1963-06-25

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in English and French of a letter I addressed on June 20 to the premiers of all the provinces concerning the Canada-wide pension program.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: wonder whether the Prime Minister would be prepared to have the letter which he tabled, and which has been sent to all the premiers, regarding the pension plan, included in Hansard as an appendix. It would be very useful to hon. members.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be glad to do that.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


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



AGRICULTURE


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house that I am today writing to the ministers of agriculture for the four western provinces informing them that, subject to the approval by parliament of a vote for the purpose, the government is prepared to make a financial contribution toward the capital cost of constructing and equipping a college of veterinary medicine in western Canada.
The estimate which in due course will be presented to parliament for this purpose will be for a grant of 25 per cent of the cost to a maximum of $625,000. Decision as to the province in which the college will be located will be a matter of arrangement among the western provinces and universities.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I think all those who are interested in the agricultural industry in Canada will appreciate the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture. As part of the program of
developing the beef cattle industry it became clear some years ago that there had to be a greater supply of veterinarians in Canada. To that end I had proposed to the four western provinces that they co-operate in the building of this institution and set an example for all similar types of activity in this country whereby co-operation of the various provinces could achieve the end desired by all.
I think the size of the grant proposed by the minister is sensible, because even though the responsibility for education rests with the provinces it is also a fact that the need for veterinarians in the federal service is very great. I think 25 per cent represents approximately the extent to which the federal government should participate. With respect to making a capital grant rather than an operational grant, I think this will probably create a precedent that may prove troublesome in the future, but so far as the statement of the minister is concerned I think the house will generally agree that it is good news.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group appreciate the announcement made by the Minister of Agriculture, except that we think the federal contribution is rather small in view of the fact that a veterinary college is needed very badly in western Canada. It is recognized and accepted in Canada that the health of animals is a federal responsibility, and we certainly are aware that there is a need for an additional veterinary college to train veterinarians to look after the health of animals. However, when the situation arises where an institution of this nature is being built for the benefit of more than one province, surely this is an area where the federal government should participate rather heavily. While we welcome the announcement that the federal government is finally going to make a tangible offer with respect to building this college, we do not think 25 per cent to a maximum of $625,000 represents the responsibility that the federal government ought to shoulder in this respect.
I believe there is going to be a need for co-operation among the four western provinces in finding the other 75 per cent of the cost of construction and also with regard to the very real consideration of the operating costs after the institution is built. Surely we cannot expect one province to pay for the

Inquiries of the Ministry training of students from other provinces as veterinarians to look after the health of animals. While we welcome this announcement that something is going to be done, we do not feel that 25 per cent represents a fair share of the federal responsibility in this respect.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the Minister of Agriculture for his announcement that the federal government is prepared to make a grant of 25 per cent of the cost of building a veterinary college in western Canada. There is a crying need in all four western provinces for such a college. The growth of both the livestock and poultry industries has become an important factor in the economy of western Canada, and I think there will be widespread agreement that the minister has done a good thing in agreeing to this grant. I feel certain that the four western provinces will co-operate in seeing that such a veterinary college is constructed.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I promised the house
several weeks ago that when I was in a position to do so, I would report on the progress being made at the special assembly of the United Nations regarding the financing of the peace keeping operations of the organization. I am happy to report that the general assembly has now reached agreement on a number of measures concerned with financing of the United Nations peace keeping operations.
The first establishes principles as guide lines for the sharing of the costs of future peace keeping operations. Two resolutions provide for the financing of the United Nations emergency force and ONUC for the last six months of this year. Another appeals to member states to pay up their arrears in respect of their assessed contributions for payment of these operations. Another resolution authorizes the secretary general to continue the sale of United Nations bonds until the end of 1963. A further resolution reestablishes the working group on the examination of administrative and budgetary procedures for the purpose of studying the establishment of a special scale of assessments for financing of future peace keeping operations involving heavy expenditures and of studying the ways and means for reaching a unanimous consensus on questions of
(Mr. Olson.]

principles relating to peace keeping operations in general. The working group is asked to report to the general assembly at its nineteenth session. As the house is aware, Canada is a member of this working group of 21 countries. The seventh and last resolution requests the secretary general to consult all member states and other interested organizations on the desirability and feasibility of establishing a peace fund to receive voluntary contributions from member states as well as from organizations and individuals and to report to the eighteenth session of the assembly.
The Canadian delegation at this special assembly, Mr. Speaker, has played a leading role in the negotiations which led to the adoption of this package of resolutions. I believe that real progress has been achieved at this fourth special session of the general assembly. A solution to the immediate need of the United Nations as regards the peace keeping operations in the Middle East and in the Congo has been found. Further, the general consensus which has emerged in establishing guide lines for the sharing of costs of future peace keeping operations marks an important step in the search for a permanent solution to this problem.
These resolutions, of course, must go to the plenary session, but in view of the large majority which they received in the committee I have no reason to believe that they will fail of adoption. I am sure hon. members will want me to express their thanks to the Canadian delegation.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement which has been made is naturally received with pleasure. However, it does not meet the situation which will culminate on January 1 next. In other words, members of the United Nations refusing to pay their assessments are thereby going to harm this organization. Indeed, if they continue in their course the strength, power and effectiveness of the United Nations as an organization will have been largely emasculated.
What the minister has placed before us is simply a plan for the time being, setting out guide lines as to the courses to be followed. The large issue of the responsibility of member nations in the United Nations to make their contributions and to meet their levies in connection with peace keeping operations, has not been met.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side are pleased to note that this progress has been made as outlined in the report given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Canada has an enviable reputation for carrying her share in the

struggle for peace and in the peaceful development of world resources, both material and human. I am sure our delegation at the United Nations has again proven this fact, and I feel assured that the government and the Secretary of State for External Affairs will continue to emphasize the importance which Canada places on making every possible effort for the continuance and improvement of this role of the United Nations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that some nations have refused to meet their assessments to permit the logical and proper financing of peace keeping operations in the manner in which it should be carried out. However, I agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs that, as a makeshift plan, the next best thing is to establish a peace keeping fund. I hope that when such a fund is established Canada will be a substantial contributor to it.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I directed a question to either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance and asked whether any representations, official or unofficial, had been received from the administration in Washington regarding certain portions of the budget, particularly those dealing with foreign investment. At that time, as I recall, it was stated that the matter would receive the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I now ask him whether or not such representations have been made, and whether indirectly our representatives in Washington were made aware of the fact that the United States administration regarded certain terms of the budget as discriminatory.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know of no such representations, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):
{Later:]


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday during the question period, I asked the Minister of Finance on what administrative grounds he based his decision to withdraw the 30 per cent tax on the sale of Canadian shares to foreign companies. The minister told me at that time that he would answer my question during the present debate. Now, he gave the house some explanation of budget matters last night and, at one time, he added, as reported on page 1497 of Hansard for June 24:
Inquiries of the Ministry
But nevertheless, having reread Hansard carefully, I am convinced in my own mind that my answers were at all times accurate and proper replies to the questions asked.
Mr. Speaker, the minister failed to answer the question I put to him, namely: what administrative reasons compelled him to withdraw the 30 per cent tax on the sale of Canadian shares to foreign companies.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry, but I am afraid the hon. member was not here yesterday when it seems to me this matter was thoroughly ventilated. The house rendered a decision yesterday, and I suggest to the hon. member that he raise this question during the budget debate or else during discussion of the budget resolutions.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is exactly what I was told last Friday. We are now considering the budget and the Minister of Finance gave some explanations yesterday. Now, this point has not been raised at all. This morning I read yesterday's Hansard to see if the minister had answered my question and he did not do so. This is the reason why I am asking it again today.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I would point out to the hon. member that the minister is not obliged to answer. He may answer if he wishes, or not. Therefore I suggest to the hon. member that he contain himself until the budget discussion starts.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was going over your remarks yesterday when the house leader for the official opposition raised a point of order, and I feel that your response to the hon. member for Lapointe is within the very same context. I think the point needs reiterating from our point of view-when I say "our" I mean the members of the opposition-that the fact that there is a debate in progress gives no opportunity or right or privilege to any member of the opposition to query a minister.
There is a distinction, surely, between what may be an opportunity to ask a question and get an answer in the course of debate and the right or privilege of asking a question directly across the floor of the house during the question period. I wanted to raise this point of order to be sure the Speaker understood that we in our group are not prepared to accept, without much further discussion, the argument that seemed to be presented yesterday, that when there was a debate on.

Inquiries of the Ministry such as the budget debate, that was the relevant place tor us to ask our question.
(Translation):


Mr, Gregoire:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On page-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry-


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: On the point of order?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order may I add to what has been said by the hon. member for Port Arthur and say that to rule out a question because an opportunity will be provided in the budget discussion which continues later today would be most improper. Every question could then be ruled out of order; because we all know, with due respect to Your Honour, that the budget debate is wide open and everything may be discussed during that debate.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to say a word in connection with this matter, which is not raised here for the first time; because I remember the attitude of some hon. members opposite when I sat on the other side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: The position seems to be that there is no right, because of what is happening now, to query ministers. None the less this has been happening now for about a week, and certainly it happened yesterday for at least an hour, if not more, or an hour and a half.


An hon. Member:: That is a different point.


Lionel Chevrier: When questions are under debate it has never been the practice to allow repetition such as is being attempted at this time. My submission to you, sir, is that there will be an opportunity, not only today but tomorrow in the course of the budget debate, and there will be a still greater opportunity on the budget resolutions, to go into these matters in detail. I believe, sir, that there should be some finality to the procedure and the process which it is being sought to follow.


Mr. Graffley:: That is a sort of quasi closure.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my point is this. I intend to ask a question of the Minister of Finance which is related to the 11 per cent sales tax imposed in the budget. Since returning from my constituency, having had numerous questions asked of me on this point, I approached the whip, and I find that I cannot enter this debate
[Mr. Fisher.)
because too many hon. members want to speak on these subjects. Therefore I would be debarred from speaking, and I feel I have a right to ask a question somewhat similar to the one that has already been put.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. I believe that in the specific case we are considering now, since the Minister of Finance on Friday last answered this-
I will be glad to take this up in the course of the debate.
-and inasmuch as yesterday afternoon, while clarifying the details of the budget, the Minister of Finance did not satisfy us by giving the necessary explanations, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that since the Minister of Finance promised it himself we would have a clarification of the administrative reasons which led to the withdrawal of the 30 per cent tax.
(Text) :


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, might I draw Your Honour's attention to citation 171 of Beauchesne which deals with the kinds of questions which must not be asked. A question must not-
(r) refer to debate or answers to questions of the current session.
Then (v):
-anticipate an order of the day or other matters.
(w) raise a matter of policy too large to be dealt with in the limits of an answer to a question.
I submit that on all three counts the hon. gentleman's question would be out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may be permitted to refer to section 171 of Beauchesne I should like to add to the list mentioned (c), which says that a question oral or written must not-
-multiply, with slight variations, a similar question on the same point.
And also (d), that a question should not-
-repeat in substance a question already answered, or to which an answer has been refused.
As indicated yesterday and several times previously I have, I hope with some justice, ruled that a question should not be repetitious, that in my opinion this was a matter for debate on the budget resolutions, and that this was anticipating the debate. I also mentioned earlier today that the minister does not have to accept a question, and that in effect during the question period we are debating the budget. For all these reasons it seems to me we would make much faster progress, unless a question is extremely urgent or very important, by proceeding during the question period with other matters.

(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the fact that it is impossible to get an answer to that question, I make it a point of privilege, because the privileges of the members of the house in that respect are violated most flagrantly. I maintain that the Minister of Finance misled the house when he stated that he withdrew that tax because of administrative reasons. I say that he did so under pressure from people above the members of the house and I mean by that the large international financiers.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Of course hon. members will realize that I am trying to be right and also just in the matter under dispute, but I must tell the hon. member that I see no question of privilege in what he has raised.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question relating to the budget, and I think it is in order. My question relates to the announcement that the minister is to appear on the national C.B.C. network tonight to answer questions on his budget and its presentation. My question is, has the minister any answers to give the television audience in this matter which he has not given to the house?


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am not appearing on any network tonight. Perhaps I should just correct what I said. I did give a tape recording, not to the C.B.C. but to another network, concerning a few remarks I made yesterday. I believe that will be broadcast this evening, but not by the C.B.C.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. When the Minister of Labour announced in this house a $500 bonus to winter home builders, was he aware of the finance minister's intention at that time to impose an 11 per cent tax on building materials?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, that question is not in order.


William Heward Grafftey: Excuse me; the question was-?


Mr. Speaker:: Not in order.


William Heward Grafftey: I am sorry, I did not hear your ruling, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: I said your question was not in order, or was out of order; it amounts to the same thing.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: My
question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. I should like to ask him
Inquiries of the Ministry whether a real estate offer to purchase constitutes a bona fide contract under the new tax regulations.


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: I do not think I should be expected to give a legal opinion.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I should like to point out that I do not think hon. members are entitled to ask ministers for legal opinions.
(Translation):


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-l'Assomplion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Does the government intend to grant exemption from the 11 per cent sales tax to building materials used in the erection of schools, colleges, educational institutions or churches, besides what was announced yesterday?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: This matter can be dealt with when this particular budget resolution is before the committee for discussion. (Translation):


Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago I had a question for the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Garland), but considering that the hon. member for Joliette-l'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) has asked a question along the same line, I refrain from repeating it.
(Text):


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday's press indicates that the timing of the tax withdrawal announcement made when the markets were still open on Wednesday was determined on the advice of senior officials of the Department of Finance who were alarmed at the rapid drop in the market indexes-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What is the question?


William Skoreyko: My question is, do Department of Finance officials henceforth have authority to direct spontaneously a course of action that will affect trading on the stock markets when and if it appears to dip?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member that he read my speech made yesterday in the house, and I think he will find the answer there.


Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Baffle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Finance a question regarding the unfair tax on prefabricated homes and he said he would be glad to look into the matter. I wonder whether he can tell me now if any adjustment will be made?
1530	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am seeing representatives of that particular industry this afternoon. When I have done so I will be conferring with my colleague the Minister of National Revenue, and if any announcements are to be made or any rulings or regulations issued I am sure my colleague will be capable of doing so.
(Translation):


Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compion-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) a question? How much did it cost the government to have the three Toronto advisers review the budget after the sudden appearance of the president of the stock exchange, Mr. Kierans?
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered questions about the terms on which these gentlemen were engaged, and if the hon. member would like to put a question on the order paper I would be glad to find out exactly how much they received.


Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to that asked by the hon. member for Edmonton East. I should like the minister to clarify the statement he made yesterday when he said, "In the light of the stock market action at the time"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That sort of question is not within the rules. In further elaboration I would refer the hon. member to Beau-chesne, section 171	(r), which reads as
follows:
(r) refer to debate or answers to questions of the current session.


Mr. Heber E. Smith (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question relating indirectly to the withdrawal of the 30 per cent tax. When the announcement was made no mention-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I very much dislike interrupting the hon. member but this is similar to the previous question.


Heber Edgar Smith: It is not similar. If the Speaker will hear me out he will see that it is not similar. Will the Minister of Finance assure us that the withdrawal of the 30 per cent tax will also apply to companies not listed on the stock exchanges? Has the tax been withdrawn in their case as well?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, and it is in reference to the 11 per cent sales tax and large projects such as the Peace river power project. Has consideration been given to large scale projects now in the course of construction where such projects are not being


built under one contract but under a series of contracts, and where such contracts of necessity could not have been called prior to the budget date; and will the new contracts in such cases be subject to the 11 per cent sales tax?


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for the interesting question, but it should be on the order paper.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of order, Mr. Speaker. I think, if there ever was a question of an urgent nature to the whole nation, it is certainly this, because of the spasmodic and uncertain way in which the government has introduced the regulations governing the tax.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I can say there is nothing more urgent than that a degree of certainty be established in regard to these so-called regulations.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to the point of order. Further to what the Leader of the Opposition has said, to my own certain knowledge within the province of British Columbia and elsewhere throughout Canada there are large corporations now in the course of constructing projects which have had to modify their financing at the most critical time, and have had to go into new feasibility studies. The need is urgent, and it should be actually quite easy within the 60 days of decision to give an answer on this subject, which is important.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no question about the importance of the matter. The only point is that this is question time, and whether it should be raised at this time. If it should be raised at all it should be in a very pointed, concise question. That is all.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the question which I asked the Minister of Finance, in view of the urgency I am wondering whether he would take it as notice; and I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Have representations been received from the province of British Columbia concerning the effect of the 11 per cent sales tax on the Peace river project?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall have to look into that, Mr. Speaker. I am not aware that they have been, but I shall look into it as soon as I get back to my office.
(Translation):


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Since the minister deemed it necessary to consult experts of the big financial interests, has it not occurred to him to consult also

experts on financial matters pertaining to the Canadian families?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I must interrupt once more to say this is an argumentative question, and another of the type that should not be asked at this time.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address to the Prime Minister a question of national importunity. In view of the fact that Mr. R. J. Perrault, Liberal party leader in British Columbia, recently informed a public meeting in Nelson that he had been in contact with him concerning the Columbia river treaty, and in view of the fact that he also stated it was his personal belief that the Mica creek dam is going ahead first, is the Prime Minister in a position to give the house any information on this question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, these negotiations are still going on.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that Mr. Perrault has suggested that no decision should be taken on the high Arrow dam until a further study of the situation has been made, would the Prime Minister consult with Mr. Perrault, or are his talks confined to Premier Bennett?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be very glad to make inquiries as to what Mr. Perrault actually said.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In the matter of rail line abandonment, is the federal government prepared to consider legislation allowing for the transfer and acquisition of lines and property designated for abandonment by a municipal or provincial transportation utility or corporation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has already dealt with this matter in answer to similar questions.


Edward Nasserden: On a point of privilege, I do not believe the Minister of Transport-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: There is no point of privilege there.



SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL FERRY SERVICE BETWEEN NOVA SCOTIA AND NEW ENGLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the government of Nova Scotia has requested the federal government to establish a second year round ferry service between Nova Scotia and New England to supplement the service now provided by the ferry Bluenose, will the minister reconsider this important matter in the light of the economic benefits which such a service would provide to the primary and tourist interests of the Atlantic provinces?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Transport):: I read with interest in the paper that a brief had been sent to me on the subject. It has not been received as yet. When it is received I will give the matter consideration, though I would point out that the studies made by the former government did not indicate that it was economically feasible to add a ferry. However, I will look into the whole matter.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question; I suppose this is really not a question but a comment. In view of the marked expansion which has taken place in the fishing industry in the last few years as a result of Conservative legislation, and the need of additional ferry service to supply the American market-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stuart A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister received a representation requesting federal participation in a feasibility study of the Okanagan-Shuswap canal project, and is it correct to assume that the minister's response to any such presentation has been a refusal?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the only knowledge I have of that proposal is what I have read in the interior newspapers of British Columbia. To my knowledge no request, either official or unofficial, has been received in connection with it, and I cannot say any more at this time, of course.


Stuart A. Fleming: A
supplementary question. Did the minister not receive a verbal request from Mr. Henry Tremblay in this regard?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I have no recollection of that whatsoever. I know Mr. Tremblay. He lives in Vernon.


Stuart A. Fleming: A
Liberal campaign manager.


Arthur Laing: I have no recollection that he mentioned this matter to me at all. There were some newspapers either forwarded to me or which I saw in the Okanagan valley, but that is the only knowledge I have of the matter.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister of defence. What type or types of aircraft have been supplied or are to be supplied to the R.C.A.F. contingent in Yemen, and from where are those aircraft to be drawn?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.



RED CHINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister report to the house on the trade negotiations with China, particularly with reference to importation of textiles?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give any report other than to say that the chief commissioner of the Canadian wheat board is, I believe, now in Hong Kong carrying on these negotiations. I have had no reports, in any event, as to what has happened since he left, so I am not in a position to give a report to the house at the present time. As I said previously, I do not think it would be in the public interest to reveal the respective positions of the negotiators while the negotiations are in progress.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: A supplementary question. Can the minister assure the house that the government is prepared to put up the necessary credit so the chief commissioner may be able to make arrangements for sales?


Mitchell William Sharp: I cannot give that assurance, but it is not my anticipation that any difficulties will arise in that connection.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Maiher (New Weslminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the government of British Columbia failed to grant to the federal department the right, requested by the federal department, for its staff members to inspect the Garibaldi park area which has recently been diverted by the B.C. government to private uses?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, first of all I think there is an implication in the question which is not correct. The suggestion is that part of the park has been taken over by means of a lease, granted, I understand, by the government of British Columbia to some private operators. I do not think that is the case. I think the property which has been leased is adjacent to the provincial park. When I came to this post I publicly offered, or renewed an offer which had been made on two previous occasions, to consider turning Garibaldi into a national park, and later on a I wrote a letter to the premier of British Columbia. I should like to read part of this letter to indicate what I said:
It was certainly not my intention to suggest that British Columbia simply turn the area over to the federal government without having a better understanding of precisely the way the development would be carried out. I am writing to ask you if you will grant my department permission in the current year to undertake within the present boundaries of Garibaldi park ... a complete survey of the varied potentialities which could be developed within a national park.
To that letter I have as yet received no reply.



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Yesterday I sent the Minister of Trade and Commerce notice of a question, but because of the length of the question period I did not make my inquiry. Perhaps the minister would answer my question today.
I have a map showing the location of the grain delivery points in Saskatchewan which were placed on a 12 bushel quota yesterday, June 24. Can the minister explain why nearly all these points are in the western half of the

province, while less than a dozen are to be found in the whole of southeastern Saskatchewan?


Mitchell William Sharp: A similar question was asked yesterday, and I said that at least on one ground there was no one who would think it had anything to do with politics. But I will bring this question to the attention of the Canadian wheat board, as I am sure the hon. member would wish, to see if they can raise the quotas in places where they are now low.


James Ernest Pascoe: Does the minister's reply indicate that the railways have placed a restriction on the movement of grain from the southeastern areas of Saskatchewan, and is this restriction due to the fact that there is a storage congestion at the lakehead resulting from a drop in wheat exports in the past few weeks?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not aware that those are the facts. As I reported to the house a few days ago, when we took office there was a sharp drop in export sales-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfort-Tis-dale):: Would the minister now indicate
whether there is any necessity to build a terminal in this area, which has only five and six bushel quotas?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a question for the minister of defence. Has the hon. gentleman's attention been directed to the speech of President Kennedy at Bonn as reported in the Globe and Mail on Tuesday, June 25, in which he is reported to have referred to the prospect of persuading other countries not to grasp the nuclear nettle? If so, would he care to comment on this eminently reasonable observation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



NUCLEAR WARHEADS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has a general agreement with the United States for the acquisition of nuclear warheads by Canada under a system of joint control been signed as yet? If not, what is the reason for the delay?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: It has not been signed yet, and the reason for the delay is to make sure that when it is signed it is a proper agreement.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the Prime Minister not aware that this is a very simple type of agreement, so far as the general agreement is concerned, and that the only reason for delay so far as I can see is the lack of willingness of his government to sign it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It may be a simple type of agreement, but it took the previous government three years to decide to do nothing about it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If there is any delay in this matter, Mr. Speaker, it is not due to the Canadian side of negotiations.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a further supplementary question. Is the Prime Minister aware that the minister of defence stated, at the time this government was formed, that this agreement would be signed within a month or thereabouts?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It takes two to sign an agreement, Mr. Speaker. We hope the signatories to this agreement will be announced to the house very shortly, and I repeat it will not take three years.
(Translation):



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
On Friday March 24, I directed a question to the Minister of Labour concerning the strike of 200 miners at the Solbec mine which has been going on since March 1, in the province of Quebec. I asked him whether he had a report on that matter and he answered "no".
In respect to the last demonstrations which took place during the week end, can the Minister of Labour assure me that he will get information on that matter in order to make a report to the house as soon as possible?
(Text) :


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: In so far as the federal department of labour is responsible for this matter, I will be glad to make inquiries.
1534	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct an uncontroversial question to the Minister of Labour.
Can the minister tell us whether the government intends to agree to the request from the Quebec department of highways aimed at extending to non permanent employees of that department the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act?
(Text):


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be glad to make inquiries of the unemployment insurance commission, and advise the hon. member as to the results.



INQUIRY AS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF GILL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour with reference to a question asked by the hon. member for Lake St. John on May 20 concerning the Gill report. Is the minister now considering the possibility of implementing some of the recommendations made in the Gill report?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Gill committee report is currently under study, and when the government is in the position to make a decision on this matter appropriate legislation will be introduced into the House of Commons.


Raymond Langlois: Will the minister tell the house approximately when he intends to implement the recommendations in this report?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It will depend upon the progress made in studying the recommendations of the Gill committee.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Knowing of the great concern the hon. gentleman has for the protection of the salmon industry on the west coast and particularly for the preservation of our salmon spawning rivers such as the Fraser, I would like to ask him if his attention has been drawn to an item in the Trail Times of June 18 to the effect that provision should be made for the


diversion of Columbia river waters into the Fraser-Thompson system. Would the minister care to comment on this suggestion, which emanated from one Roy Perrault?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: The article in the Trail Times to which the hon. member referred has not been brought to my attention.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. On June 7 I asked the minister if he and his colleagues would consider setting up a special committee of this house to investigate a proposal to divide the Northwest Territories into two separate territories. In reply the minister said, as reported on page 780 of Hansard:
I think that with regard to any possible change in the present policy of presenting bills to the house I would have to take the question as notice and make a further study. I may be doing that in a few days.
My question is this. Is the minister now in a position to advise the house whether he and his colleagues have made any decision since June 7?


Arthur Laing: Not today, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State who has jurisdiction over the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Can the minister tell the house whether the C.B.C. intends to grant soon a French language television station to Saskatchewan, a request which has been made many times? (Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will bring the question to the attention of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and let the hon. gentleman know their answer in due course.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES ROYAL COMMISSION  REQUEST FOR REPRESENTA- TION OF ETHNIC GROUP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Slogan: I have a
question for the Prime Minister. It refers to the proposed commission on biculturalism. Will the Prime Minister assure the house that to achieve the purposes of this commission, as stated in the speech from the throne, one or more appointments will be made of Canadian elements of other than Anglo-Saxon or French origin in order that recognition may be given -and I quote from the speech from the throne-to "the contribution of other cultures"?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope and believe that the appointments to the commission will be such as to take all aspects of our national life into consideration.


Joseph Slogan: I wonder if the Prime Minister can give us any indication when he expects this commission to be set up.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I had hoped to make an announcement about the commission when all the replies had been received from the provinces. I thought it would be courteous to wait until those replies were in. We are still awaiting a reply from British Columbia.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement in Ghana's national assembly on June 21 by President Nkrumah that without NATO weapons and support Portugal "could not maintain for a year the vast apparatus she employs for the suppression of the people and the exploitation of the resources of large areas of the African continent", would the minister assure the house that Canada does not and will not supply Portugal with any military aid, and that Canada will, moreover, prevail on its NATO allies to cut off all such aid from Portugal?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. In reply I would say that Canada has not delivered mutual aid to Portugal since November, 1960. Earlier shipments to Portugal, as to other NATO countries, had been made on the understanding that they would be used only to strengthen the defensive capacity of the organization and only for the defence of the NATO area as defined in article VI of the north Atlantic treaty, which does not include Angola.
The same situation prevails at the present time in that there have been no contributions of Canadian military assistance to Portugal
Inquiries of the Ministry since November, 1960, and it is the intention of the present government to continue the long standing Canadian policy of giving mutual aid only for the defence of the NATO area.
I might add that Canada's views on the use to which mutual aid can appropriately be put are well known to all members of the NATO alliance.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister inform the house whether the recently reported withdrawal of the French fleet from NATO command will affect Canadian interests and, if so, would the minister care to comment?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The Canadian government and other NATO governments have been officially informed of the intention of the government of France to withdraw its naval forces assigned to NATO and place these forces under national command. The implications of this aspect of French policy are now the subject of study and discussion by the NATO council and NATO military authorities, and I am not on that account in a position to comment at this time. The Canadian government for its part intends to carry out Canada's own defence commitments to NATO within the NATO framework.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalf-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs involving a matter of great concern to many veterans in Canada. Can the minister say whether war veterans allowance recipients over 70 will get the full benefit of the $10 payment under the Canada pension plan?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to inform the hon. gentleman that I cannot possibly answer that question at the moment. These announcements will be made in due course.


George Louis Chatterton: May I ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do think that question could be raised a little later on the budget resolutions or even during the budget debate, or it could be put on the order paper.

Inquiries of the Ministry ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY



REPORTED REFUSAL TO PERMIT RE-ENLISTMENT OF PETTY OFFICER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister now received a letter complaining that Eric Petersen was discharged from the navy as a security risk because his father in law was a communist when Mr. Petersen was a baby? If the minister cannot report yet on this particular case, can he now state whether the political beliefs of a relative determine whether a serviceman is a security risk?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the letter has been received and a review has been commenced.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. On June 17, when I believe the minister was absent from the house, I addressed a question to the Minister of Transport concerning reports that members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were using the strikebound planes of Pacific Western Airlines between Calgary and Edmonton. The Minister of Transport told me that inasmuch as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were involved, he would refer the matter to the Minister of Justice.
My question is, has the minister been able to determine whether these reports were well founded, and if they were well founded has he taken steps to ensure that the members of this force will be using the alternative means of transport available?


Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Transport did bring this question to my attention, and the answer I have is as follows. The strike I understand is not recognized as a legal strike, as the participants have not gone through conciliation, and it has never entered the minds of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that they were taking part in strikebreaking activities. The strike affects only a small percentage of Pacific Western Airlines employees. Pacific Western Airlines service is being used by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police between Calgary and Edmonton chiefly for the escorting of female prisoners because the fare is cheaper and the schedules are more convenient.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I address a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Will the Minister of Labour inform this house whether the strike in which Pacific Western Airlines is involved is considered to be a legal strike by the federal Department of Labour or the labour relations board?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The officers of the Department of Labour have been in close touch with this situation. Their services have been available to the disputants. In so far as the legality of the strike is concerned, that is a matter that is not for me to deal with on the orders of the day.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I phrase my supplementary question in another way. Have the striking unions which are involved in this dispute with Pacific Western Airlines complied with the provisions of the Canada labour relations act?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I answer that question in this way, Mr. Speaker. I have received no evidence that would indicate that they have not complied.
(Translation):



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could he tell the house whether he has received the information he promised to get last week concerning the R.C.M.P.'s use of bilingual summons and warrants?
Moreover, since Beauchesne has been referred to on many occasions since the beginning of the session, could he tell us what progress is being made on the translation of that treatise?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first part of the question, I must say that the Prime Minister has called my attention on this matter, which is under consideration by the R.C.M.P. I will inform the house as soon as I have a full report.
But, for the information of the hon. member, I should like to say that when a violation occurs on parliament hill or on drives or roads falling under the jurisdiction of the R.C.M.P., it is the practice to issue warrants in both languages.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of Justice assure the house that the R.C.M.P. will stop annoying the citizen of Hull they were after last week, until it has been determined whether the R.C.M.P. is using bilingual warrants?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that assurance to the house because under the present Department of Justice Act, R.C.M.P. constables act as agents for the police force of the city of Ottawa, which is under the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario.
Furthermore, according to the constitution, English is the official language of that province. However, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, I have asked the R.C.M.P. to make an inquiry and, as soon as I have the facts at my disposal, I shall be able to give the house a full report not only on what happened on parliament hill but also in the city of Hull. In the meantime, I do not think I can add anything to what I have already said.


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary question. Could he tell us whether his government is thinking of setting up a parliamentary or federal authority to look after federal government property here in Ottawa? Could the Minister of Justice also recommend that the R.C.M.P. come directly under his authority as regards federal government property?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member speaks of my government, I hope he means his government as well, for, after all, it is the government of Canada. As for the second part of his question, the statutory orders which grant jurisdiction on parliament hill to the R.C.M.P. were submitted to this house by the then minister of justice the Hon. Mr. Fulton, and I do not know that these regulations have been modified.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question, arising from the question asked a moment ago by my hon. friend from Lapointe about Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. Could the Minister of Justice tell the house what progress has been made on that translation?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that the responsibility for the translation of Beauchesne does not rest with the Depart-28902-5-98
Inquiries of the Ministry ment of Justice. However, the Prime Minister has answered that question more than once, and I think it is under consideration.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out to hon. members that urgency should be one of the essentials of these questions. Some of the questions which have been asked recently could not properly be termed as very urgent.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. There have been newspaper reports to the effect that where a husband and wife are in receipt of old age security pensions, the $10 pension increase will be paid to only one of them. This is causing a great deal of concern, and I wonder whether the minister would clarify the matter and assure the house that the $10 will be paid to both the husband and wife where both are eligible to receive the old age security pension.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this is of course a matter of government policy. However, if my hon. friend will peruse the resolution which appears on the order paper I think he will find his fears allayed.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the minister of northern affairs, and ask him whether any discussions or negotiations are currently under way with the province of British Columbia regarding the Stewart-Cassiar road and the need for refinancing an extension of the agreement which was reached a few years ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is obviously a question for the order paper.



FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Forestry. In view of the current interest in the work of the North American

The Budget-Mr. Nasserden forestry commission, particularly on the part of those interested in forestry policies, can the minister give the house any information with respect to the meeting of the commission held in Ottawa last week, and will a published report be available to the hon. members who are interested?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of this question. The North American forestry commission was established in 1959, and held one of its regular biannual meetings in Ottawa last week. It was attended by delegations from the United States, Mexico, and the federal government of Canada; and it is most gratifying that nine of the 10 Canadian provinces were represented at this meeting. The director of forestry and forestry products of F.A.O. in Rome and members of his staff were also in attendance.
Topics discussed included forestry protection against fire, insects and disease; forest recreation; forest wild life; technical assistance programs in forestry, and of special interest to Canada, progress on the regional study of wood resource requirements of the United States and Canada.
I think it would be of interest, not only to the hon. member who asked the question but to the house, to note that the director of F.A.O.'s forest and forest products division stated that as a result of a comprehensive study made, the world supply of forest products would need to be doubled every 20 years. There were a number of other subjects discussed. The next meeting will be held in Washington in 1965, but in the meantime committees will continue to discuss problems of mutual interest.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, June 24, consideration of the 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.
Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to congratulate you on the honour given you in being elected Speaker of the House of Commons, and I also wish to congratulate the Deputy Speaker and the deputy chairman of committees. My remarks today on the budget will be of a general character because of the shortage of time and also because it would take too long to go into detail on each individual item.
The budget is usually regarded as one of the cornerstones marking the direction and purpose of an administration. This budget was


awaited with more than ordinary expectation. Everyone tended to believe that the Minister of Finance would reveal that boldness and decision which would justify the slogan "60 days of decision". However, sir, I believe there was never a greater disappointment or sense of betrayal experienced across the country. The mask of arrogance, so well known in the former Liberal administration which was swept from office in 1957, has already become the trademark of this cabinet. Never in my memory has a budget been launched under such a shadow of indiscretion.
Throughout the election campaign the Minister of Finance was the champion of stable government. Hon. gentlemen opposite, including the Prime Minister-1 am sorry to see he has left the house-were very concerned about Canada's image abroad. In that connection I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that on June 20 the Montreal Gazette carried a story which quotes a partner in one of the leading investment houses in this country as saying:
We found, on a check of our contacts overseas, that more harm has been done to Canada's reputation by this one budget than by all the actions of the Conservative government that preceded it.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) wants to face the facts. The first fact for the Minister of Finance to consider is his failure to appreciate the time honoured tradition that there be no possible breath of suspicion cast so far as budget discretion is concerned. The next fact for the Minister of Finance to consider is that there have spread across this country within the past several days rumours of fortunes made, and not the least of these rumours is the fact that there has been a close community of interest between the firms from which he chose his special assistants and the Liberal party itself. The action taken last-


An hon. Member:: You do not believe that.


Edward Nasserden: I certainly do believe it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. It appears to me that the hon. gentleman is now seeking to revive a debate on an amendment on which a vote of the house was taken last night-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -the first paragraph of which reads-


An hon. Member:: Dictating to the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not dictating to the house; I am seeking to exercise the same right of freedom of speech as other hon. members exercise and which I have never sought to challenge in this house.


John George Diefenbaker: Freedom of speech in the Smallwood tradition?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all concerned about the insults and innuendos of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). To resume the point of order, the house was asked last night to pass on a motion made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) which dealt with the secrecy of the budget. The house recorded its view on that, and the hon. gentleman is seeking to revive a debate in the same session on a subject on which the house has made a decision, which I submit is contrary to the rules of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of reviving something that has been decided. Just because a decision was made last night it is not going to operate as a bar, I am sure Your Honour will agree, to the discussion of a matter that is of national importance. As a matter of fact the hon. gentleman is not dealing with the vote; he is denied the right to refer to a vote, but he should not be denied full discussion of this matter for as long as this debate continues, otherwise my hon. friend's adherence to the principles of freedom of speech would be a sham and a delusion.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, you ruled during the question period that all these questions, one of which was precisely the question that has just been raised, would be discussed during the budget debate. At that time the Secretary of State by his-I would say grimaces but I think it would be the wrong word-attitude, showed his agreement with that course; seemed to be in full agreement with Your Honour's ruling that these were matters properly for the debate. I submit that by all the traditions of this house this matter is most pertinent to the debate and discussion on it should not be stopped at this time.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, just briefly to help you on that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Miller Bell: Well, it is very important. Section 148 (1) of Beauchesne's says:
-they cannot revive a debate already concluded_
I suggest very seriously that we have not concluded the budget debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Speaker, but we have concluded the debate on a specific motion made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings which called specifically into 28902-5-98J
The Budget-Mr. Nasserden question the secrecy of the budget. The house gave an overwhelming verdict last evening on that matter and it is, as Your Honour well knows, contrary to the rules of the house to seek to revive in the same session a debate on a matter on which the house has pronounced its verdict.


Thomas Miller Bell: We have not finished the debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is one of the most fundamental rules of this house, as all hon. members know, and I submit that the hon. gentleman is seeking to do precisely what is forbidden by the rules of the house.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, when you come to regard the proposition which has been outlined by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) you would have to carry it through and examine each and every paragraph in the amendment. I call to Your Honour's attention the fact that the second paragraph in the amendment says:
That in general his proposals will endanger and curtail the expansion of the economy;
If the ruling which my hon. friend seeks to obtain from Your Honour is accepted then, having in mind the wording of the second paragraph, nobody in continuing this debate could deal with any of the proposals in the budget at all. If you carry on and read each and every paragraph of the amendment Your Honour will see reference to most of the budgetary proposals. Surely it cannot be said that because the house when dividing voted the amendment down, hon. members are now prevented from dealing with the matters which are the subject of this amendment.


David Vaughan Pugh: Further to what the hon. member from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has said, Mr. Speaker, I know of no precedent whatsoever which says that once an amendment has been dealt with it stops debate on the whole subject under discussion, which is the budget and all things pertaining to it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Briefly, Mr. Speaker, I think it has been a long established practice in this house that the subject matter discussed in the debate on the budget is wide and far reaching and covers anything having to do with government policy. I think that any attempt to confine hon. members in their discussion in the budget debate would be a new precedent and something which we should resist.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I may say, sir, that I do not-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -intend in the least to insist. I quite agree with the hon. member

The Budget[DOT]-Mr. Nasserden lor Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), as to the very general character of the second paragraph of the amendment:
That in general his proposals will endanger and curtail the expansion of the economy;
-that, though the house did in effect pronounce upon that, it is of such a general character that it would be almost impossible for anyone to determine whether the subsequent debate was on that subject. I suggest, on the other hand, that paragraph 1 was of a very specific and categorical character. I will read it:
This house regrets that the Minister of Finance by failing to maintain the constitutional practice of the essential secrecy of the budget has seriously weakened public confidence;


An hon. Member:: That is true, too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was the first paragraph. That was a specific charge. The house pronounced upon that, and it seems to me that in respect of that paragraph, because of its very specific nature and because of the rules of the house, it is contrary to the rules to seek to revive debate on that particular matter.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) cannot select something with which he happens to be in disagreement without going on and selecting the other items as well. The third paragraph is also specific and deals with the sales tax on certain building materials, and so on. The whole proposition put before us yesterday and the day before was on an amendment; it was not a main motion. The whole subject matter of the budget is under discussion, and I think during the course of the budget debate the whole subject matter should be available to hon. members if they wish to discuss it. This restriction is a sample of Grit closure that we saw in days gone by.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that when these subamendments are made and they have certain things in them, certainly when we vote on the amendment we are voting on a non-confidence motion and we cannot possibly separate these various items unless we vote on them individually. I think that is the reason for our hon. friends to the left abstaining from voting last night, because there was a situation that was almost impossible.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They chickened out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not going to ask Your Honour to make a ruling on the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It certainly seemed to me that I should do what was done so frequently by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), and more particularly by Mr. Fleming when they were sitting on this side of the house; that is, draw the attention of the house to the rules. I think this is the first time I have done that in the course of debate during this session, and today is June 25 and parliament met on May 16. I do not think that there were ever three days in the sessions when Mr. Fleming was here but that this kind of point of order was raised by hon. gentlemen now on the benches opposite. But there is certainly no desire on the part of the government to restrict debate in any way. If it is the sense of the house that it wishes to debate something that the house has already decided upon, I will not embarrass Your Honour by suggesting that you rule on the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if it had not
been for the gratuitous observation of the hon. gentleman I would not have said anything. This is merely another strategic manoeuvre on his part.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have heard enough for the moment. As is usual in these questions a lot is to be said for both sides. I am told that a good Speaker should be blind in one eye and deaf in one ear. Therefore it seems to me that the usual modicum of discretion should apply and I shall allow the hon. member to continue.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, my first observation would be that it has taken approximately 20 minutes of my time to resolve the point of order raised by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill). I had not intended to say anything about the business of the house, but his intervention leads me along that way and this might be as good a time as any to say something in that regard. He has failed to expedite the business of this House of Commons satisfactorily and has sought to cover up this failure by the type of tactics he has employed today. The committee structure of the House of Commons is at a standstill in this session, despite the fact we have been in session for some weeks now. The greatest sham ever visited upon this parliament was the setting up of a defence committee, a committee which was set up to silence members of the government party and the sort of questions they were asking in regard to defence matters. Their chagrin was so great on that question that not one single backbencher on the government side spoke on the subject. I think it is fair to say that there was a sullen silence,

particularly from the hon. members from Quebec, when that action was taken in this house.
If I can get down to the budget I should like to say that the action taken last Wednesday was not a responsible one. This was not the type of action one would expect from a minister widely known for his background as an economist, an accountant, and a trader in the investment community of Toronto. There can be only one conclusion: this action was taken without consideration of the consequences in the exchange markets of this country. The reputation of the minister as an expert in bond and stock market activities rules out the conclusion that this was the result of stupidity or ignorance. It is no wonder, sir, that there are many who believe that this was a "pay-off" on a grand scale. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has not helped to subdue this speculation by his outright refusal to recognize the constitutional practice in these matters. If the Prime Minister were really a man who cared he would institute a parliamentary inquiry into this matter with all haste and allow the facts to be established, so that there may be an end to the many varied speculations which are common gossip from one end of this country to the other. Knowing the Secretary of State, who I see is still in the house, as we all know him, as a self-appointed stickler for constitutional procedure and practice, and knowing his experience and knowledge in this regard, there can be no doubt that the action taken last Wednesday was taken deliberately by this government in outright violation of every precedent with which they were familiar. Unrevealed but compelling circumstances must have dictated that action.
The Minister of Finance wants to face the facts. The first fact is that this is not his budget. This is not even the government's budget. This is certainly not the department's budget. This is an outsider's budget. Members of the government have claimed that it took the best brains in Canada to produce this budget. Well, Mr. Speaker, the best brains in Canada laid an egg, and the minister had the painful duty of swallowing that egg last Wednesday. That action on Wednesday was an admission of failure to grasp the task given to the minister by the Prime Minister. I suggest to you, sir, that the best brains to produce a budget are within the government service, among those who have dedicated their lives to protecting ministers of finance and governments from the mistakes that might endanger confidence in the stability and purpose of government in Canada.
This whole matter, Mr. Speaker, also has the earmarks of the Prime Minister, his
The Budget-Mr. Nasserden familiar touch. There is a certain boldness about it, it lacks the carefulness required in matters of great importance to the Canadian people. Indeed, it has not been too much different from the attitude and carelessness which was displayed by the Prime Minister in his announcements last December on the nuclear question. Canadians today have reason to think back to the budgets brought in by the Hon. Donald Fleming, without a doubt the greatest finance minister this country ever had. He was a minister of capacity and vision. His budgets did more for the construction industry and those employed in it than was appreciated at the time. The period when he was minister of finance was marked by the greatest home building program in the entire history of this country. That record will never be matched by this government. The significant achievements of those budgets were widely recognized throughout the world when last year this nation produced the greatest increase in the gross national product of any of the free nations of the world.
The present government, the present Prime Minister and the present Minister of Finance have talked of getting the economy rolling. Why, sir, they cannot even get their budget rolling without creating the biggest scandal that was ever accorded the introduction of a budget in Canadian history. In that process they have contributed more instability and uncertainty in our exchange markets than was ever before experienced. Because of these misdemeanors, some of which seem to have been voluntary and some to have arisen through ignorance, carelessness or arrogance, there would appear to be only one honourable course open to the Minister of Finance. The minister s resignation would go a long way toward restoring confidence in Canada. The Prime Minister has already admitted that this has been the subject of cabinet discussion. There is another course. The Prime Minister might take this budget to the people of Canada and call a general election on this issue. I respectfully submit to you, sir, that the Prime Minister has rejected that course because he is aware that this is hardly an issue upon which he can appeal successfully.
The Minister of Finance wants to face the facts. Well, here are the facts. I have a clipping from that respected and authoritative newspaper the Manitoba Co-Operator which deals with farm income. The clipping indicates that cash incomes to Canadian farmers from farming operations reached an all time high in 1962, 6.6 per cent more than the previous peak total in 1961, and 13.4 per cent greater than the 1960 estimate. I have another clipping from the Bay street Journal which indicates that record breaking incomes have

The Budget-Mr. Nasserden put the farmers in clover. It indicates that total farm net income rose nearly 50 per cent in 1962. Almost every province in Canada showed an increase in their incomes last year from agricultural operations. Another clipping from the Bay street Journal shows that the gross national product reached a six-year peak, and that according to the dominion bureau of statistics Canada had record producton in 1962, which despite a weak fourth quarter climbed 8 per cent to a peak of $40.4 billion. That compared with an increase of 1.6 per cent in 1954.
Here we have one from the Manitoba Co-Operator. The heading is: "Demand for Oats Continues Strong" and the text begins:
Export demand for Canadian oats continues strong compared with previous years-
Next I have a cartoon from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix under the heading: "Farm Income Highest in Canadian History". Here is an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal containing the statement:
President Kennedy estimated today that Canada achieved the best record of price stability among all major industrial countries.
These are the facts, even though hon. gentlemen opposite do not like them. They indicate that the economy of Canada was not only rolling but was actually booming when the present government assumed office last April. I am not apologetic that it took almost four years to get the economy rolling after 22 years of Liberal administration. However, I am concerned when I see a deterioration setting in so soon after their return to power. Look at this headline in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of June 14: "Can't Stop Grain Sales Drop-Sharp". That statement is attributed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp). I say to you, sir, and to the Prime Minister that this statement will cost us sales of grain. I say it will have an adverse effect on the price we get for our grain abroad. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has learned nothing from the past when he was so closely associated with a former minister of trade and commerce, the late Mr. C. D. Howe, who is reported to have said; "If they want our grain, let them come and get it". I say to the Prime Minister and to this faceless, careless government that the buoyant position of agriculture during the past few years contributed greatly to the achievement by Canada of the largest increase in the gross national product last year of any of the free nations of the world.
The national program pursued by my leader and encouraged by the Hon. Donald Fleming as minister of finance rescued Canada from the doldrums resulting from Liberal apathy. That national program

brought increasing prosperity to Canadians in almost every community of this nation. Despite this buoyant economy, however, the opposition of those days spread the poison that is fear, particularly in our urban areas. That fear complex still haunts the Liberal party. I say to you, sir, and to the Prime Minister, that a Minister of Trade and Commerce who is caught up with pessimism and fear is a luxury Canada cannot afford.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to ask him a question.


An hon. Member:: The hon. gentleman from Bonavista-Twillingate is not speaking from his seat.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would like to remind the minister that he ought to address the Chair from his place.


David Vaughan Pugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: What is the point of order?


David Vaughan Pugh: My point of order is this-that the minister, knowing the rules of this house full well, has interrupted the course of the debate and done so most wilfully, and that he should not do it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am now in my own
place. The hon. gentleman was good enough to give me permission to ask a question.


Edward Nasserden: I certainly did not give that permission.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, the hon. gentleman has denied me the right to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has the floor and should not be interrupted.


Edward Nasserden: This government says it wants two ministers of agriculture. This government did not even mention agriculture in the budget. This is what we have come to expect from the present Prime Minister. It is a strange course, considering the pledges which were made during the last campaign. The Prime Minister is a most promising campaigner. I remember him speaking in the maritimes. He promised, there, that if elected his party would do for the maritimes what the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) had done for the prairies. When he arrived in western Canada he suggested that if elected he would do for the west what the Leader of the Opposition, as prime minister, had done for the maritimes. He indicated that one of the first acts of a new Liberal government would be to provide $3.00 per bushel for the first 300 bushels delivered by an individual farmer. This was to take the place of the acreage payment.

When I questioned the Prime Minister the other day about his plans in this regard, he was quick to point out that I had not been enthusiastic about that proposal. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have not changed my mind. Furthermore, the failure of this government either to fulfil this pledge or else to honour the commitment we have made is a slap in the face to the grain growers of western Canada.
I should like to remind backbenchers opposite who support the government that their leader made another pledge-a guarantee of $2 per bushel for every bushel delivered to country elevators. I need not say that these were substantial commitments. But this faceless, careless budget has failed to take into account the promises solemnly made by the Prime Minister in western Canada. I ask you, Mr. Speaker: does this look like the action of a Prime Minister who cares?
One of the main objectives of our leader when he was prime minister was to seek an equality of opportunity for all parts of this nation. The maritimes, the prairies and the north were not forgotten in those plans. Central Canada was remembered. We had publicly stated, in all parts of the nation, that attention and effort would have to be directed toward certain problems in the rural areas of central and eastern Canada, with particular reference to the province of Quebec. Our term of office was temporarily interrupted, however, and this budget indicates to me that a tremendous task awaits the next government of this country. Certainly, the present budget does not begin to touch those problems.
I warn the Prime Minister, a budget adding to the burdens of the ordinary people of this country still without homes is hardly what was expected from a Prime Minister who cares. The 11 per cent sales tax is a challenge to the people of this nation. It sets the course to be taken by this administration-a course diametrically opposite that of the government led by my hon. friend from Prince Albert. Throughout the last six years, various building materials were given exemption from sales tax. The home building program of that period was the most successful in Canadian history. More than 750,000 families were able to secure homes under this massive program. That program achieved a level of employment which would not otherwise have been possible. There is still a great need for housing in Canada. I ask the Prime Minister why these people should be asked to make up the tax reductions granted industry in this budget. Is this the way the right hon. gentleman shows he is a Prime Minister who cares?
The Minister of Finance has had more than a thousand telegrams protesting this proposal
The Budget-Mr. Nasserden alone. Most of these are from builders, suppliers and contractors. These people recognize the dangers of this proposal. I respectfully suggest to the Prime Minister that if a proposal obnoxious to the stock exchanges can be withdrawn, then, surely, a proposal aimed at raiding the pocketbooks of the average Canadian would-be home owner can also be withdrawn. I warn the Prime Minister he is gambling with the employment opportunities of thousands of Canadians by pursuing this measure. I know we are living in a changing world. I never thought the Prime Minister would change so quickly. I believed he really cared. It is a bitter disappointment, to see this faceless, careless government take as one of its first acts the imposition of this 11 per cent tax which will add to the cost of housing, one of the greatest needs in this country.
I regret this budget has not provided the attention necessary to properly promoting the sales of Canadian products. This government does not seem to be aware of the fact that our greatest problem is markets. Our industries are not looking for more competitors for the limited markets that we now have. They are looking for policies, they are looking for measures that will improve their competitive position in world markets as well as those at home. That is the only answer that can keep our present industrial plant rolling. That is the only answer that will provide additional employment opportunities for Canadians. This faceless, careless budget has forgotten that aspect of our problem altogether.
As I read the budget, it is one of the most faceless, careless documents I have ever examined. If adopted and put into effect it will allow a certain degree of financial juggling that could be expected from stock market experts. In other respects it is a barren shell ignoring the dominant features of our economy most likely to improve employment opportunities and productivity in Canada.
The whole tenor of thinking behind the tax incentives offered to business will have the effect of promoting the wholesale destruction of small business in this country. The powerful corporations, well established and with healthy reserves and extensive credit, will have a definite advantage over the small businessman trying to become established. I cannot find a single safeguard in the budget against these dangers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret very much that I have to interrupt the hon. member to advise him that his time has expired.

The Budget-Mr. Lamontagne


Edward Nasserden: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, there were a number of uncalled for interruptions and I believe I should be allowed to continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think I should bring to the attention of the hon. gentleman that I have made allowance for that. Actually his time expired quite a few minutes ago and I turned a blind eye to the clock. If there is unanimous consent-


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have allowed five minutes.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I protest your ruling because far more than five minutes were taken by the interruptions of the hon. member over there on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must bring to the attention of the hon. member that there is no provision in the rules for the extension of time in the case of interruptions. The only thing the Chair can do is bring it to the attention of the hon. member that his time has expired. If after that it is the unanimous desire and wish of the house that the hon. member should be allowed to continue his speech, then he has the right to do so but, as I said, there is nothing in the rules that allows the Speaker to permit an hon. member to continue his speech beyond the time allotted by the rules.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that these were not ordinary interruptions. These were points of order that were not in order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean.
(Translation):


Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, when taking part in this discussion after several members on this side of the house, I want first of all to pay a tribute to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) and tell him, once again, on behalf of my fellow members, all the trust we place in him. Although he entered the field of active politics only recently, very few Canadians can boast of having served the government of the country so efficiently and devotedly as he has done since the second world war.
I have known the Minister of Finance for several years. He has always been a staunch defender of Canada's interests and of all noble causes. I know all the personal sacrifices he is now making to serve his country further. Very few of us would accept to do as much.

That is why, when I see small-time politicians, men who claim to be the wardens of honour and integrity, launch such unfair and insincere attacks against the good name of the Minister of Finance, I am reminded of the ugliness of Duplessism, of which several of our hon. friends opposite are not exempt-


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I know that my hon. friend is now making his maiden speech, but I think he is starting on the wrong foot, because he begins by telling the hon. members that they are not acting in all sincerity. Well, I want to tell him that the members of the opposition are Canadians quite as sincere as he may be himself, and that he has no right to attribute intentions to whomever it may be.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Three Rivers is obviously not familiar with the rules.
I should like to remind him that the hon. minister did not say a word about anybody, and he did not mention any member's name. Therefore, he had every right to act as he did and say what he said.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it is exactly because the Liberals' way never to say a thing but to make innuendos on everything and try to create doubt that we have raised our point of order.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. When the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Lamontagne) mentioned the sincerity of hon. members, was he particularly thinking about Liberal members?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. That is no point of order. It would rather be in the nature of a question and I would suggest that the minister be allowed to continue his remarks without further interruptions.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this point of order should rather be called a point of privilege, because the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean attacked hon. members by casting doubts on their reputation. I know that he has previously expressed doubts about provincial autonomy, but I would not like him to do the same for members of the opposition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not agree that the good name of hon. members on either side of the house has been attacked by those remarks-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is when he mentioned-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -that there were some Duples-sis men-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I consider that there is no point of order and I would ask the minister to proceed.


Maurice Lamontagne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As far as we, members of the government, are concerned, we think that this is no time for witch hunting for unimportant matters and for empty discussions. The Canadian people are facing serious difficulties-


William Heward Grafftey: True.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The 11 per cent tax on building materials is one of them.


Maurice Lamontagne: Be patient.
From all of us in this house, the Canadian people expect action, solutions-


Gilles Grégoire: That is true.


Maurice Lamontagne: -and not a students' game in a mock parliament.
As for us, members of the government, we did not pledge, during the election campaign, to settle all the problems the very next day after the election. It is not the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) who stated: as long as I am prime minister, no one shall suffer from unemployment.
We have proposed, however, a general political program which the Canadian people found to be better than that of all other parties. In addition, we promised to make a certain number of immediate decisions which would tend to restore our prestige abroad, get the Canadian economy moving again and rebuild this country's unity.
In the 60 days just passed, the decisions that were promised have been made. The visits made by the Prime Minister to England and the United States, as well as the active part played by the Minister of Trade and Commerce at the GATT meeting enabled our country to renew its main international contacts.
In the economic field our program includes short and long term measures to keep our economy going and to deal successfully with unemployment. The monetary development policy, the lower interest rates and the tax incentives announced by the Minister of Finance will benefit all sectors of the economy.
The Budget-Mr. Lamontagne
The measures proposed by the Minister of National Revenue represent a new effort to improve our housing policy. The program set forth by the Minister of Labour will reduce technological and seasonal unemployment and considerably improve our vocational training system throughout the country.
The new 12 mile limit will be of great advantage to our Canadian fishermen.
But it is perhaps from the new agencies proposed by the government that more longterm results should especially be expected. I refer to the economic council, the department of industry with its area development agency, the Atlantic development board, with its $100 million fund, the municipal development and loan board, the development corporation and the appointment of two ministers who will be in a better position than ever to deal with the quite different problems of western and eastern agriculture. In this way, the government wishes to introduce economic planning in our country, a planning which would not only point to the objects to be attained and the means required to achieve them, but which would also promote and foster development through proper credit, financing and grant policies. Such a planning is urgently required. The government is ready to introduce it as soon as parliament gives its agreement.
Those are the main items-


Léon Balcer: Would my hon. friend allow a question?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Léon Balcer: Would my hon. friend allow a question?


Maurice Lamontagne: When I am finished.
Those are the main items-I am not afraid of my hon. friend's question-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, those are the main items of the 60 day economic program-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: He is raising a point of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I do not wish to prevent the hon. member from going on with his speech, but we can hardly hear him. I think that the minister is reading a little too fast.
1546	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Lamontagne


Mr. Speaker:: There is obviously no point of order.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I prepared some notes and I hope that my hon. friend will do the same in the future and try to think before speaking.
Those are the main items of the 60 day economic program.
We are not suggesting that it is perfect, but merely that it is a good beginning. We do not claim that we will not make any mistakes, but we are willing to admit and correct them. In short, we have kept our promises to the Canadian people and we are proud of our record.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to say a word about the issue of this country's unity, which should be considered as much, if not more, than unemployment or economic depression. The disintegration which has taken place in the last few years in that respect endangers the very life of this country. It was not until the speech made in this house by the present Prime Minister, on December 17 last, that this crucial problem was called to the attention of the whole Canadian people. Since then, an ever-increasing number of Canadians are getting convinced that the time for fundamental choices has come.
In the province of Quebec, there is talk of separatism, of convening the states general, of setting up a federation of almost independent states. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it is not the separatists themselves who are a menace at this time, but those whom I shall call the crypto-separatists. Back in 1911 Laurier warned us, indeed, against those people when he said:
People in the province of Quebec know that there are those who say that this country's business may be settled according to the aspirations of one province; but I tell you that those who dare to maintain such a proposition are nothing but demagogues.
Today's demagogues, Mr. Speaker, like the leader of the Union Nationale and his followers, have become the fellow travellers of separatism. In order to make the headlines and attain popularity, they go one better than the other fellow and set forth proposals which they know cannot be accepted within our federation, without having the courage to tell French speaking Canadians what will happen to them when those proposals are refused.
And it is precisely that masked and hypocritical form of separatism which might lead French Canadians unwittingly to collective suicide. The separatists are not the ones to be


feared but those sorcerers' apprentices of separatism, because in using this movement as an instrument of blackmail, they will provoke a flood which they will soon be unable to control.
Besides the demagogues denounced by Laurier, there are, among English speaking Canadians people who maintain with stubbornness and false pride, that the business of the country can be settled without taking into account the province of Quebec and the indefeasible rights of French Canadians. Without knowing it perhaps, these people are separatists in their own way. Certainly they are fanatics who have not yet understood the real nature of their country.
From the viewpoint of national unity and Canada's future-


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Maurice Lamontagne: -they are as dangerous as reactionary capitalists-


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rose on a point of order. We are now discussing the budget and not the address in reply to the speech from the throne. But the minister is now arguing on separatism and bilingualism. In my opinion, that does not come within the limits allowed for the debate on the budget.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will admit that up to now the Chair has granted quite a leeway to the members who have taken part in the debate. I do not believe that the minister who has the floor now is getting farther afield on the budget which is now before us, than the other members who spoke before him.


Maurice Lamontagne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said, on the matter of unity and future for Canada, those English speaking Canadians are just as dangerous as the reactionary capitalists who would be ready to put in jeopardy our economic system rather than go half way in recognizing the right of others.
Personally, as a French Canadian I cannot accept either of those extremes. I would be devoid of any pride if I were to accept the one-way attitude of some English speaking Canadians who behave as if they belonged to a superior race but who fail to cover up their pitiful culture. Besides, for the sake of the most materialistic, and idealistic interests of the French Canadians, I cannot accept separatism even as a piece of bluff, for fear that it may precisely turn against those whom it is supposed to help.

It is on the economic level that separatism would have the most immediate disastrous consequences. It would surely reduce the inflow of foreign capital and would make it more difficult to have access to foreign markets. Those investments and markets are, as we know, absolutely essential not only to ensure the future development of the Quebec economy but also to keep it as it is now. The immediate result of separatism would thus be to reduce substantially the relatively high standard of living to which French Canadians have become accustomed, who surely cannot be compared, in that respect, to economically underdeveloped nations.
The people of French Canada, egged on by irresponsible leaders, might all the same one day accept separatism but they would surely not accept willingly the lower standard of living that would result from it. That sacrifice will have to be imposed on them at the political level. That is why one can conclude that separatism would almost inevitably lead to either a right wing or a left wing dictatorship.
At the cultural level, with our modern means of communications, separatism or more precisely isolation, is impossible. The voice of America would still be heard in Quebec even after separatism. Cultural penetration would continue at a time when the internal sources of culture would be depleted because of economic stagnation and political dictature and would be fatal. Internal differences would inevitably arise and annexation to the United States would soon appear to many as a sort of liberation.
In my opinion, this almost apocalyptic view is not exaggerated. As I see it, economic stagnation, political dictature, cultural depression and annexation to the United States seem the logical results of separatism. This is why French Canadians cannot seriously and quietly consider it as an alternative or even a basis for negotiation; it is at best a solution of despair, a kind of collective suicide.
This is why I believe it is my duty to warn those who play the game of separatism at present, that they may unknowingly be assuming grave responsibilities for those they pretend to be defending. The game is too portentous to inspire bravado at press conferences. It is probably easier and it may even seem more courageous at times to arouse the frustrated feelings of a group rather than 28902-5-99i	.
The Budget-Mr. Lamontagne to use the language of reason in its best interest. But the sorcerers' apprentices of separatism should also have the courage to tell French Canadians that the road on which they are trying to lead them is bound to end up in a blind alley.
The consequences of separatism are unacceptable not only to French Canadians but to all Canadians. On the other hand, coexistence in isolation is no longer acceptable, because French Canadians are left in a permanent condition of inferiority. So, finally, it should be recognized by all of us that a divorce is impossible and that there is only one truly possible solution-a renovation of confederation and, above all, the spirit of confederation.
Confederation was once correctly described as a marriage of reason. It should be added that this is its weakness as well as its strength. Its weakness lies in the fact that it does not foster love. Its strength lies in the fact that it is essential to us because of our economic interests, our need for democracy and freedom and the demands of our cultural survival and development. We, French Canadians particularly, should always remember that confederation in our case remains a beneficient challenge and a factor of unity among ourselves.
But because of its nature, to preserve that marriage, we must use reason, we must negotiate with dignity and pride, without blackmail or stubbornness, being fully conscious that important changes must be made to confederation, but that they cannot be carried out instantly.
The position of this federal government is very clear. We are proposing to all Canadians of good will a new alliance; a confederation that will really be developed in accordance with the principle of equality between the two founding nations, while taking into consideration, of course, the contributions of other cultural groups of more recent origin. All Canadians, either individually or through their representatives, will soon have an opportunity to state their view on that objective and to express their opinion on that serious matter before the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. Somehow, this will be a referendum on the future of our country. I certainly hope that the great majority of Canadians of all walks of life will declare themselves in favour of the proposed general objective, and then it will be possible for the governments, federal as well as provincial, to carry it out in their respective fields.

The Budget-Mr. Lamontagne
As far as the federal administration is concerned, as I said before, we do not want to wait for the commission's recommendations, before taking action.} We want to achieve as soon as possible perfect equality for the two official languages, not only with regard to verbal or written communications with the public, but within every department.'
To that end, various projects are now being considered such as a review of the recruiting and examination system, special courses within the various departments, a premium for bilingualism, the creation of a bilingual institute of public administration, where all university graduates might spend some time before taking up their posts in the federal service.
We shall start with that over-all program next September. From now on, we want all civil servants truly to understand the bilingual and fundamentally bicultural character of Canada. More particularly, we want French Canadians to be able to serve their country in their own language and not to have to forget it when going to work. We also want that transformation to go beyond the civil service; but, to that end, we will need the close co-operation of the provincial governments and of our private cultural institutions. That is why we have to wait for the results and recommendations of the inquiry commission before extending it to other fields.
Another aspect of the present crisis is to be found at the very level of our political structure, our federalism and our federal-provincial relations. We have come to a point where we have to make a fundamental review of our political system. That is not to be wondered at or be afraid of, because federalism is in constant need of reshaping as the role of the government changes and its responsibilities increase. The federal government feels that the time has come to make that review and it is prepared to do it in close co-operation with the provinces. Indeed, it is in that spirit that was established recently a special cabinet committee on federal-provincial relations, which I am privileged to chair.
The Prime Minister announced recently his intention to call a federal-provincial conference next fall. In my opinion this should be but a preliminary meeting aimed, without eliminating the necessity of temporary reviews, at determining the scope of the collective review of our federative regime. Such a conference should be followed by careful

studies of current problems and possible choices; it should also be followed by several other ministerial conferences if we really want to try and rebuild confederation according to the ideals and needs of the Canadian people in our time and of the generations to come. In a word, we must become, as it were, the fathers of a renewed confederation.
We have a little over three years to prepare for the 1967 centenary. In my opinion there is no better way to prepare for such celebration than to collectively wake up our minds about our present identity, and about what we want to become in the future and to collectively take decisions which will be inspired by our consideration of those matters. In such a context, the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism and the ministerial meetings more particularly concerned with our political system will be vitally important.
The task which rests with us during the forthcoming years has a truly historic significance. If we fail, it may be our last opportunity; if we succeed-and I am convinced that we can with good will and foresight- we shall have given a new chance to Canada and to Canadians.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister? Does not the minister consider that the best way to destroy the separatist movement would be to give back to the provinces, for instance, their taxation power which the Liberals stole from them when they were in office, because of the war?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the best way to check separatism would be to do exactly what the Conservative government refused to do for six years.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the hon. member who just took his seat on the occasion of his maiden speech in this house. I sincerely congratulate him for his effort and for the convinced, if not convincing, way he delivered it.
I am quite sure the minister will not be vexed when I say I do not completely agree with the opinions he just put forward. Also, even if this was the minister's maiden speech, I do not think it would be unnecessary to point out that he roamed quite far afield from the subject matter. As a matter of fact, he was completely irrelevant, especially if you consider the interjection made a few minutes earlier by the Secretary of State

(Mr. Pickersgill) who precisely wanted to bar from discussion a very relevant point, that is the very extraordinary circumstances surrounding the preparation of the budget, the way the Minister of Finance delivered his budget speech, without overlooking the advisers he called on.
As we just noticed the minister still trusts the Minister of Finance. Now, I may say that we, on this side of the house, have lost all confidence in the Minister of Finance and that the whole nation have lost the confidence they might have had before last June 13.
For a moment, I was under the impression that the minister had discarded his centralist tendencies which he expressed so well in the past and which I venture to recall to him at this time. For instance, in his book about Canadian federalism, on page 285, we are told what was his object concerning joint programs, a point which is germane to our debate. It seems obvious, indeed, that the present administration, under the leadership of men like the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Minister of Finance, and the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill), is following the way mapped out by Harris and Abbott, and is leading us to a centralization which unhinged the Canadian confederation. I quote:
But Quebec does not reap the full benefits from its contribution. Its own decision has deprived it of the profits it might have derived from the expenditure program of the federal government. When the latter engages in direct spending, or when it deals out social security benefits, the people of Quebec get their fair share. But things are different in regard to the financial contribution of the central government in regard to programs carried out with the co-operation or the authorization of the provincial governments.
Let us mention, particularly, the financial aid provided by the federal government for universities, for forest protection and conservation, for the building of the trans-Canada highway, for housing and for certain agricultural enterprises. Let us add the loss brought about by the nonparticipation to fiscal agreements. It is difficult to figure the exact amounts per year that the province of Quebec would get from the federal government by taking part in those joint programs, but they undoubtedly make up a total of tens of millions of dollars. In short, that important loss has to be supported by the people of the province of Quebec. They either do not get the services which would be needed to increase their welfare or they get them by paying additional taxes. In both cases there is a lowering of the standard of living.
And the minister concludes this intriguing book with the following words:
A rational integration with the new Canadian federalism is a must.
A little further, he had this to say:
The Budget-Mr. Martineau
We should never forget that a certain degree of political unity is sometimes necessary to maintain and preserve cultural diversity.
And he is the one who defended so earnestly the case for confederation a few minutes ago.
But what does he think of the major infringement with respect to confederation of which his government is guilty by presenting this budget to the house and by proposing the economic measures he mentioned a moment ago?
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 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 private bills, public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Ian Grant Wahn (St. Paul's) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-14, respecting Canada Permanent Toronto General Trust Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of this bill is to change the name of the company, both the English and French names. The present English name of the company, Canada Permanent Toronto General Trust Company, and in French Compagnie de Fiducie Canada Permanent Toronto General, was adopted at the time of the amalgamation on December 1, 1961 of Canada Permanent Trust Company and Toronto General Trusts Corporation. At the time of the amalgamation it was recognized that both the English and French names were cumbersome and that it would be desirable to shorten them at an early date. As a result of extensive advertising and publicity since that time the fact of this amalgamation has become generally known, and it is now felt that shorter names should be adopted. Accordingly the purpose of the bill is to shorten the names of the company, in English to Canada Permanent Trust Company, and in French to La Canada Permanent, Compagnie de Fiducie.
Perhaps I should mention that the company is definitely a Canadian company both as to shareholdings and as to directors. It is a subsidiary of Canada Permanent Mortgage Corporation and I am informed that 94 per cent of the outstanding stock of that mortgage corporation is owned inside Canada. (Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I heard the explanation given by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn). In fact, this bill is simple, its purpose

Private Bills
is to change the name of the company in order to shorten it and even to give it a French name. In my opinion it is a requirement for trust companies, as well as for all other companies, since we are becoming a more and more bilingual country.
But I come immediately to the reasons which prompt me to absolutely oppose this new name. I can see that the company is to be called: "La Canada Permanent, compagnie de fiducie." Well, Mr. Speaker, this name will never be a French name-"La Canada Permanent". If Canada has become feminine then I do not understand anything about French grammar. It has always been masculine, le Canada, our Canada. Furthermore, if Canada is feminine I do not see why the adjective should be masculine, permanent, and not feminine, permanente. It is easy to see, Mr. Speaker, that they are trying with this bill to make us gulp something down in translating the name of the company in terms or words which are not French at all or which are in a very poor French. I should like to take this opportunity, while this bill is before us, to inform other companies which would like to have their name changed or translated to place before us a French name.
Mr. Speaker, usually there is a committee which is called the banking and commerce committee where these bills are sent before being referred to us to be passed. If this committee on banking and commerce had been established earlier, then we would have been able, when considering the matter in committee, to suggest another name, to find a better French name for that company and we would have been happy to oblige them.
Therefore, today, they are obliged, here in the House of Commons, to ask for a better French name.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is important because, after all, if bilingualism is to become a fact throughout our country-and I see here several members of the house who would not hestitate to agree with me-we must not, at the beginning, distort the French language to make up a name by using terms which are not French, which is what has been done in this case.
Yesterday, I attended in my riding of Lapointe, one of the most beautiful if not the most beautiful riding in the country, the celebration of the feast of St. John the Baptist, our national holiday.
It was held in Jonquiere and I was accompanied by my excellent friend the member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Cote). Thus we had the opportunity to find out anew how beautiful our language is. And no sooner had such a well-filled day come to an end, after much
[Mr. Gregoire.l
praising of the beauty of the French language, than the very next day we are called upon to study a bill like this one in which, if I may put it that way, our beautiful language is spoiled, murdered.
When a French Canadian company wants to choose an English name, and it is perfectly normal that a Canadian company should choose a name in both languages, it secures the services of experts in linguistics, it tries to obtain the services of competent people, and chooses a name as appropriate as possible, which does not murder the English language.
I wonder why a company, from Toronto or elsewhere, or even from Montreal, which wants a French name and asks the parliament of Canada to grant it a French name, does not first secure the services of translation experts who will help it find an appropriate name in French.
Only yesterday, during the celebrations I mentioned earlier, I had the opportunity of realizing the tremendous effort made in the province of Quebec to teach French Canadians to speak their own language better. There was a distribution of prizes, of trophies to young students of our high schools, public schools and convents in the Saguenay and Lake St. John district. Those trophies and prizes were handed to them following competitions in the schools to encourage the students to make a better use of their own French language.
I attended the distribution of prizes and trophies which took place on the occasion of our own annual French Canadian festival. Those trophies were given to those who had written the best French essays and to those who were speaking the best French. If something along those lines is done in our schools, I wonder why we should accept in the House of Commons the kind of French that is suggested to us now.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member who has introduced this bill to withdraw it of his own accord. Let him withdraw it and we shall readily authorize him, by unanimous consent of the house, to submit it again as soon as possible, when he has sought the advice of experts and found a new French name for that company.
I wonder whether the hon. member who introduced the bill would consent to do that? If so, he will prove his goodwill and, when the bill is again introduced, we will approve it without delay. At this time it is unacceptable to us, particularly on the morrow of the celebration which I attended in my county,

and more particularly after witnessing the respect in which the French language is held there, after having heard people praise its beauty and the way it can be used.
I would therefore, Mr. Speaker, ask the hon. member to withdraw his bill and ask the company this time to submit a truly French designation which can be accepted, because that company will be doing business in the province of Quebec and with French Canadian citizens throughout the country. It should not go under a mongrel name like the one submitted today, but it must have some acceptable designation, which is truly French.
When the company itself accepts to change its name, it will also be much better accepted by the French Canadians. Then the company will benefit therefrom, in view of the good will it will show by accepting a name that will not murder the French language like the suggested name would.
(Text):


Frank Howard: I am, of
course, not competent, as is the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), to go into detail about the sex of this company-perhaps the word "gender" would be more correct. But I do say this: if, as he points out, this is grammatically incorrect in the French language it should be changed. I do not think there is any question about that. The name of the company, even if it is a proper name- and proper names sometimes have the distinction of being able to depart from the usual forms-should be a grammatically correct one in the French as well as in the English language.
It is perhaps unfortunate that this matter was not dealt with in the committee of the Senate which supposedly went into the details of this particular bill, because we should then not be faced with the particular problem we now find before us. I do not think, however, that the best way of dealing with this would be to withdraw the bill at this stage. After this measure has received second reading, if it does receive second reading, it would automatically be referred to the banking and commerce committee of this house where there would be an opportunity to call officials of the company as witnesses and ask them to explain just what they mean by attempting so to designate their company in the French language that it is not in keeping with our desire that it should be grammatically correct. I think that if we followed this course we might be better off, because there will always be an opportunity at a later stage, when this bill, if it does receive second reading, comes back
Private Bills
to this house, to review it during the committee stage and on third reading. Then, if it has been reported back unchanged by the banking and commerce committee, we could again propose that the bill be withdrawn, or else it could be defeated.
We in this group have another concern, which we have expressed on a previous occasion not only with respect to this company but with respect to other companies which are in a similar position. This concern is connected with the extension and preservation, where it exists, of Canadian authority and control. The Trust Companies Act now requires that the majority of the board of directors should be Canadian citizens, or British subjects-I think the wording of the act puts it that way. It is our contention that even though this is mainly psychological in its effect, even though there may be Canadians on the board of directors who are nothing more than the puppets of people in other countries who actually control the corporation, there is still a beneficial effect as a result of having Canadians on the boards of directors of these various companies. It is our desire to attempt throughout the course of this session, both here and in the various committees which deal with these private bills, to press at every stage for a declaration, either in the bill or in some other way, that some course of action will be taken to guarantee that this company and other companies like it shall at all times remain under Canadian control and ownership so that we may have some authority over our own economic destiny. We intend to pursue that course of action, as we indicated earlier, with respect to all such bills as come before us because we think it is of great importance that Canada should have some control over her own economy.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I want to say only a word in support of the proposal made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that the banking and commerce committee should correct this gap which is an insult to the French language.
It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Lamontagne) is not here at the moment. Earlier, he made an impassioned speech on the French language but he should see to it that his colleagues introduce a bill which is correctly translated and duly respects the French language. I think that the government should start to act instead of restricting itself to shallow phrases as has been the case for 60 days and it should ascertain that before a private member's bill is

Private Bills
introduced in the house, it is at least in keeping with the French language or the English language as far as translation is concerned.
I do not want to delay the passing of the bill and I am willing to let it go at that, providing of course that the hon. member who introduced this bill will consult linguists in order to correct the mistake, the insult to the propriety of the French language and also I would ask the hon. member to say- (Text):


An hon. Member:: It is a mistake. (Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Do you have any objection? (Text):


An hon. Member:: I say it is a mistake. (Translation):


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Certainly.


René Tremblay: In the remarks he made on the French language, I think the hon. member used the word "linguistic" instead of "linguist".


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I think the pseudo-minister of agriculture understood perfectly the remarks I made before using a truly French word.
However, I ask the mover of the bill under consideration if he can assure the house, in order to avoid delay in passing the motion for second reading of the bill, that he will ask the assistance of one or two experts, the very competent translators of the Secretary of State, in order to give an adequate and sensible translation.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question? I heard it said a while ago that it was not an insult, but a mistake. Could the hon member tell us if he is ready to correct that mistake?
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must remind the house that if the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) speaks now he will close the debate.
(Translation):


Maurice Côté: Mr. Speaker, the bill which the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) submits has a very noble and really worthy purpose, in our opinion, because we think that any firm who wants to have both a French and an English name deserves our consideration.
But in the present case we cannot agree to such a proposal because of the outrageous translation given to the name of the company.

As far as I am concerned, I am neither a philologist nor a grammarian, but in my opinion, the name that this trust company asks for, namely "La Canada Permanent Com-pagnie de Fiducie" is ill sounding to our French ears. In the circumstances, I think we could perhaps suggest the name of Com-pagnie de fiducie permanente du Canada. It seems to me it would be in much better French. It could be also "Les fiduciaires permanents du Canada", which would be another excellent name.
Mr. Speaker, the French language is really too rich, too fine and too subtle to give such a name to this company. In my opinion, it would be most ridiculous for this trust company to have such a French name, since it would even prevent people from patronizing it in the province of Quebec; the commercial point of view should not be forgotten, as those who deal in the financial and business fields want to do so with dignity. In addition, you catch more flies with honey than with verjuice.
Under the circumstances, the necessary means should be taken to attract customers by using fine French terms and words, which would certainly make things easier.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, not a single person who is in the least familiar with French could accept such a name.
I would like to be gifted as Bossuet or Bourassa to praise the French language, but this is not the proper time to do so.
Anyhow, I wish to point out that, as far as I am concerned, I cannot accept that the French language be slaughtered in that way, as the history of Canada is already too full of slaughters to accept another one which would really be an ungracious gesture towards the beautiful French language.


Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, many observations have been made concerning the bill under discussion. Nevertheless I am convinced that this is not a question of politics or of opposition from anybody.
The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) has explained to the sponsor of the bill that we could not let a bill of that kind go through, not because it has been brought forward by a member on the government side but merely because it is unacceptable as regards the French language. If the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) had said outright "I will have it corrected", I think the matter would have been settled.

On the other hand, I find it impossible to accept the proposition of the hon. member for Joliette-l'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), who said: If he would promise to have it amended, we could give the bill its second reading. There again, I beg to differ. I feel it is our duty and our responsibility, in this the highest assembly in the land, and of representatives of the province of Quebec and of the French language to point out immediately what should be done from a linguistic point of view and try and correct right now-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I direct a question to the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard)?


Gérard Girouard: Certainly.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What I wanted to say was that if the hon. member who has sponsored this bill would promise us that once the bill is referred to the committee on banking and commerce, its deficiencies regarding translation will be corrected, and the rights of the French language complied with, I would then have no objection whatsoever. It is useless to have a debate on this bill go on and on, if the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) gives us an affirmative answer.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are belabouring endlessly the same theme. A moment ago, you did not allow the sponsor of the bill to let us know his answer. Now, we must either ask for an answer or talk the bill out until six o'clock, which, of course, means killing the bill.
Why not allow the hon. member to give an answer immediately? If we are satisfied, the bill will be passed; otherwise, it will not. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite in order to allow the sponsor of the bill to formulate an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Naturally, if the house unanimously decides to allow the hon. member for St. Paul's to answer questions without closing the debate, I shall be pleased to recognize the hon. member and allow him to answer.


Gilles Grégoire: Agreed.
(Text):


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Speaker, I know that the company is most anxious not only that it should have a French name but that the French name it does assume should be acceptable generally in Canada and particularly
Private Bills
in the province of Quebec. I would hope that the bill would be referred to committee as has been suggested at which time officers of the company, who would be in a position to give members the assurances they have quite properly requested, would be present and available to give those assurances.
About all I can properly say, I think, is that I know that they are most anxious that the name should be proper and acceptable to all those who speak French and that there was no intention at all to adopt an incorrect name. In committee the various possibilities could be reviewed and I feel certain that the officers of the company would satisfy hon. members. I do thank them for their comments. I will undertake to bring their comments, which I have noted, to the attention of the officers of the company immediately and can give all hon. members the assurance that responsible officers of the company will be available before the committee to answer their questions. I would hope that a name which would be acceptable to hon. members could be developed in committee.
The main object of the company is, first of all, to have a French name; second, that it should be acceptable to French Canadians and, third, that to the greatest extent possible it should emphasize the key words in the name which are "Canada Permanent". I am sure something can be worked out in committee and I would hope that the course suggested can be followed.
(Translation):


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, I just heard the reply of the hon. member. In my opinion, he did not state that the name would be changed but merely that it could be changed. However, I should like to inform the hon. member that if he intends to leave the words "Canada Permanent" in the name of the company, it will never do. I would say that the trust company wants to stress its permanent character not that of Canada.
At any rate, if he assures us that the bill will be reviewed and that we will have every opportunity to examine it closely in committee we can allow it to pass. However, if he holds his ground and if the name is not changed to something that is more properly French, the bill will be rejected not tonight but on third reading.


Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Before the bill carries, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that many measures of a similar nature will be introduced in parliament from now until 1967. Consequently, would it not be more practical to prepare a definite bill to

Private Bills
favour bilingualism? A company with an English name could then use a French name alongside the other. Instead of having two different letterheads, there could be only one which would include both the French and the English names.
As for the company's name on its buildings, it could be in both languages since that does not change anything in the legal status of the company as long as both designations are along the same lines and mean the same thing.
Before the centennial of confederation, you will see that all companies which operate only under an English name in the province of Quebec will lose both prestige and business.
Consequently, in view of the assurance which the hon. member has given us, I think we can let the bill pass. However, if the French designation of the company is not improved we will always be able to block the bill on third reading.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion? Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
(Text):

Mr. Yves Forest (Siansiead) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-8, respecting Quebec Fire Assurance Company.
He said:
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I have the pleasure to speak in this house, I shall no doubt be allowed to join in congratulations, even if it is late, to those you have received from all comers of the house.
I congratulate you for the dignified and efficient way in which you preside over the debates of the house. My congratulations are also for the one who now sits on the chair, the Deputy Speaker, who is also chairman of committees.
I congratulate him for being appointed to that high office after being a private member for a short time. My best wishes, too, to the deputy chairman of committees.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is rather simple; it is first to change the name of this company. The English name is now The Quebec Fire Assurance Company, and it is requested to change it to Quebec As-

surance Company. Now, the French name which was "La Compagnie d'assurance de Quebec contre les accidents du feu" is changed to "La Compagnie d'assurance du Quebec".
I think that my hon. friends from Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), the experts in the French language, will approve the selection of this name that sounds nice and appreciate the fact that it is shorter, while describing more exactly the operations of the company.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this change of name does not affect the rights and obligations of the company, and results in no problems in the case of procedures against the company.
The second purpose of the bill is to increase the authorized capital stock of the company from $225 million to $900 million, divided into 20,000 shares of equal value, namely $45 each.
That is, in a few words, the purpose of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion? Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
(Text):

Ian Grant Wahn: the second reading of Bill No. S-9, respecting Confederation Life Association.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of this bill is to change the French name of the petitioner. The English name of the petitioner is Confederation Life Association. The existing French name is Association d'assurance sur la vie dite de la Confederation. It is desired to shorten the French name to La Confederation, Compagnie d'Assurance-Vie. It is felt this new name would be shorter and easier to use in the course of the company's undertaking.
I should add that the company is a Canadian company, and has just completed a plan of mutualization. It is fully controlled by its policyholders. I am informed that as of March 31, 1963, the total Canadian participating policies represented 67 per cent of the total outstanding. The company has been very active in the province of Quebec, and of the business in force in Canada over 23 per cent is in the province of Quebec, and over 21 per cent of all policies throughout Canada have been issued in the French language. For this reason particularly, the company desires to have a shorter more useful French name.

I trust the same objections which were raised to the earlier bill do not apply to this bill. If they do, if it is felt that the French name is not acceptable, then I would be happy to give the same assurance as on the earlier bill.
(Translation):


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the mover of this bill.
Is there an administrative connection between the different insurance companies which have asked to change their names? Are the same directors interested in more than one of those companies for which bills were introduced this afternoon?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I call the attention of the hon. members on what I said a moment ago. The house is not in committee at the present time and if questions are directed to and answered by the mover of this bill, the debate will automatically come to an end. In my opinion, it would be better if hon. members who wish to take part in the debate asked their questions one after the other, thus making their own contribution, and the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) could answer them later on.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I seem to be the only one who will speak on the bill. Perhaps the hon. member could answer my question and thus end the debate.
(Text):


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I caution the house that by speaking at this time the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) closes the debate.


Ian Grant Wahn: In answer to the hon. member's question, I may say that as far as I am aware there is no connection between any of these companies which are changing their names, that is in so far as bills sponsored by me are concerned. I am not aware of any connection between this particular company and any other company which is changing its name.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Mrs. Margaret Konaniz (Winnipeg South) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-10, respecting The Great-West Life Assurance Company.
Private Bills
She said: Mr. Speaker and hon. members, the purpose of this bill is to add a French version to the name of The Great-West Life Assurance Company. I hope you will forgive my very poor French, but the French name will be La Great-West, Compagnie d'Assur-ance-vie. The Senate has passed this bill and I hoped that hon. members would agree with their decision. I can assure you that I am very honoured to be asked to guide this bill through the House of Commons. I consider the Great-West Life Company to be one of the most outstanding companies in Winnipeg, the city from which I come.
In 1891 Winnipeg was just a prairie city with a population of 20,000. It was just awakening to the possibilities of being the gateway to the west. It required vision to see beyond the obstacles of those days and appreciate the possibilities which the future held for this part of Canada. Through the initiative and energy of a group of pioneers, the Great-West Life Company was incorporated in that year, 1891. At the end of its first calendar year, the business in force was a little over $2 million. This was definite proof of both its enterprise and its vision.
During the last 72 years the growth of this company has been phenomenal. Today the total business in force is almost $6 billion. This company has shown its financial strength after coping with many critical periods such as a company must face. I think of two world wars, the devastating flu epidemic and the disastrous flood in our city. You will be interested to know that by 1907 this company had offices in every province in Canada. At this time they started to expand into the United States, and today we find they are licensed in 23 states as well as in the District of Columbia.
What about their position in the province of Quebec? The company was established there in 1896, and today has six offices in Montreal, one in Quebec city and four others in the larger cities of the province. There are over 200 agents and employees, and at the end of 1962 the business in force was $600 million. The company has $135 million invested within the province. I saw in one of the statements given to me that in 1961 policyholders and beneficiaries in Quebec received $11,500,000 in direct benefits and payments.
The company has used the French language throughout the province for many, many years. This applies not only to printed matter like reports, correspondence, sales promotion and literature but also to its contracts of insurance and annuities. The company has a separate department at its head office in Winnipeg to prepare this material

Private Bills
in French, but of necessity the only item which does not appear in French is the name of the company.
The Great-West Life Assurance Company is seeking approval of this bill in order to remedy that situation, and in doing so this will give its large French speaking organization and the policyholders the right to use the French version of the corporate name, rather than requiring them to use the English name. I move second reading with a great deal of pride.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, through unavoidable circumstances the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) is not present at the moment, but if the house will give me consent to move this bill I shall do so, and then when it is referred to the committee the hon. member for Regina City will attend the committee hearings.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I take it that the hon. member has the approval and consent of the hon. member for Regina City to do so?


Reynold Rapp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Mr. Rapp (for Mr. More), moved the second reading of Bill S-ll, respecting the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Western Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to have four Lutheran churches united under the name The United Lutheran Church in America. In short this is the purpose of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Portage-Nee-pawa (Mr. Enns) has asked me to move second reading of this bill for him.
[Mrs. Konantz.l


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Mr. Fair weather (for Mr. Enns), moved the second reading of Bill S-15, to incorporate The Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the title of the bill so far as I am concerned explains the bill.


Frank Howard: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the title of the bill explains the bill at all. In fact it misleads one into thinking the bill is for some other purpose than what it is. I appreciate that the hon. member in whose name it stands is not here and it is being moved by way of substitution. Nevertheless I think this question of the name of the association, namely, The Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada, has within it implications which should be looked at rather carefully when the bill gets to the appropriate standing committee of the house.
The implication that I see in here is that this association is likely to, or might in the future, become involved in the actual act of broadcasting by way of radio or television. I do not think this is at all the purpose behind the bill. I think it is something we should express as a caveat that we give consent to the passage of the bill only on the understanding that the subject matter of the name itself will be gone into most thoroughly in committee, so that the name of the association will be one which properly reflects the purposes and intentions of the bill.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: I am sorry I misinterpreted-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must remind the house that if the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I am sorry I have misinterpreted the mood of the house in my very short explanation. Of course the purpose of the bill is to set up a broadcasting corporation. Section 4 outlines the objectives:
The objects of the corporation shall be
(a) to promote the dissemination of Christian knowledge and to promote, organize, establish, maintain and carry on, conduct and assist organizations or facilities for the dissemination of Christian knowledge in all its branches-
-and so on.
At the committee stage the various corporate aspects of the bill can be examined more thoroughly. I would not wish to mislead the hon. member for Skeena and I say at once that broadcasting is the primary objective of this corporation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Ian Grant Wahn: the second reading of Bill No. S-17, respecting Chartered Trust Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to increase the authorized capital stock of the company to one million shares of the par value of $10 each. At the present time the capital stock consists of 250,000 shares of the par value of $10 each. At this point I should perhaps say that the company is Canadian owned. It has no American shareholders and no American deposits.
The services performed by trust companies, and their value to the community, are well known to all hon. members. In recent years the services performed by trust companies have expanded rapidly. Under the Trust Companies Act the amount of issued capital is one of the factors which determines the rapidity with which the business of a trust company can expand. All the presently authorized shares of the company have now been issued. To provide for future expansion and to permit the company to widen the services performed by it, it is felt essential to increase the authorized capital so that shares will be available to issue as they are required by the expansion of the company's business. While the increase in authorized capital requested is large, the shares will actually be issued only as required. The very rapid expansion of the company's business in recent years justifies the amount of increase. By way of illustration I might mention that in the last 15 years the company has issued shares having a total par value of $1,500,000. Of this total amount, shares having a par value of $660,000 have been issued since the beginning of 1961. Because of the rapid expansion of the company's business it is felt that the increase in authorized capital requested is reasonable and will commend itself to the house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Just before the bill goes through, Mr. Speaker, I must say first of all that we appreciate the magnificent effort on the part of the sponsor on this occasion to inform the house as to the purpose of the bill. However, I would like to ask the hon. member three questions. Could he tell us the length of time this company has been incorporated, give us the names of its officers, and tell us the area of Canada it has largely served to date?
Private Bills


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Again I must remind the house that if the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Speaker, I believe I can give the house the information which has been requested. The company was incorporated in 1905. With regard to the area in which it carries on its operations, I am under the impression that it carries on operations substantially throughout the country, although I cannot assure the hon. member at this point that this is true and that it carries on business in every province. However, it carries on its operations substantially throughout the country; it is a national organization. With regard to the names of the officers and directors of the company, the president is Mr. H. E. Langford of Toronto and the secretary is Mr. H. G. Soward; the chairman is Mr. Corson; the vice presidents are Mr. Greenshields and Mr. Macintosh; the directors are Mr. Aird, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Blair, Mr. Bradfield, Mr. Burns, Mr. Corbet, Mr. Ellsworth and Mr. Gelinas, who is also a member of the Montreal advisory board. Mr. Hayes, Mr. Holmes, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Jones, Mr. Loughney, Mr. Metcalfe, Mr. McLean, Mr. Robinette, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Scythes, Mr. Shannon, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Umphrey. These are the main officers and directors of the corporation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Ian Grant Wahn: the second reading of Bill No. S-18, to incorporate Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to create a single corporate body to be known as the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec in which will be merged the existing religious body known as the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec and the eight boards through which the work of the convention has been carried out in these provinces. The existing Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec is an unincorporated religious body formed pursuant to an act of the parliament of Canada. That act merely constituted the convention as an assembly of delegates to be appointed by the churches affiliated with it. The work of the convention has been carried on by the eight incorporated boards.
Because of this type of organization, overlapping of jurisdiction and duplication of work developed and in 1958 the convention appointed a commission to analyse the

The Budget-Mr. Martineau organization. After several years of intensive study, the commission recommended that the convention be incorporated and that the existing incorporated boards be merged with the incorporated convention to continue as one corporate entity. It is felt that the new organization would give permanency of existence to the convention and that it would eliminate many inefficiencies and duplications of time, effort and expense and that it would consolidate and unite the undertakings of the convention.
The proposal has been authorized and approved by the convention and by each of the eight boards involved. The detailed provisions of the bill are designed to give effect to the main purpose and will no doubt be examined in detail in the committee to which I trust this bill will be referred following second reading.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member on the lucidity with which he deals with matters temporal and spiritual within a period of a few moments and thank him for the information he has given with respect to this bill. I presume that the bill will be referred to a committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour
appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, and it being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. 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.
(Translation):
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, while the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Lamontagne) waxed eloquent on the comforts of a renovated federalism, his friend -or at least, his ally-Mr. Lesage, premier of the province of Quebec, just happened to have certain statements to make concerning the budget of our Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). I feel sure the Minister without

Portfolio will read with interest, while running through his newspapers tomorrow morning, that Mr. Lesage has described as a violation, and a glaring one-I am told- of provincial jurisdiction the new federal intrusion into fields traditionally reserved to the provincial state.
He attacked especially the financing program proposed by the government for municipalities. At the same time, he took the opportunity to say that the sales tax-proposed by the hon. members opposite-is a backward step. And finally he described as an Indian gift the $500 offered by the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) to encourage building in the winter months.
Now, Mr. Speaker, is that not an example of the take it or leave it attitude, the arrogant attitude of the administration towards the provinces, which are reduced to the status of vassals. And nothing in the remarks of the Minister without Portfolio, this afternoon, indicated that there had been any change of heart in that connection.
It is very nice for the minister to say that with this budget, which has disappointed everyone, we were entering a new era. He said that the budget had enhanced our prestige abroad. He should read Canadian and American papers, such as the New York Times and the New York Herald, and all others to see how many of the budget resolutions have been called discriminatory actions. He said that the budget contains provisions for the recovery of the economy, that those provisions will promote the expansion of our economy, while every building association in this country and every businessmen's association have declared in the strongest possible terms their dismay when faced with those proposals which could entail nothing but a slowing down of economic activity and business and an increase of unemployment.
Finally, the minister said that this budget would lead us into a new phase of national unity and he has called crypto-separatists those who in one way of another would oppose this new concept of federalism the administration was putting before the House of Commons and the population as a whole.
In the light of the statements just made by the premier of Quebec I wonder if tomorrow the minister will not describe him also as a pseudo-separatist.
And as one of the brilliant newspapermen on the hill, Mr. Clement Brown, said in his column: the Minister of Finance is a humor-

ist; on the one hand he proposes measures intended, according to his own words, to strengthen confederation but, on the other hand, he intrudes violently into the very substance of the confederation pact.
I do hope that before long we shall have the opportunity to discuss those measures in greater detail and the violation of the provincial autonomy which they revealed.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I will continue my remarks in English. I wish to state that the country as a whole was looking forward with great anticipation to this first budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). That was to be the crowning achievement of the 60 days of decision, the 60 days of action. That was to be the great piece de resistance of that period which, incidentally, the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) in a radio address the other day declared could not be compared with any other period in modern history. Well, that is going quite a long way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Well, that is very true: it certainly cannot be compared with any other period of political history in Canada, because we have had the days of inaction and the days of consideration-qualified inaction- and I have made a summary and calculated a balance sheet. In 60 days of "action" I have found that the principal achievement of the government has been its unequalled ability to consider matters placed before it for attention. Looking through reports in Hansard from May 12 to the end of the period of decision, I find that the government had no less than 56 matters which, they told this house, they had taken under consideration- I may have left out one or two. They had, in addition, 21 matters under review. They also had 24 matters under study. One might say the government was engaging in generalities by saying these matters were under review or under study. But there is a fine distinction. Among other things, the government has certain matters under active consideration. No less than six questions, we are told, were under active consideration. Some were under serious consideration, and still others were under very serious consideration. With regard to matters taken under review, we have been told that the government is taking a look at some of these questions. Other questions were kept under constant review. Still others were being watched very closely. Certain subjects, we were told were being given close study. As a matter of fact, some were currently under study and others were being studied with great attention. I do not even refer to those matters which are under continuous study, or constant review, or to
The Budget-Mr. Martineau which close consideration is being given. Of course, there are other matters which are not being considered at all; they are not even worth consideration.
But there is no doubt that the crowning achievement, the budget was an anticlimax. It was a flop. It simply signified the floundering of the financial proposals announced with so much pomp, so much flourish. The budget itself could hardly have justified the sactimonious and partisan introduction made by the minister. It seems to me that everybody is out of step except the hon. gentleman himself. Consider the arrogance shown by the minister in some of his introductory passages. Nevertheless, the minister could defy his horoscope on that famous night of June 13. He was not superstitious. He was going to give the nation the great "face the facts" budget. He and his colleagues were taking this budget very seriously. It was to be an occasion announcing a grand scrutiny of the state of affairs confronting this nation. He was going to present to parliament an account long overdue. Here, the minister took on the role of a public indicator-a sort of public prosecutor or grand inquisitor-and he discussed with flippancy the progress of the economy. This is what he said about 1962, one of the years in which our economy achieved remarkable, indeed, unprecedented progress. He said:
The year 1962 was a remarkable one in Canadian economic history. It was marked by an exchange crisis which followed upon five years of economic stagnation.
He had not one word to say about the remarkable success of the emergency measures, or of the restoration of our reserves to a new high. Nevertheless, he did have to admit that 1962 was a good year. This is what he said:
The year 1962 . . . was an improvement over 1961. This was evident in the industrial part of our economy, while in agriculture, too, incomes were up.
The details he said, could be found in the white paper. In other words, these solid achievements were referred to as something worth only the attention of scholars or people who wanted to delve more deeply into the history of this nation. His sense of balance had been disturbed. The minister said the previous government had permitted the economy to stagnate, but he himself predicted a rate of growth much smaller than last year. He said, as will be found reported at page 1002 of Hansard:
We have built our present estimate of revenues on the assumption that our gross national product will be about 5 per cent greater in 1963 than it was in the previous year. For this purpose we have assumed a normal crop, a relatively stable price level from now on. and no external trouble. About one third of this 5 per cent represents price increases-

The Budget-Mr. Martineau
The minister referred to confidence. Confidence, he said was a state of mind. It was psychological in character. The minister charged that the previous administration had destroyed confidence. He also said that as a result of the election and the prospect of a decisive government in Canada once again, Canada is on the road up.
Well, I wonder if the minister has read any of the newspapers in this land lately. This is a budget which can be criticized both because of its form and because of its substance. In regard to its form, I can only say that this is a matter which has been discussed in great detail during the last few days. I do not wish to go further into this aspect of the controversy. The fact remains that there has been a serious violation of constitutional practice in comprising the security of a budget by the way in which the minister permitted his special advisers access to the final draft. He can say all he likes about its being a good thing to have advisers, but there is surely no justification whatever for giving advisers brought in from outside access to the final draft of the budget. It remains a fact that it is not necessary only for Caesar's wife to be above evil; it is necessary for Caesar's wife to be above the suspicion of evil. That is the point which we on this side have tried to bring out, without attacking in any way the integrity of the minister or his aids. We have not attempted to do this in any way but we have discharged what we believe to be our parliamentary duty by placing before this house and the nation the extraordinary practices which have prevailed, extraordinary, surely, in Canadian political history, surrounding the presentation of the budget. Yesterday, the minister failed to give an answer to that charge. It is all right for him to say that he may have made a mistake and that he is sorry for having made a mistake. But this does not preclude the fact that there has been indiscretion and that the civil service has been flouted. Even yesterday in making his excuses to the house the minister said he had disregarded the old, traditional, safe and cautious way of proceeding, and was innovating. If he has innovated, he has innovated to the detriment of the confidence which should reign in these matters not only in parliamentary circles but throughout the nation.
With regard to the contents of the budget itself, Mr. Speaker, I would say that it is a sort of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde budget. It has an air of unreality. I think one can say that one is travelling in Alice's wonderland and that the minister has taken an attitude somewhat like Humpty Dumpty in the attitude of impenetrability he has assumed. That is so, Mr. Speaker, because the minister, after having stated objectives with which

none of us could disagree, proposed means that will have the effect of defeating these very objectives. That is true with regard to his objective of economic expansion. He said we have to get the economy rolling again, we have to cure unemployment, we have to cure the balance of payments problem and the deficit problem. The methods which he employs, Mr. Speaker, defeat these very worth-while and laudable objectives.
Yesterday the minister said there were only a few ways by which to obtain these objectives. They were by imposing one of three taxes, an increase in personal income and corporation taxes, an across the board increase in the sales tax or the removal of the exemption from sales tax of building materials and production machinery. I seem to remember that when the minister was on this side of the house he always spoke of more revolutionary and more novel methods. Expansion was his byword. Where is that expansion today? Shall we find expansion in the imposition of an 11 per cent sales tax on building materials?
With regard to the imposition of that tax the minister said that it was not a very unpopular tax and in fact would be greeted quite favourably by most people in this country. I wonder whether the howl of protest that greeted the imposition of this tax will be looked upon by the minister as indicating a favourable outlook toward the prospect of this tax, which will have as one of its results an increase in the cost of building. Another more serious result is that many worth-while projects will be discarded.
The minister talked about foreign ownership in our country and this is what he had to say about foreign ownership and control, as found on page 1000 of Hansard for June 13:
We shall continue to need substantial net inflows of foreign capital for quite a few years to come if we are to avoid further exchange rate difficulties and if a reasonable increase in our standard of living is to be achieved. This is a fact of life in Canada. It would be the height of folly to ignore it.
Then he quoted Walter Lippmann, apparently with approval, as follows:
The solution of the problem is not one for legislation or treaty but for voluntary action by the United States interests in co-operation with their Canadian associates.
What the minister has proposed, Mr. Speaker, is not voluntary action by United States investors and Canadian investors but rather penalties imposed on foreign investors, on people whom the minister recognizes we need to develop and expand our economy. Yet here he is shaking a big stick at these people and discouraging investments that we need.

On the other hand, we do not offer the proper incentive for the formation of Canadian capital. There is nothing in this budget that will favour greater Canadian participation and that will make a greater amount of funds available for investment in Canada by-Canadians. The budget provides only added taxation and absolutely none of the incentives whereby Canadians can feel that industry will reap the reward which will permit the building up of an intrinsically Canadian industry and which will eliminate part of the foreign ownership and control that all of us in this house deplore.
All of us agree with the objectives that the minister is seeking to achieve, but I think that the business community and businessmen throughout the country are unanimous in stating that the methods employed by the minister go contrary to the end which he seeks. The same administrative difficulties that prevailed in the case of the securities takeover tax, which has been repealed by the minister, are also prevalent in the imposition of the withholding taxes. The same reasons apply to the withholding taxes as applied to the securities takeover tax, and for that reason I submit that the minister should again review this tax, with that constant attention which his colleagues have given to other problems, and repeal it before it is too late.
I have presented in summary form my views with regard to some of the principal points contained in the budget. We will have occasion to come back to them during the discussion of the budget resolutions. A survey of the press throughout the land indicates that the budget is a most disappointing one. That was the first impression that most observers got after the delivery of the budget speech, and after a careful and more lucid analysis of the details of the budget this disappointing budget has become a really disastrous budget. It is disastrous for the expansion of our economy. It is disastrous because its net result will be more unemployment, not less. Its net result will be the discouragement of incentive enterprise and initiative in this country. It is not at all the type of budget the country was expecting from the new administration and from the Minister of Finance who was supposed to bring to bear a wholly novel outlook on financial matters.
(Translation):


Mr. Jean Berger (Monlmagny-L'Islef):: Mr. Speaker, as you undoubtedly know, I have the honour to represent in the house the beautiful constituency of Montmagny-L'Islet. You will admit that it is quite a heavy responsibility to be the spokesman for an electoral riding that was so well represented in the
The Budget-Mr. Berger recent past, especially by my brilliant predecessor who is both party leader and premier of "la belle province" at the present time.
My electors certainly deserve my most sincere thanks for the great confidence they have placed in my humble talents. I wish for only one thing, and that is to deserve it for a long time if not forever.
(Text):
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you have ever been given the true impressions of a newcomer to this distinguished house in the performance of his duties? At first, naturally, I was greatly fascinated by the colourful ceremonies which took place at the official opening of the first session of the twenty sixth parliament of our nation.
I have listened very carefully, as have many others to the numerous features and interventions that have been made. I must frankly admit that at times I have been disturbed, literally dumbfounded, by the apparent lack of seriousness demonstrated by certain members of the opposition, as illustrated by their questions and remarks addressed either to you or the members of the cabinet. I had always been under the impression that there were so many important and vital questions to be settled in this House of Commons, in order to assure the development and survival of our nation, that there would be absolutely no time whatever to spend on such futilities, often indulged in with such misplaced ostentation. May God spare me in the future from such childish interventions.
I understand also quite readily the opposition's supposedly astute tactics, even if I cannot approve of them, in slowing down this government's program of action. In my humble opinion, this will prove to be a poor political asset in the eyes of their own constituents.
May I say however, Mr. Speaker, that in my riding of Montmagny-L'Islet, it is now common knowledge that the population is much more pleased, up to now anyway, with the right hon. Prime Minister's 60 days of decision which have now ended, as compared with the interminable six years of bifurcation and hesitation which characterized the preceding administration and the poor results which were unfortunately experienced. Our hopes and legitimate desires have been raised once again and in the very near future, as a result of the appropriate legislation introduced by this Liberal government, I have absolutely no doubt that these desires and hopes will be fulfilled.
In this hour of great need of our nation, may I be permitted to kindly ask the hon. members of the opposition for truly sincere and active co-operation so that Canada, our
1562	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Berger great country, may once again reach and keep the high standard which was hers for so long in the past in all spheres of society under Liberal statesmanship?
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, the needs are great, as they naturally are in all the other counties. I am quite aware of that fact. But by their vote of April 8, our people have clearly shown that they have confidence in your wise direction and also-I say this with all due modesty- a certain confidence in their representative in this house. I deem it to be my duty to give you all necessary information about our present situation and to submit respectfully our just claims. You will readily admit that Montmagny-L'Islet has not been too favoured by the previous administration for a good many years. Perhaps we were not particularly welcome among the Conservatives because of our firm beliefs and our strong determination to become equal partners in confederation. We joined for a short time the "dream ship" of the "Social Credit Line", which was flying a Conservative flag at the time. Is that why we did not reach a safe harbour? Anyhow, today, we must face hard facts, and we feel quite able and willing to do so.
For the last few days, I have seriously studied the budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). Like many Canadians, I have found in it some pleasant things and others, I must say, which are not quite so pleasant. I fully realize that the government must live up to its responsibilities and convince Canadians that they cannot hope for a high level of national income, and social security to boot, without having to bear a heavier tax burden. This was stressed by one of my illustrious predecessors in the house. I am convinced that the minister was striving towards a realistic budget, because it is extremely rare for a minister of finance to present a spectacular budget. As an economist rather than a financier, the minister grappled with the most serious problem at this time, that is widespread unemployment, and his budget, as he pointed out himself, is designed especially to stem unemployment, in conjunction with other government measures already announced.
The three year tax exemption granted to industries establishing plants in depressed areas is a first step which pleased us. No doubt it will help to reduce considerably the economic slump which we are now experiencing. On the other hand, however, the imposition of a sales tax of 11 per cent on building materials is casting gloom over our prospects in


the riding of Montmagny-L'Islet. I must say, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: The Budget-Mr. Berger We cannot condemn cautiousness but, on the other hand, we refuse to stay any longer in this dangerous period of stagnation that we have known unfortunately, and even more acutely these last few years. It has been too severe and lasted too long.
The assurance given by the Prime Minister that a national anthem and a distinctive flag would be adopted very soon was and is still a moral comfort to us.
I should now like to point out, in my own name, that at this time when the attention of the whole world is still turned toward the Vatican where the peace-loving pope, John XXIII, has just died, where his successor has just been elected in the person of His Holiness Paul VI, the question of a Canadian diplomatic representation to the Vatican has cropped up again. I knew that this would please my hon. friend for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) who, I suppose, was not given all proper latitude to discuss it at ease with his leader during recent years. The present atmosphere around the Holy See should raise all barriers, all hesitations and even all political considerations which, to this day, prevented the government of our country from acting in a practical way.
Mr. Speaker, we also hopefully look forward to agriculture. The many problems facing the members of parliament in relation to agriculture have gradually developed during the last ten years or so. The aspect of some has changed, while some others became more acute. Agriculture has an important part to play in the promotion of the whole economic activity of any country, the development of markets for our various products coming from all parts of the country, the development of our resources, including our labour force which could be used in a much more effective way in some developing areas, and some contribution to the stability of the cost of living.
In spite of some improvements in the per capita farm income during the last decade, it must be recognized that a gap remains and tends to widen between agriculture and the rest of our economy. This seems to be due particularly to the limited opportunities offered agriculture in the development of foreign markets and to the rapid growth of other sectors of the economy.
Therefore, we on this side of the house, welcome with great pleasure and great hopes the government project concerning the impending appointment of a minister of agriculture for the eastern part of Canada.


Our climate, our soil, our crops vary considerably from one end of the country to the other, and it is high time a remedy was found to the persistent uneasiness prevailing in the east. This first approach with an eastern minister already seems a benefit and for the time being it has my wholehearted support.
I also wonder whether, because of our limited production in the east, which is partly due to climatic conditions, and partly to our soil-and I am mainly speaking of my own riding-whether it would not be preferable to turn to raising beef cattle, poultry etc., while not losing sight of the particularly promising attraction of large markets nearby, like Montreal and Toronto, for instance. However, I note that, at the federal level, we are mainly interested, as we should be, in study and research, leaving it to the provinces to administer or carry out such and such policy, because their respective autonomies should be respected.
I hope to have an opportunity of coming back to this matter during the debate on the bill to appoint a minister of agriculture for the east in a few weeks.
I would like to conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, with a few words on bilingualism and biculturalism, which I have always intensely advocated, since my earliest days.
(Text):
We have to realize, Mr. Speaker, that the brilliant future which is our legitimate destiny in this country will only be achieved if each of us holds the other in mutual respect and understanding. I sincerely believe that we should have a better understanding of what it really should mean to be a true Canadian. The key to unity in Canada is equality and if we are prepared to use this key we can unlock the doors which have barred Canada's growth and clouded her image. United we have the spiritual and material resources necessary to become a leader among nations. Divided our future is shrouded in uncertainty and Canada may forever be known as the country which condemned itself to perpetual mediocrity because blindness had concealed an elementary truth; stability and progress are single sides of a coin and both of these are functions of people striving for a common goal while stopping to help each other along the way.
(Translation):
It is in this spirit, Mr. Speaker, that I should now ask all hon. members of this distinguished

house, without any distinction of race, religion or political allegiance, to work hand in hand leaving aside tedious partisanship, to the establishment of a healthy and progressive policy, to the adoption of laws well adapted to stimulate an economy that wants to recover, to the realization of desired and desirable unity of all Canadians without exception, for a stronger, greater and more respected Canada, for a country as rich as ours where life is so good.
(Text):


Hon. H. J. Flemming (Vicioria-Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make some observations in connection with the budget and the budget speech delivered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) a few days ago I have an urge to give in a few words my conception of what a budget address should be. I have had the privilege of listening to many budget speeches and it has always been my opinion that a budget speech presented an account to parliament or to a legislature of the state of the nation. Then after giving a statement of conditions as they were, both financial and economic, the gentleman delivering the budget speech, whatever his official position might be, would give a review of the measures which the government proposed to take to meet existing problems and improve conditions. I have gathered the impression, from some degree of experience, that extraneous remarks of a partisan nature are out of place in a budget speech; that generally speaking ministers making budget speeches deliver them in a noble state of mind and, shall I say, with a noble attitude toward the report and the people listening to the report. The minister, apparently, in delivering his budget speech had no such idea. Whether he got other plans from some of these newly found advisers, I am in no position to say, but nevertheless his speech has been described as the most petty, picayune, partisan party address that has ever been given in parliament. It has been described as a combination of partisanship and platitudes, without being sure which was the more prevalent. To me it indicates supreme arrogance.
The minister called it a face the facts budget. I say that in the light of subsequent events the only face there is in it is an about face, and it now should be called the off again, gone again, will it be on again budget. I strongly advise the minister to go back to writing books. When he chose the title for his book "Troubled Canada" he must have been looking into a crystal ball and seeing the conditions existing in June, 1963 after he delivered the budget speech, because he has certainly added to our troubles by the provisions of his first budget.
25, 1963
The Budget-Hon. H. J. Flemming
I am not one of those who blame the minister entirely for the situation that exists; neither do I find fault with him exclusively. My experience has been that ministers of finance and ministers generally speaking do not take distinct and unusual steps without consulting the prime minister under whom they serve, and other members of the government. Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, that I am not blaming the Minister of Finance entirely for the situation in which we find ourselves in connection with various things which I will enumerate in a moment or two. Over the years the Minister of Finance has proved himself to be a good theorist. He was good enough to play his part in fooling the electorate last April. His first opportunity to put his economic theories into practice, however, has been a tragic failure and the theories just do not work.
As an example let us consider the 30 per cent tax on sales to non-residents of stock in Canadian companies exceeding $50,000 a day by one seller, which took effect as he spoke the words. How did it work? In a few days it wrought such havoc that Mr. Kierans, the president of the Montreal stock exchange, strong Liberal that he is, forsook his desk and rushed to Ottawa to join forces with Senator Gelinas, who is a collector of funds for the Liberal party, to insist upon the immediate withdrawal of this dangerous tax which was an affront to business at home, in Washington and elsewhere. These gentlemen got results; the tax has been withdrawn and its future is nebulous. The minister, as I say, called his budget a face the facts budget. I repeat that it is an about face, an off again, gone again, when will it be on again budget. As far as I know it is the first of its kind in Canadian political history. Before the election the Liberals talked about restoring confidence; since the election they have acted in such a way as to throw the whole business community of Canada into confusion. How is anyone doing business or contemplating making an investment in this country to know where he stands? How is anyone to know what the tax policy of this about face government is or is not?
I find myself constrained to offer some comments regarding our economic relations with other countries, especially with the United States of America. I am a Canadian. I have many friends and relatives in our neighbour country to the south. I represent a constituency lying along the border of the state of Maine. I have an American-born daughter-in-law living in Canada and contributing to raising young Canadians. All my life I have been associated with businesses which export the bulk of their products to the U.S.A. Moreover, it was American capital

The Budget-Hon. H. J. Flemming which in many instances kept our businesses going by making advances when we could not borrow the money in Canada. Do you wonder, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot get very excited or exercised unduly when I hear about our friends in the United States buying Canadian businesses. I think we might all remember that they do not move the plant and machinery out of this country when they purchase it. The activity remains here. The business employs Canadians. The business pays them well. The business operation is subject to Canadian laws.
The Liberals in the last two elections unfortunately managed to convince Canadians in some localities that we the Conservatives, were anti-American. Speaking for myself, and I think for my party, nothing could be further from the truth. That was not and is not a fact, and it is too bad that many people were influenced by this misrepresentation.
The minister said in his speech that in seeking solutions to this problem, meaning unemployment, our salvation does not lie in isolationism; that it does not lie in withdrawing unto ourselves and ignoring the currents of progress and change around us. I wonder what he was doing with the 30 per cent tax, having uttered those particular words? I believe it is a great privilege for us in Canada to live alongside a wonderful country with such wonderful people as those who live in the United States of America. I think it should be considered as being of great benefit to us and that we should take advantage of our geographical situation instead of whining about it. That is, as long as our laws are respected.
I submit that it is a good thing to have people from other countries thinking that Canada is a good country in which to invest. What is wrong with it? I submit that investment from abroad stimulates interest in this country, or any other country. After investing in Canada people come to visit us. They want to see their security. Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, the account in the book "David Harum" about the country banker, who said that a man's heart is located much closer to his breeches pocket than to his breast pocket? Then we also have from Holy Writ the assertion that "where your treasure is there will your heart be also". So I do not view with alarm the matter of U.S. investment in Canada; in fact, I welcome it.
The 30 per cent tax was ill conceived, ill-prepared and ill considered; it has now been withdrawn. It was too hot to handle and the government had to drop it. I suggest to the Minister of Finance, or whoever he may be in future, that the problem of dividends from Canadian business in their relation to our


balance of payments position should be a matter to be dealt with from the positive point of view rather than the negative. I think it should be made attractive for Canadian citizens to own Canadian stocks rather than apply any extraordinary penalty to foreign owners. This could be accomplished by increasing the discount allowance for income tax purposes on dividends of Canadian companies by a small percentage each year until a certain maximum is reached. It is now 20 per cent. It might be increased by 1 per cent each year over a ten year period, and in that length of time it seems to me that Canadians would bid for stocks of Canadian companies and the ownership in Canada should, and perhaps would, increase enormously.
My opinion, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the sad situation in which the new budget has plunged us is this. In control of our affairs in this house today we have a group of men, most of whom have lived very sheltered lives. They have never had any practical experience in running business. Instead of having to scratch around to earn a living for themselves, generally speaking all they have had to do is to put their names on the back of a regular pay cheque. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that such men have nothing in their background to enable them-


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about the Minister of Finance?


Hugh John Flemming: -successfully to manage the big business of government, which today runs into billions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely the Minister of Finance has?


Hugh John Flemming: I do not
think the minister wants me to comment on the Minister of Finance in view of the budget.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He has had tremendous business experience.


Hugh John Flemming: Hon.
gentlemen

and I include the minister, because he is one-can talk convincingly about how to run the country, but already their actions speak louder than words and prove their incompetence. I say to them, Mr. Speaker, that the best education in the world is secured by struggling to make a living.
I should like to comment on the bringing in of these so-called experts from outside to advise the minister as to what he should put in his budget. I feel that this casts doubts on the abilities of the Prime Minister, of the members of his cabinet, on all Liberal members in this house, and on the fine senior civil

servants whose professional training and personal competence must surely have prepared them to give just such advice at just such a time.
You will recall that only a few years ago a minister of finance resigned in Britain because of a supposed leak before his budget was presented to the house. I feel very strongly that we should hesitate a long time before we break away from practices that have proved themselves through the centuries in the experience of the mother of parliaments; in that-
Land of settled government,
That land of just and old renown,
Where freedom broadens slowly down From precedent to precedent.
The Minister of Finance, like all members of the house, was elected by the people and is responsible to the people. They elected him because they believed he was competent to carry on their affairs. If he felt he was not capable, in consultation with the usual persons whose advice is permissible through parliamentary precedent, then he should never have accepted the position of minister of finance. In my opinion he has made a grave mistake in introducing into this house a very wrong, unfair and dangerous precedent. Some people say: Well, you have to have advice. I see nothing wrong with seeking advice, but the point is that the people from whom the government or the minister secures advice should not know what is going into the budget. They should be asked for advice but they should not know what the decision is. That is the fact, Mr. Speaker, and it is the fault I find with this situation.
Now I have a word or two to say about unemployment. There is no difference between any two members in this chamber as to the importance of unemployment and the tragedy which the lack of gainful work brings to individuals, to families and to communities. That is one of the things we can agree on for sure. Now let us find out how the minister proposes to deal with it in his budget speech. We know of the displacement of people due to automation. We know of the necessity of training people for jobs requiring skill, and the government which preceded the present government took no back seat from any other government in the things they did in that respect. The Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) says that these measures will be expanded. We all know this will take time. What are we going to do in the meantime? What are we going to do for jobs while this training process is going on? That is the question. I can tell hon. members that the industry which employs the largest percentage of unskilled labour in
25. 1963
The Budget-Hon. H. J. Flemming Canada is the construction industry. This includes the forest products industry which produces lumber used for most types of building. I believe the percentage of wages paid in the lumber and construction industry in relation to the total cost of the product compares very favourably with the similar percentage in any other industry. A good deal of the cost of the product is paid to unskilled workers. I have in my hand a letter which was sent to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) by the maritime lumber bureau. I commend this to the attention of the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Nicholson) also, because this is a protest against the imposition of the 11 per cent tax. I intend to read the letter. This was sent to the Minister of Finance on June 20 and it says:
The directors of the maritime lumber bureau strongly protest the sales tax that has recently been placed on lumber and building supplies.
Increased cost of domestic lumber, by taxation, will result only in less building starts, and have adverse effects on employment in lumber, construction and transport industry.
The loss of the exemption, available to producers and manufacturers on equipment and supplies used directly in the manufacture of lumber, can only result in substantially higher cost and thus weaken our position to compete in our much needed export market. The export market has been built up and maintained over a period of many years and is the basic market for Canadian lumber.
Furthermore, the increased cost of fuel used in the production of lumber, due to the sales tax, is also a serious matter and substantial cost, as a large percentage of our maritime mills are powered with diesel engines.
It is our opinion that the lumber industry of the maritime provinces, presently struggling for existence, is in the position that if such burdens are imposed we will fall into the class of industries that require substantial government assistance in order to exist and compete in foreign markets.
So I appeal again to the minister to reconsider the imposition of this iniquitous 11 per cent tax. This is an industry which should be encouraged. I go back to the question of the training of young men for skilled jobs. It does not make sense that during the period of education and transition we should discourage industries which are using a high percentage of unskilled workers. But what do we find? I will tell you what we were told in the budget speech. We were told that this industry would be encouraged by being taxed 11 per cent on all materials used for construction, which, it is estimated will increase the price of finished units by 5 per cent or more. Could anything be more stupid than that? If ever there was a move that is bound to slow down the construction industry on which so many of our people depend for a living, it is certainly the withdrawal of the sales tax exemption on building materials and the imposition of the manufacturers 11 per cent sales tax on these construction

The Budget-Hon. H. J. Flemming essentials. The sales tax newly imposed on machinery used in manufacturing or production other than farming and fishing is also bound to be a deterrent to the good times we enjoyed in 1962, the best year in the economic history of Canada, thanks to the practical policies of the Diefenbaker government.
The minister, speaking for the government, states that any Canadian, young or old, who wants a job must be able to find one. With that, I agree. Then, almost before the words have left his lips, he imposes a tax of 11 per per cent on all building materials, which will have the effect, if proceeded with, of hindering, hampering and, in many cases, completely stopping work which employs more unskilled men than most other industries in Canada.
I wonder if the minister has read an extract from the newspapers about the Bathurst Power and Paper Company Limited. I wonder if he knows what they are doing with regard to the board mill they were going to build in the Gaspe peninsula. This is from the Moncton Transcript of June 22:
R. A. Irwin, president of Bathurst Power and Paper Co. Ltd. said Friday night the company has decided to reconsider plans for construction of a new kraft board mill in Quebec's Gaspe peninsula.
He said in a telephone interview the review was deemed necessary in the light of the federal government's budget proposal for removing the exemption of building products and machinery from the 11 per cent sales tax.
"This would have a direct effect on the capital cost of the mill", said Mr. Irwin.
Cost was originally anticipated at between $40 million and $42 million. Mr. Irwin said removal of the exemption could increase the figure by an estimated $2,500,000 to $3 million.
I submit that this has every appearance of being the essence, indeed the quintessence of stupidity, and I appeal to the government to remove this tax before it does irreparable damage.
And this is not all. The minister then proceeds to impose a tax on machinery which also will have the effect of cancelling, or at best postponing, the expansion of industry during the period when we need all wheels turning to meet the need for employment and when it would appear desirable to instal machinery and keep it going.
Now I turn to winter employment. The minister mentioned the announcement of the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) on this subject. The Minister of Labour has stated that $500 will be allowed off the basic price for houses substantially constructed during the winter season. As my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) said a few evenings ago, this is more than offset by the extra tax on building materials. So the Minister of Labour giveth and the Minister of Finance taketh away. I know there is something more

to it than that, but I do not know who is to be called blessed. It is estimated, I believe that 50 per cent or more of the cost of a house is for materials which go into it. In other words, substantially more than the $500 goes for the extra taxes and, actually, the cost of winter construction is substantially greater than if made during more moderate weather. On balance the tax must be considered as additional cost and as taxation. Increasing taxation in itself is bad enough, but applying taxation to the extent of reducing its volume to an industry on which the government depends for an improvement in the employment situation, seems inept and inane and capable of being represented as insane.
The Liberals are attempting to say they have achieved a budget which does not increase taxes, although how this is possible when the minister expects to receive $170 million more in revenue is far too subtle for a mind like mine. They call taxation revenue and expect the people to swallow that in the same way as they did some of their claptrap last April.
I come now to a question regarding the Canada development corporation. What is the intent of this?
An hon. Member; Out of order.


Hugh John Flemming: 
An hon. Member:: Not 5 per cent.


Hugh John Flemming: All right, figure it out for yourself-$30 billion to $40 billion in six years-figure it out for yourself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret I must interrupt the hon. gentleman and advise him that his time has expired.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Kingston.
28902-5-100
The Budget-Mr. Benson


Mr. E. J. Benson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to debates in this house over the past years it is with some diffidence that I rise to make my modest contribution to this budget debate. It has disturbed me, Mr. Speaker, that over the past four days, culminating in a vote last evening, the content, the economic aims and implications of the budget speech delivered on June 13, 1963 received very little attention. Instead we have witnessed a deliberate diversionary action which, through implication, attempted to destroy the character of persons who could not defend themselves in this chamber. I deplore this kind of debate.


An hon. Member:: Who started it?


Edgar John Benson: Today I should like to discuss some of the aims and implications of the budget recently presented. The purposes of the budget, as clearly indicated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), are fourfold. The first and most important aim is to fight unemployment. The second is to encourage Canadian participation in the ownership and control of companies operating in Canada. The third aim is to make our tax system more fair and equitable by closing loopholes and eliminating anomalies in our taxing statutes. The fourth aim is to move this country toward financial responsibility by reducing the huge budgetary deficits which have plagued us during the past several years. I believe that new ground has been broken in this budget. Bold new ideas have been introduced which, in the years to come, will benefit every part of this country.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the matter of attacking chronic unemployment which all of us, I am sure, consider to be Canada's major problem. Governments cannot tackle this problem alone but they can create an environment in which free enterprise can move forward, and I believe that, working together, labour, industry and government can achieve much in returning this country to a state of full employment.
One of the chief problems we have in Canada is the fact that some areas in our country have not developed as rapidly as others and therefore suffer more from unemployment than does the country as a whole. The Minister of Finance offers in this budget particular encouragement for such areas by saying that new manufacturing and processing industries locating there, regardless of ownership, will have a tax holiday of three years. In addition, they will have the opportunity to write off their machinery and

The Budget-Mr. Benson equipment in a two year period. New buildings for commercial or industrial purposes in these areas may be written off over a five year period.
I believe that these are real incentives to industry. They tell manufacturers and processors that they can move into these areas and have real tax advantages. A manufacturer can set up a new business with the knowledge that if it is economically sound- and no one will start a business anywhere unless there is reasonable hope of its being profitable-he can recover his whole investment before he has to pay any income taxes. These incentives are greater than have ever been offered before in this country to my knowledge. They are incentives designed to encourage industrial growth and expansion in areas of Canada which need it. In addition, for all areas of Canada manufacturing and processing businesses owned to the extent of 25 per cent by Canadians are to be allowed to write off their new machinery and equipment in two years.
I have prepared a table which shows that a manufacturer who is operating profitably anywhere in Canada will be better from a cash flow point of view in spite of the sales tax on building materials, and I would appreciate having the opportunity to insert this table in Hansard at this point with the consent of the house.


Mr. Knowles:: What is its source?


Edgar John Benson: It is prepared by me. I am responsible for it.
[Editor's note: The table referred to above is as follows:]
A new manufacturer with at least 25 per cent Canadian ownership builds a plant anywhere in Canada and invests $300,000 in building and $300,000 in equipment.



BEFORE BUDGET POSITION

[Stage Direction]
Class 3 Class 8*
Buildings Machinery
5%	20%	TotalCost $300,000	$300,000	$600,000Capital Cost Allowance year 1 15,000	60,000	75,000Undepreciated Capital Cost end of year 1 285,000	240,000	525,000Capital Cost Allowance Year 2 14,250	48,000	62,250Undepreciated Capital Cost end of year 2 $270,750	$192,000	$462,750

[Stage Direction]
Class 3 Class 8 Buildings Machinery
5%	50%	TotalCost	$300,000	$300,000	$600,000Estimate Sales Tax (11%)	33,000(5%)	15,000	48,000333,000	315,000	648,000Capital Cost allowance Year 1	16,650	157,500	174,150Undepreciated capital Cost end of year 1	316,350	157,500	473,850Capital Cost allowance Year 2	15,817	157,500	173,317Undepreciated capital Cost end of year 2	$300,533	nil	$300,533
Ordinary rates of capital cost allowance, not including any acceleration provisions.
In this table I have assumed that a new manufacturer, with at least 25 per cent Canadian ownership, builds a plant anywhere in Canada and invests $300,000 in buildings and $300,000 in equipment. This table indicates, Mr. Speaker, that over the two year period his depreciation which could be claimed for income tax purposes would, in the two years after budget date, amount to $347,467 as compared with $137,250 at ordinary rates. The extra depreciation would amount to $210,217 and the tax thereon at the corporate rate of 50 per cent would mean a saving of $105,108.50. Thus, Mr. Speaker, even though the manufacturer had to lay out an additional $48,000 when he bought his plant due to the sales tax increase, if he operated profitably he would be $57,108.50 better off from a cash flow point of view after two years of operation than he was before the budget. When businessmen enter a new business, Mr. Speaker, one of their prime concerns is how soon they can get their investment back out of the business and into their hands for further use.
There are other measures, Mr. Speaker, in the budget such as the special payment to employers of elderly workers, the reduction of N.H.A. interest rates and the lower down payment on N.H.A. homes, all designed to spur employment. I believe that these measures, plus other measures such as increased municipal aid, additional retraining assistance, the creation of a department of industry and a national economic council will provide a comprehensive attack on the unemployment problem that we have in this country, a problem which this government is determined to solve.
I should like to move on to the next aim of this budget, namely the encouragement of
[Stage Direction]
Canadian participation in ownership and control of corporations operating in this country. Several members of the opposition have said that they agree with this aim, and then wandered off to discuss the 30 per cent takeover tax, a tax which formed only a minor part of this program and which has since been withdrawn.
We have still in this budget, Mr. Speaker, two major incentives to encourage the sale of a portion of the capital stock of such corporations to Canadians. These are, first, the differential in withholding tax and, second, the accelerated depreciation which I have just discussed. Both of these measures will encourage these companies to sell at least 25 per cent of their shares to Canadians, and to have 25 per cent of their board of directors made up of Canadian citizens who are not company employees. This is new ground which this government has broken. It is the first time that a Canadian government has faced up to the problem of foreign control and ownership. It will mean that Canadians will have a voice in the policies of companies which are operating in Canada, using Canadian resources and manpower, and that we, as Canadians, will be able to share in the profits of such corporations.
I should like to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, about measures which have been included in this budget to close loopholes and eliminate anomalies in our taxing statutes. For several years now there have been a number of loopholes in our taxing statutes which permitted taxpayers who could afford competent advice to escape paying their fair share of taxes. This was accomplished through dividend stripping, corporate income splitting, the misuse of lease option agreements, and the use of the corporate structures of companies which had accumulated losses and were out of business. We will have an opportunity of dealing with these matters in more detail during discussion of the resolutions and bills.
In this budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) has proposed drastic steps to plug these loopholes. The purpose of these steps is to help the ordinary taxpayer in Canada by assuring that all taxpayers will pay their fair share of the cost of government.
This could have been accomplished, Mr. Speaker, by taking a year or so to amend the Income Tax Act, which has become extremely complicated over the past several years. However, in the move to equity and fair play, it was essential that action be taken at once. This action has been proposed in the budget, and in two cases it involved the use of a ministerial discretion. I have learned in the past few days, Mr. Speaker, as a result of listening to the discussions in this house, that
28902-5-1004
The Budget-Mr. Benson ministerial discretion here seems to be almost as unpopular as ministerial indiscretion at Westminster.
The Minister of Finance stated yesterday that the suggestion of many people that we assure the right of appeal from this discretionary power would be considered, and considered it will be, Mr. Speaker. However, as Canadians, I believe that it is the first duty of all of us to see that these abuses are stopped. I say this in spite of the many protests we will receive from persons who have a pecuniary interest in seeing these practices continued.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in closing I should like to say a few words about the removal of the sales tax exemption on building materials and production machinery. As the Minister of Finance mentioned yesterday, the imposition of additional taxes is never popular. However, the idea has been spread that the construction industry is being penalized. This is not the case. The sales tax presently applies to almost everything except food. Clothing, household appliances, furniture and automobiles, to mention but a few of the necessities of life, are and have been for many years subject to sales tax in this country.
It has been stated also in this house that the cost of housing is going to soar. This is also not the case. The best estimate which I have been able to obtain indicates that the selling price of homes at the $10,000 level will increase by about 34 per cent, whereas the selling price of homes in the $17,000 range will increase in price by about 44 per cent. I have calculated the down payment and monthly payments for homes purchased under N.H.A. before and after the revised down payment and interest rates proposed by the Minister of Finance in the budget.
Let us consider a home which previously sold for $13,000 and which may now be increased in price to $13,500. Before the budget, the down payment on this house would have been $900. After the budget, the down payment is $800. The monthly payment prior to this budget would have been $82.67, and it will now be $84.82. Thus, Mr. Speaker, the immediate cash outlay at time of purchase will be $100 less and the monthly payments over 25 years will be increased by $2.15 per month. I do not believe this indicates the catastrophic effect on the small homeowner which has been indicated by some hon. members opposite.
Yesterday in this house, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Garland) presented a statement indicating some of the matters presently in the Excise Tax Act and the budget resolutions. Last evening the hon member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) indicated
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Marcoux that this was at variance with the legislation and the budget resolutions. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement simply outlined the position as it exists and I was rather surprised that the hon. member for Perth, himself a chartered accountant, was not aware that the exemptions indicated by the minister were written into the statute many years ago and have not been changed in any way through the budget resolutions.
Finally, I should like to say that in my opinion this is a good budget. It is a bold budget and it is a budget which faces up to tackling some of Canada's basic problems.
I am sure that other measures will be taken towards the avowed aims of this budget and, Mr. Speaker, I believe they will be taken by this government, which is determined to solve these serious problems.
(Translation):
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, the events surrounding the budget speech have gravely shaken the structures which make for good life in this country of ours.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), in the partisan innuendos of his budget speech, clearly charged the Conservative government of deteriorating the confidence of England and the United States in Canada.
The fact that a tax was imposed and then withdrawn on the purchase of Canadian stocks by foreigners has certainly not enabled the Liberal party to regain that confidence Canada had lost.
As a matter of fact, this has only contributed to aggravating the strong feeling of insecurity across the country. It is also apparent that Canadians have less and less confidence in the future of our country, our institutions and themselves.
People are becoming aware that neither the government nor leaders in other fields have been able to assess the actual problems of the day and to try to solve them. On the other hand, you see all sorts of slightly cracked individuals get front page coverage in the papers, top billing on radio and television, to offer us incredible universal remedies; these self-appointed oracles should rather rank among "fools on the market place".
Undoubtedly, most of the hon. members are under the impression that Social Credit is simply a money and credit theory. This is a serious mistake, for Social Credit is much more than that; it is a philosophy of life based on the respect of man and his freedom of enterprise, two things tending to disappear from our country at the present time.

And, Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that Social Credit is not just a theory. And even if its theories can only be implemented in part, Social Credit philosophy is the basis of the two best provincial governments we have at the moment, that of British Columbia and that of Alberta. And the overwhelming victory scored recently by the Manning administration in the latter province abundantly supports this fact.
And outside those two areas, the sixties have been characterized by a lack of philosophy and intellectual confusion among the leaders, in the political field as well as in others.
The people feel that insecurity and they are concerned; it is time our political leaders realized it.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to give a few examples. On April 19, 1961, speaking in Sarnia, the then prime minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, said that the nations should get together in order to produce a philosophy they could support. Unfortunately, he was unable to find a formula that would hold its own against communism. Even the leader of the opposition of that day, the present Prime Minister, whose reputation is so well founded in the field of international affairs, did not see fit to take up the challenge. Even less the loudmouths who have a solution to every problem under the sun.
What happened? Has communism disappeared? Has it ceased being a threat? In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the communist threat is greater and nearer than in 1961 and yet I challenge you to find a political leader, apart from the leader of the Social Credit party, who has made one sensible speech on communism during all that time.
And, Mr. Speaker, what leadership has the present government given on this problem as on many others? The people of Canada are surely aware of that because, in three elections under the leadership of the present Prime Minister, the Liberal party has failed to show them on what principles its program was based.
In my own province, we have had a few elections these past years and there has been a complete change of government. The Union Nationale party, after dominating the people at will during almost 20 years, was defeated. And one of the main factors which led to this change is not without importance. Two clergymen wrote a philosophical treatise to the effect that public and political morals were in contradiction with Christian philosophy.

There is no doubt that this forceful publication has decided the people to give to the provincial Liberal party a mandate to govern according to the principles of Christian philosophy. Unfortunately, the Liberal party soon forgot this and the two clergymen have taken another direction.
It is obvious that the people in Quebec were right and that their thinking was sound because, according to the most brilliant contemporary thinkers, the civilization and culture of a people are fundamentally and closely related to religious concepts. And in Quebec, as in the rest of Canada, for that matter, the basis of our religious beliefs is of Christian or of Jewish-Christian origin.
We would have liked the political leaders of our province to understand the meaning of their mandate and decide to endorse it adequately. But nothing of the sort happened, Mr. Speaker, and I challenge you to find any political leader in Quebec at present, or any of the so-called press, radio or television experts who have the blessing of the political leaders, who have made statements based on Christian ethics or related thereto.
The reason I mention these things, Mr. Speaker, is that the presentation of the budget may have very significant effects in the province of Quebec. And the harm that results on both sides could be prevented or reduced if Christian principles were applied. For instance, who would dare to say: What can Quebec bring to Canada or even to the world? Or: How could the federal government enable the province of Quebec to make a more efficient contribution to her own citizens and to the rest of Canada?
After all, it is Christian charity which bids us to love and to give, not to command and to take.
(Text) :
In similar vein, Mr. Speaker, we hear prattling of culture or biculture, but no evidence that this culture has any basis of value, of Christian value, which is the only culture the people of Quebec can possibly possess, and must be possessed in common with most of the people of the rest of Canada.
We recently have had the sad spectacle of the F.L.Q.-poor, mixed up pawns-the shocking fruit of all those politicians, political writers, and speakers, Christian, socialist, atheist or what have you, most of whom are gathered under the separatist heading. To what extent the communists are behind the movement is difficult to say, but obviously this fits in with communist thinking. Of course communism has difficulty in a prosperous country, but the bombs were scaring
The Budget-Mr. Marcoux away potential investors in the province, and continuance of bombing doubtlessly would have upset the economy.
On this matter, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote, from a dispatch of Canadian Press last year, the words of Rev. Conrad Cote, ejected from Cuba, who said:
When we realize the game Russia is playing, anything is possible.
He explained that a recent manifesto called for communist indoctrination where
-favourable conditions exist... for the formation of an independent state of national democracy.
Father Cote said a Quebec secessionist movement advocating creation of a "Laurentian republic" can be "explained within the terms of the manifesto".
Imaginary enemies will be thrown before French Canada ... and eventually it will be led to put its neck in a noose.
Although, Mr. Speaker, a few well respected and well learned priests are preaching actual separation, it seems to me that the separatist theory and principles are almost diametrically opposed to the Christian concept and the brotherhood of man, and completely opposed to the appeal made by the late Pope John XXIII two years ago, when he called on the Catholics of Europe to work towards the realization of European unity.
I quote from La Presse:
(Translation):
To build gradually the European unity, it is necessary to beat isolation and narrow nationalism. Only hearts and minds united in the same faith and love can result in such a community.
The recent death of Pope John XXIII was a great loss for the world. And I think, Mr. Speaker, that all hon. members, regardless of their religious beliefs, will admit that he did a lot to change and improve contemporary thinking. Incidentally as the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Berger) said, I believe I express the views of many when I suggest in all deference that it is about time our country set up a Canadian embassy at the Vatican. John XXIII is the author of two encyclicals Mater et Magistra and Pacem in Terris which are considered by the whole world as the most comprehensive and most searching documents on modern social and political thinking.
Such writings are studied and commented upon everywhere, here and abroad, but unfortunately, their practical consequences do not seem to interest our national or Quebec leaders. Of all the aspects of Quebec's political evolution, very few were related so far, closely or even loosely, to that type of philosophy. To the contrary, we hear today revolutionary principles which run counter to the usual pattern of thought in this country.
1574	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Marcoux
Speaking as a physician, I would be tempted to say that a revolutionist is often a peculiar man, I nearly said a peculiar patient.
Very often, he is riddled with feelings of insecurity, or with an inferiority complex, because he has been deeply wounded some time in the past and nurtures, without even knowing it, feelings of revenge and of destruction. Castro and Che Guevera are men of that ilk.
It is unfortunate that such types may be found in Quebec, as well as in the rest of Canada. It may be encouraging to know that they are few in numbers but it should not be forgotten that they have a fighting spirit and that they hold great attraction for the masses.
I expect certain progressive minds to ridicule me and to accuse me of witch hunting but I would like you to know, sir, that I feel in good company since I have the support of people who follow the principles of Christian philosophy.
Naturally, the few remarks I made a moment ago apply neither to the serious-minded and conscientious reporters of the press gallery nor to the responsible philosophers and theologians from Quebec and the whole of Canada who keep constant watch on the situation to increase our national inheritance but who prefer to remain out of the public eye. In my opinion, they deserve our thanks for their great contribution to the Canadian community.
To come back to the budget, Mr. Speaker- although my digression served to emphasize the complexity of the federal-provincial fiscal relations-I can tell you that the people of Quebec were quite surprised to find out that Messrs. Lamontagne, Sauve, Tremblay, Pepin and others failed in their efforts to convince the Minister of Finance of our province's urgent needs.
I should like to take this opportunity to make a bitter reproach to the premier of the province of Quebec, the Hon. Jean Lesage. During the last election campaign, contrary to all the traditions in that respect, he sided officially with the federal Liberal party and he stated that the latter was Quebec's best guarantee of a fair treatment. Now, the present budget bears witness to the fact that Mr. Lesage misinformed the people of our province. Either he knew what the present government held in store for them or he did not know. If he did, he had no right to deceive the public with hopes which now appear to be utopian. If he did not know, he had no more right to mislead them for purely political considerations.


I should also like to point out that Quebec already levies 17 per cent of the personal income and that with just another 8 per cent, it will make the 25 per cent requested.
No matter what difficulties are involved, it is absolutely necessary that a government for the people and by the people agree to give back to the provinces all the privileges guaranteed to them by the B.N.A. Act, as recommended in the Tremblay commission report.
I do not see why it should be necessary for the central government to have all the sources of taxation in order to exercise an influence on the Canadian economy, as said the Minister of Finance.
Here, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote the Hon. Jean Lesage who, when he was federal minister of northern affairs and national resources stated, as reported in the Quebec paper L'Action of June 7, 1957:
No matter what is said, there is not in Mont-magny a single labour problem which comes under federal jurisdiction.
He seemed to indicate that the question of unemployment was a responsibility for Quebec. And nowadays, he tries to prove that all Quebec misfortunes are caused by the federal government. It would have been better for this man, when he sat in this house, to demand Quebec rights instead of asking for their transfer in Ottawa. Besides, when you consider that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne), the member for Outremont-St. Jean still has his nose in those fiscal matters, you must admit that there is nothing too reassuring for Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words concerning the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. It should be recalled that the inquiry made by the Liberal government in 1955 gave absolutely nothing. At the most, it benumbed the hon. members of that time, who were quite happy because they did not have to voice stronger demands for their compatriots. The government should immediately proceed with it, because, as the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine so rightly said in the house on May 22 last, and the hon. member for Outremont today- French Canadians know where the errors lie and cannot wait for the results of such an inquiry.
I also want to stress that, contrary to certain press reports, the "Gregoire commission" is not a royal commission and that, when I referred to the inefficiency of the so-called commissioner, I meant that, during

an investigation other than on bilingualism, he had proved, without doubt, that he had not succeeded in making great discoveries. Mr. Speaker, I would like briefly to mention the new sources of revenue in which the Minister of Finance thought it fit to dabble, in order to try and reduce his budget deficit.
May I point out that it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could just say a word about the business of the house for tomorrow. Hon. members are aware that tomorrow, being Wednesday, there are written questions and notices of motions for production of papers, which take up quite a considerable time. The government would be quite happy if there could be unanimous consent to put off those two orders until Thursday so that there would be a greater opportunity for hon. members to participate in the closing day of the budget debate. We would also be quite willing, without in any way sacrificing the rights of any private members, to have the private members' hour postponed until a later day and have the vote at a quarter to six instead of a quarter to five. I believe that by doing this every party in the house and their members on the Speaker's list would have an opportunity of participating in the debate before the vote would be reached.
I had some conversation with hon. gentlemen opposite on this matter. I cannot say
Business of the House there has been agreement on that but I feel, none the less, that I should like to put the suggestion to the house. If there could be agreement on it either tonight or before we start the proceedings tomorrow, it seems to me it would be much fairer to all concerned. I might point out that the only party which would lose anything would be the government party, which would be taking the time on Thursday for a proceeding that would normally come tomorrow; and, of course, it would mean another private members' hour later in the session. I thought I would like to see what the sense of the house would be.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on the face of it perhaps the suggestion has some merit, but my opinion is that things of this nature should be settled behind the curtains, behind the Speaker's chair, and not raised as a matter for discussion. Under these circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that I have already apprised the house leader that his suggestion has been very carefully considered by us, for a number of reasons we are of the opinion that we should follow the normal course of proceedings. Wednesday can be protracted with written questions and notices of motion for production of papers; it can also move very quickly if answers are produced speedily without argument. We think that there is no need to extend a debate which has now gone for five days, and it is rather unusual for a government to ask to have a debate extended. We ourselves are not asking for that, yet in fact we may have more to say on the budget debate than people on the other side. But in any case, having considered the matter very, very carefully, we prefer to carry on with the normal order of business.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.


[Stage Direction]
June 20,1963
The government has placed before parliament a resolution on contributory old age pensions as the first step in implementing a comprehensive Canada-wide pension program. A copy of this resolution is enclosed for your information. As soon as the bill has been presented to parliament, copies will be forwarded to you so that you may be acquainted fully with the details of the Canada pension plan which the government hopes will receive the approval of parliament.
The new plan is designed to overcome shortcomings in existing federal pension provisions. Benefits from this plan, related to previous earnings, combined with the existing flat rate pension, will enable Canadians to retire in reasonable security. Pensioners will be afforded the option of obtaining an adjusted pension from age 65.
The advantages of a comprehensive federal plan of this kind include, of course, the fact that it alone can assure full portability of pensions and can enable earnings-related pensions to be paid on a full scale after a relatively short transition period.
However, implementation of the Canada pension plan will not in itself be sufficient to meet a number of other closely related problems. The provision of benefits for widows below pension age with dependant children, for orphans and for disabled persons are matters of mutual concern for federal and provincial governments. Since the inclusion of these benefits in a federal program would raise jurisdictional questions they are not a part of the proposed Canada pension plan.
While many provincial governments indicated to my predecessor their willingness to have the jurisdictional question clarified, in my opinion this is an area which requires full consultation and discussion between federal and provincial governments, in order that a satisfactory approach can be worked out. Provincial governments will want to know in some detail what the federal government has in mind with regard to such ancillary benefits. The whole question of joint federal-provincial program in the field of old age assistance and disability allowances is also involved. The time required to explore these various possibilities, however, need not
delay immediate steps for the improvement of benefits for our older citizens.
While the benefits under the proposed, new federal plan will be relatively generous, there will continue to be an important place for private pension arrangements. These pension arrangements now afford many industrial workers a considerable measure of protection. However, the growth of such plans has brought to the fore a number of special problems. The absence of vesting of employer contributions interferes with labour mobility. The lack of assurance that contributions are set aside for future retirement, when an employee leaves a firm, tends to weaken the effect of such schemes in making adequate provision for retirement benefits. The solvency of private pension plans also continues to be a concern.
Questions such as these have led several of the provincial governments to give consideration to supervision of private pension plans in order to ensure that certain basic standards are met.
Ontario now has legislation designed to achieve these objectives for private pension plans within its jurisdiction. The federal government's interest in this field relates to federal employees, to employees of companies coming within federal jurisdiction, and to reciprocal arrangements which may be necessary for any interprovincial and federal-provincial aspects of this question. The Canada pension plan which parliament will soon be considering will complement any efforts of this nature to ensure portability and solvency of private pension plans.
It is apparent that these matters are of special concern to our respective governments and 1 would like to suggest that they be the subject of federal-provincial discussions as soon as possible. I would appreciate your letting me know, at your earliest convenience, whether such discussion is acceptable. In the light of this information, I hope shortly to suggest the earliest possible date which seems to be generally convenient for a meeting of ministers.
The development of more equitable programs of social welfare measures both now and in the future is a matter of mutual interest. We hope that the discussions proposed will be a constructive means of achieving common objectives.
Yours sincerely,

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 26, 1963