constituency, located at the western limit of the island of Montreal, covers a third of the island. It has a population of 162,000, of which 86,000 are voters. I believe that my constituency comes fourth in Canada as regards the number of voters.
(Text):
I should like to take this occasion, Mr. Chairman, to thank the electors of the constituency of Jacques Cartier-Lasalle for the confidence they have shown in me by electing me as their representative in this house. Scattered within the boundaries of the constituency of Jacques Cartier-Lasalle we have 17 municipalities and within these municipalities we have residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural areas with enough acreage for the world's fair, the new C.B.C. headquarters and thousands of acres for other future projects.
Most of the constituency is surrounded by water, the beautiful Lachine rapids, riviere des Prairies, lake St. Louis and lake of Two Mountains, which make up part of the St. Lawrence and the Ottawa rivers. It is a sad situation when in this scientific age we let such beauty be used as a cesspool. Most of the municipalities dump their sewage directly into these lakes without any treatment.
In 1960 the government amended the National Housing Act to provide financial aid to municipalities intending to build sewage treatment plants within a certain time limit, March 31, 1963. I was happy to hear today the announcement by the Minister of Public Works in which he asked the house to approve the extension of the date to March 31, 1965. This is what I have been asking for. In fact, I have just removed four pages from my speech because of this announcement.
My predecessor, who was a Conservative and still is a Conservative and also mayor of Dorval, spoke in the debate on Bill No. C-42 which amended the National Housing Act to provide financial aid to municipalities wishing to construct and complete sewage treatment plants before March 31, 1963. As found on page 155 of Hansard of November 24, 1960, he said:
My own city of Dorval adopted a resolution to take advantage of this offer on the very night the announcement was made in the speech from the throne.
This was stated on November 24, 1960, nearly two years ago, and the city of Dorval is not ready to go ahead with their project. Their plans were not ready two months ago

and I am not sure if they are ready to proceed even now. There are many municipalities which are not ready, and which have just started preliminary study of sewage treatment projects. This date change, when approved by the house, will be good news to all municipalities across Canada, and especially to the municipalities in the constituency of Jacques Cartier-Lasalle.
As to the budget, the Conservative government has been permitted by its supporters to introduce six straight deficit budgets in a row. At present, as I understand it, this debate is a budget debate, a debate on the budget which was introduced by the past minister of finance and which the house did not have an opportunity to debate fully because the Prime Minister dissolved parliament. Now, with certain austerity measures introduced, we have a more or less revised budget or, as they call it, revised estimates introduced by the new Minister of Finance who is treated as a hero by his party because he is cutting out some of the deficit. He is still however introducing a revised deficit budget, which is not actually a budget, and therefore we have no say as to confidence in the government in matters of finance.
Mr. Chairman, I was elected in 1951 as alderman of the city of Lachine. I was in office from 1951 to 1955, and then from 1957 to date. We in municipal governments are obliged to present proper, approved, balanced budgets before we have the right to tax the people, and I am proud to announce that while I was in council we were obliged to balance our budget, we never had a deficit, and always had a surplus. In fact our director of finance, Mr. Rene Laberge, a very capable man, has had 26 surpluses in a row and has received many citations for his endeavours in municipal finance. I may add that this gentleman, in 1962, will have served the city of Lachine for 40 years.
Mr. Laberge is consulted by many town managers across Canada and in the United States regarding financial problems and management and, if you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest to ministers of finance, both past and present, that they consult experts who have proper public experience, such as Mr. Laberge.
The constituency of Jacques Cartier-Lasalle is considered the crossroads of the province of Quebec. Within our territory we have the Montreal international airport at Dorval and the C.N.R. newly constructed humpyard in Lachine, which were important Liberal projects. We also have the old Lachine canal and other government departments such as the R.C.N. naval depot at La Salle and the Pulp & Paper Research Laboratory of Canada at Pointe Claire, which were also Liberal pro-

jects. In addition we have a veterans hospital at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, many post offices, and one county unemployment insurance office in Lachine which has been busier in the past five years than ever before because of the unemployment problem which we have suffered during the past five years of Conservative government. In fact I am sure there were more withdrawals than deposits during that period, and the only visible new work seen by the unemployed was an increase in the staff of the unemployment offices.
The constituency of Jacques Cartier-Lasalle is very heavily industrialized. We have heavy industry and light manufactures of all sorts, and the constituents are farmers, labourers, technical men, white collar workers, professional people, and businessmen. I was amazed to hear during the past five years of the large number of people collecting unemployment insurance, many of whom were white collar workers. As has been said many times, when unemployment hits the white collar workers, the situation is serious. It was serious in this county for the past five years and we see no hope of any long range improvement as a result of measures implemented by the Conservative government.
I should now like to direct special attention to the taxi and parking situation at Dorval airport and the choosing of the world's fair site on the island of Montreal. At Montreal international airport at Dorval the Department of Transport operates a metered parking lot which has a charge of 50 cents per hour, while in competition to this D.O.T. metered parking lot, and adjoining it, is a parking concession which is rented out by D.O.T. to a private concern that charges less for parking than the D.O.T. lot. In fact the concessionaires charge only 25 cents for the first two hours and 25 cents for each additional four hours, or a maximum of $1.50 per day. This means that for 50 cents at the D.O.T. lot one may park for one hour while for the same price he may park in the concession lot for six hours.
The most serious situation, however, is that when a person overparks his car on the D.O.T. parking lot it is towed away and he is compelled to pay an additional charge of $2 plus costs. On summary conviction a fine of up to $50 may be imposed by the courts. This tends to force all airport customers and visitors to park on the concession lot, which is cheaper, rather than on the D.O.T. metered parking lot. Such a situation is detrimental to Department of Transport operations and profits. It is also detrimental to the good name of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police because they are being used to enforce these unjustified regulations which force airport customers to use the concession 27507-3-79}
Ways and Means
parking lot, rather than the D.O.T. parking lot which is more expensive and has very strict regulations.
It seems that all these regulations are designed to bring profit to the concessionaires rather than to bring about proper operations. If you, sir, will permit me to go further, then I say the population of the island of Montreal is deprived of proper services to and from the airport through these regulations, and this is done in order to protect a few individuals who own and operate concessions at the airport.
No one can enter the airport unless he goes by private car, taxi or special bus, and in nearly every case the concessionaires will make a profit. No commuter buses, such as the Montreal transportation commission buses and the provincial transport buses, which together service the whole island of Montreal, have the right to enter the airport grounds, and therefore the population of the island of Montreal is deprived of proper transit service to and from the airport.
There are two other concessions which are not justified. These are the special taxi, or limousine service as some call it, and the special bus service which operates from the hotel area to the airport. No taxi has the right to pick up a passenger at the airport unless specially called by that passenger. Indeed many taxi owners have been taken to court for this offence and have been condemned to pay heavy fines. I say to the committee, open the airport to all taxis under special licences or permits and allow the Montreal transportation commission's services to be extended to the airport so as to give full and proper service to and from the airport to all the population in the vicinity of it. I also say that the Department of Transport should operate all parking facilities without regimentation and at a lower charge.
Having received so many complaints about these injustices I could even go as far as to say that the reason why there is no drinking fountain on the main floor of the administration building is that the concessionnaires will sell more soft drinks. This is how far this government and their directorate have gone.
Mr. Chairman, the constituency of Jacques Cartier-Lasalle, has thousands of acres of vacant land available, four main highways including the trans-Canada highway, the two main railways of Canada and the airways of the world passing through this constituency. Where else but here can the Canadian government choose a site for the world's fair and even the new headquarters of the C.B.C.? It would be a waste of public money if the Canadian government were to decide to expropriate land in the centre of the city of

Ways and Means
Montreal, where there are no proper parking facilities, where there is a serious confusion of traffic problems which have no solution, and where expropriation of built up areas would cost the Canadian people millions of extra dollars. This waste is unnecessary, when the constituency of Jacques Cartier-Lasalle has available all this vacant land in the proper locations. In fact, if the government while promoting an austerity program wastes public funds unnecessarily, then the people, the public, will be very suspicious of this government as to their real intentions regarding saving, austerity, and of their sincerity.
Mr. Chairman, I have noticed with interest the public works developments going on at this moment in the vicinity of Confederation Heights within the outskirts of Ottawa. Here you have the new headquarters for the Post Office Department, the C.B.C. and many other departments. The constituency of Jacques Cartier-Lasalle has many sites similar to the one at Confederation Heights; therefore there is no need for the federal government to waste money on the expropriation of built up areas in Montreal when we have so much open land in the constituency of Jacques Cartier-Lasalle, where proper sites for the world's fair, the C.B.C. and other federal projects could easily be found.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to extend to the Minister of Finance, the Hon. George Nowlan, congratulations and best wishes in his new portfolio. The province of Nova Scotia has given to the public service of Canada many men and women of distinction and ability. None of these have earned a greater measure of respect and admiration than our colleague in his capacity as minister of national revenue. In the same spirit I am reminded of those sterling qualities which the former minister of finance, now the Minister of Justice, brought to bear in the discharge of his duties. History will record that he worked as one inspired at a time when this nation faced great and searching problems, most of which had been shelved by the former administration for more than ten years. After 22 years of Liberal rule the people of this nation faced the prospect of foreign domination and control of our resources both industrial and financial. The hon. member for Eglinton in his capacity as minister of finance never lost sight of the greater Canada that should be the objective of all Canadians. Those engaged in the primary industries of agriculture, labour and manufacturing will forever owe a measure of gratitude and appreciation for his resourceful years as Canada's minister of finance.
During the past several years this government, led by the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, has instituted long term policies which step by step are ensuring that Canadians can and will recapture that measure of equity and control which was so lavishly and unashamedly surrendered to outside interests by the former government in the late years of that administration. Opposition members in this debate have glibly talked of what they would do to regain the control of our resources. A few years ago their boast was that Canadians were allowing outside interests, particularly from the United States, to take over an increasing control of many of our natural resources. That was one of the great boasts of that administration, the extent to which foreign capital was taking over the resources of our country, and their apathy to the most vital of our resources-I refer to our human resources-was not the least of their sins.
Where was the long term policy then? Their boast in those days was. "You never had it better". For a short-time popularity they squandered a great part of the Canadian heritage and the consequences of their folly should, I believe, remind them of the adage that there are none so blind as those who begin to believe their own propaganda. I would recommend that adage to the hon. member for Essex West. He might profitably consider that for a moment or two. After listening to his discourse I have come to the conclusion that he is a new Liberal, and I emphasize the word "new". He must have been listening to the hon. member for Davenport and the hon. member for Essex East. In fact, I think they must have been writing history for him, because they did not tell him how the Liberals lived with the exchange crisis of 1947 and 1948. That cannot absolve him from the knowledge of the arrogance and neglect of 1956 and 1957. The tarnish of those days cannot be easily forgotten.
Who said that the Atlantic region should be vacated? I would like to say that he sits over there today, but he is absent, as he has been so many times during the last several weeks. What was the long term policy of those who said, "If they want our wheat, let them come and get it"? Who left the western farmer to smother under the surpluses so arrogantly accumulated? Who today is the champion of that sordid heritage; who but the newest thing in the Liberal party, the hon. member for Assiniboia, who also is not in his seat at the present moment?


Mr. Argue:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I was talking to Your Honour. I am in the chamber.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge that the hon. member is now in his seat; and he is a good looking gentleman, I will say that. The hon. member lor Essex West has something to say about Canada's unemployed. Who failed to provide training for Canadians entering the labour market? Who failed to consider the case of those caught by automation? Who left Canadian businessmen to fend for themselves-


Hazen Robert Argue: John; Dief.


Edward Nasserden: -in the face of competition from companies who owed their loyalty and control to head offices outside Canada? All this, when their boast was that we had a budget surplus. That is the real history of neglect, arrogance and political deceit, the only answer Canadians can find in the Liberal party today. These are the people who have charged this government with fraud and deceit of the Canadian people. These self-confessed accusers sought to win an election. Talk of dirty linen, the whispered word, the naked assassination of character, frustration gleaming like an evil genius in a truth as often half told as left untold;-


Hazen Robert Argue: What is the hon. member reading from?


Edward Nasserden: -shame fleeing unashamedly into the inner recesses of some ambitious mind. None but a few can claim and own the conscience that tolerates that kind and style-


Hazen Robert Argue: Straight from the heart.


Edward Nasserden: -of authorship and purpose. There was no price they would not pay to win their way to power.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I think Senator Grosart wrote that.


Edward Nasserden: They have earned a just reward-a minor and diminishing role in a divided opposition.
There is no satisfaction in mentioning these things, but I believe the Liberals in my constituency would want me to satisfy the record. Some of them will remember the first speech I ever made. That was many years ago, in a public school oratory contest. My topic was the life of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that great Canadian and Liberal statesman. I believe the Liberals of Rosthern constituency and the Liberals across Canada would agree that were Sir Wilfrid alive today he would not have endorsed the kind of campaign which had the blessing of the Leader of the Opposition during the last election campaign. He knew you could not build a nation by trying to destroy your political opponents. So it is in Canada today. Canada needs a strong government. Canada needs a stronger opposition
Ways and Means
than we find in this parliament. Those who glory in the fact that we have a minority government can also take credit for the fact that we have a divided opposition. I, for one, do not consider this situation as one to be continued for any length of time. The urgency and immediate purpose of the legislative program before us as set out in the speech from the throne this fall and in the budget last spring, cannot be denied.
I wish to make some reference, for the benefit of some of the new members of this house and, in particular, for the benefit of the hon. member for Fraser Valley, to the program which was embarked upon five years ago and which has received revision and reconsideration in the intervening period. I would point out, particularly to members of the Social Credit group, that the measures now brought to the attention of the house are further refinements of existing legislation which has been brought in in the past, as a result of experience gained during the past several years. I can think of some things which have been done since 1957, and it is a matter of record that most of those things have been endorsed in the House of Commons by members of the opposition. There were one or two occasions on which they took a stand which was somewhat different, but by and large they supported what was done, though in an apologetic way which has endeared them to our hearts.
I think of the National Housing Act and of the thousands of Canadians who were able to build homes for their families during the years when they needed those homes. These Canadians know what the deficit did for them, as also do the thousands of seasonal workers who were employed in the building of those homes.
I think of the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act and what they have done for those who have been seasonally unemployed.
I think of the increases in the pensions to members of the civil service, the armed forces and the R.C.M.P. I ask hon. members to consider this: what segment of our labour community enjoys greater security and employment benefits than these?
I think of the improved benefits made available under the Veterans Insurance Act, the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act and the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act.
I think of the amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and of the implementation of the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act, together with the provision of acreage payments.

Ways and Means


Hazen Robert Argue: The last increase was made by a Liberal government.


Edward Nasserden: That is not altogether true.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is 100 per cent true.


Edward Nasserden: The amendments brought in by this party during the last parliament extended the benefits of P.F.A.A. to a greater number of people than ever before.


Hazen Robert Argue: But did not increase the amount of payment.


Edward Nasserden: I think of the Farm Credit Corporation and the Farm Improvement Loans Act, and the millions of additional money authorized to help individual farm families develop a healthy agricultural industry. I think of the increased amounts voted under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, the millions of dollars expended to support and maintain the price of dairy products in central and maritime Canada, and the further substantial subsidies allowed on the movement of grain on behalf of feeders and farmers in central and maritime Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: What about the cent a dozen for eggs?


An hon. Member:: What about the peanuts?


Edward Nasserden: I think of the development assistance given Saskatchewan, for the South Saskatchewan river dam and the moneys voted for harbour improvements at Churchill, on Hudson Bay, and on both coasts, as well as along the St. Lawrence river waterway. I think of the increased assistance given our universities and students attending universities. I think of the assistance provided to our municipalities-and this has been further illustrated today-at a time when such assistance was most timely, due to the changing complexion of community life in Canada. I think of the revision of the Estate Tax Act the Income Tax Act and the increased exemptions under the Excise Tax Act. I think of the Queen Elizabeth fund for research into the diseases of children. I think of the increased use of the Export Credits Insurance Act, and all that it has meant to our exporters by way of trade.
I think of the municipal winter works incentive program which has continued to expand each year since it was established.
I think of all the provisions which have been made for training our unemployed, those human resources all but forgotten by the former Liberal administration. I think of the establishment of the new Department of Forestry in recognition of the importance of this segment of our economy.


Hazen Robert Argue: Are you getting this one reprinted?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is printed already.


Edward Nasserden: I think of the accelerated depreciation allowances provided to assist new industries in areas having substantial employment problems.


Hazen Robert Argue: Read on.


Edward Nasserden: I think of the encouragement given by direct assistance to fishermen and to the fishing and shipbuilding industries of this nation. I think of the program ARDA, which was attacked by the hon. member for Assiniboia, a program which will give to communities in central and maritime Canada help which they never got from the Liberal government.


Hazen Robert Argue: More pilot projects.


Edward Nasserden: I think of the legislation approved to provide rail services to remote resource areas of our nation. I think of the development which is already following the roads to resources program which was laughed at by members of the Liberal party when it was brought before this house. I think of the action which was taken to oblige foreign companies to divulge their operations for scrutiny. I think of the encouragement given to the utilization of Canadian executive talent in the composition of foreign companies set up in Canada. I think of the encouragement given to the people of other countries to settle in Canada to practice their trades. I think of the igloo to igloo mentality of the opposition, pitifully and precariously trying to ride the fence in every one of the debates leading to these achievements. If the people of Toronto could have seen the hon. member for Davenport riding that fence the other day they would have had reason to ask: where is this new Liberal party of which we heard so much during the election campaign?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where is the Tory member for Davenport?


Edward Nasserden: Where is the Liberal member for Davenport, whom we hardly ever see in this House of Commons?


Hazen Robert Argue: Most of the defeated Tories are back on the payroll.


Edward Nasserden: To all these actions, hon. members opposite respond with the tired, ostrich inspired platitudes that fall so naturally from the lips of opposition speakers. That is the weakness of our opposition today. The quarrel in this parliament is not with the government. The quarrel or, more properly, the struggle, is with the other opposition parties in this parliament. Their difficulty and,

I believe, their nagging concern is: who will really emerge as the official opposition in this parliament?


An hon. Member:: You will.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No doubt about that.


Edward Nasserden: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate says: "No doubt about that". A few more seats gained during the last election cannot fail to affect the thinking in that party by the remnant of those who sit-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Remnant?


Edward Nasserden: -that remnant whose arrogance is greater than the arrogance they showed during the last period when they were in power.


Hazen Robert Argue: You should have rehearsed it once more before coming in.


Edward Nasserden: Before resuming my seat I have a few observations I should like to make and place before the minister and the government in regard to matters which might be taken into consideration, and which I believe may affect the welfare of the people in my constituency.


Hazen Robert Argue: You have finished the Grosart part of your speech. Now get on with your own.


Edward Nasserden: I would venture the opinion that this parliament should not underestimate the Canadian people-


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Edward Nasserden: -in so far as the current exchange and balance of payments problem is concerned.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I will hear the parliamentary secretary on a point of order.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Chairman, our chameleonlike friend over there from Assiniboia has been sitting in his place and consistently, persistently and rudely, and in an unparliamentary way, making interjections unworthy of him, and I would ask that he desist.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the record will show that on almost every occasion on which I have spoken in this session I have had innumerable interruptions from hon. members opposite about which I made no complaint to the Chair.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, Canadians cannot hope to regain the control and ownership of their resource industries without some effort and sacrifice, and I am one of those who believe that the people of this country want to share to a wider degree than most of our political parties want to think they
Ways and Means
do in the building of a greater Canada. The nations of the world are reorganizing their trading patterns, and this will affect the course that Canada must follow. The industrial potential of Europe does not allow for a very substantial or successful entry of Canadian industrial products into the market. We will be hard put to maintain our traditional markets. There is a market in other parts of the world, but it is not readily available to us on a cash basis. I do not believe that any tangible benefits will accrue to Canada by way of any substantial program for the disposition of our production as gifts. There is, however, a great need for heavy industrial machinery in almost every one of these developing areas. There is also an ample labour supply in almost every one of these developing areas, and many of these nations are well supplied with some of the raw materials they require.
The problems to be met and overcome are considerable. However, I believe that we should be giving them more thought than has hitherto been given to them, and that we should look upon these areas as areas of opportunity for the expansion and the development of our own trading potential. The future of Canada's position in the trading world certainly to my mind does not lie in Europe alone, except in so far as raw materials are concerned. Here at home one of the evils of our society is the cost of consumer credit. There is a need for the mobilization of more economical credit facilities than are available through the ordinary finance companies. I believe that our credit unions and caisse populaires could be given greater encouragement. These associations are controlled by local people, and I believe they could be of great assistance to the country in the government's over-all program to restore Canadian ownership and control of our resources. There are areas of service where privately owned enterprise has failed to supply the need. Co-operative effort by the people in these communities might very well be the only remaining answer. I believe that at a time like this, when the free world finds herself confronted by the advocates of socialism and communism, we must utilize every resource at our disposal to meet the type of competition they pose. Therefore, I would propose that consideration be given to the establishment of a department of cooperatives at the federal level.
Canada will continue to grow and prosper despite the mutterings of the opposition. During the next several years our economy will reach new levels of prosperity and achievement. The long term policies brought into effect during the past five years will ensure that increasing numbers of Canadians will

Ways and Means
share the fruits of prosperity. There will always be an opposition in parliament. For the sake of Canada, let us hope that it will be stronger than the present one, particularly in the sense that healthy, constructive opposition is one of the bulwarks and safeguards of our democracy. I pity those few in the opposition whose bitterness knows no bounds. A few years at the most is left to them, and this is more than they deserve. After all, abuse is no substitute for criticism.
I should like to thank the hon. member for Essex East-and I am sorry he is not in the committee today either-for his efforts on my behalf during the recent election campaign. I assure him and the members of his party that had they consulted me we could have provided them with more people than turned out to the hon. member's meeting in my riding during the campaign. Canadians will remember the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. Let us hope and pray that they will forgive them as well. In the meantime, Canada can go ahead to new achievements under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Eight Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, who serves the national purpose of all Canadians.
(Translation):


Mr. Roy:: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to be able to rise in this house and put forward my views on the revised estimates brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan). I suggest that this budget is one of the most important items of the current session.
Mr. Chairman, I shall try to be as short as possible.
I am perhaps not as much of an orator as certain politicians who have been in this house for many years and who have always been misunderstood because their speeches carried too many words and too few solutions.
Mr. Chairman, having heard the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier), the other evening, and those of the member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) this morning, I cannot imagine how these men, with all their experience with Liberal policies, and after having deceived the people so often with their election promises, still dare to get up in this house and try to have us accept a solution to cope with the problems which we are now facing, while they have never been able to solve them when they were in power.
As has already been said, our hon. friends from the Liberal party are very strong while
[Mr. Nasserden.l
in opposition, but when they are in office, they become completely helpless for want of responsible policies.
Mr. Chairman, were not our Liberal friends in office during the years 1935-39-


Mr. Boulanger:: Tell us something about the Conservatives.


Joseph-Aurélien Roy: -when they were spending thousands and thousands of dollars abroad, although we were starving in Canada, on the pretence of erecting a statue which would bring independence to Canada in case of another war.
After having criticized the previous Conservative government, and rightly so, I suggest, since the Conservatives were in power during the first world war, our Liberal friends did exactly the same thing, but in a more hypocritical way.
Then, they had us accept restrictions, rationing and conscription. They asked us to sacrifice our brothers, they tore the hearts of our mothers, and they had us sacrifice our time and our money-in a very hypocritical way, I repeat-under pretence of paving the way for prosperity after the war. The same Liberals who were in power at that time come back today with an over-all planning policy.


An hon. Member:: We are not the people in power.


Joseph-Aurélien Roy: Mr. Chairman, during the last election, I was honoured by a visit of the hon. member for Laurier in my riding. He came to give his clown act several times and in several places in the province of Quebec, and he helped-I must thank him for it-the election of 26 Social Crediters.


Prosper Boulanger: What about your leader, Mr. Caouette?


Joseph-Aurélien Roy: In order to have lively meetings, the hon. member had to rely on the officials of the provincial government and beg them to hold joint meetings, otherwise he would have had to speak before an almost empty house.
Mr. Chairman, I know that within the Liberal party there are men of great intelligence and understanding who, unfortunately, have to bow before the dictatorship of three or four politicians whom I do not need to mention.
Mr. Chairman, I am not here to praise the Conservative party but I want to give Caesar what belongs to Caesar.

In 1956, when the Liberals were defeated, credit restrictions had been put into effect by the government in power to the point of even stopping loans for home construction. The contractors who, in previous years, had been able to build homes were forced to lay off their workers as they had no more work for them.
Mr. Chairman, in 1957, the Conservative party again provided the contractors with funds with some restrictions, of course, and created a system which, though not perfect, did at least help fight unemployment. The government encouraged us to undertake winter works, even if they were not acceptable and were far from profitable for the builders.
I represent the riding of Levis which is blessed with the largest and the most up to date shipyards in Canada, employing a great number of workers in my riding and in the area. During the years I mentioned and when our Liberal friends were in power, there were lots of ships being built. It was during the war, of course, since, with the Liberals, prosperity only comes in times of war.
My opponent at the polls was a man who represented the riding during 22 years.


An hon. Member:: He did a fine job of it.


Joseph-Aurélien Roy: When the Liberals met with opposition, they demanded that an able man be appointed to a key position within the cabinet, a thing they never did while they were in power. That is further evidence of the fact that they can do anything when they are in the opposition.
In my opinion, it would be a good thing if the present government were to take steps to guarantee the employment of our workers so that the latter may give their families a decent standard of living. Since our shipyards are not an ordinary industry, the government should maintain the present subsidy and even increase it to encourage private companies to have their merchant ships built in Canada.
The government should always have ships to build in order to secure jobs for at least 2,500 workers, thus providing work to our people all year round.
I feel this would contribute materially to improve the unemployment situation. We have been deploring for too long in my riding that workers are employed for three to six months a year. How can you expect a head of family to have confidence in his
Ways and Means
elected representatives when he never knows whether he will have a job the next day or the next week?
I have the honour to represent a riding which supported the Liberals for 22 years, but which was nevertheless neglected for quite a long time. There are a great deal of public works to be carried out, such as the building of post offices and bridges, improvement of the trans-Canada highway and several other works that were left undone. As a matter of fact, we do not even have a proper road leading to a wharf built under the Liberal administration.
The present government should correct the mistakes of the previous governments and start immediately. We also urgently need a bridge or a tunnel to join the south shore and Quebec city.
In my opinion, the government should take that responsibility, since in my experience a company cannot carry out the work economically at the present rates of interest. The federal government only, with the co-operation of the provincial government, will be able to issue capital by using the Bank of Canada. I know that the tunnel or the bridge will be economically sound and that the revenues will be high enough to pay off the capital, but not the interest. With the present monetary system we would have to pay three times the capital.
We also have several work requests, including one that has already been submitted to the government.
It has to do with the building of a wall along the St. Lawrence river, in the eastern and western sections of the city of Lauzon, in Levis, St. Romuald and St. David, to protect the waterfront property owners against damages often caused by the high tides of the beautiful St. Lawrence river.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, the few suggestions I have just made should be examined in relation to the current estimates as a means of helping our unemployed and providing some breathing space in our unemployment offices.
I also believe that, in addition to promoting winter works, this government should accept-again in co-operation with provincial and municipal governments, so as not to deprive them of their autonomy-to pay part of the cost of the material through the grants already provided for.
That would be of great assistance to prevent the municipalities from building up the deficits they suffer each year in trying to


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in this very strange debate, this budget debate without a budget, I cannot help but think that this really reflects the hand of the inimitable former minister of finance who argued so strongly in the house a couple of weeks ago to prove that we should save a six day budget debate if it took us six weeks to do so. This debate has to do with the economic good or ills of our country. It started last year before the previous parliament was dissolved and it has been resumed under quite different circumstances. If we cast our eyes around the chamber we see a lot of new faces. I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned one day that all the new members in the house this time represented a cross section of the people. I would suggest that

they were a very cross section of the people, a little more cross in some areas than they were in others.
However, I believe there is one thing that is very significant about this new house and that is the division in the group across the floor from us at the present time. It really consists of two groups, the western Socreds and the eastern Socreds. With regard to the western Socreds, I have always found it very difficult to distinguish a Social Crediter from Alberta from a Tory from Alberta. They always seemed to vote the same way and they still do. They seem to share the same views, including the view that we should sell Canada to the United States as fast as possible. In fact, Mr. Chairman, that seems to be the parchment on which the present marriage licence between the two is written.
We also have a new group consisting of the Social Credit members from the province of Quebec, the province in which I was born and raised. I think that this is a direct result of our present economic situation. In the newspaper Le Devoir of recent date there was a short comment which I think is very appropriate. They were discussing possible realignments in the house and this is what they had to say:
If some day there is some realignment of parties, it will be done in some other way. The Liberals and Conservatives, excepting some individuals in both groups, will be destined definitely to join their forces, because there is nothing of a practical nature which separates them.
I think that is very true, Mr. Chairman, and in my opinion the truth of that statement has never been demonstrated any better than in the great province of Quebec. At this time I should like to congratulate the province of Quebec on finally, for the first time in 100 years, breaking the yoke of the two old parties by which that province has been held for so long a time. This yoke has led to many things and the efforts to break away from it have been demonstrated in recent years. I believe this is one of the causes of the separatist movement in the province of Quebec which in my view is very easy to understand. I believe that Canadians living in any other province would feel like separating themselves from a country where they felt like foreigners when they travelled to another province in that country. I think this is the feeling that led to this movement in the province of Quebec. After all, our French Canadian brothers were among the first settlers of this great country and if when they travel from their own province to another they feel that they are treated at least as badly as, if not worse than

foreigners entering the country, then there is certainly great reason for them to be discontented.
In my view the forces that are responsible for this basic unrest had champions in equal numbers in both of the old line parties in this house over the years. I recall that when a friend of mine in the trade union movement visited Montreal some few years ago he was introduced to the late premier of that province, Mr. Duplessis. The introduction took place in the lobby of a hotel where the premier was about to address a convention of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. When my friend was introduced to the premier he asked him if he was going to tell the delegates how they could further exploit the French Canadians. The late premier was very incensed, of course, until my friend pointed out that at the back of the convention hall there were signs outlining the advantages to industry of moving to the province of Quebec and among the advantages was low wages. In other words, the invitation was there, as my friend said, to come to that province and exploit the French Canadians. Therefore I am rather pleased that the province of Quebec is finally on the move, though it is regrettable that the first move they should make is a backward one instead of a forward one. However, I think that will straighten itself out in good time.
There is something else that intrigues me which is common to the other three parties in this house. They decry the New Democrats as being socialistic, as though this was some terrible horror against which they were trying to warn the Canadian people. Yet what do we see? Let us take our friends opposite first. The three main things that the Social Crediters cry for are an increase in old age pensions, an increase in family allowances and the curbing of the finance companies. I should like to know just what kind of free enterprise measures those are. If they really believe in this great free enterprise about which they talk, surely these would not be the three most important things they would put forward.
Let us take a look at our friends in the other corner, the Liberals. What do we hear mostly from them?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You are the ones in a corner. We are not in a corner.


Murdo William Martin: I hear some of the Liberal members saying that they are not in a corner.
There is one thing the Minister of Justice is prone to do and which I fully intend to check him on when he does it again. He refers to opinions expressed on his side of the
Ways and Means
house, but I would like to remind him that he should refer to his corner of the house because, under the present situation, we all have a corner we can talk about.
Health insurance and portable pensions are the favorite subjects of the Liberals at the moment, but it would be very hard to classify them as free enterprise subjects. I was only two years old when the Liberals first started promising us health insurance and I do not see any more reason to believe them now than I did then. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the Liberals are the real progressive conservatives; they are progressive when in opposition and utterly conservative when in power.
I now turn to our friends on the government side of the house. What measures has the government introduced during the past five years which were successful? I can list a few of them. They include the roads to resources program, the winter works program, the National Housing Act, the Farm Credit Act, ARDA and others, and I should like to say a few words about these programs.
Last summer I had the pleasure of attending the opening of highway 101 in my constituency. It links Porcupine Camp with the Sault Ste. Marie area and the last 60 miles of the road, the final link-up between Timmins and Chapleau, was built under the roads to resources program, with the federal government putting up 50 per cent of the cost of construction. When complimenting the government for this project I should like to apologize to it at the same time for my local chamber of commerce. At the official opening, which followed the June election by about five days, a great effort was made to show that this road was a straight and direct gift from the Ontario provincial government. All the provincial Ontario Conservative officials for miles around were brought there and paraded back and forth, and not a single mention was made of the fact that the federal government had contributed 50 per cent of the cost of the road. While I apologize for that, I hope that ignorant display on the part of my own local chamber of commerce will not influence any decisions the government might make with regard to other projects in the area.
It may be possible to understand some of the reasons for it. After all, as I say, it was only five days after the election and I am sure the Conservatives in the north country needed something to boost their morale.
I should like to congratulate the Minister of Public Works on the announcement he made today with regard to the extension of the time limit for sewer programs and so forth. The deadline has been extended from March, 1963, to March 31, 1965 and this is

Ways and Means
of particular importance to the region I represent because, like so many other parts of Canada, we have very severe winters and, when March 31 comes along, while it may mean something to southern parts of Canada, certainly the north is still in the middle of the deep freeze.
I had occasion during the noon hour to be speaking with the city clerk of my home town and I can assure the minister a great deal of pleasure was expressed by officials of the town of Timmins at his decision to extend the time limit, because it means they can now go ahead with very much needed and worth-while projects.
There is a lesson to be learned by all these programs which were successfully launched by the government over the past five years, and the lesson is that it is only when government takes the lead that we can meet, or take steps to meet, some of the problems of our day. Even the well publicized program and activities of the Minister of Trade and Commerce illustrate and underline the same point. There is a big hullabaloo about how he is building up markets around the world, but why should we feel surprised at that? Is not that his job? The only reason we lost a lot of these markets was because the previous government did not do its job. It left these things entirely in the hands of a few greedy individuals who sold us down the river, and we found that the traditional markets, which we hoped would be ours for all time, were being cut into by other people. It is certainly high time the government took a lead in this field, but I would like the government to use a little bit more integrity when discussing such things.
We do not mind the government using our ideas. If hon. members look at some of the successful programs I have mentioned they will find that they had been advocated for many years by people in this group. Therefore we do not mind the government using our ideas; but while it is implementing them it should not try to scare the people away from them. How can anyone hope for success under such circumstances? I say to the government, do not bite the hand that feeds you; do not try to make people afraid of the measures you hope are really going to work. Further than that, I say to the spokesmen of the three other parties, when they are discussing these so-called socialistic measures they should not substitute virulent abuse for argument.
If the programs we advocate work and are successful, then in heaven's name let us expand them. Let us encourage them. Let us even try new programs and new ideas, because the ideas which are being implemented

today were in themselves brand new ideas a few years ago. We should remember that history shows us that the problems of the world, including Canada's problems, arise must faster than we can ever cope with them.
In closing, I compliment the government on the few steps it has taken in the right direction, and I call on it to broaden out those steps.
(Translation):


Mr. Boutin:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend by taking part in this debate to unduly delay its conclusion. However, as it is customary in the course of such debates to talk about one's own constituency, I will take a few minutes of the time of the house to mention one of the serious problems in my district.
To really understand and set this problem in its true light, one must divide my constituents into three classes:
In the first place, the farmers make up over 50 per cent of the population. The other day I had the opportunity of expressing my views on the Farm Credit Act and that is why I shall not dwell at too much length on that class of people.
In the second place the small industrialists established almost everywhere in the villages of my county and trying by all possible means to survive.
However, there is a grave problem facing them. They lack the credit to face the competition of large industry. I would like the government to make credit somewhat more easily available so that they may earn a livelihood and remain in their chosen profession: manufacturers able to compete with large industry.
In the third place, the lumberjacks. These people are about the most forelorn in my constituency.
Some of them earn their living working in the woods or in the state of Maine, others go to Ontario. It is the only way for them to carry out their trade.
I would like to insist on the problems involved in this trade. Those in the first group, who go to Maine, live in the north of my constituency. They work six or seven months a year, during the period when bark is removed from the logs and they are without work for the rest of the year, which goes to say that they live off their earnings of six or seven months.
During the five or six months they are out of work, they are faced with serious financial problems to manage to provide for the needs of their families.

Those people are not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits since they do not work in Canada. The state of Maine does not give them any assistance whatsoever because they are not American citizens.
I feel that the government is unfair toward these people and that the unemployment insurance commission, having been established to help all classes of citizens, should not rule out those lumbermen who go to work in Maine, because it deprives them, so to speak, of the right to live like all other Canadians.
I urge the government to start negotiations with the authorities of that state with a view to coming to an agreement and implementing legislation to make those lumbermen eligible for unemployment insurance benefits during the months they are out of work.
If that arrangement were made, all Canadian workers would find themselves on an equal basis and would be entitled to benefit by the legislation enacted by the government to help workers during the unemployment season.
That anomaly should be corrected immediately and maybe the lumbermen would show their appreciation to the government for solving their problem.
In any trade, whether a man is a garage mechanic, a baker, a salesman, etc., he is entitled to deduct from his income tax the price of the tools he needs in his trade.
The anomaly here, as I see it, is that people engaged in wood cutting are entitled to deduct neither the price of their tools nor their travelling expenses at the beginning and at the end of the wood cutting season.
Those people should be entitled to the same exemption as the other taxpayers, that is, $1,000, for, at the present time, they can only claim one of about $600 since they have to pay almost $400 each year in equipment and travelling expenses.
Therefore, I ask the government to consider the problem of those people and to find a way of enabling them to deduct their equipment and travelling expenses from their income tax, so that they may find themselves on the same footing as all other Canadian citizens in various other trades.
To summarize, I ask the government to work out an agreement with the authorities of the state of Maine, so that lumbermen in my constituency who work there become eligible to unemployment insurance benefits. As a matter of fact, all lumbermen in Canada should be entitled to deduct the price of equipment and travelling expenses from their income tax.
Ways and Means
There are many other points I should like to bring to the attention of this house, but I shall have an opportunity to do so later. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I do not want to take too much time so I will stop here for now.
(Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I wonder whether the committee could now agree that the general discussion has terminated and that we will go on to consider the specific resolutions before the committee, which consist of the Income Tax Act, the Estate Tax Act, and so on. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Then may I inform the committee that the rule as to strict relevancy comes back into play. It is paragraph 59 (2) of standing orders and reads as follows:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
Finally, I was going to ask hon. members of the committee, for my guidance, whether or not they would prefer to deal with each section of each resolution-that is, section by section-or can the whole resolution be dealt with at one time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word on that, if I may.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: I think I could simplify this matter, Mr. Chairman. The practice has been to call each individual paragraph. Unless the committee has other views, I think that procedure would most facilitate the work of the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid my views are slightly at variance with the views expressed by the acting minister, whom I should like to congratulate on his sudden and, for most of us, rather unexpected elevation.


Richard Albert Bell: Surely not unexpected?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, if it were a matter of merit I would say it should have happened long ago. Indeed, if it were a matter of merit I may say that the country would have been a lot better off if the hon. member for Carleton had been minister of finance for the last five years rather than the gentleman who held that portfolio.


Thomas Miller Bell: Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But it does bring to our minds the reflection, how are the mighty fallen, because the general experience is that when a minister is discarded, at least he becomes the acting minister.


Thomas Miller Bell: I thought the hon. member was to be relevant.

Ways and Means


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a preliminary
courtesy, and I have now concluded it. I do think the hon. member for Carleton, who is acting minister, would agree with me that, since about half the hon. members of the house were not here when the budget was presented and when the general scheme of taxation was laid before us by the former minister of finance, it would be helpful to the committee if we could have a very brief and thoroughly relevant discussion of the general changes in income tax and what their purport is before going on to the individual items.
I would not imagine that would take very long. I would think that if it were properly conducted it would lessen the time that would be taken on the individual paragraphs. I recall only rather vaguely the budget speech of last April, but my recollection is that there was some sort of scheme or purpose in these items, or there purported to be. I think it would be helpful to those of us who need our memory refreshed, and to those who have no memory to refresh, if the acting minister could very briefly tell us what is the general purport of these items, as one or two hon. members might wish to comment on that before we consider the individual items.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I am in the hands of the committee in this matter. It does seem to me that we would be able to proceed more rapidly if we were to take each of the individual paragraphs, giving effect to what was the general purport and structure of the budget. If there is a general view that there should be a review, I would be willing to undertake it, although I am quite satisfied that the resolution could receive much more expeditious attention if they were called paragraph by paragraph.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, the Chair realizes that, on a strict point of order, it is one resolution that is before the committee and it can only be restricted by unanimous consent. I feel it would be proper on behalf of this party to agree to a restriction by consent after a very brief general discussion, but I do think it would facilitate the debate if we were to have that first.


Richard Albert Bell: Perhaps I could draw the attention of the committee to a few particular measures which were outlined in the budget on April 10, 1962 commencing at page 2705 of Hansard. The budget speech at this point details the changes which were proposed in the income tax legislation. The first change, which is the one outlined in paragraph 1, is the increase in exemptions in respect of dependants by $50. The effect of this is that since 1957 the exemption in respect of dependants has been increased from
[Mr. Bell (Carleton).!
$150 to $300 for persons in receipt of family allowances, and from $400 for those not in receipt of family allowances, to a total, now, of $550. This further increase in the deductible amount results in some 80,000 taxpayers being freed completely from the payment of income tax and brings about a modest reduction for all remaining taxpayers who support dependants.
A second and central feature of the budget resolutions, was a production incentive made available to those companies engaged in manufacturing and processing. It consists of cancellation of 50 per cent of the tax on the first $50,000 of taxable income arising from increased sales, and cancellation of 25 per cent of the tax on any additional income arising from increased sales. Provision for double depreciation is continued for a further period of three years.
The third feature of this resolution deals with scientific research in industry, and for the first time the government has recommended to the house that 150 per cent of increased expenditures may be deducted in respect of scientific research undertaken for industrial purposes. It is hoped that this, in addition, to the provision which has actually been made for direct assistance through the national research council will result in a great deal more scientific research being undertaken in this country.
There are important matters having to do with the oil and gas industry, and I think I can outline them under three headings. The new proposals are, first, that individuals be granted the right to charge petroleum preproduction expenses against income earned from oil and gas production; second, that all companies including those not normally engaged in petroleum or in mining be granted the right to charge petroleum preproduction expenses against income earned from oil and gas production; and, third, that expenditures involved in the acquisition, after the date of the budget, of rights to explore or drill for oil or gas, or to extract oil or gas, be deductible under section 83A of the Income Tax Act along with other drilling and exploration expenses, and proceeds from sales of such rights be taken into income by all taxpayers, including individuals.
Then there are significant changes applying effectively to the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia with respect to logging taxes. Here it is proposed that the tax credit extended by the federal government shall be the amount of two thirds of the provincial tax up to a maximum rate of 10 per cent. As hon. members of the committee know, this was a matter which was raised at the dominion-provincial conference and was the

subject of a proposal to the provincial premiers at that time. This is a significant concession and one which has been greatly welcomed by the forest industries.
Finally, in relation to these resolutions, there is a provision for the continuation of the system whereby university grants are paid in a certain province. I should say provision is made for an alternative arrangement under which the province which wishes to administer its own grants has a deduction from corporation taxes enabling that province to pay $1.50 per capita of its population to universities, an amount which, under the terms of other legislation now on the order paper, would be raised to $2. These are the principal provisions of the budget as far as they relate to income and corporation taxes. I hope this brief review may be of some help to the committee. I shall be glad to give detailed information about the various items as we go along.


Mr. Robxchaud:: In the course of his brief remarks, the minister referred to certain amendments to the Income Tax Act which would provide concessions with respect to drilling and exploration expenses incurred by companies seeking petroleum or natural gas.
I should like at this time to place before this committee a request which was received some time ago by the Minister of Finance and by the Minister of National Revenue from the Western Peat Moss Company. This application, I believe, concerns all peat moss exploration in this country. The application was supported by a brief asking for the classification of the peat moss industry as a mining operation for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. I should like to place on record some of the points which were included in it.
In the introductory remarks, the company requested classification of the peat moss industry as a mining operation, either by recognizing that peat moss production is mining or by adding to the act a section specifically stating that the peat moss industry shall have the benefit of tax concessions similar to those enjoyed by the mining industry. I should like to draw attention to the importance of the peat moss industry in the eastern provinces- in the province of Quebec, and, particularly over the last few years, in the northeastern section of New Brunswick.
The assertion is that production operations on a peat bog, as well as exploration, surveying, drilling and preproduction, are quite comparable to similar stages in the mining industry, and that they warrant similar consideration. We know that the mining industry is granted tax concessions as a stimulant and as an incentive for the capital to accept the problems and hazards involved in developing one of the natural resources of this country. In
Ways and Means
submitting its application for the peat moss industry, this company takes the position that similar incentives with respect to that industry would be equally advantageous to Canada. The brief mentions that at present the taxation of this industry depends on local assessing practice which is not necessarily standardized. The industry submits that it requires the spelling out of specific allowances and concessions which, in my opinion, should be similar to those accorded with respect to mining operations or drilling and exploration expenses in connection with petroleum or natural gas.
The request of the company was that an allowance in respect of exploration development and preproduction expenses should be made. This could be done by the extension of section 83A to apply to surveying, exploration, development and preproduction activity pertaining to the creation and opening up of a new peat moss deposit.
Second, the company suggested a three year deferment of taxes on income for a new operation, and this could be done by amending section 83(5) and section 83(6). In the definitions in the subsection 6(a) of section 83, peat moss is not excluded. Those items which are excluded, except oil and gas wells which are dealt with elsewhere in the act, are not comparable to a peat moss operation. As was mentioned by the company's brief, peat bog development is a long and risky proposition. I know of some companies who have had to operate for three, four or even five years before they were in a position to export or to ship their products. In addition, the preproduction expenses of exploration, testing, surveying, drainage and bog development must be followed by a very sizeable capital investment in bog machinery, and in the last two or three years new machinery has been installed in existing peat moss industries at a very high price.
Third, this brief suggested the inclusion of assets used in production, such as are mentioned in class 10 of Schedule B of the Income Tax Act. In some instances, some of the peat moss operators have been claiming allowances, and in some cases the department has allowed such claims under class 10 of schedule B; but presently there is nothing in the act specifically permitting such companies to apply for a claim as suggested. With the considerable expansion and investment which is now taking place within the industry, we feel that it is most important and urgent to have such capital cost allowances specifically spelled out. As I mentioned earlier I know that in the last 24 months at least three operators in my constituency have installed machinery at considerable cost.

Ways and Means
Fourth, the brief suggests that a separate allowance be given under section 11(1) (b). This is the section that is referred to as the depletion allowance section, and it is based on net income attributable to mineral production. Peat moss is definitely a wasting or depleting asset. Once the peat is removed from a bog, it may take hundreds of years to replace it. Once a peat moss deposit is exhausted, all costs for development, plant, machinery, roadways and equipment must be written off as practically worthless, as is the case in any mining industry. So, Mr. Chairman, there is definitely a similarity between the exploration of peat moss and any mining operation.
As a last request the company suggested that shareholders of a corporation engaged in mining are allowed a deduction from dividends under section 11(2), and they therefore submitted that a similar deduction should be allowed to shareholders of a corporation engaged in the production of peat moss. Now, to support their contention that this should be considered as a mining classification, this company submitted a full and well detailed brief. I am not going to refer to this brief at this time, Mr. Chairman, but I should like to place on record the importance of this industry. Last year, for example, the total output of peat moss in Canada was 4 million bales, and a large percentage of this production was exported to the U.S. market. We notice that British Columbia produced 1,600,000 bales in this total production, Manitoba 550,000 bales, Ontario 200,000 bales, Quebec 800,000 bales, New Brunswick 750,000 bales, and Nova Scotia 100,000 bales. Therefore, it is a very important industry which deserves consideration, and I would ask the minister that special consideration be given to this request in order that this industry can continue to expand and provide additional labour, as it has done in the last few years.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman will have no difficulty in convincing anybody who is as proud of his Irish descent as I am of the importance of the industry to which he has referred. I know that some administrative action has been taken, the precise details of which I do not have immediately before me. However, I will draw to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, the representations which the hon. gentleman from Gloucester has made, and I can assure him that they will have the serious consideration of the Minister of Finance.
I wonder if we now might call these paragraphs individually. I am sure we will get on with our discussion more easily if we do so, and I am advised that that has been the usual practice.
[Mr. Robichaud.l


Gordon Campbell Chown: If the committee is ready we will proceed to paragraph 1 of the Income Tax Act resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Davis:: I should like to speak briefly to the generality of the resolutions more particularly wtih respect to the research projects, oil and gas, preproduction expenses, and the logging tax.


Richard Albert Bell: With respect, I wonder if my hon. friend would permit us to come to those particular resolutions. I am advised than it has been the practice to call the individual paragraphs, and I will be glad to deal with each of the paragraphs as we go along. For example, scientific research is paragraph 3. The logging tax is in paragraph 5. I am sure we should make very much more satisfactory progress in that way. Otherwise I think we will open up a new and general debate.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I think the committee
agreed that we would proceed to consider the income tax resolution on a paragraph by paragraph basis before the hon. member for Coast-Capilano rose to speak.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is there unanimous agreement to that?


Gordon Campbell Chown: I thought I had obtained it before the hon. member rose to speak.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All right.


Gordon Campbell Chown: We are on paragraph 1 now.
On paragraph 1-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, this paragraph provides for a $300 deduction in the case of a child who qualifies for family allowance, and $550 for other dependants. These dependants are children attending university, and they are dependant in other ways due to their inability to perform work of any description, or to make a living. Families with one or two children attending university, and who live in small towns such as those in my particular area, must send them many miles, up to 700 miles by rail or air, in order to attend university, and there are other expenses attached to their attendance such as living away from home, paying board, and so on. While appreciating the increase which has been allowed in this respect, I respectfully submit that further consideration should be given to this matter.
Then also there arises a new problem with respect to dependants or children who, because of one circumstance or another, are obliged to go into the United States in order to attend a university or a college. Either because of poor management on the part of

the present government or because of one reason or another our dollar has been devalued to a point where the cost is increased anywhere from $100 to $150 when the parent of this dependant is obliged to pay out $1,000 or $1,500 to United States institutions. That is the result of this serious depreciation in the value of the Canadian dollar.
This may sound unusual but I can assure the minister that before coming to the house in September I had made to me several representations asking if the government could not give some consideration for income tax purposes based on this unsatisfactory situation in which they were obliged to pay out something like $150 in excess of what they had been obliged to pay out in other years when the Canadian dollar was at par with the United States dollar.
I have said that we appreciate what is being done. I think the government is moving in the right direction with respect to income tax. I believe all income taxes are retrogressive. I hope that this will be a trend which we shall be able to set and that we shall be able to go even further when we sit on the opposite benches.


Thomas Miller Bell: I hope any changes in the income tax law will not be so long delayed.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall paragraph 1 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before it carries, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say one word if 1 may do so, and it is this. I of course agree completely with what the hon. member for Kootenay East has said about these very desirable deductions. However, there is one thing that I would point out, namely that these are deductions for taxpayers and that that the people who have the greatest need of all are those families whose incomes are below the taxpaying level and whose family allowances are being left unchanged while the allowances given to the taxpayers are being increased. Particularly with respect to families where children over 16 years of age are attending educational institutions, it seems to me that if the treasury can afford to do this, as they have indicated they can, then surely they can afford to do something for a group which cannot be very large, namely the children of families that are not even taxpayers themselves. In such cases that exist the family allowance should be extended during the whole period up to the age of 21 where they are attending educational institutions.


Mr. Patterson:: We appreciate what has been proposed in this first section relative to the
Ways and Means
increase in the amount deductible with respect to children. I still do not feel that this is a realistic figure in view of the increases in the cost of living and in everything that has to do with the education of our children. As I say, I do not think it is a realistic figure. I believe it ought to be increased.
Then as to the matter that has been raised with respect to the extension of the family allowance to include those who are continuing education, may I say I believe this is a worthwhile proposal. It is one that we have advanced for a considerable length of time. When a child is securing his higher education we feel that is about the time it is going to cost the most. For that reason we would very strongly urge that consideration be given to the extension of the family allowance to those who are continuing their education. As far as this figure is concerned, however, we believe that it should be revised upward because of the costs involved in preparing our young people to face the future.
(Translation):


Mr. Ouellel:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a few words but I do not know the rules of the house, and I understand that if the first part is passed today, it will not be possible to discuss it again later. I do not know if my information is correct.
However, as far as the tax deductions are concerned, I think the government does not go far enough.
If we consider tax exemptions in the case of children attending university and, as an hon. member mentioned earlier today some of those young people have to attend institutions of learning which are 700 or 800 miles away from their town or village-personally, I have one 3,500 miles from home-I maintain that the $550 deduction is not enough, particularly when compared to that of $300 granted for each child not attending university. Even that is not enough, because, at this time, the head of a family cannot live decently on the salary he earns, even if he were totally exempted from taxes.
And that is why we suggested exemptions of $3,000 for unmarried and $5,000 for married people. I think this is a progressive measure which will continue to progress, because as time passes, the exemptions become larger.
I think the members of this government might do a better job for the Canadian people. I would think that few people have sons or daughters attending university who cost them less than $1,500 to $2,000 a year.

Ways and Means
It is inconceivable that the government grants an exemption of only $550 a year for children who are studying, because, in such cases it is not always the rich who are giving their children an education.
Therefore, I repeat that the government is not generous enough with regard to exemptions granted for children attending university, in comparison to those who are not.
I think the government should revise that part of the Income Tax Act, so as to grant higher exemptions in the case I just mentioned, before allowing the total exemption.
(Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: I see the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. May I say to him that I am sorry that I did not see him previously.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me. I have a number of remarks I wish to make by way of general discussion of the income tax resolution in particular. However, in view of the particular hour of the day we have now reached, I do not believe that I could complete my remarks before five o'clock. Hence, if I may, I will defer those remarks until we come to the second reading of the bill.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall paragraph 1 carry?
Paragraphs 1 and 2 agreed to.
On paragraph 3-


Mr. Laing:: I think there is embodied here one of the more important resolutions consequent upon the budget. We are living in a day of technology. Indeed, I think most observant people would say that one of the chief problems confronting governments at every level is to see to it that technology and humanism can be compatible. Some of the more thoughtful people nowadays think we are having some difficulty in making them compatible. We are living in a world of tremendously rapid change. Although today we are not dealing with the humanism aspect, I would hope the government will not lose sight of it. We are dealing here with technology, its promises, its threats and its benefits to mankind. Unfortunately we must constantly relate this item to the budget which is not a budget, upon which we are working in relation to all budgetary matters. I come back to the budget that was presented to us, that is, the revised estimates, and I want to relate this resolution to the work of the national research council. Here we have a
situation where the government is making this provision, and I should like to put it on the
record again:
That with respect to its first taxation year ending after April 10, 1962 and the next succeeding four taxation years a corporation be permitted to deduct in computing income 150 per cent of the amount by which expenditures of a current and capital nature on scientific research in Canada incurred by it in the year exceed expenditures of a current and capital nature on scientific research in Canada incurred by it in its last taxation year ending on or before April 10, 1962.
This is one of those decisions that has been made by a government constantly confronted with the necessity of using sticks and carrots as an inducement. This is a carrot procedure. This is encouragement to industries in Canada to spend a great deal more on research than they are spending at the present time and to that extent it is a very laudable procedure and will receive the support of those on this side of the house. At the same time we are not going to lose the opportunity to point out that it is a pitifully small amount of money and a pitifully inadequate attempt that is being made at this time to restore research at the various levels in Canada to levels commensurate with what is being done for research in other countries that are advancing rapidly.
So I refer to the revised estimates in respect of the national research council and I find that there is an increase totalling $2,030,000 of which all but $1 million is by way of increases in salaries. I think I can read into this a belated appreciation on the part of the government that they simply had to increase salaries in the national research council most appreciably if they were going to retain the services of the splendid men they have there at the present time. There is an increase of $1 million in the revised estimates which is called assistance toward research in industry.
The resolution that we are dealing with here provides, and I think adequately, for some recompense for those industries in Canada that at present have research facilities and it will encourage them to increase their research. It may have the effect of bringing back from the United States some of those thousands of splendid Canadians who have gone there to work in research and who are working for parent companies of companies operating in Canada. It may even have that effect, and to that extent I say it is most commendable.
But let us go beyond these powerful Canadian companies which have the ability to pay the cost of research and would probably add additional amounts to their research budgets regardless of whether or not this resolution became law. What are we doing for the
[Mr. Ouellet.l

innumerable small companies which are just as dependant upon research today as the large companies are and probably more so, many of whom have no ability whatsoever to set up their own research departments and whose principals must occupy their time fully keeping store instead of going into research?
Surely it is obvious that this provision of $1 million in the national research council estimates is for their benefit, $1 million for all of Canada presumably to assist the small businessman, the small manufacturer, in devising ways and means of making his business more efficient and more profitable. For that purpose we are setting aside the generous sum, in the view of the government, of $1 million.


An hon. Member:: Is that not something to start with?


Arthur Laing: Yes, it is something, but let me tell the hon. member that it is a very small pebble in the pond. Let me tell hon. members that on defence research alone the United States is expending $6 billion this year. Eleven per cent of their stupendous defence budget goes for research alone. I am fairly closely in touch with one of the universities of the United States, one which has become a little more notorious than famous, the University of Mississippi. I can tell hon. members that $8 million was thrown at that university this year and they were told to spend it. Tremendous sums of money have flowed from the defence budget of the United States to all their universities and they have been told to spend the money. They are spending it, and I am sure that the minister and the parliamentary assistant are aware that these universities have teams now throughout Canada trying to pick up the best Canadian brains to go to the United States.
I want to remind hon. members of what has gone on in that regard because a tremendous number of Canadians have gone to the United States in very recent years. As a matter of fact the Labour Gazette of January 31, 1962 makes the statement that in the period from 1950 to 1960 a total of 42,000 professional and technical workers emigrated from Canada to the United States. A more recent story in the Financial Post, a copy of which I could not obtain, pointed out that 5,600 of the most highly educated Canadians, including some 650 doctors, I believe, went to the United States in the past year.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. So that the house may proceed to consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15 it is my duty to rise, report
Public Bills
progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Paragraph 3 stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would crave the indulgence of the house to be permitted, with the consent of the house leader, to ask him, owing to peculiar circumstances of which he is aware, if he can assure us now that there will be a supply motion on Monday.


Mr. Churchill:: I can give that assurance, unless some unforeseen circumstance arises over the week end that might affect us all. I am not sounding any alarm. In so far as I can see ahead, we will have a supply motion on Monday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the house leader very much.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as fisted on today's order paper, namely public bills.



SOLICITOR GENERAL ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-13, an act respecting the Solicitor General Act-Mr. Howard.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask how many times this bill has been stood. I think the practice is that if it has been stood twice it should be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: The rule as to being called a second time does not apply to bills, only to notices of motion. Of course it is left to the discretion of the government to ask that the bill be stood.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, our practice last year was that we gave a mover two chances and then we dropped his bill so that other hon. members would have their chance. There are now 54 bills on the order paper, and it was generally agreed that that was a fair practice.


Mr. Speaker:: If that is the case Bill C-13 must be considered as dropped.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, are you ruling now that a bill will only be called twice and will then be dropped unless the government agrees otherwise?


Mr. Speaker:: Standing order 19(2) reads:
Orders not proceeded with when called, upon the like request, may be allowed to stand retaining

Civil Service Act
their precedence; otherwise they shall be dropped and be placed on the order paper for the next sitting after those of the same class at a similar stage.
In other words, there is not a request here to have the bill stood and therefore it must go to the bottom of the list.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, but we are asking that the bill stand. Do I take it that the government is objecting to its standing?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is the case because we have already stood the bill on two occasions.
Order dropped.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-14, an act respecting Indians-Mr. Howard.
Gordon Minto Churchill: The same holds true here.


Mr. Speaker:: The same applies to order No. 2.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, in relation to Bill C-14 I wish to direct your attention to a difference in that the last time it came before the house, the minister said there were other considerations to this bill that he wished to discuss before the bill went ahead. I think you yourself said you were reserving judgment on certain implications in the bill. Do we now take it that this bill is accepted although it goes to the bottom of the list?


Mr. Speaker:: Those considerations in so far as the Chair is concerned do not apply. The standing order is there and the bill is not being proceeded with. There is not the necessary request from the government that the bill stand, so therefore rule 19(2) will apply and it must go to the bottom of the list. Then if it is reached it will be open to hon. members to say if there is anything wrong with it.
Order dropped.
(Translation):



CIVIL SERVICE


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull) moved: the second reading of Bill C-17, to amend the Civil Service Act (negotiation and arbitration).
(Text):
He said: Mr. Speaker I do not intend to speak very long on this bill because everybody knows what it intends to achieve. Second, as I want the bill to have a chance to come to a vote, it is much better for me to make a short speech. On the other hand,

if the bill is to be talked out, I want to leave as much time as possible for those who do not support the civil servants, and I would ask those who do favour the bill, those who do favour the civil servants, to refrain as much as possible from speaking so that we can approve its terms much more by our silence than we can by our words. We must remember that it can be killed just as well by a blanket of flowers as it can by any other means.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, as I said, I should like to be very brief in order to facilitate as much as possible the second reading of this bill.
I know that several members had indicated their desire to take the floor, in order to favour in some way Bill No. C-17 which is now before us. So, for my part, I have decided to be very brief in order not to give the impression that we wish to talk it out. That is why I have suggested to my good friends who definitely want to help civil servants, so that they maybe considered as first class individuals in this country, that their silence might be much more eloquent than their speeches, since we want this bill to be voted upon as soon as possible.
However, if it is to be talked out, if we must discuss it until six o'clock, well, I would like the odious responsibility to fall upon the shoulders of those who are not in favour of the civil servants to talk it out.
Mr. Speaker, the bill in question was introduced as an amendment last year, when we passed the new Civil Service Act.
It had then been proposed that section 7, as it now stands, should be amended, since it was not favourable to civil servants, because it says:
(1) The Minister of Finance or such members of the public service as he may designate shall from time to time consult with representatives of appropriate organizations and associations of employees.
This means that only the minister or those whom he may designate are entitled to engage in discussions, but that the employees shall never have the right to invite the government to discuss with them. This is like a one way street from which you cannot back out, once you are there.
I recall having pointed out last year that I did not approve of this attitude, but civil servants were willing to accept it, try it out and see whether or not it worked. It was tried out and has proved a failure, because not very long ago, when employees asked for an interview with the former minister of

finance (Mr. Fleming) who is now Minister of Justice, in order to discuss an increase for the 55,000 employees who had received none, there were meetings and discussions. I remember that, a certain Monday night, reporters asked civil service employees: "Is there anything new?", and they were answered: "No, because we have to meet again tomorrow morning".
Now, on Tuesday morning, before the meeting, the Minister of Finance announced that, because of that policy-how do you call it, I know it is going to hurt some people when it is called an austerity program-well, because of the austerity program, they would not receive the increase. Then, the spokesmen of the civil service associations had to go home, as the minister refused to pursue discussions.
The bill I submit at this time demands that civil service employees, like the government, be authorized to have discussions and further stipulates that if they do not succeed in agreeing on the various clauses, they resort to arbitration.
I did not mention details with regard to arbitration, so as to keep the bill as simple as possible. We always might resort to a recognized arbitration system: a representative appointed by the government, a representative appointed by the associations and a third person appointed by both, which would represent the government and the associations to the satisfaction of both parties or by the governor in council if they were unable to come to an agreement. Anyway, people want them to have recourse to arbitration.
The following argument was brought up in several circles: "The crown cannot be forced to accept an order from any other body other than parliament".
Well, Mr. Speaker, I must say that England has not been so touchy, because it has accepted this measure. It has granted the right to arbitration to its employees. Australia has done the same, as well as New Zealand. Is Canada more touchy, with regards to the crown than England, New Zealand and Australia? I do not think so. Besides, I have been careful to put in the bill a provision for the protection of the government which must take the final decision. I have been careful to provide that if an agreement was not reached, if the negotiations did not result in agreement, the matter under dispute would be taken to an arbitration tribunal and that the arbitration decision would be subject, if necessary, to the approval of parliament regarding the rates of pay for each grade and the establishment of
Civil Service Act
the allowances. In this way, parliament will have the last say. Parliament will decide, without appeal, if we must accept or reject the sentence of the arbitration tribunal.
I remember that last year, when we brought forward the amendments, the official spokesman of the government was the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell). This is what he had to say:
But this is not necessary, since we already have consultation possibilities in section 7.
Well, as I have said, this has not been successful and the employees have not received satisfaction.
Today, the employees are insisting. They are entitled to arbitration, which is a natural right above the laws. People have the right to protect their interests.
Civil servants are not asking for the right to go on strike, which is implied in the act. For, according to an English principle, that which is not excluded is included. However, except for post office employees, and they did not insist, civil servants have not asked for this right.
The others here did not ask for it: the brief of the Civil Service Federation of Canada and the other, submitted by the Canadian postal employees, did not exactly ask for the right to strike. But what they wanted was the right to complain, when they felt wronged and to be able to turn to a body empowered to consider their grievances independently and to make a recommendation to the parliament of this country whose decision would be final.
One province has now set up a body responsible for negotiations and recognizes the right to strike. I am thinking of Saskatchewan.
As far as negotiation and arbitration are concerned, the system does not exist in any province; it is under consideration in British Columbia and I think they will have it before long.
As to consultation between employees and the government within joint councils, it exists in New Brunswick and Ontario as well as in Manitoba and Alberta.
The provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and British Columbia allow consultations between employees' organizations and the civil service commission.
The provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Quebec authorize direct representation to the government by employees' organizations.
I believe this is the first time a parliament has ever had the opportunity to give civil servants the right to be considered as

Civil Service Act
first class citizens, and have the right to turn them down. I do not feel that we could turn down members of all other organizations.
That is why I ask hon. members to be short in their praise of the civil service so that this bill might be passed.
If someone or some political party should be held responsible for depriving them of that right, I want it to be understood that it is the party that will assume such responsibility and not those who really want the civil servants to be considered as first class citizens.


Mr. Marcel Bourbonnais (Vaudreuil-Sou-langes):: Mr. Speaker, the bill of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) is very appropriate since it is intended to grant civil servants the same privilege as enjoyed by employees of non-government corporations, that is the right to collective bargaining and to arbitration in case of disagreement. In principle, nothing in this bill is contrary to the good operation of government business.
Personally, I am of the opinion that every employee should be able, directly or through union representatives, to discuss working conditions with his boss and secure by contract the respect of arrangements agreed to by both parties.
To a certain extent, what has been found beneficial to free enterprise employees should also apply to civil servants. I say to a certain extent, because there is a difference between the requirements of free enterprise and those of the government. While an employee in industry or business must earn some profit for his employer, the public servant must first of all produce quality which cannot be measured by instruments, let alone by statistics. Although parliament is indeed the actual employer, the public servant is at the same time his own boss because he has to pay taxes just like the employee in free enterprise.
Parliament is made up of politicians-honest politicians, let us say for the purpose of this discussion-who, to fulfil their mandate properly, must constantly call upon public servants. Dependant as members of the house are upon those public servants, it becomes impossible for parliament to be completely objective when this house has to deal with the problems of the civil servants. They can only be judged by public opinion.
Consequently, this harsh, pitiless and often cruel judge-public opinion-is the best
[Mr. Caron.)
guardian of the efficiency and honesty which must exist in the public administration and is a contributing factor in keeping politicians on the straight and narrow path.
To date in Canada, public opinion always favoured civil servants. Except during the war years, when our friends opposite set up controls and multiplied jobs in all government agencies, the civil service of Canada always maintained its good reputation.
To give an opportunity to all civil servants to negotiate working agreements with the governor in council today would be a way of appreciating the good and loyal services of the great majority of those people who spend their lives serving the nation.
There should, however, be a reservation and that is the right to strike, as the hon. member for Hull was saying a while ago. If in industry the right to strike is the only efficient way for the unions to obtain something from a stubborn employer, the security of employment enjoyed by civil servants should make up for the recourse to reprisals. As an employer the government does not have to meet the same competition as private enterprise, and its employees in turn do not have the same worries as workers in industry who can lose their jobs at any moment or may have to change trades because of some development in some section of industry or because of radical technical changes.
The right to strike is a necessary evil of labour unions to fight the selfishness and greed of some employers; on the other hand, the government as an employer is above profit seeking and the general welfare of all citizens is at stake, so the right to strike is not justified in the civil service.
I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, a fact that shows the great progress about to take place with regard to the salaries of the civil servants: that is proved by a plank in the platform announced by Mr. Johnson, the next premier of Quebec. It will enable the provincial civil servants in Quebec to negotiate and enter into collective bargaining with the government. That is an initiative that will go down in history and which, once again, will have come from the Union Nationale party.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Hull is not proposing this bill solely to win the friendship of the many civil servants who live in his riding-


Alexis Pierre Caron: I never wanted that.


Marcel Bourbonnais: -but is moved by a feeling of fairness toward the civil servants, a feeling which the hon. member for Hull could very well have.

(Text):


Mr.  A. B. Palierson@Fraser Valley: I wish to make a few remarks in connection with the bill now before the house for second reading. This bill has to do with the welfare of a large number of Canadian citizens employed in the public service of this country. I believe developments and events of recent times have emphasized the necessity for making changes in the procedure whereby good and amicable relations can be maintained between the government and its employees and more adequate provision made for the dispensation of justice as far as grievances are concerned.
I have here a list of the associations which have sent in letters and communications with regard to this subject. No doubt all other hon. members have received some. But in addition to the submissions from the national civil service association I also have communications from the national defence employees association, the federated association of letter carriers, the department of veterans affairs employees national association, and so on. These people are all very concerned about the position in which they find themselves in their relationship with the government.
I mentioned that the events and developments of recent days have emphasized the importance of this question. Reference has been made to the wage freeze which was clamped on by the government because of its austerity program. In spite of the fact that certain recommendations had been made, and that these people had more or less received assurances that consideration would be given to their requests, they found, instead, that those requests had been turned down, and this has resulted in a great deal of discontent and hardship.
I believe these various grievances which are felt by civil servants, as they are by workers in other fields, are very pressing. Therefore I wish to express myself as being in agreement with the principle of this bill which is to the effect that facilities should be provided whereby civil servants would have more attention paid to their problems and to their needs. I should only like to add that some of these associations which have written to me recognize that there are certain areas in which the rights accorded to workers in other fields may not be applicable to civil servants. They have indicated, in this regard, that they were not pressing for the right to strike. At least one of the communications makes this proviso. In conclusion may I say I just wanted to speak today in support of the principle of the bill now before us.
Civil Service Act


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The importance of the subject matter of the bill now before us is indicated by the fact that not only do we have the present measure introduced by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) dealing with the principle of bargaining rights for civil servants, but that we also have on the order paper a bill dealing with the same principle in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie).
I feel the bill sponsored by my colleague is a better one in many ways because it goes into greater detail in setting out how the desired end might best be obtained. Nevertheless, the measure now before us embodies the same principle and I am happy to rise in its support. I am happy, too, that I can support it on behalf of the party to which I belong. We believe in our party, as a matter of policy, that our civil servants should have normal bargaining rights in dealing with their employer. I can only hope that the hon. member who has introduced this bill today did so with the support of his party and not purely as a private member. If that is the case, I would be happy to hear some spokesman from the Liberal ranks rise and say so, because this proposal certainly means a considerable about-face from the position taken in the days when I sat in this house previously. At that time some of the hon. members who are now across the way were sitting on the treasury benches, and some of us were pressing for a measure of the kind which is now before the house. I may say we did not get a very warm response.
The hon. member who introduced this bill pointed out that various sister members of the commonwealth have had some experience over the years in arrangements which afford bargaining rights to the civil servants. I think this experience is something on which we could well draw, and I think all hon. members would agree that the results have not been disastrous as far as the normal running of those countries is concerned. I might also point out that we now have in this house at least one hon. member with considerable practical experience with respect to dealing with civil servants who for a good many years have enjoyed the rights which it is proposed to create through the present bill. I refer, of course, to the leader of this party, who took his seat in this house earlier today.
As has already been suggested by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, all members of this house have been receiving representations from civil service bodies on this subject. I really feel that this is a bill of which the government of the day should take serious note. I

Civil Service Act
speak as one who has had some experience in this matter of the relationship between employers and employees on both sides of discussions which have taken place in connection with working arrangements. Out of that experience, I have felt there were times when the representations which were made either way were made with greater or lesser seriousness. I know that representations have been made by civil servants and their organizations over a period of years in the direction proposed in this bill.
I think I must say that I have never before felt that the civil service of this country was as serious about this matter as it is at the present time. I was asked, before I left to attend this session, to meet with a number of representatives from civil service organizations to discuss their program. In the light of the events which took place shortly after the election, which events have been generally labelled as the government's austerity program, and with particular reference to its application to the people in the public service of Canada, I think the government has created a situation where it really should and must say something about this matter in the interests of providing good public service to the people of Canada, quite apart from the question of giving justice to the people who are the servants of the people of Canada. I would urge that the government take advantage today of the fact that this is, as has been mentioned a number of times, a parliament of minorities, and let this bill pass second reading. Then it can go to the appropriate committee of the house, where it can be studied and we can hear in detail from the official representatives the representations of the civil service organizations. Then, after that, the government should proceed to pass a bill which will give basic rights and justice to the people in Canada in public service who have served loyally for many years the interests of all of us.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not take up any more time of the house. I feel the counsel offered by the mover of the bill is good, and I hope that as a result of that counsel we will discover that there is no one in this house who is prepared to oppose the passage of this bill.


Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief; I will heed the advice of the mover of this bill. However, I just want to remind the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that if he read Hansard last year he would have seen that this party proposed in this house, and in a special committee studying this bill, an amendment to section 7 of the Civil Service

Act, which would have given collective bargaining rights and arbitration to civil servants.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am glad to know that such a change of heart took place.


Jean-Thomas Richard: If the hon. member wants the dates I will give them to him. It was on March 8, 1961; and on July 12, 1961, in the committee of the house, I moved the amendment, which was defeated by government supporters. So that the stand made by the hon. member for Hull is that of the Liberal party. Consultation, as was promised one year ago, has not worked. You have to take the word of the civil servants for that, and you will have to look at the results. I claim, as other hon. members who have spoken before me have also said, that civil servants must be treated as first class citizens and have all the rights that an employee has throughout industry and the labour world. So without taking up any more time, Mr. Speaker, I just want to add these few words: that the party to which I belong supports heartily and fully the bill now before us.


Mr. Gordon Chaplin (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill introduced by the hon. member for Hull I wish to assure him at this time that my remarks will be brief, and they are not made with the idea of holding up this bill. I, too, have been approached by the civil service organizations in my constituency, and the briefs they have presented to me seem reasonable and are those which I feel I could definitely support. The bill being proposed here today seems in line with what the civil service has requested, and from that standpoint I see no reason why it should not be supported. Industry in this country has for years accepted the principle of negotiation, and in fact has been encouraged and urged to do so by various levels of government in this country. Therefore, I see no reason why members of the civil service should not also enjoy this privilege of being able to negotiate with the government.
It also seems to me that in the case of the civil service where, to my mind at least, the idea of a strike is unthinkable, arbitration would be the logical step in the event of a breakdown in negotiation. However, there is one point about this bill. I am not entirely sure of the technical aspects of the bill, but subsection (3) of the proposed section 7 says:
The results of such negotiation and/or arbitration shall be proclaimed by a suitable instrument, where necessary subject to the approval of parliament.
I am not sure I understand the significance of that, but it seems to me that if you

accept the principle of arbitration, then the decision reached by arbitration must be final, and I question whether it should even be referred back again to parliament. I say that because if a civil service body takes a question right through to arbitration, surely that should be the final point and the parties can count on having a decision made which will be binding. I think I would have preferred, and I say this with all due respect to the hon. member who has introduced this bill, to have had him move a resolution rather than a bill at this time, because if the resolution were passed it would have allowed the government to write its own legislation in this matter. With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I pay my compliments to the hon. member who has introduced this bill.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate in this debate only because of the remarks made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who questioned whether or not this was the policy of the Liberal party. I want to remind him, and I am sure he will remember this instance, of the case of the labour legislation introduced in the province of British Columbia in 1954. We had what we thought at that time was a pretty good piece of labour legislation, but it was changed by the temporary boss of that province, and other legislation was brought in. It is a matter of record that at that time the Liberal party in that province introduced an amendment which had the effect of granting to civil servants all of the rights and privileges that extended under the act to all other types of union members. I would tell my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni that with some reluctance, but not too much reluctance, the C.C.F. party supported us; and any reluctance they showed was only because of the fact that we happened to introduce the legislation before they did. I rather think that the sponsorship of the bill in the name of an hon. member on this side of the house has something to do with the fact that the hon. member questions the position of the Liberal party on this matter. I wanted to put that on record only because it has been our policy for a number of years to extend to civil servants the rights and privileges which extend to other people in organized labour.
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): Mr. Speaker, I will take only half a minute to reply to the hon. member for Vancouver South. I suggest to him that it was a great pity that he was not sitting in this house in 1956 on the government side, when motions of this sort were turned down by the Liberal party.


Arthur Laing: That could well have been.
Civil Service Act


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be very brief in speaking to this bill.
First of all, may I say that I think we had better remove a little bit of hypocrisy from the discussion that has taken place so far. The hon. member for Ottawa East wished to place on record the position of his group and he referred to Hansard for 1961, I believe. The hon. member down in the corner of the chamber who has just finished speaking talked about the Liberal attitude in British Columbia. It is very peculiar that these attitudes develop when they are in opposition and have no responsibility whatsoever as the government of the day. I challenge him to read Hansard for 22 years, those so-called golden years under the Liberal administration, and to show me where the policy of the Liberal party was as set out in this bill that is presented here today.


An hon. Member:: It was not needed then.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: If the civil servants today are second class citizens because they have no right of negotiation or of arbitration, then they were second class citizens for 22 years under a Liberal administration.


Mr. Tardif:: Let us correct the situation before six o'clock.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I wish to say that I believe in justice for the civil servants. I think my association and connection with civil servants in my home city will stand comparison with that of any other member in the house. When the change of government came I know that many people thought this was an opportunity to do some housecleaning. I have lived in the city for over 30 years and I knew intimately a great many of the civil servants. I knew that the political activity in which they engaged during those years was engaged in because they were obliged to do it under the administration in order to keep their jobs and to avoid getting into trouble.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: There was not one civil servant in Regina who lost his job as a result of any recommendations of mine. In fact, two who were cut off were reinstated. Members of this house who are not of this party have said to me, "Ken, if you don't do anything else, get so and so cleared out". I never took any action. I am glad I did not take any action. Those civil servants were capable. They are doing their jobs today. I think they are loyal employees, the best in the world.
I worked on the special committee last year in redrafting the Civil Service Act. That was

Civil Service Act
the first time in a good many years any redrafting had been done. In this act we provided a new procedure for them; we provided something they had not had previously. I do not feel that this present bill will change the position one little bit. I do not think the provisions of the new act, or the redrafted act, have had any chance for a fair trial.
I have heard much about the system in England. I am aware of the fact that in England there have been pay pauses, just as you might say there is now a pay pause here. My concern will be what action is taken when this crisis in our foreign exchange is over. If the action the government takes is what I think it will be, I believe no change is needed in the present act. I have had all the representations that anyone else has had. However, to my knowledge I believe that satisfactory wage rates have been arrived at. That is all this act would provide. I have no representations indicating that there was a need for arbitration to determine the wage rates. There is a freeze under the present circumstances. However, I support justice for the civil servants; and if the present act does not work I have assured my civil servants- and I stand by that assurance-that I will support their demand for a new bill and arbitration.


Mr. O. H. Phillips (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this bill. I am rather hesitant to do so after the remarks of the hon. member who introduced the bill and requested us to refrain from making comment on it. It is rather obvious that his party members have adopted that attitude; in fact, they have even refrained from being present at the time the bill is being discussed. There is not even a baker's dozen of them in the house at the present time. In fact, when you look at the opposition benches, Mr. Speaker, you observe that there is not a front bencher present. I think that fact indicates their sincerity in introducing this bill at this time.
This bill I believe was conceived and introduced in time for the party whip, who is among those missing, to send a certain civil service organization a telegram saying that as a party they supported the association to a man. As I say, Mr. Speaker, to be absent when a bill is introduced is a queer way in which to indicate support.
I have had the opportunity of discussing this bill with a number of the executives of the various civil service organizations. They are not happy with the way in which it was introduced and they are not happy with the bill itself. Many of the organizations, such as the national defence employees association

realize that there is difficulty for the government in connection with permitting arbitration. These organizations wish to work along with the government and to attempt to arrive at a solution satisfactory to both parties involved. They are not anxious to have arbitration become a political issue. Rather, they would like to see the matter settled in a sensible and friendly way without getting into any argument between government and association.
The word "arbitration" itself, Mr. Speaker, leaves me rather cold. I dislike the idea of its being compulsory. I have here a monograph entitled, "A Model for Negotiation and Arbitration between the Canadian Government and its Civil Servants". This monograph was prepared at the request of the civil servants association by Saul Frankel, the industrial relations centre, McGill University. I should like to refer to page 51 where the author states as follows:
What is envisioned for the federal civil service, however, is compulsory arbitration .. .
It may be interesting to recall an address by Prime Minister St. Laurent to the professional institute in February 1957. Then, as now, the issue of arbitration was one of great concern to the staff associations. The Prime Minister considered it appropriate to touch on this matter. He said:
"Arbitration is not a normal part of Canadian practice in industrial relations ... I have good reason to know that in our country arbitration is accepted, even in real emergencies, only with the greatest reluctance. It does not seem to be a satisfactory substitute for other regular processes of determining pay scales."
In case hon. gentlemen opposite have forgotten it, Mr. Speaker, may I remind them that Mr. St. Laurent was a Liberal prime minister of Canada and laid down the policy of the party at that time. I should like to refer to page 53 of the same monograph-


Mr. Berger:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order to be fair to the author of the monograph I suggest that the hon. member who has the floor should read the paragraph which follows the quotation from Mr. St. Laurent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not really a point of order when expressed in that way. The hon. member has the right to the floor to rebut the case afterwards, if he cares to do so. I would ask hon. members to observe the rules in so far as any points of order are concerned.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: It is a point of honesty.


Orville H. Phillips: I should be glad to read it if I thought it would enlighten the hon. member in any way.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Give the facts. Follow your leader.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Orville H. Phillips: I should like to refer to one sentence on page 53 where the author states:
An interesting practice has grown out of the fact that the arbitrator's determinations have the force of law.
In this regard I believe I must take issue with the hon. member for Waterloo South who, if I recall his remarks correctly, left the impression that he favoured the views of the arbitrator becoming final and therefore compulsory on the government. I cannot accept that viewpoint. We must retain the supremacy of parliament, and parliament and the government have the sole right to impose taxation and introduce expenditures of government money. To me this is one of the most difficult aspects of arbitration for civil servants and I would remind my hon. friend who interrupted on a point of order a minute ago that a complete chapter is devoted to that problem in this pamphlet.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the government to get together with the various civil service associations, present its objections to arbitration and then allow the associations to present their views. I am sure that by this means this difficulty can be overcome. It is the logical way to deal with the matter, rather than introducing a bill on the basis of political expediency.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Speaker, now that the hon. member who presented the bill has flushed a couple of members who have expressed their opposition to it perhaps I might say a word in support of it. The question raised by the bill is simply whether employees of the government of Canada are going to have the right to bargain collectively. This bill will give them that right, a right which they do not now enjoy, and for that reason members of this party support it. It is for the same reason that the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), when he was premier of Saskatchewan, gave the employees of that province the right to bargain collectively.
The right to bargain collectively is a fundamental human right that ought to be enjoyed by people who work for a living whether they work for private industry, or for the government of Canada or that of any province. It is simply a question whether or not they are going to be second class citizens. We think they should no longer have to suffer that status. We want to make them first class citizens, and that is why we support the bill.
I would draw the attention of the hon. member for Hull who introduced the bill to the fact that it does not provide any 27507-3-80J
Civil Service Act
machinery of arbitration, which I suggest to him is absolutely essential. This bill simply expresses a principle. We agree with that principle and that is why we support the bill. We respectfully point out, however, that it does have that deficiency.
The present consultative procedure does not really bring into being any kind of genuine collective bargaining situation. It is bound to be simply an artificial kind of bargaining so long as the salaries, wages and working conditions of civil servants are determined in the last analysis by the people occupying the treasury benches. There is a certain artificiality about negotiations carried on in that kind of atmosphere. The prospect of arbitration binding upon the government of Canada as well as upon civil servants is the greatest inducement to both sides to conduct genuine negotiations, and the creation of machinery to provide arbitration would induce both sides to carry on bona fide collective bargaining.
I was interested to hear the hon. member for Fraser Valley support this proposal because in my own province, from which he also comes, a report dealing with the status of civil servants in that province was submitted to the government approximately three years ago by a distinguished professor of law at the University of British Columbia. The report, it is widely suspected, recommended that collective bargaining rights should be given to civil servants in that province; but Premier Bennett, in his usual frank and open way, has kept the report hidden for three years.
The thing that is important in my opinion is to prevent wages and salaries of civil servants becoming a political issue. Because the government has not provided arbitration the present wage freeze has become a political issue. The only way to prevent that is to provide for binding arbitration, and that is why we support the bill. I urge members on the government side to let the question be called when I have finished my remarks, as I have done.


Mr. R. G. L. Fairweaiher (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I am tired of these cliches about second class citizenship and the ultimatums that are issued, even by such an experienced member as the hon. member for Ottawa East, to the effect that if we vote against this bill we will be voting against the public service. That is a threat that I do not think is becoming to a member of his seniority.
I happen to support the bill. I support the principle. I do not see what difference there

Civil Service Act
is between public servants on a national scale and public servants on the municipal scale, such as firemen and hospital employees.


An hon. Member:: Sit down then.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: This is not a good enough bill. I am sure there can be a better bill.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Why don't you move one? We will vote for it.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Don't wear such a halo over there.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I support the principle of arbitration in the public service of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary South.


Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker-


Alexis Pierre Caron: There is only one minute left.


Arthur Smith: -I want to say in one minute that I also agree with the principle of the bill and I congratulate the hon. member for Hull upon introducing it. In the few seconds I have left I wish to say that I think the government has an obligation to bring in legislation based to a large degree on this principle. As we have heard, there are many suggestions as to how we might improve
it. We might want to have a further look at the system in Great Britain.
I also suggest that the question of arbitration is another area that requires examination; but in supporting the principle of the bill I wish to impress on those members of my own party who occupy the front benches that I think they have a responsibility to extend the same freedom to civil servants as has been extended throughout the rest of Canada by industry. I respectfully ask the hon. members who sit on the front benches to take note that there is one member on the back benches who considers this is something that should be done.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hour for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house leader would indicate the business for Monday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: As a matter of fact, I gave it at five o'clock for the convenience of one member on the other side who had to rush away to catch a train, I suppose. There will be a supply motion on Monday and Tuesday.


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


[Stage Direction]
Certified to be a true copy of a minute of a meeting of the committee of the privy council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 1st November 1962.
The committee of the privy council, on the recommendation of the Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker, the Prime Minister, advise that:
The Honourable Yves Bernier, a judge of the superior court of Quebec, Quebec, P.Q.
Robert Knowlton Smith, Esq., Waterloo, Ontario
Harold Alexander Renwick, Esq., Vancouver, British Columbia
be appointed commissioners under part I of the Inquiries Act, to inquire into and report upon the problems relating to marine pilotage provided in Canada, more particularly under the Canada Shipping Act, and to recommend the changes, if any, that should be made in the pilotage system now prevailing, having regard to safety of navigation, development of shipping and commerce, the interests of pilots, shipowners, masters and the public generally; and in particular, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the commission shall consider and report upon:
(a)	the extent and nature of marine pilotage requirements, including compulsory pilotage, compulsory payment of pilotage dues and the granting of exemptions;
(b)	the duties, responsibilities and status of marine pilots; and
(c)	the adequacy of the organizational structure provided in the Canada Shipping Act for
the administration, regulations and financing of pilotage, taking into consideration such factors as the provision of pilotage services, the determination, collection and disposal of pilotage dues, and the entry into service, technical standards, conduct, income, welfare and pension arrangements of pilots.
The committee further advise:
1.	That the commissioners be authorized to exercise all the powers conferred upon them by section 11 of the Inquiries Act and be assisted to the fullest extent by government departments and agencies;
2.	That the commissioners adopt such procedures and methods as they may from time to time deem expedient for the proper conduct of the inquiry and sit at such times and at such places in Canada as they may decide from time to time;
3.	That the commissioners be authorized to engage the services of such counsel, staff and technical advisers as they may require at rates of remuneration and reimbursement to be approved by the treasury board;
4.	That the commissioners report to the governor in council with all reasonable dispatch, and file with the dominion archivist the papers and records of the commission as soon as reasonably may be after the conclusion of the inquiry; and
5.	That the Honourable Mr. Justice Bernier be chairman of the commission.
R. B. Bryce,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 5, 1962