1963-06-21

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-77, to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to put into effect the 1958, 1962 and 1963 promise of the Liberal party to allow the building, among other things, of a second trans-Canada highway. It seeks to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to that end by permitting the act to speak in the plural rather than in the singular, as it is at the moment.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



IMMIGRATION ACT


Mr. D. G. Hahn (Broadview) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-78, to amend the Immigration Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make an amendment to the Immigration Act which will grant permanent status to people who have at some time in their lives suffered a mental illness. Under the present act if a person has ever suffered a mental illness he cannot have permanent status in this country. On the other hand, certain criminals after they have been rehabilitated are allowed permanent status. This amendment will allow people who have suffered from mental illness the same rights as criminals.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING ASSISTANCE ACT


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee at
28902-5-91J
the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient, as a means toward the further development of manpower in Canada and toward increasing employment opportunities for Canadians, to introduce a measure to amend the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act:
(a)	to provide that in respect of the costs incurred by a province as training allowances for unemployed persons, the contributions payable by Canada to the province be increased from 75 per cent to such percentage, not exceeding 90 per cent, as may be specified in the agreement made under the act between the Minister of Labour and the province;
(b)	to provide in respect of the costs incurred by the province for such part of the program for training employed persons in industry as may be specified in the agreement, the contributions payable by Canada to the province be increased from 50 to 75 per cent thereof;
(c)	to extend, until such date as may be specified in the agreement made under the act between the Minister of Labour and the province, the period during which the contributions payable by Canada to the province will be 75 per cent in respect of costs incurred by the province for capital expenditures on training facilities; and
(d)	to increase the number of members of the technical and vocational training advisory council from 23 to 28 and to provide an honorarium for the chairman thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a comprehensive pension program to be known as the Canada pension plan and to provide among other things for the payment of pensions on an adjusted scale commencing, at the option of the pensioner, at any age between 65 and 70 years; for the payment of pensions to surviving spouses commencing at any age after 65 years; for the progressive establishment of such pensions over an initial period averaging ten years in order to facilitate the adjustment of existing pension schemes to the new plan; for the payment of an additional pension of ten dollars a month to all persons to whom a pension may be paid under the Old Age Security Act; for the adjustment of pensions payable under the Old Age Security Act to co-ordinate such pensions with the new plan; and for the appointment and remuneration of such officers, clerks and employees as may be required for the due carrying out of the

Proposed Legislation
new plan; and to provide further that all expenditures under the new plan, additional to those required under the Old Age Security Act, shall be paid out of or reimbursed from contributions by employees, employers and self employed persons.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954,
(a)	to provide further assistance to municipalities carrying out urban renewal programs by authorizing Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") to make loans to municipalities to assist them in meeting the costs of such programs, and for this purpose to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of amounts not exceeding in the aggregate one hundred million dollars;
(b)	to authorize the corporation to make loans and to insure loans made by approved lenders to owners of existing houses in areas included in urban renewal programs;
(c)	to authorize the corporation to make loans and contributions to provincially or municipally owned housing agencies for constructing or acquiring public housing projects and operating such projects, and to authorize the corporation to contribute a portion of the operating losses on any such projects that provide subsidized housing accommodation to individuals or families of low income;
(d)	to permit federal-provincial public housing projects to include existing housing and hostel or dormitory type housing accommodation;
(e)	to authorize the corporation to make loans to non-profit organizations to assist in the acquisition or construction of housing accommodation for individuals or families of low income;
(f)	to increase from two billion dollars to two and one half billion dollars the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund for direct loans by the corporation;
(g)	to provide for the establishment of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund out of which amounts not exceeding in the aggregate one hundred million dollars may be advanced to the corporation for the making of loans to the holders of mortgages issued in respect of loans insured under the act and for the purchase by the corporation of mortgages issued to secure such loans;
(h)	to increase the loan ratio for insured loans made to home owners and builders; and
(i)	to provide further for certain changes in the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
June 19-The Minister of National Health and Welfare-The following proposed motion;-That a

special committee be appointed to consider and report on (a) the hazards of food contamination and insecticides, pesticides, and other noxious substances; and (b) the safety and cost of drugs; that the committee consist of 24 members to be designated later by the house; that the committee be empowered to send for persons, papers, records, and to report from time to time, and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable; and that the provisions of standing orders 66 and 67 be suspended in relation thereto.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has any information to give the house regarding the possibility of success being attained in ending the testing of nuclear weapons?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of the Leader of the Opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Churchill:: It has taken you 60 days.


An hon. Member:: Sixty-one days.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My only comment on that is that the government has been so busy making decisions-


John George Diefenbaker: And retreats.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that the answer is obvious. But to deal with the question of the right hon. gentleman I would like to point out, as he knows, that between June 22 and July 30, the 18 nation disarmament committee will not be in session. The three great powers are taking advantage of this recess to hold important talks in Moscow. It is hoped that these talks, with regard to the proposal for a ban on nuclear tests, will result in agreement. Whether this eventuates will be seen. If such success should attend these three power talks the effect on the resumed disarmament discussions would, of course, be very great.
In the meantime the United States has announced its intention not to carry on atmospheric tests, and the United Kingdom has made a similar announcement. It is hoped that these initiatives taken by the United States and the United Kingdom will have a

salutary effect. I can only say I am sure all of us in this house hope that the discussions in Moscow will prove valuable and useful.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, on June 19 as recorded at page 1342 of Hansard for that date, the Prime Minister agreed to undertake an inquiry into the trading patterns immediately preceding and immediately following the budget. I would like to ask if such an inquiry has been undertaken; and in view of some of the very serious patterns which have developed by the block trading of certain companies, whether he would be prepared now to set up a special committee of the house to look into this matter to see whether there have indeed been any violations of secrecy with respect to the budget.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think I said I would bring this matter to the attention of the exchanges and in the light of the information we received from them then we would know what steps, if any, should be taken by the government and the house. I have not yet received a report on this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in that connection I would like to ask the Prime Minister, while emphasizing support for what has been suggested previously by hon. members on this side of the house, whether he could secure, when he is making this investigation, a record as to the number, kind and nature of transactions on the trading market in Toronto of Harris and Partners Limited on the Tuesday and Wednesday prior to the budget; also any transactions in respect of pipe line stocks of Wood, Gundy for a period of one week prior to the budget. Would he be able to secure this information?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it would be proper to single out two companies of this kind for information of this kind. I will look into the matter.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question just asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the inquiries which the Prime Minister said he would have made, will the Prime Minister ensure that this investigation determines the extent and the source of the reported heavy short selling of the shares of independent Canadian oil companies in the
Inquiries of the Ministry week before the budget was presented, with particular reference to companies which would have been available for take-over by American interests and whose stock dropped substantially in value upon the budget resolutions being made public?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to include that matter in the consideration being given.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Was anyone other than a cabinet minister or a top official in the Department of Finance informed of the decision to withdraw paragraph 11 of the Excise Tax Act resolutions after the decision was taken and before it was announced in the house?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance tell the house who outside of these people were so informed?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The deputy minister, the senior assistant deputy minister who was working on this particular tax, Mr. Stanley, Mr. Conway and Mr. O'Connell.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a further supplementary question. Did any of these gentlemen-I refer in particular to the outside gentlemen, the contractors-assist the Minister of Finance in the preparation of the statement he made to the house concerning the withdrawal of that resolution?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is in the same field but I should like to direct it to the Prime Minister. When he is considering his investigation would he inquire whether there is any truth in reports I have had from press offices in Toronto that simultaneously with the announcement by the Minister of Finance in the house that he was withdrawing paragraph 11 of the budget resolutions dealing with excise tax, there were telephone calls coming into such offices from floor traders on the exchange asking if it had yet been withdrawn?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to look into that, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temiscamin-gue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Does the minister intend to act upon the suggestion made today by the Montreal Gazette financial editor, Mr. John Meyer, that the government, having withdrawn the 30 per cent take-over tax,

Inquiries of the Ministry should now withdraw the adjustments in withholding taxes intended to force procurement by Canadians of equity participation?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have not read the article, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question. In light of the minister's answer I wonder whether he would take notice of the article and advise the house as to his decision in view of the grave uncertainty existing in financial circles.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It would seem to me this is a matter for the debate.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the minister how he justifies such an astounding admission as the one he has just made, that before an announcement in the House of Commons these three individuals to whom criticism had been directed were brought in and made aware of so important a change. What is behind all this?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We know what is behind it.


John George Diefenbaker: Answer. Mr. Speaker, the house has a right to this information.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Before I make any announcement in this house, even though it has been drafted by myself and approved by the cabinet, I usually show it to senior officials of the department so that if there is any small change that needs to be made in it they will inform me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was it part of the contract made with these three gentlemen that they were identified as senior officials of the Department of Finance? In spite of what I hear of members over there advising the minister not to answer, I think he should answer this question.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: They were not hired as junior clerks. They were senior individuals who were working with senior permanent officials and in that capacity, for the time being, they were acting in that way.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In
view of the fact that these three gentlemen had shown their incompetency by not having recognized the administrative difficulties-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please rephrase his supplementary question? He is giving an opinion, not asking for information.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that these three gentlemen had failed to recognize the
[Mr. Martineau.l
administrative difficulties, does the minister not think it was inadvisable to consult them any further?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would think that was a question that might better be brought up in debate.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I ask a supplementary question. After completion of the budget were these three gentlemen still retained in government service, or was their contract terminated upon completion of the budget?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, they were.


Colin Cameron: Are they on now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The contract was for six months.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he would assure the house that he would consult knowledgeable page boys before making any further statements likely to influence the stock market.


Mr. Charles J. M. Willoughby (Kamloops):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that fixed contracts are exempt from the 11 per cent sales tax, will the same exemption apply to municipalities that have passed fixed sum bylaws for the construction of public buildings although tenders have not yet been let?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Medicine Hat asked me a question yesterday and I said that either I or the Minister of National Revenue hoped to make a statement covering a number of these points, including the one the hon. gentleman has just raised, either today or Monday. I have no doubt that the matter will be raised again in the course of this question period.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue in the light of what the Minister of Finance has just said. I would ask the minister when he expects the clarifying statement will be ready respecting the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials.
Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National
Revenue): Monday, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. The minister just intimated that he had discussed with the three gentlemen who were associated with the preparation of the budget the fact that he was going

to change section 11, or whatever it was-he was going to withdraw it, at least, pending-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Suspend it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The minister said he had discussed this matter with them prior to the announcement being made in the house. According to reports these men had left Ottawa and had presumably left their association with *the government. Did he call them back specifically for this purpose?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I know nothing of the reports, Mr. Speaker. They had not left the government service and they had not left Ottawa.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which relates to the matter just now under discussion. I appreciate the honesty of the minister's answer a few moments ago that he did inform these three gentlemen of the changes, but my question of privilege is that this house was misled by the minister on June 19, the day the statement was made.
The minister was asked a question by the Leader of the Opposition and his reply, as reported at page 1341 of Hansard, was this:


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I gave no information to Mr. Kierans, and I did not make any statement to anybody else until I came into this house, other than the Prime Minister and certain members of the cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have now had the minister's own word that these three gentlemen who were taken on as special consultants were informed of this decision after it was made and before the house was so advised. If they were not informed directly by the Minister of Finance, they were informed with his knowledge, with his consent, and I submit that we were misled by the minister in the statement he made to the house on Wednesday of this week.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I daresay that people can twist words. I do not mean that my hon. friend did that at all, but I think you can misread these things. It has been my understanding that ministers were entitled to, and usually did, speak to the senior members of their departments, and I certainly included these people in that category.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on another question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Any suggestion that I am guilty of twisting words is completely without foundation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have read the minister's own words of Wednesday, which were to the effect that he told no one but the Prime
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister and certain members of the cabinet. There was not even any mention of officials then, but I would not have thought that was out of place. Of course he would tell the deputy minister of finance; at least I would hope he would. But now we are told that three people who were not officials of the department, who were outsiders and were taken in on so-called contracts under a treasury board minute of doubtful validity, were informed. I suggest that the whole story is a sorry affront to the rights of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister say whether any tax was actually collected under section 11 of the Excise Tax Act during the four days it was in force; and if so, will such collections be refunded?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that is the type of question for the order paper.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received complaints from universities, school districts or municipalities that the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials will seriously curtail their projected building programs?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have received a great many representations. As the Minister of National Revenue said a few moments ago, he will be in a position to give a clear answer on Monday of the way this tax will apply.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: I wonder when the Minister of Finance will be in a position to announce a decision with respect to the excise tax which is now suspended, uncertainty with regard to which is overhanging the market, causing uncertainty and lack of confidence.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: In my statement on June 19 I said the government proposed to withdraw the budget resolution respecting the Excise Tax Act pending a solution of the administrative difficulties involved in its application. If the difficulties referred to cannot be resolved the resolution will not be re-introduced, and other means will have to be found to prevent the takeover of Canadian firms by non-residents. I am not in a position to answer, directly, a question as to whether I am certain the difficulties can be overcome.


George Clyde Nowlan: Does the minister realize-I am sure he must-that this uncertainty is creating severe dislocation in the financial markets of this country?

Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Bailie River-
Camrose): I have a question for the Prime Minister. In yesterday's Montreal Gazette it was reported that the right hon. gentleman intends to replace the Minister of Finance. Is this report true?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That report, Mr. Speaker, is untrue.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the
Minister of Finance whether he consulted with his three outside experts-I called them "tinkers", but experts they were-before the withdrawal of this tax; and when did he advise them, the three of them, of his intention to make the announcement he did on the evening of the 19th?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I did not consult them, Mr. Speaker. After the cabinet meeting I informed the deputy minister, the assistant deputy minister and those three gentlemen who had been helping me with these matters.


John George Diefenbaker: The question, is what time in the afternoon.


Mr. Macdonald:: At what time did you become honest?


John George Diefenbaker: It is very important, having regard to the transactions which took place on the stock exchange. At what time were these three men advised?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It was just before I came into the house, but I do not know the exact time.


Mr. Graffley:: Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege, an hon. member opposite has just directed a remark from his seat to the Leader of the Opposition, and if he was_ honourable he would get up from this seat and withdraw immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Heward Grafftey: I am not going to point an accusing finger or identify him, but if the hon. member has any honour he will get up now and withdraw his remark.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the excitement of the hon. member, but there is no question of privilege.


Mr. Smallwood:: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question. In order to restore Canadian confidence abroad, why wait till spring? Why does he not resign now?
(Translation):


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to return to the charge against the Minister of Finance, but I think that he is expecting it.

Why did he fustigate Mr. Kierans and his recommendations immediately after having complied with the demands of this person?
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not know whether that remark appears in Hansard, but if it does I want it clearly understood that it will be withdrawn. If the statement made by the hon. member opposite is on Hansard I do not want Your Honour to say afterwards that we did not object at the time. A remark such as that allegedly made by the hon. gentleman is contrary to the rules of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to say that I did not hear any remark. Perhaps there was so much noise going on that I could not hear it, and I do not know to what the Leader of the Opposition refers.
(Translation):


Mr. Yvon Dupuis (Parliamentary Secretary lo Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as I have been pointed at by the hon. members opposite, I must say that I have used, with regard to the former prime minister, no word whatsoever that might be objectionable. I do not know whether someone heard words that came from elsewhere, but as far as 1 am concerned, I have spoken in the most courteous way. What I asked personally to the former prime minister was: "At what time were you born?"
(Text):


Mr. Nielsen:: 1 rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is one way to get the attention of hon. members. The hon. member for Yukon has a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, perhaps now the seatmate of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken will get up and say something to the house as well.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the question which I addressed from my seat was "At what time did you become honest?". Now, if the hon. gentleman is in any doubt with regard to that he will find an epithet in it. If he is in no doubt at all then there is no epithet.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this young and juvenile member of the house cannot get away with that statement, and I ask for its immediate withdrawal.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest, as I am sure he will agree, that if the hon. member intended any offence he will certainly withdraw the remark.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. I want that statement withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If the right hon. gentleman finds the statement-


Some hon. Members:: No, no; withdraw.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Wait a minute. If the right hon. gentleman finds the statement-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If the right hon. gentleman finds the statement objectionable I will withdraw it.


William Heward Grafftey: No "ifs".


John George Diefenbaker: No qualifications. An absolute withdrawal is what I want. I have been in this house a long while, Mr. Speaker, and will not tolerate such impropriety.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may make an off the cuff remark here, which perhaps I should not, we seem to be doing very well for early Friday morning. May I suggest to the hon. member, getting down to the business at hand, that he withdraw the remark.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With respect to you I will comply with your ruling and withdraw.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege with respect to the records of the house. Would the right hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Prince Albert, withdraw the remark which appears on Hansard which he made during the budget debate, as reported at page 1003, and which reads as follows:
Tell a big lie often enough.
Will the right hon. gentleman withdraw that remark?


Paul Raymond Martineau: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely obvious that the suggestion made by the Secretary of State is not within the rules, because any such question of privilege must be drawn to the attention of the Chair immediately. This is an incident which took place several days ago.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. gentleman.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman is right that this remark was made about a big lie, it was directed to me, but I did not think it important enough to take notice of it.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we have had sufficient information on this subject, and I will call upon one of the quieter members of the house to ask a question. The hon. member for Lapointe.
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Thank you. Mr. Speaker.
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can he tell us on what administrative grounds he based his decision to withdraw section 11 of the Excise Tax Act?
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take this up in the course of the debate. (Translation):


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, the question which I asked earlier has been lost in the beating about the bush on some frustrated honours, and I understand that the Minister of Finance was ready to answer. I am therefore rephrasing my question.
Why did he fustigate Mr. Kierans and criticize his suggestions immediately after complying with the individual's demands? (Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not think I have anything further to say on this question.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to reply to a question by the hon. member for Macleod in my absence on Wednesday, when he asked:
Would the minister be good enough to tell the house whether it is true that fabulous orders for building materials were placed immediately prior to the budget?
I have made some investigations. I am not of course in a position to say exactly what was happening at that time but I would direct the attention of hon. members, and particularly of the hon. member for Macleod, to two facts which I think help to explain a great deal of what was going on. There was in fact in the month of May an increase in housing starts of 25 per cent over the same month a year ago, and an increase in the value of all non-residential construction contracts of no less than 54 per cent in the same period.


George Clyde Nowlan: We sure had the economy moving.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But that was May.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising from the report of a speech he made to the annual convention of Lions International at Miami, Florida, in which he is reported to have said that we-presumably the government-want to provide for effective and harmonious participation by foreign investment in Canada. Does the minister think that the take-over tax of 30 per cent, which was later withdrawn by the Minister of Finance, was of assistance in achieving this objective?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the question. During the short time that I was in Miami I found there that the people of the United States recognized that under this government a new chapter in Canadian-American relations has opened.


An hon. Member:: They sure do.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister, and ask him whether he has received a telegram from the East Asiatic Company (Canada) Ltd. in which they point out that they have some one thousand employees, that they are opening up one million acres of timberland on Vancouver island, and that their projected pulp mill will have its cost increased by some $2 million thereby endangering some 800 permanent jobs in that area. In the light of this telegram from the company, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government is prepared to give any reconsideration to the imposition of the sales tax on building materials and machinery used in construction work?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall having received that telegram, but I will look into the matter when I get back to my office. When I do, and if it has arrived, I would certainly want to take a very close look at the figures which my hon. friend has quoted.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is the right hon. gentleman suggesting the figures are not accurate because of my quoting of the figures or the company's quoting of the figures?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said I would certainly want to look at the figures put on the record by my hon. friend, for which he takes responsibility. On the terms given by him there would be an extra cost of $2 million on the building of the mill.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a $40 million or $50 million pulpwood mill it is not hard to see how this would be.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt, but this is becoming a debate and this is the question period.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am rising on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the right hon. gentleman is calling in question the figures I quoted he is putting an implication on my interpretation of the telegram.
[Mr. MacEwan.)


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member well knows it is a rule of the house that if he quotes figures in the way he has done he takes his own responsibility for the correctness of the figures. That is all the Prime Minister indicated.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I quoted the figures exactly as given in this telegram, and if the Prime Minister wishes I can send him a copy of the telegram so that he can check the figures with Hansard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman quoted figures, and by quoting them took responsibility for them. All I have said is that when the telegram arrives in my office I would certainly want to examine those figures very carefully before reaching the conclusion he wanted me to reach about withdrawing this tax.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, on the point of privilege raised by my leader, the Prime Minister has suggested, and you yourself appeared tc suggest, that when an hon. member quotes figures in this house, figures which he has received in a document, telegram or letter, he accepts responsibility for the correctness of those figures. The only responsibility is in the correct quotation.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is not a telegram to me. This is a copy of a telegram to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister would do very well to examine the figures and compare them with this copy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what he said he would do.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, my question is somewhat supplemental to the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding this new chapter in American-Canadian relations. I would like to ask him whether included in that is the concept that we should enter into negotiations with the United States for the purpose of relocating the boundary between Alaska and northern British Columbia along the Panhandle?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I only had a few hours in Miami and that question was not one of the subjects under discussion.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister directly related to the question which was asked him by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the stated purpose of the proposed department of industry to promote the establishment and growth of industry appears to have been negated by these proposals for a sales tax on construction materials, the government is considering the withdrawal of Bill No. C-74 from the order paper.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the hon. gentleman's premise. Therefore I cannot answer the question in the way he has put it.
(Translation):


Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Minister of Finance a very short question which is not controversial. Can the minister assure the house that by Monday he will have considered the possibility of excepting from the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials the purchaser of a low-priced home?
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that a statement will be issued on Monday, and I do not think that I should go further than that.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can he tell us if the three gentlemen taken on as senior advisers are now in the process of assisting in drawing the regulations to implement the various measures outlined in the budget?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, various members of the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue are drawing those regulations.


Edward Nasserden: A supplementary question. Are we to take it that these gentlemen are not charged with that particular responsibility?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is customary for ministers to indicate who is doing the actual drafting.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam took exception to my reference to the nature of his question a moment ago, in that I suggested that under the rules he should take responsibility for the figure that he put on the record. I want to make it quite clear that I was not questioning his honour or sense of responsibility in any way. I was indicating the rules as I thought they should
Inquiries of the Ministry be applied, and the basis of my statement is found in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, section 177, which reads as follows:
Reading telegrams, letters or extracts from newspapers as an opening to a question when the orders of the day are called is an abuse of the rules of the house. It is not good parliamentary practice to communicate written allegations to the house and then to ask ministers either to confirm or deny them. It is the member's duty to ascertain the truth of any statement before he brings it to the attention of parliament.


Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the statement he made with regard to the large number of housing starts in May. In view of the fact that it generally takes some months of planning before a building is commenced, does the minister consider that the large increase in starts in May was attributable to the policies of the present government? If so, would the minister confirm that the government needs all the credit it can get even though not deserved?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Was the making of the announcement concerning the withdrawal of paragraph 11 of the excise tax resolutions at about 20 minutes to 3 on Wednesday made at that time by deliberate decision or through inadvertence?


An hon. Member:: No answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the serious implications that flow from this can we not be told whether this was deliberate or inadvertent?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member raising a question of privilege?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer that question. As I said at the time, it was the view of the government that as soon as a decision was reached it should be announced.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question. Was it a deliberate decision to make the announcement at that time despite the fact that the stock markets were still open?
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Could he tell us if he intends to remove all taxes which could entail administrative difficulties? For example, I could point out that the levy of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials seems to give rise to many administrative difficulties.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, since we are the only party who has not directed a question to the Minister of Finance and since the minister has

Inquiries of the Ministry given consideration to advice coming from outside, could he assure the house that he will take into account suggestions that will be offered by the hon. members during the budget debate?
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am delighted to assure the hon. gentleman that I shall do so.
(Translation):


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the President of the Privy Council a question that he could consider as advance notice and answer next Monday.
Could the minister tell the house what senior appointments have been made by order in council within the Department of Finance, since April 21 of this year?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (President of the Privy Council):: I definitely feel that this question should be put on the order paper.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not wish to stop anyone-it is not my right to stop anyone- asking questions, but I would call the attention of hon. members to the fact that it is now twenty minutes or more after twelve o'clock on Friday morning. I do think if further questions are not really urgent perhaps they could be postponed until Monday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question. Could we be assured that the precedent he set on Wednesday is one that will not be followed?


An hon. Member:: What precedent?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The precedent of making announcements of this kind while the stock exchanges are still open. Who are these advisers who are telling the minister "Don't bother"?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am quite prepared to answer that question. It will depend on the circumstances.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompfion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister intend to invite United States President Kennedy to Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No invitation has been extended to him, Mr. Speaker, but Mr. Kennedy as President of


the United States knows he would always receive a very warm welcome in this country if he could make a visit to Canada.



PULPWOOD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Has the Minister of Trade and Commerce been informed of an increase in the price of pulp for export by a number of firms, and is he aware of a general move in this direction in a commodity which contributes so much to Canada's export trade?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): No, Mr. Speaker. I had not heard of it before, but if this information is accurate I thank the hon. member for it.



U.S. REQUEST FOR SUPPORT FOR TARIFF REDUCTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister taken notice of the appeal made last night in Montreal by Mr. Christian Herter, personal representative of President Kennedy, for Canadian support to lower trade barriers by cutting tariffs? If so, what response will the government make in this regard, especially in view of the fact that the budget is remiss in making any mention of the subject?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the second day I stood up in this house I gave a complete report on the response Canada had made to the American initiative for a further round of trade liberalization. At that time Mr. Herter acknowledged the great support Canada had given, and so far as I know this continues to be government policy.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have a supplementary question for the minister. I thank him for the information given but he really did not answer my question, because in his reply he did not state whether he is aware of the recent pronouncements by Mr. Herter in which he asked that Canada adapt to changing times.


Mitchell William Sharp: I thought I was answering it. Mr. Herter in his speech was, of course, carrying on from the negotiations that we participated in at Geneva, and Mr. Herter knows the attitude of the Canadian government on this matter. He was appealing for the support of all Canadians in this trade

liberalization program which the Canadian government believes in, which it is supporting very strongly and which my colleague the Minister of Finance supports as well as I do.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. In the light of reports that Canadian defence contractors may face a reduction in the preference granted in orders placed by his department, would the minister advise the house whether there has been a change in that if Canada gets larger defence orders from the United States he must reduce the preference granted to Canadian contractors?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Defence Production):: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, that I quite understand the full import of that question. There is no question that there will be any reduction in the preference now granted to Canadian contractors.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am going to abide by the rules, because I am not going to include the words "does the minister think".
In view of the fact that the information given to the house on Wednesday by the hon. member for Kootenay West, to the effect that the estimated cost of the high Arrow dam had increased from $72 million to $124 million has been proven correct by the confirmation of the figures in a statement issued yesterday by Hon. Ray Williston, minister of water resources for British Columbia, would the minister provide hon. members of the house with revised estimates of the cost of the dams relating to the Columbia river treaty so they will be correctly informed and can study the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member and myself seem to be carrying on exercises in procedure. I should like to point out to him that he is asking for estimates, and I am sure he would receive a much more satisfactory answer if he put his question on the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can he inform the house as to the recommendations made by the civil service commission concerning salaries of employees in group D and when these recommendations will be implemented?
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I hope to continue with the discussions about pay raises for members of the civil service next week, or just as soon as I can. Until that is done I think it would be inappropriate for me to give a reply in advance.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of my genial friend the Minister of Transport. It is relative to the dispute between the Canadian National Railways and the brotherhood of railway trainmen concerning the two division run-throughs. Will the minister use his influence to prevent Canadian National Railways making this unilateral alteration in conditions of employment before the expiration of the present contract?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the adjective used in reference to me. However, I did give an answer to a similar question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on June 13, and I do not think there is anything I can usefully add to that answer. It will be found at page 974 of Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Acadia


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, my question was similar to the one asked by the hon. member for Melville.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I wonder if I might direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether his government is taking any steps to make arrangements for a dominion-provincial conference on Indian affairs.
1430	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: There will be a federal-provincial conference, in the early autumn, I hope. The agenda for that conference has not yet been decided on.


Frank Howard: Would the Prime Minister consider favourably the idea that Indian affairs should be placed on that agenda?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I think that is a good suggestion.



STATEMENT AS TO DELIVERY QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Yesterday, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Lisgar concerning delivery quotas on grain, the Minister of Trade and Commerce indicated that on June 24, at approximately half the delivery points in the west, wheat quotas would be raised to 12 bushels. My question is this. In view of the fact there are many points in northeastern Saskatchewan, and in the north particularly, where they have 6 and 7 bushel quotas which still cannot be delivered, will the minister assure the house that every effort will be made to see that space and box cars are available to these points so they may deliver at least a 10 bushel quota before the quota is raised still higher for other points?


Mitchell William Sharp: I can give that assurance to the hon. gentleman. Perhaps I ought to illustrate the extent of the problem in order to show the progress which has been made. On June 24 the quota position will be this. There are 1,942 points, of which 950 will be at 12 bushels. The number of points at 6 bushels will be only 5, and the number at 7 bushels will be 95. I hope we can make further progress in clearing up these relatively low quota points as rapidly as possible.


Stanley James Korchinski: Can the minister assure the house that there will be box cars and space available before the quotas are raised at the other points?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will bring the representations of the hon. member to the attention of the Canadian wheat board which, of course, has responsibility for this.


Mr. C. O. Cooper (Rosetown-Biggar):: Will the grain be moved out of the country elevators to make room for the initial quotas of the new crop year?


Mitchell William Sharp: That certainly will be the endeavour of the wheat board. I hope they are successful because, as the hon. gentleman knows, we have a very large crop in prospect.


(Translation):



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works who is responsible for the world fair.
Has the government in Ottawa granted approval to the city of Montreal for the work it will carry out shortly around Ronde island, since tenders have been or are about to be called to this effect?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to give an answer dealing broadly with the whole matter of the world fair. Yesterday afternoon, I received a report from the experts of LaSalle laboratory, whose services have been retained by the city of Montreal for scale model studies of the ice movements and navigation in the harbour of Montreal. The hon. member is aware that I contacted the city of Montreal authorities and the other interested parties in order to hold a meeting and I will be in a position, I hope, at the beginning of next week, to give the date, place and time of that meeting.
I am taking this opportunity to state that as far as the federal government is concerned there has not been a single day's delay, no delay can be charged to the federal government-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Don't you like my
answer?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the Minister of Public Works is not entitled, when replying to a question, to make a statement on government policy, and that is exactly what the hon. member is doing now. I respectfully submit that he has no right to make such a statement.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I was listening very carefully both to the question and to the answer, and I think the answer was an attempt to answer the question.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works.
Can the minister also tell the house, further to my question-I am not talking about the long speech he made thereafter-whether the road projects proposed

by the provincial government, in respect to the throughway, have been definitely approved by the federal government?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No, Mr. Speaker, officials of the provincial government met with the officials of my department last week, and we hope that we will be soon able to take a definite stand following the request we received from the provincial government.
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the widespread concern expressed by Saskatchewan C.N.R. agents and their families this past few days with respect to the master agency plan, would the Minister of Transport consider setting up the house committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines at the earliest possible date to consider railway abandonments, this master agency plan and the problem mentioned by my colleague from Melville this morning?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in answer to somewhat similar questions some two or three times already this session, I put forward a suggestion which would make it possible to refer the annual report of the C.N.R. to the standing committee on railways. That suggestion was not acceded to by the official opposition, as was indeed their right; but the consequence of that is that a special motion is required, and I am quite prepared to have the report referred to the committee when it is set up. However, it is not possible to see an early opportunity of setting aside the current business before the house, or other important business, in order to have this motion brought forward.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, as a lover of animals I wish to address a question to the Solicitor General. Is the government giving consideration to amendments to the Criminal Code along the lines suggested by the Ontario society for the
Inquiries of the Ministry prevention of cruelty to animals? I know that quite a lot of persons in Canada are interested in these proposed amendments.


Hon. J. Waison MacNaughl (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the honourable and humane member for Kootenay West for having sent me notice of his intention to ask this question, and I should also like to commend him for his continued interest in the welfare of animals. I can assure him that the officials of the Department of Justice will give every consideration to the recommendations of the Ontario society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and if amendments to the Criminal Code are found necessary they will be announced in due course.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture arising out of a press release this morning indicating that southern Alberta farm lands are critically in need of moisture. Would the minister take immediate steps to help these farmers get more pasture at the Suffield defence base? I notice that the minister is not here. Would the self appointed minister for eastern Canada draw this matter to his attention?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the hon. member's question and bring it to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the very serious unemployment situation in Pictou county, Nova Scotia, has the minister received an invitation from Mr. Robert MacNaughton, president of local 1231 of the united steelworkers of America, to attend a meeting to discuss the unemployment situation; and if the minister is unable to attend will the government be officially represented at this meeting?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the hon. gentleman's question is yes, I did receive an invitation from the president of the local union

The Budget-Mr. Nielsen and replied that if I could be in Nova Scotia at the time I would be glad to attend the meeting. No arrangements have been made to send a representative, but I will consider that in the light of the hon. gentleman's question.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. It relates to Mr. Justice C. Rhodes Smith who was appointed by the government to the court of Queen's bench in Manitoba. Is the government of the opinion that Mr. Justice Smith can adequately discharge his duties as chairman of the Canada labour relations board at the same time that he is a justice of the court in Manitoba, and are any steps being taken to appoint someone to the position of chairman of the Canada labour relations board?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by my hon. friend is an important one. It is at present under consideration in the Department of Labour. It may be that the services of the new justice will be required for an interim period, but no final decision has been reached. The decision will be taken in the light of ensuring the efficiency of the Canada labour relations board.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, June 20, consideration of a motion of Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Nowlan.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, when we rose last night I had made two points in connection with the budget. The first one concerned the increased tax exempt period for new mines in order to encourage industrial and mineral development in northern Canada, including that part of Canada below the 60th parallel. I also made the point that it is high time some consideration was given to increasing the basic income tax exemption for residents of northern Canada in order to stimulate the development of these areas of this country.
I want to pass now to a discussion of the effect that the 11 per cent sales tax on building material is going to have in the north. Since the passage of the National Housing


Act in 1935, and until 1957, in a period of some 22 years there were only two homes built in the Yukon under the National Housing Act. Obviously it was not working. As a result of amendments and enlargements made in that act by the previous administration to encourage home building, building has surged ahead in the north. I submit that building has a very direct bearing on the rapidity with which the north is going to develop. Well over 100 homes have been built in the Whitehorse area alone as a result of the enlarged provisions of the National Housing Act. I can tell the minister, without any doubt whatever, that the imposition of this 11 per cent sales tax on building materials will so affect house construction in the Yukon as to virtually bring it to a standstill. The 11 per cent tax is damaging enough in the southern areas of Canada when it is applied to home construction, and I think the minister will soon see how the number of starts will diminish as a result of this burdensome tax, but it is absolutely killing so far as home construction in the north is concerned. I would urge the minister to consider the suspension or removal of the sales tax on building materials in so far as these areas of Canada are concerned.
Certainly it is a tax that should not be imposed at all, because it is going to be so burdensome on those who are attempting to build their own homes in Canada that house construction will be seriously diminished indeed. I do not believe I am alone in these views, because some of the national press comment has been severely critical of the imposition of this tax. For instance, the June 15 issue of the Globe and Mail had this to say:
Look at the whole thing carefully, and it is clever, if not particularly scrupulous. Rather like a store that offers two articles for the price of one, having first thoughtfully doubled the price of the one.
This, of course, is a reference to the $500 bonus for winter home construction that the Minister of Labour announced the other day in the house. The Globe and Mail in the same issue went on to say:
It could work; but is it the kind of economic philosophy that is reassuring in a finance minister?
The president of Belcourt Homes in Montreal had this to say:
The manufacturers' 11 per cent sales tax on building materials will automatically bring with it a $700 to $1,500 increase in the price of new homes and knock a lot of small builders out of business.
I think we all agree that one of the needs of this country for many years has been the supplying of a sufficient number of homes in order to raise the standard of living of our citizens throughout the nation. I think

there cannot be any serious argument advanced but that some of the most aggressive measures in Canada's history were taken by the previous administration under the terms of the National Housing Act to bring about an accelerated home building program in Canada that has heretofore not been matched. It will certainly be difficult to equal the record for home building in the last five years. Surely we should be looking not toward the imposition of a tax that would curtail home building in Canada, as this one will, but rather toward incentives to build more homes. It seems to me that the Minister of Finance, perhaps in his desperation to find sources of revenue in order to pay for election promises, has had to penalize one of the areas of our economy that could least stand these penalties.
I want to pass now, Mr. Speaker, to a brief reference to the Carter commission on taxation. Perhaps as a result of representations made by my colleague from the Northwest Territories, I understand the commission will be sitting in Yellowknife, Whitehorse and Yukon. I believe the Whitehorse sitting is going to be on July 23. Perhaps, therefore, any further representations which people have in respect of taxation in the north can be brought before that commission and the minister might have an opportunity to consider them when the commission reports.
I wish to deal now with another sector of northern economy, that of the mining industry. The future of the north is essentially a mining future. However, I do intend to make a few remarks in order to set the record straight concerning the Dawson city festival and the tourist industry in the north. The mining economy in the north also is one which, if it is to develop at all, needs special incentives in order to induce risk capital to come to that area. Mining capital is high risk capital. It is capital that is invested at approximately a ratio of 20 to 1.
If we stop for a moment to consider, we will realize that before any mine can go ahead it has to develop a community; it has to develop housing, schools, roads and communications. If we consider for a moment the effect that the 11 per cent sales tax will have on the development of the mining industry, having regard to these facilities I mentioned, homes, schools, and the like, we can see immediately that this statute is going to reach its tentacles into this area to throttle or seriously set back the development of the mining industry in the north.
Instead of taxation measures such as these proposed in the budget, surely there should be measures which would, first of all, induce high risk capital, Canadian or foreign, to come
The Budget-Mr. Nielsen into the north, and measures which will encourage the development of mines. I see no such measures in this budget, despite the repetitive statements that were made by the present minister in his book "Troubled Canada". I suggest, in keeping with editorial comment, that Canada may be just as troubled after the budget as it was before.
One of the most important things in the north, of course, is communications, the building of roads and land lines. The establishment of communications is very essential to the development of the whole of the nation. Without adequate communications the Canadian west would not have developed. Similarly, without adequate communications the 40 per cent of Canada lying above the 60th parallel and the northern portions of the provinces will not be adequately developed. Under the last administration there was a very dynamic roads to resources and development roads program which encouraged the development of the resources throughout the whole of northern Canada, including the northern portions of the provinces. I do not see any mention at all of this in the budget; as a matter of fact I see a serious lack of reference to it in the current estimates.
I am told that one of the commitments the Prime Minister made while on a visit to Whitehorse was that when a Liberal government was elected a road would be constructed from Whitehorse to Skagway. This is what the Liberal candidate in my riding quoted the Prime Minister as having promised him, and it was one of the things on which he campaigned. I certainly hope this is so and that the Prime Minister and his government will construct that road to Skagway, because it will of course give us access to Tidewater through the Alaskan Panhandle and is essential to the development of our resources in the Yukon.
The Liberal candidate in my constituency also quoted his leader, the present Prime Minister, as promising that when a Liberal government was elected the Alaskan highway would be paved. There were no ifs, ands or buts about it, and as there is no indecision in this government I assume that the Alaskan highway paving program will be proceeded with immediately. However, I was rather disappointed not to see any reference in the budget to these projects. We, in the Yukon, would certainly like them to be proceeded with, at the earliest possible moment. We have no doubt whatever that the Prime Minister will adhere to his word and proceed with them with the least possible delay.
Mr. Speaker, before I proceed to a discussion of the festival matter I wish to say a

The Budget-Mr. Nielsen word about patronage. Before 1957, not affected by the tradition which seems to exist in Quebec and certain portions of the mari-times, I thought that the conduct of the previous Liberal administration in the Yukon was something less than fair in dealing with the disposition of public works and services to those who wished to perform them for the government. In some cases tenders were not called at all and in a good many other cases people were selected to carry out undertakings for the government because of their political partisanship. After 1957, quite apart from any feelings which I think existed (perhaps not exclusively in any one political party) with respect to patronage but because of a feeling that I did not think this was fair, I caused correspondence to be sent to all departments of government-any minister who sits opposite now may verify this simply by checking his departmental files-requesting that in all cases public works and services of all kinds should be called for by public tender.
I am very disappointed to see that despite six years under the Progressive Conservative administration, where the previous policy of patronage had been eliminated there has been a resurgence of his ugly and dishonest practice. I say that it is crooked; in fact I would say that it is corrupt, because all that it indicates is a pay-off to political friends for assisting a political party. Patronage is being employed once again in the Yukon territory in order to pay off political friends. I say to the government benches, let us get back to the fair practice of calling for tenders for all public works and services and completely eliminate this ugly practice of patronage. There is no reason for it, and in my view every Canadian has an equal right to bid for every public work or service that the government requires.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word about the Dawson city festival. I am very sorry to see that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is not in his seat, because these words are applicable to his department more than to any other; his departmental officials had a great deal to do with the planning of this festival. It has been referred to by the Secretary of State and sometimes parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance as one of the reasons for the deficit. I believe in his most recent remarks it was referred to by the Minister of Finance himself as a fiasco. Yet when I asked the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources on two separate occasions in this house to produce the other side of the picture in order to let the house judge on a fair basis, upon production of all the facts, he

refused to do so. I telephoned his office last week in order to obtain figures, and these have not been supplied to me.
It seems to me only fair to put on the record both sides of the picture. Certainly the festival suffered a deficit of $80,000, but I do not see any difference between the federal government bailing out the Dawson city festival to the tune of that figure, or even to the tune of much more, and what was done, if I recollect accurately, during the time Mr. St. Laurent was prime minister, when $250,000 was granted to the Stratford festival in order to bail it out, and this was matched by a like sum from the provincial government of Ontario.
I do not think it is wrong to invest in festivals if this is going to attract tourists to this country. Tourism from the United States to Canada last year produced a revenue of over $550 million; for the first time we had a favourable balance of tourist dollars with the United States. If it was wrong, surely the government of Ontario would not be going ahead with Upper Canada village to the tune of an investment of $2J million, and surely the federal government would not be going ahead with the restoration of Louisburg. The preliminary cost estimates of the partial restoration of Louisburg amount to over $10 million.
Mr. Speaker, an hon. member has just asked a question which I did not hear. I am told by my colleague that it referred to Canadian players appearing at the Stratford festival, and I am sure that not only Canadian players have appeared at that festival, as the hon. lady would know if she has ever attended it. Surely it cannot be wrong to invest over $2 million in Barkerville in British Columbia. The fact is that the Dawson city festival was a financial success if it is viewed not in terms of revenue from the festival itself but in the proper terms of including the revenue from those people who came to see the territory as a result of the festival being there.
I have here a summary that I managed to obtain, quite apart from the assistance of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, in connection with the festival. There were a total of 18,545 visitors to Dawson city during the festival. They chose Dawson city itself, quite apart from the Yukon. They all had to go through British Columbia and Alberta to get there. Six thousand of these visitors stayed in Dawson city an average of three days, 5,000 stayed an average of two days and 7,545 stayed an average of one day. The estimated daily expenditures per person is figured at $25, which would include accommodation, meals, tours, theatres,

gasoline and car maintenance. The estimated gross revenue for Dawson city alone was $888,625 as a result of the festival. The number of visitors in 1961 was estimated at between 6,000 and 8,000, almost three times as many as the usual number. A total of 3,904 cars came to Dawson during the period, and between July 1 and August 18 the average number of visitors per car was 2.5, totalling 14,510. The estimated tourist revenue from the festival was $1,200,000.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to have to tell the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had an opportunity to speak in this twenty sixth parliament. Some hon. members may recall that I had the honour of sitting briefly in the last parliament. At that time I did make my maiden speech. However, as the election was subsequently declared void ab initio, I wonder if I am now in the unique position of making my second maiden speech.
I should like to say it was a pleasant change to see the government bring in a budget, and I hope we have returned to this practice. No doubt an awful lot of the fussing and fuming we have heard from hon. members opposite stems from the fact that this is, for some of them, a very novel experience. Those six years of frustration while they were attempting to govern the country have suddenly burst forth; they have been relieved of responsibility. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of this house to bear with them in the great transformation which has come over them. We should not take all their remarks too seriously, because I am certain they are not meant too seriously. Surely the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) could not have meant all those things he said; and I am sure the little lecturer who spoke last night, the former parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance, did not mean them either. We enjoyed his lecture last evening. The philosophy he used must be this; do as I say, not as I do.
This was a bold budget and an imaginative one. As we have seen, it was obviously beyond the scope of certain members. All the things which this government advocates may not meet with the desired measure of success, but the fact remains that we have a government in Canada willing to take the action necessary to solve some of the chronic problems which have caused so much debate here. I am pleased that we have a government with the courage to act, with the
The Budget-Mr. Cashin imagination to cross new frontiers and with men and women capable of bringing these aims to fruition.
Certain hon. members of this house have amused me by their reactions to some of the things which have happened. I refer particularly to those hon. gentlemen sitting opposite me and to my right. It seems they have now become the new champions of strict adherence to custom, tradition and precedent. Evidently they do not approve of reaching for outside help. I must confess that I for one totally disagree with this most narrow view. I feel that far too often governments in their deliberations have been too cautious and too concerned about doing things in a particular way simply because this was the accepted way of doing things, the way which they had been done for years and years.
If progress is to be made by doing something differently, then we should do it. This generally is in keeping with good Liberal and good reform thinking. It would seem in light of their recent statements that hon. members opposite to my right have emerged as the new champions of the status quo. Fortunately for Canada, the populace decided they needed a new and vigorous government capable of adjusting the role of government to changing times and capable of using whatever brain power is needed in order to give the people who elected us their money's worth. I would like to think that the Canadian people have at long last a government which is not afraid to make departures from the ordinarily accepted way of doing things.
One of the most important departures we must make, it seems to me, is in the field of economic planning. This is a phrase which has been bandied about a great deal, and one which would seem to have different meanings to different hon. members. The former government felt that by setting up a number of sterile boards they had launched Canada on a great forward path. Their actions showed that not only were they unaware how to begin planning, but that they did not know what it was that needed to be planned.
There has always been a notion that private enterprise can function more efficiently than public enterprise and that consequently it is only in areas where private capital will not venture that it is respectable for public investment to operate. Yet we have seen, in the experience of other countries more rapidly developing than ours, the wisdom of energetic planning. I suggest that if we in this country are to make proper use of our natural resources, raise our national productivity, reduce unemployment and generally improve the living standards of the average

The Budget-Mr. Cashin Canadian, then our government must be prepared to venture forth with daring into hitherto unexplored areas.
I heard some hon. gentlemen opposite criticize the Minister of Finance for making statements in the budget address relative to matters three or four years hence. I do not criticize him for this; I praise him. Surely it would be a most backward step if the budget of a nation were brought down without long range proposals and if those responsible for its introduction regarded it in terms solely relative to the fiscal year in which it was introduced; that is to say, if they saw it as meaning merely an intention to raise so many dollars in a particular year and spend them in a certain way.
I suggest that in recent years the successive governments of our country have been too shortsighted. We must not only plan for our national development in terms of our present needs but we must be able to foresee as far as possible the consequences of our actions, and they must not be stop gap measures but part of an over-all plan. Some people feel that the change in the role of government since the thirties has gone too far. Others are content as long as no emergency arises. Still others point with pride to the fact that the welfare society in which we are supposed to be living has made great progress in the past 30 years as reflected in the lives of average Canadians. They would like to forget the fact that when one looks at the gap existing between people in low income groups and those in higher income groups, relatively little has changed.
I do not believe socialism is the answer. I think that with proper thought and study and by making available to our government and to parliament the best brains in this country and, indeed, in any other country, then and only then can we move forward at a faster rate. I think we have the means within our system to provide equal opportunities for all Canadians. While we have no doubt made progress, there is still a long road before us. I suggest that every young man or woman has a right to free educational opportunities at all levels, and that every family should be free from the torment of medical bills. I am not the first to advocate such things, but there is always the cry about the cost. The answer to that is, if this country is governed properly, and if we take the necessary measures to expand our economy, the money will be available. We shall not achieve it if we follow the narrow approach always taken by the hon. members in the Conservative party, an attitude which seems now to be expressed by our friends in the New Democratic party.

As hon. members are aware, I come front the newest province of the Dominion of Canada and, as a result, I am concerned about the treatment given by the government to primary producers in various fields. I suggest that up to now there has been unequal and unfair treatment. Yet if this country is to. develop and all Canadians given a fair chance, not only to make a living but to make a better living than that made by their forefathers, this government will have to adopt a broader view than that adopted by previous governments.
I refer particularly to the primary producers in the fishing industry. In the past they have not received attention commensurate with that received by agriculture. Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only important fish producing country in the world without a national fisheries development program. The individual fish producing provinces are obviously limited in what each of them can do. Fortunately we already have the assurance that a conference to discuss such a badly needed policy will be called shortly, and I think it is a significant omen for the success of this conference that the Prime Minister has already made an important announcement relative to the 12 mile limit which will, of course, be of considerable importance to the fishermen of this country. Mr. Speaker, this establishment of the 12 mile limit is just one of the steps to be taken by our government if anything constructive is to be done for our hitherto neglected fisheries. This does not answer the gnawing question of the great disparity in price between what primary producers and consumers have to pay.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are major obstacles created not by a lack of fish resources but which arise instead from the difficulties which are basic to primary industries. These are a deficiency in marketing development, in orderly marketing and price stability; inadequate insurance against yield uncertainty; the need for quality improvement; inadequacies in credit and in programs designed to help fishermen to adopt the latest in equipment and technology; and the need for development programs for communities attempting to adjust to changes in the fishing industry. If these problems are to be met at all they can only be solved within the context of a renewed program of national development.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in a house with such heavy representation from agricultural areas it may seem a little unusual to find speakers advocating the implementation of certain basic measures to reduce price uncertainty. However, at the present moment the fishermen of this country operate without a substantial degree of price assurance, yet

without this price assurance fishermen can-mot effectively plan their operations prior to the opening of the fishing season, nor can they plan or even afford a longer term investment program to raise their productivity.
Despite this need there is an amazing contrast, between price stability measures available to fishermen and those available to farmers. Between 1944 and 1962, when you adjust the difference in the number of people in agriculture and the number in fisheries, the fishermen received only one seventh of the price stabilization support given to farmers. The experience in agriculture suggests that price support for fishery producers can be substantially strengthened without [DOT]detriment to exports.
The comparison between agricultural and fisheries support programs does not end with stabilization measures. The gap in fisheries policy creates an urgent problem for fishermen concerned with salt fish products. The solution here, I suggest, would be the creation of a national marketing board similar to the Canadian wheat board, to provide fishermen with the price assurance and market organization they now lack. The deficiencies are far more appalling when we xealize that the number of fishermen, particularly in Newfoundland, is decreasing. Another of the major deterrents to a sound and planned investment by fishermen to increase their productivity is the risk of yield uncertainty. The availability of technical knowledge and improved equipment will reduce this risk. Nevertheless measures providing for some form of catch insurance or compensation are also needed.
In the field of agriculture, crop insurance since 1939 has cost the government $185 million, a sum 1,000 times greater than the federal costs under the fishermen's indemnity plan for loss of boats and gear; and no program exists to compensate fishermen for poor catch. I also might add that I believe in the vicinity of $123 million has been paid out in acreage payments to western farmers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not unaware of the differences between these two primary industries, but the great disparity between the government's concern for agriculture and its concern for fisheries must make it clear to all hon. members that the time has come to give equal treatment to our primary industries. In this regard I might mention that the Minister of Fisheries recently visited my province, and I can say made a tremendous impression there. I hope when this matter comes up for study it will have the support of all hon. members of this house, because I am sure it is in keeping with our thinking
The Budget-Mr. Cashin that if we can do this for one primary producer then surely primary producers in other fields are deserving of the same treatment.
In the earlier part of my remarks I commended this government as one which I believed would venture forth into-I believe these were the words I used-new and unexplored areas. Although I am not, and I do not think many hon. members here are, a financial or economic expert, when it comes to economics I am consoled somewhat when I look at the spectrum and see so many learned men in that field having such opposite views. I do not suppose that there is anything likely to cause so much disagreement. But I am inclined to support those who favour the concept of planning. This may, of course, mean that governments will get bigger; it will depend on how efficiently it is done.
Then on the other side of the coin we have people who in their overzealous regard for the freedom of the individual would drive our thinking back 20 or 30 years because they cannot comprehend this kind of government of which I am speaking operating in a society which permits the fullest freedom to the individual. I suggest that if there is a challenge to our time-there are, indeed, many-to me I see it as this; to be able to move forward in this new direction; to be able to have this more active participation by government yet at the same time preserve the freedom of the individual.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before we adjourned for the noon recess, I am concerned about the direction which this country will take, and I expressed the view that we must approach its problems in a more imaginative way than we have hitherto been doing. I believe I also made reference to my concern about the freedom of the individual. Indeed, there are some hon. members who are concerned about this to such a degree that they are blind to all else.
One of the challenges before this government will be to move in the direction that requires more economic planning and, if you like, more government regulation and yet at the same time preserve the freedom of the individual. But even under our present system, with the way the Canadian government has been going over the past 10 or 20 years, there are those who have criticized and based their criticism on an outmoded approach
1438	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Cashin to the free enterprise system and a narrow concern for the freedom of the individual. I think this is unimaginative because if we cannot accomplish both these things, that is, more government action and maintain the freedom of the individual, then our system has failed.
Also this morning I made reference to the reaction-and I use that word in its fullest and broadest sense-of hon. members opposite. As I have said, they have been loud and it is a very great pity that the wisdom of their words has not equalled their volume.
I have in my hand an article which recently appeared in the Hamilton Spectator. I do not say I read always this newspaper, but I am glad I did on this particular occasion. It contains an article by Mr. Charles Lynch of the Spectator's Ottawa bureau.


Douglas Mason Fisher: He is a bit of a hero around here.


Richard Joseph Cashin: It says:
Throughout their time in office, the Conservatives had trouble getting experts to come to Ottawa to work, and this may account in part for their rage over the way Finance Minister Walter Gordon pulled his pets into the finance department.
I think that is just what it is. We cannot take all this to be serious because after all the poor fellows now in opposition had a hard time of it during six years in government. They had an overwhelming majority and they failed the mandate that was given them. It just goes against the grain a little for them to see a government getting down to the job of running the country, and doing it very well.
When I was a little boy, and Mr. Speaker, as you can imagine, that was not so long ago as some other hon. members, I was told by my dear old grandmother to be always mindful of the guy who shouts loudest because he is the fellow who has least to say.


An hon. Member:: Why shout it so loudly?


Richard Joseph Cashin: I shout it so loudly because as a young man, fresh from two Canadian universities, one of the greatest disillusionments I experienced in this session of parliament was the reaction of hon. members to my right. They like to show themselves off to be something which I have now discovered they are not. They like to talk in highfalutin phrases and like to think they are looking in a forward direction; but when they too are confronted with the spectacle of a government getting down to the business of a country, they show we have now a second Tory party in Canada. They too object to making available to the government the best brains in the country.
All of the measures we have set out will not be successful. The important thing, however,


is that most of them will be successful, and that we have a government that will venture into hitherto unexplored areas.


An hon. Member:: The wilderness.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Some hon. member mentioned the wilderness. We spent six years in the wilderness. I also heard another opposition member say during the course of his speech that this government was not equalling the record of the previous one. I certainly hope he is right, for the sake of our country, because we had six years of mismanagement. Now that they are in opposition I think we ought to bear with them in their new experience and in their relief of being free from the responsibility of government. In answer to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) I say that the philosophy of the opposition should be, "Do as we say, not as we do".
(Translation):


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) introduced his famous budget which was prepared by outsiders, that is persons who had no mandate from the people to prepare such a budget.
As can be seen in the speech, the changes put forward in this budget do not favour the classes of society that built Canada and made it one of the most beautiful and one of the richest countries in the world as far as production is concerned.
In preparing this budget, the Toronto vested interests made sure that it was to their own advantage and to the prejudice of the worker and the farmer. But they overlooked an item which was detrimental to them. I refer to the 30 per cent tax on foreign investments in Canadian companies. And as soon as they realized their oversight, the present nightmare of the Minister of Finance began. The president of the Montreal stock exchange who is also the president of the Canadian stock exchange, Mr. Eric Kierans, the Liberals' great friend who campaigned against Social Credit in the April election, that socialist millionaire, as he liked to call himself during an interview with the press, that socialist and liberal millionaire who is interested in socializing everybody and everything except himself, soon came to the rescue of high finance, and that without the slightest embarrassment, in a jiffy, during an interview he had at 5.30 on June 18 with the Canadian Minister of Finance, he made the Minister of Finance change his mind and suspend the enactment of the 30 per cent tax on foreign investments

in Canada. And the Liberal party complied, obeyed, bowed and said: "Yes, boss", when faced with the demands of high finance to which it is much indebted since April 8 last.
Since the last general election, the Liberal party is more than ever forced to submit to high finance, to kowtow to it, to attend to its needs, to nurse it; and that, at the expense of the people, of the workers and of the farmers, because the election of the Liberal party and the campaigning against Social Credit in this country have been an expensive venture for the high finance.
The Liberal party committed a sin against high finance in its last budget, and the financiers soon called it to order, causing a turnabout, a political somersault, so that the bankers might go on abusing the people.
"Let us free the banking world from taxes and shift them upon the poor, upon those who have not the means to defend themselves," thought the Liberal party, because the more we shall free the financiers from taxation, the more they will be allowed to take advantage of the poor; the more poor people, the more rags; the more rags, the more paper; the more paper, the more dollars printed; the more dollars printed, the more capital created; the more capital created, the more cartels, trusts and banks that can be founded. The more banks you open, the more loans you promote with credit; the more loans, the more debts, and the more debts there are, the greater the number of poor people. And the poor are in rags and the vicious circle goes on with the old parties.
Those are the effects of a false, dishonest and crooked economic system which, in order to last brings about cycles which are called crisis, restriction and unemployment.
And to get out of unemployment in our economic context, we need war or a state of war or preparation for war or a national defence budget as the one we have this year.
Because with war you get destruction, and with destruction you get peace, and with peace re-employment comes back, and employment leads to prosperity, and prosperity leads to overproduction, and with overproduction there is unemployment, and unemployment leads to poverty and hunger, and when there is poverty and hunger people give up hope and wish for war, and that vicious circle goes on with the old parties and with an unrealistic financial system.
In this twentieth century, when we boast of the fact that we have harnessed water power, as well as all kinds of power, also that we have put water, air, machinery and atoms
The Budget-Mr. Rondeau at the service of man, and when billions of dollars are spent in the world to conquer space and visit other planets, after all those achievements by man, we have not even succeeded in taming money, in putting money at the service of production and production at the service of man.
Because money, Mr. Speaker, is only a means of exchange and we of the federal government continue to give free rein to a financial system which makes for the exploitation of man by man.
The indignation of Social Crediters at such a system has been going on for more than 30 years, Mr. Speaker. Our system leads to stagnation, depression, extreme poverty, while millions of potential consumers are still waiting for a minimum living wage.
During the last ten years, for instance, what did the two old parties do to escape the disastrous fate of a crisis of which there are already many signs? What did they do to permit a fair distribution of those goods which machinery is ready to produce in quantity and in quality?
Our financial system is like a youth who would have outgrown his child clothes and whose blood circulation would be affected by the pressure of his clothes on his arteries.
As soon as a war or some disaster rips his clothes, he comes to life again. When will we get rid of that financial strait-jacket which is choking our country? Surely, we will not do so by following the steps of the two old parties which believe that we can bring back prosperity to Canada by borrowing and imposing more taxes on Canadians.
In 1957, before the general election of March 31, the Conservatives gave the Canadian people the impression that if a Conservative government were elected, a big fight would be started against the Bank of Canada and the tight money policy of the Liberal party.
That comedy was a true repetition of the promises made by Mr. Mackenzie King in 1935 and which he consigned to oblivion once he was in power with a large majority.
Instead of fighting tight money, the Conservative party gave us a little more of all the things the Liberal party had been giving us before 1957.
And now that the Liberals are back in power they are preparing to give us a little more taxes than the Conservatives had given us after 1957.
The 1963 federal budget indicates that it will cost almost $1 billion in interest, merely

The Budget-Mr. Rondeau to finance our public debt. We see no trace of financial reform in the budget.
Taxes are boosted for the small wage earner, the worker, the farmer, the small industrialist. They are overburdened. They are investigated. They have to pay fines. That is all they are given: taxes and fines.
As a result of all those taxes, a smaller number of rich people will become richer and a larger number of poor will become poorer. Then some people will be surprised one day when the taxpayers rebel against the tax-gatherers.
Coming back to the budget, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it clearly indicates that it has not been prepared with an election in mind, because we know quite well that should that have been the case it would have probably been more advantageous for the people.
Family allowances would certainly have been increased, taxes reduced, no 11 per cent tax would have been imposed on building materials, a tax which affects the poor more than the rich.
It is claimed that unemployment will be reduced, but politicians pay only lip service to this objective, because with an 11 per cent tax on building materials, the only result will be an increase in the cost of construction, and, therefore, construction in Canada will decrease and unemployment will consequently increase and so will the price of houses, rents and the cost of living.
Taxes create unemployment, the unemployed require unemployment insurance and unemployment insurance requires increased taxes, this is the vicious circle of a ridiculous regime.
Having had the opportunity of sitting in this house when the Conservatives were in office in 1962, and having been re-elected to this twenty sixth parliament, I have been able to see to date what I believed for 20 years: both old line parties act exactly the same when in office.
They are the offspring of the same financial sire, and I am scandalized, Mr. Speaker, to see the negligence and the lack of seriousness of both old line parties when they consider the problems of a nation of close to 20 million.
They beat around the bush without ever finding a solution to the problem; they pretend to try and solve the problem, they launch surveys, they appoint boards, they

create new departments, they shift taxes, but they always make sure that they are raised at the same time.
And all the time, farmers and workers are living with the hope that a solution may be found, but they can be sure that they will never see the day when a solution is found and implemented.
To prove my remark to the effect that the people are sinking deeper into indebtedness, because of the inability on the part of the government to find a solution, I wish to quote a Canadian Press release published in La Presse of Montreal on June 7, 1963. That item was entitled:
Canadians' debts tripled since 1954.
-Canadians at the present time owe the banks, in personal unguaranteed loans, about three and a half times as much as they did in 1954.
Accounts in departmental stores, both current and revolving budget accounts, have doubled during the same period.
The dominion bureau of statistics estimates that the total outstanding amount of consumer's credit as at March 31 was $3,664,000,000, an increase of $301,000,000 in a year.
There are no figures available for unpaid accounts due doctors, dentists, hotels, transport companies and public services or concerning loans among individuals.
One of the most important increases which has taken place within one year relates to loans made by banks to individuals and payable at fixed dates. They have increased by 13 per cent, amounting to $1,206 million while the corresponding figure was $1,067 million on March 31, 1962. By the end of 1954, those loans amounted to $351 million.
While they amounted to $65 million on March 31, 1962, loans for home improvements made by the banks under the National Housing Act have only increased by 3.1 per cent in one year, to reach a total of $67 million.	___
Cash loans made by small loan companies went up from $572 million to $658 million within a year, an increase of 15 per cent.
Conditional sale agreements underwritten by loan companies for current consumer goods had reached a total of $771 million by the end of March, 1963, while the corresponding figure a year earlier stood at $732 million.
Accounts outstanding in department stores increased within a year from $324 million to $383 million. At the end of 1954, the corresponding figure was $186 million.
Three and a half times more debt than in 1954, that is to say a debt increase of 350 per cent, and that within eight years.
Why did the Canadian Press not mention that before the federal election, that is about two months before? If the aim of the Canadian Press is to guide the public and keep the people well informed, it would have been well-advised to publish that communique before the election, to put voters in a better position to judge both old line parties.
Three and a half times more debt than in 1954, and still the old line parties brag about prosperity. Who is crazy?

When the Conservatives were in power in 1962, they said everything was going fine under their regime, much better than under the Liberals.
They were defeated, and now they think everything is going wrong. As for the Liberals, when they were in opposition, they said everything was going wrong under the Conservatives, but now that they are in power, according to them, everything is going fine and people abroad have regained confidence in our economy.
When they are seated on your right, Mr. Speaker, the two old line parties both say everything is going fine, and when they find themselves on your left, both say things are going wrong. The only difference between your right and your left for the two old line parties, Mr. Speaker, is that the pork barrel is on your right, and it is then that things are going well. Bunch of jokers. The old line parties are the docile servants of financiers who pay for their elections and pay themselves back afterwards.
The Minister of Finance consults financiers to draw his budget in order not to displease them, and when he finds that part of it is not to their liking, he removes it to suit the wishes of the sharks of high finance, who have shown themselves in their true light at the last election and who now prove that only Social Crediters were right, because we were the only ones to denounce them.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) follows the dictates of the Americans with regard to nuclear arms because they gave so much to the election fund of the Liberal party to help them fight Social Credit, that they must now be paid back.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) sees the price of sugar rising to a scandalous height and that is also to pay back election expenses.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) penalizes the farmers for their plentiful milk production by cutting off the 25-cent subsidy per hundredweight as well as the lime subsidy. Everyone will pay many times over the election expenses of the Liberal party.
The budget of June 13 does not mention the farmers and the workers, except to increase their taxes.
Produce more, workers and farmers, and we will tax you more, because you are the two most productive social groups in the country? We must keep you poor, the two old line parties seem to say, because we want to be able to keep on exploiting you.
The Budget-Mr. Rondeau
They can make pretty speeches, tell you that they will study your problem, that they are anxious to solve them, that you must be patient and they will help you, but these are only words and talk is cheap. And all this is rather easy. We will repeat those encouraging words at the next election and we will tell you again that farmers and workers are the cornerstone of our society. But after the election, we will put you a little deeper into debt, burden you with taxes and exploit you, as is the case since the last federal budget.
Our system is wrong, absurd and unhealthy, and it will lead us inevitably to ruin, because the Canadian parliament has surrendered its responsibilities in the most important field, that of money and credit.
Those who control money and credit have become our masters, to such an extent that "without their consent, one can no longer breathe", as stated by Pius XI in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno.
The federal parliament reminds me somewhat of the owner of a car who would give it to his neighbour. When he needs it, he gives his neighbour 15 cents an hour to use his own car.
It is possible for the federal parliament, through the Bank of Canada, to obtain the credit it needs without borrowing this money or credit from private companies known as chartered banks.
Why pay 15 cents a mile to a neighbour in order to use one's own car? Why pay $1 billion in interests to chartered banks to supply our own credit, when we can do it ourselves through the Bank of Canada? It is just as stupid to pay $1 billion in interests to chartered banks than to pay 15 cents a mile to a neighbour for the use of one's own car.
Social Crediters are not against chartered banks as such. They are private institutions and it is only normal that they be authorized to lend their capital. But what we condemn, is that the federal government should allow chartered banks to create money under the form of credit and to lend it to individuals, provincial governments and school boards and, what is even more shocking, to lend that credit which is after all only figures, to lend those figures to the federal government, which should be the only one to have authority in that field.
The function of the banks is to lend money, not to create it. Now, when the

The Budget-Mr. Rondeau federal government gives the banks authority to open a credit account of $100 in favour of someone when all they have is $8 in available cash or in securities or in reserve funds, this means that the federal government gives the banks authority to lend $92 which they do not have. They can do it and as a matter of fact they do, by giving credit to the borrower who, after having signed an acknowledgement of indebtedness, can circulate $92 in cheques drawn on a new credit, which will be transferred from one bank account to another.
And the bank makes all those transactions without giving a single dollar and without even reducing the account of anybody.
Moreover, it will charge 6 or 6i per cent interest on 92 per cent of the money it lends, without having to disburse anything. That is creating money out of nothing, or creating credit money.
The creating of money is the responsibility of the supreme authority of a nation, which is the government. The issue of credit, which represents 92 per cent of all money today, should also be the responsibility of the federal government, which would control it through the Bank of Canada.
Why does the federal government borrow its money or its credit, when it can create it?
The bankers who had conferred upon them this power to create credit instead of the government, get such fabulous sums from this fraudulent transaction that, by means of their election funds, they easily control the politicians of the two old parties who could change those conditions if they were not bound hand and foot.
The politicians of the two old parties disagree as to colour, but they are the products of the same paint firm.
I would like to quote here some evidence submitted to the banking committee in 1954, by Frank O'Hearn, director of the office of valuation and exchange in Toronto, as printed in volume 2 of the minutes and evidence of the standing committee on banking and commerce.
Concluding a very long and interesting statement, he declared:
That on behalf of the 16 million Canadians who, without their knowledge, are deprived of $10 billion of savings in cash earned with great effort, and that to their greatest detriment.
And he added:


The chartered banks have at this time (in 1954) accumulated securities of all kinds, which amount to an approximate total of $10 billion. As strange as it may seem, they acquired all those assets from the Canadian people and the federal government, while paying absolutely nothing for it. What has come about because, first of all, banks have accumulated those holdings, without risking a single cent of their own money: they obtained everything by trickery. It is time for them to give back those ill-gotten gains or to pay for them.
Other statements along the same lines, and quite as interesting, have been made one after another, not by members of the Social Credit, but by people who could see through our stupid banking system. The difference between those people and ourselves, is that they saw what was wrong, as we see it, but they did not suggest any remedy, whereas we are advocating one.
It would only be a matter for the Bank of Canada of setting up an accounting system which would make it possible for Canadians to exchange their products between themselves. Because money, Mr. Speaker, is but a medium of exchange, simply a legalized measure of exchangeable values, work and wealth.
Money is a monetary measure just like other measures such as a cord of wood, a yard of cloth or a gallon of syrup. Wealth is the wood, the cloth or the syrup. The measures are the cord, the yard and the gallon.
Social Crediters would like to see the federal government through the Bank of Canada create as many measures as there are things to be measured in Canada, that is as much money as there is wealth.
I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to quote here a news report from the Canadian Press dated July 22, 1958 and published in a newspaper of southern Alberta, the Lethbridge Herald, which was founded and owned by the Liberal Senator Buchanan. This report was entitled: "Money, what it means", and I quote:
(Text):
To understand how borrowing money from the banking system can create money, it is necessary also to remember that money has more forms than currency and cents. While money exists in the form of currency, it also exists in the form of bank deposits, which are literally nothing more than entries in bank books. But they are transferred from one person's bank account to another's through the simple means of writing out cheques.
In the case of the last government's loan what the banking system did, in effect, was to create $400 million in bank deposits out of the air in exchange for the government's promise to pay back this amount in five months. Every time a bank makes a loan to anyone, new money is created in the same way. It's a kind of magic carried on with paper and bookkeeping entries.

(Translation):
To summarize, Mr. Speaker, you just have to look up the Bank Act, section 71, chapter 48, where it is clearly stated that:
The bank shall maintain a cash reserve in the form of a deposit with the Bank of Canada and of Bank of Canada notes held by the bank and such reserve shall be not less on the average during any month than eight per cent-
Consequently, for every $8 of money or values deposited with the Bank of Canada, chartered banks can lend $100.
In other words, they can grant credit at interest to anyone to the extent of $92. It is this power of the chartered banks to make credit which is not fully guaranteed, that the Social Credit party wants to take away from the banks to give it to the Bank of Canada which is the rightful property of the Canadian people.
The Bank of Canada would create credit for Canadians without borrowing or adding to the national debt; it would make social capital available for Canadians.
As evidence of the fact that the creation of credit by the chartered banks is highway robbery, you just have to refer to the combined annual reports of the eight chartered banks as of December 31, 1961. You will see that their net assets total $19 billion, whereas their paid-up capital is only $275 million.
By what feat have the banks succeeded in building up $19 billion of assets with only $275 million worth of paid-up capital. It is precisely this paid-up capital of $275 million that corresponds to the true liquid assets of the banks, nothing more. The rest is made up of whole cloth.
According to the Bank Act, chartered banks can lend up to 12| times the amount of their reserves or deposit liabilities, which means that for every dollar that they deposit with the Bank of Canada, they can lend $12.50 at 6J per cent which amounts to 81i per cent profits on the paid-up capital, not to mention the profits they make from management fees, exchange charges, etc. That is how they have been able to build up assets of $19 billion with a paid-up capital of $275 million.
Our financial structures would bring about any nations ruin. They will certainly lead us to bankruptcy, and stifle all our efforts, for they are geared towards a centralization of wealth, which necessarily results in the exploitation of man by man.
Why does the federal government not use its own bank, the Bank of Canada, for the necessary financing, instead of looking for loans, sinking deeper into debt, and increasing the taxation burden to pay the interests 28902-5-92i
The Budget-Mr. Scott
on that debt? The federal government could easily ask the Bank of Canada to finance its various transactions.
The government could use the Bank of Canada like a man at the wheel, and through careful steering, keep a straight enough course.
By wisely directing the bank along the right financial road, the government could lead this country's economy into the proper channels, do away with debts and interests on debts, and clear up the confusion brought about by our topsy-turvy financial system.
When on June 18 the president of the Montreal stock exchange addressed himself in such a threatening fashion to the Minister of Finance, and in view of the fact that foreign investors wanted to withdraw from Canada because of the 30 per cent capital levy on foreign investments in this country, why did the Minister of Finance not reply: Well, in that case we shall use Canadian funds, through the Bank of Canada. We shall thus allow Canadian shareholders to buy shares back from you, and we intend to manage our own resources with our own credit.
As for capital-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.
(Text):


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: On rising to participate in the budget debate let me say I do not wish to spend any time on the circumstances surrounding the drawing up of the budget and its presentation. I think too much time has been spent on that already. It is more important, in my opinion, to try to analyse the budget itself rather than the circumstances surrounding it. I do not want anything to distract from an examination of some of the aspects of this budget. While attempting to do so it is not my desire to urge upon the government any of our philosophical beliefs which it may not be able to accept. This budget, like all budgets, is part good and part bad. There are some good measures in it and we should be unfair if we did not admit it immediately. I do not want to mention them. Indeed, there is no necessity for me to do so since government speakers are notoriously not reluctant to publicize their own virtues.
There are three aspects of the budget that I should like to examine particularly. The first is the attempt to increase employment and stimulate the housing and construction industries. The second aspect I should like to analyse is the attempt to deal with the problem presented by foreign control of our

The Budget-Mr. Scott economy and the degree to which countermeasures are likely to be successful. The third matter I should like to consider might be called an omission from the budget. How is this budget going to help Canada get into the trading blocs which are forming in the world? To what degree do these proposals support the work of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp)?
In discussing the budget in relation to the housing and construction industry it becomes clear that the intention of the government is to stimulate this section of the economy. The proposals put forward by the Minister of Finance seek to do this in two ways. First, a sales tax of 11 per cent is imposed on building material acquired in Canada. This is expected to produce revenue of some $370 million. First of all, let me say it is widely accepted that a sales tax is the most regressive type of taxation possible. . It affects all wage earners in Canada to the same extent, regardless of their actual income. The imposition of such a tax has already had a catastrophic effect on the construction industry. Yesterday, the halls of the House of Commons were flooded with people who had come from all over Canada to protest the imposition of this tax and to outline to hon. members and, presumably, to hon. members in the government, and those who support the government, the serious effect this tax will have on the construction industry. A roar of opposition is coming from coast to coast. In my own constituency, one of the largest manufacturers of furnaces and air conditioners has given everybody in his plant a week's notice and told them all he does not intend to carry on. He says this tax is the last straw and that costs have now become prohibitive. Well, that is an excellent way of expanding the economy.
The second thing the government is attempting to do in the field of the construction industry and housing is to change the National Housing Act regulations around. For these efforts, the government honestly deserves the booby prize. It is almost impossible to understand how they could have brought down such a proposal. They hope, by changing these regulations, to have more homes built and to reduce the amount of the down payment. I suggest that neither of these aims will be achieved. First, the government brings in a measure to give a bonus of $500 to anyone who buys a new house built during the wintertime. All the construction experts tell us that the extra cost of building a house in the wintertime is $600. This will be added to the end price of the house, so the first attempt to stimulate building will have no

practical effect because the price of the house will increase by more than the amount of the bonus.
The second provision is a reduction by one quarter per cent in the interest rate paid under the N.H.A. mortgage. Well, if that is amortized over the life of the mortgage it will save the purchaser approximately $450. The 11 per cent tax on building materials will increase the price of a house by $600. Thus, the two measures presented to us as a stimulant to the housing industry will be totally ineffective. As I said earlier, it is hard to understand why a government would bring in such a provision. I would be interested to know if it was ever discussed with anybody in the construction industry or with anybody in the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I ask this because, to my mind, the proposal is completely impracticable. I predict with complete confidence that it will have the opposite effect to the one which was intended. It will lead to higher prices, higher mortgages, larger carrying charges and increased down payments. For one thing, the granting of a $500 bonus in respect of houses built during the winter is already discouraging people from having houses built in the summertime. People are waiting in order to get the grant. What this demonstrates is a lack of knowledge on the part of the government with regard to the housing industry, the same absence of knowledge that it showed in another field when it sought to bring in a 30 per cent tax on share transfers of Canadian companies.
We are really missing the boat in housing. If we examine income tax returns in Canada, we find that in 1961 there were 2,500,000 people in Canada who were earning less than $4,000 a year. In that same year, the number of people earning less than $4,000 a year who were able to buy homes under the National Housing Act was 2,293. So the provision made in the budget is directly contrary to the trend we should be trying to encourage in housing today, that is to say, lower prices and lower interest rates so that a larger number of Canadian wage earners can buy their own homes.
In summary, it is hard to understand why a government which claims to be really interested in an expansion of the construction industry would single out for the lash of new taxation the one sensitive industry in the country which has the greatest potential for providing employment. Why would the government take this particular industry and handicap it and cripple it in the way these two proposals must do? I hope that at some stage an explanation will be forthcoming

from the minister, and that he will tell us the reason for this surprising step.
The other aspect of our aifairs with which I should like to deal for a moment is the section of the budget which purports to deal with the problem of foreign ownership. The aim expressed in the budget is an admirable one, namely, that we in Canada must at some stage regain control of our own economy. This question has been discussed in the house many times. It is well known there is no other country in the world whose resources are controlled in so large a part by residents outside its shores. In the beginning, the need for foreign capital was a very real one. However, in the course of time extensive difficulties have been created as a result of the entry of foreign capital in such large amounts. We know that important decisions by many companies in Canada are made outside our borders. We know that decisions affecting exports by Canadian companies are made by parent companies elsewhere, and this complicates our whole export program. We need a decision as to expansion and relocation, and the hiring and firing of our men south of the border under other companies' control. We know that the outflow of dividends is creating financial strains on our economy. If the dividends are not paid to companies in the United States they are reinvested in Canada to buy up more of our country and accentuate the problem.
What has the government proposed in this regard? There seems to me to be two objectives. First of all the government told us that its long run objective on this important subject is for us to acquire 25 per cent interest in foreign controlled companies. It is hard to understand the reason for this 25 per cent. The minister in his speech said that this will provide a voice for the Canadian people. It will also provide a point of view, but it will provide absolutely no control whatsoever. It is hard to understand why the government says 25 per cent interest is a long run objective. What has really happened is that the "six buck boys" have turned into 25 per cent Canadians. The objective of a 25 per cent interest is not good enough if we are serious about meeting this problem over the long run.
The methods the government has proposed are twofold. First of all they propose this 30 per cent tax on the transfer of shares. This lasted for about four days, has now disappeared in a roar of opposition from stock exchanges both here and in the United States, and probably will not appear again. Its disappearance is highly significant, because what
The Budget-Mr. Scott it points out is that the degree of foreign ownership of the Canadian economy has become so strong and extensive and powerful that this type of attempt to deal with the problem is doomed to failure. The exterior influences which can be exerted on our economy are so strong that this type of limited measure simply will not work. That to me is the real significance of the attempt to impose this tax, even though it was unsuccessful.
The second method adopted has been the attempt to fluctuate the withholding tax depending on whether or not the company has a 25 per cent Canadian owned content in it. This again will undoubtedly turn out to be just as unworkable and impracticable as the other scheme. A day or two ago a New York investment company did a survey of what it would cost to acquire a 25 per cent interest in 37 of the major companies which are now foreign owned. It was estimated that it would take a minimum of $4 billion and that the share capital required if unloaded on the market would demoralize and paralyse every stock exchange in Canada. So that of the two methods being used by this government to cure the problem of foreign ownership, I suggest one is already out of the window and the other will prove to be impracticable and unworkable.
The reason for this is because you cannot deal with the problem of foreign control over the economy by assessing penalties and imposing restraints upon foreign investors. The solution to a problem of this magnitude lies, I suggest, right here in Canada, because first of all we have to begin to generate as much of our own developed capital as we can within our borders. Second, we have to convince Canadians that Canada is worth investing in and have to urge them more and more to put their savings into their own country. So that the solution to foreign ownership does not lie in imposing bludgeoning penalties against investors.
In trying to deal with the problem we must accept the idea that foreign investment is still needed, and will continue to be needed for some time. We cannot take some action which is going to restrain this and suddenly cut it off. We can only do that after we have generated our own capital. But if we are to borrow abroad to develop our Canadian companies let the government do it by way of floating loans in the United States or elsewhere, bring the money to Canada, and through the Canadian development fund lend the money to our businessmen here. Then let the businesses use those funds to expand their growth, and when they pay the money back to the government the government can pay it back to the exterior force from which they

The Budget-Mr. Scott borrowed it. In this way the expansion is kept within our own borders and we can avoid this continual alienation of our own resources. We in this group hope that the development fund which the government has proposed will turn out to be something with teeth in it to provide the capital we need to expand our economy.
We should also interest our trust and loan companies in the business of lending and get the government itself to invest in our own resource industries. That is another aspect which has received too little attention here. If at some date all the methods of stimulation of capital in this country fail and it is necessary in the long run to reacquire control of some of these industries, we still have available to us the technique of public ownership where these industries which have been alienated abroad can be made responsible to the Canadian people once again. It seems to me that somewhere along this line lies the solution to the biggest single problem facing Canada today, namely foreign control. You cannot meet the problem by this kind of discriminatory taxation. All you are doing is helping the Canadian capitalist at the expense of the United States capitalist and it will not work. We have had the example where already the first proposal made by the government has been rescinded and the second is just as impracticable. In short, the government has set out on the road and they are just playing with the problem in restricting themselves to these sorts of measures.
Another matter is the lack in the budget of any type of financial help for the building of hospitals. I know we have been told by the government that we have to wait four or five years for the medicare plan, and we will have to accept that. But in the interval surely something could be done to deal with the scandalous hospital shortage in this country. In the area of Scarborough, which is part of my riding, we have 99,000 children under the age of 15 years. We have exactly 22 children's hospital beds to accommodate them. We have no isolation beds, beds for mentally disturbed children, for chronically ill children or for adolescents. The hospital shortage is reproduced, I am sure, from coast to coast and is a scandal which should be looked into. I do not understand why the government is not prepared to increase the grants which it is making for the construction of hospitals. The municipalities simply cannot afford to do it, and the biggest joke of all is that one of the institutions exempt from assistance under the municipal loan board is a hospital.
The last aspect of the budget upon which I wish to comment concerns the problem of trade. A great deal has been said in the house about the need to expand our export markets,
[Mr. Scott.l
to participate in the Kennedy round of trade proposals, and for Canada to make the fullest possible contribution in this regard. One thing which is missing in the budget, among many others, is a declaration of a fiscal and monetary policy for world trade. I have reviewed the budget and can see nowhere any indication that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) intends to give financial and fiscal support to the proposals of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp). Without those proposals, and that backing, all of the minister's efforts to expand trade and to participate in trade negotiations will be wasted and useless.
What we really need in Canada, and need desparately, is a trade adjustment act of our own. This would enable negotiators to be sent to trade conferences to bargain for tariff concessions, which are going to have a troublesome effect in the short run on our economy.
We must have a trade adjustment act in this country so that our negotiators will know, if they make any concessions that are going to hurt our industries over a short time, the government is prepared to back up those decisions with regard to trade by assistance to industry, and by assistance to help workers move from place to place during the transition stage. But there is not a single thing in the budget which indicates that the government is prepared to do this.
The real tragedy of it all is that time is running out for Canada. Anyone at all conversant in any way with trade problems realizes that the negotiations which will take place over the next year or two will have a highly vital bearing on our future, and our negotiators must go into them armed with all weapons possible. I am suggesting that the absence of a trade adjustment act and any real monetary and fiscal policy to back up the Minister of Trade and Commerce will result in all this activity proving fruitless and unsuccessful.
Those are the three aspects of the budget on which I want to comment, and in closing I just want to say what I said at the beginning. There are good measures in the budget, but in at least three fields the government has failed very badly. In the field of housing it simply does not understand how the house market works, and if the government would only talk to its backbenchers, a lot of whom are conversant with it, it would realize the difficulties that will arise.
In the field of foreign ownership the government is just playing around the subject because the measures it has introduced simply cannot and will not be effective. Finally, in the field of trade relations we must at some stage have a strong, firm policy, with monetary and fiscal backing, when we enter trade

negotiations. In these three fields the government has failed in the budget now before us.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, in presenting his budget the Minister of Finance remarked, as is recorded at page 996 of Hansard for June 13:
-it is my further duty to indicate the kind of measures which are needed to put our national affairs in order once again.
This then will be a "face the facts" budget.
Since then developments have proved that the Minister of Finance was quick to realize that the so-called facts are very hard to face, especially by himself.
During the election campaign the Liberal party cried much about the need for stable government. I am reminded of the remark made by the leader of the New Democratic party about a stable government. I must agree with his reference-the smell is definitely with us. Outside experts were brought in to work on the budget, and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) who spoke earlier this afternoon, referred to the fact that the previous government had difficulty in getting experts to come to Ottawa. Does he not realize that our government departments are filled with experts for the express purpose of looking after the affairs of the country, and particularly so in the forming of a budget? If he had in mind outside experts then all I can say with reference to the fact that we failed to get them is: weren't we lucky?
With regard to the use of outside experts, in terms more familiar to me and the people of my constituency, it is quite evident that the Liberal party supports the use of moonlighters, because any man who is employed by a company, who receives pay from that company and then makes himself available for other work is nothing less than a moonlighter. It surprises me that my colleague from Cape Breton, the Minister of Labour, did not in some way point out to the Minister of Finance what a serious mistake this was.
These moonlighters are creating a serious situation within the civil service. Their employment could involve job security, and there is no doubt that it will be detrimental to future administration. There is every reason to believe that the pride of our senior civil servants has been injured, and I believe that in a lot of cases they are staying on only because of their dedication to the country in spite of the fact that they bypass jobs in outside industry which hold more potential and greater advantage for them.
I should like to refer for a moment to a report in this morning's Montreal Gazette which reads as follows:
The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis
Prime Minister Pearson came to Mr. Gordon's defence Thursday by saying after a cabinet meeting that there is no question of Mr. Gordon's resignation.
There is only one interpretation to be taken from that statement, and it is that the matter of the resignation of the Minister of Finance was discussed by the cabinet. We appreciate the fact that the cabinet only discusses very serious matters and, if the matter was so serious as to be discussed in the cabinet, why should it not be passed over to a special parliamentary committee to be examined further? The government is reversing the trend. Usually matters go forward from parliamentary committees to the cabinet level, but that is being reversed in this instance. I can only hope the government will let a committee have an opportunity to go into the very serious violations of budget secrecy that have taken place in the last few days.
The Liberals talk about indecision. There was certainly enough indecision during the last two days. As yet we are not aware whether there has been a suspension or withdrawal of the 30 per cent take-over tax. It surprises me that Liberal backbenchers have not spoken about this because I am sure they have received representations from industries in their own constituencies about the effect of it.
They also have not mentioned the 11 per cent tax on building materials, and in replying to the hon. member for Vancouver East, who stated that 5,000 workers were to be laid off in Vancouver as a result of that tax, the minister had the audacity and arrogance to give a flat no when asked to reconsider it. One can only contrast that attitude with the attitude he must have adopted to the committee led by Liberal Senator Gelinas, which met with him very recently. The minister backed down at the request of that committee, and I cannot understand the arrogance of a government refusing to listen to the representations of hon. members in opposition, in fact, I am quite sure government backbenchers share some of our views on this matter.
It is interesting to recall the attack made on the pegged dollar by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) last year. I am sorry the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is not in his seat as there are a few things I would like to call to his memory, but there is no reference to altering the pegged Canadian dollar in the budget. One remark made about the pegged dollar by the Minister of Finance was to the effect that he was the first person to state publicly that

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis devaluation caused a stagnation of the economy. That is a quotation from the Minister of Finance who attacked the pegging of the Canadian dollar and yet he has left the situation unchanged in the budget.
No doubt the detrimental effects of the budget are being brought to the attention of every hon. member of the house, including the backbenchers of the Liberal party and some members of the cabinet. I have here a letter received today from Nova Scotia and for the benefit of hon. members I should like to bring to their attention the results of the budget in my own province. It reads as follows:
We are enclosing a letter.. . that expresses our feelings exactly regarding sales tax on building supplies, especially lumber. Complying with government regulations makes so much extra work and expense, combined with 11 per cent increase in price to our customers, which has made a major decrease in our volume, has caused us to close down part of our manufacturing business, which means five men unemployed. This factory has run continuously for approximately 50 years but cannot struggle along any longer under these conditions.
The economy. . . has been struck hard, for we have been advised of quite a number of cancellations already by people who planned to put up new buildings, and many workers are being laid off at what should be the peak of the construction season. We are bringing this to your attention so that you will know in which direction the 60 day economy is rolling.
And further, in another letter:
The application of the federal sales tax to lumber is practically without precedent, and there will be many unforeseen developments throughout our industry, as well as allied industries. In the writer's opinion this is the greatest backward step taken by any government in so far as this industry is concerned in the last 50 years. We hope that all associations connected with the building trades will voice their disapproval of this matter through the proper channels in Ottawa.
The disapproval voiced by many opposition members is naturally falling on the very deaf ears of the Minister of Finance. It appears that the minister only has an ear for delegations led by senators recently appointed by the Liberal party.
I should like for a few moments to make some remarks about the Atlantic development board. I have not had too much to say on this matter so far. In my view the information given to us recently by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) was most welcome, and I refer to the fact that the $100 million made available for the Atlantic development board has turned out to be a floor and not a ceiling, to use his exact words. It is my hope that everybody throughout the Atlantic provinces will take notice of this statement and, rather than allowing the committee to be set up to report back to the government, will make known to everybody in their own localities what their hopes, plans and projects are so

that we who have the responsibility can watch very closely with the hope that any project will get the rightful consideration due it and that this will in some way or other prove beneficial.
I might also refer to something else that is very favourable so far as the Atlantic development board is concerned and I trust that the government will follow through on it. I have in mind the fact that there are six more appointments to be made to that board and it will be very interesting to see from what fields they will come. I trust the government will follow through and I will be only too happy to see what their intentions are in this matter. I am not concerned about the party or political background of these people. The fact is that if they come from these particular categories it will be most welcome. I do not know whether the Prime Minister realizes it but he stated in Fredericton, New Brunswick, that the personnel of the board should be expanded to include representation from labour, from fishing, from mining, from agriculture and from lumbering. That leaves just one appointment over and above these five categories. It will be very interesting to see if he follows through on his commitment to appoint a representative of labour, a fisherman, a mining man, a man from agriculture and somebody from lumbering. If this is brought about I am quite sure that the Atlantic provinces will have representation across the board and we will look for very active participation inasmuch as they will have come from fields such as labour, fishing, mining and so on.
The problem of spending $100 million should not be a difficult one. It is not too long ago that there was a provincial election in Newfoundland brought about by the idea that something had to be done for the fisheries, and the fact that Mr. Smallwood wanted $70 million for the fishing industry. After Mr. Smallwood was successful in the election he wasted no time in coming to Ottawa to the previous government to look for the $70 million. Let us hope that the present government, with which he is very closely associated through the Secretary of State, will see that Mr. Smallwood gets his $70 million for the fisheries. I look at it this way, Mr. Speaker, that if it is good for Newfoundland it is good for the maritime provinces generally and if it is good for the Atlantic provinces it is good for Canada. If the present government can get away from the arrogant attitude they have recently adopted and realize that fact Mr. Smallwood should get his $70 million before too long.
While I am on the subject of Newfoundland may I say that, while I have not heard anything, I imagine representations are being

made by Newfoundland and especially by the Secretary of State to restore term 29 of the terms of confederation which was a bone of contention for some time in that province.
The three year incentive to industries in slower moving though not depressed areas is a welcome one, but I would remind the Minister of Finance, being the brain or expert that he is-I will have something to say about that later too-that he must realize that no company of any consequence will look only three years ahead. Any company of any consequence establishing anywhere is going to look far beyond three years and in all probability will not look for a taxable profit in the first three years in any case. Any company establishing in any area on the basis of this inducement only will not and cannot contribute too much to the economy of any slow moving area.


Paul Joseph James Martin: One year.


Malcolm MacInnis: I might say that along with the legislation passed by the previous government the crown owned, independently operated Industrial Estates Limited in Nova Scotia has made tremendous strides in that province and in this calendar year alone 10 or 11 new industries have been established.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs made some kind of interjection. He did not quite get it across but if Hansard got it possibly I will have an opportunity to raise a question of privilege. The Secretary of State this afternoon figured that he had a question of privilege with regard to something that happened a few days ago, but I think there was a precedent established yesterday that there was a time limit of 15 minutes so far as raising questions of privilege is concerned. One of our members raised a question of privilege and he was told that 15 minutes had passed during which he had the opportunity to bring it forward. So, keeping in mind a possible question of privilege, I will follow the example set by the Secretary of State and not the example that was forced upon my colleagues in the house.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to continue my remarks about the arrogance of this party which has been carried forward from previous years. An example of this arrogance is the attitude towards the house taken by the Minister of Finance. There is plenty of it, I am told about $12 million worth. This is the same minister who, not too long ago during a television broadcast told the nation that the Liberal party had the platform and, "we think we have the leader." In this case, I think he shares a problem with the Secretary of State for External Affairs as the only members in 28902-5-93
The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis the house who recognize that the prime minister sits across the floor and the leader sits on their side.
Again, I should like to cite the Secretary of State as a prime example of the arrogance, not only that the members of the official opposition have had to bear, but which has been extended to the members of his own party. Someone in our party referred to him as the actual leader of the party, and he may be right. I refer to him as the guardian angel, and if you do not believe me I refer you to what the Secretary of State said. This arrogance is applied not only to the members of the opposition, but it is applied to the members of the Liberal party. In this connection, I would just reread this passage of Hansard so that hon. members would fully understand what one of the ministers had to say about his own members. I quote from page 1267 of Hansard:


John Whitney Pickersgill: Judging from the applause, Mr. Chairman, with which my entry was greeted, I take it that my little strategem worked and that hon. members opposite thought when I went out that I had left the building and the government would be caught napping.
Well, if that is not arrogance, I do not know what is and it is applied not only to the opposition. There is arrogance applied to the members of the Liberal party. He is saying that the only hope you have of not getting caught napping is for the Secretary of State to be present in the house or for somebody on this side to make sure you are kept awake.
Dealing further with this question of arrogance, I should like to cite the attitude of the government towards the setting up of the special defence committee. The Prime Minister stated at the time the committee would look into all aspects of defence. A question was raised as to whether or not there would be an opportunity of inquiring into previous commitments. The Secretary of State for External Affairs informed the house that this would not be possible because of security problems. Here is a conflict. The Prime Minister tells us we will look into all aspects and the Secretary of State for External Affairs says we cannot because of security problems. I do not believe it is the fault of the members of the opposition that there is such a thing as a security risk in this instance. If there is a security risk at all it is because of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer).
Why do I say this? I say this because of the minister's own statement in this house not too long ago. This is another indication of the arrogance of this party. Here is what the present Minister of National Defence

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis had to say in the House of Commons on February 4, 1963, as recorded on page 3426 of Hansard:
We were briefed by Admiral Smeeton, deputy commander of the Atlantic fleet, by General Calmel, deputy chief of staff of supreme allied headquarters ... A number of questions have been asked as to what our commitments to NATO are. I realize that this information is presumably classified, but I could never understand why it was, so I am going to take the responsibility tonight of saying what they are.
He realized this information was classified. It could be, therefore, that the security risk in this house is our present Minister of National Defence and perhaps the allied chiefs of staff realize this. Furthermore, if there is a possibility of a breach of security relating to commitments of this former government, why is it that the Liberal candidates have so much to say about previous commitments? If, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs says, this question cannot be opened up because of security risks, why is it the Liberal candidates have had so much to say on this question? Have they been made aware of what these so-called commitments are? On what authority have they been stating that there are commitments? This house is still seeking that information. I think it would be the responsibility of the defence department to indicate exactly what the government intends in this particular committee.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Would my hon. friend permit me to ask him a question?


Malcolm MacInnis: Yes.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Would he mind telling the house whether he has discussed this matter with the former minister of trade and commerce, the former associate minister of national defence and the former minister of national defence, all of whom belonged at one time to the same party as my hon. friend, and with the former minister of national defence being a member of the same party and sitting in this house. Did not all of them say that there was a commitment?


Malcolm MacInnis: I cannot agree with that. The hon. member will have to realize that I was absent from the house for some time at the request of my constituents. I have not kept abreast of developments. Naturally, since coming back I have had the opportunity of sitting in this house and hearing the former minister of national defence reply to a question by the present Minister of National Defence, but his answer never indicated to me that was the case.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Why did he
resign?
[ Mr. Maclnnis.]


Malcolm MacInnis: I am happy that the intervention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs will probably give me an opportunity of winding up my remarks at this time. The intervention of the minister gives me an opportunity to congratulate him. I never thought that I would do so in the house. Nevertheless, since he has seen fit to enter the debate, I think this is the appropriate occasion. I should like to congratulate him on the possibility that he may go down in history as "Paul the Prophet". I should like to call his attention to certain remarks he made not long ago. You will recall the pitch your party made about stable government. I would remind you of this particular statement you made-


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. May I take the liberty of reminding the hon. member that he should address himself to the Chair.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I should like to bring to the attention of the house in a proper manner a particular statement made by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs:
If we elect a government that does not command a majority we will spell the disaster of our government.
There is not much doubt about that, in the light of what has developed within the last few days. On that note, I congratulate the prophet.
(Translation) :


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, my first remarks will be to commend very sincerely the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), who, last Thursday, introduced in this house a very realistic budget speech. I can assure him that the majority of the people-


An hon. Member:: Praise, praise.


Yvon Dupuis: -in the province of Quebec and all across Canada, except the few Socreds that may be left, are quite satisfied with the decisions taken by this government.


An hon. Member:: Some are not satisfied.


Yvon Dupuis: Of course, among our hon. friends opposite, for instance, some do not realize that the heritage they left us was nothing to rave about.
The new government could not make improvements or miracles at the present time, but in spite of the dire situation in which we were left by our friends opposite, we already

feel that confidence is coming back all across the country. We feel that the Canadian people trust in the future.


Gilles Grégoire: The feeling is not too obvious.


Yvon Dupuis: I think it would also be appropriate to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) who, the very day after the election of April 8, set himself to work in order to give a new stimulus to our staggering economy and to make up for the five years of Conservative indecision by implementing quickly new measures, which are successful because of Liberal decision.
The dazzled Conservatives and Social Crediters dare ask the question: "What have you done about the 60 days of decision?" It will be a great pleasure to answer that question but before, I should like to recall very briefly the main events during the years of Conservative administration and what my friends opposite have done during those five years of indecision. On two occasions-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order.


Yvon Dupuis: I think that the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue, who was elected by a charity vote, should keep quiet and let others speak.
Twice, their minister of finance refused to submit a budget to parliament and to the Canadian people.
During five years, the deficits piled up, year after year, and yet the government did nothing to solve any of the important problems which existed. In five years, our friends opposite managed to accumulate a deficit exceeding $3 billion.


Gilles Grégoire: It is $600 million this year.


Yvon Dupuis: I feel that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is not qualified to teach anyone anything about budgetary administration.
During five years, unemployment remained at a level comparable to the one that existed during those Conservative years between 1930 and 1935, under the leadership of Mr. Bennett.
For five years, Canada saw its prestige deteriorating abroad; its relations with our friends to the south, the Americans, became very strained.
For five years, the value of the Canadian dollar kept on going down. In five years, those people who are accusing us, managed to drain the unemployment insurance fund in which we had left $1 billion, accumulated during the years we were in office.
28902-5-93J
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis
For five years, the prime minister of the Conservative government avoided the numerous problems which were piling up before his eyes, instead of trying to solve them. He behaved like an ostrich before a stranger, which buries its head in the sand and thinks it is safe although its rear end is sticking out.
In five years, the members of the Conservative cabinet showed total confusion and a pitiful lack of solidarity which resulted in the resignation of several members of the Diefenbaker cabinet: confusion at national defence headquarters, confusion in the famous Coyne case, confusion with regard to unemployment, pitiful confusion with regard to the Columbia river, confusion, indecision, insecurity, deficits, waste, that is what we got from five years of Conservative rule from 1958 to 1963. And then, on April 8, 1963, on election day, the people of Canada gave to the Liberals and to the present Prime Minister a clear mandate to restore some order in the affairs of the country which had been neglected for five years.
The Prime Minister lost no time in getting to work. He announced that parliament would meet for a regular session as early as the middle of May. He superseded Conservative indecision by a Liberal program of 60 days of decision.
During those 60 days of decision, the Liberal government drew up a long list for anyone to see, a long list of important proposals designed to straighten out the affairs of the country. It will now be up to our friends opposite to help us pass the legislation required for the enactment of those measures that are essential to the future of our country.
Among government's decisions, let us mention the following: proposed royal commission on biculturalism, setting up of a standing committee of the house on national defence, creation of a department of agriculture for the east, establishment of a department of industry, setting up of a Canadian economic council, federal aid to municipal work in order to fight unemployment through the creation of loan funds for municipalities, and numerous other important measures with the sole purpose of stemming the economic depression resulting from five years of Conservative administration.
Mr. Speaker, the present Prime Minister of Canada is known all over the world as a man of decision; the energy he has shown in the last two months has won him the admiration of all the Canadian people. While our eminent Prime Minister works to rebuild

The Budget-Mr. Dupuis the finances and business of this country and the Minister of Finance introduces a budget filled with worth-while measures, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker)-who is now entering the house-and the remainder of his famous team of 210 members in 1958, are engaged in the worst kind of witch-hunt.
Thus, just a few days ago, namely on June 17 last, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition stood up and proposed with a quaver in his voice the adjournment of the house. Why? Here is what he said, as recorded on page 1235 of Hansard:
-adjourned to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the admission by the Minister of Finance on Friday, June 14 of facts relating to the preparation of the budget, which facts constitute a flagrant departure from constitutional budgetary practice, imperil-
That is according to the Leader of the Opposition.
-the traditional and essential secrecy of the budget, and which have had an unsettling effect on this house and on the country.
And even if he was very vehement in making that charge the Leader of the Opposition took good care not to substantiate it. He wanted to put on a big act. So, putting out his chest to impress people opposite in the galleries and again taking the tone he was using in the good old days of 1957, the Leader of the Opposition, eyes left and then right, made charges. He wanted to throw the facts at his audience. He made charges and, in the name of British tradition which is so dear to him and which he felt was threatened by the present Minister of Finance, he pointed his finger and made charges.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) offered to launch immediately the budget debate. And what did the Leader of the Opposition do? He refused his offer. The great man refused. He fulminated, he protested, he rebelled.
And what prompted that big act?
Just think that the Minister of Finance consulted people who did not belong to the federal civil service. What a terrible think to do. In so doing has the Minister of Finance violated a law? We asked the members of the opposition that question and they answered that he did not violate any law.
Has the secrecy of the traditional budget speech been violated? Was the secret known before the minister made his speech? Not at all. Had the three persons involved been sworn in as required by law? Are they loyal subjects of Her Majesty? Yes.
Therefore, if the Minister of Finance did not take any illegal action, if secrecy was


not violated, in short if he has not broken any law, what are the Leader of the Opposition and the members of the N.D.P. complaining about?
It has been said that by consulting advisers who were not federal civil servants, he violated the hallowed tradition or the darn tradition.
And that is all. That is the crime, that is the tragedy. The Minister of Finance violated a tradition which was so dear to the heart of the hon. member for Prince Albert, the former prime minister and the present Leader of the Opposition for some time yet.
The people of Canada will not be misled by tactics of hon. members opposite. The Canadian people understand that we finally have a Minister of Finance who can take advice. It pleases them to see that the present incumbent does not think he knows it all as his predecessor did for several years. The hon. member for Davenport does not think he is another Macdonald, another Napoleon Bonaparte or even another Donald Fleming.
The present Minister of Finance has just done what our friends in the opposition should have done during five years. He sought advice from competent people.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Can you prove that they are competent?


Yvon Dupuis: Naturally, if the minister had sought the counsel of the member for Edmonton West, the former speaker of the house, I would have told him that he was making a mistake, but he consulted competent people.
We finally have a Minister of Finance who does not take himself for Don Quixote nor for Mr. Gilles Gregoire. He admits that he might need advice, that he can be mistaken and that he can change his mind on occasion as he did this week. He proved it and we are glad to see that the Minister of Finance can change his mind. That is how the Liberal party remained in power for 22 years; it was flexible enough to change its mind when necessary.
What a contrast, Mr. Speaker, with the present Leader of the Opposition who, when he was the head of the government, thought that he could teach a thing or two to Mr. Coyne in economics. He also thought that he knew better than the minister of national defence did in his own field, that he knew better than everybody else and would accept advice from no one, not even from his best ministers like George Hees, Davie Fulton and others.

Those are facts. Where is the Leader of the Opposition today? He is in the opposition party pending a congress of the Conservative party.
If consultation of Canadian citizens is contrary to the Conservative tradition, well, the present Minister of Finance has put an end to such a sad tradition which has turned the traditional Tory party into a party of bad administrators, a party which has always governed badly each time it has had the opportunity to work out the destiny of this country since confederation.
As I was saying, for the Minister of Finance to take the advice of experts outside the federal civil service, was no violation of any law. And our friends opposite have not proven at all that the minister transgressed any law whatsoever. He assured himself that the secrecy concerning the preparation of the budget would be safely guarded until the very last minute when it was presented in the Commons. Nobody can prove that the secrecy was betrayed.
The Minister of Finance had those three advisors sworn in, as required by law. He did nothing, absolutely nothing which was illegal. I would rather say that he behaved very well.
We shall leave the Conservatives to carry on their witch-hunt. We shall leave the Leader of the Opposition carry on his performance and as for us on this side of the house we shall keep on working in the best interests of our country, Canada.
The future will tell that the brilliant member for Davenport was right. History will recognize the Liberals of today as men of decision, as truly efficient administrators.
We do not pretend to accomplish miracles. We do not propose to remove all taxes, to print money as some of our friends would. If we are not now as happy as we would like to be, it is just because we had to endorse for a few weeks the actions of our friends opposite. We had of course to endorse, in order to administer the country for a few months, the decisions taken by our hapless predecessors.
You will see, Mr. Speaker, that the situation will change very rapidly in our country.
Before concluding, I should like to deal briefly with a matter that is making the headlines at the present time; the future of Canadian federalism.
I was listening last evening to the very congenial and gentle member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) who gave us in this house a circus performance worthy of his master, the Leader of the Opposition.
My great friend from Brome-Missisquoi was worrying too, in a quavering voice, about
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis what the Liberals were going to do for national unity and for biculturalism. It is strange that nothing of the kind, not even the refusal of his leader to establish a commission on biculturalism, seemed to worry him last year when he was sitting on the government side.
I wish to reassure him and all our hon. friends; with the present Prime Minister, we can look to the future with confidence as far as national unity is concerned. It is worth while reminding the house and the country that the present Prime Minister was the first English speaking political leader to request an investigation on biculturalism in Canada. We commend him for it and we appreciate his courage and sense of dignity.
Hon. members opposite know that the present Prime Minister will set up shortly a royal commission of inquiry in that respect.
I should also like to remind the house that our leader has promised to provide Canada with a distinctive national flag and to recognize "O Canada" as the official national anthem within two years after the Liberal take-over.
That is what we call a government of action, and a Prime Minister of decision.
We will have our flag and our national anthem. We will have our inquiry on biculturalism. We will have our federal-provincial conference which will enable us to renegotiate the details of the confederative pact. We will hold a dialogue with the provinces. We will make Canada over. Wb believe in the unity and greatness of our country. Canada must be strong and united.
The present government will do everything to make people regain confidence in a Canada that is found neither in the state of Quebec nor in the province of Ontario but from coast to coast, from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
(Text):
As promised, one of the first acts of our Prime Minister will be to form the royal commission on biculturalism to examine, not only the past, but the present situation and report the true facts to the nation. The words unity and "biculturalism" are very important words to all Canadians. Most of us have always considered our country as one, indivisible and firm, it is important to remember that two great races, two nations, worked together to achieve that united country.
Our English speaking compatriots will remember that when our French ancestors suffered defeat at the battle of the Plains of Abraham, it was a break with their past,

The Budget-Mr. Dupuis with their traditions and their roots. Later, Quebec made a great and voluntary decision in refusing to throw in its future with what is today the United States, and made another great decision, 96 years ago, when it became part of the confederation. These were two great steps very important to the Canadians of the French heritage, and now many feel that yet another step should be taken which, in a different but equally important way, will make them a greater or more vital part of Canada's destiny. This is something to be appreciated not only by the Canadians in the brackets of high education, but by all Canadians who respect our country as a united and indivisible one.
It is important for all Canadians to study immediately our mutual problems, and this during what I call the waiting period so that those problems will not suddenly spring on all Canadians in a few years as something quite unknown to them. Such a surprise could only create unfortunate resistance. A proper presentation of Quebec's viewpoints can only be of service to our national unity.
Each day we pick up the newspapers and see large headlines, radios give us short and somewhat frightening news bulletins, and commentators review serious aspects of our national life. Sometimes it seems that matters are very black and the problems are overwhelming. The reason is that good things, good news and the wonderful aspects of life do not really make big headlines, do not make the hot news bulletins and do not provide good material for the commentators. Bad news is often big news and good news is often no news at all. This is an important thing for everyone to remember in these days, because from the Atlantic to the Pacific there are many, many happy, constructive and wonderful things happening to help our nation grow, be healthy and to develop.
Our duty and responsibility as elected representatives in the House of Commons is not only to help those constructive and pleasant aspects of life, but to go to the heart of the troubles and problems and do the best we can to cure and clear them up. To aid in embarkation upon such a course, there should be a clear statement of our views, policies and of what we are trying to do within the limitation of our responsibilities here in Ottawa, because we must not only recognize what is our duty, but also the boundaries over which we must not step so as not to offend, trespass upon or damage the spirits, acts and works of the provinces. To help mutual understanding between English and French speaking citizens in Canada we do not have

to wait until the commission on biculturalism produces its report; we can do so in great measure now.
Immediately following the recent election I took upon myself to do what I believe others should do. I went with my wife across Canada to the west coast for a journey. Our trip was an inspiration to us and I recommend it to every resident of the province of Quebec.
I remember that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) suggested we should visit western Canada, and I am happy to have done so. I have some very strong convictions and opinions on this subject. I think it is a delight to visit these places, but I, like the hon. member for Edmonton West, think also you will find it just as wonderful to know Canada better. The glories of our Pacific coast, of the breathtaking Rockies, of the cities of Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary, the vast expanse of our prairies, and the huge inland seas of the great lakes are things that every Canadian should see.
I do not know how travelling in Canada can be encouraged more than it is now, but I do feel that our government and every provincial government should do all within their power to get Canadians to visit Canadians. While I was in Vancouver recently it was my pleasure and privilege to discuss with many people the principle of exchanging students between British Columbia and Quebec. I would welcome any suggestions on "exchange," because I feel it will not only aid the education and the culture of these young Canadians who are exchanged between Quebec and other provinces but will move us closer towards national unity. Greater understanding must be the keynote. Canadians of French lineage must deal with citizens of other provinces and exchange speakers, visitors, residents, athletes, artists, and students. By friendly persuasion and by personal contact the friendships, the viewpoints, the associations between Quebec and the other provinces will be strengthened.
Travel within Canada must be accelerated at a speed never before considered or contemplated. I am convinced that this is one of the most urgent requirements. What is the cost of this great travel? What will it cost to transport people at perhaps reduced fares, or on special scholarships from school to school, or event to event, or city to city? I venture that it will cost nothing in relation to the price of unity, for Canadian unity is beyond all price.
Many years ago when our wheat crops on the prairies were threatened with disaster from manpower shortages, it was possible to travel from Montreal to the prairies to work in the wheat fields for $25. This comes to my

mind when I think of the tremendous value now of travel from west to east, and east to west. Would it not be a wonderful thing for Montreal students to be able to view Vancouver's beauty at such a small cost for transportation, and for young westerners to brush up on their French by a visit to "la belle province" of Quebec at the same cost from their homes?
It is my feeling that a message must be directed through all possible media to all Canadians. That message should reach them by television, radio, newspapers, magazines, meetings and other means. It should communicate the very spirit of the province of Quebec, which summed up is something like this: When the 13 colonies broke away from the empire, it was the decision of the Canadians of French lineage to stay and make today's Canada possible.
(Translation):
Thereupon, Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude my remarks, and I hope that all hon. members will as best they can co-operate to make a success of this survey on biculturalism, which will take place in the near future.
I know that each hon. member has definite views and quite a few representations to make. I hope that they will play their part vigorously and sincerely and contribute to the effort of this government with a view to uniting this country for the benefit of each and every Canadian.
Mr. Speaker, next week, we will have to vote on the budget. I hope that our friends in the opposition will let us have a strong majority vote to express their confidence in the Minister of Finance, who knew how to resort to expert advice. I hope that they will also support the Minister of Finance and the party now in power so that we may take the action needed to strengthen this country, our Canada.
The other day I heard the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire)-who is unfortunately not in his seat right now-blame the Liberals for having said, during the last election, that they would find a solution for unemployment. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lapointe, who is a man in a hurry, wanted the Liberal party to settle in 60 days, in one fell swoop, the whole unemployment problem.
Well, obviously we have four years before us, and by means of the legislation we shall enact, we shall solve the unemployment problem.
Incidentally, while we are speaking of promises, the hon. member for Lapointe might
The Budget-Mr. Dupuis have remembered that, between a promise and reality there is often a difference, coming more particularly from the Social Credit side.
We promised to put an end to unemployment. We shall certainly manage to do it within four years, and we can count on that many years.
During the last session of the previous parliament, the hon. member for Lapointe predicted that the Liberals would be huddled together with the Conservatives in a little corner of this house on the left of the Speaker, while Social Crediters would be seated on his right. But, what happened actually? Exactly the opposite. Moreover, we have four years to keep our promises, but he has only four years to prevent those who stayed with him from crossing over to this side of the house.
We found, on the evening of April 8, that the Social Credit party was down to 20 members in the house, and that some time after one of them came over to this side of the house, while others shed tears and still others went their own way.
This is what the promises made by the hon. member for Lapointe brought him.
As far as I am concerned, I wish him the longest tenure in this house, because he amuses us a lot, but without any intention of disheartening him I must tell him that after the next election Social Credit will have become a thing of the past.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis). Could the hon. member tell me, for my information and for the information of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Tremblay), if he agrees with the establishment of a department of agriculture for eastern Canada as he said this afternoon and as he repeated so many times during the last election campaign in the province of Quebec?


Yvon Dupuis: I am most happy, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member asked that question for his information because he certainly needs information.
I say that I agree with the appointment of the present Minister without Portfolio as minister of agriculture for eastern Canada, and I can tell you that this wish will be fulfilled in a near future.


Clément Vincent: But the hon. member this afternoon stated he was in favour of the establishment of the department of agriculture. Is he in favour of the establishment of a separate department of agriculture for

The Budget-Mr. MacEwan eastern Canada or is he supporting the mere appointment of an eastern agriculture minister?


Yvon Dupuis: I believe my hon. friend understood perfectly that I meant both.


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville?
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, this being the first opportunity I have had to participate in formal debate this session may I first congratulate you, sir, the Deputy Speaker, and the deputy chairman of committees who comes from the Atlantic provinces, on your election to the high offices you hold.
I listened with interest to the speech made by the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State. My speech will not be as rapid, but I note he ended his remarks with a reference to his favourite subject, the Social Credit party.


Yvon Dupuis: It used to be my favourite subject.


Howard Russell MacEwan: As I mentioned to him at one time the translation into French is not quite apt, but I understand that during the last election he out-Caouetted Caouette, and the result of that is that he is now parliamentary secretary.
As a maritimer I want to say that we in the Atlantic provinces are a little bit leery about the budget and about the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) is Minister of Finance. Only time will tell, but we will watch what happens. We know the Minister of Finance visited us. We know he wrote a report. We know he was chairman of a royal commission, and on many occasions reference has been made to his remarks about mari-timers leaving the Atlantic provinces, especially coal miners in whom I am very interested.
He also said that if we in the maritimes wanted to stay there we would have to accept a standard of living lower than that in other parts of the country. I know he has since said that he really did not mean to say that. In fact he returned to my constituency some time ago and made a very good speech there, a copy of which unfortunately I left at home. However, I have little doubt he had assistance in the preparation of it from another Liberal hon. member. I am not certain, but I have been told that, and I refer to the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Even

though the minister has said he did not mean to say those things, nevertheless we will watch what happens so far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned.
We in the maritimes thought we had a good set-up which would help us, in the fact that during the last session of parliament we had as minister of finance the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). He did an excellent job and we wanted to continue that. The minister of finance is a very important man in any government. In addition to that we had as the minister in charge of the Atlantic development board the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming), former minister of forestry and former premier of the province of New Brunswick, who is very close to us in the maritimes.
Now we have the Secretary of State in charge of that board. He has been a representative of Newfoundland for some time, but after all he is not a native born Atlantic province member, and if we were to have a change of government I wondered if perhaps we might not have the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) or the genial Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught) in charge of that board. However, the result is that we have a complete change, in a minister of finance from Ontario and a minister in charge of the Atlantic development board who is not a native born of the Atlantic provinces. We will have to watch very closely what occurs.
I should like to deal with the budget as it affects the maritimes. Resolutions have been introduced regarding the new department of industry and the area development agency that is to form part of it. I am not completely sold on this. I believe the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) dealt with this matter when he spoke on the resolution stage, and I do not intend to repeat his arguments. But in order to help labor surplus areas-and my constituency in that respect is one of the worst in Canada-I believe this further division that is proposed will not help at all, particularly with regard to my own area.
During his budget speech the minister said:
The full effect on the economy of the Important measures I have been discussing-
He was referring to the measures being introduced for the labour surplus areas.
-will not be felt for a few years.
That is not what we were told during the last election campaign. In my area the Liberal candidate said that all that had to happen was a change of government and there would immediately be no unemployment. Now the minister says the effect of these measures will not be felt for a few years.

Since 1957, many steps have been taken to help the economy of the Atlantic region. Among them were the subsidies to shipbuilding. They were important to my area and many other parts of Canada. The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) and hon. members from the west coast know what these subsidies meant. However, I was a little distressed when the minister had this to say about the shipbuilding subsidies-and I am not going to quote him. This is to be found on page 1002 of Hansard, for June 13:
Other matters could also be mentioned. There is the shipbuilding subsidy, which was reduced, effective last April 1, in such a way as to lead to a sudden irrational surge of expenditure and activity in that industry which is unlikely to be sustained.
Then he went on to say this:
This surge of activity places a substantial burden on this year's budget without producing any continuing benefit.
I do not know whether I agree with that. I believe that the benefits will be continuing, and I only hope, despite the words used by the minister, that there will be no move whatsoever to remove these shipbuilding subsidies. They have meant many more jobs, and the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) former minister of transport has estimated the total at 50,000. If the Minister of Finance is thinking of removing these subsidies I would ask him to check first with the Minister of Transport and the Canadian maritime commission. During the last few years many of us pressed for such subsidies in order to help our shipyards compete with foreign shipyards, and if these subsidies are taken away it will mean the loss of a great many jobs and will be a great blow to the shipbuilding industry. For that reason I hope those words used by the minister are not words of warning.
The previous administration also introduced an important measure with regard to vocational training. In fact, I believe the government I supported led by the Leader of the Opposition did more in regard to vocational training than any other government in the history of the country. I do not want to burden the house with references that are too long, but I can look back to the time when coal mines were being closed down in my area and the miners had no trade or skill to use in other work. That was a time when a very strong vocational program should have been introduced. But now I am very pleased to say that as a result of the action taken by the previous government in providing 75 per cent of the cost of vocational schools, through agreement with the provinces, a new school will open in my area in the fall. The young people who take vocational training in it, with the additional advantage of their high school
The Budget-Mr. MacEwan education, will be fine citizens and they will be equipped to stay at home and work in the area. This is something that should have been done before, but I point out that these are matters that will take a little time. The results are being felt in Canada now and, of course, hon. gentlemen across the way will probably get the credit for it.
The Atlantic development board has been referred to also and I should like to point out that the minister said that the Atlantic development board was being strengthened by setting up a fund. I am not going into that. Others of my colleagues from the Atlantic area have done so. However, I would point out that the vice-chairman of the board, Mr. Sobey, who was to sit for five years, will be gone in a year. This is not strengthening the board. This man has been president of Industrial Estates Limited, the crown company in Nova Scotia and I looked upon him as the liaison between Industrial Estates Limited and the Atlantic development board. But when the year is up I suggest that this man, regardless of politics, be re-appointed to the board. He is necessary especially for my native province of Nova Scotia.
Next week an unemployment meeting will be held in my area. Mention was made of this today and there are various things that will probably come up. A local committee has been set up to look into the matter. It is a non-political body known as the Pictou county research and development association. This association has been doing a lot of work in the last two years and carrying out research into various things. I think this will be of assistance to the area. A labour surplus area such as mine should be the first problem attacked by the Atlantic development board.
There is one matter in the budget which has been referred to by the financial editor of the Montreal Gazette and it might be worth while mentioning it here. I refer to the question of accelerated depreciation. I will not quote at length but it is a matter which was missed in the budget and it is something which should be referred to at this time. Tax incentives are good and we welcome the three year tax holiday. We also welcome accelerated depreciation but I want to point out what Mr. Meyer said on June 14:
One would wish he-
The Minister of Finance.
-might have been more imaginative. His purposes are clear enough. The increase in capital investment which the accelerated write-offs can be expected to persuade is certainly desirable but might he not be overdoing it? The problem is not entirely one of encouraging new investment; there is also the need to encourage more efficient use of existing investment.

The Budget-Mr. MacEwan
Here is the important part.
For all the pick-up in business which has taken place over the last year, idle plant can still be readily found. In a good many instances, it is the market that is lacking, not the production equipment to serve that market.
I think that is something which the minister missed, the matter of markets. There should have been something to stimulate markets not only in our country but abroad. The former government of which I was a supporter set a record in the exporting of manufactured goods to other countries through the Export Credits Insurance Corporation. They were always willing to help companies. I submit to the present government that they should go ahead on this basis. It means a lot to the manufacturers of this country. There are many areas which are open including the South American area. Let the government go ahead. Apparently they are not looking to this too much because it was not mentioned in the budget speech. I might also refer to this comment on the budget:
It offers no stimulation for exports. In fact, It could be regressive in this field because it imposes a sales tax on manufacturing machinery and will almost inevitably add to the cost of production in Canada and consequently make Canadian goods less competitive at home and abroad. Mr. Gordon has tried to do a Roman ride on horses galloping in opposite directions.
I bring this to the attention of the minister. Export markets are important to Canada and we cannot hope to use all the products that we manufacture in this country.
Going on from there, sir, may I refer to the 11 per cent sales tax. I have spoken to my colleagues on this side of the house from the Atlantic provinces, which have a very high rate of unemployment as we all know, and they tell me unequivocally that they have received many submissions on the matter of the sales tax which may be vital to many companies, especially smaller companies in our area. One thinks of the lumber firms and the contractors in their bidding. One thinks of people buying small homes and of people making repairs to their homes. The sales tax will certainly be detrimental in that regard. I know that submissions have been made to the minister from many parts of Canada and I hope that he will take them into consideration.
We have also heard about the $500 incentive with regard to the purchasing of homes. The Kingston Whig-Standard of June 15 had this to say:
With regard to the housing industry, the new budget announces the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax exemption on building materials and this appears to offset the $500 bonus. What the government has actually done is to add 4 per cent to the price of new houses by this action.


Therefore this will be a very serious matter throughout the country. Another matter has been mentioned which has been brought to the attention of members of the official opposition. In my riding there is a company which manufactures prefab houses and I know there are others throughout the country. I understand that the 11 per cent sales tax will apply on the total cost or over-all package deal with regard to prefabs. Many times prefab manufacturers, especially on the east coast and the west coast, are required to move these houses long distances. I know that from my own area many of them have been shipped north to the lake Janine and Port Cartier area, and Eskimo homes have also been shipped to the far north. This tax will add to the cost. I doubt very much that this company will be able to compete with the companies in Ontario and Quebec. This all adds up to lack of jobs.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) referred to the matter of the pegging of the Canadian dollar and I will not belabour that now. He always deals with these things very delicately and much more easily than I do. However, I know that during the June, 1962 election campaign much was made of the pegging of the Canadian dollar. I do not have the page here but I believe that the Minister of Finance said that the dollar would continue to be pegged because it had been helpful especially with regard to exports. We know that in our own province products such as fish and lumber have been stimulated by the pegging of the dollar, and now the truth will indeed be told.
There are other matters in the budget I could go into but I do not intend to repeat what other speakers have said. May I end by repeating that as members from the Atlantic area and representatives of the people of that region we are watching the Minister of Finance. The minister said that if the tax holiday did not help the Atlantic provinces he did not know what would. He had other things to say originally about that area because at one time he thought it would help to move people from Cape Breton and my area. He put forward various things but now he thinks that this tax write-off will help us and he said that if it did not do so he did not know what would.
As was pointed out by my hon. member for Cape Breton South, anything that stimulates the Atlantic area will help the rest of Canada. Certainly we do not intend to be the doomsters and gloomsters that members of the former opposition were. If this will help, and this was said by my colleague also, we will certainly be pleased but it will definitely have to be proven to us.

Finally, sir, in so far as outside people assisting in the preparation of the budget is concerned, that is a matter with which I am not going to deal. It has been dealt with by other members. The same is true of the withdrawal of the 30 per cent tax on stocks. The people of Canada, as well as the people in the Atlantic area, are disturbed today. I should like to conclude by again referring to the Montreal Gazette in which there was this article by Mr. Meyer:
What is so disturbing here is that Mr. Gordon's bungling has cast an early pall over the initially successfully efforts of the new government to clean up the smudges put upon Canada's image abroad by the previous government.
I am not accepting that.
Few governments have entered office with such sincere foreign good wishes-sentiments which were admirably justified by Mr. Pearson's appearance in London and Hyannis Port and Mr. Sharp's hard-headedness at Geneva. The budget, which should have put a capstone to these efforts to rebuild foreign confidence instead brought the whole structure tumbling down.
We accept the budget, therefore, as it is. We are watching to see whether or not it will bring about the solution of the unemployment problem in Canada to which reference was made by the previous speaker. We do not believe it will. If it will help out, we will buy it. We will see how these people who sit in their ivory towers bring about full employment in this country. We do not believe they can. We will be watching them closely during the days and months ahead.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, many questions have been raised about the budget and the purposes that it attempts to achieve. While I have not very much time this afternoon before five o'clock I hope, at the first opportunity on Monday, to review the main purposes of this budget and to remind hon. members of the limited number of things that could have been done to achieve the main objectives, which were to stimulate the economy, and in the process, to provide more jobs.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Which were?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Which are; this, at least, would be agreed by all hon. members, that certain facets of the Canadian economy need to be strengthened and certain of our industries stimulated and made more efficient if we are going to overcome some of the basic difficulties with which we are confronted.
Perhaps I might just remind hon. members what these basic difficulties are. In the first place, there is no disagreement in this house, I think, that unemployment is a scourge; that it works not only a great hardship on the people concerned but it is a source of fear to others who are afraid that they, too, may lose
Private Bills
their jobs. We have to do something about this in Canada. We must tackle it, it seems to me, on a variety of levels. We must, if we are going to be successful, look at the long term as well as the short term. I do not believe, myself, that merely dealing with the short term problems as they arise will work in this field or any other. It was for that reason-it is for that reason-that we on this side of the house attach so much importance to the work of the proposed department of industry. This department, working with the industries concerned, and as I have said before, working with the trade unions concerned, will be responsible for bringing about some major reorganization of the industrial structure of this country. It will take time, working at it one industry at a time, if our industries are to become strong enough to compete with competitors from abroad and if they are to be in a position to expand their exports. When I say that I am thinking of manufactured goods as well as primary products.
Now, I do not think there is much disagreement either that our balance of payments problem, the imbalance in our current accounts which has been running at the rate of about a billion dollars a year, is at the root of many of the problems that we face in Canada. I think the year before it was a little less. Several hon. members have discussed very helpfully and well some aspects of our economic problem. I hope that during the remainder of this debate many hon. members will focus their attention on this particular aspect of the problem, this imbalance in our current account transactions, and will say what they think should be done about it. As I said, 1 believe this is at the root of our problem and is one of the reasons we have had so much unemployment in this country in recent years.
May I call it five o'clock?


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



THE INTEREST ACT

[Stage Direction]
amendment to place ceiling on interest RATES
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. C-10, an act to amend the Interest Act-Mr. Orlikow.
David Orlikow: understand, Mr. Speaker, that discussions are now under way with a view to sending all the bills dealing with the various aspects of interest to a committee. I understand there

Civil Service Act
are approximately 12 of these bills. I should like permission, therefore, to stand this bill and the next bill which appears in my name on the order paper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is it
agreed that we should stand Bills Nos. C-10 and C-12, both standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: the second reading of Bill No. C-13, to amend the Civil Service Act (Remembrance day).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill reflects the feelings of the members of the Royal Canadian Legion, other veterans groups in Canada, relatives of veterans and many other Canadians with respect to the recognition of remembrance day.
Before dealing with the content of my bill I wish to give a brief historical review of the legislation with respect to the recognition of what was first termed armistice day and later remembrance day, November 11, a never to be forgotten day by veterans of the first world war and their relatives, who will always remember the great sigh of relief that was raised throughout the world when that war terminated. I find the first reference to recognition of this day was during 1919, and I quote from Hansard of May 23, 1921, when a Mr. Pedlow speaking in this house said:
In the first session of 1919, that which immediately followed the cessation of hostilities, I proposed the following resolution, which appears as No. 37 on page 25 of the order paper of Monday, April 7.
This was the resolution:
That, in the opinion of this house, November 11 of each year should be set aside as a day of national thanksgiving, to be a perpetual memorial to the signing of the armistice, ending the great world war.
Then Mr. Pedlow went on to say:
Almost immediately after that resolution appeared on the order paper the press of Canada from one end of the country to the other commented favourably on the proposal.
I find that the matter was discussed in the house and mentioned on numerous occasions. Then an act respecting armistice day was assented to on June 4, 1921. It is quite obvious that there has been a change of approach to November 11 throughout the years. First of all the speeches made in this house and the legislation enacted generally

expressed a spirit of thanksgiving for the termination of the first world war. Then later, as the war became more distant, we see that replaced by a desire for remembrance of the services of those who served in that and more recent wars. That is indicated in this legislation and I will quote two sections of an act respecting armistice day, chapter 16. Section 2 reads:
Throughout Canada in each and every year the Monday in the week in which the eleventh day of November shall occur being the day in 1918 in which the great war was triumphantly concluded by an armistice, shall be a legal holiday and shall be kept and observed as such under the name of armistice day.
It goes on to say in section 3:
The holiday commonly called thanksgiving day being a day usually appointed in the month of October or November by proclamation as a day of general thanksgiving to Almighty God, shall whenever appointed be proclaimed and observed for and on armistice day.
I mention those two sections of this act, Mr. Speaker, because they illustrate the general, shall I say, spirit of thanksgiving with which the recognition of this day was approached at that time. Then we find that the approach changes to one of remembrance of the services performed by those who served in the first world war, those who lost their loved ones, and so on. So we have the Remembrance Day Act passed in 1931, which declared that November 11 would always be recognized as remembrance day. Later we find references to this in the Civil Service Act of 1931, with which I shall deal later. Throughout the years there has been a general feeling on the part of many members of veterans organizations and other Canadians that there is not in this country sufficient recognition of remembrance day; that people in some cases are more concerned with holidays as such rather than with recognizing a day in remembrance of the services performed by those who served in the armed forces, and others, in the first and second world wars and the Korean war. Those feelings found expression in Legion conventions, particularly the last two or three dominion conventions of the Royal Canadian Legion. There has been considerable discussion on this subject. As a matter of fact, at the present time a committee of the national council of the Royal Canadian Legion is giving serious consideration to several aspects of the better recognition by Canadians of remembrance day. I wish to quote the two resolutions that were dealt with at the last convention of the Royal Canadian Legion with respect to the recognition of remembrance day:

Whereas there is a growing tendency across Canada to treat November 11 as just another holiday rather than a day sacred to the memory of our fallen comrades, and
Whereas the government of Canada saw fit to grant the civil service a holiday on an alternate date when November 11 fell on a Saturday or Sunday:
Therefore be it resolved that the Royal Canadian Legion informed the government that its action in this regard is deplored and that the legion looks to the government to set an example to the significance of remembrance day.
There was a second resolution. I will quote it because I want to place before the house the attitude of the members of the Royal Canadian Legion in dominion convention assembled:
Whereas the 11th of November each year has been established as the day to pay respect and to remember comrades who made the supreme sacrifice, and
Whereas in many cities and towns business continues to be carried on as usual all during remembrance day, thus affording the staffs no opportunity to pay respect to the fallen:
Therefore be it resolved that dominion and provincial governments again be requested to declare November 11 a statutory holiday so that every person not engaged in essential services will have an opportunity to attend remembrance day services.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the reason for my introducing this bill. I want to give some explanation of the purpose of this bill, which is in line with the sentiments expressed at conventions of the Royal Canadian Legion. The purpose of this bill is to restore, in so far as the parliament of Canada is legislatively able, remembrance day to the position intended by the spirit and meaning of the Remembrance Day Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter 237. That act provides:
Throughout Canada in each and every year, the 11th day of November, being the day in the year 1918 on which the great war was triumphantly concluded by an armistice, shall be a holiday, and shall be kept and observed as such under the name of remembrance day.
The Civil Service Act chapter 57 section 62 provides that remembrance day shall be a holiday for the civil service for which leave of absence may be substituted if it falls on a day when civil servants are not required to work. However, the section limits the holiday to civil servants and presumably leaves the declaration of the holiday, if it is one in the public service, to the discretion of the responsible crown authority. This bill uses the term "public service" which would include all those employed in crown corporations and similar establishments.
In clause 1 of this bill, remembrance day is deleted from the list of holidays in subsection (1) for which leave of absence may be substituted under subsection (2). Subsection (3) is added so that remembrance day becomes a holiday in the language and within
Civil Service Act
the meaning of the Remembrance Day Act. The wider meaning of public service is substituted for "civil service" so that government boards, commissions and agencies are included. I should like to point out that the present Civil Service Act, the sections dealing with this question, do not square with the provisions of the Remembrance Day Act. This bill is an attempt to restore the spirit and the purpose of the Remembrance Day Act as originally designed and intended.
I have mentioned that in the early days there was a general spirit of thanksgiving. The farther we get away from the first world war, the second world war and the Korean war, the more people look to November 11 as a day of remembrance upon which they have the opportunity to pay tribute to those who gave their lives, or sacrificed, or lost relatives in the defence of our country and in the defence of principles in which we all believe.
I fully realize there may be differences of opinion with respect to this amending bill. I have expressed the point of view of the Royal Canadian Legion and other organizations, and I may say it is my personal viewpoint. I have a particular interest in the recognition of remembrance day because my father, my wife and three of my family served this country in war and because I happen to be the president of the 54th Kootenay battalion association which is very keen on having this subject considered in the house. I know there are a good many others here who take the same attitude as I do. We have another generation growing up in Canada and we have many new citizens coming to this country who are, naturally, not well informed as to what these fellow citizens of ours did for Canada in two world wars and in the Korean war.
I fully realize that this is a subject which should be given every consideration so that all points of view can be heard. Therefore, I suggest that the subject matter of this bill should be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs so that the views of the Royal Canadian Legion, widows organizations, veterans organizations and other organizations particularly interested in the wider recognition of remembrance day, might be heard. There would also be an opportunity to hear the views of representatives of the civil service organizations. I realize that at the present time discussions are going on with respect to the relationship between the civil service and the federal government-discussions concerning bargaining rights and so on. This subject would, I am sure, come within the compass of those matters which interest

Civil Service Act
the civil service organizations. It is in recognition of the feelings of members of the veterans organizations I have mentioned, as well as of many other Canadians, that I have introduced this bill.
I do not intend to speak at greater length because I would like to hear the views of other hon. members on this subject. I think it is something of a relief on occasions in this house to have an opportunity to speak on other than strictly economic matters. I am one of those who believe that no nation grows great as a result of its sole concern for material things. There are values greater than that. I think the recognition of remembrance day is one action on the part of Canadians which could demonstrate to the world that we recognize the things of the spirit as coming first.


Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: Mr. Speaker, I would say, first of all, that it is one of the wonderful things about our system that the hon. member who proposed this bill should be one who has spoken in this house this session on so many occasions when we who sit on this side have found little in his observations with which we could agree, particularly when he has concerned himself with the field of economic theory. Yet on an occasion such as this I doubt very much whether there is a single member on this side of the house or, indeed, in any part of the house, who could possibly disagree with a single word the hon. member has said.
As early as 1871, Joseph Howe, speaking at South Framingham, Massachusetts, uttered these memorable words:
A wise nation preserves its records, gathers up its monuments, decorates the tombs ot its illustrious dead, repairs its great public structures and fosters national pride and love of country by perpetual reference to the sacrifices and glories of the past.
I suggest that these words, two brief sentences in a long discourse, might be taken seriously by us today. We sit here in this chamber from day to day, and on hearing the debates, on hearing the acrimony, the vituperation which crosses this floor from time to time, and on seeing how petty, trivial matters seem to be the most important concern of this house from day to day rather than the important question of what we can do, collectively, to try to find solutions to the great problems facing us, such as unemployment, we may well be inclined to despair. Instead of doing the great things that we have to do, as apparently we are able in times of great national crisis, it seems that when times revert to so-called normal, we in this house, in any event, concern ourselves more with the petty and with the trivial than with the real tasks we were sent here to perform. I often

think, sitting here as a new member of this house, what somebody from another world would think if he descended here and were told: "This is where the business of this country is carried on, and carried on in this fashion and in this manner". I have the same thoughts when standing on the floor of a stock exchange, a place to which reference has been so prevalent in our discussions here during the past few days, where everyone is rushing around and roaring about. And for what purpose? Someone from another world cannot possibly decipher. In some ways I think we in this house have been carrying on our business of late in much the same manner.
It is appropriate and apropos that a bill of this kind, even though it be a private member's bill, be brought up at this time, because it may to some degree recall to us the importance of being a member of this house; the great traditions that are our heritage and that we are here not only to defend but to improve and build upon; to uphold those words which are spoken so often and lived up to so little, that the sacrifices of those who went before us would not have been in vain. I think perhaps that sometimes the game becomes bigger than the end. The winning is the important thing rather than the doing. In the game of political ins and outs, of political musical chairs, having the chair seems sometimes to be more important than doing the job. It may be that the hon. member who has presented this bill may make a few of us here at this late hour on Friday night just pause for a moment and think whether we in this house are fulfilling in the past few weeks the great traditions and expectations which those who came before us would have of us. I quote, Mr. Speaker, from the tablet in the memorial chamber upstairs, which reads as follows:
Read how free men throughout this land kept faith in the hour of trial, and in the day of battle, remembering the traditions they had been taught, counting life nothing without liberty.
The thought I should like to express, Mr. Speaker, is that in that same memorial chamber are found these words:
Ceux qui pieusement sont morts pour la patrie, Ont le droit qu'fi leur cercueil, la foule vienne et prie. Entre les plus beaux noms, leur nom est le plus beau. La voix d'un peuple entier les berce en leur tombeau.
In this house, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal about one of our fundamental problems in this nation, namely the question of biculturalism and bilingualism. Here are the roots of the very matter, the subject of this bill: A real and permanent bicultural and bilingual land. I think those who served in the armed forces during the war found almost inevitably young men and women of

French origin serving side by side, sharing danger equally, with those of us of Anglo-Saxon origin. And there were others of Irish, German, Polish and other origins who served just as well. In those days nobody asked: "What is your native tongue? What religion are you?" The issues in this matter did not occur to anyone. The only thing that mattered was the job on hand; what we could do for our country together at that time.
If we recall these last two wars we will find we had a very great foundation of a bilingual nation; for a nation which was truly bicultural. Those of us who served in the air force, as I did, often discussed the fact that while there was criticism at home about the service of French Canadians during the war, it is the fact and statistics indicate that over 50 per cent of those who enlisted in air crew, which possibly was the highest casualty area of the war, were casualties and that very many of these were of French Canadian origin. So that those of us who served in air crew in the R.C.A.F. had no doubts whatsoever that our French Canadian friends and brethren played a full and responsible part with the rest of Canada. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, if we remember the admonition of Mr. Howe to honour our past, to refurbish our monuments and to build upon our great foundations, I think we have a very fine start for this young nation, as we still are, to become a great bilingual and bicultural nation.
The bill is intended primarily, as I read it, to create a holiday for persons in the civil service on remembrance day. As my hon. friend from across the floor suggested, the important thing is not so much the holiday but the remembrance which should be stressed on this particular day. I was most interested, in doing research on this bill, to discover that in 1921, when the bill concerning armistice day was originally presented, these words were said in this house, as reported on page 3773 of Hansard for that year:
Mr. Chairman, I thought this bill was originally introduced by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow).
I am pleased to see that as the hon. member for Renfrew South I stand here in an honoured tradition in speaking on this bill which was originally introduced by Mr. Pedlow, the hon. member for South Renfrew at that time. I noted with some concern that at that time, during a brief respite which this party does have from time to time, he was in opposition.
I should also like to refer to a further debate which took place in 1931 when the bill was revised in its present form. I think the gist of the revision was that it segregated
Civil Service Act
thanksgiving day and armistice day, which used to be celebrated together. Some of the words spoken by Mr. Geary, the then hon. member for South Toronto, are pertinent and should commend themselves to our consideration. He said, as reported on page 1062 of 1931 Hansard:
The 11th of November is an appropriate day for that purpose. Thus far we have celebrated Armistice day on November 11 throughout the country. I cannot speak of other parts of Canada than my own home, but there, at eleven o'clock on the morning of November 11, we have a service which is attended by thousands upon thousands of people. Not only is that service attended by these thousands of people, all apparently devout, all very lovingly commemorating the men who lost their lives in the war, but at eleven o'clock as if by common consent, throughout the whole city, in transportation activities, in industrial enterprises, in the shops, on the street, in the courts, everywhere, all activities cease for the short space of two minutes. Men go about their business afterwards but they do not lose the refreshment of memory which they have derived from that one simple act. If this day, through being made a holiday, degenerate into something that has not as its foremost and practically exclusive function this perpetuation of the memories of these men, I think we should be losing all that is sweet, all that is fine in the observances of the occasion.
I think my hon. friend stressed this point, and I think it should be stressed very strongly, that this should not be just a holiday. It should be an occasion not merely when we remember those who fell in the two world wars, but when we should rededicate ourselves to make this country and this land a little more like the place they would have liked to see if they were still here.
To that end may I introduce a suggestion at this time. I understand this bill is going to the committee and I suggest that November 11 should be celebrated in such manner that the provisions of the Lord's Day Act would be made applicable to it. Would it not be possible, instead of November 11 merely being a holiday when we can do whatever we want, when the Coney islands of our country are opened up and when our theatres are opened up, that it be made more than just a holiday and that the Lord's Day Act be applied to November 11?
When the bill goes to the committee I hope the committee will do a little more than just consider it. It is my hope that the entire veterans charter, which I am very proud to say is the product of this party, will be reviewed in that committee in the light of present day needs and circumstances, and in the light of the value of the dollar today as compared with the value of the dollar at the time when many of the rates were set up under the veterans charter.
I think we all owe, not only in this house but in the country, a very great debt of

Civil Service Act
gratitude to organizations such as the Canadian Legion, the air force association and similar veterans organizations that have made it their job to see that those men and women who served their country are not forgotten. In this day of government to so large a degree by public opinion, it is essential that these people have organizations to speak for them in a corporate way. If they were left to their individual resources I am sure their lot would not be as good today as it is, thanks to the work of the Canadian Legion and similar organizations.
I suggest many of the beneficiaries under veterans' legislation, in particular those persons receiving war veterans' allowances, are in very grave need of consideration today. I think that the return they are getting today is scarcely enough to keep body and soul together. I suggest when this bill goes to the committee there should be a revision of the entire veterans' charter, of the needs of the men and women who served in our armed forces, and in particular of the needs and requirements of those men and women who, today, are disabled by age or by wounds or otherwise from sharing the fruits of the economy of this thriving country. We, the rest of us who are whole, hale and hearty would be only too glad to play our part and to sacrifice a little if we have to, in order to see that these good men and women who did so much for us will not live in penury but will be able to live in dignity and be able to share in some fair measure in the bounties of this land.
I am very pleased to support my hon. friend's bill, strange as this may be, as we are on opposite sides of the house, and I hope when the bill goes to committee the general thought behind it will come to fruition, and in particular the aspect of the bill which refers to remembrance which encourages us-as Joseph Howe has said-to look at our monuments, to shine them up, and to look back so that once again we can look ahead; and that in that committee the entire position of the disabled veterans and those dependant on us by virtue of their service to the country in two world wars will be looked through carefully so that we may not break the faith with them.
(Translation):


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words but not to do my share in talking out another bill that will be dead around six o'clock. However, I feel I should make a few remarks with regard to Bill C-13.
I congratulate the member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) who remembered to

submit the views of the Canadian Legion and the various veterans' organizations.
I am of the opinion that the member for Kootenay West was right in insisting that throughout Canada, the 11th of November should be better observed. That is why I wish to point out that when he says:
The wider meaning of "public service"
should be used, I feel he is right. However, something seems to be lost on the house and I am surprised that the member for Kootenay West who, as a rule, is so precise and clear in his remarks, does not seem to have noticed it, particularly when my colleague, who spoke just before me, said that there is some talk of stipulating a statutory holiday to that effect.
I think that it is wrong and I believe that on that point my colleague from Kootenay West is greatly mistaken.
The Remembrance Day Act provides, as mentioned in the bill:
Throughout Canada in each and every year, the llth day of November, being the day in the year 1918 on which the great war was triumphantly concluded by an armistice, shall be a holiday, and shall be kept and observed as such under the name of remembrance day.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that on that point there is no doubt. The llth of November is already a holiday. Then what is exactly the purpose of the bill we are considering today?
It is this. Under this bill remembrance day is removed from the list of holidays so that if, at a certain time, it fell on a Saturday or a Sunday, the civil servants could not get a holiday on the next day.
I think that is the exact purpose of this bill. And I do not see how the house can agree about that. In fact, November 11 is a legal holiday whether it falls on a Monday, a Tuesday, a Saturday or a Sunday, and remembrance day must be kept as a holiday throughout Canada.
I think it is very well to seek a way of celebrating remembrance day in a more suitable way by drawing the Canadians attention to it. But if this is a means of taking away a holiday from civil servants when Remembrance Day falls on a Saturday, in order to be agreeable to the Canadian Legion and to the veterans, we do not agree on the matter.
In my opinion, this is a good bill. We should insist on the better observation of this day. But why abolish, for civil servants, the holiday which follows remembrance day when November 11 falls on a Saturday or on a Sunday? I object then to that part of the bill. Our civil servants, who do not have so many holidays during the year, must retain this one.

It has been said a while ago that it is very well to go to cemeteries and think of our departed ones at that time of the year. Well, precisely, our civil servants, who normally have only their week ends to take care of their families and house chores, are very much in favour of a possible postponement of that holiday for a day or two when it falls on a Saturday or a Sunday, so that they too may go and pray on the graves of their departed ones.
In my opinion, we should be against this bill in its present form as it would deprive civil servants of a possible holiday whereas its object is to give more importance to remembrance day.
(Text):


Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak briefly on this bill I too would congratulate the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) who has shown an interest in this subject over many years. The hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) referred to a distinguished representative of his riding who had something to say about the early legislation on this matter, and I was reminded of comments made by the gentleman who gave his name to the city where I live, General Sir Isaac Brock, one of the great Canadian veterans who, speaking in the Upper Canada legislature on July 27, 1812, said:
We are engaged in an awful and eventful contest. By unanimity and dispatch in our councils and by vigour in our operations, we will teach the enemy this lesson: that a country defended by free men, enthusiastically devoted to the cause of their king and constitution, can never be conquered.
It is strange that just as I came across this I received at the same time an invitation to be present at a large veterans gathering.of servicemen from Ontario and New York state where they are celebrating their remembrance very shortly together.
I think it is well said that periodically we should have a moment to pause in our deliberations, which are largely directed to economic considerations, in order to consider something of those things which have been referred to as being of the spirit. When we think of what has been the concern of veterans over the centuries we remember that portion of the church of England prayer book where the priest says, "Give peace in our time O Lord". This actually goes back to the time when my ancestors who were from the Scandinavian Norseland were ravaging
Civil Service Act
Anglo-Saxon England, and the reply of the congregation, many of them battle weary, was:
Because there is none other that tightest for us, but only Thou, O God.
It was a petition, almost a despairing cry, and in these happier days when the matters that are uppermost in our minds are not matters so much of war and peace, surely it is most important that we keep in mind those people who have fought for this country and who have died that we may live in the dignity that we do.
After every great war men have heard the quiet voices of the dead amid the surrounding clamour whispering a prayer for the peace of the world they died to save. Brockington of Canada, this noble voice of so many of our aspirations and hopes, speaks of the brotherhood of the brave. At one time he said:
Now what manner of men were they? They were bone of our bone, blood of our blood, the gold of our rocks, the salt of our beloved earth. The colours of their individual characters were as varied as the maple trees in the glowing of our autumn. But this was the pattern of their fibre. They all loved peace and hated the cruel necessities of war. They were kind to little children-even to the children of their enemies.
My friend who just spoke referred to some of his friends in air crew and this reminds me of the fact that the cuff links I wear were given to me by Brigadier Paul Triquet, who was a companion many years ago. His gallant men so frequently were the closest people on earth at that time to me. Only at great cost to ourselves can we forget those of them who are dead.
I think that the member who has had the foresight and concern to bring forward this legislation is seeking to change this remembrance day from one merely of merriment and perhaps casual refreshment to one where we are actually brought back even for a short while, even for a short period of hours or minutes, to what this day actually means. He referred to the resolution passed by the Royal Canadian Legion in Halifax in 1962. I have read that resolution carefully. I think the important words in it are to the effect that "the Legion looks to the government to set an example to the whole nation of the significance of remembrance day." As the hon. member said, another resolution was brought forward which provided that every person engaged in essential services should have an opportunity to attend a remembrance day service.
I am not sure whether or not the bill in its present form is exactly what those people who have studied the matter over many years would wish. I rather suspect that the Royal Canadian Legion, which at the present time is our best channel of communication
146S

Civil Service Act
on this subject, has been exposed to two almost diametrically opposed views, but in any event I think that the bill should be considered carefully by the veterans affairs committee because it points up the fact that at the present time the day is tending to become simply a statutory holiday without the significance that we would wish it to have.
Elsewhere in his comments to the people of Canada Leonard Brockington spoke about the old play, "The Bluebird". You may remember that it was a story of children who were seeking to find the bluebird, the bluebird that in fact turned out to be the blackbird in the wicker cage in the kitchen, but they did not know it. This is a lovely story, and as the children entered the land of memory one of them said to her who was guiding them:
How can we see them when they are dead?
And she answered:
How can they be dead when they live in your memory?
Having been to a good number of school occasions where young people have been compelled as a matter of routine to observe remembrance day, I am satisfied that young people do care when somebody who is a little older takes the time to talk to them quietly and earnestly, because after all most of these people, this rich legacy of dead in the wars of Canada, were young people, young in heart, the brave and the young and the fresh. The tragedy is that as we sit even in this august chamber we lose something of that freshness, that cleanness and that spirit of dedication that they had.
There is a story about the meditation room in a British aircraft carrier during the second world war. In this place of worship there was, of course, a picture of the holy family, a Bible and certain religious relics. But there were also a number of paintings of England. A stranger who was visiting the ship went into this room and he looked around and said, "I do not really see the propriety of these pictures of England on this altar". The captain of the ship said, "Sir, when you are fighting for England every picture of England is sacred also".
I think that is very much how our sons felt about Canada, those people who would have liked to come back here and have had children, who would have liked to have businesses, farms, fishing boats and the ordinary joys. They would have liked to serve Canada in this place had the opportunity been theirs. I think that if we do anything other than remember these people in the most dignified and earnest way we can we are letting down not them but us. In Coriolanus
[Mr. Matheson.l
Shakespeare says that "Ingratitude is monstrous, and for the multitude to be ungrateful were to make a monster of the multitude".
So, Mr. Speaker, with all others who have spoken I commend our old friend from Kootenay West who so often says these things better than we can ourselves. I take my seat now in order that the government may have the opportunity to dispose of this bill in the fashion that has been indicated by previous speakers.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Postmaster General:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Watson MacNaught: Since it is now eight minutes to six, I wonder if I could suggest that it would be most unfair to any hon. member to start a debate on a private bill at this late time. I believe it would be the view of the house that, by unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, you could call it six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is just one comment I might make, and at least one other member who is present will confirm what I say. There was a meeting of the party representatives with the Secretary of State a few minutes ago. I believe he intends to make an announcement to the house about the business for the next number of days. Perhaps we might contain ourselves, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare would say, until the Secretary of State arrives.


Mr. Lloyd:: Perhaps it would be appropriate if we were to exercise some patience to see if an opportunity would not present itself for us to hear from the Secretary of State. I take this opportunity of joining with other hon. members in considering the matter of deferring the debate on private bills. It is rather relaxing for those of us who come from the maritime provinces to take advantage of this opportunity. We might take advantage of it. However, I understand the Secretary of State has now arrived.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Now that the Secretary of State has returned and the government will not collapse, as he suggested to us the other day, we are waiting to hear from him with regard to the forecast of the business for the next few days and an announcement as to whether or not the house will be sitting on July 1.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the clock does not indicate six o'clock, and I am a little unaware of what has happened. However, I apologize for not being in my seat. The business for the first part of next week has already been prescribed, that is up until Wednesday night, unless after the vote on Monday hon. members feel inclined to decide that the budget has been debated long enough and allow the main motion to pass.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There may be dissolution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might use the words of a very great Canadian who sat in this house for many years and say, if we are spared, when the budget debate is concluded, the first item the government would like to call is the department of industry bill, to be followed by the resolution on the Atlantic development board. I believe the debate on that is just about concluded. If we could conclude those two items on Thursday and the Atlantic board bill had been introduced on Thursday and hon. members were agreeable, we would take it on Friday. Of course, if we do not get the resolution through, we could not take the bill on Friday. The third item of business would be the economic council, subject to a matter about which I spoke to the representatives of the other parties with respect to one item on the order paper about which there may be some obligation on the government and the house to take some action. I am looking into that point.
It is felt by the government, and I think it will probably be felt by most hon. mem-
Business of the House bers that in view of the great amount of business there is to be done, we could show our respect for our country best on July 1 by getting on with the country's business, and that is what we would propose to do. I think the Minister of Finance will move on Monday, July 1, to go into committee of supply. We feel we should not go any longer without getting some of the departments entered so we can get on with the estimates.


George Clyde Nowlan: I know the words the hon. member used are almost identical to the ones I have heard used when I sat on the other side of the house, but I think there has been a practice to adjourn for the evening of July 1 if the house would ordinarily be sitting. I think July 1 is on a Monday. I wondered if consideration had been given to that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be glad to consider that, particularly since it will be a supply motion; if the opposition would be agreeable to adjourning that evening of July 1,1 imagine there would be no objection from this side.


George Clyde Nowlan: There is some sort of celebration on the lawn in which everyone is supposed to join; I do not know what it is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am perfectly happy to give consideration to that suggestion.


George Clyde Nowlan: The mere fact I suggested it does not mean I will acquiesce.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 24, 1963