1963-07-02

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an announcement concerning the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. This act came into force on January 1, 1963 and contains the provision that the minister may take legal action against firms or unions which have not reported by July 1, 1963, for fiscal periods ending in the calendar year 1962. Similar enforcement provisions apply to firms and unions which have not reported within six months after the end of succeeding fiscal periods.
However, since this legislation is new and some firms and labour unions are experiencing problems in supplying all the information required, I wish to announce that I do not intend to undertake legal proceedings against firms or unions which make the required returns before October 1, 1963. This should provide ample time for reporting.
After all returns for the first year have been received and analysed, it may be possible in the light of experience to introduce changes which would reduce reporting difficulties of firms and unions.



CIVIL DEFENCE


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Acting Prime Minister):: As they will affect the handling of questions in the house, may I take this opportunity to inform hon. members of certain administrative changes, effective as of July 1, with respect to civil emergency planning.
This program, as members will recall, is carried on at the federal level by various departments and agencies of the government and has been co-ordinated by the emergency measures organization in the privy council office. An order in council, P.C. 1959-656, is the basis of the arrangement in effect up to this time, with the Prime Minister and the Ministers of National Defence, National Health and Welfare and Justice being those specifically allocated various responsibilities by the order.
The government has decided to consolidate arrangements and to bring about a closer degree of co-ordination among the emergency measures organization, the civil defence college and the emergency supplies planning branch in the Department of Defence Production. Pursuant to the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, order in council P.C. 1963-993, a copy of which I am now tabling, transfers the responsibility for the emergency measures organization from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Defence Production. The order also transfers responsibility for the civil defence college from the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the Minister of Defence Production to be exercised through the emergency measures organization. The director of the emergency measures organization will report direct to the Minister of Defence Production.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the house will wish to be informed of action which is being taken to meet an urgent need in the island of Barbados, where there has been a serious outbreak of polio. According to information received through the British colonial office, 38 cases of polio were notified from March 27 to June 6. Mass vaccination is now in progress using oral trivalent. A total of 61,483 doses are required, and the government of Barbados asked whether Canada would be prepared to assist in providing 50,000 doses and one or two respirators.
The government has now agreed that the vaccine should be made available and it will be carried free of charge by T.C.A. on its regular scheduled flight tomorrow, July 3. The estimated cost of $5,500 for the vaccine will be provided in the supplementary estimates of the Department of External Affairs. The provision of respirators involves some complication, but the matter is being looked into immediately.
I am sure all members of the house will join in the hope that these measures may help in meeting the serious emergency which has arisen in the island.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those occasions when the opposition agrees wholeheartedly with the government. The action taken is most commendable.

Proposed Legislation



WAR VETERANS' ALLOWANCE ACT


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-79, to amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to grant eligibility for an allowance under the War Veterans' Allowance Act, 1952 to those veterans of world war I who would qualify for allowance except that they served in the United Kingdom for less than 365 days prior to December 12, 1918. The allowance, however, would be less than the standard allowance as it would be calculated on a fraction of the number of days served.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
(Translation):



PRIVILEGE


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. As reported in Hansard for June 26, 1963, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine) put to the Prime Minister the following question:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Certain federal departments in my riding have been informed that Monday next, July 1, is Dominion day, while others were advised that it is confederation day.
On the other hand, the officers of an American company operating in my riding have asked me what is the holiday to be granted to their employees, whether it is Dominion day or confederation day.
Afterwards, there was a point of order and then the Prime Minister answered the question:
Monday will be Canada's national day, Mr. Speaker.
I have here the program of Monday's holiday and it is entitled: "Dominion day celebration".
I feel that the Canadian people are confused and would like to know whether it is the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State who is right. The matter should be cleared up for the house.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether the matter raised by the hon. member for Joli-
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
ette-L'Assomption-Montcalm could be considered as a question of privilege. If he has any questions to ask, he should properly put them on the orders of the day.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You only have to answer.



MR. GREGOIRE  RULINGS OF MR. SPEAKER RESPECTING ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

['Mr. Speaker, I had notice of this question, and I find that the form referred to is a standard form that has been in use continuously since 1951 in all or nearly all departments and government agencies, so far as I know. As to the reason for requiring employees and applicants to supply this type of information, I will look into that matter and see what I can find out.']
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, my question of personal privilege derived from the fact that several contradictory decisions on your part as well as several answers from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) prevented us from obtaining information to which we are entitled.
On several occasions, in fact on five different occasions, I asked the Minister of Finance what were the administrative difficulties which compelled him to withdraw the 30 per cent tax on sales of Canadian shares to non-residents. As a matter of fact, as stated on page 1373 of the official report for June 20, 1963, I asked the following question:
Could the Minister of Finance tell us what are the administrative difficulties which have compelled him to withdraw that tax?
At that time your decision was as follows, as stated on the same page of the report:
I regret to inform the hon. member for Lapointe that his last supplementary question was in the nature of an argument.
Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that my question was effectively a question and not an argument.
Again, as recorded on page 1527 of the Hansard for June 25, I asked the same question, and you ruled as follows:
-I suggest to the hon. member that he raise this question during the budget debate-
Mr. Speaker, I asked the question during the budget debate. After the conclusion of that debate I asked the question again and you stated then that you had already settled the matter, and that you had not allowed me to ask the question on the orders of the day because it was during the budget debate, and now that the budget debate is over, you ruled it out for a third time.
Mr. Speaker, I asked the question for the fifth time on June 27, and you ruled then that the matter should be postponed until the debate on the budget resolutions. As recorded in Hansard for Wednesday, June 19, in the first column of page 1321, the Minister of Finance stated the following:

Pending a solution, the government proposes to withdraw paragraph 11 of the budget resolution respecting the Excise Tax Act.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, there are three contradictions. First, you did not let us ask such a question during the budget debate and you asked us to wait until after the debate. Then, you ruled it out of order because you had already postponed its consideration. You referred it until the examination of the budget resolutions and then the Minister of Finance withdrew it from the budget resolutions.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, on several instances the Minister of Finance stated that he would consider the question during the budget debate. Indeed, as reported in the right hand column of page 1373 of Hansard for June 20, he said this:
Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to go into that but, although I am not an expert in the rules, I suggest that is a matter that should be taken up in the debate.
It is the Minister of Finance himself who stated that the matter should be taken up during the debate.
On the same page of Hansard, the Prime Minister intimated that the question should be discussed during the debate.
I raised the question on another instance, and the Minister of Finance again said that it should be examined during the debate. I carefully read over the whole speech the Minister of Finance made on June 24 during the budget discussion and nowhere did I find a mention of the administrative difficulties which motivated the withdrawal of that 30 per cent tax on the sale of Canadian shares to foreign interests.
For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, that is, first of all the contradictions I found in former Hansards, and the promise of the Minister of Finance to mention it when discussing the budget, whereas he made no allusion to it in his speech, I think it is in order to ask the Minister of Finance that question and to get an answer from him on such an important and urgent matter, which implies very serious considerations.
Mr. Speaker, as several ministers including the Prime Minister have joined efforts to try and protect the Minister of Finance, I think it is one of my privileges, as well as those of the house, to see that the question be declared in order, so that the Minister of Finance may have a chance of answering it.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think there are two points to be considered here. The first one concerns the administrative difficulties mentioned by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), the matter on which was based the
Question of Privilege
question he asked more than once in this house. In that respect I shall answer very briefly. As you said many a time, the Minister of Finance gave some explanations to hon. members and he is not bound to do anything further unless he chooses to do so.
The second point, which is by far the most important, constitutes an attack against the Speaker of the house. I do not think it appropriate for an hon. member to rise on a question of privilege in order to attack directly or indirectly, Mr. Speaker. If he wishes to, he has that right under the standing order, but he must introduce a motion to the house which the hon. member did not choose to do in the circumstances for reasons probably better known to himself than to the rest of the house.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the answer to part of my hon. friend's argument can be found in citation 68 of Beauchesne's fourth edition of 1958. This citation is quite long so I shall not read it.
Therefore, I think the hon. member is out of order and that there is no question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rose on a question of privilege because I think the Minister of Finance should be given an opportunity to answer that question. He is not under any obligation to reply, but I think that my question was in order. The Minister of Finance may reply or not and whether he does or does not might become an indication as to the situation. My question of privilege stated that my question was in order and that the Minister of Finance should be given the opportunity to reply.


An hon. Member:: Put a motion.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether I should thank my hon. friend for raising this subject, but at least I can agree with him that it is very interesting. The question really is settled very quickly, in my opinion, by citation 72 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, paragraph 1, which reads in part as follows:
The Speaker's actions cannot be criticized incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding except a substantive motion.
There is no motion before the house. If the hon. member wishes to take the matter further I am sure he will present a motion in due course after, shall we say, 48 hours' notice. There is also citation 68 mentioned by the Acting Prime Minister. In so far as the Minister of Finance is concerned, there

Inquiries of the Ministry seemed to be two people joined in the one matter and I think it should be concentrated on the Speaker if it is going to be concentrated at all.
For these not too lengthy reasons I would rule that there is no question of privilege.
(Translation):



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance?
Could the minister tell us what were the administrative reasons which compelled him to remove the 30 per cent tax on the sale of Canadian shares to foreign interests?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member, in view of the fact he has had the floor for some time, would give way to the Leader of the Opposition provided the Leader of the Opposition wishes to pose a question.


EXTENSION OF APPLICATION OF SALES TAX TO BUILDING MATERIALS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of radio reports to the effect that the Minister of Forestry indicated in Vancouver on Saturday that it was expected there would be changes and exceptions made with regard to the 11 per cent tax on building materials and machinery, would he advise the house whether such is a fact, so that the uncertainty that has existed will be removed in all parts of the country?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report to which the right hon. gentleman has referred. I shall be glad to ask my office to furnish me with such report. In so far as the changes about which my hon. friend has inquired are concerned, all I can say is that when announcements of that kind have to be made they are made in the house.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. There have been newspaper reports that the 11 per cent tax on building materials used in the erection of schools, universities and other


educational institutions is to be removed. Can the Minister of Finance tell us whether any decision has been reached in regard to that particular matter?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am not accountable for reports that appear in the press as to certain changes that are likely to be made concerning items such as he has mentioned. I can only repeat what I said earlier, that when changes are made they will be announced in due course in the house.


Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I understand that the Canadian Daily Newspapers Association have made representation to the government for the removal of the sales tax on machinery and apparatus used in the publishing of a daily newspaper. The Kitchener-Waterloo Record in my riding sent a telegram directly to the minister asking him to co-operate in this regard. Will the minister kindly advise me what action will be taken?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, a number of representations have been made to the government about the budget resolutions, and these have been under constant study and consideration. I expect to make a definite announcement on the subject as soon as possible, and in any event not later than next Monday. In the meantime, for reasons that will be obvious to all hon. members, I think, I shall not be in a position to provide answers to questions that have a bearing on the budget resolutions.


Mr. G. L. Chatierton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware of the rulings of the officials of the Department of National Revenue that the 11 per cent sales tax is applicable to materials going into greenhouses? If so, would the hon. gentleman, while he is still minister for both the east and the west, advise his colleague the Minister of National Revenue that greenhouse operation is an agricultural pursuit and that materials for greenhouses should therefore be exempt from sales tax, as promised by the Minister of National Revenue?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: I am familiar with the greenhouse business, as I own some greenhouses. I have had no communication with respect to greenhouses come across my desk as far as I am aware. Those interested would probably direct them to the Minister of National Revenue.


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: On Friday last I took notice of a question by the hon. member for Vancouver East regarding direct refunds to contractors and subcontractors who had fixed price contracts signed before June 14. As the hon. member will have noted in the explanation
I	made to the house recently, a contractor or subcontractor may make claims as soon as he wishes and naturally every effort will be made to see that the claims are paid as soon as possible.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a direct question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the government any intention of sending a special commercial mission abroad to promote the sale of building materials because of the 11 per cent tax that will eventually lead to over-production?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I express the view that we are going to have a very active building year in Canada which will make great demands upon our supplies. But if we have any surplus, which we do from time to time even in the best of years, the Department of Trade and Commerce will miss no opportunity of selling it.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the answer he has just given to the question posed by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm, namely that he expected this year to be a good year for construction industry, can we take this as notice that the
II	per cent tax is to be taken off?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker; the answer to that particular question is no, you cannot take anything of that kind for granted.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has he, as yet, had representations from the province of British Columbia concerning the increased cost of construction of the Peace river dam resulting from the 11 per cent tax?


Lionel Chevrier: I have inquired of the Prime Minister's office with reference to this matter, and the answer is in the negative.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I wished to direct a question to the Minister of Finance regarding a budget -esolution which does not exist any more. Jould the minister tell us what are the
Inquiries of the Ministry administrative difficulties which have forced him to remove the 30 per cent tax on the sale of Canadian shares to non-residents?
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to say on the orders of the day.


INQUIRY AS TO NOTICE TO TERMINATE TAX CONVENTIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if the government of Canada, on or before June 30, gave notice of its intention to terminate in whole or in part any of the tax conventions which Canada has with the various countries of the western world.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the personal history forms which require that employees of his department and applicants must give information regarding their relatives, their parents in law and other persons for whom they have no responsibility? Would the minister tell the house the reason for requiring employees and applicants to supply information of this type?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I had notice of this question, and I find that the form referred to is a standard form that has been in use continuously since 1951 in all or nearly all departments and government agencies, so far as I know. As to the reason for requiring employees and applicants to supply this type of information, I will look into that matter and see what I can find out.



EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. With respect to the import tariff adjustments announced over the week end by the European common market countries, at which time it was stated that tariffs to non-member countries were also adjusted, was Canada given any consideration and, if so, on what items?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member I also saw this item in the paper this morning. The changes that have been made follow from previous negotiations, and in so far as we were involved our particular point of view was taken into account. I shall, however, see if there is anything more specific about the items that would accrue to Canada's benefit.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I do so because almost two weeks ago I met with the minister and the associate minister relative to a threatened breakdown of operations on the
D.E.W. radar line. I understand this has now, in part, taken place, and I therefore desire to ask the minister, because of my meeting with him, will he please tell the house the present situation on the D.E.W. radar line, and whether the Federal Electric Company of the United States, which holds a renewed contract on the D.E.W. radar line, will be made to live up to Canadian laws and standards relative to employment practices?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, over the past week or so statements were made on this particular subject, and it has been made clear that the D.E.W. line is the responsibility of the United States government. It is the United States government that has given the contract to Federal Electric Company for the operation of the D.E.W. line. The Canadian government is involved only through the Department of Labour, which looks after relations between the Canadian civilian personnel on the line and the United States company. There is very little more that can be said at this stage. However, I shall take the hon. member's question as notice and make a report to the house later.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I asked the associate minister of defence a question last week which he stated he would take as notice-


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I answered the question, I think on Friday last.


Harold Edward Winch: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. Do I understand from what the minister has now said that on the D.E.W. line in Canada, the United States controls it and he has no influence at all on labour relations?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The responsibility for the operation of the D.E.W. line is a United States responsibility.


Harold Edward Winch: As a further supplementary question, are there not hundreds of Canadians working on the D.E.W. line?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are Canadians working on the D.E.W. line, but they are working for a United States company which has a contract from the United States government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister saying that the government has no responsibility to see that a United States company operating in Canada carries out its obligations to its employees?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not say that. I am sure the hon. member wishes to be fair about this. The Department of Labour has a responsibility with regard to Canadian civilian personnel on the line.



NUCLEAR WEAPONS-REPORTED U.S. INTENTION TO CUT BACK SUPPLIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, because of the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) I should like to address this question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the reports over the week end that the United States is considering a cut back in its supplies of nuclear weapons, may I ask whether the United States informed the Canadian government of this decision and whether this has any effect on Canadian government policy in this field?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, this is a question that I realize is of a more or less contentious nature. I shall ask permission to take it as notice and will bring it to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he is here tomorrow.



SASKATCHEWAN-INQUIRY AS TO DELIVERY QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Trade and Commerce said he would refer to the Canadian wheat board my question regarding slow deliveries of wheat from points in the eastern half of Saskatchewan. Following his meeting with wheat board officials, perhaps he can now explain the low wheat quotas in that area.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has said, I had the privilege of spending last week end with the wheat board and the advisory committee, and I discussed with them the question raised by the hon. member. They pointed out to me that this is the usual pattern of quotas at this time of year. Those in eastern Saskatchewan are lower than those in western Saskatchewan because grain is shipped from the port of Vancouver all year, so that winter month quota deliveries to Vancouver advance more rapidly than those at delivery points tributory to the lake head, and of course delivery points in western Saskatchewan in recent years have been considered tributory to Vancouver. The board further said to me that they will make every possible effort to equalize delivery opportunities in western Canada at 12 bushels an acre.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Would the minister take into consideration assuring that these delivery points receive the requisite number of box cars to take away the grain that is stored at the present time? This is our trouble, it is not so much the quotas but the lack of box cars to take the grain away from the elevators.


Mitchell William Sharp: I shall bring this to the attention of the wheat board.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. Can the minister inform the house when shipments will commence from the port of Churchill, and whether instructions have gone out to have box cars allocated at country elevators for shipments to Churchill? If not, when will box cars be allocated?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, all I can say in reply is that I am sure the wheat board is just as anxious as the hon. member to have the maximum movement out of Churchill. I shall make an inquiry of the wheat board and pass on any information I get to the hon. member.



INQUIRY AS TO PAYMENT OF $2 PER BUSHEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture concerning a subject with which I am sure he will be quite familiar. I wonder whether, as a result of his recent visit to Saskatchewan and the plea laid before him by the Liberal leader in that province, consideration is now being given to the introduction of legislation to provide for a guaranteed payment of $2 a bushel for wheat.
28902-5-110
Inquiries of the Ministry


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of government policy which will be announced in due course.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I should like to refer to some questions asked in my absence concerning the announcement made by the Prime Minister on uranium. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre asked the Acting Prime Minister-who I believe said I would answer these questions on my return-as to the financial commitment made by the government in this stockpiling program. As hon. members will have noted from the Prime Minister's statement, the government said that it is prepared to buy and stockpile the quantities of uranium that will enable certain mines to maintain present employment until July 1, 1964, at prices that will cover the operating costs of the mines to that date.
There are a number of uncertainties involved. First of all it will be necessary to find out how much uranium will be produced by these mines in order to keep them operating until July 1, 1964, and it will also be necessary to negotiate the prices that will cover the operating costs of the mines. Therefore it is impossible to give a very firm figure. However, I have consulted with Eldorado about the order of magnitude, and I can reply to the hon. gentleman that it will probably be of the order of $20 million. This figure is not exact, and is of course subject to negotiation. As the Minister of Finance said in reply to a later question, as and when these negotiations are completed the proposals will be put before parliament for approval including a supplementary estimate for the purpose.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked the Acting Prime Minister whether the assistance forthcoming under this announced plan would be applicable only to the uranium companies named in Ontario and not to those in Saskatchewan operating in the Beaver-lodge and Uranium City areas. As I understand it, there are two mines at Beaverlodge; Gunnar, which is closing because of lack of ore, and Eldorado which has already stretched out its contract so that it will be operating beyond July 1, 1964, which is the period covered by the announced stockpiling for the

Inquiries of the Ministry other mines. So in fact, nothing needs to be done or could be done with respect to those mines.
Finally the hon. member for Springfield directed a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister and asked whether he would investigate and report to the house on what the private uranium producing companies were doing in view of the fact that they have received $2J billion in government contracts and had "made some $400 million in profits".
Mr. Speaker, these contracts were not in effect with the Canadian government. Eldorado was buying the uranium on behalf of the United States and British governments, and was simply the conduit pipe through which the uranium flowed. I do not really feel under these circumstances it would be required of any minister of the Canadian government to be either a critic of or an apologist for these uranium companies.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce having to do with the decision to stockpile uranium at a cost of $20 million to the Canadian people. Were any precautions taken to see that during this period no dividends or profits would accrue to the companies to which these benefits would be paid?


Mitchell William Sharp: Negotiations are under way at the present time and the purpose of the negotiations will be to agree on a price that just covers the cost of operation, so it should not have any effect on the dividend position. May I point out to the hon. member that the $20 million is not necessarily spent. We hope we can recover this investment plus the interest, at the time uranium will again be required.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour may I direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Could he inform the house what action is being taken, or what steps have been taken, to resolve the differences between the operating or I should say the running trades of the Canadian National Railways and the management of the railway in the western region, following the announced deadline for a possible strike on August 17?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is a fair way of describing the situation to say that there is a difference between the running trades and the railways. There are some difficulties in the area, but I would not wish it understood that the unions as such are taking a different point of view than the railways. In any event, the railways have been very closely in touch with this situation and at the moment it would appear that the danger of a strike is less than has been indicated.
(Translation):



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS SUBMISSION TO PROVINCES OF MUNICIPAL LOAN LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that he was elected by the people of a Quebec riding, will the minister grant the request of Quebec and see to it that the bill concerning municipal loans be referred to the interprovincial conference to be held in Halifax, which would be in the interest of national unity.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member gave a reply to his own question when he asked that the bill be submitted to an interprovincial conference. I am rather of the opinion that if we must have consultation, it should be at the level of the provincial premiers and the federal government.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Does the Acting Prime Minister intend to submit this bill to the interprovincial conference and to suspend our proceedings on it until the legislation has been examined by the provinces.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I believe this question has already been answered negatively. In any case should there be any change, it will be announced in due time.
(Text):


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the municipal development and loan board legislation, could I ask the Minister of Finance whether he had any consultations with the provinces before that legislation was introduced.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the hon. and peace loving Acting Prime Minister. I sent notice to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I presume the staff work is of such excellence that a copy of my question is already on the Acting Prime Minister's desk.
Was the government of Canada consulted by the government of the United States prior to President Kennedy's announcement in West Germany that he was willing to risk the destruction of United States cities in the defence of West Berlin?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I must agree with my hon. friend that the Department of External Affairs is a very competent and fast operating department, but unfortunately they did not forward the question to me and I am afraid I shall have to take it as notice.
(Translation):


APPOINTMENT OF CANADIAN REPRESENTATIVE TO VATICAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister but, on account of his absence and that of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I shall put it to the Secretary of State. Could he confirm or deny a report or press release on which the C.B.C. commented last Sunday, to the effect that the federal government intends to appoint an ambassador to the Vatican?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, when a decision is made concerning the matter raised by the hon. member, it will be announced in due time.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagot:) Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources? Can the minister tell us if he has personally accepted the report issued following the meeting held last week between the authorities of the province of Quebec and himself about the administration of Eskimo matters in northern Quebec?
28902-5-1101
(Text):
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and myself, representing the federal government, had a meeting with Hon. Mr. Levesque and Hon. Mrs. Kirkland-Cas-grain, representing the province of Quebec. As a result of that meeting we asked our respective officers to bring in a report within two weeks as to how the expressed intentions of the province of Quebec might be related to the operations of the federal government in respect of Eskimos there; in other words, how the operations of administrators in that area of Quebec, from a provincial point of view, could be made to coincide, without clashing, with the work which the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is doing there in respect of Eskimos. We are now awaiting the report of the officers, which should be received in about ten days time.
(Translation):


Mr. Ricard:: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? Is the minister of the opinion that the evidence found in the statement by the present administration is, in itself, an indication of the authority with regard to that matter?
(Text):


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the question.
(Translation):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: With regard to the jurisdiction about the problem in question, is there a possibility, in the minister's mind, that a transfer of jurisdiction from the federal to the provincial authorities might take place in this respect?
(Text):


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, in reply to that question I think it would be premature at this time, pending a report from our officers, for myself or Mr. Levesque to say what may be the outcome. These officers are committed to probing the situation in respect of their respective areas of administration at the present time, and to report back to us jointly. When we get that report decisions may well be taken, or the matter may be again studied.


INQUIRY AS TO PAVING OF ALASKA HIGHWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: I have a question for the hard working Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is the minister in a position to make a report to the house concerning any negotiations he is carrying on with the Department of National Defence relative to the paving of the Alaska highway?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Arthur Laing: No, Mr. Speaker, not at this time.


ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has his department concluded his inquiries into the case of Eric Petersen, dismissed from the navy because his father in law was said to be a communist, and if so can the hon. gentleman report the results to the house?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I did not hear this question clearly. Was the hon. member referring to Mr. Petersen?


David Orlikow: Yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The inquiry is not yet complete. I hope it will be completed in two or three days, and then I shall be able to report to the house.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. O. Cooper (Roselown-Biggar):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I am sorry I did not send him notice. Owing to the fact that there have been many prosecutions of farmers for having dieldrin chemical in their cream, and bearing in mind that in many cases they are innocent victims because many municipalities are using this preparation as a means of getting rid of grasshoppers-


An hon. Member:: Question.


Clarence Owen Cooper: All right; you get up and talk and I will sit down. I want to ask the minister if he has given any consideration to outlawing the use of dieldrin as a grasshopper and insect spray.


Harry William Hays: This is a serious problem and it is being watched very closely. There are people being prosecuted because animals are being fed grain with this chemical in it. We are watching this carefully. I am glad the hon. member has brought it to my attention.


Clarence Owen Cooper: This is not found in the feed. Municipalities use this insecticide on road allowances. Cattle may pick it up and six months later this situation arises.


Harry William Hays: If the hon. member would send me a report of where the municipalities are doing this spraying, we would be glad to take a look at it.


Mr. Marfineau:: Besides watching the situation very closely, is the minister doing anything about it?



REPORTED STATEMENT RESPECTING ADDITIONAL MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamillon (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to try and track down a mystery I have been working on the last four or five days. This question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. On June 22 the Winnipeg Tribune quoted the Minister of Agriculture as having said that a certain matter concerning a bill to create two ministers of agriculture had not yet been discussed in cabinet. This statement was put in quotation marks. My question is, is this an accurate statement of the facts?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will change "cabinet" to "commons" he will have the answer.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Do I understand from the minister's answer that it was the reporter who made the mistake and not the minister?



INQUIRY AS TO LOANS TO TOBACCO FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, the hon. member for Oxford asked me whether it was the intention of the government to discontinue the granting of loans by the Farm Credit Corporation to tobacco farmers. The answer is no, it is not intended that the granting of loans by the Farm Credit Corporation to tobacco farmers be discontinued.



FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I have a question for the Minister of Forestry. In his absence I could possibly direct it to the acting minister or to one of the ministers from the Atlantic provinces, perhaps the Secretary of State.
On June 18 I put a question to the Minister of Forestry on the progress of an agreement between the Department of Forestry and the government of Nova Scotia in regard to the forest stand improvement program in Cape Breton. At that time the minister said
[Mr. LeboeJ

he hoped to make an announcement at an early date. I am sure the Secretary of State appreciates the urgency of this matter. Would he bring it to the attention of his colleague so that men can be put to work as quickly as possible?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secreiary of Siafe):: I should be happy to do so. I have the impression that my hon. friend did see the appropriate minister in Nova Scotia and discuss the matter with him the other day.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: desire to direct a question to the minister of state. In so doing I wish to rise on a question of privilege, and I do this because it is the only way in which I think I can be in order.
I think it would be a dereliction of duty on the part of the members of this house if we did not express through you, Mr. Speaker, our appreciation of all those who took part in the program on parliament hill yesterday, Dominion day. It was something which we in this house should note. Despite the humidity and the temperature, all those who took part did amazingly well. How they did it I still do not know and we should not be slow in offering our thanks to them. That is why I am rising at this time.
This leads to my question. A special note should be taken of the program between seven and nine o'clock last evening. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in the ten years I have been in this house and elsewhere in the world I have never seen such a wonderful spectacular program as that which was put on for two hours by the armed services and the R.C.M.P. I believe it is unexcelled in Canada and throughout the world.
Having raised this as a matter of privilege, let me now address my question to the Secretary of State and ask him whether the entire program from seven until nine last night was recorded on television tape. If so will early provision be made so that Canadians across Canada can see what a few of us had the privilege of seeing on Dominion day on parliament hill?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, though perhaps it is not strictly in order, I should like to join with the hon. member for Vancouver East in the words of commendation he has just uttered. I was present at the ceremony; in fact I had some kind of constitutional responsibility for what went on last night. But I take no credit for
Inquiries of the Ministry it; the credit goes where it should go, to the armed forces of Canada and to the R.C.M.P. I yield to no member of this house in my admiration of the wonderful performance they put on. I agree that no other country could have done any better.
Now, sir, I did observe that there were a good many cameras there. I cannot answer the question asked by the hon. gentleman right now, but I will make inquiries and give an answer later.
(Translation):



REPORTED DAMAGE BY TORNADO IN CHAPLEAU CONSTITUENCY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, what I have to say does not logically follow the question just asked, but I would like to point out that we have found a market for building materials in Abitibi.
May I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister? Last Sunday evening, the greater part of my county was suddenly swept by a tornado, and about two hundred farms were destroyed. I would like to know whether the government has received requests for help, or whether it proposes to extend any assistance to this stricken area?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, no requests have as yet been received by the Prime Minister's office. However, as the problem is of particular interest to the hon. member, may I draw his attention to the fact that responsibility for a disaster of that kind rests primarily with the provincial authorities. Should the latter find themselves unable to help out the municipalities concerned, the latter might submit their request to the federal government. Nevertheless, if the province of Quebec wished to ask the federal government for help on behalf of the municipality concerned, my hon. friend may rest assured that this plea would be examined with the utmost sympathy.
(Text):



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barneit (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Last Thursday, in amplifying an answer he had given me earlier, the minister indicated to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that he would raise with the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. the question of the continued travel by members of that force

Inquiries of the Ministry on strikebound planes of Pacific Western Airlines between Calgary and Edmonton. I am wondering whether the minister has any further information to give the house on this subject.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have simply this to add, that I have looked into the matter and I find that no government decision in that respect has been made.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Has he received any report yet on the strike at Solbec copper mine which has been going on since March 1, and into which he told the house the other day he was going to inquire?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour I shall take that question as notice and bring it to his attention.
(Translation):



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of reports published in the Ottawa Journal of last Saturday to the effect that work had practically stopped on the N.C.C.'s Ottawa river parkway, could the minister tell us whether work has actually ceased and especially what is holding up the signature of an agreement between the N.C.C. and the city of Ottawa?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelels (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the hon. member's question as notice and answer it in a few days.
Mr. Speaker, while I have the floor, I should like to have a correction made on page 1685, where I am quoted as saying "the hon. member for Albion" instead of the "hon. member for Elgin".
(Text):



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the

Minister of Justice. About three weeks ago the minister undertook to give consideration to the setting up of an appeal board to review on application cases of persons who had been labelled as security risks by the R.C.M.P. Has the minister come to any conclusion with reference to setting up this appeal board?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, it is true that I did undertake in this house some weeks ago to give consideration to this matter. Consideration is still being given to it. I think I should advise my hon. friend that in this case, as in like cases, one must remember that there are a number of government departments, 25 or more, a large number of crown corporations and government agencies, and that all these departments, crown corporations and government agencies must be approached and the matter must be discussed with them. So I am not in a position now to come to any conclusion, nor do I anticipate that it will be possible for me to come to a conclusion in the immediate future. It will take some time before this rather important question can be carefully considered, but I can assure my hon. friend that it is being thus considered, and as soon as I am in a position to advise the house I will do so.



PEACE RIVER-APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Justice could answer the question I asked previously about whether the officials have come to any opinion as to the legality of the work being proceeded with on the Peace river dam by the British Columbia government; that is, if the work is still proceeding in the face of the 11 per cent tax.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this matter is now being considered by officials of the two departments concerned, and the position of the government as to the application of the Navigable Waters Protection Act and related matters will be made known in due course.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On
June 26 last, through shortsightedness on my part, I addressed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare during her absence. At that time I asked if it was her intention to introduce any further legislation prior

to the recess relating to the responsibilities of her department. Her parliamentary secretary took the question as notice, and I have heard nothing since.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I know as yet of no recess, and that being the case it is a very difficult question to answer. I should like to thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice previously, but I can only suggest that at such time as the government decides upon policy, and at such time as policy decisions with regard to my department are made, they will be announced in due course.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the hon. lady tell us whether we may look forward to the government proceeding, say some time this month, with the legislation respecting a Canadian pension plan?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: May I say that I hope the hon. gentleman will, like this government, always look forward.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. If there is to be any delay in bringing forward this legislation will the government consider separating from it the proposed increase in the old age security payment so that those who are looking forward to this increase may get it at an early date?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: that the house go into committee of supply.



ECONOMIC POLICIES


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the tradition of parliament this motion gives an opportunity to hon. members to bring to the attention of government matters of national or local interest that are deserving of the immediate consideration of the government of the day. Today I do not intend to speak at length. I am going to devote myself to dealing particularly with one matter and on the basis of that matter to move an amendment.
It is the accepted principle of parliament that the opposition has a responsibility to bring before the people as a whole those matters which are of transcendent importance and which require, as I said a moment ago, the earliest possible attention. That is the essence of the concept of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, a concept which arose over 125 years ago, and gives to the opposition the responsibility of placing before parliament
Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies matters regarding which it believes the government has been in default. It must be reasonable; it must be responsible, but it also must be fearless in placing the viewpoint of the people before the representatives of the people.
This has been the attitude of this opposition during the present session. We have endeavoured, by examination and cross-examination, to bring about changes which in our view are necessary. No government has a monopoly of doing things with perfection. I know from my own experience over the years that often I have been strongly in support of a change that I believed was necessary only to learn, in retrospect, during the course of an examination in the house and the weighing of the issues by those on the other side of the house, that there were two sides to the question.
Three weeks ago tomorrow the budget was introduced. Of course I cannot deal with the budget in any way directly, but there are some matters which come within the purview of the right of an opposition at a time like this. For instance, I could not deal with a matter that appears in today's Gazette. I find that Mr. John Meyer, financial editor, writes an article headed "Sales Tax Extension Must be Withdrawn". This would be an improper stand for me to take; that is, to bring it before the house, laudable though the objectives be and although I agree with the thought expressed by the writer.
I look back a few months, sir, and I think of what the members of the government said then and of the changes that have taken place in the intervening months. Do you recall how they spoke with such authority? "Let us get the economy moving", they said. They did not say which way. The promises they held forth of expansion in our development have been proven, in the light of subsequent events, a great hoax perpetrated on the people. Indeed, there is no one on that side of the house who last year prated of Canada's economic deterioration who would dare say today that the increase in the national product of 8 per cent is going to be equalled this year. Indeed, they are down 3 per cent below that.
They had all the answers, Mr. Speaker. Give them an opportunity; give them but 60 days, and all would be well. Promissory notes carry with them three days of grace. We will give them far more grace than that. We have done so already, and we know on the basis of what has taken place that the promises of a few months ago have in the light of experience become the mirages of today.
Can we get information? We had an example today. I doubt that in the history of
1736	HOUSE OF
Alleged, Confusion in Economic Policies this country a government has had its stock fall faster in a period of three months than this government has. The reason is that the plans of yesterday, those that we know of, have become not the programs of today but the hopes of tomorrow. There is no excuse for what they have done in the fact that they were rushed, that they created their own boobytrap in the 60 days. They had the answers, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Two years ago.


John George Diefenbaker: Three years ago, four years ago. They cannot put the blame on the Minister of Finance. I feel sorry for him sometimes because one would think he was to be made the scapegoat. Nothing of the kind. He represents the leadership given to the government over there. They followed him. They know where they are. I am not joining in the call to make him the scapegoat. He gave them the plan. He gave them the program. He wrote a book. They read and were convinced.


An hon. Member:: Throw the book at him.


John George Diefenbaker: Now they would have us believe that the reason they brought before the house plans ill digested, ill thought out and ill timed lies in the fact that they have been in a rush. It is not for me today to go back and read "Troubled Canada" but, sir, all these things that have been before parliament in the last few weeks were set out in great detail or in magnificent outline.
In the short time that parliament has been in session we have found how difficult it is to get information. The Minister of Agriculture is generous in this regard. When we ask him we get information. The other ministers, however, have much to learn from him. The kind of answers we have been getting have been nothing but a series of postponements, procrastinations and promises of future action.
I heard over the radio yesterday that parliament is going to sit without a summer recess unless the opposition passes the legislation that the government has placed before the house. Surely that is a strange view. We will support legislation that we believe to be beneficial. We will weigh the arguments pro and con in regard to that legislation. But let me make it clear right now that we are not going to be intimidated into supporting resolutions that will be brought before the house just because the government brings them forth and regardless of the ill effects upon the Canadian people, which are already apparent.
I mentioned a moment ago the hopes, and we look back to what the Minister of Finance said; because after all he became


the self appointed tribune of the people. He carried the message. He told us what was wrong. He told us what we needed. I do not blame him. Some people are so self appointed that they can do that. He said that these things should be done. On February 28 he used certain words, and I point out to those across the way who may be thinking of interrupting that they said "This is right; we can follow him and his ideas and bring about a new Canada". This is what he said on February 28:
What Canada needs is a government that knows where it is going-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to read the rest
of it.
-is prepared to make decisions and has enough pride and energy to push those policies through to a conclusion.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to think of the record since this house opened. Measure it on the basis of the program set out by the Minister of Finance. A government that knows where it is going? When questions were asked today as to what the government is going to do about the sales tax on production machinery and building materials the answer was in effect the answer we have had for several weeks. "Wait and see; some time I will give you an answer". Today in answer to the hon. member for Waterloo North the minister went as far as to say "Next Monday".
Is this the directional planning, so-called, that Canada needed? Where is Canada going? On the basis of what has taken place in the last few weeks and the uncertainty of this government, Canada's economy is going to be undermined in every part of the land. That is not my view alone. That is the view of Canadians in every part of Canada. Indeed, the Postmaster General should be able to have a healthy profit in his department if postage is paid on all the messages being received by the government which are critical of its actions and demanding action.


Mr. Denis:: It could not be worse, anyway.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I believe the minister is right. The scripture says, Mr. Speaker, "Out of the mouths of babes". I must say I am in agreement there. It could not be much worse, though I will say that on the basis of what is taking place with regard to the economy in every part of Canada it is the purpose of the opposition to assure that it shall not be worse. That is what we are setting out to do, and this has been the reason for the questions we have asked.

Let us get the picture. The government is asking for a vote of supply. They promised- I remember hearing this over and over again -to restore confidence. I should like to find any part of Canada where on every hand, among those supporting their party and those opposed as well, there has ever been a like loss of confidence in such large measure and in so short a time. Restore confidence? Go to the markets of New York. Go to the markets of London. Find out what their reaction is. They cannot understand the philosophy of the government. They do not understand the philosophy that activated it in bringing into effect the promise of measures that cannot but destroy, or certainly undermine, the economy.
Sir, they said we overspent, and they said they would balance the budget. They changed that a bit in the last election and said it would take a little time. It will, at the rate they are increasing expenditures. They will never be able to do it on the basis of the extra expenditures they have already undertaken since assuming power.
In every part of the nation the economy is in disarray. There is uncertainty due to the vacillation of a government that makes a great decision with a fanfare of trumpets one day and reverses it the next. The government speaks of anti-Americanism as though the opposition had a monopoly of it, but it puts into effect measures that out anti-Americanize anything ever introduced in this house previously. It has alienated the image of Canada abroad.
What about the various industries of Canada? What about the construction industry? In every part of the nation the hope was for an expanded investment on the part of Canadians everywhere. That was a few weeks ago; but today the industry is in the doldrums, fearful of the consequences of acts of legislative assassination that it faces.
Government plans, so eloquently placed before the country, have brought a fear to the people of the nation that has never been known before. Mr. Speaker, I am not discussing the budget; I shall refuse to do that. What I am doing is discussing the state of the economy.
Just go to any part of Canada and take a poll of the people you meet. Ask them what is their reaction. They cannot understand that on parliament hill, when incentives should be assured in order to bring about further expansion of an expanding economy which the government inherited, the brakes are being put on. Why is this? Yet, with the people afraid and angered, and with employment in grave danger, when we ask the answer is, "I have nothing to add; I have nothing to say." 28902-5-111
2, 1963	1737
Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies Would that the minister had done that before he started to introduce some of these measures.
They used to say of the government, of which I had the honour to be the head, that business thought we did not take the proper attitude to it. Well, I would ask some of the ministers across the aisle to go to Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Halifax or Vancouver and let the people talk to them. They cannot understand it. They ask: What manner of people are these?
When the government, with fearlessness, introduced the 30 per cent takeover tax there was strong objection from the powerful. Indeed the retreat from it was almost a riot. But when we ask for information about what is going to be done we cannot get it. Are construction industries to be held up because of the refusal of the government to explain the sales tax? What of the provinces? Mr. Lesage has given his views in this regard. The government used to quote him frequently; it does not do it so much any more. What about the municipalities and schoolboards across Canada?
What about the businesses that planned for development? Is the inertia of the government to be permitted by parliament to interfere with the continuing growth of the nation? We ask for information but we are answered by silence, by being pushed aside, or by some new gimmick or press propaganda wherein some new policy is announced.
I have just mentioned Mr. Lesage. He is disturbed, as are Canadians everywhere. In fact he said this:
This is very serious, especially when one realizes to what point school completions, municipalities and hydro will be affected; more than $5 million in 12 months in tax, nothing but tax, 11 per cent.
The Canadian construction association has said the industry will lose $100 million in construction work that was ready to be undertaken. The Canadian magazine owners and the press cannot understand this tax, and I would remind the house that we brought in and placed on the statute books of this country the right of freedom of the press. Where is the freedom of the press today? It is subject to an imposition of tax on the machinery that produces the things which provide education for the people.
The O'Leary commission said we were in danger of losing Canada's identity because Canadian magazines could not compete with imported magazines. If they could not compete at that stage, how will they compete in the face of this tax impost on machinery? Every field of national effort cannot understand the purpose of a government throwing monkey wrenches into the machinery of an advancing economy.
1738	HOUSE OF
Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies
The government speaks of employment, but what it has done in the last few weeks, if it is able to put it into effect, will bring about new levels of unemployment at a time when we had the situation in reasonable hand. Canadians as a whole are asking us in parliament, "Why do you do this; why crucify Canadian development?" We cannot get the answers. We are being put off. We are advised that next week or the week after there will be announcements; but every day that this is said the Canadian economy is left in uncertainty and detriment is being done to it.
Hon. members of the government used to speak of the necessity of building a proCanadian attitude. That was their policy. But in his book the Minister of Finance said:
In our view there are definite limits as to what should be done about this matter, and compulsion and discrimination should certainly not be countenanced.
That is, against foreign investment. I will not go into the particulars as to what they have done in this regard. Sir, it is a serious situation for Canada. These hon. gentlemen opposite must not have the same correspondence that we do. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) was out west: I wonder what he reported back as to the reaction. Two of the ministers have been down in the maritimes, I understand; some ministers have been in Quebec and others in Ontario. Everywhere the question is, "Why are you doing this to us?" and the answer is, "Because Mr. Gordon told me so". Every one of them must take the responsibility; they are together on this.
Sir, I am not going to refer to newspapers, unless I am forced to do so; but everywhere across this nation there is the idea that this government is off the rails in its economic thinking. The average Canadian cannot understand why this has been done. He sees the threat to his position; he already anticipates losing the job that he has. He sees great projects being held up. Why? Because the government refuses to act. I come back to those words of the Minister of Finance:
What Canada needs is a government that knows where it is going.
Certainly I know where Canada is going unless something is done in this regard. The Minister of Finance said we need a government that knows where it is going and is prepared to make decisions. What decisions have been made? The decisions on matters that affect the economic future of Canada have taken second place to decisions that provide for appointments and the like. Everywhere across Canada people are asking that something be done in this regard. I received a telegram today from the chairman of the Ontario council of the national house builders association which reads:

In this position I must again point out the alarming impact of sales tax on house building materials. This is abundantly evident in sales cancellations, indefinite postponement of starts across this province with lay-offs now becoming evident. I urge you ascertain the chaotic situations and uncertainty in this industry which are having serious repercussions upon unemployment and reinstate exemptions to this important industry.
That is signed by Eric Johnson, chairman of the Ontario council of the national house builders association. Mining companies are hit by it in regard to their machinery and the necessity of providing the projects necessary to permit of mining taking place. Mines will have to close down because of this new tax. Secondary manufacturing in Canada has received a setback by the threat of the kind of action this government has in mind. It is because of these things that from everywhere members of all parties are being asked to do their part to save Canadians from this government; that is what we are being asked to do. The Orillia Packet-Times summed the whole matter up in one editorial. I am not going into particulars, again, unless I am asked to do so. This article is headed "Gordon finds that 'ruin' looks better from inside" and it says this:
Stranger still is the new government's financial review of 1962; the year in which Canada was supposed to be headed for ruin. It turns out that 1962 was not only a pretty good year, after all, but was actually one of the best ever for this country, with a rate of economic growth and activity that the new government would be only too pleased to sustain, let alone improve on.
In other words, the economic disaster Canadians were warned about so frequently a few months ago, existed only in the minds of the Liberal party publicists. There was, in fact, no crisis and certainly the Liberals had no drastic remedy handy had there been one. The whole was so much wind, designed solely to waft the Pearson party into power.
And so it goes on. I have mentioned the fact that we cannot get information. I have referred to the suggestion that unless we knuckle down and pass the kind of legislation that will be introduced in order to implement the plans of this government, we are going to sit all summer. Let me make this perfectly clear; we will not be intimidated in that way. We are not going to pass legislation that we know is going to affect detrimentally the Canadian people, just for the sake of something that every hon. member would like to have and has a right to, a certain vacation during the summertime. We are not going to be intimidated like that.
Now, sir, I said I was not going to speak at length, because I am so anxious to hear what the answer is. The facts are known; they are unchallengeable, and the aroused Canadian people are asking parliament why it cannot get action in this regard and protect them against the proclivities of a government
(Mr. Diefenbaker.]

in its policies that can only adversely affect this country. That being so, sir, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Digby-An-napolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan):
That this house regrets that the government by its failure to clarify many doubts and uncertainties in some of its economic policies has created and continues to create confusion and chaos in various sectors of the economy, thereby contributing to a lamentable slowing down of expected expansion and growth.
I shall pass this to you in a moment, Mr. Speaker, but I wanted the house to know what the amendment was. The doubts remain because every minister of the government sits tight, refuses to answer, refuses to hold out any hope as to what is going to be done. The dribbles here and the dribbles there take away something that has already been directed. There is uncertainty and confusion everywhere. The result is that many of the major sectors of our economy are seriously concerned with this situation. A moment ago I spoke of the construction industry, the building industry, the low production mines; and on the farm and everywhere there is an overwhelming demand by the Canadian people for information and action now, not the kind of thing we have had for 18 or 19 days, uncertainty, moving forward by declaration and then retreating in the face of an aroused public opinion. I know it is going to be hard for them to do it; it is going to be a bitter pill and I do not like to see them in that position.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all; I can feel for you and I want to be entirely fair in that regard. But, sir, the longer they delay swallowing that pill, the more is the economy of Canada being undermined. The government has no other course open to it than to bend in the face of the opposition of this party and of the Canadian people as a whole. Can we get them to do it? Well, I look forward to the great retreat that must come when they rise and find inexplicable reasons for doing this. The hon. gentleman who rose on a question of privilege today said he could not find out the reason some things were done. They will never explain in this case, either, why they have done it.
Sir, when they do it, it will be because they realize that the opposition in this parliament represents the thinking, the general idea, of the Canadian people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to raise a point of order at this stage Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I might be permitted to read the motion which the right hon. gentleman has just presented to the house. It is as follows: 28902-5-1111
2, 1963	1739
Alleged. Confusion in Economic Policies
That this house regrets that the government by its failure to clarify many doubts and uncertainties in some of its economic policies has created and continues to create confusion and chaos in various sectors of the economy, thereby contributing to a lamentable slowing down of expected expansion and growth.
Only last week, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), had a motion before this house in amendment to the budget, one paragraph of which stated that in general the proposals of the Minister of Finance would "endanger and curtail the expansion of the economy". The house reached a verdict on that motion at the end of the budget debate. I think if one were to compare the two motions it would be found that the only real difference between them is that the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings was, understandably, more succinct than was the right hon. gentleman. The purport of these motions is exactly the same. The right hon. gentleman relied exclusively, or almost exclusively, upon the budget as his support for his motion.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No one raised any point of order in respect to it nor interrupted the right hon. gentleman either. It would appear to me that the Leader of the Opposition is merely seeking by the use of a colourable device to reopen the budget debate on a motion which to all intents and purposes is similar, if not identical, to that which formed the basis for a decision of the house the other day.
I could, of course, quote certain authorities. I could draw Your Honour's attention to citation 234 of Beauchesne's fourth edition and read a small part of it:
The ancient doctrine that the redress of grievances should be considered before the grant of supplies is maintained in the House of Commons-
Then it goes on to give details.


John George Diefenbaker: What number was that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Page 198.
*-it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance, provided that the discussion shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and means, nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.
It appears to me that the motion proposed by the right hon. gentleman is out of order inasmuch as it relates to a resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and means. I could also refer Your Honour to Bourinot at page 420 where the same principle is clearly set out. It does not seem there will be any particular profit in reading this

Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies because the language is so nearly the same and I do not wish to take up the time of the house unnecessarily. I cite it merely to show that Beauchesne was following Bourinot in this regard.
It does seem to me that for these reasons, because the question has recently been the subject of a verdict in this house, and because the motion seeks to anticipate a debate of which notice has been given on certain of the budget resolutions, in particular the resolution relating to the sales tax, this is not an appropriate subject for an amendment of the motion to go into committee of supply.


George Clyde Nowlan: Since the hon. gentleman has referred to the motion I made, perhaps I should speak for one minute on this point of order. The hon. member quoted a clause from an amendment I had the honour of moving a few days ago. If the motion before us dealt exclusively with the same matter, I think the hon. member would be fully in order. That is one of the reasons why we did not deal with the budget per se. We are dealing with matters which occurred since that amendment was brought in. We are dealing in today's amendment with the failure of the government to clear up inconsistencies and deal with doubts which have been raised since I moved the amendment. I moved an amendment on the budget. Heaven knows, that was bad enough-I mean the budget. But the uncertainties and doubts which have arisen since then are even worse. We saw a great example this afternoon when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) said that next Monday he would be able to make a statement clarifying something in the budget. We are not attempting here to deal with the budget itself, or with any of the problems arising out of it. We are drawing attention to the failure of the government to deal with questions which have arisen since the budget was brought down.


Mr. Graffley:: Since it has been suggested that the Leader of the Opposition has drawn his amendment from the budget alone, let me put another example before hon. members for their consideration. At the time of the budget we thought that legislation having to do with municipal loans would be passed in a relatively short time. The Minister of Finance assured us that this legislation would bring about an immediate improvement in the employment situation. Subsequently, we found that the provinces have put forward objections to this plan. We want to know what steps the government is taking to reconcile its views with those of the provinces. We have tried to get information on this subject. We have asked questions in this house, we have put questions on the order paper
[Mr. Plckersgill.l
and we have asked for the production of papers. This is a major aspect of the government's economic policy designed to create immediate employment, and by means of this amendment and subsequent debate we want to find out what plans the government has to cope with this situation.
This is just one example to show that the Leader of the Opposition has not put down the amendment on the basis of the budget alone but on the whole purview of the government's economic policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might say a word with respect to the contribution of the hon. and learned member for Brome-Mis-sisquoi. It seems to me he has convicted the amendment on yet another ground which had not occurred to me. He says he and his friends want to talk about the municipal development and loan fund. That, of course, is an item on the order paper. It is formally indicated in the citation I read that these motions must not anticipate the debate on items on the order paper. If hon. gentlemen will get on to the debate of items on the order paper and seek information in that fashion, a lot more progress will probably be made. The plain fact is that this motion is seeking, so far as hon. gentlemen opposite have indicated, information either about the resolutions to be proposed in the committee of ways and means, the kind of resolutions which are specifically referred to in Bourinot, or information with respect to matters set down on the order paper as government proposals for legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other hon. members who wish to add anything?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I just have a comment to make in answer to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) who has attempted to reason that the amendment to the budget made on June 19 is the same as this amendment. The portion of the amendment to which he referred reads:
That in general his proposals will endanger and curtail the expansion of the economy.
What we are dealing with here is-
-the failure of the government to clarify many doubts and uncertainties in some of its economic policies.
This is a point of difference which Your Honour, I am sure, is taking into account. Whereas on the budget amendment we were talking about endangering and curtailing the expansion of the economy, we did not foresee at that time that so many doubts and uncertainties would be created by the action and then the corresponding inaction of the government. What we are condemning in this

amendment is the government's failure to clarify the doubts and uncertainties which have arisen. This, I submit, sir, is quite different from the simple statement that the economy would be endangered and expansion curtailed. This is a clarification which we are stressing in this amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank all hon. members for their assistance in this matter. I have before me the wording of the motion which the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) moved at the time of the budget debate. In particular, paragraph two of that motion reads:
That in general his proposals will endanger and curtail the expansion of the economy.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) raises a very fine distinction, and Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, at page 420, says in part:
The ordinary rules of debate are applicable on this occasion; for instance, a matter already decided by the house, or of which notice has been given, or which stands upon the orders of the day, cannot be discussed.
The distinction is a very fine distinction indeed. The motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and seconded by the hon. member for Digby-Anna-polis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), while being very close to the budget motion, does contain a certain element that has to be considered, namely-
-that the government, by its failure to clarify many doubts and uncertainties in some of its economic policies-[DOT]
If we were not about to discuss the budget at some future time this motion would stand on its own feet. Therefore, in the present circumstances I feel that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the opposition in this case and that the motion is in order. The amendment as moved reads:
That this house regrets that the government, by its failure to clarify many doubts and uncertainties in some of its economic policies, has created and continues to create confusion and chaos in various sectors of the economy, thereby contributing to a lamentable slowing down of expected expansion and growth.
May I say in closing that I hope we will be sticking to the "many doubts and uncertainties", rather than indulge at this time in a budget debate.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was Dominion day.


Some hon. Members:: Canada day.


Robert Norman Thompson: The excellent performance given on parliament hill last night in commemoration of the 96th anniversary of confederation has already been brought to the attention of this house. I think we pay too
2, 1963	1741
Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies little attention to this question of being a Canadian, of what our nation actually stands for, and the tremendous heritage we have. I agree that the program of the armed forces last night ought to have been seen by every man and woman, every youngster in our country, and I join in commending the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for their performances.
My attention has been drawn to an editorial in the Brantford Expositor dated June 28 dealing with just where the term Dominion of Canada originated. During the conference of the confederation fathers, when they were finalizing the British North America Act, the question came up as to what this united Canada should be called. Sir Leonard Tilley, one of the confederation fathers, went home and spoke to his family about it. The next evening, when picking up his Bible, he turned to the 72nd Psalm and he read these words:
He shall have dominion also from sea to sea.
Taking these words back to the confederation conference he mentioned this to those at the conference with him and it was decided then and there that this united Canada should be called the Dominion of Canada. There are those who feel that the word "dominion" may have colonial connotations, but I was impressed with this little story about how the word "dominion" came to be used. Certainly a nation under God, such as Canada is, could not have a more appropriate title than the Dominion of Canada, when it is referred to in the sense that Sir Leonard Tilley originally thought of when he proposed the adoption of this name.
What we need in Canada today more than anything else is a sense of unity, a sense of national purpose. In just four years we will be celebrating our centennial, and I think it is imperative for us in this house, even when we speak in terms of the supply motion, of the expenditure of money or of the carrying on of the administration of government, that we should be thinking a great deal about just what kind of Canada we will have in 1967, and also what kind of a centennial we will provide for this tremendous landmark in our history. Over the week end I was impressed by a letter I received from the secretary of the village council of Bowden, which is in my constituency. It asked me with whom the writer should get in contact in regard to planning our centennial in 1967. People across Canada are looking and groping for leadership in this regard. As I read the July 1 issue of Weekend magazine I read the article concerning a proposition that it might be a good thing to create an eleventh province with the name of Ottawa, which would be a gift from the two larger provinces
1742	HOUSE OF
Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies of our country for our centennial celebrations.
I was much impressed by this article written by one of the esteemed members of our press gallery because I think he has a very sound idea, and it was expressed in a way I had not heard before. This article brought the fact clearly to us that we are a nation. What we all ought to be doing in our country, particularly as leaders in our respective spheres, is to concern ourselves about this problem of national unity and purpose. Certainly our financial policies ought to respect the basic premise that brought us into confederation in the first place.
In this regard, one of the most vital things is provincial autonomy in the field of taxation, in the field of carrying forward those things which were promised to the provinces when the provinces came together to form a nation.
I am much disturbed over some of the aspects of the financial policy of the government in this regard. Apparently there is not too much thought or premeditation about how some of the policies which are being introduced will affect the autonomy of the provinces and the relationship of that to the unity that our country needs. Time does not suffice today to deal with this problem at any length.
I doubt that any single event that has taken place in the last months in our country has done so much to jar the Canadian people into thinking about what our future is, particularly as it relates to our financial problems, as the recent budget which has been introduced and the 11 per cent tax which is the basis of the amendment moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). Even though the amendment does not say so in direct terms, the reference obviously is to this 11 per cent tax contained in the budget. The worst blow that industrial growth and expansion of our country have ever been dealt in recent years is this 11 per cent tax. This is just not my opinion; this is the opinion of practically every one of the members sitting in this house, whether they are on this side of the house or on that side.
I have here a file of letters and telegrams which have come in over the week end. Almost universally, there is this shock and amazement that a minority government, such as the present government, should have introduced a policy such as this one. This is not just a response from the Canadian people themselves, but from the construction associations and merchandising associations, as well as from local governments. This response comes from every aspect of Canadian life. Even the press, which only a few short weeks ago was completely behind the present government, has turned harshly in its criticism of the government. The budget was ill


conceived and poorly planned. I do not believe the excuse that there was not time to delve into all the aspects of budget policy is a legitimate excuse. Surely being an expert such as the Minister of Finance, the elementary aspects of these problems which affect the economy could have been dealt with in sufficient detail within a reasonable length of time.
Coming back to this question of provincial rights. I may say that I am concerned, if this is the policy the government is going to follow, about whether or not we should forget about celebrating July 1 and our centenary which we will be celebrating in four years time. We may be celebrating something at that time but we will not be celebrating confederation. It is certainly the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, because of the over-all responsibility of government for planning carefully to take into consideration these matters and to seek the advice which he needs to have if he is not completely aware of all the aspects himself.
One obvious point that has come out of the budget and the tremendous expenditures involved in the estimates before us, is that the present government, at least in so far as its policies so far enunciated are concerned, have been no more able to cope with many of the financial problems of our country than was the former government. What we must understand in this regard is that if the old does not work, if the traditional pattern of the past does not meet our needs, then we ought to have enough common sense to turn to something that does offer an answer.
What is going to happen at the present time in so far as the expressed purposes of the budget are concerned? We are going to find a slow-down in the construction industry. In fact, as I opened my mail this morning I found a clipping from the Edmonton Journal which stated that the sales tax would cut off one thousand jobs in the city in the immediate future. A telegram was received by one of my colleagues a few minutes ago stating that there is a 20 per cent lay-off of construction workers in the city of Medicine Hat. Instead of reducing unemployment, instead of easing off the financial pressures on many of our people who do not have work, we are adding to their number. In addition to that, what is actually being done is to place a penalty against capital investment. This has created confusion throughout the entire economy of our country. Therefore, I urge the Minister of Finance and the government to give immediate consideration to the removal of the 11 per cent tax altogether, or at least to delay the implementation of it.
The other day we had a discussion in the house as to whether or not the Minister of

Finance was planning to define the various fields to which this tax would apply and to which no previous reference had been made. We were given an assurance that this was going to be done. The obvious ramifications of the 11 per cent tax reach out into many more different fields than was originally expected. The situation surrounding this tax can best be characterized as one of confusion and uncertainty which is slowing down instead of speeding up, which is throwing out of work instead of providing new jobs, which is controlling the over-all expansion rather than giving impetus to it. What will happen,
I	sincerely ask the Minister of Finance, if the government does not take this suggestion for removing the tax or delaying its implementation?
The unemployment picture is going to be aggravated and will become a bigger problem than ever before. Capital investment in projects all across the country as related to the expansion of our industry will slow down, because without the construction aspect of industrial expansion you cannot have industrial expansion. Therefore the over-all picture in the country will become more difficult on the economic side than it has been in the past, and the very antithesis of the objective that the Minister of Finance said was his objective when he presented the budget.
Suppose the minister were to listen to the cries of our people across the land and to the advice I am offering at this moment. I think he would find that there would be a way out of the immediate problem that faces us. If there could be a six months' delay in the implementation of the tax a tremendous impetus would be given to over-all industrial expansion throughout the country. You would find that home building would speed up. You would find that industry would instal new machinery and equipment in their plants in order to modernize and expand before the
II	per cent tax was implemented. I think you would find that there would probably be more incentive to go ahead and expand and accomplish what was stated to be the objective of the budget than would be achieved by anything else that could be done.
Therefore I urge once again in the strongest possible way that the government take into consideration the urgency of the matter and at least postpone the implementation of the tax. I think practically all members of the house would agree with such action. What I am saying is not just opposition from the opposition side. These are the facts of the case as they exist in the country today. The government might be placed in a most embarrassing situation by having to backtrack on their declared intentions, but nevertheless it would be better to do that in an
Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies honourable way than to face the inevitable results if such action is not taken. In fact, so convinced am I as to what the situation will be unless this is done that I am convinced the tax will defeat the intended purpose of providing revenue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will not mind my bringing to his attention that it is not permitted at this time to reopen the debate which took place in the house on the subject of the budget. I think the hon. member will agree with me that question has already been decided by vote of the House of Commons. I am just mentioning this point at this time so that the hon. member who has the floor will take this as notice and keep it in mind in the course of his remarks.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If I may speak to the point of order you have raised, Mr. Speaker; earlier today when the Speaker ruled the amendment in order he referred to a very fine line to be drawn between this matter and something that may have been determined in the house before. He also put great weight on the words "to clarify many doubts and uncertainties". I suggest to you with deference that the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer have been confined strictly to the many doubts and uncertainties that exist throughout the whole of Canada as a result of the 11 per cent sales tax to which he has been referring consistently throughout his remarks. So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member has not deviated from what the ruling was when the amendment was accepted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may say a word, Mr. Speaker, I must say I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Medicine Hat. His Honour the Speaker made a decision. Far be it from anyone on the government side to wish to broaden the scope of the debate on one of these motions which are directed against the government, but it does seem to me that we should be sure that the hon. member for Red Deer is given exactly the same latitude as was given to the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: My understanding of the ruling made by the Chair is that it referred to the second paragraph of the motion made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, whereas it seems to me that the hon. member who has the floor now is offending against the third paragraph of the same motion having to do with the imposition of the sales tax. This is a very definite point which has already been decided by the house and about which the hon. member should exercise some circumspection.
1744	HOUSE OF
Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking directly to the 11 per cent sales tax. I am speaking of the effects that have been caused as a result of the tax and I am speaking directly to the thought and intent of the wording of the amendment, "to clarify many doubts and uncertainties", proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.
So far as the situation today is concerned, the most urgent matter in the minds of the Canadian people in every province of the nation and every community in every province is how the financial policies of the government are going to affect them. They expected something that at least would not add to their tax burden. They expected something that would give them new hope in order to go forward with the expansion that we all agree we should have in the country.
The doubts and uncertainties created as a result of the financial policies expressed in the budget have truly caused confusion throughout the country and this is of urgent and grave concern to every single one of us. In the motion of supply that is before us today we are actually concerned with the expenditure of millions and millions of dollars which first of all have to be taken out of the taxpayers' pockets before they can be spent. Deeper than any single aspect of the budget, deeper than the 11 per cent tax levied against building materials and equipment and machinery is the fact that the government is not facing up to the basic needs of our economy or to the responsibilities it assumed when it took office. Deeper than this is the simple premise that unless we can get to the root causes of our problem we are going to continue to add to the tax load of our nation, thus taking away the very liberties and freedoms which we regard as basic to our Canadian way of life, and thus defeating the very purpose for which government is intended.
What we should be considering and doing as we speak about this tremendous expenditure of money is discovering ways and means to lighten the tax load so that there will be a more equitable tax on the various segments of the economy without hurting individuals, while at the same time putting into the hands of individuals a greater earning capacity and more dollars with which to purchase the very things that the economy produces. Over and over we in the Social Credit group have emphasized in the house that our real problem is not one of production but rather one of consumption. We have said that in the over-all philosophy of taxation and paying for the cost of government administration the premise must be understood that unless the people have the money in their hands to


buy the things which are made for them and which they want to use, they are not going to have the money to pay the taxes that the government needs to cover the cost of government administration.
That is why I am convinced that unless our government expenditures aim at solving the problems of distribution and consumption, and direct their assistance and guidance in the over-all planning of our economy along that line, we are going to continue to go on from one budget situation to another, typical of the one we have now. It matters not whether a government is called Conservative, Liberal or something else. Unless we can get down to those basic problems and make sure our financial system permits the distribution and consumption of those things we produce, we will never have an answer to the question of how to finance the operations of our government.
That is why we are most concerned in the situation which exists at present. It is not simply a question of collecting dollars out of the taxpayers' pockets to pay for the costs of administration. It also concerns the fairness and the equitableness of taxes as they do this. I find there is a great deal of discrimination developing, simply because there was not the foresight of proper budget planning and because there was not the consultation that there should have been in the preparation of these aspects of the budget. This brings us to the postion that we are in. Instead of talking about some of the major problems on the motion for supply now before us, we are talking about the confusion that exists in every sector of our economy in relation to the 11 per cent sales tax.
Therefore I again urge upon the Minister of Finance and the government that they take immediate action to delay the implementation of their tax policies and face up to the facts as they are, in order that we can have the confidence that our industry and people must have if they are to move forward. The government will admit I am sure, as they have already admitted, that these new taxes were ill conceived and therefore the urgency I am speaking about is of paramount importance.
I do not intend to belabour this point, but I do believe the most urgent matter before the house and the government is to deal with the problem that is posed in the amendment which is before the house, and on which we shall be voting later tonight.
We in the Social Credit party believe that we have a responsibility to those who voted for us and gave us their confidence in the last election. I believe each one of us, no matter what party he belongs to, agrees we

all have that same responsibility. It is our responsibility, as we see it, in the light of the tremendous expression that has been voiced. I wish to emphasize again that we cannot continue this policy, which has brought us to the point where we are now. Therefore I again ask the Minister of Finance to clarify the various problems facing the many aspects of industry today as a result of this sales tax, and I urge him once more to at least delay the implementation of the tax until a later date.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the motion to go into supply always provides an opportunity for the opposition, on the one hand, to bring forth any criticism it has of the general direction in which the government is going, and it provides the government, on the other hand, with an opportunity to explain to the house and the country how far it has gone in carrying out the program with which it began its term in office.
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition has directed his remarks mainly to the economic plight of Canada, and I think he did well to do this because this is undoubtedly the problem which gives the greatest concern to the people of the country. From 1957 to 1961 our gross national product increased something less than 2 per cent per year, when we put it into constant dollars and make adjustment for price changes. Last year we made a much more substantial increase in our gross national product, but it was mainly in the extraction industries and it did not reflect itself in a decrease in unemployment. In the first quarter of this year our gross national product increased about 1 per cent over the last quarter of 1962.
There is no need to weary the house with statistics. I think every member of the house who has studied this matter will agree that, whether we all have the same figures to a decimal point or not, the inescapable fact is that our economy for the past six years has not been increasing at a rate which will provide full employment not only for those who are now employable but also for the 200,000 or more young people who enter the labour market each year, and that the main task facing this parliament, and particularly facing the government, is how we can promote the type of economic growth that will soak up the pool of unemployment which has remained at an average of about 6.6 per cent per year, and at the same time provide jobs for the growing army of young people entering the labour market.
The government started off on April 22 with many cheers and a fanfare of trumpets as to what it was going to do about promoting
Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies economic growth and providing full employment. But now, shortly after the 60 days have expired, we have come to the point where it seems to have slowed down and run out of steam. Some of the measures it has brought in are already being greeted with less enthusiasm by hon. members opposite than when they were introduced. I make particular reference, for instance, to the municipal development and loan board, a piece of legislation which in principle has much to commend it; but the government seems to be losing its enthusiasm for it, and certainly some of the government's supporters outside the house have openly criticized it.
The reason why so much of its legislation has not been widely acclaimed is due to the fact that there has not been the kind of consultation which there ought to have been before the legislation was introduced. This is particularly true where the legislation involves the provinces. I can give just a minor matter as an illustration.
The government announced very sweeping changes in its winter works incentive program, something which vitally affects the provinces. As a matter of fact the provinces do much of the work, but I know of one province where the deputy minister was phoned at 4.30 in the afternoon and told, "We propose to make these changes. Will you discuss them with your minister, have him discuss them with the cabinet and call us back tomorrow morning?" When he called back next morning at 10.30 o'clock he was told, "Sorry, it has gone through cabinet." I am all for haste and doing business expeditiously, but if the government expects to get the cooperation of the provinces, not only on minor matters but on much larger matters, it will have to carry on a great deal more consultation than has been evident to date. This is true of consultation with industry, with labour, with agriculture and with other segments of the economy. Much of the trouble which the government is experiencing today could have been avoided had there been consultation with those who were affected by the various pieces of legislation that have been brought down.
It seems to me there has been a lack of planning, a lack of a sense of direction. The government has talked a great deal about regaining control of the economy but it does not seem to have any program or philosophy by which Canada is going to regain control of its economy. It talks glibly about trade, but we have had no statement yet from the government, after having been in session since May 16, as to what its trade program is. Here is Canada, a country that lives by trade; here is a nation that must export or perish, and yet not a word in any legislation or in
1746	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies
the budget as to what the government proposes to do about Canada's place as a great trading power.
I think the main reason the government's economic policy seems to have collapsed in midstream is that it has never yet got down to the base causes of the economic malaise that has been affecting the Canadian economy. They have been dealing with fringe problems; they have never got down to the basic problems.
I am not going to repeat what I have said on previous occasions, but the basic problems for the last five or six years have not been the lack of savings by industry or the lack of profit incentives, because profits have been good. The basic lack in the Canadian economy has been the lack of effective purchasing power in the hands of a great segment of the Canadian population. We contend that the answer lies in doing two things: First, introducing great quantities of purchasing power into the economy by government action, by large scale public works programs and large scale housing programs. Immediately this raises the whole question of deficit financing, and yet modern economists in countries where they have studied deficit financing tell us that in the main, for every percentage point that a country reduces its unemployment figures it increases its gross national product by 3 per cent. This means that if we could reduce Canada's unemployment figure to an annual average of 3 per cent-and this would still be higher than any country in western Europe-we could increase Canada's gross national product by over $4,000 million a year. This is the answer to those who become concerned about deficit financing.
I would have thought that in the first 60 days the first thing the government would have done would have been to announce large scale federal public works projects, large scale housing programs and financial assistance to enable the provinces to embark upon provincial public works programs. They have-let it be said, so I am perfectly fair- introduced legislation by which they will assist municipalities to embark upon socially useful public works; it may be not on as large a scale as might be desired, but they have made a commendable start. But there has been nothing federally, nothing provincially to launch the kind of large scale public works projects that are absolutely necessary in order to put men to work until such time as the economy itself is able to absorb these people in ordinary, everyday enterprises. This is why, in the opinion of this group, reimposing the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and production machinery was such an erroneous step.
I am not going to discuss this tax; I simply use it by way of illustration. This 
tax has been imposed at the very time when this country ought to be booming, when we ought to be putting men to work in the logging camps, the saw mills, the cement factories, the brick factories, when the various forms of transportation ought to be hauling building materials, when construction workers should be busy, when we should be building homes, apartment blocks, office blocks, libraries, recreation centres, hospitals, schools; when we ought to be building federal and provincial parks, irrigation projects. When we should be doing these things is not the time-in fact, it is the very last time-to be applying an 11 per cent sales tax.
The other thing that must be done, in addition to large scale public works, is to use every economic device at the disposal of the government to redistribute purchasing power to those in our economy who would, if they had more money, buy more consumer goods. This is self-evident. This means increasing old age pensions and veterans pensions; it means lowering the age for the old age pensioners to 65; it means raising the family allowances and raising the age to 18 for children who go to school; it means leaving the people in the lower income groups with more money in their pockets by raising the exemptions or lowering the income tax on these groups. Again, this is the very time not to have introduced a sales tax, because a sales tax is a regressive tax. At the present time the government of Canada collects about 60 per cent of its taxes directly, and 40 per cent indirectly; but when the average taxpayer pays his provincial and municipal taxes, which have to be weighted in the form of direct taxes, he is paying about 50 per cent as direct taxes and 50 per cent as indirect. The thing that is wrong with indirect taxes is that they take no cognizance whatsoever of the individual's ability to pay. Therefore the pendulum is swinging more and more toward indirect taxes rather than direct taxes. If ever there was a time in our economy when we ought to be reducing sales taxes and, if we have to have revenue, get it from those who are better able to pay, this was the time; not just on humanitarian grounds but on the grounds of good economics, because every $100 that people in low income groups save by not having to pay them in taxes will be used to buy consumer goods and so help stimulate the economy. That is very simple Keynesian economics which is being practised in most of the modern countries of the world. One of the ways in which we could help to redistribute purchasing power would be by putting more money in the pockets of the farm population. One of the ways in which we could best redistribute purchasing power would be by guaranteeing

parity prices to the primary producers, the farmers, the fishermen and others in this country who produce these basic commodities. There is probably no group which has suffered more during this period of economic stagnation than the farming population, because the farming population have to buy in a protected market and sell on the world market. Since 1951 they have found that though the prices they pay for the things they have to buy have risen by 24 per cent, the prices of the goods they sell have gone down by 21 per cent.
I have here the quarterly bulletin of agriculture put out by the dominion bureau of statistics, national accounts, covering the period from January to March, 1962 and comparing it with other years. We find that in 1951 the average income per farm was $3,250. By 1958 that had dropped to $2,558. In 1959, it was $2,659, in 1960 it was up to $2,999 and in 1961 it had dropped again to $2,393. Income for 1962 will be a little higher because that was a very good crop year. But the trend is the same; the trend is that income from agriculture has tended to decline, and the farmer, because he does not control his market, is not able to keep the prices of his products in line with his cost of production. His cost of production has gone up while in many cases the prices he receives for his commodities have gone down.
During the election campaign the Liberal party made many promises about what they intended to do for the farmer. The most specific promise was made with respect to the wheat farmers. I have here a copy of the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of March 7 reporting a speech of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the leader of the Liberal party. The heading is: "Two Price Wheat System" and it says:
A two price system for wheat to recognize the farm price-cost squeeze was promised by Liberal leader Pearson here Wednesday night in an address to the largest rally of his current election campaign held in the arena. Mr. Pearson said it would replace the "present haphazard system of acreage payments the government can give whenever it decides to" and would "eject stability in the farming industry so that farmers could plan ahead." Speaking from a prepared text, Mr. Pearson said his party if elected, would immediately establish a floor price of $2 per bushel for No. 1 Northern at Fort William to give "a measure of security to the wheat producer."
This price would apply over the life of the present international wheat agreement. A two price system would be legislated on the basis of the unit quota. "Farmers will be paid a price for wheat used in domestic human consumption which reflects the fact they buy their production requirements in tariff-protected markets and sell in world markets", he said. It would be accompanied by a consumer subsidy so that bread prices wouldn't rise.
Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies
No one can say this was just a passing reference. This was a major speech made by the leader of the Liberal party in one of the largest cities on the prairies and it constitutes a definite commitment to the wheat growers of western Canada that if a Liberal government were elected, two things would happen: first, there would be a two price system for wheat, so that wheat used for domestic purposes would be bought at a parity price, the money being paid to the farmers on the basis of certain delivery quotas and, second that there would be a guaranteed price of $2 a bushel so that if the price of wheat sold under the international wheat agreement were to drop below $2, the government would make up the difference.
That was the commitment. Whether it is done this way, or whether it is done by parity prices, the value of such a program is that it would put purchasing power into the pockets of the primary producers of this country. If the farmers and fishermen of Canada could have the benefit of parity prices, prices which give them a fair return for their production in relation to their costs, they would be in a position to buy consumer goods in tremendous quantities. I know of nothing which would give the economy a greater stimulus than to put parity prices into operation for the primary producers of this country. That is why we have always contended that parity prices are not only a matter of social justice but that they make economic good sense because they would enable the great primary producing groups in our country to buy larger and ever larger quantities of consumer goods. If the government would keep even its own promise of a $2 a bushel guarantee for wheat and a two price system, a burst of purchasing power would be liberated which would give our economy such a shot in the arm that many of our economic problems would disappear.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) has moved an amendment, and I do not disagree with the terms of the amendment that the government has failed to clarify many doubts and uncertainties in some of its economic policies and that it has created, and continues to create, confusion and chaos in various sectors of the economy, thereby contributing to a lamentable slowing down of expected expansion and growth. While this amendment calls attention to the lack of clarification and to the confusion which exists, it does not suggest any remedy. It is in this respect that I disagree with the amendment. I think we must do more than criticize the government for its lack of clarification, for its confusion and lack of direction. I think we must also place before the house some concrete measures which we think should be
1748	HOUSE OF
Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies taken to give this economy a new sense of direction, a new impetus, to help promote economic growth and put unemployed people to work; to provide adequate social welfare, and to give the primary producers of this country a standard of living which is in keeping with that enjoyed by other segments of the economy.
Therefore I am going to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that the amendment be amended by striking out all the words after the word "government" and by substituting therefor the following words:
-has failed to Introduce the kind of economic planning that would promote economic growth and full employment, and more particularly has failed to institute a large scale program of housing and public works, to create more effective consumer demand, and to introduce a system of parity prices for primary products.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is some question whether the subamendment is relevant to the amendment. Perhaps I could have some views on this point from the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it would be a reflection on the Chair were I to say that the subamendment appears to me to be a proper amendment, whereas the amendment introduced by the right hon. gentleman opposite, I suggest with respect, was not a proper amendment. It seems to me-


Mr. Monteilh:: Are you appealing the
Speaker's ruling?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was just expressing a doubt and following, in doing so, a precedent I learned in six hard years sitting over there listening to hon. gentlemen reflecting on the Chair on a great many occasions. But I am not seeking to reflect on the Chair at all. We accepted readily the decision of the Chair, and it seems to me, sir, that the decision of the Chair having been what it is we should not strain it in the interpretation of this matter but should allow the matter to come squarely before the house and be voted upon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be a great day for people who come from Winnipeg. I found myself enjoying the remarks which have just been made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) because I think he has hit the nail right on the head. I am sure it was noticed that I did not take part in the debate on the point of order raised in connection with the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) because, while I felt that there was some doubt whether that amendment was in order,
I did not want to appear to close the door to what might be felt to be the right of the 

opposition. I welcomed the fact that when the Speaker, who was in the chair at that time, felt there was some doubt he resolved the doubt in favour of the opposition.
That position having been taken, Mr. Speaker, I submit that we now have placed before the house a proposal to alter that amendment by putting in words which are more properly the kind of words which should be offered at this time. The wording of the subamendment does not refer to the budget but to the general policies of the government or its lack of policy in certain fields. We think that if there is doubt and a lack of clarification, this is a relevant amendment in that it clears up such doubt and lack of clarification by suggesting some positive measures. We would suggest, as the Secretary of State has just proposed, that this is more properly the subject matter of an amendment on going into supply than is the main amendment. Therefore the same resolving of the doubt in favour of the mover which was exercised earlier should now be exercised, and this subamendment allowed so that, as the Secretary of State says, it might come to a vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If it is the unanimous desire and wish of the house that this subamendment should be accepted, then it will be accepted; but it is the view of the Chair that the terms of this subamendment seem to enlarge the terms of the amendment itself by bringing in an entirely new subject. We have in the amendment a specific grievance, and to my mind an entirely different grievance is contained in the subamendment. I do not think we should refer to the decision already rendered by the Chair, and I do not think any reflection should be cast on that decision. This having been said, I feel there is a distinction here between the subamendment and the amendment, and my view is that the subamendment is out of order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I point out, with great respect, that the amendment-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have given a decision in regard to this matter. I should like, if I may, to reiterate what I said at the outset of my remarks, that if it is the unanimous consent of the house to accept the subamendment it will certainly be accepted. But if we do not have unanimous consent, the Chair has made a ruling and I think there should be no debate on that ruling.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then I have no alternative but to appeal your ruling, if you have given a firm ruling.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On behalf of this group, Mr. Speaker, we would give unanimous consent.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is not a question of unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the acceptance-


George Clyde Nowlan: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then I appeal your ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those in favour of sustaining the Speaker's ruling will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker put the question as follows:
The question is an appeal to the house ruling of the Chair, which is as follows:
from
a
,, To. f A motion to go into committee of supply e right hon. Leader of the Opposition moved in amendment as follows:"


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
Mr. Depuly Speaker:: I declare the decision confirmed.


Mr. Teillei:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Enns). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Mr. Stewart:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Mr. Brown:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Mr. Turner:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your ruling. While on my feet, on the last vote relating to a question of privilege raised by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would suggest it is not the proper time to raise this point of order.


Mr. Armstrong:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Watson). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Mr. Mandziuk:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Morison). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your ruling.
(Translation):


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien). Had I voted, I would have voted to maintain your decision.
(Text):


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Bow Kiver (Mr. Woolliams). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak, if not about the budget at least about certain emanations from it. A lot has happened in the last three weeks and the public, and even, perhaps, some hon. members of this house may have become confused to some extent by the side issues, the

alarms and the excursions. The amendment before the house is worded in the most general terms. In my remarks I shall try to point out not only the broad problems that confront the country but I shall also say something about the issue that was clearly in the mind of the right hon. gentleman opposite who moved the amendment, namely the withdrawal of the sales tax exemption from certain industries. It seems to me that in view of the wording of the amendment and in view of the wide ranging remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker)
I should be entitled to this latitude.
Let me begin by reminding hon. members that the tax in question is one which a great many other industries have been paying for many years. The withdrawal of the exemption will place most industries-and I should explain that I mean most industries excepting food-on the same basis. The sales tax imposed by the Excise Tax Act is usually referred to as a general manufacturers sales tax. It is imposed on the manufacturer or producer and the amount of the tax is a percentage of the manufacturer's or producer's selling price. It also applies to imports: in this case it is paid by the importer or the person who takes the goods out of bond for consumption, and the tax is a percentage of the duty paid value of the imported article.
The tax is called a single stage tax, as opposed to a turnover type of tax. This means it is applied only once as goods pass from manufacturer to final user. This is done by a system of licensing. The reason I am explaining this, Mr. Speaker, is that there seems to be some misunderstanding on how this tax works. Those who are licensed must pay the tax on sales to unlicensed purchasers. Those who are licensed buy the materials to be wrought into goods they manufacture free of sales tax under their licence. For example, the manufacturer of shoes buys leather free of sales tax; he must pay sales tax on the selling price of the finished shoes when he sells them to an unlicensed wholesaler or retailer. Although the sales tax is imposed on the manufacturer or importer, it is usual for him to include the tax in his selling price; thus the user of taxable goods bears the tax in the form of the higher price he must pay for the goods.
The sales tax is a general tax; that is, it applies to all goods sold or imported for consumption in Canada except those made exempt by the Excise Tax Act. The exemptions may be in the form of listing articles to be exempt-for example, the act lists most foodstuffs-or the exemption may be in the form of providing that all goods purchased by certain purchasers shall be exempt. For example, purchases by hospitals or provincial

governments are exempt. The sales tax is imposed at the rate of 8 per cent under the Excise Tax Act and 3 per cent under the Old Age Security Act; that is, three elevenths of the revenue from the sales tax goes to help pay for old age pensions.
I should like to remind hon. members once again of some of the problems that confront this country. We are committed-and when I say this, I naturally mean the government is committed-to a fixed exchange rate for the Canadian dollar. In my opinion it would be the height of irresponsibility to contemplate a second major devaluation of the currency. This government has stated that it will support the fixed rate for the dollar. In so doing we know that this limits our room for manoeuvre very greatly. The second question or issue that I would like to remind hon. members of is that the levels of interest rates in Canada are considerably lower than they were some months ago, and this should help all segments of the economy. It would be pleasant if interest rates could be reduced still further, but given a fixed exchange rate for the dollar and given the rates of interest that prevail across the line, there are clear limits to what can be done in this connection.
Surely we are all aware of the chronic deficits in our current account payments with other countries; we know that this is at the root of many of our problems. When I say that, I naturally include unemployment, which is the greatest problem of them all. We know that firm action will be needed on many fronts if we are to resolve this particular problem. During the election campaign we on this side undertook to begin to put our house in order, to begin to work toward a balanced budget. Accomplishing this objective means cutting expenditures wherever this is feasible, and the government is initiating, as I said some time ago, a close review of all existing programs to see what can be done on this account. At the same time, additional revenues must be secured if the objective of moving toward a budgetary balance is to be achieved. To listen to the debates in this house one would think that Canadians had no real idea of the trouble we are in, of the absolute necessity of doing something about our present situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Clyde Nowlan: Hear, hear; that is what we say.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Doing something about it means not only long term plans but reorganizing and reinvigorating some of our most important industry. It means, also, some short time in which to put our national financial affairs in some kind of order, not overnight, but over a period of years. If the people of
2, 1963	1751
Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies this country are not willing to back a government which has a program, and are not willing to pay more taxes in the interim, we shall have to go on drifting and inevitably, sooner or later, we shall end up on the rocks. I do not like the proposed sales tax any more than anybody else does, but some substantial increase in government revenues is absolutely necessary. So I say to the critics of this tax; just what are the alternatives? Members of the New Democratic party say we should do nothing. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) would like to see our budgetary deficits increased. He argues that if consumer expenditures are increased this will in turn increase the general level of economic activity throughout the country. I say to him that the trouble with this theory as applied to Canada-and I say this with respect, because I am not unaware of the theory; I understand it, I think-is that about one quarter of such increased expenditure, or so it is estimated, would find its way into additional imports of one kind or another and this would aggravate our payments problem and only add to our difficulties in the long run.
It is not good enough to suggest a simple formula without understanding all its implications in the circumstances in which Canada finds herself at the moment. I say to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and to other hon. members, that we shall not gain anything by burying our heads in the sand and hoping our problems will get up and go away. That is not going to happen.
Now let me say a word about the need for additional revenues and about the decision to impose this particular tax instead of the alternatives which we considered. If no additional tax were imposed this year, the budget deficit would exceed $700 million, as I said in the course of the budget speech. Next year, the deficit would be much larger still after taking into account, first, the substantial tax incentives which were proposed in the budget and which, I suggest, will have more to do with the reinvigoration of the depressed or surplus manpower areas in this country than anything else which has ever been presented in this house; second, the cost of the government's new programs when they are brought into being, as I hope and expect they will be, eventually; third, the cost involved in clearing up some of the things which have to be cleared up, such as the deficit in the unemployment fund and, fourth, the cost of taking into account increased expenditures of various kinds including pay increases which are overdue. It would not take a very sharp pencil to calculate that the budget deficit
1752	HOUSE OF
Alleged. Confusion in Economic Policies next year might easily exceed $1 billion if no steps were taken in the meantime to deal with the situation.
Four or five alternatives were considered, with a view to raising between $300 millions and $400 millions of additional revenue in a full year's operation. The first of these was an increase across the board in the present sales tax. However, I would remind hon. members that a 4 per cent increase in the present sales tax, which should produce about $400 million of additional revenue in a full year, given the levels of production and prices prevailing at the present time, would mean applying increases to such things as clothing, books and shoes, house furnishings, furniture, household appliances and so on. If the existing sales tax were increased it would add directly to the cost of living of those who are least able to afford it, and it was for this reason that this course was discarded by the government.
The second course which was open to us- and it was certainly considered carefully- was a general increase in the rates of personal income tax. Nothing substantial can be achieved by increasing only the rates of those in the higher income bracket. There just is not enough to begin in that area. If this course were to produce the kind of additional revenues which we need it would have been necessary to increase the income in all brackets by somewhere between 20 and 25 per cent. This would have meant an increase in the annual tax in the case of a single person with a monthly income of $250 of between $47 and $59. It would have meant an increase in the tax of a married man with no dependants and a monthly income of $350 a month of between $53 and $67. I should perhaps add, if any hon. members are interested, that the 25 per cent increase in all rates would have brought the top rate above the 100 per cent mark. A 20 per cent increase in the rates of personal income tax would have produced about $310 million additional revenue to the federal government in the year 1964-65. A 25 per cent increase across the board would have produced about $385 million for the federal authorities in the year 1964-65. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, personal income tax rates are already much too high. The thought of increasing them, especially in the lower income brackets, is abhorrent and for this reason this course was also discarded.
Just in passing, people have asked me why we did not increase the tax on luxuries- cigarettes, alcohol, and that sort of thing. The answer is very simple. If you put the tax past a certain point the net revenues decline; they do not go up. This has been tried before.


The third serious course was to consider the rates of corporation income taxes and to see if these could be increased; but an increase of 5 per cent on taxable income would have produced only about $200 million in a full year. Furthermore, this would have placed the rates in Canada substantially above those which prevail across the line, and because, as we all know, of the interrelationship of so many Canadian and American companies, the net result would have been to slow down business activity in Canada very quickly. The rates are already 52 per cent and it would have meant putting them away above that. Instead the government has proposed that corporate income tax payments be put on the same basis as individual income tax payments, and in this way there will be additional revenues collected next year amounting to some $200 million.
Finally, the fourth serious alternative open to the government, having turned down the various courses to which I have referred, was to impose what I consider a very tough tax that falls on those undertaking capital projects and on industry in general. We could have taken a course which would have resulted in a substantial increase in taxes for the small man and thus have avoided the heavy pressures-and I should like to say that they are quite legitimate and proper pressures, but nevertheless they are heavy- from the businessmen who will be hurt by the tax that has been imposed. Naturally all members of this government regret that anyone will be hurt by this tax, as in some cases hurt they may be. But I am convinced that we should all be worse off


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is this debate not developing along the lines of a continuation of a previous debate, and is this not out of order? It is my understanding that the amendment to the supply motion may have been close to being in that category, but in my opinion this debate is out of order, being the continuation of a previous debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The reason the Chair ruled as it did this afternoon was because the subamendment was a subamendment. If it had been an amendment it would have been in order. That is why I feel that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) is not out of order at this time, as he is speaking on the amendment itself.


William Arnold Peters: I suggest for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, that the discussion which is now taking place is not necessarily on the amendment or the implications of the amendment but is in justification of certain

alternatives put forward in a debate which has previously taken place, and is in fact a consideration of alternatives to the budget itself and the proposals developed in the budget. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the amendment had said that, it must also be out of order as was the subamendment, but there is little excuse for a continuation of a debate on these proposals at this time. The rules of the house indicate that there should be no repetition of a debate which has previously been completed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: My understanding is that the minister is justified in explaining the position of the government, and I think he is quite in order in doing so. In any event, this question was considered this afternoon by the house. It was voted upon and we have to abide, I suggest, by the ruling of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order I think the record should be kept straight. When Mr. Speaker allowed-although he had some doubt about it-the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), he said that he expected the house to stick to the "doubts and uncertainties" which the amendment asked to be cleared up. He specifically suggested that the house should not use this debate as a vehicle for debate on sales tax and other aspects of the budget. I think we have moved a long way from the permission which was granted after the acceptance of that amendment, and I suggest that this shows how difficult a situation we can get into when we resolve doubts in this way.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) forgets the latitude that was given when this presentation was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) earlier, and in the preamble, to the amendment which was moved and which I have in my hand. It is true that the right hon. gentleman made it clear at the outset that he had no intention of discussing the budget, but he proceeded to do exactly that.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Lionel Chevrier: During a great part of the time he dealt with the very matter that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) is replying to, namely the sales tax. This amendment is couched in such terms and in such general language as to allow the Minister of Finance to give an explanation of the various alternatives which were before him when he made the decision he did prior to the budget speech. I say, sir, with respect, that you are quite in order in ruling as you have.
2, 1963	1753
Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not think this discussion should be proceeded with too long. If hon. members would look at the amendment, which reads:
That this house regrets that the government by its failure to clarify many doubts and uncertainties in some of its economic policies-
-and so on. It appears to be quite obvious that the Minister of Finance is attempting to deal with exactly this matter at this time. He is discussing the very points which have been raised in the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, and to my mind it is quite clear and obvious that he is in order.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think we should certainly allow the Minister of Finance the same latitude that has been allowed previous speakers in this debate this afternoon. However, it seems to me that in keeping with the wording of the amendment it would be more beneficial to the house if he would deal with matters clarifying doubts and uncertainties rather than sticking strictly to what the alternatives might have been. We are certainly prepared to allow the minister a great deal of latitude in dealing with the doubts and uncertainties that are facing Canada as a result of the policies of this government; but it seems to me that he should confine himself to clearing up those uncertainties rather them dealing with alternatives which, in effect, really do not clear up the uncertainties.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, I am coming to the point that the hon. gentleman has just raised. I could not do this properly without a little introduction and, with the greatest respect, I did have a feeling that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) ranged rather widely and broadly in his remarks in introducing the amendment that is before us.
I had just finished saying that, naturally, all members of this government regret that anyone should be hurt or inconvenienced by any tax that has been imposed. However, naturally, everyone knows that nobody likes taxes; they are always harmful, they are always hurtful. What I want to say is that I am convinced that we shall all be worse off in the long run if we fail to face up to the problems that confront our country. We simply must begin to do something about them. In my opinion, the answer is not simply to let things rip. There are limits to the amounts of deficits, and I am thinking even more of cash deficits than budgetary deficits, which the economy can stand without getting us into greater trouble.
It has been suggested that the sales tax on building supplies will increase the cost of
1754	HOUSE OF
Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies smaller dwellings very substantially. Now, I ask hon. members, what are the facts? I shall not repeat all that the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Benson) said the other day on this subject, but I should like to quote one paragraph of his speech which appears in the right hand column on page 1571 of Hansard for June 25.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is this in order, Mr. Speaker? The Minister of Finance has just announced that he intends to read a paragraph from a speech made in another debate in this session. I submit that is clearly out of order.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will not read the paragraph, I will merely refer to it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This may be funny to some, Mr. Speaker, but I suggest it is very serious.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: He has got to read something.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not want to say anything to which hon. members would object, but I would remind the hon. member who has raised this point of order that his party, so far as I could gather, had no views on the budget one way or the other.


William Arnold Peters: Since this point of order has been raised, I presume there was a reference to me. I can say that both the Canadian public and I have violent objections to part of the budget.


William Heward Grafftey: How did you vote?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course, that was not a point of order. I would ask the Minister of Finance to resume his speech.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The hon. member for Kingston, in trying to get some facts on the record the other night, referred to the amount by which the price of a house would go up. I am not going to read the paragraph, but he suggested that a $13,000 house would go up to $13,500. He pointed out that before the budget the down payment on that house would have been $900. After the budget it would be $800.


David Vaughan Pugh: What is the increased interest.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The interest rate, if the hon. gentleman remembers, has gone down, not up.
As he pointed out, the monthly payment, prior to the budget, would have been $82,67, and it will now be $84.82. He pointed out that the minimum cash outlay will be $100 less than it was before and that the monthly payment over 25 years will be increased by $2.15. He suggested that this did not appeal


to him as evidence that there will be a violent, drastic or substantial increase in the cost of medium priced dwellings.
In his speech this afternoon, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) referred to the need for clarification. I believe when he said this he was thinking in particular of the sales tax. Let me say that I agree with him completely. In this budget, the government put forward a number of proposals that are different from what has been done before. The proposals, or some of them, were complex and difficult. After most budgets there is a need for clarification of new taxes and new measures, and this budget is no exception. The government has received many representations about the budget proposals from those who will be affected. In my opinion, this is just as it should be. These representations have come from a wide variety of people, including contractors, builders, the graphic arts industry and many others.
My difficulty, Mr. Speaker, and this has been a difficulty, is that I have been tied down too much by side issues and the alarms and excursions to which I referred a few minutes ago. If it had not been for that, I fully believe the necessary clarifications would have been made long since. All I can say now on this subject, and I should like to say a lot more about it, is to repeat what I said this afternoon in answer to a question by the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Weichel). I said to him that the representations made to the government about the budget resolutions have been under constant study and consideration. I said that we expected to make a definite announcement on the subject as soon as possible, and in any event not later than next Monday. In the meantime, and I say this again now in this debate, for reasons that will be obvious to all hon. members of the house, it would be a mistake, it would be wrong for me to add anything more.
I can assure the hon. member for Red Deer that I am just as anxious as he is to get this question settled. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker I should like to remind hon. members once again of the problems that confront us in Canada at this time. I should like to remind them of the broad objectives outlined in the budget which, in my opinion, were the right objectives for dealing with these problems. These objectives have been obscured or certainly have not been enlightened by some of the debate in the last three weeks, and I say that with considerable emphasis. I agree that clarification of some of the measures will be necessary and, as I have said before, this is by no means unusual in the kind of complex budget proposals that were presented.

The government and, if I may say so, the Minister of Finance, have been subjected to very considerable pressures. I think this was to be expected by any government prepared to make hard choices no matter how unpopular some of them might be. I believe that when the clarifications referred to have been made Canadians will accept the proposals. I think they will find that they are in the best interests of the country as a whole.


An hon. Member:: You are kidding.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am not only not kidding but I mean what I am saying. We have had one vote on the budget which was approved in principle by a large majority of the members of the house. Now we are to vote again on essentially the same subject.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If the government is sustained again, as I hope and expect it will be, then I say to all hon. members of all parties: Let us try to get on with the business of the country.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask the Minister of Finance a question? As the minister seems to be facing the alternative of increased deficits or increased debts which are precipitating the country into a vicious circle of higher debts or higher deficits, is the minister looking for a solution to that vicious circle or is he taking any steps to get out of that vicious circle?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I think I would prefer to leave it to the hon. member for Lapointe to make his speech on Social Credit theory.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said this afternoon that he did not intend to speak very long and I do not intend to either. With the temperature and conditions under which we have been operating in Ottawa in the last few days I think anyone who speaks at all deserves a medal of some kind and one should even be awarded to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) for having spoken for half an hour as he did tonight.
We have listened to a speech this evening by the minister which was really a resume of the budget. You have said it was in order, Mr. Speaker, and to that we have taken no objection whatsoever. We have had a philosophical dissertation on the value of the sales tax and on the problems that confront a minister of finance in trying to achieve some approach to a balanced budget. There is nothing new in that. Everyone realizes the problem. Everyone knows that there are diffi-
2, 1963	1755
Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies culties in attempting to balance the budget, if one determines to work toward that end. There are some here who feel this should not be done, but we are not of that thought. We agree that there should be an approach made to a balanced budget. We do not think, however, that the minister and the government-because after all this is a governmental decision and not one of the minister; at least, I hope it was a governmental decision -took the right steps in approaching that end. However, this is not the time to discuss that. We will be dealing with the budgetary resolutions in the immediate future, I hope, and when those resolutions are before the committee we will be dealing with the matters to which the minister referred tonight. His references to the incidence of the sales tax, the cost of buildings and so on will be dealt with at the proper time.
I do not propose to follow the arguments in that direction which he has advanced this evening. I have telegrams in front of me that I could read which raise very serious doubts as to the figures he brought forward a few moments ago with respect to increased costs. I presume every member of the house has had the same material sent to him by responsible and experienced men, contractors, builders and those in business life generally but, as I have said, this is not the time to raise those questions.
I can appreciate the problem of the Minister of Finance. Anyone who deals with a budget involving increased taxation cannot expect to achieve a popularity prize. I think it was Edmund Burke who once said that to tax and to be liked is no more practical than to love and to be wise. I am not sure about the latter statement. Perhaps Mr. Burke was a cynic. But in so far as the first part of the statement is concerned I quite agree. When the budget is brought down one always anticipates some opposition, some questions being raised, some representations being made with respect to certain phases of the budget when it results in increased taxation. But, Mr. Speaker, did you ever know a time in the time you have been here or in the time of the most senior member of the house when there have been so many representations made about so many facets of the budget as there have been on this occasion?


An hon. Member:: Never.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not conversant, of course, with the activities of the minister or the government. He has spoken about the pressures under which he has been operating. I can quite believe it. I have reason to believe from reading the press, receiving copies of briefs and from knowing casually what goes on around
1756	HOUSE OF
Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies these buildings that delegation after delegation after delegation ad infinitum have approached the minister, making the most strenuous representations and urging that changes be made in the taxation which he intimated in his budget speech would be imposed. As far as I know every delegation has been sent away after having been told that consideration would be given to their problem and that they should wait in patience and an answer would be brought down.
It was that problem to which the Leader of the Opposition referred this afternoon, not the contents of the budget itself. Right or wrong they will be discussed when the right time comes, but what we are concerned with is the continual pressure and continual indecision. We started with a 30 per cent tax which was brought in on budget night and then put in cold storage a few nights later. We did not know whether it was going to be exhumed, and then it was finally put to one side with the intimation that if the government cannot do it this way they will find some other way to do it, which certainly does not indicate decision.
We have heard a great deal about decision during the last few years. We have heard speeches about governments being indecisive. I should like to know when anybody in this house or in the country has ever read or known or heard of more indecision than has characterized this government with respect to the budget since it was brought down on June 13. The minister has spoken tonight about his intentions. His intentions undoubtedly are good. He is an honourable man. There is an old saying, Mr. Speaker, about a certain road which is paved with good intentions and I think the Minister of Finance must have been travelling that road. The only difference is that now because of the sales tax on building material he will have to pay a lot more for the material he will have to use to pave that road than he would have before.
The minister referred to the tax on building materials, but that is only one facet, even though it is a most important one from the standpoint of the whole nation. Almost every individual is faced with an increased tax, in building and in repairing. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have had letters and representations with respect to repairs, and there is no $500 contribution for that work. If a man repairs or paints his house this tax will add to his cost. My colleague, the former minister of labour, had a slogan, "Do it now", which was to encourage people to undertake works in winter time. Now the slogan of the government is, "Don't do it at all" because it is going to cost so much more money.


This tax on building materials is a very important matter which we will deal with at length when the resolution is before us, but it is only one of a score of matters to which reference has been made.
I think some hon. members have seen copies of a number of briefs which have come to us within the last few days. I myself saw one today from the Canadian graphic arts association, the organization representing members of the graphic arts industry, which is of course a very wide and large one in this country. Now the minister says there are difficult questions, and when you bring in something new you are bound to get some doubts and some indecision. I suggest when something new is brought in that is going to create doubts and indecision then more careful study should be given to it before it is brought in, and certainly more than has been the case in this budget. Had the Minister of Finance spent less time, on the occasion of bringing in his budget, on political vituperation and more on explanations perhaps the nation would not have the problems which it faces now.
Looking over the brief which was submitted by the graphic arts organization we find some of the most interesting statements set forth concerning things that you would no believe possible in a government in a country which was newly organized. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to reflect on any government, but if some of these things were found, for instance, in the Congolese parliament under the premiership of Mr. Lumumba, who died an untimely death some years ago, you would not believe it possible.
For example we find that the president of this association met with officers of the Department of National Revenue. Mr. Speaker, I know something of those officers. I have worked with them for four or five years, and I think all hon. members will agree we have a very experienced and very able group of officers in that department. Indeed I was often amazed, during the days when I was closely associated with them, to pose the most difficult and intricate questions to them, involving the administration of the finance act and to get almost immediate answers to my questions. But the president of the graphic arts association says that, 13 days after the budget was brought down, he put 32 questions to the officers of the Department of National Revenue, specific questions asking for specific answers to specific problems with which the industry was confronted, and to one third of those questions the senior officers said they could give no answer whatsoever. Then the government has the nerve to talk about decision in a situation such as that.

One of the corporations confronted with this tax asked for a ruling from the department, and the department replied, "If we will give you a tentative ruling"-I am paraphrasing now-"we are not sure it is right; we are not sure that the Department of Justice will approve of it; we are not sure we can make it stick; but if we can, and if we decide to give you a ruling you will be paying tax on $40,000 worth of product. That will be the figure. But if we don't give you that ruling you are going to pay the tax on $1,400,000 worth of product." What a situation with which to confront only one of scores of hundreds of producers. That is the problem they are confronted with tonight, and that is 19 days after the budget was brought down. The brief ends up by saying that the industry is in a total state of confusion. Many of its firms have their financial year ending on June 30 and they do not know how to close their books.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there are many firms in this country tonight sending out invoices which are following a very easy practice, but one which is going to lead to great confusion. They bill the purchaser for the costs, whatever they may be, and on the bottom they state "To be added, whatever tax the government decides to impose." There are scores, hundreds and thousands of invoices being sent out like that, and that is one example of the indecision which the Leader of the Opposition referred to this afternoon.
One could go on dealing with the problems facing our industries, but I do not intend to speak at any great length tonight. Whether it is the building industry, the construction industry, the graphic arts industry or almost any other industry, you will find there is a state of confusion resting in the minds of the people tonight and that, Mr. Speaker, is not because of the budget itself. It is because of the lack of care and preparation in the presentation of it, and the absolute indecision and confusion which follows on having people draft it who did not know how to draft it, and when they did draft it, did not know what they were doing.
To turn to another area to which no great reference is made, because one does not always have too great a sympathy with people engaged in financial transactions in the market and so on, we have had a semiwithdrawal, a placing in cold storage or in the mortuary of the 30 per cent takeover tax. What about the withholdiing tax? How is that going to be paid by corporations that get 25 per cent Canadian shareholders? How are you going to determine, if you have 25 per cent shareholders today whether you will have the same tomorrow? What are you going
2, 1963	1757
Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies to do with the corporation whose shares are sold on the market, bought by one person one day and bought by another the next?
One does not have to be an expert on the intricate operations of the stock market to realize the difficulty. Anyone who has an elementary knowledge of economics and business practices would realize the inherent difficulties in administering such a law. What follows? You get a withholding tax which drops in one case-a carrot-and a withholding tax which increases in another case-a club, and who is going to determine whether you will get a carrot or whether you will get a club?
The government talks about our image abroad; but until that situation is clarified we have not got an image at all: We have two black eyes and a bloody nose. This afternoon I asked had we given other countries notice of our intention with respect to this tax where we have arrangements with them. In some cases the provision is automatic. If we raise it, they raise theirs accordingly. In other cases, as I read the act, notice has to be given or we cannot do it. What about a Canadian corporation wholly owned abroad? If we get this 25 per cent are they going to have 25 per cent withholding tax imposed on them as well?
As I say, there are scores of questions which should be asked and to which answers are required. The answers should not take the forms of homilies by the minister, who is working hard. Everyone knows that and appreciates this, but it is not lectures and talks we need. We can read everything about taxation, from single taxes down, in every book on economics; but now we want to know why these resolutions are not being explained and clarified. There is no reason in the world, for instance, why the Excise Tax Act resolution could not have been brought in last Thursday, and the minister would have had an opportunity of dealing with it and answering questions and the industry would have known what the position is. People do not object to paying taxes particularly. Well, they object, yes, to paying taxes, but one wants to know what one is paying for and how it is going to be computed. No one in Canada today can tell that. The resolutions could have been brought in last Thursday; they could have been brought in last Friday: instead of that we dealt with a matter of government policy. Listening to the closing words of the Minister of Finance reminded me of things that we said when we were on the other side of the house, "Why don't you let us get on with the business of the country?" We did a lot better in that direction when we were on the other side of the house than they are
1758	HOUSE OF
Alleged. Confusion in Economic Policies doing now. We could have had a supply motion, yes; but are we going to deal with estimates in the next tew days? A supply motion was not necessary today; we could have gone on with the budget resolutions today and tomorrow. As it is, all the government is doing is creating more uncertainty.
This was a definite statement of the Minister of Finance who brought in a definite policy, who knew exactly all the answers, who is only suffering because of the stupidity of the Canadian people in not appreciating what he has done and why he did it. Now we are told that "at least on Monday", "certainly, I hope, on Monday", "probably on Monday I will bring in a statement which will clarify all these matters". It is going to be some statement, Mr. Speaker, if the minister can clarify all these matters on Monday. I suggest to you that the statement made by the minister this afternoon adds to the confusion and uncertainty. He is going to bring in a statement not knowing what will be contained therein. We have to wait till Monday, and then we assume he will have to bring in another statement to clarify the first statement. We are going to have a long, long period of decisions; the 60 days of decision are going to amount to 120 and 240, and these decisions will still be in the making when the increased taxes we will have to pay in 1965 come into effect.
The minister spoke about the little man. We had a homily tonight about what a terrible thing it would be to increase income tax for the poor man. I quite agree with that. I was a member of the government that relieved 80,000 people in the lower income brackets from income tax when we were in power. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there are more medium class and poor income people who are worrying tonight whether they are going to build a house or paint the kitchen than there ever were worrying about income tax. I am suggesting to the house that there are tens of thousands of Canadians tonight who are worrying whether they are going to lose their jobs because of the effects of this sales tax. These are the problems we face. We do not want the homilies to which the minister treated us a few moments ago, and to which we will probably be treated again on Monday. These are the problems with which Canadians are confronted; these are the problems to which Canadians are getting no answer whatsoever. Therefore I suggest it was a very timely amendment that the opposition moved this afternoon and it is in the interests of the nation as a whole that it receive the support of this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the most extraordinary speech from a former minister
[Mr. Nowlan.l

of finance to which I think this house has ever been treated.


An hon. Member:: He told the truth, though.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) has just told us that there has been more indecision and more confusion in the government since the budget was brought down on June 13 than there ever was in any other comparable period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just consider, sir, who made that statement. It was a minister of finance who from August to February could not make up his mind, could not decide to bring in a budget at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, on a question, of privilege-


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and who succeeded-


George Clyde Nowlan: On a question of privilege,. Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I listened quietly to the hon. gentleman-


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill)-


John Whitney Pickersgill: You can't take it.


George Clyde Nowlan: -said I could not make up my mind between the period of August and February.


Some hon. Members:: That is right.


George Clyde Nowlan: I could have made up my mind, and I did. It was not a question of making up my mind; it was a question of the obstruction raised by the hon. gentlemen opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I did not object to anything said by the hon. member while he was speaking. I have a limited time to speak, as has everyone else, and I hope the hon. member is not going to be permitted to interlard my speech with speeches of his own which have nothing to do-


Mr. Smallwood:: Crybaby.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -with the matter under discussion. The former minister of finance,, as I said, was unable to bring in a budget though he was asked and asked and asked to do it in every month that he occupied that office, and though he had a clear duty to do so because his unsuccessful predecessor, who was fired because of the mess he made of the country's finances, brought in a budget

that the opposition was never allowed to debate, because parliament was dissolved before that debate could take place.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I have any time at the end I will answer the hon. gentleman's question, but there are some things I wish to say and I hope I will be given the same hearing, Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman was given this afternoon, and not be interrupted and prevented from speaking as I am now.
The hon. gentleman talked, as I say, about indecision. He was not the only one who talked about indecision. In the opening speech by the right hon. gentleman this afternoon you would have thought we were listening to a man on horseback. The great man of decision, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest to the right hon. gentleman that he read the editorials which appeared in the Tory papers right after the April election. I have a lot of them here I could read, but I am not going to.


Some hon. Members:: Read them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He might even see what some of his erstwhile friends had to say about his capacity for decision. It does seem to me that of all the members of this house to bring in a motion based upon indecision, the last would be the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). The country knows his many qualifications; the country appreciates his capacity for visions and dreams. But the country has indicated very clearly that it has had enough of his incapacity to make decisions. The real difficulty that we are in at the moment-and I do not deny that there is some temporary difficulty-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -is precisely because we did face the uncomfortable facts and also the doubts and uncertainties which we inherited from hon. gentlemen opposite. We tried to do something about it-


John George Diefenbaker: I thought you had all the answers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is one of those things which happen when you do try to make decisions-hard decisions, as my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has just said, about difficult and disagreeable situations which for six years hon. gentlemen opposite pretended were not there. It is extraordinary to listen to the right hon. gentleman who for six years was prime minister of this country. One
2, 1963	17S9
Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies * would never know it to hear him talk today. There is not the slightest sense of responsibility, not the slightest appreciation of the problems. What kind of words does he use in his motion? He talks about confusion and chaos: doom and gloom. There was more doom and gloom in the speech made this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition about the future of this country than there was in the whole six years when we sat on the other side.
Then we hear about this annus mirabilis, this great year 1962, the greatest year in the history of Canada. Well, hon. gentlemen went to the country in 1962 and half a million Canadians who could not find jobs to provide bread for their families told them what they thought of the wonderful year.


Stanley James Korchinski: Sales tax.


Some hon. Members:: Do better.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If hon. gentlemen do not want me to speak in the house, if they want to howl me down, well and good. I can say that no one on this side of the house interfered with the freedom of speech of hon. members opposite.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentlemen denied me the right to speak in the house in December.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The right hon. gentleman should think of his blood pressure. As I was saying, let us take a quick look at the doubts and uncertainties which existed in this wonderful year 1962. There were half a million unemployed at the beginning and, again, at the end of the year-


An hon. Member:: How many are there now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -the year when the right hon. gentleman told the country we would have full employment in August. Perhaps members opposite would care to listen to what their leader said in his final speech to the electorate a year ago. It is one of the most incredible speeches ever made-and "incredible" is the proper adjective to apply to it-by any politician in this country. He said "I tell you the facts. I bare the record. I conceal nothing. I shade nothing". Then he went on to say: "What about employment?" This was on June 14 last year. The right hon. gentleman said:
I am informed that tomorrow morning the latest employment figures will be given out by the bureau of statistics. For 11 consecutive months up to now, every month has shown a steady and often spectacular increase in the number of Canadians at work compared with the year before.
That sounds very plausible until we realize that the year before was the worst year of unemployment since the depression of the
1760	HOUSE OF
Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies thirties. This gives one an idea of the way in which the right hon. gentleman told the truth and bared the facts. Here is what he went on to say:
I hope that in the current month of June employment figures will be brought close to a point regarded by economists as being close to full employment. Indeed, economists predict that the point will be reached in July and August of this year. Think of the position, from the recession of 1957 which we inherited, to reasonably full employment this summer.
He spoke of 1957. That was the year when we had the biggest immigration since 1913, when there were fewer than 200,000 persons unemployed in June according to the d.b.s. figures. And there were nearly twice as many unemployed when the right hon. gentleman made his statement. But this is what he told the people.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Speak to the amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The right hon. gentleman talked about "the recession of 1957". That was a year of full employment when people were coming from all over the world to this country as a land of opportunity. He told the people that from this position, from the "recession of 1957", the country had been brought to reasonably full employment. The right hon. gentleman went on pretending that the unemployed were not there, ignoring them completely, and talking this foolish nonsense about more people being employed than had been employed in the previous year. Well, this would have been a terrible country if there had not been more employment than in the previous year when one considers how rapidly our population is growing.
The real tragedy of these six years was that jobs were not developing as fast as our population was increasing. That is the tragedy. It continues to be the greatest tragedy in this country. We may not do everything perfectly, but it does not seem to me that the people are going to condemn us because we are trying to do something about a problem which for years hon. gentlemen opposite pretended did not exist at all.
That was not the only thing about this wonderful year of 1962. That was the year when we had one budget, which was never debated, by one minister who was fired. Then we had another budget which was never seen from another minister who never got started. But we had a tax increase. Though we did not have the one budget debated and though we did not see the other budget at all, we did have a tax increase imposed by the prime minister by television. That was something new in this country. This prime minister, who said in the debate on the bill of rights that never would there be taxation by order in council, is the only prime minister who


ever imposed taxation by order in council. And what did he say about parliament's rights in the matter? He said parliament could go off and cool down; we should not be allowed to debate. And he successfully used the rules of the house to prevent that tax coming before the house. What was the result? The result was to bring about confusion and uncertainty with regard to the surcharges which are now before the courts. It is just another of these inheritances, another of these messes which has to be cleared up by the successor to the right hon. gentleman. That was not all there was to the wonderful year.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Speak to the amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking about the financial and economic policies which have caused the doubts and uncertainties in this country about which hon. gentlemen opposite are complaining. I know hon. members opposite do not like anyone on this side to speak. We were told by the former minister of finance in that famous April budget-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am rising on a point of order. I think there is a limit to what may be allowed even the Secretary of State. There is an amendment before the house to which the hon. member is not speaking. I think this is time for intervention on the part of the Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I might point out that the documents I am using are real documents and I did not have to have them forged.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise again on a point of order. I ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, with regard to this matter. I did not raise the point of order lightly, any more than I raised the question of the documents lightly the other day. My point of order is that the hon. gentleman should not have the special privileges in this house which are being accorded him now.


Mr. Speaker:: I can assure the hon. gentleman that the Secretary of State has no special privileges in this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre does not like what I am saying he should perhaps take his turn in debate and reply, and allow me to debate on the first occasion on which I have really taken any part in the debates of this parliament. It seems to me that the latitude shown hon. gentlemen opposite should

also be shown to members of the government. After all, sir, we also got elected to this house. Now, sir, as I was pointing out when we had the irrelevant interruption from Winnipeg, the minister of finance of that day, Mr. Fleming-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the mention of Winnipeg, would the hon. minister permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the Secretary of State making this speech in response to the plea of the Minister of Finance about half an hour ago that we get on with the country's business?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, sir, I am, and I will tell the hon. gentleman why. We have sat here very patiently on this side of the house since May 16 allowing practically all the debating to be done by hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the house, but we do not appear to have made a great deal of progress in this house by that method. It has occurred to me that if one or two speeches are made from this side of the house, perhaps of a slightly higher quality, but of the same partisan character as the hon. gentlemen opposite make, it might conduce to more progress. At any rate, it seemed an experiment worth trying. As the hon. member also knows, there is a limited time in this debate and we will make just as much progress if I continue to speak as we would if some other hon. member spoke.
May I now go on with my speech, sir, and I hope without further interruption.


Donald MacInnis: Would the minister permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have already told the hon. gentleman that if I have any time at the end I will answer his question, but in the meantime I would like to continue. What I was saying was that in that famous budget of April 1962 we were told that we could not have a devaluation of the dollar; that it would be a disaster for the country; that we could not have a pegged dollar. That was the policy of the government which was set out by Mr. Fleming. On May 2, 1962 the government of that day were driven to devaluation and to pegging the dollar because they had refused to face up to the economic realities which faced this country in the world, and because other countries had lost confidence in our currency. There was an exchange
28902-5-112	.
2, 1963	1761
Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies crisis in the middle of an election, a crisis which was very seriously aggravated by the-


An hon. Member:: The Liberal party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -by the cabinet leak of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) in that blazing indiscretion in Vancouver which caused so many telephone calls between the prime minister of the day and Mr. Fleming, and another panic and another drain on the exchanges. Yet in the face of that situation the prime minister of that day, on June 14, had the effrontery, in a speech in which he began by telling us how truthful he was, to tell the people of this country that everything was going wonderfully in this country and that there were no problems at all. Exactly ten days later the hon. gentleman was singing a very different tune on television, but that was when the election was over.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why don't you speak to the amendment in 1963?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Talk about this budget.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You do not like the truth, do you? I will satisfy the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood) right now. I will tell him about this budget right now. I will tell him that we would not have had to bring in a budget with a lot of disagreeable taxation in it if we had had decent financial management in this country for the last six years.


John George Diefenbaker: What buffoonery.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No government likes to put on taxes. Every politician would like to take them off. The former minister of finance -I mean the one who never brought in a budget; he has disappeared again, like his budget-the hon. member for Digby-Annap-olis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) has a very short memory, it seems to me. He talked about a removal of the tax from certain categories of income tax payers in 1957 in a baby budget that also was not a budget. That was Mr. Fleming's first effort. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings did not say a word about the taxes they put on. He did not say a word about the increase in the unemployment insurance contributions resulting from the mismanagement of the employment policies of this country. He did not say a word about the extra 1 per cent which was put on the sales tax because it was the right hon. gentleman who raised the sales tax in this country from 10 per cent to 11 per cent and put up the cost of living for everybody in this country in doing so. That was a tax which took a great deal more out
1762	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies
o f the low income tax payers than any sav- June 13, and said, "We are not going to ing they ever got from any income tax increase any taxes this year; we are just reductions from hon. gentlemen opposite. going to-"


John George Diefenbaker: Is there no limit to nonsense and buffoonery?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nor did the hon. gentleman for Digby-Annapolis-Kings say anything about the $200 million taxation put on by order in council and taken off about a day or two before the election because it was no longer needed politically. Then we had austerity in that wonderful year of 1962. That was another of the great achievements. In fact, sir, the year 1962 was such a wonderful year for the country and such a wonderful year for the government of the day that the then prime minister lost 11 of his colleagues in one way or another in 11 months.


An hon. Member:: They were cheap at the price.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can understand the speech made by the right hon. gentleman this afternoon. Anyone can understand it. Anyone can understand it, coming from a man who was given a vote of confidence greater than that given to any other Canadian at any other time in our history, as the right hon. gentleman was given on March 31, 1958. One can understand, sir, how, having smashed his government and put his party out of office, the iron has entered into his soul. One can understand the bitterness with which he attacks every attempt made by his successors to do anything constructive to clean up the mess that he was repudiated for creating.


John George Diefenbaker: After all the preliminaries are over, may I ask the hon. gentleman if this all means that you are going to keep the sales tax on productive machinery and also on building materials?


An hon. Member:: Answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have no lessons to take in play acting from the right hon. gentleman. I might say that I will not describe the right hon. gentleman's conduct in the same terms in which he has described mine because I do not think it is a very courteous way for one hon. member to describe another.


Stanley James Korchinski: Be decisive; answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, it would be much easier to answer questions if one had the floor and if hon. members would listen.
I say, sir, that it would have been a very easy way to bring down a budget for the immediate present if my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, had come in here on
[Mr. PickersgiU.l


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: "-we are just going to have another three quarters of a billion dollar deficit like our predecessors." He could have done that if he had had the same lack of regard for realities, the same lack of a sense of responsibility, as hon. gentlemen opposite showed. Then, he would probably have precipitated this country into the same situation as they did, and brought on another exchange crisis. I think the difference between my hon. friend and the hon. gentlemen who were in office before is that he said, and the members of the government said when they went to the country, that we were going to attempt, though not in one year, to balance the budget. We could not go on with this bleeding that had taken place for the last six years. We must make an approach towards a balanced budget.
Now, I think the majority of sensible, hard working Canadian people believe that is right. They know quite well, that in their own personal situation, they cannot go into debt year after year after year and have any credit left. Everybody knows that. Everybody also knows that if you have a bad year or two, if you are a good risk, you can get credit and you can pay back your debts. However, if you are going on endlessly, year after year as we did from 1957 until 1963, without any attempt-


Some hon. Members:: Time, time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -to face the realities of our position, we get into a position such as the hon. gentlemen landed themselves in last June when they pretended everything was rosy, and then later the prime minister admitted on television that there was actually a crisis. We did not want to do that. Before the election we told the people who voted for us what we would do. We said we were going to attempt to reduce the deficit with a view ultimately to achieving a balanced budget.


An hon. Member:: Why.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 
John George Diefenbaker: The loss of confidence has been on the gallop in the last few days.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The former prime minister says the loss has been on the gallop in the last few days. However, it has not galloped as fast as it did between the 14th and the 24th of June last year. On the 14th of June, everything was rosy and on the 24th of June we faced a national crisis. What did he say then? He said there will be time enough for the discussion of political matters when the emergency is passed. If the right hon. gentleman believed that then, and if he believes there is an emergency now, why does he not act now in the way he suggested his fellow citizens should act then, instead of seeking a transitory political advantage out of a debate about what, after all, is a very temporary situation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 58, (7) which reads:
No member, except the Minister of Finance, the member speaking on behalf of the opposition, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, shall speak for more than 30 minutes at a time in the budget debate;


Mr. Speaker:: May I draw the hon. member's attention to standing order 31(1) which reads:
Unless otherwise provided in these standing orders, when Mr. Speaker is in the chair, no member, except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Oppositionand so on.
-shall speak for more than 40 minutes at a time in any debate.
The hon. Secretary of State started at 9.06 and he finishes at 9.46.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: Get the rule book.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I see the hon. gentleman is now even seeking to forge the rules. These things are apt to become a habit. The hon. gentleman should be careful.
Now, sir, the difficulties in which we are in this country at the moment-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Speak about Mr. Lesage.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The difficulties we are in at the present moment, are important difficulties. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has said that there are some things about the withdrawal of the exemption from sales tax that do need clarification. We all know they do. I have been here for a long time, and so have many other hon. members; but I cannot recall a single budget in which amendments to the sales tax or amendments to the Customs Tariff did not require clarification and some amendment before the budget 28902-5-112i
2,	1963	1763
Alleged Confusion in Economic Policies was over. There is nothing unusual about that at all. Of course, we had one or two very interesting spectacles when Mr. Fleming was minister of finance. We had none with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) because he never brought a budget before us. He relied on taxation by order in council, and there seems to be doubt and uncertainty about that, as I pointed out a few moments ago. The one thing that every hon. member with experience knows is when any uncertainty does appear about budget resolutions, when any doubt as to interpretation appears, when any clarification is necessary, it is of the utmost importance that when it has been clarified the job shall be done thoroughly and properly so that the taxpayers will know for sure what the tax is. Just to show how easy it is to make a mistake, I would point out that the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) talked about something that had happened several days ago as being 19 days after the budget. There have not been 19 days yet. If the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings cannot even count the number of days since the budget when he is making a speech in the house, surely it is not surprising that in the drafting of some of these very complex pieces of legislation there should require to be some clarification of matters rather more complicated than the number of days since June 13. It shows that all of us make mistakes-


An hon. Member:: You are making a big one now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -but when we do make mistakes and corrections are necessary it is very desirable and indeed imperative that those corrections should be correct.


An hon. Member:: When?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nobody really seriously believes that this country is going to disappear or that we are going to have any confusion and chaos. We undoubtedly will have some inconvenience and annoyance but we will not have any confusion and chaos if another four or five days elapse before this process of clarification is completed. No member with any real sense of responsibility believes any such exaggeration.
The fact of the matter is that what the hon. gentleman objects to in his amendment is that the government is really trying to do something about the serious problems which we inherited because of the financial mismanagement which caused him to try to fire the governor of the Bank of Canada, to fire one minister of finance and to refuse to allow another to bring a budget forward while he imposed taxes by order in council so that

Division
parliament could not scrutinize them at all. Then he has the effrontery, sir, after preventing parliament for five months from considering a huge tax of $200 million that he imposed by order in council, to come in here and complain that he cannot get information about legal points connected with the budget resolutions before the time properly set down in this house for the debate of those resolutions. Under the guise of an amendment to the motion to go into supply he moves an amendment which in effect causes the house simply to debate over again something that was settled by the house over a week ago.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that he would give me the opportunity to ask one question.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that it being 9.45 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to special order made Thursday last, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on the amendment now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment
lost.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: : Mr. Speaker, being paired
with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr.	
Morison), I did	not vote; but had I voted.
1 would have voted for the amendment.	
(Translation):


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I was paired
with the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-	

Napierville (Mr. Dupuis). I did not vote; but had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
(Text):


Mr. Fane:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr). I did not vote. Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
(Translation):


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
(Text):


James Elisha Brown: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Lloyd:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Ormiston). I did not vote. Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
2, 1963	1765
Division


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Frederick Thomas Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Watson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Slogan). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Enns). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Nixon:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Cardiff). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, July 3, 1963