1964-03-20

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely of Henry Frank Jones, member for the electoral district of Saskatoon, by decease.
Accordingly I have addressed my warrant to the chief electoral officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Auguste Choquelle (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
At the top of page 1276 of Hansard, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is reported as saying:
What difference is there between the Conservatives and the Liberals? Not the least.
Then he went on to say this:
I am pleased to note that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) agrees with me. Nothing has changed. At least, the hon. member for Lotbiniere has the courage to admit it-
Mr. Speaker, I wish to protest officially against that statement. I do not for one second approve of the fantastic and farcical theories of the hon. member for Lapointe. He was probably trying to be funny; indeed, his whole speech might be described as a farce. However, nothing he said was true.



PROCEDURE


Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre) moved:: That the special committee on procedures and organization of the House of Commons appointed March 9, 1964 be composed of Mr. Speaker, Miss Jewett, Messrs. Aiken, Balcer, Baldwin, Fair-weather, Gregoire, Knowles, Lachance, Lambert, Lamoureux. MacEachen, Olson, Rouleau, and Walker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of bills, subject to the same caveat as has been given on previous occasion. If I may, I should like to correct Hansard of yesterday; the same caveat was given concerning the introduction of two bills at that time, but was not recorded.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monimorency) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-78, to amend an act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, this is the same bill as the one I introduced last year. Some members seem to be in an awkward situation following the increase of their allowances last year. It seems they are unable to refuse that raise. Therefore, this bill provides that it will now be possible for those members, instead of resorting to demagogy by pretending that everybody except them is in favour of that raise, to refuse such increase.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RAILWAY ACT


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-79, to amend the Railway Act (refusal of abandonment).
He said: The purpose of this bill is to provide that if the board of transport commissioners has refused an application by a railway company for the abandonment of a line of railway, or has refused leave to remove, close or abandon any station or divisional point which would involve the removal of employees, no subsequent application for such approval or such leave could be entertained during the next five years.
The idea behind my bill is to prevent the railway companies from making annual or even more frequent applications to the board in the hope that those opposing the applications will get tired of doing so and that they,

Administration of Justice the companies, will eventually achieve their ends.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave to move the adjournment of the house, arising out of the report in the morning papers with respect to the incredible piece of legislation introduced yesterday in the Ontario legislature-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Reid Scott: -by the Conservative government. I ask leave, therefore, to move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond (Mr. Prittie), the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely the introduction by the Ontario government of legislation which would destroy the principles of Magna Carta and the bill of rights, and as a result would seriously undermine the long standing principles upon which our democratic system is based.
In doing so, Mr. Speaker, I think it is vitally important that this body today register its views on this piece of legislation, so that the government of Ontario may be well aware of the seriousness with which we view this type of activity. Having served as counsel before the royal commission on crime in Ontario. I am well aware of the problem they are trying to solve; but it seems to me the solution being proposed is far too drastic and far too dangerous to be permitted to take place in a democratic society.
I therefore hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will consider this matter as one of grave urgency. It is important that parliament express its views immediately before any further action is taken by the Ontario government. Never to my knowledge has such a drastic piece of legislation been proposed, and unless this house today immediately registers its views there will be no further opportunity to make our views known before the government of Ontario proceeds to enact this legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other hon. members who wish to say anything at this time? I think it is quite evident that the matter is extremely important and concerns every citizen. Nevertheless it has a provincial overtone, which is one of the matters, I should like to remind the hon. member, that we must consider in this question. In

the past, no matter how important the question was considered to be, unless it was something extraordinary previous Speakers have invariably ruled, if my memory serves me correctly, to the effect that while the budget was being debated there was ample time, scope and opportunity to discuss a matter of urgent importance, as this obviously appears to be on its face.
In the circumstances, inasmuch as we are in the budget debate, it seems to me that ample opportunity will be given to the hon. member to raise the subject and discuss it at length. Therefore it seems to me the opportunity is at hand, and in the circumstances I do not think the ordinary procedures of the house should be set aside at this time under standing order 26.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. It has to do with the potential danger of interference with Canadian shipping on the great lakes by wrongdoers in the United States. Yesterday there was a forecast in that connection by Mr. Paul Hall, the head of the S.I.U. in the United States. I ask the minister whether the Canadian government has the assurance of the administration in Washington, particularly the department of Justice there, that there will be the co-operation of the police forces of the United States so that our shipping can ply the great lakes with freedom and be unimpeded, and Canadian shipping will not be molested by unlawful interference as was the case last year.
In view of Mr. Hall's statement that that interference may be forthcoming, the administration in Washington should be made aware that interference of this kind is viewed by Canada most seriously and is not in keeping with the relations between our countries.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident that the matter raised by the right hon. gentleman's question is one of great importance. I have not personally been seized thereof in my official capacity as Minister of Justice, but the right hon. gentleman may be assured that this is one question which will continue to be dealt with by all my colleagues in government and also with the appropriate authorities elsewhere.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister whether there has been any communication by his department with Washington in this regard, or have there been any communications on the part of the Department of External Affairs with the United States pointing out that their co-operation is necessary, and that it is indeed demanded by the Canadian people?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the government of Canada, through the Department of External Affairs and the Canadian ambassador in Washington, has made it clear that the co-operation of the United States in this matter is desirable and essential. I myself have pointed this out to the secretary of state in discussions I have had with him, as I know the Minister of Labour has with his counterpart in the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: What has been the reaction resulting from this dialogue?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: There has been an assurance of co-operation.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piclou):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour may I ask his parliamentary secretary if the minister is today attending the reported meeting between Mr. Paul Hall of the S.I.U. and the maritime union trustees in Montreal.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: I think this, Mr. Speaker, would be a quite improper supposition.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of reports of repeated violence and fighting in the island of Cyprus, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs now in a position to tell us whether any precise directives have been given the Canadian forces serving under the United Nations command? If so, what are these directives and by whom were they issued?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This question was asked me yesterday by the hon. member for Peace River, and there were other questions as well. There have, of course, been terms of reference established. I inquired overnight from the secretary general whether or not it was 20220-82
Inquiries of the Ministry desirable to give forthwith the details of these terms of reference and directives. The decision of the secretary general, as was the case with the Congo operation is that it is not desirable to make public these directives at this time. This was the course followed, as I say, in the case of the Congo operation. I am satisfied that it is the right course.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question. Could the minister tell us, if he cannot give us the details of the directives, whether precise directives have been delivered to the Canadian forces on the authority of the secretary general?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are precise directives which have been discussed with the Canadian government. They are being made known to the Canadian contributing force in the peace keeping operation by the acting commander, and these will be reaffirmed by General Gyani tomorrow.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of external affairs. In view of the serious Cyprus situation can the minister inform the house as to the length of time it has apparently taken for the appointment of a mediator, without whom we can have little hope of permanent pacification?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the appointment of a mediator pursuant to the resolution of March 4 is the responsibility of the secretary general. He has however been consulting interested governments, including Canada. Canada has made some suggestions. The successful functioning of the activities of the mediator depends on the support and cooperation of the two communities involved, as well as on those having treaty rights in the island. I hope there will not be a protracted delay in the appointment of the mediator. I may say that following discussions yesterday a number of foreign ministers will be in Geneva on Monday. We will have an opportunity to discuss this matter further with the secretary general of the United Nations.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the name of General Burns been suggested to the secretary general of the United Nations as a possible mediator in Cyprus?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, that name and others have been discussed with the secretary general.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of

Inquiries of the Ministry National Defence what supply line Canadian troops in Cyprus are on, or will they be on, and, more particularly, is it the United Nations supply line through Pisa which has been supplying our troops in the Gaza strip and in the Congo?
Hon. Paul Hsllyer (Minister of National
Defence): They are presently being supplied from Canada until a more permanent arrangement can be worked out.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if the daily rations for our Canadian troops in Cyprus are being flown over from Canada.


Mr. Hellyer:: They have been so far, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN MEMBERSHIP IN ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
Could the minister inform the house about the progress made in the current discussions concerning Canada's admission to the O.A.S.?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as I said a few weeks ago, this matter is still under consideration.
tText]


REPORTED USE OF CANADIAN ENGINE FOR SUBVERSIVE PURPOSES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question arising out of the statement regarding the organization of American states. I should like to ask the minister whether a protest has been received from the organization of American states in connection with the report of an investigation by a committee of the organization to the effect that a motorboat engine, delivered from Montreal to Cuba last October, was used to land a large cache of arms on a beach in Venezuela for subversive purpose. If so, has any investigation been made as to why this motor was not set out in a report of the dominion bureau of statistics for 1963?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think I will have to take this question as notice.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priliie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he will undertake to have officials of his department check the new act affecting the powers of the Ontario police commission which has been introduced in the legislature of that province in order to see whether there is any conflict between it and the bill of rights.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I understand that no act has been passed by the Ontario legislature. A bill appears to have been introduced, the tenor of which I have not had occasion to become conversant with directly as yet.


Reid Scott: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding that the bill has only received first reading, in view of its very serious nature I wonder whether the Minister of Justice would consider reviewing the bill and, if he feels that it would be in conflict with the bill of rights, making representations to the government of Ontario before it is passed?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is within my jurisdiction to do so yet, although as a private individual and a member of the bar I have all due right to be immensely interested in the bill as such.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, based on a bill that is already passed, Bill No. 14, to establish the British Columbia hydro and power authority, which was recently passed by the legislature of that province. In view of the fact that this precedent shattering bill denies the employees the right to strike and imposes compulsory arbitration, and in view of other unprecedented powers granted the authority under this act, will the minister give this legislation his closest scrutiny to determine whether there are violations of human and civil rights and fundamental freedoms that provide grounds for its disallowance, so that we will not be on the pathway to the state of 1934 nazi Germany?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the gist of the question as now put is somewhat different from that which was stated in the notice which I am thankful to the hon. gentleman for having given me. Without passing judgment on the accuracy or otherwise of the premises on which the question is predicated, I might say that I shall surely look into the question of whether or not the bill infringes any principle and is liable to be disallowed.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS TRANSFER TO PROVINCES OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR SHARED PROGRAMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlineau (Ponfiac-Temiscamin-gue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister indicate wheither he is preparing a specific formula which will pave the way for the transfer to provinces so desiring the full financial responsibility for several established shared cost programs of a continuing nature?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this question is on the agenda for the federal-provincial conference on March 31.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have the minister and the government received from the government of the province of Quebec a specific formula, or notice that a specific formula to that end will be proposed at that conference?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport arising out of the report filed yesterday in connection with community antennae. I should like to ask the minister if he could possibly indicate a date when the government will announce clearly its policy in this connection. I ask this because the reaction has been sharp and there are a number of applications piling up in the minister's department, as I think perhaps he is aware.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: It is the intention of the government to give this matter as urgent consideration as possible for the reasons the hon. gentleman has stated, as well as for many other reasons. But in view of the other preoccupations of the government at the moment I think it would be imprudent for me to try to fix a deadline for the results of such consideration. I can assure the hon. member, and all other hon. members who are interested in this question, that the government does intend to deal with it just as rapidly as possible.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I have a question also for the Minister of Transport.
20220-82J
Inquiries of the Ministry It is prompted by a disturbing report to the effect that the Canadian National is contemplating increasing the fares on the Borden-Tormentine ferry. Will the minister look into this matter with a view to forestalling such an undesirable, unnecessary and iniquitous event?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I heard that there were such rumours, but I am assured by the Solicitor General that they are without foundation.



CHARGE FOR MOTOR VEHICLES CROSSING GOVERNMENT WHARVES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fred T. Armstrong (Shelburne-Yar-mouth-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the government given consideration to charges on motor vehicles over government wharves?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the government decided this morning that it would be more satisfactory to continue the system which was in effect before recent regulations were made in so far as motor vehicles crossing government wharves for ferries were concerned, and the necessary action is being taken to that end.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the minister received representations from the army, navy and air force veterans of Canada for the province of Alberta, and also the East Coulee branch 173 of the Royal Canadian Legion in regard to the Colonel Belcher hospital in Calgary; and has he changed his decision in this regard?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in respect to the first part of the question, I would have to check before I reply to see what I have. With regard to the second part of the question, we are still talking with these people and we have reached no decision.


Mr. G. L. Chalierion (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Is it the intention of the government, regardless of the feelings of the veterans, to turn over the veterans hospital in Victoria and Shaughnessy hospital in Vancouver to the local hospital authorities?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: With regard to Shaughnessy hospital, we have only had an inquiry in

Inquiries of the Ministry general terms from the provincial government, and that is as far as that has gone. There is no decision and no intention of the government to go farther at the moment. In the case of Victoria, again the province has made the same general representations. Jubilee hospital have asked us to co-operate in establishing certain common facilities there, including the Department of National Defence hospital as well. There are talks concerning that aspect of it at the moment.


George Louis Chatterton: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt very much if the questions asked by hon. members are proper at this time. The reason is obvious. If we go into details on all the hospitals across the country we will never get through our day's business. This is an example of the type of question that opens up a series of answers. I do not believe it is a proper type of question at this time, and should be put on the order paper.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may be allowed, I should like to say a word on this point. I realize the difficulty Your Honour has in this connection, and I would be the last to suggest anything that would cause the question period to be extended unnecessarily.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: But, sir, this problem of dealing so cavalierly with the veterans hospitals is one which is important.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister would be more definite in his statements these questions would not need to be asked.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the minister received a complaint from the Cape Breton command of the Canadian Legion that beds are not available for treatment of ex-servicemen at Camp Hill hospital, and that too much bed space is being allotted to former mariners and members of the R.C.M.P.?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I did not catch the full implication of that question, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Muir: Then I shall repeat it. Has the minister received a complaint from the Cape Breton command of the Canadian Legion that beds are not available for treatment of ex-servicemen at Camp Hill hospital, and that too much bed space is being allotted to former mariners and members of the R.C.M.P.?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will be glad to inquire and report to my hon. friend.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: I should like to ask the Minister of Forestry if he agrees with the Minister of Agriculture, who apparently has usurped his authority under the feed grain assistance program, when he stated in Winnipeg yesterday that he is opposed to an eastern feed grain board, even before the report of the agriculture committee which is studying this problem has been submitted.


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: I have not seen this report, and I have no comment to make.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. I ask him if he will try to stop this range war which is going on between these two ministers, and take steps to prevent the rustling of each other's portfolios.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is obvious, of course, that there is no justification whatever for the highly imaginative implication in my hon. friend's question.



REPORTED CHANGES IN FARM CREDIT LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to announce sweeping changes in the farm credit legislation with particular reference to interest rates, as announced by the Minister of Agriculture in Regina the day before yesterday and repeated in Winnipeg yesterday?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the house will well appreciate my satisfaction at being asked a question having to do with agriculture. This is a subject that, as the right hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, has always engaged my very active interest and attention. Of course my hon. friend fully appreciates that any announcement of government policy is always made at a time which the government deems appropriate.


John George Diefenbaker: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman, always being present in his seat, might well be the acting Minister of Agriculture so he would have that authority as spokesman for the department in this house.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Trade and Commerce concerning the United suggestion of the right hon. gentleman is Nations conference on trade which is opening such that-and I know he will agree with in Geneva next week. Will the minister take me

we are very fortunate in the person who an early opportunity to make a definitive happens to be the Minister of Agriculture in statement to the house on government policy Canada at the present time.	concerning this conference, and on the relationship of this conference to the GATT con-SHIPPING	ference to be held in a month's time?



GREAT LAKES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the several replies from the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with box car distribution, and in view of recent developments within the S.I.U., can the Minister of Transport indicate when the shipping season-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please rephrase his question? He is giving considerable information and making statements.


Stanley James Korchinski: Can the Minister of Transport indicate when the shipping season on the great lakes will commence?


John Whitney Pickersgill: A public statement was made on this matter yesterday and was in all the newspapers, sir.



PULPWOOD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Some time ago I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he was in a position to give the house information on the reported executive order to the minister of trade and commerce of the province of Quebec in connection with the export of unprocessed saw logs from that province to Ontario. Is he now in a position to give us the benefit of his inquiry?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I had some informal conversations with the members of the Quebec administration, and the hon. gentleman may have noticed that the minister, Mr. Cliche, made a statement the other day. That matter is entirely within the jurisdiction of Quebec, and I would refer to the hon. gentleman the answer given by Mr. Cliche.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Do you agree with it?



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert William Prittie: wish to direct a question to the Minister of


Mitchell William Sharp: I had intended to respond to the invitation of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, who invited me to take part in the budget debate. At that time I may have something to say on this matter.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. Now that the minister has modified the requirements for centennial grants to the provinces, evidently at Premier Robichaud's insistence, will the minister state if there will be any cultural or confederation aspect whatsoever in the office building at Fredericton, in the New Brunswick proposal?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in the requirements so far as the federal government is concerned.



INQUIRY AS TO AGREEMENTS WITH YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: As a supplementary question, dealing with the national centennial agreements signed with the provinces, I asked a question of the Prime Minister several days ago. I wonder whether the Secretary of State could now inform the house whether agreements have been signed with the governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, there have been no agreements signed yet with the two councils. The centennial commission is currently carrying on a series of discussions with the commissioner of the Yukon territory and the commissioner of the Northwest Territories in order to arrive at acceptable terms for an agreement similar in spirit to those signed with the ten provinces, concerning the federal-provincial centennial grants program. The initiative now rests with the commissioners of both territories, the centennial commission having presented to them a proposed formula for centennial grants.

Inquiries of the Ministry
INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY	CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
On the orders of the day:


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour but possibly in his absence his parliamentary secretary would take it as notice. It has to do with the proposed campaign to circulate application cards throughout Canada for social insurance numbers. Has the minister authorized the distribution of these cards and, if not, under whose authority are they being distributed?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to bring this matter to the attention of the minister.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. What has happened to the Canada development corporation, which was proposed on the order paper last session but to which the minister made no reference in his budget speech? Will it be brought forward later this session?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, it will be brought forward at the appropriate time.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I would like to ask him whether his department has issued any new policy or new directive respecting development in the national parks, and if so, could the house have a copy of it?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Not yet, Mr. Speaker, but we intend to do so. As a matter of fact, during the last couple of days we have had nine superintendents of the western parks at a conference in Calgary at which a great deal of discussion and time was devoted to the question of the management and direction of the parks. We intend to incorporate this in a written document.
[Mr. Lamontagne.l



MATANE-STE. ANNE DES MONTS   CANCELLATION OE PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieffe-L'Assompfion-Monfcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the numerous representations made following the decision to abandon the project to build a railway in the Gaspe peninsula, does the Acting Prime Minister intend to use his influence and diplomacy to convince the government of the importance of that project for Gaspe's economy.


Hon. Paul  Mariin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the answer is obvious.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Now that the Acting Prime Minister has given a diplomatic answer, he might come back to the political level and tell us if his reply can be taken to mean that he will use his influence to have that project carried out?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to discuss that matter with the hon. member whenever he has time to do so. But I feel this is not the right time.



REQUEST FOR IMPROVEMENT IN POSITION OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him if he is yet in a position to answer the question I put to him three weeks ago yesterday, on February 27, having to do with the position of former employees of the Canadian National Railway who are already retired. The minister said he would discuss the matter with Canadian National and make a report to the house. Is he yet in a position to make that report?
John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister whether he will treat this matter with the urgency it merits and make a report at an early date?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will certainly do that.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. When does he intend to open a post office in the village of Rednersville, Ontario, in accordance with the agreement to do so made by his predecessor last November?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put this question on the order paper?



MANITOBA AND SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, March 12 I directed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and in his absence the Minister of Agriculture took notice of it. I should like to repeat it now. In view of the existing low grain quotas in the western area of Manitoba and the eastern area of Saskatchewan, would the minister ask the Canadian wheat board to pay special attention to those areas immediately upon the opening of spring navigation on the great lakes?


Mitchell William Sharp: I did so, Mr. Speaker, and the board is giving attention to this problem.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Does he intend to consult with national aviation organizations with respect to the hazardous structures intended to be erected by the C.B.C. near Calgary international airport?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have no such present intention, but of course I can look into the problem.



LOTTERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Barry Mather: have a question, of which I have given notice, to direct to the Postmaster General. In
Inquiries of the Ministry view of the fact that this is Irish sweepstake week end and that thousands of Canadians have used the postal facilities in connection with these illegal tickets, as they have done for 30 years or more, does the minister not think it is time we took a more realistic look at sweepstakes and made the law conform with the public practice rather than trying vainly to make the public conform with the law?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. member in giving me notice of this question, but I am sure that on reflection he will agree that this matter is one of government policy, and if the government has any change of policy to announce it will do so at the appropriate time.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Cole (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Could he tell the house what position the federal government would adopt if a province were to organize a provincial lottery before the amendment to the Criminal Code?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of dodging the question, but it is hypothetical at this time.



&quot;HANSARD&quot; DESIGNATION OF LANGUAGE SPOKEN BY MEMBERS

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I may say it has to do with a matter which I have discussed with the editor of Hansard, who shares my concern. I raise it now in the hope that other hon. members may have suggestions to make to meet the problem.
Since the English edition of Hansard was revised so that it appears entirely in English, it has become necessary to indicate whether a member's words are recorded in the language in which he spoke or whether they are a translation. As hon. members know, there appear in Hansard repeatedly the words "translation" and "text". Yesterday, for example, you, sir, intervened at a certain point in our proceedings which were being conducted in French. Since you spoke at that point in English, the word "text" appears just over your words as reported. We know what this means, but it almost looks as though you were handed a text of what to say.

The Budget-Mr. Gregoire
In my own case, I have on occasion made a speech-and I believe hon. members know that I do not use a manuscript; frequently I do not even use any notes-following an hon. member who has spoken in French, and on such an occasion the word "text" appears over the report of what I have said. I suggest that this gives rise to a false impression; it is something we should make an effort to have corrected. I know the editor of Hansard is concerned about it, and I hope somebody may come up with a suggestion as to how the possibility of misunderstanding might be removed.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 19, consideration of the motion of Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means and the amendment thereto of Mr. Nowlan, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands).
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, in the first part of my remarks yesterday, I mentioned the financial position of this country, of its boards, corporations and intermediate bodies, and I stressed their rather disastrous position, because of the huge size of the federal, provincial, municipal, industrial, individual and school board debts.
Mr. Speaker, I also mentioned that the federal government had ceased to be an administrative or legislative body to become a loan institution: loans to municipalities, farmers, students, business, Indians, immigrants, veterans, and so on.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to dwell a little on loans to students, simply to congratulate those most concerned in the matter, that is the students themselves, who have the greatest need of those loans, but having realized that this government bill was a direct impingement on the educational field, which comes under provincial jurisdiction, they had the courage to oppose and refuse those federal loans. I shall quote the words of Mr. Robert Bazinet, vice president of the general student association of the University of Montreal, who, speaking on behalf of that association, said:
If Ottawa offers loans to students (although this field is reserved to the provinces) it means they are not short of funds.
That is the paradox nowadays; the federal government is prepared to offer money to


students, a matter not within its jurisdiction, but is neglectful of its responsibilities in various other matters.
Mr. Speaker, what is the present economic situation in this country?
It is realized that our industries, our manufacturing plants, our natural resources are in the hands of foreign financial interests in a proportion of 70 to 75 per cent while, on the other hand, Canadian citizens are merely employees, in view of foreign control of our industries and natural resources. That is the situation in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, foreign interests control our natural resources and our industries, while Canadians are merely wage earners.
What is the economic situation in this country?
We have an increasing number of bankruptcies. With the spreading of automation, there is little job security. Faced with such a situation, our governments do nothing to provide new jobs.
What is the real situation in this country, Mr. Speaker?
We just found out that our farmers, at least eastern farmers, have an average annual income of $1,800. But for tens of thousands of farmers, that average annual income barely comes to $1,200.
We are talking about unemployment, Mr. Speaker, but figures in this regard have been distorted. Only people not receiving unemployment insurance benefits are now included in the figure, although there are as many if not more Canadian citizens who are not taking advantage of such benefits and have to be satisfied with social assistance benefits. Therefore, figures supplied by the Department of Finance are basically false since the actual data should include those receiving unemployment insurance benefits or social assistance benefits, for the latter too are unemployed.
Such is the true situation in Canada; there are more unemployed than reported, because relevant figures are concealed.
A professor from the University of Montreal, Mr. Andre Patry, stated recently:
Foreign investments in Canada are now close to $25 billion and 80 per cent of them are American. They represent 60 per cent of the national income in our country;
Sixty per cent of our national income is controlled by foreign interests.
And Professor Patry added:
In the United States, foreign investments have never exceeded 15 per cent of the national income.
Here is another quotation, Mr. Speaker:
Professor Hans Selye, directer of the institute of experimental medicine at the University of Montreal

has just stated: "Fifty per cent of my students who have obtained their doctor's degree at the University of Montreal are now working abroad".
Fifty per cent of the students who have obtained their doctor's degree in experimental medicine from the University of Montreal are working abroad.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay) told us the other day that unemployment in Canada is due to a shortage of skilled labour.
As a matter of fact, our skilled labour, especially skilled workmen who engaged in research and obtained university degrees, are unable to make a living in Canada; that is why half of them go and seek jobs in other countries.
The latest brief of the Canadian federation of labour unions reads as follows:
Industrial research takes place in the United States. Such a procedure deprives us of our own technology and drains our country of its scientists for the benefit of the United States.
Such is the economic situation in our country. Canada is unable to provide jobs for its scientists who have to seek employment elsewhere and, as a result, our scientists are unemployed in Canada.
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to outline a particular situation in the house, namely the national debt, as well as the fact that Canada is getting everybody into debt.
That outline seemed to rouse somewhat the imagination of members of the house, since they asked us to suggest a solution to those problems.
This solution can be found through an adjustment of our Canadian monetary system. At present in that field the situation is such, that at all levels, the government as well as individuals are still at the mercy of the credit controllers of our country.
Those who control money and credit in our country govern its expansion, as well as the governments, the industries and the people. Such a situation still prevails at this time.
That is why in Canada, government and individuals alike are crawling in the front of credit controllers so that they might carry out their operations.
I mentioned yesterday that the debt in our country is higher than the money resources or money supply in circulation. Why? Because the credit controllers want to keep the government in bondage, and the whole country under their thumb in order to control them better and make them act according to their own sweet will.
I am asking the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) what would happen if tomorrow the federal government creditors were to ask him to pay off his debts? The Minister
The Budget-Mr. Gregoire of Finance would not be able, even by scraping all the money in the country, to find enough to pay them off.
Therefore, he would have to sell the properties of all the citizens of Canada to be able to pay the debt of the federal government. In the circumstances, where is the security of our industries, our businesses and our people?
I see that one of our hon. friends opposite is yapping. I ask him what he would do if the Minister of Finance told him to sell his own property to pay the debts of the country or the government? He would be the first to protest strongly-


An hon. Member:: He would stop being a Liberal then.


Gilles Grégoire: And he is only one man. But the situation is the same for each and every Canadian citizen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: There is someone who does not seem to know much because he never rises from his seat-


An hon. Member:: Some unknown member.


Gilles Grégoire: -I cannot even mention his riding, Mr. Speaker, because I do not know it. He never rises; we have never heard him say a word.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Shame, shame.


Gilles Grégoire: Here is the solution. Let us take away from some individuals the control of our country's credit and give it back to a sovereign state which will have full use of its money through the Bank of Canada. At the present time, the chartered banks control the country and have only one aim, to make profits out of the government and the public accounts by creating money to lend it later to the government and the public bodies. Those people also make profits and become wealthy on our taxes and contributions. That is the first disgraceful thing which it is imperative to denounce and which has to be tackled in the first place.
We are, and always will be, a colony from an economic point of view, as long as we have no sovereign government actually controlling credit in this country.
Once the government controls its own credit, the whole country, industry and every individual will benefit because by exerting such control, the government will not only seek profits, but also develop this country and ensure the well-being of each and every citizen in Canada.
This is the solution to the problem: take over the control of what I would call the most important instrument of development

The Budget-Mr. Gregoire lor this country, that is control of money, control of credit, which the government relinquished to a few profiteers who are making money by keeping the people in abject poverty.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words regarding federal-provincial tax relations.
I took note of some figures indicating the chief expenses of the federal and provincial governments, to prove that at this time, the provinces have precedence over the federal government. If anybody asks what are this country's needs at the present, the answer is: education. Now what does the federal government spend for education?
The last relevant figures-for 1963-were published somewhat belatedly as usual, in the Canada Year Book 1963-64. Those statistics show that, in 1960, the federal government appropriated $64,480,000 for education, whereas the provinces and the school boards which come under the municipalities spent $1,513,945,000, that is 26 times as much.
This clearly shows that the provinces did more than their share in that respect. The provinces have larger needs, but they have had more expenditures.
The second main item at this time, among our priority requirements, is national health. What were in 1960, the federal government expenditures for national health? They amounted to $267,222,000 while the provinces and municipalities had total expenditures of $574,128,000, that is twice as much.
And for transportation, the federal government spent $104,964,000, while provinces and municipalities spent $1,070 million, that is ten times as much.
As far as the protection of individuals and properties is concerned, the federal government spent $79,185,000 while the provinces spent $308,429,000, that is five times more.
Well, Mr. Speaker, for those four items, the most important ones in the social life of this country, the provinces and municipalities spent a total of $3,526,877,000, while the federal government spent $515,843,000, that is seven times less than the provinces.


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


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if the house is willing to give unanimous consent, I need only three or four minutes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gilles Grégoire: As nobody is objecting, Mr. Speaker, I shall carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is well aware that he cannot carry on without unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I heard no objection.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Does the house unanimously consent to the hon. member for Lapointe carrying on his remarks?


Mr. Loiselle:: No. He only repeats himself.


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, a distinguished member of our press gallery qualified the budget with a simple but very proper word when he said:
In short, it is a.. .reasonable budget.
This budget is no more interesting than the uneventful life of a happy family. The minister puts the emphasis on youth by encouraging studies. The budget will also help boost the economy in designated areas. But with regard to the financial situation in our country, the budget reflects prosperity and there is nothing mysterious about that. Under the direction of an industrious and alert minister, the only thing Canadians have to do is to work and reap the fruits of their labour.
Mr. Speaker, I know that, traditionally, the budget debate gives hon. members the opportunity to express their views on any point of this important document, which relates to the immediate needs of their own riding.
If I somewhat deviate from normal practice today, it is because for nearly a year now I have had the privilege of serving Canada as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). That appointment entailed a certain amount of work, but it opened my eyes, as a citizen of Quebec, to the major role played by crown corporations in our province.
In many quarters, criticism has been voiced recently against the activity of the federal government and of its corporations as regards the past, the present and the future of Quebec. However, one merely has to examine the facts with an open mind, objectively and without partisanship, to see that there is a great difference between such allegations and reality.
As parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport, I have been in a position to check the facts. Today, I should like to report my findings to my Quebec colleagues on both sides of the house. I shall speak mostly of the Canadian economy and national unity. If, nowadays, one can state publicly without any supporting evidence that separatism is possible socially, politically and economically, it might be appropriate to remind the people that figures also have a meaning. The budget gives the government's sources of income and it indicates that federal funds are used not only for the administration of the country,

but also to carry out the program of the government, whose outstanding objective is national unity.
During the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the majority of speakers have referred to the matter of national unity. It is probably because the centennial of confederation is just around the corner and also because there is in Quebec a general awakening of nationalism resulting in vocal extremist movements where sentiments take precedence over reason.
Moderation when making public statements is the advice I gave to all my constituents at the beginning of 1964. I feel that in this way right-minded Canadians will find a solution to the problems facing national unity.
A couple of weeks ago during a debate over television on the issue of Quebec claims inside or outside confederation, one of the English speaking panelists exclaimed in an outburst of impatience:
Remember 1759.
A good answer would be: Remember 1812, remember Chateauguay, when the stand taken by French Canada made possible, through the constitutional acts which followed, the founding of our great country. For French Canadians, it meant reconciliation and hope.
And this leads us to take stock of the centennial of confederation. As far as relations between French and English Canadians are concerned, there is certainly a resolute movement in Quebec to affirm in the face of Canada and of the world its cultural heritage, its will to share in the economy and its new awareness as a social group. If one attempts to find solutions to the problems which jeopardize our relations, one must take those elements into account.
And there must also be understanding from English Canada which, in this North American continent where the majority of people speak the same language, is not faced with the obligation of creating favourable conditions to ensure its own survival. However, this is no reason why we, French Canadians, should refuse to engage in a dialogue and deceive ourselves to the point of failing to recognize the cultural, economic and social advantages that our federal system has meant to our group.
I should like to restrict myself today to a single example of this principle, namely the economic contribution of the C.N.R. to the provinces of Quebec. All federal crown corporations were originally set up to ensure the well-being of all Canadians and of every province.
Although I intend to limit my remarks to the contribution made by the Canadian National Railways to the province of Quebec,
The Budget-Mr. Cantin needless to say the Canadian National Railways have also contributed to the development of every other section of the country. This is self-evident. But some people tried so hard to minimize that contribution to the province of Quebec that it may be advisable to try to show the true importance of this contribution to our province. I wish more particularly to point out that the government of Canada has nevertheless done something, and often a great deal for each of the provinces, including Quebec. When listening to some extremists who speak out of turn, we get the impression that Quebec was only a victim in confederation, whereas even if everything is not perfect, there are nevertheless assets which an objective mind cannot and must not ignore.
The Canadian National Railways play an important part in the economy of the prov-vince of Quebec.
In 1962, the C.N.R. numbered in the province 21,994 employees, whose salaries and wages represented over $120 million.
These salaries and wages alone represent a strong measure of support for Quebec's economy. Nevertheless, they represent only part of the contribution of the system to the general development.
Besides salaries and wages, the C.N.R. paid out in 1962 $1,443,054 in sickness and social security insurance benefits, in addition to $595,079 under the workmen's compensation act, and $5,412,927 to its Quebec retired employees or their dependants.
During 1962 alone, the purchases made by the C.N.R. in the province of Quebec amounted to $89 million.
The Queen Elizabeth hotel alone, which belongs to the C.N.R. and which is operated by Hilton of Canada Ltd., cost $7,125,000 in expenses of all kinds including salaries, new equipment and material.
We must not forget taxes either. In 1962, the C.N.R. paid the province and its municipalities $4,646,680 in sales taxes, land taxes and others.
Since the war, the railway has built more mileage of tracks in Quebec than in all the other provinces combined. That permitted the development of Quebec's natural resources accordingly.
The first project was the 39-mile long branch line which connects Barraute and Beattyville since 1949. Over the last years, the C.N.R. has added 161 miles of tracks between Beattyville and Chibougamau, another 133 miles between Chibougamau and St. Felicien and, more recently, it inaugurated a new line 61 miles long to Mattagami. This is a total of 394 miles costing $46.5 million.

The Budget-Mr. Cantin
The rolling stock-railway cars and engines- involves, oi course, on the part of the railway company, continuous expenditures which have become a heavier burden. Since the end of the war, the C.N.R. initiated a comprehensive program so as to modernize its equipment, including dieselization. Since 1946 the cost involved in this program, as far as the Canadian lines are concerned, amounts to $798,740,103 and almost 44 per cent of this amount, this is $353,083,637 have been paid to Quebec industries.
During that same year, Quebec dockyards built five ships for C.N.R. services. Included in those ships, was the Abegweit ferry operating between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island; it was built in the dockyards of Marine Industries Limited in Sorel. Canadian Vickers Limited built the William Carson operating a shuttle service between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, and Davie Shipbuilding Limited constructed the Bluenose which now carries passengers and automobiles between Nova Scotia and the state of Maine. Those ships have cost $23.5 million.
The inauguration of the Queen Elizabeth hotel in 1958, the largest in Canada, was one of the greatest achievements of the C.N.R. which has spent $25.7 million to build and equip the hotel, the only one it has built in the past 20 years.
It is the fourth building to be erected on C.N.R. property in the area of Central station, in the heart of Montreal, and the third built by the company in that section.
The first building to be erected was the Central station which is still the most functional of the larger passenger stations in North America and which will become even more important when the C.N.R. has completed the construction of the huge building complex now under way or in the project stage. Built at a cost of $27.5 million, the station was inaugurated in 1943. In 1950, the C.N.R. completed the construction of the international aviation building at a cost of $4 million; it houses the head offices of various aviation companies and international air transport associations. The third was the Terminal Centre building erected by private interests at a cost of $4 million.
The fifth building in that group, the new C.N.R. headquarters which the staff has occupied since May 1961, cost $17.5 million.
The C.N.R. invited private enterprise to share in the development of its remaining real property located south of Lagauchetiere street.
The development of this land has raised such great interest in financial circles that Dorchester street, between Windsor street and Beaver Hall Hill, is destined to become the

most dynamic cultural and business section in North America and the most remarkable architectural achievement on this continent.
Knowing perfectly well how important was the site of the Central station and the property around it, the C.N.R. wish to promote its logical development in co-operation with private enterprise. It did so jointly with Webb and Knapp (Canada) Ltd., which drew up a master plan for the whole 23 acres and leased the seven acres located north of Central station, where the said company built the complex called "Place Ville-Marie".
That group includes the largest office building in Canada, multi-level parking, an esplanade, stores, restaurants, theatres. The project cost about $105 million.
The largest electronically-controlled hump yard in the world was inaugurated in Montreal in 1961. It cost the C.N.R. $32 million and helps greatly to speed up and improve the services for shippers and buyers of merchandise in Montreal and elsewhere in Quebec. The C.N.R. spent some $17 million to provide for a detour from Victoria bridge in Montreal, following the building of the St. Lawrence seaway. The main by-pass which at present goes through the town of Lachine cost $5 million. It eliminates a series of level crossings and thus provides an access road on the western side of the hump yard.
The C.N.R.'s industrial development service has played a major role in the establishment of enterprises in Quebec. In 1958, the C.N.R. built a five-mile branch line at Pointe Claire, near Montreal, to add 1,406 acres of land to an industrial district. Sixty nine sites were sold and 35 industries were built up. There are still approximately 923 acres left for the industrial complex which the C.N.R. is putting up, six acres of which will be occupied by a $75 million building that will be known as Place Bonaventure.
In 1959, at Candiac, on the south shore of the St. Lawrence river, opposite Montreal, the company built a spur line so as to permit the development of a 550-acre area suitable for industry. Six large concerns bought 100 acres of land along the railroad and many smaller firms settled there.
The railway company extended an industrial branch line from Leduc boulevard, in Montreal island's eastern section, to serve the B.P. Refinery Canada Limited Company. Later on, the C.N.R. used this branch line to allow the expansion of another industrial area of a thousand acres in Ville d'Anjou. As a result of those projects initiated by the C.N.R., some industries are now provided with private railroad lines.
The C.N.R. advised a great number of Quebec municipalities on the choice of sites suitable for setting up industries and laid

out the most suitable railway routes. Petite Riviere, St. Romuald, Sherbrooke, St. Eus-tache, St. Eustache on the Lake, St. Jerome, Mattagami, Chambly, Valleyfield, Varennes and Vercheres have thus new industrial areas, the size of which varies between 50 and
1,000	acres.
The Varennes-Contrecoeur-Tracy area seems assured of a prosperous industrial future because of the tremendous commercial development initiated by the Canadian National Railways.
The increase in the Canadian National Railways facilities and services is parallel to the Quebec industrial development. For instance, in 1962, the company's industrial development department contributed to the establishment of 55 industries-which became customers-by building 12 i miles of private branch lines and tracks in addition to the new C.N.R. tracks built in Quebec.
The C.N.R. and the C.P.R. have installed and are operating jointly a microwave system which enabled the cities of Sherbrooke, Three Rivers, Quebec, Rimouski, Jonquiere and Carleton to be linked to the C.B.C. French television network. The C.N.R. telecommunications have also set up other facilities to connect through microwaves Saint Arsene and Riviere du Loup, thus enabling the C.B.C. French network (Montreal-Moncton) to extend its services to a new station of the T.V. network established in Riviere du Loup.
The C.N.R. telecommunications have already connected cities such as Montreal, Sherbrooke, Chicoutimi, Granby, Three Rivers, Noranda, Quebec, Thetford Mines and Senne-terre to its Telex system. At the end of June 1963, there was in Quebec alone, approximately a thousand subscribers who could obtain instantaneous and printed communication with 9,700 other customers in Canada and in the United States.
The Canadian National Railways have recently set up in Montreal, for the first time in Canada, a new semi-automatic system for rerouting telegrams to speed up their delivery.
In 1962 the C.N.R. telecommunications took a significant step ahead when in co-operation with the C.P.R., the development of a Mont-real-Vancouver microwave system was undertaken at a cost of $36 million. The gigantic undertaking provided for the RCA Victor Company of Montreal a $12 million contract for the purchase of electronic material.
In order to provide the national defence department with telecommunication facilities, the C.N.R. invested $5 million for the development of repeater stations in Chibougamau and Miquelon, and for the extension of the C.N.T. building in Senneterre.
I only reviewed the C.N.R.'s major achievements and expenditures. During the same
The Budget-Mr. Baldwin period, hundreds of smaller projects and improvements were carried out in Quebec.
To summarize, these last few years, the C.N.R.'s capital expenditures in the province of Quebec alone came to $568,460,637, while the expenditures of private corporations established on C.N.R. properties came to $677,460,637. As regards the C.N.R.'s operating expenses for the year 1962, and in the province of Quebec alone, the figure is $203,260,740.
As far as the promotion of French Canadians within the C.N.R. is concerned, I refer to the Gordon report already tabled in this house, to add that since that time, the C.N.R. has appointed a new vice president in the person of Mr. Pierre Delagrave, whose leadership and imagination were at the basis of the modernization of the C.N.R. passenger service.
We have there, I believe, somewhat of a reply to those who readily state, without proof, that separatism is possible from an economic point of view. It might be interesting to extend this study to all other federal corporations and government services. Quebec's economy would be tragically affected through the loss of those customers and services, even though the railway service would be maintained, but entirely at the expense of the people of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, figures also speak for themselves and this account of relations between French and English Canadians must be added to the historical, political, social and purely human values given to us by confederation.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, as I take advantage of this opportunity to participate in the budget debate and cast my few pearls of wisdom before the crowded treasury benches opposite, I wish I could utter a few words of kindness to the minister. However, try as I might the best I can say of this budget is that it is not one to excite the daring and, despite the fact he waved the ministerial wand lightly over the Scotch whisky, it is hardly a budget to intoxicate the sober.
I am going to deal mainly, Mr. Speaker, with the question of trade and commerce, because it is inextricably bound up with the budget and with fiscal and financial policies. I propose to deal with this question if time permits, and I hope this does not sound like a threat, as it relates to external trade, possibly commonwealth trade and definitely domestic trade and commerce.
I must say that so far as the government's position is concerned it reminds me of something which, if it were genetically possible, would be the result of crossing the proverbial
12S6

The Budget-Mr. Baldwin ostrich with the colourful figure from Dickens, Mr. Micawber, and this creature were then to sit on the treasury benches opposite. In so far as this question of trade and commerce is concerned, the government has buried its head deep in the sand, while the winds of change blow over that part of its anatomy exposed to them; and the only words we can hear the government uttering are the immortal words of Mr. Micawber, "I do hope that something is going to turn up."
In so far as the budget relates to trade and commerce, for example, I do realize that the minister has refused to provide for any tax cuts. In doing so he has given what he thinks are proper reasons for this course, and they are recorded on page 976 of Hansard. These may be sufficient in one sense of the word, and I think they probably are. Nevertheless, sir, we cannot escape from the fact that over the next year or so the question of our foreign trade is going to be of the utmost importance. It appears likely, on the eve of this great gathering in Geneva, that there are going to be concessions made. Many nations are committed to this principle, and I do not think there can be any withdrawal from it. However, in so far as the conditions, terms and timing are concerned, these things will depend upon the negotiations, upon the skill of the negotiators and the manner in which the negotiations are conducted.
It seems to me, however, that Canada is singularly unprepared to enter into this negotiating area. If the minister had seen fit to include in his budget selective tax concessions which could have been designated and related to price reductions, this would have strengthened our position tremendously. Eventually during the course of these negotiations, which are going to progress over the next year or so, we are going to receive concessions; we are going to ask for concessions, and I am sure we are going to have to reciprocate. Manufacturers in Canada will, in all likelihood, be unable to reduce prices having in mind the failure to provide these tax cuts. There are certain indications in the budget and in the estimates that the cost of government is rising and is going to continue to rise, and the present administration gives no sign of relief in this field.
The United States has provided for tax cuts, I think in the amount of $11.5 billion for the next short period of time. There is no doubt at all that these concessions will be reflected in lower prices for many of the commodities produced by the United States with which our goods will have to compete. The minister has said that even without tax cuts there is still a comparison between the situation in the United States and the situation here. That is not good enough. We will have


to be able to face the competition which we are bound to meet from the lower prices of the American goods which are bound to follow these tax cuts. I think this is a weapon which the minister should have made use of, and I fear we may yet regret and live to rue the day that selective concessions of this kind were not included in the budget.
I now wish to make reference to the position which has been indicated with regard to Japan. On March 11 last, as recorded at page 795 of Hansard for that date, I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
Is It correct.. .that the Canadian government has requested Japan to reduce its quotas on a number of commodities exported to Canada as far as 1964 is concerned.
The minister's reply was:
-negotiations are now proceeding with the Japanese government on the voluntary restraints which have been in effect for some years now. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to add anything to that at the present time.
This is obviously an admission that our government has requested Japan to reduce further the quotas, or voluntary restraints as the minister described them, which now exist. I am sure if this had not been the case the minister would have said so. I have in mind the favourable balance which now exists so far as Canada is concerned. I have just obtained information from the Department of Trade and Commerce that for 1963 total Canadian exports to Japan were in the order of $297 million, while imports from Japan to Canada were only $130 million.
I have heard all the trite arguments as to why we should ask the Japanese to permit us to enlarge our trade with them and at the same time say they must reduce their exports to us. But I think these are all specious arguments and at this particular stage, on the eve of this great international bargaining, we are guilty of a very serious omission if we engage in this dangerous exercise in international trade relations.
Some comment could also be directed to our trade relations with China. In the 1962-63 report of the Canadian wheat board covering that crop year reference is made to our agreement with the People's Republic of China, and on page 13 of the report we find this statement:
All deferred payments in connection with the above agreement-
That is, the sale of grain.
-have been honoured on or before the due date. As of July 31. 1963 the balance outstanding was $51,361,329. By September 9, 1963 this entire amount has been prepaid.
In other words our Chinese customers not only made good their payments on due dates but prepaid over $50 million well in advance

of the due dates. To me this seems to constitute an irrebuttable argument to those who have said these were not good sales, that we should not proceed with them, and that a mistake had been made. But it is simply not good enough to take this as the status quo. I think those who say our sales to China will be determined only by weather conditions and by the vicissitudes of Chinese agriculture overlook the fact that our proximity to China indicates this will be a continuing trade; but for it to be so, there must be reciprocal steps taken. We must be prepared to encourage a reasonable flow, an increasing flow, of Chinese goods into Canada. This is a suggestion which the Minister of Trade and Commerce should take into consideration, and I would hope when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) returns from his visit to China, that on a non-partisan basis he will not hesitate to make use of the information which has been obtained in that way.
I want to speak very briefly, Mr. Speaker, about the question of commonwealth trade. In doing so I support the position taken by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) who indicated that the government was entitled to be criticized for its failure to do anything about it and for taking a negative attitude. A series of articles has been appearing in the Christian Science Monitor by S. C. Leslie, formerly head of the information service of the British treasury, who has given some study to this subject following the collapse of the British efforts to enter the common market. I am not going to take the time to analyze these, but before I give some of the conclusions Mr. Leslie has arrived at I wish to say that those who either suggest or acquiesce in the view that we should write off the commonwealth of nations forget there are several things in favour of the commonwealth.
First, it is in existence. Second, it has a tradition, an experience and an accumulated knowledge derived from the participation of many nations over a long period of time. Third, it is important in its association which covers countries, peoples, races and religions all over the world, something that we will have to learn to do if we are to get along together. For that reason I think there should be every effort to make the utmost use of the commonwealth of nations now in existence. Having said that, I want to put on the record a few concrete suggestions which Mr. Leslie makes with regard to the economic aspects of the commonwealth. He says:
On the economic side, the proposals that have been responsibly put forward include (1) an export council with regional subdivisions... (2) a development council to analyse, discuss and coordinate plans for growth: (3) a commonwealth bank... (4) more collaboration in maintaining the
The Budget-Mr. Baldwin central reserves and more co-ordination of balance of payments policies among the members; (5) long term bilateral trading arrangements not involving tariff changes; (6) the adoption and active promulgation of a more ambitious program of financial and technical aid, with specific targets: (7) and finally, and in the long run perhaps the most important of all, the resolute development and extension of the network of educational links, exchanges, and assistance programs, which are part of the very fibre of the partnership: a commonwealth university has been mentioned.
I put those forward as very reasonable, very logical and very attainable objectives.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the time left to me I wish to deal with the question of domestic trade, and I wish to limit my remarks particularly to the problem which has been raised as a result of steps recently taken by the Quebec government in what I think has been improper action, both legally and otherwise, in banning the export of lumber. I shall also refer to the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce today. The question may be asked, why should I bring this subject up? Well, I come from a constituency many thousands of miles away. For that reason I am probably better equipped to do it because it cannot be said I have any interest, either on behalf of myself or my constituents, in this particular aspect of what is a very serious problem.
Then I come from a constituency which has experienced precisely the same problem that I think has motivated the Quebec government to do what it has done. For years, in fact even for generations, in my area we had to sit helplessly by while primary products of agriculture and of the forest, and in addition mineral products, were extracted and taken from our district to other provinces and other countries where the final steps in processing them were completed. As a result we lost much. We lost many of our young people who saw no future in remaining in the north country, and to whom a high school graduation certificate was simply a one way ticket out of the country.
But since 1957-and I hope I am not being overly partisan when I say this-due to the policy instituted by the previous government, this has changed. I think railway history will probably be made in the not too distant future, because I am given to understand that the Great Slave railway is only a short distance from the Northwest Territories, and when it reaches there it will be the first time a railroad has been constructed to connect the Northwest Territories with the rest of Canada.
I have every sympathy for the people who were affected by this order of the Quebec government and with those who hope to benefit by it, but I submit this has to be done in a way which is within the law and

The Budget-Mr. Baldwin within the framework of our constitutional process. There is a great reservoir of understanding and sympathy for the reasonable and legitimate aspirations of the people of Quebec. This exists, I think, all over Canada and I would hate to see it spoiled by what I can only describe as occasional chauvinistic and provocative actions on the part of the government of that province.
With regard to the constitution, I am not one of those who hold that it is sacred and cannot be changed. As one hon. member said earlier, laws are made for people and people are not made to be regulated and adjusted for the convenience of laws. As a matter of fact I have on the order paper a resolution proposing what I believe to be a reasonable way of dealing with and amending the constitution and of putting before the people of this country suggestions along those lines.
But apart from other considerations, the question of trade is vital. Section 121 of the British North America Act provides for the free movement of goods between provinces. This, I submit, is the spinal cord of this confederation. If you sever that you sever everything. When we look across the Atlantic today we see the growth of a great force, economically and ultimately politically, in the common market. Many of us in this country came originally from countries in Europe which were unable to get along together in a commercial, economic or social sense. It would be most ironic if we were to disintegrate at the very time when those countries were beginning to join together. Yet this is what could happen if actions of the kind I have in mind were allowed to go unchecked.
The legislation upon which the action of Quebec is based-I understand this is an act rather than a directive-is to be found in the 1946 statutes of Quebec, chapter 25(8).
In addition to the other conditions prescribed by this act, the wood cut on the timber limits granted under its authority must be worked in the province and shall not be exported in its rough state without the authorization of the lieutenant governor in council, who may determine the reservations and conditions to which such authorization shall be subject.
Note the words "shall not be exported in its rough state". That is a prohibition of the export of a commodity produced in this particular province. What would happen if other provinces took a similar position? There would be imitation. There would be retaliation. I think of my own province of Alberta. There might be retaliation in the sense that exports from other provinces would be prohibited. Even worse, there might be retaliation in the sense of a prohibition of imports. We have an act known as the trade and

industry act under which the provincial government issues licences to manufacturers and retailers in almost all classes of trade. What would happen if as a condition of granting such licences the provincial government were to say "We will grant you a licence to manufacture and sell retail, but only on condition that you do not import from the province of Quebec any lumber, maple syrup or manufactured products of any kind". This would be precisely the same type of regulation, only in reverse.
This particular section, which is section 121 of the British North America Act, has been the subject of some judicial interpretation. The case which arose most lately, and I think the one in which the question was most fully discussed, was the case of Murphy v. C.P.R. in 1958. This, as Your Honour may remember, is the case in which a farmer sought to test the validity of the Canadian Wheat Board Act by attempting to ship some sacks of grain from the province in which he grew it to another province. Mr. Justice Rand, as reported on page 153 of Dominion Law Reports, volume 15 said:
I take section 121, apart from customs duties, to be aimed against trade regulation which is designed to place fetters upon or raise impediments to or otherwise restrict or limit the free flow of commerce across the dominion-
And again;
What is forbidden is a trade regulation that in its essence and purpose is related to a provincial boundary.
What clearer demonstration could there be of such a trade regulation than the particular section of the Quebec legislation which I have quoted? It is interesting to note that while this was placed on the statute books of Quebec in 1946, it was not enforced until recently. I think this is probably because the governments of Quebec since 1946 have had grave doubts as to its validity.
I asked the Minister of Justice in this house some time ago a question on this important subject. I asked him if he would consult with his officials and consider the validity of this particular section of the Quebec act. He has not replied. He has not answered my question, and I think that is significant. If I am wrong-and I have been wrong before; I have had many judges tell me I am wrong- I will be glad to hear it. But I think I am entitled to raise this matter. I think there is a strong suggestion in the light of what Mr. Justice Rand has said that this legislation is invalid. What is to prevent other provinces saying "Quebec is able to get away with it, why can't we?" I think the members of the government who have taken the oath as privy councillors have a duty cast upon them to examine this matter with the greatest of

care and take the action which they are required to take, despite the fact that it might be a sensitive and delicate task.
May I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have one more particular reference to make to the subject matter with which I was dealing before one o'clock, namely the problems raised by the Quebec legislation in connection with the export of lumber. This morning my hon. friend the member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for the second time raised this particular question and asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) whether he was now in a position to reply to a question he had asked about it. He obviously is also concerned. The minister, I think rather cavalierly, shrugged it off by saying, "Well, the Quebec minister in question has now issued what is in effect a clarifying statement which says he did not mean what he said the first time". The minister also referred to a news item. I have what 1 think is the news item to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce referred, and I find in it the following:
The spokesman-
This is the spokesman for the Quebec minister of lands and forests:
-said a statement made by Lucien Cliche, lands and forests minister, means that the department will require a cutter to get an export permit before shipping wood across the boundary to Ontario mills.
This is not any changed position; this is simply a reaffirmation of what I suggest is the offensive, repugnant provision contained in the Quebec legislation. I do not think the Minister of Trade and Commerce directed his attention this morning to this very, very grave issue. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this particular subject matter, I make this suggestion. This is such a serious matter that it should be, if it is not already, on the agenda for the federal-provincial conference. Every effort should be made by this government, in consultation with the Quebec government, to see that this provision is not enforced. I tried to get some figures as to what could possibly be involved, in terms of dollars and cents, in interprovincial freight. I found this was obviously impossible, but I also find that in terms of volume 200 million tons of freight are carried on an interprovincial basis on the railways, on ships and by trucks.


An hon. Member:: Per month, or per year?
The Budget-Mr. Baldwin


Gerald William Baldwin: This is per year-200 million tons. This is the very lifelood of the existence of this nation. If this small cancer is allowed to continue and to be perpetuated, I suggest that the tentacles of national trade which heretofore have largely persisted in an east and west direction will become disengaged and, seeking some nourishment, will go south of the border. If this should happen, I suggest we would cease to exist as a viable, economic unit.
I suggest therefore to the minister, to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that they should do everything they can to see that this is not allowed to continue. I am never positive as to my assumptions of the law. As I said before, I have been told by judges often enough that I am not right. But I am sufficiently concerned about this to suggest that at the very least the government should see that this matter is submitted, by terms of reference, to the Supreme Court of Canada and it should not be allowed to continue to the stage where there will be retaliation and imitation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I must say that it is with some trepidation that I ventured into this particular area, because I know it is sensitive. Too many people have rushed in where wiser men have feared to tread. But I feel so concerned about it that I thought it my duty to raise the matter in the way I have. Let me possibly make amends by putting on the record a statement made in 1889 by a great Canadian, a former leader of the Liberal party and a former prime minister. These words were uttered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in Quebec on June 24, 1889. May I apologize for not saying this in French. I can make shift and say words from time to time in French, but in a matter of this kind I do not think the language should be mutilated, as I am sure it would be mutilated if I attempted to say these words in French. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said this:
We are French Canadians, but our country is not confined to the territory overshadowed by the citadel of Quebec; our country is Canada...the fertile lands bordered by the bay of Fundy, the valley of the St. Lawrence, the region of the great lakes, the prairies of the west, the Rocky mountains, the lands washed by the famous ocean where breezes are said to be as sweet as the breezes of the Mediterranean. Our fellow countrymen are not only those In whose veins runs the blood of France. They are all those, whatever their race or whatever their language, whom the fortune of war, the chances of fate, or their own choice have brought among us.. .As far as I am concerned, I am a Canadian. But I told it elsewhere, and with greater pleasure I repeat here this evening, among all my fellow countrymen, the first place in my heart is for those in whose veins runs the blood of my own veins. Yet I do not hesitate to say that the rights of my fellow countrymen

The Budget-Mr. Orlikow
of different origins are as dear to me, as sacred to me, as the rights of my own race, and if it unfortunately happened that they ever were attacked I would defend them with just as much energy and vigour as the rights of my own race.
I say I: should X not say you, we all of us? Yes, we are too much the sons of France, of that generous nation which has so often shed her blood for the defence of the weak, of the oppressed, not to be ever ready to defend the rights of our fellow countrymen of different nationalities to the same extent as our own. What I claim for us is an equal share of the sun, of justice, of liberty; we have that share and have it amply; and what we claim for ourselves we are anxious to grant to others. I do not want French Canadians to domineer over anyone, nor anyone to domineer over them. Equal justice; equal rights.. .Cannot we believe that in the supreme battle here on the plains of Abraham, when the fate of arms turned against us, cannot we believe that it entered into the designs of Providence that the two races, enemies up to that time, should henceforth live in peace and harmony? Such was the inspiring cause of confederation.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, nothing could show better the lack of real liberalism in this government, this complete lack of concern for the needs of the people of Canada, than this budget which we are discussing at the present time. In less than two years the architect of the new Liberal look, the author of "Troubled Canada'', has been reduced to producing one of the dullest, one of the most Tory, one of the most stand pat budgets which any Canadian parliament has had to discuss. Because unemployment is somewhat down, because many Canadians are living well, the minister will have us believe that our problems have been solved. The minister is proud of the fact that he has reduced the budget deficit by one third. By doing so he has ignored the needs of the Canadian people and the promises made by his party during the election campaigns of the last two years.
Let us first look at this affluent Canada. While we have much to be happy about there are still people in Canada who live at a level which is a disgrace. We should all be ashamed of conditions which we have allowed to develop and to continue, and which the minister has ignored completely in his budget speech. In fact the budget speech proposes that we permit the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer by continuing the present and past tax inequities. He has thrown us the bone that, as soon as the royal commission makes its report, he will get down to looking at the situation; but I want to say that I have not much confidence in this minister or this government doing anything to rectify the inequities we have talked about so often in the past.
In 1961, the last year for which we have figures, 30 per cent of Canada's labour force earned so little money that they paid no income tax. Fifty five per cent of the taxpayers

earned less than $4,000 per year; 34 per cent of the taxpayers earned less than $3,000 a year and 14 per cent of those who paid taxes earned less than $2,000 per year. The top 25 per cent of taxpayers received almost 45 per cent of the total after tax income, while the bottom 25 per cent of taxpayers received less than 12 per cent of total after tax income. Despite these glaring and disgraceful discrepancies the minister proposes merely to continue to widen the tax exemptions and loopholes which have contributed to the inequities I have cited.
It is easy to get lost in statistics and figures, and because of this I should like to read a small section from an official report prepared for the Manitoba government, which I think has been received by all the members of this parliament. It shows graphically how badly some of the people in Canada are living. I refer to the original inhabitants of this country, the Indians of Manitoba. In this report, which is entitled "Manitoba, 1962 to 1975", and is a report of the committee on Manitoba's economic future, there is a section entitled "Role of native people in the north in industrial development". In part XI, section 3, pages 1 and 2, the following statements appear;
The native people of Canada in regions ranging from northern British Columbia to northern Quebec have not been integrated effectively into the social and economic fabric of the nation ...
The economic position and future status of native people in Manitoba presents three outstanding areas of concern. The level of social and economic integration of the group is very low and shows little improvement after almost 100 years of special administration. The levels of living and per capita earned income are little more than one tenth of those of the rest of the province...
The low level of social and economic integration tends to prevent any increase in per capita earned incomes. Low incomes and levels of living and increasing reliance on welfare tend to retard, or to prevent, improvement in social and economic integration.
I should just like the house and the minister to listen to these specific figures.
In 1981 per capita earned income of the group approximates only $155 per year, and without extensive rehabilitation and development measures, this low level of income can be expected to remain constant or even to decline during the next decade. Earned income is supplemented by family allowances, old age pensions, and various welfare payments from federal and provincial sources, which total slightly more than $100 per capita at present...
In the light of that kind of situation, Mr. Speaker, we have the self-satisfied speeches made by the minister and other members of the government. We talk movingly and feelingly about the plight of the people in underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa and South America. I believe we could do much more to help them lift up their standards of living, but surely we should be moving quickly and

resolutely toward righting conditions here at home; and of this there is nothing at all for this in the budget presented by the minister.
I should like to contrast the minister's approach to the approval of the President of the United States. The United States is the richest, most affluent country in the world but, unlike the Minister of Finance, President Johnson has recognized that there are still large scale pockets of poverty in that country. At least 30 million Americans are poor. They lack the money, the education and the background to enable them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The President has declared a national war on poverty. He has called for a program which would cost $1 billion a year-organized and financed by the federal government-but administered through the state and municipal governments.
If this is necessary in the United States, how much more is it required in Canada? The President proposes that 100,000 young people be put to work in a national job corps on conservation and other projects, while also receiving education and training. There will be an organization called "Volunteers for America" which will supply helpers to work among Indians and migratory workers. Could we use such an organization in this country? Of course we could. Is one proposed by this government? Of course it is not. The President proposes to provide money to support families while mothers and fathers are training or retraining for jobs. There will be a work study program to provide parttime jobs for high school and college students.
We have made a beginning on this sort of program, but according to reports I have seen in Toronto newspapers a large percentage of the people who start on this kind of program in Canada stop before they are finished, because they cannot afford to stay away from any kind of job which would give them an income to keep their families while they are taking this job retraining.
The program which the President of the United States has proposed goes far beyond the now accepted idea in the United States or Canada that the needy are entitled to welfare to maintain them at a decent standard, or at least at a standard sufficiently high so that they will not starve. The program proposed in the United States will break the chain of relief and welfare which we have had in the past. It will provide the poor with new skills, new hope and a new environment. With such a program we could hope for an end to the poverty and degradation of so many of our people, but there is no evidence of that kind of approach on the part of the government, certainly not in the budget.
The Budget-Mr. Orlikow
I should like to deal with what I consider to be the most important defect of the budget, its almost complete failure to meet the educational and research needs of this country at a time when it is becoming obvious to the most dense that no country can progess in this age without a tremendously expanded effort in this field. Harold Wilson, leader of the labour party, has estimated that 97 per cent of all the scientists who have ever lived in the world are alive and working today. Yet in the past three years in Canada we have paid so little attention to the needs and desires of our most qualified and best trained people that over 120 professors and instructors in fields such as physics, biology, geology and chemistry left for the United States. In the same three years we permitted over 1,000 engineers to go to the United States, and we permitted over 1,000 physicians to leave for the United States.
I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that we should do anything to force these people to stay here but I do suggest that we ask ourselves why they went because the people who left were the youngest, the best, the most aggressive people that this country has produced. In a letter which I had recently from Dr. Hans Selye, world famous medical researcher at the University of Montreal, he told me that half of the people who qualify for their Ph.D. at his institute leave for the United States almost as soon as they finish. Why? Not because of salaries alone, but because of the research facilities, equipment and grants for research. Even the proposed increases in the estimates for this year are pitiful when compared with what is required.
I suggest that we look at what the situation is as set forth very clearly not by wild, idealistic, impractical people, which some in this house consider the members of this group to be, but rather as set forth in concrete proposals by authorized and most highly respected spokesmen for the universities and the research institutes of this country. In a brief to the Minister of Finance in December of 1963 the Canadian universities foundation made the following points:
-we suggested that the government of Canada establish a fund of $300 million for matching capital grants to universities and colleges. We wish to confirm the need and state that the urgency has now been compounded. We therefore urge that the operation of the fund be made retroactive to include projects undertaken after June 30, 1963.
And further:
We urge that the payment of university grants in 1964-65 the rate per capita of the population of the provinces be raised to $2.60, not by way of introducing any new principle but simply to keep this program from falling behind-
We reiterate our proposal that the Canada Council be assured of additional expendable funds

The Budget-Mr. Orlikow
amounting to at least $2 million per annum in order that it may provide sharply increased support for its program in the humanities and social sciences, including research collections in college and university libraries.
I ask, is there any sign in the budget or in the estimates that these carefully thought out and minimal requests have even been considered by the minister? The United States has almost 4,500,000 people in universities and institutions of higher education. A country like the Philippines, with a population of 23 million, had over 350,000 college students in 1960. A poor country like Puerto Rico, with two million people, had over
30,000	university students in 1960. Canada, with a population of 19 million and one of the highest standards of living, lags so far behind these countries that it is pathetic.
The Canada Council presented a brief to the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) on March 3, 1964. It pointed out that it has to provide support for all of the arts, humanities and social sciences and to finance the management of the university capital grant fund. What did the Canada Council tell the government in its brief? I should like to quote a couple of short sections from the brief:
The council is not now meeting the need, and will be increasingly unable to do so, unless its income can be sharply increased. We are consistently and repeatedly informed by our judges that out of the present number of applicants in most of our categories of scholarships we could justifiably select twice as many for awards as we are now able to do. If we were to undertake to meet the existing demands, an additional income of well over $500,000 a year would be needed. This is quite apart from the expected growth of the next few years.
And they say further:
In the 1962-63 report of the national research council the following figures are given: for scholarships, fellowships and associateships tenable in the universities, $1,980,000; and for grants in aid of research, $8,600,000, a total in round figures of $10,580,000. Over against this figure, the Canada Council can place not more than $1,200,000. We repeat that in the council's view this discrepancy is far greater than is justified by the needs of the country.
The council believes that the most practical way in which the government can give needed help is by making reasonable appropriations over a period of years. We therefore request the government to add during the present year a sum of $10 million to the endowment fund. We also request the government to consider the addition annually of $10 million for a further period of two years. When the endowment fund has been enlarged by $30 million, say in 1966, the developments of the three year period could be assessed, and whatever additional resources then demonstrated to be necessary could be agreed upon.
Was any real consideration given to these suggestions of the Canada Council? If there was you cannot find it in the budget or the estimates. The Ontario council of university faculty associations in a brief recently to


Premier Robarts has pointed out that university enrolment in that province will almost triple by 1971, and that the teaching staff will have to be quadrupled by 1971. They point out that Ontario universities have done their least impressive work in the fields of research, scholarships and graduate studies. A recent study of the larger Canadian university libraries showed there is not even one library which can be called first class in all of Ontario. If these are the facts in wealthy Ontario, how much worse is the situation in the rest of Canada?
What about scientific research, Mr. Speaker? Here the picture is little better. On December 5, 1963, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) received a letter from some of the most eminent medical research experts in Canada. I want to quote a couple of paragraphs from their submission. They say:
It has been clearly evident during the last decade that the support which is available for medical and biological research in Canada in the universities falls far short of that necessary to maintain the highest standards of scientific accomplishment.
And further:
-many of the most gifted young investigators, unable to find the means to carry out their research in Canada, have to find their opportunities for work elsewhere, mainly in the United States. This loss is not only felt in the organization of existing research groups but also in the education of future scientists, who are deprived of the contact with many of the best creative minds of Canada. It can be foreseen that the continuous process of depletion of the nation's talented personnel will have an adverse effect on the quality of research training and of teaching provided in the coming years when an expansion of the size of universities will be necessitated by the increased influx of students.
Have these serious questions been met by the government? In a speech made in Toronto, and reported in the Toronto Star of February 2, 1964, Dr. Hans Selye said that unless the Canadian government steps in with financial support, teams of researchers may be broken up and lost to Canada. He said it is possible that he might have to release as many as 40 of his 120 workers at the internationally famous institute of experimental medicine and surgery at Montreal. Dr. Stanley Hartroft, of the Toronto hospital for sick children, in the same story said the proposed increases for medical research are grossly inadequate and represent no actual increase to take up the projects dropped by the United States agencies.
In the new and vitally important field of nuclear medicine, there is also a vacuum. Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota told the United States senate in 1960, that in the field of radiation research in life sciences, Canada was spending $1.25 million while the United States spent $63.5 million; only 71 persons were employed in this field in Canada,

while over 6,300 were employed in the United States; there were 82 projects being studied in Canada while over 2,000 were being studied in the United States.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if you compare the two countries, after adjusting for population you see that Canada is spending five times less money than the United States, is using nine times less the number of persons in this field and is working on two and a half times less projects. Can these scientists believe we really want them or need them in Canada? I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that more of them have not left Canada than actually have left.
The Canadian association of physicists has for almost ten years been urging on Canadian governments, both Liberal and Conservative, the need for a program in the field of high energy physics to keep Canada abreast of the current work in this field. They prepared a report in July, 1963, which showed the trend in this field in other countries. This is a field which is basic to the development of modem physics. They urged the absolute necessity for the construction of a high energy particle accelerator if Canada is to offer to Canadian physicists the opportunity to do modern, challenging research.
There has been no response at all, at least no favourable response from this government. In their report, they point out that France, Britain and the United States are spending in this field from 30 cents to 60 cents per person per year. Countries such as Belgium, West Germany, Italy, Norway and Sweden are spending from 10 cents to 30 cents per person per year. Austria, Denmark and Holland are spending from 3 cents to 10 cents per person per year. Poor countries like Greece and Spain are spending from 1 cent to 3 cents per person per year. Wealthy, happy, stodgy, careless Canada is spending only one half cent per person per year. Is it any wonder that Canadian physicists leave? The wonder is that they have not gone faster.
If you look at the budget with that microscope which the lead speaker for the official opposition referred to the other night, you will find virtually nothing for these people in this budget or in the estimates which have been tabled. I think I have demonstrated conclusively that the bright, eager and hopeful approach apparently adopted by the Liberal party when in opposition has already been replaced by the stodgy, do-nothing, don't rock the boat approach so typical of the Liberals when they were in office. We would urge the government to remember its pledges to the Canadian people, to forget this budget and to move quickly to meet the real needs of the Canadian people which they
The Budget-Mr. Regan have for so long been ignoring, and which would make this a better, finer country for all the people.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I should like to draw your attention to standing order 5 which reads as follows:
Every member is bound to attend the service of the house, unless leave of absence has been given him by the house.
Since I must visit my riding in order to perform official duties, I am asking the house, under standing order 5, to grant me leave of absence and allow me to leave at 4.15 this afternoon, because the last train or plane-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member that there is no reason for raising a point of order in this case.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I am raising a point of order under standing order 5.
As I heard some hon. members say "No"-


Some hon. Members:: Never.


Gilles Grégoire: -I wonder whether this requires the unanimous consent of the house or a majority vote. If it calls for a majority vote, I am prepared to ask for it because I would like the house to grant me leave, this afternoon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Permission from the house is not granted by making a point of order out of that question.


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax.


Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: I am sure,
Mr. Speaker, that I express the sentiments of many hon. members in this house at the moment when I say that they certainly have no objection to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) leaving, particularly in view of the fact that he used much of the time of the house this week and contributed nothing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I ask
the hon. member to address himself to the question now before the house?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I was greatly surprised to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) because they were a harsh indictment of the budget. He has stated that this budget contained nothing new and that it was a very disappointing budget from his point of view. I could not disagree with him more. After a series of huge deficits in this country since 1956, a budget which chops one third off the deficit and

The Budget-Mr. Regan moves us toward a balanced budget, I consider to be a very significant achievement. A budget which provides family allowance increases for those of 16 and 17, about which I will say more in a moment-


An hon. Member:: Will you be here next March?


Gerald Augustine Regan: We certainly will. A budget which is presented at a time when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) is able to report that unemployment throughout the country has decreased substantially, at a time when prosperity and economic activities throughout the country are increasing significantly, a budget which specifically recognizes the need for education in this nation and provides a system of bank loans to our university students, is certainly a notable achievement. Mr. Speaker, I suggest this is a very significant budget and one that is in line with the responsibility of this government, and its aim to restore fiscal responsibility in the country.


Douglas Mason Fisher: You and Senator McCutcheon.


Gerald Augustine Regan: He is richer. With reference to the extension of the family allowances to cover those of ages 16 and 17, I would point out that this is only one of the undertakings given in the Liberal election platform of last year, and that Liberal promises are being met one by one, to use Curzon's description, with the steady tramp of infantry across the field.
In so doing the pattern falls together, and I would point out that the paramount Liberal promise of them all was to restore fiscal responsibility to the nation, rather than continue with the handout, piecemeal policy of the previous government which inevitably led to record breaking deficits.
I listened carefully to the financial critic of the official opposition, and I hastily subscribe to his position as one of the deans of the opposition. I have referred to him without malice on many occasions as jovial George. Again he disclosed to us his fundamental weakness, which may very well be the source of his fundamental charm, and that is that in his criticisms he does not tell us the desirable policies omitted, nor the undesirable policies that were included.
Of course he chastised the Minister of Finance, as we would expect him to do. To do otherwise would be to make him derelict of his duty, and he has never been derelict of his duty. But listening to his remarks I came to the conclusion that the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) must consider this a darned good budget, otherwise as a former minister of finance he would have burned some midnight oil to try to tear it apart, which he obviously did not.


One wonders if he, like the majority of the people of Canada, feels once again Canada is on the road to stable government, something which was demonstrated by the accounting given to us last Monday night by the Minister of Finance.


An hon. Member:: How about agriculture?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I will come to that. Nova Scotians in general will be pleased with the words of the Minister of Finance in his budget address, that the government of Canada must remain strong and dynamic both in its effective jurisdiction and in finance.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I can hear them shouting now.


Gerald Augustine Regan: All I can hear shouting is the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). Those of us from the smaller provinces become very concerned at some of the talk emanating from the provincial governments of Canada's two most populous provinces, to the effect that our constitution should be amended to strip the federal government of much of its taxing power, and hand these additional fields of taxation to the provinces.
Statements of this type, which have frequently been made by fuzzy-thinking empire builders of the Rene Levesque ilk, totally ignore the historical facts of Canada, and the existence within this confederation of provinces such as Nova Scotia, which bear the yoke of geographic disadvantage and the burden of a tariff structure that favours only central Canada. Do these powerful provin-cialists actually believe that Nova Scotians, Newfoundlanders and others would or could remain in confederation if the central government were stripped of its financial ability to carry out national policies that provide some recompense for the disadvantages I have already mentioned?
One of the things which has bothered me about the confederation dialogue that has been going on for the last two years or so is that it has been exclusively a dialogue between Ontario and Quebec. There are other provinces in Canada, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am an elected representative of a province which was one of the original partners in confederation.


Gilles Grégoire: Which province?


Gerald Augustine Regan: La belle republique de Nova Scotia.


Douglas Mason Fisher: This sounds like the compact theory.


Gerald Augustine Regan: No, I reject the compact theory.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Very good.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I would hasten to point out that with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick being partners in the original confederation we must remember that it was not at the time of confederation that Ontario and Quebec, that French and English, first joined together. They were committed to union some 26 years before, in 1841; but the leading citizens of those two states or provinces came to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island during the 1860's, at a time when their own financial difficulties had become so urgent, at a time when they could not get along, and at a time, in the words of Sir Georges Etienne Cartier, when it was felt that the addition of new partners would relieve the strain.
We did not come seeking confederation. We were the reluctant brides.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You do not know the facts of life.


Gerald Augustine Regan: It was a case of Ontario and Quebec coming to the maritimes to seek us as partners in confederation. We were needed in confederation.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Well, I think I speak for most Nova Scotians when I say we support the legitimate aspirations of the people of Quebec to improve their economic position in Canada and to preserve their culture and their language.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald Augustine Regan: But we do become perturbed when some people from that province use this legitimate aim as a guise for obtaining unfair commercial advantage. I think you must remember that it is an integral part of confederation, if provinces at the geographical limits of the nation are to be a part of this nation and bear the tariff burdens that only help the central part of Canada, then if we are to suffer the disadvantages of our geographical position the federal government must be in a financial position to carry out equalization grants and other policies that keep us as an integral part of the country.
Before leaving this particular subject, Mr. Speaker, let me say that a perusal of the pre-confederation debates among the four original partners shows that there were guarantees given to the maritime provinces, for instance, on the question of winter navigation, and there is as much evidence that these guarantees were given to the maritime provinces as there is evidence that the French language had guarantees beyond the use of it in parliament and in the courts.
The Budget-Mr. Regan
I am quite happy to say that, though the expressed words in the British North America Act do not go beyond that, it was the intention that the guarantees to the French language would go far beyond those words, and the contemporaneous utterances of a public statesman of the time showed also guarantees on winter navigation to Halifax and Saint John that were just as great as the guarantees to the French language.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if I may move on I might say-


Stanley Howard Knowles: With unanimous consent.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Unlike the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) I have not asked permission to leave, so I must continue my speech.
I am glad to see that the Minister of Finance recognizes the regional nature of unemployment as it exists today, and I noted from his remarks when presenting the budget that he thought that by far the highest unemployment exists in the Atlantic provinces. It is in the Atlantic region that unemployment continues to be a very severe problem and, unlike the previous administration, I do not think anyone on this side of the house has suggested that unemployment is not yet a problem. It has become a major regional problem and this government is determined that, even if the position has been improved in the Atlantic region during the past year, the improvement must continue until the problem is licked.
I would remark in passing that the Atlantic development board has moved during the past few months to expend usefully some of the $100 million which it has been given by this administration, and I think specific projects undertaken by that board will certainly result in great advantage. But the problem in the maritimes remains, as always, one of transportation. Until we have a realistic railroad policy based on the principle that the outlying areas of Canada should not be at a disadvantage, we cannot have real prosperity in that area.
The subamendment which was moved on behalf of the New Democratic party deplored the failure of the government to reduce defence expenditures. This approach is characteristic of the unrealistic, ivory tower attitude taken by that group toward the problems of defence and disarmament. It is well known that the most energetic and able minister of defence this house has seen in many years has already undertaken an extensive program of pruning the dead wood from defence expenditures with a consequential substantial saving in expenditures. The government has had drastically to revise the allocation of our defence expenditures because of failure to
1306	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Regan up-date plans in the years when this country was under the prime ministership of "the great procrastinator".
Apparently the subamendment expresses regret that defence expenditures have not been cut to a still greater degree. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron), for whom I have the greatest respect, did not say one word in his remarks to indicate which specific defence expenditures should, in his opinion, be reduced, or precisely what aspect of the security of our nation should be neglected. I noticed also that his colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), speaking a few minutes ago did not even mention the subject of the subamendment. So he could not have been too much impressed by it. If an amendment of the type proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands were to be introduced then, surely, it was the duty of members of his group to specify precisely where the suggested reductions should occur. At this very time, the participation of our nation in the peace keeping force in Cyprus is resulting in considerable unforeseen defence expenditure. But the hon. member who moved the subamendment appeared to praise our participation in the Cyprus affair and we must, therefore conclude that it is not in this area that he would economize.
I suggest we all remember that there are still abroad in this world strong forces which are hostile to the aims and aspirations of freedom loving democracies. What is more, these forces are working and watching for every opportunity to find the free nations with their guard lowered. Every hon. member of this house favours disarmament-but not unilateral disarmament, and not disarmament without safeguards as long as a threat to our security exists. Our nation must not shirk its responsibility to contribute, in accordance with its size and wealth, to the defence of the free world. If savings are to be made, subject to the provisos I have mentioned, then surely the minister, with the help of his advisers, is the person best able to determine where economies can safely be effected. The hon. gentleman's policies in the past few months have surely shown that he wishes to carry out whatever economies are possible, consistent with our obligations. Sometimes such economies are painful, but they are necessary. So, if members of the New Democratic party wish to see economies effected, let them tell us exactly what they would remove from our armed forces. As for me, I am confident that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) will, in his white paper, outline a program for the future which will provide that our men in the armed services have in [Mr. Regan.1

their hands at all times the best weapons and equipment which can be procured-all the material which is necessary to meet the modern scientific weapons possessed by any potential aggressor.
If I may say a further word on the subject of defence expenditures, I should like to deal with the question of pay for members of the armed forces. Shortly after coming to office last spring, the present government announced a pay increase for members of the armed services. While this increase was adequate to meet the needs of those serving in higher ranks, it provided only a very slim increase for the ordinary soldier, sailor and airman. My own experience in industrial relations has shown that the proper spread between the wages of higher and lower classifications can only be retained by alternating percentage and straight across the board increases, and I would urge the Minister of National Defence that when the remuneration of members of the armed forces is again reviewed particular attention be paid to the needs of the lower ranks, so that a high morale can be retained in our defence forces.
This is of the essence if our voluntary system is to continue to prove a success. I submit that in the post-war years this system has worked out much better than the draft system enforced in the United States. As a matter of fact there is every indication that the Americans are dissatisfied with their system at the present time, and that they are looking with some envy at ours. And the Canadian system will only continue to work as long as service in the armed forces provides an attractive career for our young men.
I should like now to say a word with regard to education, a subject on which I have already touched once or twice in passing. As I have mentioned, the measures to extend family allowances and provide for guaranteed loans for students are obviously part of a move to encourage students to continue their education at a time when the level of education is of great importance. In passing, let me say I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North as to the undesirability of so many people trained in Canada leaving to take up employment in the United States. I think steps should be taken in an effort to change this situation, if possible. However, if the policy of making loans to students is as successful as I think it will be, then it will aggravate another pressing problem, namely the need of various universities in Canada for additional physical facilities to enable them to accommodate all the students who are likely to seek enrolment. This is a need which will arise in an acute form in the future, and I submit that a great deal will have to be done

in this field. I might say that the province of Nova Scotia has always received an extremely raw deal in the matter of university capital grants made through the Canada Council. This is because the grants are made on the basis of the population of the various provinces; it has not been recognized that students come to our universities in Nova Scotia from all over the Atlantic provinces, and indeed from much of Upper Canada. The origin of the student population of our provincial universities must be recognized and considered as a factor in future, when direct grants are made.
Speaking of subsidies, we in Nova Scotia are subsidizing the business and professional life of Upper Canada by educating so many of its citizens in various professions and skills. It is true that of those who are educated in Nova Scotia, relatively few remain in the province because of the economic disadvantages we have suffered under confederation. I mention this in passing because I hope that in future attention will be given to the needs of the universities in Nova Scotia in particular.
I should like to say a word, too, on the subject of vocational assistance. The predecessors of this government were active in the field of educational and vocational assistance many years ago. I think that at the present time the change in the character of the skills and education needed in our citizens is such that a great deal of attention should be paid to this question of vocational assistance. I realize that this is largely a provincial field. Nevertheless I think I should be permitted to point out that in many instances the vocational and technical institutions of this nation are preparing our young men and women with training in relatively unimportant skills; they have still, I feel, to produce the skills which are needed in today's world, as is being done through similar programs in other nations.
I would give an example in my area, Mr. Speaker, the Halifax area. There we have a very fine electronics industry at E.M.I.-Cossor Electronics Limited. This plant finds they are unable to obtain in the Halifax area or in Nova Scotia, persons trained in electronics skills and they have to go again and again to England to find employees when they need them, and bring them over to Canada. We are extremely pleased to have these fine, new citizens in our area; but at the same time we think it unfortunate that there is not an expanded vocational training course in the area to cover these types of skills.
Mr. Speaker, all in all I think the word that would best describe the budget presented by the hon. Minister of Finance this week
The Budget-Mr. Paul
is that it is a sane budget; a budget that recognized the problems which face Canada; a budget which came less than a year after this government came into office but yet enabled the minister to come forth with a program that will result in the deficit of the previous year being decreased by one third, and which presented important, new programs to the people of Canada and got Canada squarely back on the road to stability and prosperity.


Mr. Remi Paul (Berfhier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, when, following the election of April 8, 1963, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) was called upon to choose his cabinet, nobody was surprised to see the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) given that post because for almost two years his accession had been prepared. It was even said that he was the power behind the throne in economic matters w'ithin the Liberal party.
His first budget was awaited with anxiety and suspicion. Everyone recalls the evening of June 13, 1963, when the Minister of Finance, helped by a team of experts, went before the Canadian people to bring down his first budget. That evening, we were given a new economic theory which I shall call "Goraonism".
By putting this economic theory into practice, the Minister of Finance expected to balance his budget. As can be seen on page 999 of Hansard, this is what the minister said that evening.
But if this is to be justified and maintained it is important that we begin to put our national house in order: that we begin to move toward balancing our federal budget under conditions of high employment. We must take the first step in this direction now.
That is fine in theory, but the minister's statement is indicative of the qualified accountant who used his talents in the interests of his people but who, unfortunately, does not know much about practical administration.
Indeed, he was somewhat proud and arrogant when, on the night of June 13, he explained his theory to the house. However, what was excellent in theory was disastrous in actual practice, and the people of Canada were drugged into accepting new taxes.
However, the new drug proved to be a bit too strong for our country's economy.
Then, just as in the case of a seriously ill patient other experts' services were requested. Thus, we know that the Montreal stock exchange's president, Mr. Kierans, as well as other businessmen and brokers from Montreal met with the Minister of Finance. The minister was finally persuaded that the remedy he

The Budget-Mr. Paul
had advocated was too strong and that the dose had to be reduced. So we witnessed the reduction of the 11 per cent tax to 4 per cent; the second dose will be administered on the 1st of April next and the third, on January 1, 1965.
Even the minister was affected by that economic germ and for a while, we had fears for his political future. There were all kinds of rumours to the effect that he was falling out of the frying pan into the fire, that he should retire to other places, but the fact is that he remained in office.
This year, we saw the Minister of Finance come before the house without any experts to introduce exactly what? To introduce an empty and worthless budget. The minister is now affected by lazarism, which means he offered the Canadian people the crumbs of Lazarus referred to in the Gospel, and the remarks made by financial interests concerning the minister's budget are quite unanimous.
If I may, I should like to recall the opinion given by Mr. MacDonald, secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress, who said that the budget introduced last Monday was quite dull because it offered no new proposal to strengthen the Canadian economy. Mr. MacDonald also remarked, no doubt, the selfsatisfaction displayed by the minister when he introduced his budget because he firmly believed that his first budget was responsible for spurring on the economy of Canada, so much so that he believes himself responsible for the recovery of our economy which has taken place during the last few years, and which continued during 1963. But Mr. MacDonald did not agree with this opinion when he said:
The expansion we have known recently is due, for the most part, to fortuitous circumstances that have nothing to do with the measures taken by the government.
In an editorial published in La Presse of Montreal March 17, Mr. Vincent Prince reported that the budget was not a thriller.
In an editorial published in Sherbrooke La Tribune on March 18, reporter Pierre-Paul Blais wrote:
If a federal budget can help the Canadian economy and accelerate its growth rate, surely this will not be done by Mr. Gordon's new budget. He rather gives the impression that he intends to let the economy coast along on its own momentum in the hope that this will be enough to maintain prosperity at a satisfactory level and provide surplus income large enough to reduce the deficit by some $250 million.
I shall now continue my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by considering the budget from the Quebec point of view.
I listened with great attention to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) who tried to adjust the budget to the real needs of the

province of Nova Scotia. As I am a Quebec member, I think I should look at the budget from the Quebec angle.
First of all, I was disappointed to find that the budget does not say a thing about the claims of the premier of Quebec, the Hon. Jean Lesage, because they were not exclusively Quebec claims, but they expressed the needs of all provinces. Indeed, during the federal-provincial conference in 1963, the premier of Quebec made the following statement.
But this was not the main point of our requests. We also-and more particularly-wanted the federal government to evacuate to a greater degree the fields of individual income tax and corpora-ration profit tax and to surrender the estates tax. As a matter of fact, we suggested that the field be abandoned by the central government to the extent of 25 per cent in the case of the individual and corporation income taxes. We also asked the government to yield the whole field of estate taxation.
We may recall, the great service rendered by the Quebec premier and the spectacular action he took in the middle of the 1963 election, when he asked the people to support the Liberal party. Would the premier of Quebec make the same statement today, March 20, 1964, in favour of the Liberal team now at the helm in this country.
The federal budget does not say a single thing regarding the concessions which the government proposes to make to the provinces. We might well wonder about the reasons for which the hon. Minister of Finance submitted the budget at such an early date.
Does the government propose to go to the people in June, or did it resort to this trick in view of the conference of March 31, 1964, so as to be able to put forward some reasons and excuses for not following up the claims voiced during the last federal-provincial conference?
The provinces would then be placed before a fait accompli and at that time the Minister of Finance would be justified to say: "I understand the situation. We are willing to give it consideration, but unfortunately we have just tabled the budget". The provinces would still be deprived of their taxation rights which they need nevertheless to ensure a constant economic development.
There is no reason to be surprised because the federal government by itself does not create economic prosperity in the country; indeed, it is the prosperity of each Canadian province which gives economic prosperity to Canada.
The budget of the Minister of Finance does not say a word about the situation of the textile industry in the province of Quebec. Why? The province of Quebec has now the greatest number of unemployed, with the exception of the maritime provinces; 9.2 per

cent of our workers are now jobless, and what does the Minister of Finance do to help our textile industry which is peculiar to the province of Quebec? The minister of finance in the former government, Mr. Fleming, always had in every one of his budgets a provision concerning customs tariffs, in order to check the entry in this country of foreign textile products and help to safeguard to a higher degree this production which is peculiar to eastern Canada and especially to the province of Quebec.
Why did the Minister of Finance not make any provision in that respect? There are now 40 towns in the province of Quebec who need the textile industry for their living: Drummondville, Sherbrooke, St. Hyacinthe, Louiseville, Marieville, Montmorency and a number of others.


An hon. Member:: The riding of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Rémi Paul: I hope I will have time later on to refer to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). Why did the Minister of Finance not say a word about this matter? He could not do otherwise, because the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), whom I consider as a very efficient man, somewhat committed his government last August, by a statement he made on August 30, 1963, in order to facilitate the sale of wheat to red China. Please note that I am in favour of our wheat sales to red China, so much so that it was the Conservative party, through the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), which made every effort to promote the sale of our farm products to foreign countries.
This proves that the Conservative policy was excellent, from the point of view of international trade, but this trade was never carried on to the disadvantage of a particular class of people in Canada.
Why did the Minister of Trade and Commerce announce that imports of textiles from red China, which amounted to $3 or $4 million a year, would be increased to $7 million? Entries of textiles representing three million. To whose disadvantage? To the disadvantage of the wage earner who works in textile factories. Therefore, we should not be surprised if the Minister of Finance remained completely silent on that point.
I will point out to you that I do not speak about the remarkable silence of the budget as to the agricultural policy of the government, because we have at present a bicephalous department. There is no doubt about it. the minister for western Canada must be unaware of what the minister for eastern
20220-83i
The Budget-Mr. Paul Canada is doing and the dealings of the minister for western Canada must be unnoticed by the minister for eastern Canada.
There is only one thing left for us to do and that is to tell farmers of the province of Quebec: "Run away as fast as you can". When I say "run away", I am obviously not referring to the forestry minister, the hon. member for !les-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve).
No, there is a stubborn silence in regard to the agricultural policy of the country. And yet, heaven knows how farmers recall the wise policies implemented by the Conservative government to assist the dairy industry. It was decided to pay a subsidy on each pound of butter fat instead of paying 25 cents per hundred pounds of milk. The pattern of the subsidy was changed because it was alleged that farmers added too much water to the milk. Well, that is not the real reason. The real reason is that the Liberal government always promoted a farm policy favouring exclusively western Canada to the detriment of eastern agriculture.
As a matter of fact, only a few days prior to the overthrow of the Conservative government in February 1963, the former agriculture minister, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), presented a bill to promote further the farm economy of eastern Canada. Unfortunately, all that was thrown overboard when this government assumed power.
And what about joint programs? It is interesting to note the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) in this connection. This is what he said last March 16 on joint programs:
We have no desire, however, to go on indefinitely levying taxes simply to pay for programs that are well established and well within provincial jurisdiction.
And now, what about the attitude of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) who, a few days after he took office, decided that the government was not going to build the railroad between St. Anne des Monts and Gaspe? And I am also wondering what the hon. member from Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) is doing about making the necessary representations to the government in order to stimulate the economy in his area, which finds itself in a slump. Absolutely nothing. But the Minister of Transport said the government was going to contribute in a different way, that it was going to take part in joint programs, to develop country roads in that area.
The development of the rural economy, there you have the new policy of the Minister of Finance. But he does not give a hoot for the economy of the country as a whole. As a matter of fact, he relies on the tax

The Budget-Mr. Paul
cuts decreed by the United States government to activate the financial mechanism in such a way that the effects will be felt even in Canada and that, indirectly, the Canadian economy will benefit from that sound policy of the American administration.
But no tax reductions for this country. And yet, my Liberal friends, you had promised them. Here:
Tax reduction, a seven week tax holiday. Taxes cut by $400 million.
I ask the Minister of Finance to have a look at this, if he can see from that far away:
$400 million reduction.
He cannot have been that far away when the Liberal party prepared its economic and political propaganda in 1958.
A seven week tax holiday.
Taxes cut by 25 per cent for seven additional weeks.
No taxes to pay for three years in the case of newlyweds.
No, there is no tax imposed on newlyweds, but they are prevented from building new houses as a result of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials.
If you, Liberals, had promised us then that the government would be seven weeks without a minister of agriculture, you would have kept your promise.
Mr. Speaker, there is a matter which I cannot ignore, that of the crumbs or remnants which have fallen from the table of the Minister of Finance.
The $10 increase in family allowances-


An hon. Member:: That is fine.


Rémi Paul: Yes, that is fine, but finally you have understood that our party was in a position to submit effective solutions to the problems of our young students. But why did you vote against the motion of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) who, in February last, proposed a $10 monthly increase in family allowances? And yet, you made such a promise during the election campaign. But you would rather wait for the budget of the Minister of Finance to increase those allowances.
Other measures have also been taken to help university students. I congratulate the Minister of Finance. Thanks for those crumbs, but please give us more, give us a whole loaf.
Mr. Speaker, I was shocked by the government's attitude yesterday. In fact, when I asked the Prime Minister if he or his government had considered the constitutional aspect of grants to students, the Prime Minister replied overbearingly: We never do anything which would infringe upon the rights of the provinces.

And yet, who introduced legislation designed to help municipalities at the expense of provincial autonomy?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Did he consult the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska?


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member for Halifax is no longer here, because I would have called his attention to section 93 of the British North America Act which reads as follows:
In and for each province, the legislaure may exclusively make laws in relation to education.
Under this section, therefore, the provinces are given exclusive jurisdiction with regard to education. In addition, the jurisprudence of the supreme court and of the privy council has been consistently along the same lines as to the meaning of the word education.
The scope of section 93 was definite for the province of Quebec during the conferences held prior to the passage of the confederation act. The incorporation of section 93 into the confederation act was demanded and granted, because it was essential to the safeguard of the French language, culture and personality. It was also essential to the survival of French Canadians, because in 1867 Quebec was the only French speaking province among the four provinces of confederation. Today, Quebec is still the only French speaking province. It is therefore more than ever necessary that it should keep complete control in the field of education. It is through its education system that the French personality blossomed out, or at least survived, in Canada, and French Canadians wish to preserve their personality and to develop it in the interests of the whole country. French Canadians hope, wish and want to make their culture available to the Canadian people, and not to the separatists of the province of Quebec.
The government might reply that by passing legislation to grant scholarships to students, it is not interfering with education. One cannot do directly what one is forbidden to do indirectly.
A good Liberal told me lately that it was a moral obligation for the federal government to help the young people to further their studies, to help them, by all possible means, to get an education, so that they would have a first class position tomorrow in our society.
In constitutional law, where do we find that moral obligation? The federal government's moral obligation, I think, is to transfer more to the provinces, to grant them better taxation rights so that they can meet today's needs in the field of education. That is one way the government would be able to assist the provinces, and not by granting scholarships because they have been censured by everybody.

Some might say: If the government grants unconditional loans what have you got to fear?
We have to consider the future and create no precedent which would open the door to abuses. We have no right to mortgage the future of our young people. As long as our country is governed by one of the big parties, there will be no danger that French Canadians lose their identity, their past and their culture. But should one day socialists, such as we have in the left corner of this house, or right-wing extremists, such as we have in the left corner of this house, come to power, then there would be cause for concern.
Then the future and French culture would be in danger in Canada because the jurisdiction is well established: let Quebec look after education, let the provinces look after education. Besides, that is the present policy of the Quebec government-


Mr. Caoueiie:: Separatism.


Rémi Paul: I hear the hon. member for Villeneuve mention separatism. But when you talk of separatism, do so in the English provinces as well as in the province of Quebec, and not only in Quebec, trying to pit the provinces one against the other. When one has principles, one puts them into practice, in English Canada just as well as in French Canada, and vice versa. Not only one way in one province and another way in another province.
You ate pork and beans in St. Angele de Prevost last Saturday night, come and talk about it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member to talk to the Chair?


Rémi Paul: I would rather give you food for thought. I leave culinary matters to the hon. member for Villeneuve.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin), parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, seems to agree with the premier of Quebec, for he said last night: I will discuss this matter of loans to students at the next federal-provincial conference because it is another case of federal interference in the field of education.
We remember how strenuously the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska objected to the present policy of the Liberal government. We remember also how various university associations of the province of Quebec protested against this intrusion contemplated by the federal government.
What is co-operative federalism leading to? It will lead to centralization, if we do not check its advance. I wonder what will be the
The Budget-Mr. Marcoux attitude of my Quebec colleagues when this question is discussed. They had taken a definite position with regard to nuclear arms; everyone kept remarkably silent when this question came before us.
Let us hope that there will be fortunate exceptions. For instance, one hon. member had the courage to blame his party leader during an election campaign.
Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to deal with other matters; unfortunately, I have only two minutes left. We shall be called at a quarter to five to vote on a motion introduced by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron).
I would have liked to say something about the C.B.C. But my time is too short. It would have been interesting to know why the president of the C.B.C. received a $20,000 pay boost. No answer was given to a question to that effect put on the order paper by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard).
Mr. Speaker, I do not think it will be possible for the Conservative party to support the subamendment moved by the New Democratic party.
As the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) said a moment ago, we cannot adopt this proposal for it does not clarify in any way the areas where the federal government will have to reduce the expenses of the Department of National Defence. Personally, I do not believe that the reduction in these expenses represents the necessary reason or incentive that would give an impetus to this country's economy. That is the reason why the Conservative party will vote against this subamendment.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) introduced this year a limp and unspirited budget. I hope he will take into consideration the needs of the provinces and that on March 31 next, he shall, with his usual smile, firmly resolve to think about them and to find economic incentives without relying only upon the American economic development.
We may be right in hoping that the Canadian economy will keep on improving, not on account of the legislative measures taken after the introduction of the budget by the Minister of Finance but chiefly because the Conservative party had provided for certain economic measures that would permit to stimulate and to develop this country's economy.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanau-diere (Mr. Paul) has not used his great oratorical talent to convince the Minister of

The Budget-Mr. Marcoux Finance last year of introducing a budget where we could-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You were not there because a budget was tabled in April 1962.


Guy Marcoux: The people had been requesting a budget lor a long time but no one could present one. Mr. Speaker, I submit that the situation is hardly better this year than last year when no budget was presented since the present budget contains very few new provisions and hardly anything which will satisfy the Canadian people.
The only people who will get certain benefits are the students and those advantages are far from being as great as some would have us believe.
For instance, everybody knows that parents are entitled to a $350 tax deduction for children who get family allowances. If you add to that the $10 a month family allowance, you get an additional amount of $120 for a grand total of $470 for deduction purposes. On the other hand, in the case of children who are not entitled to family allowances, parents are allowed to deduct $550 a year from their income tax.
Obviously, in this case, the amount of $120 for each child will be an additional amount which he can use. But, if we use the accountants' language, with assets and liabilities, we soon realize that, at the end of the year, instead of deducting $550 for each dependant child going to school, the family head will be able to deduct a maximum of $470. Everything taken into account, I would not say that this aspect of the budget is so beneficial to the father of a family who maintains children at school, in spite of the fact that the bill seems very interesting for students of 16 and 17 years of age, if this part of the budget is applied.
With reference to part-time students, 1 imagine that several may be helped in this way, being able to deduct their total school expenditures from their income.
But, in addition, I feel there is nothing in the budget indicating that the Canadian people will get any relief from taxation.
And now, in spite of heavy pressure on the part of manufacturers in general and associations of contractors, requesting the government to abolish the tax on building materials, or at least not to increase it beyond 4 per cent, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) refused to listen to any of them, although they are, after all, experts in their field, since the construction industry is their means of livelihood and since they are in a position to relieve unemployment.
In that field, the Minister of Finance has not seen fit to follow their advice. He has


rather followed the advice of his party, and maybe that of his own officials, so that the tax will gradually reach 11 per cent. That measure will surely have a harmful effect on the building rate in Canada and also on the number of unemployed, because when building is at a low level, unemployment is at a high level.
We would also have liked the government to define its policy with regard to receipts for charitable donations. For several years now, it has been said that this matter is creating enormous problems for the Minister of National Revenue and that a clear policy should be defined in that connection.
In my opinion, it is unfortunate that the Minister of Finance has not seen fit to define the government position concerning receipts for charitable donations. The hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard) has already provided a solution which would be fair, in my opinion, to most Canadians, to those of the province of Quebec as well as those of any other province. The minister has not paid any attention to it. I hope that, in the near future, that matter will be settled once and for all, because it embarrasses the clergy as well as those who want such receipts. It embarrasses also the hon. members who try to stand up for them before the officials of the Department of National Revenue who seem to understand nothing at all and believe that everybody is dishonest, except themselves.
I believe it is time for the government to determine a specific policy about this and for the policy of the Department of National Revenue to be, once and for all, well understood.
We would have liked also that a municipal development bank be established in order to allow municipalities to create new jobs, not small jobs such as those offered by the winter works program, or other small jobs that you can get under the Centennial of Canadian Confederation Act. We would have liked that such a bank be established in order to allow municipalities to develop and solve the regional and local unemployment problem, since the Minister of Finance says that the solution to unemployment is rather a regional problem.
I think such a bank would be the only way to assist our municipalities to get out of our present unemployment situations.
Since the Minister of Finance is prepared to permit the establishment of the Western Bank-he also seems prepared to authorize the establishment of the British-Columbia Bank-I think he should also be prepared to allow the establishment of a municipal development bank which would, at long last,



19B4

[Stage Direction]
enable public bodies to use capital made available to them by the Canadian government.
Reference was also made to deficits. They are discussed all the time, and so is the public debt, the national debt. I do not want to labour the point, but I would remind the minister once more that in 1962-63, according to Canada Public Accounts, volume I, the nation paid in interests only on the public debt the amount of $881,598,898, while the defiicit came to $691,632,927. The deficit was smaller than the amount we paid in debt interests only.
If the solution we offer is not to be accepted another should be worked out because it is absolutely impossible to go on this way.
Once again, I do not wish to discuss the net national debt or the gross national debt, because investments and capitalized assets must be taken into account.
But considering only the amount required to pay interest on the debt and on the deficit, we find that there is a lag, indicating the folly of the system and that we cannot indefinitely keep on with this tempo; despite the fact that we wish to protect private enterprise, it is impossible to carry on this policy as we are doing now.
I am asking all those who deem themselves competent and able to resolve this problem- I can see many accountants and many economists on the other side of the house-to try to find a way that would enable us to get out of an economic position that has become really disadvantageous and which, instead of allowing us to become masters in our own house, in spite of all the fine speeches we constantly hear in this regard, is leading us more and more towards "americanization" instead of directing us towards total independence with respect to the United States.
In this regard, I should like to say a few words concerning the report of the O'Leary commission. The Conservatives will probably try to accuse the Liberals of not having carried out the recommendations of that commission. I will call to their attention that, as early as last year, a similar bill was to be presented.
By the way, I should like to quote a few newspapers, a few editorials which indicate that, for reasons unknown to us-I should say for reasons which we suspect too well, alas-the government did not deem it advisable to take into consideration the recommendations of the O'Leary commission. I should like to quote an editorial published last month in the Toronto daily Star where it is said that, at this time, it is not too late. So I speak now, for before long it will be too late. The article says:
The Budget-Mr. Marcoux
[Stage Direction]
Fortunately the die has not yet been cast; the legislation has not yet been brought down. There is still time for the government to revise its bill to incorporate the full recommendations of the O'Leary commission, with no exceptions for Time, Reader's Digest or anyone else. This is a chance for Mr. Pearson and his colleagues to show that they have the strength to resist American pressure.
[Stage Direction]
I should like to quote another editorial of the same newspaper, dated February 24: [Text]
Far from correcting the situation, the proposed legislation would give Time and Reader's Digest the status of Canadian publications. It would even protect them against competition from any other foreign magazine which might in future try to imitate their methods.
[Stage Direction]
This is very serious, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that this government will begin to take those recommendations into account.
May I quote another article from the Toronto daily Star dated March 17:
[Stage Direction]
The Canadian people have a right to insist that Time and Reader's Digest exemptions be wiped out before the legislation is passed.
[Stage Direction]
I have here an article from the Globe and Mail which does not deal with the O'Leary commission, but quotes an actress from Sweden, Miss Greta Thyssen, as saying on her arrival in a Toronto hotel, after looking at the newspaper stand:
[Stage Direction]
"You don't have any magazines of your own here?" she asked. "Such a rich country-why is everything American?"
[Stage Direction]
Such is the impression of foreigners when they arrive in our country and look at newspaper stands.
May I quote another article from the Montreal Star dated March 19:
[Stage Direction]
It it was china or tinware, if it was boots and shoes, if it was shirtwaists or any other form of textiles, the government would have moved in, horse, foot and artillery, to stop the imports. But these two magazines import into this country their whole editorial content, collected at a cost greatly exceeding the budget available to any Canadian magazine, and use it as the bait to attract advertising which might otherwise be available to a genuine Canadian magazine.
[Stage Direction]
And later on the article goes on:
[Stage Direction]
What is of particular interest to Montreal is that these perversions are both "produced" here.
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Marcoux
Time operates an editorial office in the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George, represented in parliament by the Liberal, Mr. John Turner. It is printed in the town of Mount Royal, represented in parliament by Mr. Alan Macnaughton, also a Liberal. Reader's Digest is "produced" in a leased building in the riding of St. Antoine-Westmount, which is represented by the Liberal Minister of Industry, Mr. C. M. Drury.
[Stage Direction]
Here, I do not wish to accuse the Liberal party, because last year, under a Conservative administration, the introduction of a similar bill was contemplated.
I think that this year, we should go hand in hand as we did on the Maritime Union Trustees Act, because we are concerned with the protection of a Canadian industry. All parties should join together to recognize that Time and Reader's Digest are a nuisance for Canadian publications.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) who likes to specify that members he refers to are not in their seat-I shall tell him that he is not in his seat-discussed a while ago the matter of a Gaspe peninsula railway between St. Anne des Monts and Gaspe. I should like to point out on that matter that the railway was to go from Matane to St. Anne des Monts.
I have long been interested in that matter of a railway for the Gaspe peninsula because I am a lover of that region. I have been going there every year for a number of years and last year I was disgusted when I witnessed the type of election patronage carried on by the Conservatives. At the time I asked the then minister of transport, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), a question. That question, which was put on the order paper on December 3, 1962 under number 1,007, was as follows:
What progress has been made in the construction of the railway line between Matane and St. Anne des Monts, and has section 6 of the enabling act been complied with?
Let us recall that section 6 provided that the minister of transport must bring a report before parliament within the first 30 days of the session before the date of completion set or forecast in section 1. At that time, no report had been made and here is what Mr. McBain, then parliamentary secretary to the minister of transport, replied:
(e) The Canadian National Railways are making a detailed survey but the report on that survey has not been received yet.
That was on December 3, 1962, and the bill had received royal assent on March 23, 1962.
A report for the year 1962 will be submitted to parliament early in the new year.
[Mr. Marcoux.1
[Stage Direction]
Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that an order in council was passed on April 5, 1962, under P.C. No. 1962-481 and that another one was passed on May 2, 1962, under P.C. No. 1962656.
The latter provided the C.N.R. with an amount of $100,000 to start on the project and to be used during the period between April 16 and June 30, 1962.
We have a report from Mr. Gordon, the president of the C.N.R., dated June 18, 1962, no, that is the elections took place on June 18, and it is very important to insist on that, for before the elections, orders in council were passed, and they tried to buy a good number of votes by suggesting that the people living in the Gaspe peninsula would get a railway.
In May 1962, or June 1962, it is somewhat difficult to tell, the Canadian National Railways handed back to the crown an amount of $30,000, alleging that an amount of $70,000 sufficed to pay the cost of engineering works necessary for the preparation of estimates.
Mr. Speaker, the former prime minister stated at the time, as reported in the Quebec newspaper Le Soleil, and I quote:
You shall have your railway, said the Prime Minister before the crowd attending the meeting last night.
The railway was never built because it was not profitable, but especially because the Conservative party never intended to build it, despite the passing of an act. Strangely enough, previously, very few people, if any member of the Conservative party, even the former prime minister, knew that the line connecting Mont Joli and Matane was the property of the Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway Company and did not belong to the Canadian National Railways. The railway was the property of the abovementioned company, and this company demanded, for the use of its tracks, the sum of $110,000 per annum. However, all those details were learned afterwards, which makes it possible to tell the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere that his party never intended to help this area much more than the Liberal party.
I do not wish to elaborate, since I know the hon. member for Levis has requested that some 20 minutes be left for him.
And speaking of Gaspe, it reminds me of the Trans-Gaspe Television Company which, for the past five years or so, has been trying to obtain a private station to serve the Gaspe area, which, in some districts, has no television service yet. Some people objected to that television station, and an indescribable pressure was brought to bear. I do not want

to describe what happened at this time, but perhaps the day will come when I can deal with it more fully.
After having heard the television company's request, the board of broadcast governors gave a negative answer pretexting some technical matter. Yet, when the directors of the company succeeded in settling the technical problem, they approached the B.B.G. once more and their request met with a refusal. Whereas, at the start, the request had been refused on technical grounds, it now was rejected for some financial reason.
Now, the financial problem having also been settled to everybody's satisfaction, the operators again approached the board of broadcast governors and, once again, the governors refused them a permit, while allowing two other television stations to extend their services, suggesting that, at some places, they establish satellite stations, which would not pay their way and are giving no results whatsoever, because those private companies had to limit their service to the areas allotted to them.
It was also pointed out that the C.B.C. should have priority over private stations when extending its network.
Well, let the C.B.C. come to an understanding with the operators of that station in order to be in a position to provide a service to those people who now are not getting any.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere and many others seem to think of the Gaspe peninsula as a neglected area. That is true. But when we say that it is neglected, even as far as television is concerned, I maintain that the government has got to do something. If the members of the board of broadcast governors refuse to co-operate and to change their decisions, well, let the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) be compelled to grant a licence, in spite of the decision of the board of broadcast governors.
There are some who might claim that the project is not economically sound. I have looked into that side of the question. True, I am no expert, but I did study the matter, and even the operators of the company that wanted to build the station are ready to finance the project. That goes to show that the area is recognized as economically sound and that the company would be able to serve its people. The operators have the means to do it. There is absolutely no reason why they should be prevented from building a television station to provide a service that the people in the Gaspe peninsula have a right to expect, for they are human beings just like any other citizens from any other area in this country.
The Budget-Mr. Guay
Mr. Speaker, I want to be brief in order to comply with the wishes of the hon. member for Levis. However, there are a few comments I wanted to make about the Beauport shore line. We have there a problem which the Minister of Transport, in co-operation with the national harbours board, should make up his mind to settle once and for all, because it has been under consideration for eight years. Besides, some individuals paid as much as $18,000 for land surveying, but unfortunately, the problem was submitted to the only legal adviser of the national harbours board and that adviser did not have time yet to make a decision. In my opinion, this situation is rather discouraging for the owners of properties on the shore of the Quebec harbour and along the St. Lawrence river.
Mr. Speaker, I will restrict myself to these remarks for the time being, but I shall have the opportunity to deal with this matter later on.
Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank especially the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) who was kind enough to give me a few minutes of his time to enable me to deliver my first speech in the house.
I should like to deal briefly today with some objectives of the budget introduced recently, and also with some results which can be expected.
Mr. Speaker, on taking part in this debate after several members on this side of the house, I wish to pay tribute to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) and reiterate our entire confidence in him.
In this budget, there is one thing which especially holds my attention; it is that the government has devoted an important part of the budget to students. Indeed, I am especially interested in the problems of students, because it was somewhat my own case about two years ago.
I am very grateful to the government for having increased the tax exemption from $300 to $470, for having allowed the deduction of the part-time students' school fees and especially for the $10 family allowance to students 16 and 17 years of age. In addition, I would be very pleased to see the establishment of an interest free loan system guaranteed by the government without any tax increase.
I am also proud to note that the government did not forget private businesses by extending our tax exemptions till 1967. As the Minister of Finance pointed out, the economy of the country has improved and I will add that it is especially in good hands. Unemployment has not been as low for years. The

The Budget-Mr. Guay prospects for 1964 seem, therefore, bright and all Canadians have regained confidence in the future.
Of course, hon. members opposite criticized the budget, as they have the right to do, but if they had analysed as closely their own budgets from 1957 to 1963, if they had really taken the trouble, on the occasion of every one of those budgets, to pass if only one really important piece of legislation to promote the economy and check unemployment, the situation on April 8, 1963, would not have been what it was. Fortunately, our government took the situation in hand. The measures taken in the first budget introduced by the Minister of Finance proved to be the best and that he was right.
That is why he still enjoys my confidence and I endorse his views. Like all previous speakers, I should like to state my personal opinion concerning the current problems of bilingualism and biculturalism.
Governments must act, first of all in order to repatriate our constitution and then to amend it, so that it might be better adapted to our rights and aspirations in this 20th century, and this goes for English Canadians, French Canadians and Canadians of other ethnic origin. I should like very much that French Canadians with equal qualifications might have the right to hope for high positions, executive posts in all departments. That way, in all departments, the French Canadian voice would be better heard, better understood and better respected. In fact, how many departments and crown corporation do not have enough French speaking officials? Therefore, it is my contention that this problem will be settled to everyone's satisfaction at government level. In that respect, it is satisfying to note a significant improvement in the situation through government's efforts and officials' co-operation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Except three English speaking deputy ministers in key departments.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: I hope the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm will let me finish my speech. However, I will not follow his example; should he ask me a question, I will answer it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Will the hon. member allow a question?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Yes, when I have finished my speech.
The present government has done a lot but we will have to do even more otherwise we run the risk of failing, of never finding a solution to the problem. Everybody is ready, English Canadians, French Canadians, in

short, Canadians. Let us do something for it is high time we did. We want a true solution, otherwise separatism, which I would call extreme nationalism, and which is rearing its head in the province of Quebec as well as in the other provinces, will gain impetus and disaster might become unavoidable.
It is often said that separatism is unthinkable but the longer we shall wait to settle the problem, the more we will be reminded of it. We cannot indulge in the luxury of ignoring separatism, but we cannot cure the evil by a mere poultice, because we will have to start all over again in 15 or 20 years from now. We must find a proper solution and there is only one. I trust that the present government has in co-operative federalism a formula better than any other formula ever introduced before. Dialogue has started and must be carried on. Thus, our Prime Minister and the premiers of the ten provinces will find this solution and the appropriate medicine will be administered by a specialist who was able to diagnose the disease and to understand the aspirations of both ethnic groups, having in mind this old saying that the most bitter medicine is often the best. We must not be soft spoken, but firm and wise.
Of course, there is no question of accepting only compromises; we must be firm, but we must remember that the other party has problems also. The province of Quebec does not seek only to obtain concessions; it will actively co-operate in the solution of all the problems, not only of its own.
In my opinion, the Prime Minister has found the right formula, that of a dialogue carried on at federal-provincial conferences and which, in a single year, has given more than all the fine speeches made and all the sanctimonious principles voiced by all the parties. Let us put an end to empty speeches. We must now take concrete action. As I say, we must act because the situation is urgent. We have discovered the first symptoms, so let us not wait until the cancer has become generalized. Thus, we will have worked towards a common goal and, in 1967, we will all be happy citizens of a strong and united country which will have a new and dynamic constitution; we will celebrate the centennial of confederation and the first day of our rejuvenation in the best interest of all and of national unity. Because, in unity alone, we will be able to make of our Canada one of the chief powers in the world before the end of the centutry. Quebec's independence will never be profitable in any respect to herself or to the rest of Canada. We French Canadians have rights and we intend to have them respected, but, on the other hand, we know that others have equal rights and we intend to respect them.

It does not mean melting the two races, the two cultures, but rather uniting them in order that they may understand and respect each other better, and to define my thought more clearly, may I quote Mr. Marcel Faribault who said recently:
Culture may also describe the social characters of a people, of which it is a jealously guarded secret treasure: a treasure, because it belongs to that people alone; a secret, because it always includes slight faults and, at last, a jealously guarded object, because it could not be fully experienced or embraced other than by marriage or by being adopted in the family.
As far as Quebec was concerned, the problem appeared simple enough, and since it is an indubitable fact that there are in Canada two great cultural and linguistic currents, should there not be a degree of reciprocity between them, based on mutual respect, social exchanges and means of communication? Relations should, therefore, constitutionally, socially, politically and economically, stem from the establishment of definite institutions. However, the two extremist factions contest these premises: at one end are those who contend that all this is refinement which will fade away in the face of national unity; at the other, those who say that not only two but several cultures are in conflict. The first objection, from the point of view of unity, is obviously the result of confusing political unity with cultural unity: it ignores the fact that our federal form of government, contrary to its American counterpart, is not primarily based on sectional considerations, but on the two cultures which at that time divided nearly equally the majority of the population. Five and a half million Canadians, or 30 per cent of the population, are a constant reminder, a constant assertion, of this duality, since they relentlessly protested for the past 94 years against all customary amendments to the provisions of the pact of 1867 and, today, they are practically unanimously requesting a revision of the constitution. The dissidents, they are few and far apart, have simply given up hope of obtaining the revision and that is why they favour independence, just like all Irredentists.
Mr. Speaker, as a member from a constituency whose main industry is the shipbuilding, I am naturally most interested in that industry.
There is great concern in the shipbuilding industry at the present time, especially since the program for the building of frigates has been cancelled and Great Britain has been awarded a contract, following previous commitments of the former government, to build three submarines.
In my opinion, it is urgent to solve this problem by establishing a merchant marine.
20220-84J
The Budget-Mr. Guay This would create employment not only in shipyards but also for seafarers. Otherwise we might see the closing of our shipyards and an alarming increase of unemployment in all areas where they are located. The shipbuilding industry instead of becoming one of the chief industries of our country would be done away with and this would be disastrous for all of us.
In my constituency and also in nearby ridings it is customary to say that when shipyards are doing well, everything is fine. For us, when the shipyards are running smoothly the whole economy of the area benefits, and vice versa.
I have already made several representations to certain ministers in order to obtain employment for the workers of my constituency; they thought I was stubborn, but I wish to let them know that I will persist and that next time, I will even be more stubborn. I shall renew my efforts, because I am only demanding our fair share of work with no intention of depriving the others of anything.
The people of my riding are hard working, proud and quite determined. And who could blame them? That is why I wish to make it clear that we too are strongly against the vile political haggling of government favours that goes on too often, unfortunately. We are not asking for more in order to get less. As responsible citizens well aware of the huge needs of the whole country, we are only asking for what we are entitled to.
Levis is an important area of Canada, and our great province is an integral part of Canada. Quebec has largely contributed in the past to the development of the country and I have the firm conviction that its contribution will be much greater in the future.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), who is well aware of the situation, is kindly asked to give it a special consideration and to take the necessary steps to ensure the survival of that important industrial centre on the south shore.
Mr. Speaker, we must not forget the protests voiced by several labour unions with regard to the construction, in Japan, of 18 freighters, at the cost of $1 billion, on behalf of Canadian Javelin Company, for transportation of iron ore of our country, outside our boundaries. It becomes obvious that we must protect our shipyards. Time has come for us, now more than ever, to build our own merchant marine.
At this point, I should like to quote from bulletin No. 5 of the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association, but time does not permit it.

Division
In an average year, more than 141,000 ships, ocean-going or coasting vessels, load and unload in Canadian harbours, some 102 million tons of goods from all the countries in the world. If Canada wants to get its share of this important industry, there is no doubt that it needs its own merchant marine and modern and active shipyards.
There is reason to believe that Canada intends to devote more attention and efforts to the study of our coastal waters, including the Arctic. On both sides of the Atlantic, governments are beginning to realize the great resources to be derived from the waters covering their country's continental shelf. Should they lag behind in the race towards full development of the wealth of the sea, nations will put the coming generations under a heavy handicap.
That is why, rather than just for strategic or military reasons, the Soviet union and the western countries are studying the matter and taking steps to develop the resources of the sea. Without an ocean-going merchant marine and any harbour facilities, even a country like Canada, with its 20,000 miles of coast line, can actually miss the boat.
A maritime nation without ocean-going ships, without modern harbours and well-equipped shipyards is a paradox we cannot afford. That is why, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the report made by the royal commission on coastal trade published in 1957, I shall submit to the government a few proposals which I consider urgent.
1.	That the jurisdiction over coastal trade be extended up to the strait of Belle Isle, Newfoundland being a Canadian province.
2.	That ships be built and repaired in Canada, be registered in Canada and have their home ports in this country.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I should like to explain the position that this party will take in relation to the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron). This subamendment has the effect of removing the essence of our amendment. If we were to support it we would, in effect, be voting against our own amendment. We will therefore vote against the subamendment.
The house divided on the amendment to the amendment (Mr. Cameron, Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) which was negatived on the following division.
YEAS Messrs:
Barnett	Cameron (Nanaimo-
Beaule	Cowichan-The Islands)
Boutin	Caouette
[Mr. Guay.)
Fisher
Gauthier
Herridge
Knowles
Laprise
Mather
Orlikow
Perron
Peters
Plourde
Prittie
Rondeau
Scott
Webster
Winch-20.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Addison
Aiken
Alkenbrack
Armstrong
Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace)
Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe)
Badanai
Baldwin
Basford
Bechard
Beer
Bell
Benidickson
Benson
Berger
Bigg
Blouin
Boulanger
Byrne
Cadieu (Meadow Lake)
Cadieux (Terrebonne)
Cameron (High Park)
Cantelon
Cardiff
Cardin
Caron
Carter
Casselman, Mrs.
Chatterton
Chretien
Churchill
Clancy
Coates
Cooper
Cote (Longueuil)
Cowan
Crossman
Cyr
Deachman
Deschatelets
Diefenbaker
Dinsdale
Douce tt
Drury
Dube
Dupuis
Emard
Enns
Fane
Favreau
Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke)
Flemming (Victoria-Carleton)
Forbes
Forest
Forgie
Foy
Francis
Frenette
Gelber
Gendron
Girouard
Godin
Gordon
Granger
Gray
Groos
Guay
Gundlock
Habel
Hahn
Haidasz
Harkness
Harley
Horner (Acadia)
Horner (The Battlefords)
Howard
Jewett, Miss
Jorgenson
Kelly
Kennedy
Klein
Konantz, Mrs.
Korchinski
Lachance
Laing
Lambert
Lamontagne
Lamoureux
Laniel
Laverdiere
Leduc
Lessard (Lake St. John)
Lessard (St. Henry)
Loiselle
Loney
Macaiuso
Macdonald
MacEwan
MacLean (Queens)
MacNaught
Macquarrie
MacRae
McBain
Mellraith
McIntosh
McLean (Charlotte) McWilliam Mandziuk Marcoux
Martin (Essex East)
Martineau
Matheson
Matte
Monteith
Moore
More
Moreau
Morison
Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria) Muir (Lisgar)
Mullally
Munro
Nasserden
Nesbitt
Nielsen
Nixon
Nowlan
Nugent
O'Keefe
Olson
Ormiston
Otto
Ouellet

Pascoe	Skoreyko
Patterson	Slogan
Paul	Smallwood
Pennell	Southam
Pepin	Starr
Pickersgill	Stefanson
Pigeon	Stenson
Pilon	Stewart
Prud'homme	Tardif
Pugh	Teillet
Rapp	Temple
Regan	Thomas
Rheaume	Tucker
Ricard	Turner
Richard	Vincent
Rideout	Wahn
Rinfret	Walker
Robichaud	Watson (Assiniboia)
Rochon	Watson (Chateauguay-
Roclc	Huntingdon-Laprairie)
Rouleau	Webb
Roxburgh	Whelan
Ryan	Winkler
Sharp Simpson	Winkler-180.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
It being after five o'clock, the house will now proceed to a consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.



BROADCASTING ACT


Douglas Mason Fisher: the second reading of Bill No. C-8, to amend the Broadcasting Act (disclosure of C.B.C. service extension programs, cost, and estimates for five years).
He said: This is a very narrow bill, but before I launch into the reasons for it I think it is always fair, when you are speaking of the C.B.C. to make some general remarks by way of introduction. This is partly because this is a famous Canadian institution, partly because it is notorious and partly because its reputation, to say the least, is equivocal.
I should like to make the point immediately that this bill has the approval of my colleagues and reflects our party's attitude toward this particular segment of the C.B.C. In this party we happen to be, like other parties in the house, great proponents of the C.B.C. but at the same time some of us are very critical of the C.B.C. In essence, this bill represents a criticism of the way the C.B.C. has gone about extending its services in the last decade or so, particularly since television has become important. It is an attempt to put an onus upon the C.B.C. to be much more clear and direct in its policy with regard to the extension of services.
Before I get into that, Mr. Speaker, I think it is well to remember that in the area of broadcasting and a national broadcasting
Broadcasting Act
policy, you not only have a number of agencies involved in actual broadcasting, such as public broacasters and private broadcasters, but there are other agencies including the Department of Transport through the Radio Act licensing, organizations such as the community antennae organizations and also the board of broadcast governors. There is also the fact that the cabinet or government at any time has a general responsibility to have a broadcasting policy for the country that enables both the country and parliament, as well as members of parliament, to see just what is intended.
It has been my conviction for a number of years that the whole broadcasting policy of this country has tended to be fudged and blurred. We had a typical example yesterday when the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamon-tagne) brought into this house, at long last three years after the question was first raised, a statement concerning the policy, intentions and beliefs of the board of broadcast governors with relation to community antenna television. This is just an indicator of the confusion. One of the reasons that we have a problem with community antenna television in this country at the moment is that in the past the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation moved so slowly, without making any projections of how it was going to extend services in this country. I know personally of at least six places in this country that have community antenna television systems for which people are paying individually as much as $125 for installation and $5 per month in charges. This would never have been necessary if the C.B.C. had risen to its responsibilities to cover the country.
In its last annual report concerning television the C.B.C. maintains it covers 92 per cent of the country. One of the reasons they can make this statement is that a great many Canadians are paying through the nose for their hook-up with community antenna television service. There is still 8 per cent of the country that requires to be served by this Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
One of the effects of this bill, as anyone can see if he looks at the explanatory note, is a minor change to section 36 of the Broadcasting Act. The corporation would be required to append to its report particulars of each extension to the national broadcasting service within Canada that was undertaken or completed during that financial year, the cost thereof, as well as particulars of each such extension the corporation proposes to undertake or complete during the five financial years next ensuing, and the estimated cost thereof.
To members of the house who may be critical of this bill, I would say you can divide
HOUSE OF COXviMONS
Broadcasting Act
it up into two parts. First of all, if any hon. members look at the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, they will quickly see that the president is not reticent at all about setting forth any extensions of service. However this is always done within the text. There is no clear picture, beyond just the individual extension such as, for example, an extension to Dryden, Sioux Lookout and Kenora or the extension up into Thompson lake area a few years ago. We cannot see this very clearly.
Hon. members are more likely to question requirements projected for five years ahead. I should like to suggest to you that the C.B.C. itself, and many people interested in broadcasting, have been asking for a five year projection. As a matter of fact, in our broadcasting committee in 1961, this was perhaps the main thing that Mr. Ouimet brought before us at that time. At one time during the hearing, he gave an outline of the projections. It can be found at page 803 of the proceedings of the broadcasting committee in 1960-61. I am reading from a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation forecast of operating costs in revenue years 1962-63 to 1966-67. Anyone who will take the trouble to compare this forecast with what has actually transpired in the last two years will find that, in terms of parliamentary grants, the C.B.C. has been fairly accurate. The grants have been maybe $2 or $3 million under the estimates. What happened from 1960 onward is that the C.B.C. did not forecast the increase which took place in its commercial revenues. Nevertheless, this forecast indicated that the C.B.C. could really make a good projection.
If anyone cares to look at page 804 he will find in appendix B a five year projection of proposed expansion from 1961-62 through 1965-66 included in one of the items as improvement in coverage. The figures are as follows:	in 1961,	$1,907,000; in 1962-63
$2,717,000; in 1963-64, $2,078,000, and so on. It goes right through to the end of 1966, and the total for the five year period is $9,925,000. I want to point out, in other words, that the C.B.C. has made a projection, and all I am asking is that the projection be placed within the annual report so as to indicate the responsibilities.
Some hon. members may say, perhaps: "What about population shifts? If the C.B.C. is adjusting to population shifts the projection might not be reliable". Well, my experience is that the C.B.C. tends to wait for the dominion bureau of statistics; it waits for the census figures which come out at ten year intervals. So that is really not a valid objection.

I submit, too, that the C.B.C. very much needs to give us detailed projections. Do hon. members think we would have this CJBC fuss, with all the controvesy that has gone with it, if the corporation had been obliged to project this particular matter? I say this because it is a matter which involves a change in the service given across the country. This amendment does not deal with programs in any shape or form. It is concerned strictly with service extensions, and as I see service extensions, the term covers radio and television on both the English and the French networks. It means the international service. It has nothing to do with capital structures such as buildings in Ottawa, Montreal or Toronto. But it does include anything to do with the extension of the service to more people, or with giving a variety of programs to more people. This means that in the corporation's tremendous desire to fulfil its mandate, for example to extend the French language and French language programs across the country, it would be required to append to its annual report a five year projection showing how it intended to do this, together with an estimate of the cost.
Obviously most members bring forward private members' bills because the area of interest is one which touches them very closely. Along with the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson), hon. members from areas such as Saguenay, and others in the north, I have been interested in the extension of services. We represent areas which, so far, are not served at all. How do we feel v/hen we hear about an extension to Edmonton where they already have television, or an extension to St. John's, where they already have a service, or about the conversion of CJBC to bring French to southern Ontario? These are all worthy things to do, but the point is that in the Toronto area people already have all manner of excellent radio and television services. There is television already in St. John's, Newfoundland. There is television in Edmonton. But there are parts of this country where it is still impossible to get television reception, and the C.B.C. is not moving very fast in fulfilling this portion of its mandate.
The C.B.C. tells us it has a formula. Yes, it has a formula, and it is a mysterious one; most of us have difficulty in figuring it out. The C.B.C. pleads poverty. Mr. Ouimet pleaded in 1960-61: We are doing our very, very best. But in the very next year the corporation handed $7 or $8 million back to the treasury, presumably as an example of how efficiently it was operating-"We don't really need to take up all the money that is provided in our budget". How can this be explained to the people who still do not enjoy radio or television coverage? Here we see the corporation

handing back government funds and, let us say, commercial revenue, at the same time as Mr. Ouimet and his followers are telling us they are doing their best for the people who still do not enjoy coverage.
Look at what is involved in the budget of $100 million or $110 million a year. Every member here knows that this is big money. One hundred million dollars is not to be sneezed at. Yet note the budget for extension of services. It is something over $1 million- up to $2 million. It really is pettiness. This is why I tend to become a little sceptical about this C.B.C. mandate, though some of my colleagues disagree with me here. I wonder how much the directors of the beloved corporation are really thinking about the Canadian population as a whole. Is it possible that they have got a metropolitan syndrome and see everything in terms of these great aggregations of people, these big market areas where it is possible to obtain commercial revenue and get a reception large enough to be able to say: These are your ratings? This is bound to be the suspicion, when one considers the small fraction of the budget which the C.B.C. sets aside to extend its services.
The corporation talks about the cost per head, and says: Oh dear, we have to move very carefully and wait until the next census to see how the population is growing. If the C.B.C. believes its mandate, it will take the necessary steps to provide service to 100 per cent of the Canadian people as soon as possible, before it begins providing secondary or tertiary services or other extensions and diversions to those people in Canada who are already covered. In this whole field of cultural entertainment there is not any question about it that a minority in this country is going short, and their complaint is that they are going short while they are paying for the service as general taxpayers.
The reason we would like this amendment to the bill and we know it would require the co-operation of the government, the treasury board associated with it, the C.B.C. and the board of broadcast governors, if they have any responsibility in supervising and directing the whole broadcasting policy-is to get complete broadcasting to the people.
The reason that we have a community antenna problem is because of the failure of the C.B.C. to move more quickly to extend service. This is one of the reasons why we have so much criticism of the C.B.C., particularly in the rural areas. It has moved too slowly to extend its services, but I am not going to suggest that there has been any favouritism in the extension of the services it has made.
Broadcasting Act
One of the beliefs in my part of the country is that, because they have a member in opposition, services have not been extended quickly; but I would point to the fact that it was when the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) was in opposition that the main extension of services in our part of the country took place.


Mr. Benidickson:: The hard working member.


Douglas Mason Fisher: All right, the hard working member for Kenora-Rainy River. But I do feel there is an unevenness, a mystery, a lack of planning or lack of projection, and I think this amendment would correct it.
I	suggest it will cause no great damage to the C.B.C.
If hon. members or others would care to read more into this bill they will find a lot of useful information in the report of the 1960-61 committee on broadcasting, from pages 800 to about 830, when a number of hon. members quizzed Mr. Ouimet on the subject. All I can say is that in the succeeding three and a half years we have made very little progress in this regard.
I suggest that it is time the corporation, the B.B.G. and the government began to do some serious thinking about the problem implicit in this bill. There is much more I would like to go into, particularly as it relates to my own area, but in terms of A and B contours in television, in my riding with a population of about 90,000, about half of it has an A and B contour and one third really has no television at all. Yet, during the last
II	years they have seen the microwave towers in that area, and they know that crackling through the air in the manner of magical science C.B.C. and other programs are carried. They also know that the ingenuity of our engineers could easily take the programs from the microwave system.
We cannot understand the slowness, and that is why I ask hon. members to support this bill and take an interest in it. It means something to those people of mine, and to the 8, 10 or 12 per cent of the population who are still doing without what today is considered to be an almost inalienable right of Canadians, that is, a national television service and a national radio service.


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) has suggested that the bill now before us would really effect only a minor change in national broadcasting. On the face of the matter he is correct, but if we look at it a little more carefully we find

Broadcasting Act
that it raises in a most direct way the problem of the relationship between a crown corporation, such as the C.B.C. and parliament.
We want our national broadcasting service to be removed as far as possible from the shifting winds of political opinion. We believe it best that the corporation should not be rocked in its judgment by every favourable breeze or by every blast of denunciation. On the other hand I think we would all agree we do not wish the corporation to be wilful or capricious.
It is only realistic to remind ourselves that there is no such thing as a sure or foolproof arrangement by which we can accomplish both these ends. The result is that we balance them all rather uneasily in a tension one against the other. We have a certain arrangement, and the hon. member for Port Arthur has suggested that in general he values this arrangement. I would agree with him. That arrangement has worked reasonably well.
I do not wish to argue that the hon. member intends to disrupt the prevailing system; nor indeed will I argue that if this bill were to pass it would bring on vast disorders that the hon. member did not foresee, but I do want to explore some of the implications of the bill.
As the hon. member who introduced it suggested, the bill points to both the past and the future. First, it provides that the corporation shall append to its annual report particulars of each extension to the national broadcasting service within Canada that was undertaken or completed during that year, and shall show the cost thereof. Second, it provides that with its annual report the corporation will give particulars of each extension the corporation proposes to undertake, or to complete, during the five financial years next ensuing, together with a statement of the estimated cost thereof.
At first glance the provision concerning each extension during the previous fiscal year seems reasonable enough. It can be contended, and I think many of us would be inclined to contend, that the C.B.C., to a large extent, is spending public moneys, moneys voted by parliament, and that surely it is not too much to expect the corporation to make an accounting of that part of its annual expenses spent on network and transmitting facilities in the case of each new area serviced. But let us remember that by enacting such a requirement we would be exposing the corporation to a spate of invidious criticism. Indeed, we would be inviting invidious criticism of our national broadcasting system.
The corporation already serves most of the Canadian people. Fully 93 per cent of our people are already within range of at least one Canadian television station, and about

65 per cent do have a choice between or among Canadian stations. Those people who are not yet served live, as the hon. member pointed out, in sparsely populated areas, where the cost per capita of providing facilities inevitably is relatively high, and in some cases extremely high.
It is not always realized by all that the C.B.C. is no mere commercial venture, that it has a special role or function in the development of Canada's national culture and aspirations. If it is to perform this function it cannot be tested, especially when services are to be extended to the more sparsely populated areas of the country, by mere, normal, commercial standards. And this, the judging of these extensions by inappropriate commercial standards, is precisely what one might anticipate if this bill were to be enacted.
I had guessed, Mr. Speaker, that this bill was introduced because the hon. member wishes to hasten the extension of C.B.C. coverage in certain areas. He has confirmed the validity of my guess. I did not make this guess simply by ratiocination. I happen to come from a part of the country where we do not enjoy the best of television broadcasting, even though C.B.C. transmission passes directly through the area, so I know whereof he complains. But it would be unfortunate,
1	think, if the enactment he suggests had precisely the opposite effect to which he desires. I suspect there are people in the country-


Douglas Mason Fisher: You are not suggesting that this bill could possibly force the C.B.C. to limit its expenditures for development extensions?


John B. Stewart: I suspect there are people in the country who, if they saw some of the actual costs that would be entailed in putting in transmission lines and then of course transmitters-and transmission lines tend to be the more expensive-might very well begin to question the principle of a full national service.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder if the hon. member knows that never in the last ten years has the extension of services exceeded more than
2	per cent of the C.B.C.'s budget?


John B. Stewart: I am not questioning the desirability of extending services, nor indeed of extending them faster, but I am arguing that by publishing these very costly details in many instances we would simply invite a rash of criticism, and I would think improper criticism.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It is improper now.


John B. Stewart: Well, if it is improper now it would certainly be worse if the hon. member's bill passes. At page 224 of the report of the royal commission on broadcasting, made in 1957, there is the following sentence:
We also feel that, while no rigid line can be drawn, the cost of extending coverage beyond the level of 90 per cent of the population would not be justified, unless and until the Canadian population is substantially larger and more concentrated, or new technological developments in television reduce the costs of reaching scattered groups of people.
That the corporation has not been wasting time is shown by the fact previously mentioned, that at present 93 per cent of the people in this country are already within range of at least one Canadian television station.
The disadvantages of the second aspect of the bill-the provision for the publication by the corporation of particulars of each extension of the service proposed during the five financial years next ensuing-are more immediately obvious. As a framework for investigation, the corporation does maintain a moving five-year projection of service extensions either being considered or already in progress. The bill now before the house proposes that this projection be set forth in the annual report of the corporation.
If this projection were a plan, the bill might have some merit; but strictly speaking it is not a plan. Initially a highly tentative priority list of extensions is prepared, with the order of priority determined by the ratio of the population to be served to the money necessary to be expended to serve them. But the order of this tentative list will change, and a list published today I submit might be out of date within six months. First, when the physical characteristics of an area are examined and when quotations have been received, that area may be raised or lowered on the priority list. Moreover the cost factors may vary from year to year.
Second, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's plan, or projection-the latter is the more exact word-may be altered by the planning of private companies who may decide to erect stations or satellites. Third, an effort is made by the corporation to maintain some kind of equitable balance between extensions in the French language and extensions in the English language. It would hardly be appropriate, I submit-


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is a little out of kilter right now.


John B. Stewart: -if expenditures on extensions in a two or three-year period were concentrated entirely on one language or the other. Fourth, special attention is given to
Broadcasting Act
the frontier factor. Some people might say, disagreeing with the hon. member for Port Arthur and myself, that this is wrong; but this factor does indeed alter the priority list. Fifth, there are changes that will take place, particularly in the so-called frontier areas where economic boom, and sometimes, unfortunately, economic bust are faced.
The effect of the publication that would be required by this bill if enacted would be either to harden exploratory projections into fixed, almost invariable plans, or irresponsibly to encourage expectations within the commercial sector of the broadcasting industry and, for more importantly, among the people at large. At present, Mr. Speaker, the C.B.C. is dependant on an annual vote by parliament. It may be that it would be better for parliament to deal with C.B.C. financial matters on a five year, rather than a one year, basis-


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is the policy of your party.


John B. Stewart: -but that is not the question that is before us this afternoon.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am just trying to introduce Liberal policy.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will find that any assistance he and his friends wish to give us will be very welcome, despite the subamendment voted on earlier today. There is another point that I wish to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker. This bill would require the corporation to publish information about services to be undertaken at public expense, even though parliament had not yet voted that money. Whether this bill is in order is at least questionable; but I do not propose to raise that question. I merely wish to suggest that it would be highly undesirable for this house to pass a bill that would have the effect of requiring the C.B.C. to anticipate publicly and in detail decisions of parliament concerning public expenditure.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I will speak very briefly on this matter because I would like to see this bill come to a vote. I think that too often our private members' bills are frustrated, and I do not think they should be frustrated just because they are private members' bills. This bill introduced by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) has a great deal of merit. As so often happens, the people who put bills through parliament and set up crown corporations are not doing it, I think-and I will give the best interpretation that I can-in order to abdicate their duty to the Canadian people. Quite the contrary; they are setting

Broadcasting Act
up what they feel is efficient machinery for putting our will into operation. At no time- certainly I can speak for myself, and I think I speak for the average member of parliament-have we had any intention of giving up our interest in the matter merely by saying that such-and-such a corporation shall take on the responsibilities of running our transportation system, our mining for uranium, or our cultural media in the form of television.
The argument that 93 per cent of the people are already covered seems to me very specious, because the 7 per cent who are not covered-incidentally, in my own particular case, in Athabasca, perhaps 35 per cent to 40 per cent of the population are not covered -require T.V. a good deal more than do the people in the congested areas. If people in congested areas wish to go to a cultural medium, for instance an operetta, they just jump on the streetcar and go. The people in many parts of my district are hundreds of miles from any entertainment medium except radio, and I would argue that the 7 per cent who are not covered at the moment need television coverage a great deal more than the people in congested areas such as Edmonton, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. Our armed services boys who are out in far away places, often away from their families, would have a connection with their homes through television. They would know what is going on in the world and this would be the best medium possible. Therefore I do not think the percentage covered is much of an argument, either.
The fact that the C.B.C. might be forced to publish, or whatever you wish to call it, their plans or their policy is, I think, a very sound point, and certainly this is necessary so that parliament itself would know what our servants are doing. I think, in spite of the fact that they are crown corporations, they are still subject to the will of parliament as far as money is concerned, because we vote them very large sums of money and I think we cannot do our duty to the taxpayers, quite apart from those people who need coverage, unless we know just exactly what the corporation intends to do. Certainly we do not want to be patronized in any way by any crown corporation which is set up by us.
I should like to say a few words with regard to the cost involved. Over my desk every day come enormous amounts of literature, beautifully embossed. I do not know what is the cost of this literature, but a great many of the papers, and so on, that I receive contain nothing whatsoever that will assist me in bringing to the attention of this house very important items such as broadcasting and

television programs for our people. I think I have made my point, Mr. Speaker, that I thoroughly endorse the spirit of this bill. Perhaps it could be drafted in a little better fashion to please the feelings of those members of the corporation who may think we are overseeing them; but I think the spirit of the bill is that we will know what is intended and will be able to do more to assist this corporation in giving the people of Canada the T.V. coverage they desire. I must commend the hon. member for Port Arthur on what I think is one of the better private members' bills to be introduced this session.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have every sympathy for the case that the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) made respecting the availability of television coverage to some of the outlying areas, because I happen to represent one of those constituencies where some people who are far back from the television broadcasting stations and satellites simply cannot receive this service. I am also convinced that for these people even one channel of television is more important than an extra channel being provided for the cities.
As the previous speaker has just pointed out, there are other, alternative forms of entertainment available to people in the cities, apart from television. I have every sympathy with the argument of the hon. member for Port Arthur, but I fail to see how he is going to correct that situation with this bill. It calls upon the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to give a five year projection of costs of extending programming. I believe that members of parliament have a right to know what are the financial prospects of the C.B.C., because after all we do vote public funds for that purpose. The hon. member for Port Arthur made it very clear that he was not talking about buildings and that sort of thing. I think we have the right to know about these things too. For example, we know that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are undertaking large, complex building structures in both Montreal and Toronto, and in the estimates for this year is an amount of something like $14 million for loans, and I suppose most of it will be used for this purpose. But when you vote $14 million on a $40 million or $50 million project, you are hooked-if I may put it that way-for the rest of it in future years.
I would remind the parliamentary secretary to the minister about this. He said it may be improper for the C.B.C. to make this kind of projection. It is equally improper for them to start on a building which they know very well they cannot finish with the amount of money that has been voted, because we

are not going to leave a building half erected, with the steel up, and then not allow it to be completed. Therefore that argument applies equally to the fact that the parliamentary secretary said it was improper for them to project their extension of programming.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would like to answer the question that was put forward; that is, the question as to how I expected this to work. If he would look at the projection the C.B.C. itself has made he would see that for 1962-63 through to 1966-67 they project an increase in total expenditure from $100 million to $132 million. Then if he would look at the breakdown with respect to extensions of service, they are only going to creep up to $1,900,000 and then they are going to drop to $1,500,000. I think the publishing of this information would make everyone realize how picayune are the expenditures in this area compared with the programming area-and that is the area to which the impetus would be given.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member who introduced the bill has now indicated that all it would do would be perhaps to provide some more influence. But technically, and in keeping with the additional responsibilities the C.B.C. would have if this bill were passed, I cannot see that it would require them to extend services into these areas which do not have service at the moment. There may be involved a factor of pressure or influence on them if members of parliament could see these projections.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, an hon. member wishes to ask me a question.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) suggested that my final argument may have been somewhat specious because parliament is invited annually to make a vote toward the completion of some project which may have been begun three or four years earlier. I should think that the project as such had been approved by parliament in making the initial vote. In this case we are dealing with matters costing smaller amounts of money, and I do not think-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon.
member asking a question?


John B. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Does the hon. member really think this is parallel?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do think it is parallel. The parliamentary secretary raised the point that this bill may be improper and may be out of order because it would require the projection of public funds, and so on. I cannot see any difference between
Broadcasting Act
that and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation taking a contract, if you like, say for $49 million, when parliament has only voted $14 million. This would commit future parliaments to paying a large amount in addition.
In any event, I do have great sympathy for the argument made by the hon. member for Port Arthur. I think it is the responsibility of the C.B.C., under the act which set the corporation up, to provide service to all Canada, and while they may have reached 90 per cent or slightly over 90 per cent of the people, the fact is that the remaining 7 or 8 per cent have a greater need both for radio and for general C.B.C. coverage than most of those who already have it. But I repeat that I cannot see where the passage of this bill will in fact speed up this end result.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, the bill which is before us tonight is of the utmost interest to me. I regret that the time allowed to me is so short for I would have many things to say on this matter. Nevertheless, since I should not like to be charged with killing this bill, I will limit myself to a few comments.
First, I should like to congratulate the mover of this bill. Even though I do not agree altogether with the entire contents of the bill, I agree nevertheless with the first part, which concerns the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's development.
As for the next point, that is for the C.B.C. to project its program of expansion for a five-year period, that might conflict with private enterprise and would in no way improve the situation even if projects were known in advance.
The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) spoke conservatively a while ago when he said that television services have cost a lot of money in certain districts. I should like to point out to him and to the house that in my own riding, one of the largest in Canada, Chibougamau and Chapais, two neighbouring mining towns which have a population of
13,000	to 14,000 are covered by television services.
The population is made up of miners, therefore of people whose average earnings are the highest in this country and who, consequently, are paying rather high taxes. To get T.V. services, these people have to pay $200 to get cable relay distribution, which is almost twice the amount referred to by the hon. member for Port Arthur; moreover, they have to pay a subscription fee of $6 per month, which has to be paid in advance.
I also wish to point out that these people are not given any guarantee upon signing their contract because, the person who is serving them at present does not guarantee

Broadcasting Act
that he will provide that service for one year, two years, five years or any other period of time.
You can well understand in what position these people find themselves just now. It is, therefore, important that they be served just as well as we are in the southern part of the county of Chapleau where private enterprise also serves the area.
I must also say that the area I represent is very well served and the service there is excellent. Considering that television is a recognized fact by everyone, that it has become a necessity, and especially that it is a medium of information and education, since we now have televised school programs, the people of these districts should benefit from it just as those from other regions.
So, I support the previous speakers who mentioned that those who are not served now by television services are precisely those who should be the first ones to enjoy them, because they live in more or less isolated areas and they have no other means of recreation, education, and information as far as television programs are concerned. According to my information, the C.B.C. is, I think ready to serve those areas, but there is always a financial problem. Then, it would be appropriate to recommend to the government to provide the C.B.C. with the necessary funds to serve all the areas they possibly can. I was assured that it was possible for the C.B.C. to serve every part of Canada. Consequently, the government only has to make financially possible what is physically feasible and everybody will be satisfied.


Mr. Leo Cadieux (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, obviously many things have already been said about the bill now before us. I would not want to repeat all the arguments put forward, but, for all that, I would not like you to forget their validity.
For instance, they spoke about geographical problems as well as the difficulties for the C.B.C. to balance the distribution of French and English broadcasting facilities. I do not think that this problem can be thrust aside even if it is as acute as that which exists at the present time in the Toronto area.
Therefore, I do not want to deal again with all the arguments that have been put forward. But I think that the bill now before us contains a few provisions which are incompatible with the present position of the C.B.C.
I am more particularly thinking of the second part and speaking from an accountant's
point of view. The C.B.C. operates on an annual budget, and if the corporation, which has to keep within the narrow limits of an annual budget were to be asked to establish a five-year projection of what it intends or will have to do, I think it would be impractical. Indeed, I doubt that the corporation would have any basis at all to do so, because it cannot foresee the possibilities or the generosity of parliament. Consequently, the corporation cannot suppose that it will be able to embark on such and such a project three or four years hence.
Moreover, having in mind all the arguments which have been put forward by the previous speakers, we all know that the situation may change, that a priority list which was, for instance, established this year, may be changed next year, on account of new factors, and that the corporation may have to prepare new projects.
Under the circumstances, I do not see how the C.B.C., given its yearly budget, could make a five-year projection in regard to the works it intends to undertake. The hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) evidently raised a very good argument, that of the areas which are not yet accessible to private radio or television. I think that if the C.B.C. divulged its program for the next five years, this would perhaps discourage private enterprise which might be interested, being alone to serve areas which up to now have not been covered, and to supply radio and television service to the population of these areas.
I think we should maintain a balance between public and private enterprise and we should not, ahead of time, close all avenues to private enterprise, discourage it systematically under the terms of an act. I think we should not publish in advance projections which might be inaccurate and never come true.
Personally, and with reservations-it is a personal opinion-I might accept the first part of this amendment, because parliament has to vote money to meet the expenditures of the C.B.C., and it is therefore only legitimate to examine and check them.
As for the second part, unless the hon. member for Port Arthur wishes to move an amendment, I do not see how I could commit, for the next five years-


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


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 23, 1964