1965-04-29

ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minisler of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I stated that I hoped shortly to be in a position to inform the House concerning the present situation of the Mint with regard to the production of mint sets of uncirculated coins, and to advise the public as to when the Mint will be ready once again to accept orders from people whose requirements have not yet been met. I am now in a position to report on these questions.
It will be remembered that at the beginning of this year the Mint was confronted with an enormous wave of orders for these coins, estimated at some 6 million sets. To handle this unprecedented situation it was decided at that time that the Mint would accept all orders received on the first day, which happened to be January 2, and would ship the coins thereafter as and when the sets could be produced. These orders involved some 2 million sets. The remaining orders, covering another 4 million sets, had to be returned to the senders. However, I explained at the time that as and when the facilities of the Mint could be expanded later in the year, it would be able to give its attention to these unsatisfied needs.
To fill the orders for the 2 million sets in question the Mint took on additional staff, and for most of the time since January has been operating three shifts a day and six days a week. I think the employees of the Mint are to be warmly commended for the way they have pitched in to help cope with this unusual situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: As a result of these efforts, it is now estimated that up to yesterday 1,-
100,000	sets have been shipped out to collectors. It is expected that the balance of these 2 million sets will be produced and shipped out before the end of July. I should mention that not quite all the additional requests which the Mint accepted last January 2
have been acknowledged as yet, but these requests will also be acknowledged, and the coin sets shipped to the senders, before the end of July.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
While this accelerated production of Mint sets has been going on the Mint has also been busy acquiring additional accommodation and equipment for its numismatic section. Additional space has been obtained in the Government Printing Bureau in Hull, and this space is now being made suitable and secure. The additional coin presses and other equipment ordered some time ago are expected to be delivered in another week or two and will be installed shortly. This will have the effect of doubling the existing facilities for the production of these coin sets. Additional packaging and distribution facilities have also been set up. In other words, the new machines should be ready to roll very soon. Consequently, by the end of July, when we expect that all of the initial 2 million sets will have been shipped out, the Mint can begin to produce sets to meet the requirements of those whose orders had to be returned earlier in the year, and of any others who are entitled to purchase sets.
I therefore wish to advise the House that beginning today the Mint will resume accepting orders for 1965 sets of uncirculated coins from all who want them and whose requirements are not already met, or are not in the process of being met, by the arrangements I have just described. I repeat the undertaking I gave publicly at the beginning of the year, that the production of these 1965 coin sets will be continued until all legitimate orders have been filled, even if it takes the remainder of 1965 and part of 1966 to finish the job. Requests will be filled, of course, in the order in which they are received. However, in view of the large numbers involved, I must emphasize that it may well be some months after July before all orders can be filled.
The conditions of the sale are unchanged. That is, orders will be accepted for one, three or five sets per person, with a maximum of five sets per person, at a price of $4 per set. Each order for a set or sets should be accompanied by a remittance and be in the name of a single individual. Such orders

April 29, 1965
Royal Canadian Mint
must be regarded as final, so that subsequent cancellations cannot be accepted. Persons whose earlier applications have been met, or have been accepted by the Mint, should not apply for additional sets. Applicants who have not yet received an acknowledgement from the Mint but whose applications have not been returned, should assume that their requests have been accepted by the Mint. Their sets will be delivered before the end of July.
I should also mention that some current shipments from the Mint are being returned with requests that they be remailed to other addresses. I have agreed that the Mint will charge $1 to cover the additional labour and other costs incurred by the Mint in providing this service.
One last word, Mr. Speaker, concerning speculation in Mint sets. In view of the assurance I gave to the public earlier this year, and which I now repeat, that the Mint will be able to provide everyone with his or her full entitlement, there should be no need for ordinary collectors to pay high speculative prices for these coin sets. Everyone will be able to obtain their requirements of up to five sets at the issue price of $4 per set.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I am very pleased to hear the Minister of Finance make this announcement, and to realize that he is responding so favourably to representations made by members of this party.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance arising out of his earlier statement on motions that orders would once more be accepted for 1965 sets of uncirculated coins. The Minister told us that as from today the Mint would resume accepting orders, but he gave no indication of any closing date for the acceptance of orders for 1965 sets. Could he enlighten the House on this matter?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: At some time toward the end of the year, when most of the orders are in, there must be a date when it will be appropriate to close these orders off. But I wish to make it very clear that we are not doing anything to encourage speculators, so the longer this is kept open the better it will be for the ordinary person who wants to buy a set for $4.


Frank Howard: The Minister indicated in his statement, and he has done so now, that production of 1965 uncirculated sets will run into 1966. If this is the case, what plans are in the offing to ensure that a similar situation does not develop in 1966?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: In some other countries, in the United States for instance, they skip one year and do not issue a new set at all in that year. We might do the same if it were felt to be desirable, but it would be premature for me to make a statement at this time.



REPORTED STATEMENT BY SASKATCHEWAN PREMIER RESPECTING ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, recognizing, of course, the close type of relationship which exists between the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he has any comment on a categorical statement made by the Premier of Saskatchewan at a Liberal nominating convention in Saskatchewan, where he said in effect that a federal election will take place in July or October, certainly not later. I suspect that Parliament would be given this information before the Premier of Saskatchewan, although I do recognize that close relationship which has brought out so much division between them.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need comment on this speculative observation. I receive advice on this subject from all quarters these days.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that was not a speculative observation; that was a categorical statement made by one of the Prime Minister's chief lieutenants, and as such I should like to know its foundation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it may have been categorical to him, but it was speculative as far as I am concerned. I should like to reassure my right hon. friend, and I do not think I need tell him this, that I naturally would not make a decision of that kind without consulting him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I must say that if the Government starts doing that, it is going to do a far better job than it has done heretofore.
April 29, 1965



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the budget resolution which, if passed, will neutralize Reader's Digest and Time magazine, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he plans to make arrangements for a so-called free vote on this issue for Government supporters.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The usual convention will be followed in this matter, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the Minister inform the house today as to what measures have been taken by the Government to ensure the safety of some 160 Canadians in the Dominican Republic, in view of the action taken today by the United States?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this morning we were in telephone communication with officials of the Canadian Embassy in Santo Domingo. No casualties have been reported amongst the Canadian community there during the four days of civil disturbances, and all Canadians who wished to leave have done so through the evacuation facilities provided by the United States. If further evacuation should become necessary, any other Canadians desirous of leaving the Dominican Republic will be included. Meanwhile our Canadian Embassy officials are keeping in touch with the Canadian citizens who have voluntarily decided to stay.
We have likewise been in touch by telephone with the Falconbridge Nickel plant, about 40 miles from Santo Domingo, and we are told that all is well in that quarter. We have so advised the head office of that company.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister whether the evacuation of seven Canadians by United States marines was arranged by this Govern-
Inquiries of the Ministry ment, or done with the consent or knowledge of representatives of the Canadian Government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Last Monday when this situation became imminent we made arrangements with the Government of the United States to use the facilities that would be at its disposal to assist in the evacuation of Canadians. I believe the United States Government has likewise made arrangements with nationals of other countries or their Governments.


Robert Norman Thompson: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister inform us as to whether our own diplomatic personnel have been evacuated?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Could he tell us, in answer to the question we put to him yesterday, whether his department intends to investigate the legality of the operations carried out by certain companies which use rain-making machines in the Abitibi and Lake St. John areas?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will consider the question as notice because I am not familiar with the facts.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Since this question was directed on several occasions to the Minister of Justice during the last few weeks, is it the intention of the minister to secure information in this regard, as the administration of justice comes under his department?


Guy Favreau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



CONSIDERATION OF EARNED REMISSION WITH RESPECT TO PAROLE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. On April 12 in the Minister's absence I raised a question about earned remission under the old Penitentiary

April 29. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry Act and statutory remission under the Penitentiary Act as it exists now, and the apparent conflict between the two types of remission in the light of a particular court case. I sent the correspondence upon which I founded my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, and was given the assurance that the matter would be looked into and an answer provided. Would the Minister mind reviewing this matter so he can tell us what is going to be done with regard to the problem?


Guy Favreau: It is being reviewed, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask anew a question I have already asked of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Now that he has had 48 hours to study the question I asked him the other day, concerning the speech delivered by His Excellency the Canadian ambassador in Paris, is he in a position to give us a reply?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for informing me that he intended to ask this question.
The words of our ambassador in Paris, as reported in the press, were taken out of context. If the hon. member will examine the whole paragraph concerned, a copy of which I have sent him, he will see that the interpretation given some words of our ambassador did not exactly reflect his thoughts.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is not quite relating to the question I asked day before yesterday. I want to know what His Excellency meant when he said:
Canada's future is taking shape in an opposite direction, that is toward a federation becoming an increasingly loose federation in some areas.
Who decides that direction? What is that direction and what are those areas? Does the government approve such remarks?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have nothing to add, Mr. Speaker. In the context the replies to those questions are quite clear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, as always.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Agriculture but, since he is absent, I should like to put it to the Minister of Forestry.
It relates to the press release issued today by the Department of Agriculture concerning a new policy on the price of butter effective the day after tomorrow. According to this release the agricultural stabilization board is announcing a reduction in the subsidy on the price of butter at the consumers' level. From 11 cents last year, it will be reduced to 9 cents a pound. This 2 cent decrease means that the subsidy has been reduced by 3 cents in the past two years or by nearly $11 million in all.
In the opinion of the minister, is this how the federal government is helping the eastern dairy producer, when deficiency payments on butter fat are being reduced from 13.3 to 10.9 cents a pound, resulting in a 2 cent per pound price increase to the consumer which is equivalent to an indirect tax representing $11 million?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Of course not. Last year consumption exceeded production by at least five million pounds. Therefore, the policy of the government was not detrimental to the farmer, since consumption increased.
This year according to calculations the income of manufactured milk producers will increase substantially since the average price to producers of 100,000 pounds or less will be about $3.50 per 100 pounds.
All those who have examined this policy have, up to now, been satisfied with the overall measures taken in this respect. I am sure the government would consider amending its policy, should the situation warrant it.


Mr. Vincenf:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Is the minister ready to guarantee today on behalf of the government, that the milk producer will get $3.50 per hundredweight for his manufactured milk?


Maurice Sauvé: I think that I made the necessary distinction. Generally, producers of
100,000	pounds or less will get $3.50 per hundredweight, less payments for export.
April 29, 1965	COMMONS


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture which he may take as notice if he chooses. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether he knows of any policy announcements to be made in regard to eastern agriculture, to relieve the disastrous income position in which farmers find themselves?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker,
I believe that measures for improving the policies are under consideration and will be announced by the Minister.


Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture whether this 2 cent rise in the price of butter to the housewife will be transferred to the price of cream or directly to the producer of butterfat.


Bruce Silas Beer: I think I should bring this question to the attention of the Minister.


Mr. Jean-Paul Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Agriculture but, in his absence, I shall put it to the Minister of Forestry.
Does the minister intend to include in his new dairy policy the subsidies paid by the province of Quebec, the rebates allowed by co-operatives and companies, in working out the average national price for deficiency payments?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has announced that the federal policy was designed to increase to $3.50 per hundredweight of milk for dairy farmers producing 100,000 lbs. of milk or less. It will be $3.50 more or less, according to the calculations to be made with regard to exports.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister tell us when the administrative details of this new policy will be announced?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska mentioned a moment ago a press release of the agricultural stabilization board and I think that as a result of the announcement about butter and cheese, dealers and manufacturers will be in a position to draw the necessary conclusions concerning the payments for other milk products.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a supplementary question to
DEBATES	723
Inquiries of the Ministry the minister, because in my opinion, he has not quite answered the question put to him a while ago by the hon. member for Champlain.
Can the Minister tell us whether the $3.50 per hundredweight of milk represents only the federal share, leaving to the provincial authorities the provision of another subsidy, or if that represents, for the government, the final objective for this price of a hundredweight of milk?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister of Agriculture has announced that this represents only the share of the federal government.


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture or to the Minister of Forestry if he is willing to answer.
Would he consider the advisability of appointing soon a French speaking assistant director to the dairy board since such a step is necessary and has often been requested by the Quebec dairy producers?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, this matter comes under the Minister of Agriculture and I shall bring the remarks of the hon. member for Lotbiniere to his attention.


Mr. R. A. Webb (Hasiings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture 1 should like to address a question to his Parliamentary Secretary. Is it true that many Ontario farmers, on receiving their March returns for milk shipped, received $2.38 per hundredweight and some less than that amount?


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to confirm the statement of the hon. Member.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Parliamentary Secretary also aware that according to recently produced figures it is costing the farmer $2.34 per hundredweight to produce this milk?



REQUEST FOR RESUMPTION OF COLD STORAGE SUBSIDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Agriculture but, in his absence, I shall put it to the Minister of Finance.
April 29, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry
Would the Minister of Finance inform the house whether he intends to put back in force soon the legislation respecting cold storage facilities which had been suspended by the previous government as a result of the austerity program?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will be glad to take this question as notice.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Lloyd (Halifax):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Last Monday the hon. Member for Queens-Lunenburg and I directed some questions to the Minister concerning alleged lobster trap losses on the eastern shore of Nova Scotia. On Wednesday, April 28, the Halifax Herald quotes a member of the Department of Fisheries as stating that these losses were grossly exaggerated. I wonder if the Minister has yet received a report directly, other than through the press, so he can inform the House as to the position?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Following the representations which were made to me on Monday I immediately requested information concerning losses due to ice movement around the eastern shore of Nova Scotia. Figures received this morning indicate the total loss of lobster traps in the Canso-'Quoddy area was 16,459 out of a total of 54,437 traps set, being about 30 per cent of the total. In one particular area, Ecum Secum to 'Quoddy, over 50 per cent of the traps set were lost or close to 6,000 out of a total of 10,000. Unfortunately we have been advised that only one fisherman amongst those who lost traps had taken out lobster trap insurance.


John Edward Lloyd: I wonder if the Minister would assure the House that this factual information will be conveyed promptly to the Provincial Government of Nova Scotia.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am sure the Provincial Government of Nova Scotia is aware of the amount of the lobster trap loss; and if representations are made to the Government of that Province and the Government finds it is beyond the ability of the Province to assist, then it is up to the Provincial Government
[Mr. Laprise.l
to make representations to the Federal Government.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: May I ask a further supplementary question. Will the Minister tell the House what disciplinary action he proposes to take toward the official who released information that the reports of the damage to lobster traps were grossly exaggerated?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am not aware whether such a report was made. I have asked the officials of my department to investigate the report.


Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: In view of the charges by some fishermen who suffered loss that they received practically no notice from the ice patrol that the ice was moving in, will the Minister investigate the type of notice that was given to the fishermen of the fact that the ice was moving down along that shore?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: This will be done.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries. The Minister stated that he was not aware of any grossly exaggerated statement made by Department of Fisheries officials. Is he now denying the accurate statement made by his colleague from Halifax who has put the matter before him and which he, as Minister, must accept?



ESTABLISHMENT OF GEOGRAPHICAL COORDINATES IN ATLANTIC REGION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Government. I am not certain whether I should direct it to the Secretary of State or to the Minister of Fisheries, but since both are present I hope the responsible Minister will answer it.
Will the responsible Minister inform the House of the progress being made to establish geographical co-ordinates from the international boundary to Cape Fourchu, from Cape North to Channel Head, Newfoundland, and from Cape Bauld to the northeast point of Belle Isle to Cape Charles in Labrador, so that the Strait of Belle Isle, the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Bay of Fundy may be declared and recognized as Canadian national waters in the same manner as Hudson Bay?
April 29, 1365


Mr. Speaker:: This is a very important question, and perhaps the hon. Member will put it on the order paper.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, with due deference to your ruling, almost one year has now passed since Bill S-17 was accepted and approved by this House, and in view of the necessity for drawing base lines to protect Canadian fisheries interests I do believe that some action should be taken and an announcement made soon by this Government.



EARTHQUAKES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)):: I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as the Cabinet Minister from British Columbia. Has the Minister received any information on the effects of an earthquake which was reported by the C.B.C. radio news at noon to have struck the Vic-toria-Vancouver-Seattle area today?
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: As one might expect, Mr. Speaker, my office has been in touch with Vancouver. I am advised that a very serious tremor has been recorded, sufficiently serious to dislocate the recording needle of the seismograph, but I understand that there have been no injuries or deaths. However, I am awaiting a further report.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask a rather unduly delayed supplementary question because of my deference to the hon. Member for Port Arthur. My question arises out of a question asked by the hon. Member for Victoria of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, because he is the Minister in the House at the present time from British Columbia, and reports of earthquake shocks and tremors in B.C. In view of the fact that Seattle is south of the site of the High Arrow dam, would the Minister also inquire whether these tremors were felt in the region of the proposed site of the High Arrow dam on the Columbia?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my preliminary report, as I indicated, is not as complete as I would like, but my information is that the tremors were confined largely to the triangle
Inquiries of the Ministry formed by Seattle, Victoria and Vancouver, rather than in the interior of the Province.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance and is based on his most recent review of the Canadian economy. Does the hon. gentleman feel that inflation poses a threat to the Canadian economy?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I believe we are about to resume
the debate on the budget, and I suggest that would be a better time or place to discuss a matter of such importance.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: should like to direct a letter to the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, it took me so long to get recognized, Mr. Speaker, I almost had to write a letter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I understand from a news report brought to my attention that a deal has been made at a meeting between representatives of the Federal Government and of the Provincial Government of Saskatchewan held to discuss housing for Indians. I am wondering whether any deal is pending with regard to the same situation between the Federal Government and the Province of Alberta.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This particular arrangement is a new departure, and we shall be watching it carefully to see whether we can apply it to situations in other provinces.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the Prime Minister consider my suggestion that a royal commission be set up, in the light of the Government's proposed war on poverty, to examine conditions on the Indian reserves in Canada generally?

April 29. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would hope this could be done without setting up a royal commission.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What plans are being made now by the Government to assist the Indians of this country if there is not to be a royal commission?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the hon. Member will write me a letter I will send him a long reply.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister which relates to the questions posed by the hon. Member for Bow River concerning the new policy of housing assistance on Indian reservations in Saskatchewan. Can the Prime Minister say whether this program is now available to any province following the request of that province, or is it merely on a trial basis?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The program is on a trial basis, Mr. Speaker, and we hope the trial will be successful because it could be applied to other similar situations in other parts.


Robert Simpson: A further supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister say why the decision was made to try this out in Saskatchewan? Was it initiated by the Province or was it initiated by the Indian Affairs branch?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question, but I will talk to the Minister about it and perhaps he can answer tomorrow.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: supplementary question. Could the Prime Minister say, on the basis of this trial housing program in Saskatchewan, how many houses it is proposed to develop in the first year trial period?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think, though I speak subject to correction, that it will cover about 40, but I should like to check that.



ASSISTANCE TO TEACHERS DISPLACED THROUGH SCHOOL INTEGRATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can the Minister advise the House what plans his Department has in mind for placement of teachers presently employed by the Indian Affairs branch but who will be affected by

the policy of integrating Indian children into the public school system and who have been advised their services will be terminated?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice.



EXPO '67 REPORTED CALLING OF TENDERS FOR C.B.C. BUILDING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My
question is addressed to the Secretary of State. On April 9 the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Red Deer and I questioned the Secretary of State about the awarding of a contract by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the construction of its Expo '67 building. At that time the Minister indicated he had no knowledge of the matter and said he would seek the required information.
That was on April 9. Yesterday, in reply to a written question I had put on the order paper on that date, I was informed by the C.B.C. through the Secretary of State that such a contract had been awarded and signed on April 1.
In view of the fact that this contract is reported to be worth some $4 million I am wondering in what circumstances the Minister was able to say on April 9 that he knew nothing about an important contract which had been signed on April 1. Will he tell us now whether he actually knew on April 9 that such a contract had been signed after negotiation with one firm, and one firm only?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I did not know.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the Minister tell us this. Since when has the practice been abandoned of ministers responsible for the C.B.C. appearing before Treasury Board to get approval of such expenditures, particularly in view of the fact that supplementary interim supply had been granted for the period only just prior to April 1?


Maurice Lamontagne: I understand that this matter was dealt with by Treasury Board but I was not present at that meeting.


John George Diefenbaker: In that connection I should like to ask the Minister this. As funds for this project have not been approved by Parliament, what is the intention of the Government in this connection? This is an extraordinary position of affairs and one which
April 29. 1965

cannot be justified. I ask the Minister also whether this building, this pavilion, constitutes, in part, C.B.C.'s capital program or whether it is an addition to the program. Have we arrived at a period in Canada when the C.B.C. is supreme over Parliament?


Maurice Lamontagne: It is in addition to the normal capital requirement of the C.B.C. but it is included in the main estimates as part of the total capital of the Corporation.


John George Diefenbaker: When will approval be given to this, or asked for; and why should a contract be let when there has been no approval for the expenditure? This is highhanded action which cannot be justified.


Maurice Lamontagne: I understand that the C.B.C. has proceeded on this occasion in the same manner as in many other cases involving other departments.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not true.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What are those cases?
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the same Minister a question with relation to the transfer of the radio station that broadcasts at 1540 in Toronto into the hands of Mr. Lombardi and Mr. Service. Since all Members have received representations from ethnic groups which are objecting to this transfer, I wonder whether he could get a clear statement from the Board of Broadcast Governors with regard to this particular representation, so that all of us would have something with which to reply to these people and would also see whether there is any substance in their arguments against this particular transfer.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to do so.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Does the minister agree with the C.B.C. that a French radio station in Toronto was as needed as three or four English radio stations in Montreal and one or two in Quebec City or elsewhere in the province of Quebec?
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I think that matter was settled a few months ago.



RECOMMENDATION RESPECTING RADIO STATION CJOR, VANCOUVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has received a recommendation from the Board of Broadcast Governors concerning Radio Station CJOR, Vancouver, and, if so, what is he doing about it?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I have received such a recommendation, Mr. Speaker, and I am considering it.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that, effective immediately, some 250 people in Oakville, Ontario are being affected by the transfer of the Purchasing Department of Ford of Canada to Detroit, would the Prime Minister take immediate steps and talk with Mr. Scott, President of Ford, to see whether these people could not be allowed to remain in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to look into this matter at once. As a matter of fact the Minister of Labour is discussing this and other related matters this afternoon.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Minister of Industry is not here, maybe the Prime Minister would care to answer this question. Does the Prime Minister agree with senior officials of Ford and Chrysler, who agreed with U.S. Government officials in their ways and means committee meeting this week that the Canada-U.S. auto treaty will not cut Canada's auto trade deficit with the United States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly in no position, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so, to comment on hearings before a Congressional Committee in Washington on this matter.

April 29. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. Can the Minister tell the House whether he was able to give to the delegation from the United Automobile Workers in Windsor any assurances with regard to assistance for employees who will be laid off by the Ford Motor Company of Canada as a result of the Canada-United States automobile agreement? I believe they saw him today, and I was wondering whether he was able to reassure them in this regard.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I interrupted my meeting with the United Automobile Workers to come into the House, and I expect to go back to complete the meeting just as soon as the question period is over. At the stage we had reached it was not possible to reach any conclusion along the lines suggested.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State?
Can the minister tell us why out of nine appointments made within the C.B.C. recently not a single French Canadian got a promotion?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would give me more details.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS TERMS OF REFERENCE RESPECTING OFFSHORE MINERAL RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister is in a position to answer the question I asked him regarding the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada on offshore mineral rights.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. Member;
I should have answered this question yesterday. I tabled this morning the Order in Council dealing with the matter of the reference to the Supreme Court covering the 
Pacific coast, and I sent a copy to my right hon. friend and I think to certain other Members. This particular reference was forwarded to the Government of British Columbia for any comment they might wish to make. There is an examination into the question of references covering other coasts in other Provinces, but they will not be made for the time being; there is a good deal of work to be done. In any event, it will be well to find out what the decision may be in respect of the Pacific coast question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question in connection with that matter. The Prime Minister was kind enough to forward to me a copy of the Order in Council, and I was impressed by the fact that, as he said a moment ago, it was restricted to British Columbia. Does this mean that in so far as Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland are concerned the question of offshore mineral rights is going to be negotiated? If not, does not the Prime Minister think that restricting this Order in Council to British Columbia should not deny representation to these other Provinces, which will be directly affected by any recommendation or interpretation given by the Supreme Court of Canada, and that they ought to be permitted to have legal representation when the argument takes place in connection with the British Columbia situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it may be necessary to make other references covering other coasts and concerning other Provinces, but the legal considerations in respect of the Provinces differ and the references may have to differ also to cover the different legal and indeed in some case historical considerations, as my right hon. friend knows. But consideration is now being given to the kind of reference that should be submitted covering these other situations.


John George Diefenbaker: Will consideration be given, in any event, on the basis of the general principle established by this reference, to the various Provinces being permitted to have legal representation and to make arguments on the occasion of the presentation of the reference in respect of British Columbia?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is a general principle that will cover the whole situation. The general principle may be common, but there are differences in the legal position in regard to
April 29, 1965

the different Provinces because of the different conditions under which some of the Provinces came into Confederation and the circumstances at that time covered, for instance control of property rights. But I can assure my right hon. friend that this whole question is under consideration, and nothing that is done with regard to this reference will prejudice the position of the other Provinces.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Perhaps he could clear this up. Doesn't he think the Supreme Court of Canada will ask all Provinces to intervene in this reference? It has nothing to do with what the Government does; it is what the Court asks.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say what the Supreme Court will do, but it is a plausible possibility.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister is aware that a short time ago the Government of Newfoundland gave a licence for 30 million acres to be explored for offshore minerals in an area where two licences were issued by the Federal Government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am aware of that matter, Mr. Speaker, and that is another illustration of the importance of getting this question cleared up as quickly as possible.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
A few years ago I asked why the railways in Canada did not use local time and I received the answer that according to the railways association the problem was too complicated. If you take a look at the C.N.R. time table, you see that they now use local time. Could the minister find out why the C.P.R. did not see fit to follow that example, since eastern standard time is still being used?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have not done any research into this question, but I will look into it and try to give an answer.
Inquiries of the Ministry
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, a question I have not asked him for over a month, although one month ago he assured me that he would reply very soon. My question is: Has any conclusion been reached in the negotiations between the air line companies-I think he said-to expand the air line services in southern Alberta so as to take care of all those cities which require such service?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I very much regret to say that there has not yet been a conclusion to these discussions.



RENEGOTIATION OF BILATERAL AGREEMENTS WITH U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question in the same area. I should like to ask the Minister when he will have some information about the new arrangements with the United States regarding air carriers and the various factors involved. Can he give us any date as to that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, we are carrying on negotiations with the United States, and it would be rather difficult to announce the results of the negotiations until they are concluded. However, I can assure the hon. Member that as soon as they are concluded they will be announced promptly.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State, and it is the same question that I addressed to the Acting Secretary of State yesterday. Can he inform the House when the redistribution commissions for the nine provinces which have not yet reported will report, and especially can he say whether the rumour that some of them are going to report on Saturday next is correct?
April 29, 1965

Inquiries o/ the Ministry


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice.


Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Would the Minister take a particular look at the situation in Ontario also and report to the House at the same time?


Maurice Lamontagne: I will, Mr. Speaker.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs a question, but in his absence I will direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. My question is based on the rapidly increasing water problem owing to low water levels, particularly in the Great Lakes, water pollution and related problems. Would the Minister consider setting up a national Water Resources Board to deal with these problems on a national scale?


Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Member for having had the courtesy to tell me about his question this morning. The Minister's views on a national water policy were clearly set out in a recent speech which he made in Portland, Oregon, on April 12 before the Pacific Northwest Trade Association, when he talked about the necessity for a Canadian national water policy as opposed to a continental water policy. He spoke in terms of the development of such a water policy in coordination and in co-operation with the provincial authorities. Within these terms of reference the Minister would be extremely interested in the suggestion of the hon. Member, and I will bring it to his attention.
tTranslation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
If the departmental officials complain about the low water level in the great lakes, could the parliamentary secretary not buy from the Quebec department of natural resources, headed by Mr. Rene Levesque, the rain making machinery now in use in Abitibi and in

the Saguenay-Lake St. John area, in order to rid us of it, because it is not needed?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. On Tuesday I asked him a question concerning the bankruptcy of Walsh Advertising Company. Is there any preliminary report as to the involvement of the Federal Government in this bankruptcy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am getting the information on that matter and I hope to have it in time to give it to the House tomorrow.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-LACK OF FUNDS UNDER MUNICIPAL LOAN ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Challerfon (Esquimalf-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Has a communication been received from the Government of British Columbia or the Premier of that Province pointing out that they have run out of allocated funds under the Municipal Development and Loan Act and that they have many applications from municipalities which they cannot fill?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to see whether that communication has been received. However, I would presume that the allocations have been used up in some provinces, or are approaching that point, which after all was the object of the exercise.


George Louis Chatterton: A supplementary question. Some three weeks ago, when I pointed out to the Minister that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had made a statement in the House in which he said that if any province ran out of its allocated funds they could come back to Parliament for more money, the Minister said he would look into this matter. Has the Minister looked into it and found whether that commitment has been made?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have looked into it.


George Louis Chatterton: A further supplementary. Can the Minister say whether that commitment is going to be lived up to?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I had better reply to this question tomorrow. I did
April 29, 1965
look into the matter. I noted the reference to which my hon. friend refers, and it is not nearly as complete, specific or definite as one might have thought from his original question. I think I will refer to it again and reply tomorrow.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Inasmuch as the Throne Speech debate indicated that the Government intend to introduce amendments to the Veterans Land Act, and inasmuch as veterans are anxious to complete their plans for the summer, can the Minister tell the House whether the maximum loans under part III of the Act are to be increased and, if so, can he tell us what the increase will be?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think I should wait until I have made a check of this situation before replying to that question. As soon as I am in a position to do so I will make a statement.


George Louis Chatterton: I have a supplementary question. Many veterans are holding off application for loans in view of the reference in the Throne Speech to amendments to the Veterans Land Act. Would the Minister advise those veterans to hold off applications for such loans?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that generally speaking the officials working under the Director are well aware of the prospects and will act in keeping with developments.


George Louis Chatterton: I have a further supplementary question. Can the Minister give us his assurance that any veteran who applies for a loan at this time will receive the benefits of any change which might be made to the legislation?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, there certainly will be no difficulty in the way of veterans taking advantage of any increases which may be granted by Parliament.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: should like to direct a question to the Minis-
Inquiries of the Ministry ter of Finance, Mr. Speaker, which relates to a table he filed and which appears at page 444 of Hansard. This table purports to be a comparison between taxes paid by Canadian taxpayers and taxes paid by United States taxpayers. I assume the comparison refers to taxable incomes, and in view of the fact that United States exemptions are higher, is it correct to say that the table is somewhat deceptive?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina Cily):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Some time ago he replied, in what I took to be a serious vein, to a question asked by one of his own supporters, that he would use his efforts to assist Mr. Reagan in conducting a hockey school in Europe. Can the Prime Minister inform this House how these efforts made in this first diplomatic excursion into the field of international hockey with Mr. Bunny Ahearne have turned out?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that my intervention was not very successful this year, although the gentleman in question hopes to be able to conduct his school next year. If he is successful, perhaps the intervention we made with the authorities will have been of some help.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a question. It has to do with a decision which was reached in 1962 by the former government, respecting the sale of the Jacques Cartier bridge to the government of the province of Quebec.
Can the minister tell us if the agreement which had then been reached will soon be ratified so repairs can be made to this bridge which at present is in a deplorable condition?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, apparently the hon. gentle-



April 29, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry man did not hear the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Longueuil, to the effect that the bridge is still under the care and custody of the Federal Government, specifically under the care of the National Harbours Board, and any repairs that might be required, so long as that situation exists, will be made by the Federal Government through that Board. Whether it will be possible to carry to a successful conclusion the negotiations with the Provincial Government, I cannot say at this time.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister of Transport not aware that this situation greatly hampers communications and can endanger the success of the 1967 world fair?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have every reason to believe that all the necessary action will be taken to make sure that the bridge will serve the exposition in the way we all hope it will.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Transport stated that the national harbours board will undertake to make repairs to the Jacques Cartier bridge when they are needed. Is the Minister of Transport not aware that those repairs are absolutely required and that neither the Department of Transport nor the national harbours board is carrying them out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has made a statement somewhat similar to the one he made yesterday. I have not personally been over the bridge recently, but rather than attempt to do so myself I think I shall leave it to the experts of the National Harbours Board to decide what repairs will be required.


Gilles Grégoire: Would the Minister of Transport be ready to cross Jacques Cartier bridge by automobile to find out for himself that those repairs are needed?


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question.

Would the Minister of Transport tell us if he will get in touch with his Quebec counter-

parts so as to be in a position to assure the house within the next few days whether this matter will be settled or not, so that we may have an answer in the near future?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think what is important is to get on with the repairs. The negotiations can be carried on in the ordinary way.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made in his budget speech by the Minister of Finance that the Government will act on the report of the Royal Commission on Taxation after it has received it and that it will amend the income tax structure by 1967, will the Government treat a report which it already has received in the same way? In other words, can we expect action to be taken at least by 1967 on the report of the Royal Commission on Health Services?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as far as the latter part of the question is concerned, that report has already been considered and, as my hon. friend knows, part of that consideration has led to the calling of a federal-provincial conference to be held later in May. So far as the first Commission report is concerned, my hon. friend said the Minister of Finance stated that we would act on that report when it was received. With all respect I do not think that is what the Minister stated. We will give consideration to the report, and it would obviously be unwise to make tax structure changes pending the receipt and consideration of such a report.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question relates to the health services commission report. Can I take it from what the Prime Minister has said that if this Parliament runs a normal course the Government will bring forward legislation in the health field during the lifetime of this Parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are committed to this proposition, Mr. Speaker, and we hope to do this during the lifetime of this Parliament.
April 29. 1965



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake SI. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask for your indulgence regarding what you will probably find a rather long introduction to my question, which I would like to put to the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada and also to the Minister of Justice, should the matter concern him.
Like most middle aged Canadians, I am personally interested in this most important matter of amending our constitution.
My question has to do with the press conference given yesterday by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, for whose qualities I have great respect. As I cannot deal directly with the right hon. member for Prince Albert, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister if he could find out from the hon. gentleman what course of action he would recommend to amend the Canadian constitution so that it may really be Canadian.
I think that all Canadians, and Quebeckers in particular, would be most interested in what the right hon. Leader of the Opposition would suggest in this regard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it would, of course, be quite improper for me to direct a question of this kind to the Leader of the Opposition on orders of the day. That might remind me of the days of 1957 and 1963.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a question to the Minister of Justice which is based on a number of representations I have received in recent days. Some time ago the Ontario Humane Society submitted a brief to the Minister of Justice asking that the Criminal Code be amended to permit magistrates to make an order prohibiting a person convicted of cruelty to animals from possessing animals for a stated period of time. I wonder whether the minister has any intention of acting on this request and bringing forward such an amendment to the Criminal Code.
The Budget-Mr. Leboe


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, all representations received in relation to the Criminal Code are being referred to the officers who are looking after the permanent review of the Code, and the hon. Member may be assured that any representations which in any way merit implementation by being translated into amendments to the Code will be given great consideration. However, for the moment I am not in a position to state what the outcome of these representations will be because that would involve stating government policy, which will be announced in due course.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister set any specific date up to which time representations can be made, and following which time action will be taken to introduce amendments as the result of such representations?


Guy Favreau: No specific date has been set, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a last question for the Prime Minister.
As a sport fan, after having seen the hockey game Tuesday evening, could the Prime Minister predict whether the Stanley Cup games will end this evening in Chicago?



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, April 28, 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 of Mr. Nowlan, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands).
Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that yesterday at 17.00 hours I was referring to the role of the provinces in relation to Canadian economic conditions. I had pointed out that natural resources are controlled by the provinces and therefore Federal policies perhaps had very little effect on economic growth. I had also mentioned that the amount of goods which Canadians returning from visiting other countries are allowed to bring back to Canada had, accord-

I was encouraged a bit by an expression used by the Minister of Finance on television the other evening when he was being interviewed by Michael Barkway, Scott Gordon and Norman DePoe of the C.B.C. I thought I sensed, during this interview, that perhaps the Minister was toying in the back of his mind with the idea of making the Bank of Canada a much more effective institution for the public good. I sincerely hope he will take this to heart and do something about it. This is the greatest opportunity for the Government to move in this direction. In British Columbia, as in the Province of Alberta we have followed the simple concept that salaries and wages paid out for the production of goods are not enough to buy back the goods so produced, and therefore we have to have what we call an industrial climate or financial vacuum to attract outside capital into the Province so the total purchasing power of the people of British Columbia can buy back the total production of that Province.
In this connection I might say it is predicted that in Prince George, which is my home town, in the next two years no less than $400 million will be spent in capital expansion. Actually it is a city of about 25,000 or 30,000 today. I can recall, not too long ago, when there were only a few thousand people there. This $400 million, Mr. Speaker, is a lot of capital expansion. It is based on the concept that you must have an industrial climate or financial vacuum to attract capital. We used the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, the Toll Authority and the Hydro Authority to bring about this financial vacuum.
Just briefly, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to a couple of other strange things which I feel are happening in the country. First of all I should like to mention that many times we are asked to donate to a cancer fund. We are asked to give and give for research into cancer. At the same time we find ourselves paying out money to advertise the very thing we have found is contributing to cancer, that is cigarettes. It does seem to me we are like the individual who has a leaky boat, and while he is floating on the lake he decides he is going to fix it so he bores a hole in the bottom of the boat to let the water out. I do not see how we can expect to get people seriously interested in the cancer proposition if we are going to allow the advertising which tobacco companies are conducting to continue to get our young people into the habit of smoking cigarettes, which we know contribute not only to lung cancer but to other disabilities of the individual.
The Budget-Mr. Leboe
Now, we hear many tear-jerking stories about people who suffer from poverty in other countries. What do we do? We make grandiose speeches about what we should be doing to help these people. Every day I go by a brewery in this city. I know I am going by it because I can smell it. It smells just like a pig sty with all those rotting husks of grain. We are turning hundreds of thousands of tons of grain into alcohol so it may be consumed, and we are advertising this so that it may be consumed, thus making our No. 1 killer an even greater killer on the highways of our country.
I do not know why we do not settle down and give some thought to where we are going. We talk about speed artists. I want to tell you that statistics show that a man who has had two drinks is a potentially greater killer than a man who is completely drunk. If we are going to spend our time raising grain to make liquor to kill people on the highways, then I think we ought to give some consideration to what Mr. Gaglardi has said on a number of occasions at the safety council meetings in this country.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I see my time has about expired, Mr. Speaker, so I should like to put our position very clearly on the amendment that is before us. Referring to the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, I should like to put forth the position of the Social Credit Party very clearly. We are in complete agreement with the proposals in the subamendment. But what is the situation? In the first place, supporting this amendment would be negative. Any action resulting from the amendment being carried would, in fact, defeat that which is acceptable in the budget. It is perfectly clear to all Members in the House that the amendment if carried would not make effective the proposals contained therein. In the second place we have already this session had two votes of non-confidence very recently, motions on which the combined opposition failed to carry the vote, the Government being sustained by the majority in the House although more than 20 of its supporters were absent. I say, let us not make a farce out of Parliament but rather let us settle down and do the country's business-we hope, with dispatch.
In the past many press reports have not made it clear to the reading and viewing public that these votes are strictly expressions of non-confidence in the Government and that the wording of the amendments really
April 29, 1965

The Budget-Mr. Gregoire amounts to nothing, since acceptance by the House would only mean the dissolution of Parliament.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the budget speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) three days ago. The first impression of the ordinary listener in the galleries was that everything is fine in Canada, that there is nothing wrong.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I hear someone saying "hear, hear" and applauding. Let him go and applaud such a statement in his own riding; I am afraid he will come back faster than he went, because the unemployed, the farmers and even his own electors are not convinced that everything is fine.
My first reaction was one of bewilderment in the face of such a piece of bluff. They bragged that they had done everything. The government took credit for getting the country out of the doldrums and taking it to the zenith of economic development.
The first reaction in the face of such bragging is bewilderment. But after reflection and checking, the budget speech can be described as a great hoax through biased statistics and garbled figures.
Mr. Speaker, I will refer to the figures supplied by the Minister of Finance as well as to the D.B.S. statistics, and we will be able to see whether the Minister of Finance was right in claiming that everything is fine in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, here is what can be read on page 2 of the French version of the release issued by the Minister of Finance concerning his budget speech:
When this government first came into office, we stated a number of economic objectives. Our first goaf was a high level of employment for Canadians and the reduction of unemployment. The second was a high and sustainable level of economic growth. Thirdly, we wanted a better regional balance in both employment and growth.
So, the first objective that the government stated when it came into office was a high level of employment and a reduction of unemployment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at things according to statistics. I have here a copy of the Statistical Review of Canada, catalogue No. 11-003F, for the month of April 1965. The minister quoted certain figures on unemployment, but his figures do not tally with the actual figures. In fact, the Statistical
IMr. Leboe.l
Review of Canada publishes completely different figures, and there is even confusion or contradiction in the statistics published in the Statistical Review of Canada.
For instance, we note that in order to explain a decrease of unemployment, the Statistical Review of Canada must bring out a decrease in the civilian labour force in Canada, which is completely contrary to facts, because the Canadian population has increased in every age group. Ten months ago, we were told that the gainfully employed population in Canada numbered 6,901,000, although it was only 6,844,000 in February 1965.
In July 1964, it was said to be 7,232,000 although it was only 6,844,000 in January 1965, which means that the Statistical Review of Canada even cuts down on the Canadian civil labour force and this, of course, is impossible. As a matter of fact, it even reduces the number of people employed in Canada. While there were 6,608,000 employed persons in May 1964, their number was said to be 6,446,000, a drop of 150,000, in February 1965.
Even the number of unemployed is being reduced, which would mean, according to the figures quoted by the minister, that everything is going down in Canada: the population, the number of workers and the number of unemployed persons.
According to the Statistical Review of Canada, there were 408,000 unemployed in the country. Those are official figures. On the other hand, according to the unemployment insurance commission, 547,800 persons were receiving unemployment insurance benefits, or 140,000 more than the number of unemployed quoted in the Statistical Review of Canada.
As I said, we are left with the impression that statistics are deceitfully cut down because, according to the Statistical Review of Canada, there would be 408,000 unemployed in the country even though 547,800 persons are receiving unemployment insurance benefits.
This last figure represents only the number of persons receiving unemployment insurance benefits and does not include those thousands in Quebec receiving social assistance and welfare allowances.
Mr. Speaker, the chief quality of the present government is its talent for confusing figures, quoting incomplete statistics and giving a false picture to the public. Instead of relying on Bay Street, in Toronto, the
April 29, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	737
Minister of Finance should visit our ridings to meet the people. In fact, he should go to the ridings of Lotbiniere, Levis and Lapointe because he would then realize that the figures he quoted-


Mr. Guay:: There are no unemployed in my riding.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I hear the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) say there are no unemployed in his riding.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: We are short of labour.


Gilles Grégoire: The hon. member claims that there is even a labour shortage in his constituency.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Well, Mr. Speaker, I say that when the electors of the hon. member for Levis hear about the statement he just made, it will be better for him not to show himself to the unemployed in his riding. When the hon. member for Levis talks like that, it is not for the good of his constituents but to try and save the face of his party. That party has no policy and the hon. member is thinking more of his party than of his electors. But his electors will keep that in mind.
Mr. Speaker, I see the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger). I think he has been paying too much attention to furniture those past few years and it would be better for him if he looked after his electors-


Mr. Boulanger:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I would like to ask the hon. member for Lapointe-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Lapointe allow the hon. member for Mercier to ask him a question?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, since I have but 30 minutes, I should like to conclude my observations first.


Prosper Boulanger: May I ask you a question? May I ask you what I said? I did not speak, I did not even utter a word, I merely looked at you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: I go on with the employment level and the unemployment problem.
Unemployment is lower only in the statistics provided by the government. Actually, it
The Budget-Mr. Gregoire has not diminished. It seems to have been reduced but this is due to the fact that the methods used to compile statistics have been changed so that the unemployed receiving social or unemployment assistance but receiving no unemployment insurance payments are not taken into consideration. This is the only reason for the reduction of unemployment in Canada. It exists only on paper, because of the new method of compiling statistical data, but, actually, the number of unemployed has not been reduced. It increases continually and there is today a great number of young people on the labour market who are unable to find a job.
Mr. Speaker, if I were in the position of the present government, I would not be proud to say that unemployment has been reduced when they know perfectly well that this apparent reduction results from figure juggling and a new method of compiling statistics. The proof is that the same statistical review, page 14, gives different figures: 408,000 jobless at the top of the page and 545,000 persons receiving unemployment insurance benefits, at the bottom of the page.
Could the Minister of Finance explain that to me? If this is the basis of his statement that unemployment is lower, then I think that there should be a change in the Department of Finance.
Second objective set by the present government: a high and sustainable rate of economic growth. Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the economic growth of the country from 1961 to 1964, we find that the rate of economic growth has not been high and sustained as claimed by the minister.
In 1961, our gross national product, at the market price, was $38.6 billion; at the end of 1964, it was $46,736 million. The minister is basing himself on those figures to tell us that we have had a 6 per cent and an 8.5 per cent increase. There has been an increase of $8,136 million during those three years, according to the Minister's figures. And there again, Mr. Speaker, the figures given and the actual ones are entirely different, because prices have increased, and this is why the production volume has increased according to the figures quoted.
If a quart of milk which cost 24 cents in 1961 now costs 26 cents, it is obvious that production of a quart of milk is now worth 26 cents. But in 1961, the same quart of milk represented a production of 24 cents. The sale price and not production has been increased. It is merely a price increase.
Now, if the figures for this increase in the gross national product are worked out not
738	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Gregoire according to the market price but in constant dollars, that is, taking into account the value of money according to the 1957 index, one finds that in 1961, the figure was $36,108 million and in 1964, $41,284 million, or an increase of $5,176 million instead of $8,136 million.
But that is not all, Mr. Speaker. There was an increase of $5,176 million in constant dollars, but at the same time, in addition to the differences between the price of goods, other amounts were included in this $5,176 million increase. For instance, direct taxes have increased: federal, provincial and municipal taxes. In 1961, they reached $2,564 million; in 1964, $3,424 million, or an increase of $860 million which must be deducted from the $5,176 million increase.
There were also the direct taxes on corporations that must be included in this increase in the gross national product, that is an increase of $208 million in 1964 as compared to 1961.
Indirect taxes must also be included in the gross national product in constant dollars. There was an increase of $1,544 million in 1964 as compared to 1961; that adds up to a total of $2,812 million which must be deducted from the $5,176 million increase in the economic growth of this country.
This gives an actual increase in three years of $2,364 million and not $8,136 million as the Minister of Finance would lead Canadian citizens to believe.
Two billion three hundred and sixty four million dollars in three years, that means an average of 6.5 per cent or an actual average of about 2.2 per cent per year. Is that what the Minister of Finance calls a high and sustainable level of economic growth? At that rate, it would take 50 years to double the country's real economic standard of living, which is quite a poor performance compared to many other countries.
If you divide that increase of $2,364 million in three years between 19 million Canadians, you get $124 more for each Canadian in three years, or $41 a year.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
There has been a year's work involved in getting an economic growth equal to $41 per year per person in Canada, and the Minister of Finance is proud of that result.
One must be blind not to realize that this is not real progress. If only there had been a real increase of $41 per year per person in Canada. But no, the direct debt of the federal government alone, not including that of provincial and municipal governments,

DEBATES	April 29, 1965
school boards, companies, businesses, industries and individuals, jumped from $21,602 million in 1961 to $25,923 million in 1964, an increase of $4,321 million; therefore, we have an increase of $4,321 million as compared to a growth of $2,364 million in the last three years.
This means that instead of getting more prosperous, we have got into debt. After three years' labour, we have contracted additional debts to the tune of two billion dollars. During the last three years the balance of national accounts shows a decrease of two billion dollars. And the Minister of Finance is satisfied with this situation. That is the result of the Liberal administration during the last two years, and the government is satisfied with this setback.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: The government is going backwards.


Gilles Grégoire: As the hon. member for Shefford said, the government is going backwards. The minister just boasted about the buoyant economy of the country, while in fact we have moved backwards. The next generation, your children and ours, will pay the interest on the debts which we are contracting today; this year we must pay out of our taxes and our sweat, $1,604 million in interest on the debt contracted 10, 15, 25 years ago by the predecessors of the present Minister of Finance.
We should not use the word "growth" but rather "setback" with respect to the economic development of the country.
Third objective of the federal government since it came into office stated on page 2 of the speech of the Minister of Finance:
... we wanted a better regional balance in both employment and growth.
Let us examine the facts and consider a press release of the dominion bureau of statistics dated April 14, 1965 for the week ending March 20, 1965, concerning employment and unemployment.
In February 1965, there were 397,000 unemployed in Canada according to the D.B.S. I think there are at least twice as many according to the figures provided in Canada Year Book. In March 1965, a month later, there were 387,000 unemployed, that is 10,000 less. But did this make for a better balance between regions in the field of employment and economic growth?
Let us look at the situation in all the Canadian provinces except Quebec. In the Maritimes, there were 76,000 unemployed in
April 29, 1965
February 1965 and in March of the same year, 73,000. In Ontario, there were 93,000 in February 1965 and a month later, in March, 79,000. The prairie provinces had
47.000	unemployed in February 1965 and
49.000	in March, an increase of 2,000. In British Columbia, the jobless numbered 37,000 in February 1965 and 33,000 in March.
If you look at the figures for Ontario, which has a larger population than Quebec, you find that this province had 93,000 unemployed in February 1965 and 79,000 in March.
In the province of Quebec you will find that during the month of February 1965, there were 147,000 unemployed persons while there were 156,000 during the month of March of the same year, which is an increase of 9,000.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: That is what is called cooperative federalism.


Gilles Grégoire: An increase of 9,000. It is the only region in the whole of Canada where unemployment has increased: An increase of 9,000, while everywhere else, unemployment has decreased. And now, the Minister of Finance tells us that one of his objectives is to establish a better regional balance in both employment and growth. Well, he has really missed his goal in the province of Quebec since it is the only region of Canada where unemployment has increased. In Quebec, there were 153,000 unemployed, while in Ontario there were 79,000. We will see later some of the minister's explanations which condemn his attitude toward employment and unemployment.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Liberal in Quebec and Liberal in Ottawa.


Gilles Grégoire: Despite these three objectives, in the last years, as we can see, the present government has lamentably failed in its duty.
And here is what the Minister of Finance added in introducing his budget speech:
We also wished to bring into closer balance our trade and other current international transactions.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Another farce. They are a bunch of jokers.


Gilles Grégoire: Let us see what the Minister of Finance says in that connection in his budget speech. See how serious this is becoming:
To be sure, last year we achieved a trade surplus of $700 million. But we used up this surplus and more in servicing past debts, in paying dividends to foreigners-
I am not saying this; the Minister of Finance said so. This surplus of $700 million
The Budget-Mr. Gregoire from our sales to foreign countries has not been enough to service past debts. And the minister continues to borrow even though this surplus was not enough to pay dividends to foreigners; $700 million.
We ask for a national dividend, not for foreigners but for Canadians, and the sum of $700 million has not even been enough to pay dividends to foreigners and to make other kinds of current payments. The minister should tell us what are the current payments. They are certainly not readily available because they cannot be found in the province of Quebec. He calls that current payments although they are interests on our borrowings. It sounds better. But he should make some of those current payments to our own Canadian citizens.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: They are for others and not for us.


Gilles Grégoire: Later on in his speech the minister indicated that he wanted to achieve a balance, but note the flagrant contradiction in this same paragraph of the budget speech of the Minister of Finance where he complained about our trade deficit:
I do not anticipate difficulties in financing outside Canada the moderate amounts really required for this purpose, but the dependence on foreign savings should not be permitted to persist indefinitely.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: When will savings be made for us?


Gilles Grégoire: He complains about the size of our debt abroad. And without even batting an eye or blushing, he went on quite directly two paragraphs further:
I do not anticipate difficulties in financing outside Canada the moderate amounts really required for this purpose, but this dependence on foreign savings should not be permitted to persist indefinitely.
And he added:
The major source of capital, the United States, is having to restrict its investments abroad.
He also added:
We would be foolhardy if we assumed that over the long term, the capital needed to cover our continuing current account deficits, whatever their size, would always be ours for the asking.
But our continuing deficits precisely come from the fact that in the past, we depended too much on foreign capital and not enough on the credit of Canada which should belong to Canadians because it represents labour, the labour of the Canadian people and the natural resources of Canada.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: They rob Peter to pay Paul.

April 29, 1965

The Budget-Mr. Gregoire


Gilles Grégoire: The Minister of Finance is aiming at a balance of payments in our foreign trade, but he is still looking for foreign capital.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
But look at this other inconsistency. Where it would be fine, where we would have a surplus in our trade with foreign countries, namely with the United States and England, what happens? The Minister of Finance wants to do them favours to enable them to balance their trade with us, so that as a whole, we have a deficit.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: They rob Peter to pay Paul.


Gilles Grégoire: Here is what he said:
For a wide range of such products Canada is Britain's nearest, and most reliable and cheapest source. As a result, our sales to Britain over the years have normally exceeded her sales to Canada.
That should delight us. But they would like to help Great Britain to get back on her feet and they still worry about her trade deficit with Canada. It is natural to worry about her trade deficit with the United States. We appreciate that because we face the same type of problem and even worse.
As far as current operations with the United States are concerned, for the whole of 1964, exports from the United Kingdom to Canada amounted to $60 million more than in 1963. The minister said further:
We expect now to see further substantial improvement in the sale of British products in the Canadian market.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Cheers for the stepmother.


Gilles Grégoire: A "substantial improvement", especially in the field of automobiles. But if we buy products made in England, if we buy more automobiles there, this will bring a decrease in employment in Canada. This may result in an increase of our imports, but at the same time this will result in the loss of jobs for many in Canada.
That is what the Minister of Finance is hoping and looking for. He has adopted new tariff regulations so as to help Great Britain to sell more on the Canadian market, whereas Canada is the one that needs assistance. Well and good to help England; but what if it is to the detriment of Canada? The Minister does not care.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up, unless he obtains the unanimous consent of the house to pursue his remarks.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Provided it does not take too much time.
[Mr. Rondeau.}


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous agreement to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: At a time when Canada is seeking to set up her own automobile industry, the Minister of Finance stated in his budget speech that he welcomed increased imports of British automobiles.
Such is the foreign trade policy of the Minister of Finance.
The Columbia treaty negotiated by British Columbia is the only major transaction of the past few years which may be beneficial to our country by providing us with American dollars and by reducing our trade deficit with the United States.


An hon. Member:: We need a new minister of finance.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the minister also mentioned federal-provincial relations in his budget speech? I should like to quote a sentence from the budget speech, as reported on page 431 of Hansard for April 26, 1965:
The federal government's responsibility in the field of fiscal policy, monetary policy and trade policy is primary and indisputable. And this is as it should be..
But how did the government discharged its responsibility in the field of fiscal policy? It encroached upon the rights of the provinces in the field of direct taxation. The monetary policy of this government has always been directed toward big financial interests, never in favour of the Canadian people. Seventy five per cent of the Canadian trade policy has been directed toward the marketing of western wheat while other farm products of eastern Canada have been completely ignored by this government. That is why provincial governments, and more particularly the government of the province of Quebec, are more than ever entitled to question the policy of the federal government in those fields, and I am more and more convinced that provincial governments are right in wanting to assume responsibilities for those fields because the federal government refused to do its duty.
Mr. Speaker, as the time allowed to me will expire shortly, I will now deal with the personal income tax "cut" announced by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: It is not worth mentioning.


Gilles Grégoire: The hon. member for Shef-ford (Mr. Rondeau) says that it is not worth mentioning, particularly as far as the small wage earners are concerned, because it favours people in higher income brackets.
April 29, 19SS	COMMONS DEBATES	741
According to the table supplied by the Minister of Finance himself in his budget, a married man, with two children, with an income of $3,000 will have a tax abatement of $3 a year, and only $1.50 this year since the abatement will only cover six months.
On the other hand, a man earning $20,000 under the same circumstances will enjoy a tax cut of $493 and one earning $50,000, a tax cut of $600. Therefore, people in the high income group will get large tax cuts while those in the low income group will get practically nothing.
Ministers will get a deduction of $600 a year and members of parliament will get one of approximately $200 a year, whereas the
3,100,000	taxpayers who earn $5,000 or less a year will not even gain $30. Mr. Donald Gordon, who earns $75,000 a year, and Mr. Alphonse Ouimet, who earns $40,000 a year, will get a reduction of $600 whereas the C.N.R. and C.B.C. clerks who earn only $3,000 a year will get a deduction of $3. A tax cut of $600 for the president who earns $75,000 or $40,000 and $3 for the clerk who earns only $3,000.
Such is the fairness of the latest budget, Mr. Speaker. Whereas low income groups would have needed tax reductions they have been almost forgotten in all this.
This is the budget: a statistical hoax, an illusory description of the situation and a few favours granted to Great Britain; tax abatements for people in higher brackets, a stronger control of big financial interests over our economy, astronomical payments of a colonial tribute to foreign capitalism and, for the people, a few crumbs to keep them quiet.
Like the vanquished of Gaul in Caesar's time who had to crawl under the Caudine forks, the Minister of Finance subjects the Canadian people to the control of high finance.
What has been overlooked is to give back Canada to Canadians. What has been overlooked is to enable private individuals and families to enjoy prosperity, to develop our social institutions in the fields of leisure, education and so on. What has been overlooked is to promote public development through a comprehensive public program, such as the construction of highways, bridges, public buildings, harbours, and so on.
What has been forgotten is the development of our natural resources by and for Canadians.
The Budget-Mr. Pennell
The government will realize that its first two years of administration show sad results and that the 1965 budget does not forecast any improvement. The proof is that the Minister of Finance stated that there would be a slowdown in the economic development by the end of the year. Why? Because he failed to set his sights high enough, to appreciate the potential of our country, to adjust to the modern age in which we are living, in short, because he has forgotten to adapt our monetary policy to the country's potential. Let us recognize this potential. Let us recognize at the same time the needs of our country, of our citizens, of the whole world, and then, with the use of progressive and drastic measures, we will know a true economic progress, not for England, not for the big shots but for each and every one of the Canadian citizens.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion I have had the privilege of participating in a budget debate and I would hope that the House might welcome the introduction of a small measure of virginity into this controversial issue. It is always a pleasure, of course, to follow the hon. Member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) because he seems to enjoy himself so much in any debate. I propose, however, first of all to deal with some of the criticisms directed from across the floor by the financial critic of the Official Opposition, the hon. Member for Digby-Anna-polis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). I wish to assure the hon. Member that we on this side of the House have a very warm regard for him, but I am sure he will not take it amiss if I say that that regard does not extend to the acceptance of his judgment on economic matters.
It was rather significant that the chief financial critic did not go into any analysis in depth of economic conditions in the country today, although the occasion was rather appropriate and he had ample opportunity to do so. I suggest that the answer is very simple, namely the general satisfaction with economic conditions in Canada today. His chief criticism, Mr. Speaker, which was not of a wounding nature, centred around the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) had not seen fit to remove the sales tax upon production machinery and equipment. The hon. Member attempted to fortify his argument by leaning upon a statement-I will not say a
April 29, 1965

The Budget-Mr. Pennell self-serving statement-issued by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association on April 10 last. I might say that the nakedness of the argument put forward by the hon. Member is found in his own quotation. I therefore do not hesitate to put that quotation on the record again. I quote:
New manufacturing investment in the Canadian economy in 1965 is forecast to exceed $2.2 billion, a sum never before equalled in a single year. It is 23 per cent greater than the $1.8 billion invested last year and two thirds as much again as the $1.3 billion of 1963.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that this is typical of the confidence of Canadian businessmen in the present administration. I do not wish to do an injustice to the hon. Member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings inasmuch as the fact is that he went on to introduce a qualifying paragraph which I will also put on the record. In this regard he referred to the anticipated tax reduction on production machinery and equipment.
Should these expectations not be realized, there could very well be a distinct scaling down in capital investment intentions to the detriment of the economy and government revenues alike.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member has obviously forgotten to look at the record of achievement in 1964 because this is the same doleful prophecy we have heard for the last two years. The record will show that investment in 1964 was $500 million more than in 1963. However, the hon. Member sought to bolster his position with further quotations and one to which he referred was a statement by the President of Chemcell to a meeting of company shareholders. It is to be found on page 699 of Hansard of yesterday. Again the hon. Member was referring to the failure to reduce or remove the tax on production machinery and equipment, and he implied that this would be a great brake on Canadian exports. Again, in fairness to him I give the quotation:
This tax is a serious brake on national progress... Only the general level of Canadian prosperity has concealed the Innate viciousness of this tax...
It is rather remarkable, Mr. Speaker, that the quotation referred to by the hon. Member mentions the general level of Canadian prosperity.


Mr. Nowlan:: Why not? We achieved it.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I find the hon. Member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings much more attractive when he remains cheerful, as he is now. However, I would suggest that if the hon. Member had made even a cursory examina-

tion of the figures to be found in the White Paper he would have found the answer to the question he posed. The latest D.B.S. figures for exports of inedible end products, which consist mainly of manufactured goods, are as follows: In 1963 exports amounted to $779 million while in 1964 they amounted to $1,109 million, an increase of $330 million or more than 40 per cent in exports of Canadian manufactured goods to foreign countries. If the hon. Member will look at the record he will see that the evidence of our economy is clear and compelling.
I would suggest to those who are concerned about the economic future of the country that the production of steel is one of the most accurate barometers of the future. Since there is a great propensity for quoting statements from various newspapers, may I say that I think the Financial Post put the situation rather well on the 10th of April when it stated:
The Canadian steelmakers are hurrying a new expansion program that will boost capacity by at least one third during the next five years. Total capital outlay will be about $750 million, steel authorities told the Financial Post this week. Expansion programs are being tailored to a forecasted annual growth in steel markets of 7.5 per cent to 1970. Expansion plans have been speeded up because steelmakers badly underestimated market growth-it was longer and stronger than they figured-in recent years, and we are now about one million tons short in productive capacity.
All this reflects the confidence that this administration has restored to Canada's economy, and I do not think we can overemphasize the cumulative and far reaching effect that confidence can have in restoring and maintaining the economy.
The very satisfactory condition of our monetary reserves in gold and foreign exchange again is most cogent evidence that this Government and this country command the respect of investors both at home and abroad.
I do not propose to shirk other issues raised by the hon. Member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. I am going to turn now to the tax reduction. I say openly and frankly that the benefit of the tax reduction, which applies to the great majority of taxpayers, was a modest one. But, Mr. Speaker, if you are going to put the tax reduction in its proper perspective you must weigh the total impact it is going to have on the economy. The real test of the budget is whether the tax reduction will meet the fundamental necessity of moving our economy forward, and without inflation. If the economy becomes stagnant,
April 29, 1965	COMMONS
then no matter what tax reduction is made all will suffer. If we are able to keep the economy moving forward at its present rate of growth, all will gain.
I should like to put it on the record, Mr. Speaker, that in large measure it was the fiscal policies introduced by the present Minister of Finance that made it possible for us to introduce a tax reduction at this time without impairing the Canadian economy. In many ways the present budget is a complement to the budget of 1964. The fiscal policies introduced at that time enabled the Government to reduce the budgetary deficit to $83 million in 1964 from $690 million in the fiscal year 1962-63. The Minister of Finance knew that new policies had to be introduced to meet the challenge of unemployment, and it is within the recollection of the House that when he brought in his new policy of tax incentives there was considerable controversy, particularly because hon. Members across the floor were advocating then as they do today that we follow in the footsteps of the United States with regard to tax reductions. It is worthy of note, Mr. Speaker, that the over-all performance of the Canadian economy in 1964 was considerably better than that of the United States.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have said that the tax reduction was a modest one in many instances. I am not going to evade the issue. I agree that the greatest direct benefit is conferred on taxpayers who are carrying the greatest share of the tax burden. This is inevitable, and follows when you have a general tax reduction across the board in the standard rate. The Minister realized, and he made it clear, that we were not sounding a note of self-satisfaction; there was no room for complacency. Although the economy is sound, and although it is on a firmer base than it has been for many years, although we can expect continued advances, there is room for improvement. The Minister felt it was necessary that we should step up our consumer spending, particularly with the increased production coming out of expanded capital investment. It is, I think, generally recognized that a tax reduction is one way of stepping up and expanding the economy.
At the same time it must be borne in mind that the closer we move toward a full economy, the greater the danger of inflation. So the question of a tax reduction becomes a matter of judgment. No Minister, no matter how long he looks at all the figures, all the 22620-482
DEBATES	743
The Budget-Mr. Pennell forecasts, all the estimates, can do other than finally fall back on the question of judgment. The margin of error in this judgment is very great. I should like to put before you what I believe to be a very strong illustration. If there is a change of 1 per cent in the spending or saving habits of the Canadian people, it could make a difference of $360 million as to whether the money goes into consumer spending or is retained as savings. Let us remember that a change of 1 per cent can make a difference of $360 million in the disposition of the personal income of the Canadian people. I submit therefore, as there is no precise mathematical formula upon which the Minister can rely, he has to fall back on his own judgment. I say, with great respect, when we look back on the past achievements of the Canadian economy we are entitled to rely upon his judgment with the fullest confidence.
The total tax reduction amounts in a year to approximately $265 million. It is expected that this tax reduction, which will take the form of an increase in personal disposable income, will be spent and respent and by circulating through the economy it will generate spending capital in an amount greater than the original tax cut. Of course, it has to be recognized that there will be a decline immediately in Government revenues. It is to be hoped also, Mr. Speaker, that with an expanded economy there will be a feed back in revenues, with a substantial beneficial effect on our budgetary position, provided of course expenditures are held at the proper level. My interpretation of the budget is that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) took the necessary steps to step up or to bring into the economy the consumer spending required to assist the increased production we are setting from our expanded capital investment. I respectfully submit that this is a balance approach to our economic problems and to the present needs of our economy.
I propose now, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the subamendment proposed by the hon. Member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron). I do hope that the hon. Member, who is temporarily absent, will believe in my sincerity when I say that I have a high respect for his opinions and for him personally. However, I say to him, and I trust he will acquit me of incivility, if I say that if the N.D.P. really wants to be taken seriously as an alternative to Government it must face with more responsibility the fiscal consequences of what it proposes. The Minister of Finance has already spoken
April 29, 1365

The Budget-Mr. Pennell in this debate and has supplied me with some figures. It would be most instructive, Mr. Speaker, to examine the consequences of the proposals contained in the subamendment. The proposal to raise the personal income tax exemption by $500 for single persons and $1,000 for married persons and to raise the old age security payment to $100 per month, would cost $1,150 million per annum. If the hon. Member intended that the $100 per month under the old age security was to be paid at age 65, as his party proposed in the last session, then the total national bill would be $1,790 million per annum.
Let us consider the smaller of these two sums. It is proposed that we add $1,150 million per annum to Government expenditures. I respectfully suggest that it was quite out of character and quite unworthy of the hon. Member, for whom I have high regard, to move the subamendment without indicating precisely how this huge sum would be financed. Does he seriously suggest that it should be added to the deficit at a time when our resources are being used to a fuller extent than has been the case for years? If this is the proposal, it would certainly be a sure way of raising prices and I am sure that no party in this House wants that.
If, on the other hand, the N.D.P. has in mind covering this extra national expenditure of $1,150 million by increasing some other form of taxation, then I submit it was incumbent upon the hon. Members to be more precise and to say which taxes he would propose to increase. By way of example, I say that to collect another $1,150 million through the sales tax, would require increasing the rate from 11 per cent to 18 per cent. Is that what the hon. Member wants? Unless the N.D.P. is prepared to state clearly how much is involved in terms of additional expenditure and how the amount is to be raised, then it must forgive people both inside and outside this House for regarding the subamendment as one of pure, political expediency.
Let me put some more figures on the record, Mr. Speaker. The proposal for an extra $1,150 million of expenditure, in terms of corporate income tax, would mean adding an extra 24 per cent tax on corporations. The lower rate of tax would become 45 per cent and the top rate would be 74 per cent. Perhaps I might lower the temperature of the debate, Mr. Speaker, if I turn to another proposal in the budget, but perhaps it would be better if I called it five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; it being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to a consideration of private Members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, Private Bills, Notices of Motions for Papers and Public Bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard) moved: The capital of the new bank is to be $30,000,000 divided into 3,000,000 shares. The Banking and Commerce committee will be able to examine the plans for sale and distribution of these shares in detail. It will see that through the proposed distribution to the widely dispersed and varied existing Canadian shareholders of Laurentide Finance to the extent of 47 per cent and through underwriters to the general public to the extent of 53 per cent, the shareholders of the new bank will represent a wide and varied segment of the investing public and that control of the bank will not rest with any small group of people or corporations. I want to say now, however, that the new bank will not be a subsidiary of Power Corporation or of the Laurentide Financial Corporation. And, in answer to questions asked last session, it will not be the retail outlet for Laurentide Finance.
Clause 5 of the Bill is a special clause which provides first that the directors of the bank shall be Canadians and, second, that at least 90 per cent of the shareholders of the bank shall be Canadian. This anticipates legislation announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon).
You will note from the Bill, Mr. Speaker, that the head office of the Laurentide Bank shall be in Vancouver; that six of its provisional directors are from British Columbia and two are from the City of Montreal. It is intended that the bank shall be thoroughly national in character. It is obvious that any new national bank must start from some regional base, as did our existing chartered banks, and therefore the first branches will be opened in and around the two cities of Vancouver and Montreal, where the provisional directors reside. It is intended eventually, as conditions warrant, to provide a general banking service throughout Canada. It is because the head office will be in Vancouver and the principal management will be located there that I am proud to associate myself with this Bill and with the incorporation of the Laurentide Bank of Canada.
Without being critical of the existing banks, I am aware of the difficulty which Western Canadians face in capital formation. In the West, and in British Columbia particularly, we have a fast growing and developing region, a boom area, yet not one chartered bank has seen fit to have a head office West of Toronto-a head office and financial policy oriented to the special needs and problems of Western Canada. We in British Columbia have long felt the need of establishing finan-
Private Bills
cial institutions that are oriented to our special needs and problems, and I would hope that no one in this House would stand in the way of helping to fill this need for British Columbia.
Many Members are not familiar with the tremendous developments going on west of the Rockies. Some have said that all financial institutions must be centred in Eastern Canada. One only need go to San Francisco to see that in the Western United States financial institutions have been formed and have been able to grow to national importance. Vancouver, I like to think, is the San Francisco of Canada, and we are at the stage where we want, we need and we are able to support Western financial and banking institutions.
The other region of Canada to be immediately served by this bank is the Province of Quebec. There are two leading French speaking Canadians on the Board of Directors. Laurentide Financial Corporation has carried on business in the Province of Quebec for a long and, I think, happy period. I trust Members from Quebec, all eager to see the further development of their Province, as I am of mine, will recognize the value of creating additional banking facilities within their Province to contribute to the economic development of Quebec.
Some Members have raised the question of whether or not Canada needs additional chartered banks. Members of the Banking Committee will want to examine this question in detail. Briefly, however, I would refer Members to the Royal Commission on Banking -the Porter Report-which makes it clear throughout that in the opinion of the Commission, there is no hazard to Canada's chartered banking system by the incorporation of additional chartered banks. The Porter Report has recommended a more open and competitive banking system. It has referred to the dangers of undue concentration in our banking system. I quote very briefly from page 362 of the report, where it states:
There must be sufficient competition among these Institutions that borrowers and savers have alternatives open to them.
If it is felt the incorporation of an additional bank would endanger the Canadian banking system, one of the finest in the world, any of the existing banks or the Canadian Bankers' Association had the full right and opportunity to come before the Senate Committee last session and say so. They did not. Our Canadian bankers believe, like most Members of this House, in the free enterprise system; they believe that the very essence of

April 29, 1965
Private Bills
that system is the free play of competitive forces. We do not believe in the stifling of competition. Surely we cannot believe that our banking system should be left static, ultimately by way of merger and take-over to fall into the hands of two or three chartered banks. In the last ten years alone the number of banks has decreased from eleven to eight. This process should not be allowed to continue.
There are those in the House, of course, who do not believe in the free enterprise system. There are those in the House who want to make drastic and sweeping changes in the banking system. But surely they too must feel that increased competition within the banking system can only be helpful. Surely they are not going to use their position in this House to prevent the passage of a Bill which would result in protecting the existing chartered banks from further and desirable competition, and give the existing banks a monopoly over Canadian banking business.
There are those who point to the number of branches we have in Canada and say that the number is ample and sufficient for the needs of Canada. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is not sufficient to say we have so many branches, and that is enough. Surely a bank is and must be a policy-making financial institution whose services may be offered by one branch or by a thousand branches. An abundance of branches is nothing more than a convenient extension of services, not an extension of policy.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
A bank, no matter how many hundreds or even thousands of branches it may have in operation, is one bank, having one policy, paying one rate to its depositors and demanding one rate from any particular class of borrower. This policy is formulated at head office and simply implemented by the large number of branch managers, and there is certainly not one policy for each branch, but one for the entire structure.
In Canada we have now shrunk to the point where, other than in Quebec and small portions of Ontario and the Maritimes, there are only six chartered banks, and I include the Mercantile Bank in this number. In British Columbia we have only six, and in Alberta only five. To me, it is self-evident that the person proposing to transact banking business, and having eight alternative policymaking financial institutions to which to turn, obviously is better served than the Albertan or British Columbian, who is limited to five

or six. To me it is obvious that an increase in the number of chartered banks, thus providing to Canadians and the Canadian economy additional policy-making financial institutions, additional head offices, can only be of benefit to the growth and development of our economy.
Another argument raised against incorporating banks at this point is that they should be made to wait for the decennial revision of the Bank Act. There are many answers to this argument. The Mercantile Bank of Canada, the last bank chartered in Canada, was chartered in 1953, immediately before the then decennial revision of the Bank Act. Second, the sponsors of, and investors in, this proposed new bank are aware that the Bank Act is due for revision. Any new bank will, of course, be subject to any new revisions made to the Bank Act. The sponsors and investors are prepared to go ahead in the knowledge that the Bank Act will be shortly revised. Surely if they are prepared to go ahead in the face of possible amendments, they should, other things being equal, be allowed to do so.
Whether to incorporate this bank, or any other bank, one must apply the standards laid out by the Minister of Finance in this House many months ago; namely, is it properly financed? I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Laurentide Bank of Canada, with a proposed capitalization of $30 million, with the support that it will obtain from Laurentide Finance Corporation and the general public, is properly financed. Is it supported by financially responsible people? In my brief outline of the sponsors of this Bill I have indicated that they are financially responsible people with wide and varied experience in the business life of their communities. The Laurentide Bank of Canada is assured of a broad and diversified ownership, and its backers have the resources and the experience to ensure that it will be financially sound. Will control of the bank remain in Canadian hands? Yes, Mr. Speaker, by reason of section 5 that will be so. I suggest that the Laurentide Bank of Canada meets all of these conditions, and careful scrutiny by the members of the Banking and Commerce Committee will satisfy them that the Laurentide Bank should be incorporated.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this and other Bills of a similar nature were introduced during the last session. This particular Bill was given first reading in the Senate on March 24, 1964. It was given second reading and referred to Committee on May 13, referred back from
April 29, 1965

Committee on July 27, and given third reading in the other place on July 28. In this House it was given first reading and reported from the other place on July 29, 1964. It was introduced for second reading and debate commenced on October 15, 1964. Debate took place on October 15 and resumed on November 12, 1964, and February 25, 1965. Thereafter it did not come up for debate again, and died on the Order Paper at the end of last session without having been referred to the Banking and Commerce Committee.
This session the Bill, as hon. Members will note, has been presented and introduced in the House of Commons first. I can appreciate and understand the desire of Members of this House to very carefully examine proposals to incorporate a new bank. I suggest that the proper place for questions to be asked and explanations given is the Banking and Commerce Committee of this House. If, following the appearance of the sponsors of this bank and the giving of explanations by them, some Members of the House have objections to the incorporation of this new bank, they have their rights and remedies and can act accordingly. But I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that progress, or the lack of progress, of this Bill is not going to be linked to the progress, or lack of progress, of any other banking proposals that may be made by others and that may particularly be made by the Premier of the Province of British Columbia. Whether this bank should be allowed to carry on business is one question. Whether Premier Bennett, or any other Provincial Government for that matter, should be allowed to carry on a banking business is quite another and entirely separate question. So far this session the Government of the Province of British Columbia has made no move to proceed with the incorporation of a Bank of British Columbia. I checked with the officials of the other place within the hour, Mr. Speaker, and no step has been taken in that House. If and when it is, that is a matter that will have to be dealt with, and I, as a Member from British Columbia, certainly hope that if the Premier of my Province takes proceedings in the Senate, they will be dealt with by the hon. Senators in a more expeditious manner than was the case last session.
In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, the sponsors of the Laurentide Bank are willing, ready and able to proceed with the incorporation of a new bank. They have, I suggest, a right as citizens to ask Parliament to hear them and
Private Bills
to deal with their application and either accept or reject it. They ask no more than the right to do business. Mr. Speaker, I call on those Members who have the best interests of British Columbia at heart to let them exercise that right. Last session Premier Bennett informed the Banking Committee of the other place that he favoured the incorporation of the Laurentide Bank of Canada. I call, in addition to the Members of the House, particularly on Premier Bennett to persuade his parliamentary friends not to filibuster this Bill, so that British Columbia can have the benefit of the new banking facilities proposed in this Bill, banking facilities oriented to the needs of British Columbia. So far as I can surmise, whether British Columbians are to receive the benefits of new and different banking facilities as represented by this Bill is entirely in the hands of Premier Bennett, and I ask him to act accordingly.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the hon. Member a question. If the opportunity arises, will the hon. Member vigorously support the Bank of British Columbia, as he is asking us to do now? I would like to ask him a further question. Has the hon. Member any evidence that any of the so-called colleagues of the Premier of the Province of British Columbia who are sitting in this House have filibustered any bank bill?


Stanley Ronald Basford: In reply to the first question, Mr. Speaker, if the sponsors of any proposed Bank of British Columbia want to comply with the law of the land and the financial policy of this Government, I would be more than happy to support the bill. In regard to the second question, I take it that the hon. Member for Cariboo is referring to Members of the Social Credit Party in this House. I at no time in my remarks said that any Members of that Party had filibustered this Bill.


Gilles Grégoire: I have one question, Mr. Speaker. Can the hon. Member explain-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before the hon. Member is allowed to ask a question I should bring to the attention of the House that the time of the hon. Member for Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) has expired, and a question can only be asked now with the consent of the House. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

April 29, 1965
Private Bills


Gilles Grégoire: Can the hon. Member explain to us why this Bill is now coming first in the House of Commons before going to the Senate?
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, it has come to the House of Commons first as a result of the experience last session. As the hon. Member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) knows, the Senate approved this bank Bill last session. Therefore, it seemed to the sponsors of the bank, and to me as the sponsor of the bill in the House, that it would be wise to commence proceedings in the House of Commons, where last session it seems we encountered the difficulty.


Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) in order to clarify the answer he has just given to the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe).
The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard implied that a group had taken advantage of circumstances to filibuster and prevent the passage of this bill during the last session. However, he stated he was not referring at all to the party of the hon. member for Cariboo. Consequently, could he tell us whether he referred to another party that would have filibustered during the last session and subsequently prevented the passage of a bill in all respects similar to the one now before us?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, to answer a simple question with a simple answer, the record speaks for itself.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if the record is not clear and someone wants me to straighten it out, I will be glad to, but I think the stand we took during the last session in respect of this Bill, and the stand we are taking with the Bill which follows it on the Order Paper today, is fairly clear on the record.
May I say at the outset that I am not in favour of this process of incorporating banks. Similarly I am not in favour of using this process to incorporate any other business in Canada. I think this procedure is a holdover from some time in antiquity in England when nearly everything of this nature was done by way of petitioning for a private bill to incorporate groups of people to do various things. I suggest that when and if the Min-

ister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) gets around to introducing a revised Bank Act or amendments thereto-for it is my understanding that it is because of the provision in the Bank Act that Bills to incorporate banks must be done by this method-he should remove this provision, because I think it is a waste of the time of Parliament, which periodically has to concern itself with one small section of a particular part of the economy, or one or two companies within a certain part of the economy, subject them to debate and examination, while at the same time-


Mr. Gelber:: Will the hon. Member permit a question?


Frank Howard: Well, if my hon. friend would contain himself he will have the opportunity of asking all the questions he likes at the conclusion of my remarks.


Marvin Gelber: What about the renewal charters?


Frank Howard: If the hon. Member is so impatient that he cannot wait, then I will be glad to accommodate him.


Marvin Gelber: As the hon. Member is dealing with the point, is he also saying that renewal charters should not come before this house?


Frank Howard: I am not familiar with the process of renewal charters of banks, but I assume that if there is to be a regular decennial consideration of the Bank Act in its entirety, then that should be sufficient for the renewal of charters. But as I say, I am not familiar with the actual process.
If I was not clear, what I am saying in essence is that I do not think the Parliament of Canada is the place to incorporate private businesses in this country. Private businesses should be incorporated outside of the Parliament of Canada under the Bank Act, or the Companies Act, or the various financial or trust company acts, or whatever particular statute applies. We should not be bothered with this sort of thing. However we are bothered with it; it is before us and we must concern ourselves with it. I hope to direct my remarks to the concern we have particularly with respect to the Laurentide Bank, the Bill to incorporate which is before us, as well as the relationship of this bank with other banks, and I hope I will be permitted to cover similar ground to that covered by the sponsor of the Bill.
The hon. Member went into great detail and almost eulogized the free enterprise system in talking about competition, seeming
April 29, 1965

thereby to indicate that there has been in years gone by a lessening of competition in the banking field, and that the incorporation of the Laurentide Bank and other banks will increase this so-called competition in the banking field. It is true that in the past number of years there have been consolidations or mergers of banks, which procedure has in fact reduced the number of banks in existence in Canada. If the Bill presently before us and that relating to the Bank of Western Canada are passed, and those companies commence operations, this will in fact increase the number of chartered banks in Canada. It does not follow from this, however, that there will be any increase in competition, because as far as I have been able to assess the information there is no competition in the banking field.
The banks of Canada operate as a very tightly run oligopoly within which there is no difference of opinion, and no difference of approach. The banks are regulated to a large extent by the Bank Act, and by the Bank of Canada in the manner in which they do business. They are restricted as to the amount of reserves they can have, and they are regulated as to the amount of interest they can charge, and the like. I do not know one bank which offers any large degree of competition over that offered by another bank, unless it happens to be in the form of the friendly smile of the manager or of the accountant responsible for granting loans. But that is the extent of the competition-a competition by front, competition by a smile, competition by a pleasant personality.
Competition in the true sense of the word, by way of providing a service or a product to the general public which is the best possible and at the lowest possible price, just does not exist in the banking institutions of Canada. The incorporation of Laurentide Bank will not increase competition but will merely add one other company to the chain of companies already members of the banking oligopoly, and no one will notice the difference except, perhaps, that some additional money will be expended to build offices in Vancouver, presumably Montreal, and other parts of the country in which it wishes to set up branches. Therefore when one talks about the degree of competition in the banking field in Canada, I think he is talking about something which does not exist, because there is no such animal.
If there is the desire to inject some competition, some factor relating thereto, or to re-
Private Bills
strict or control the monopoly or oligopoly positions of chartered banks in Canada, then I submit that the way to do it is through the Bank Act or through the Combines Investigation Act. The Combines Investigation Act is a law of Canada which prohibits price fixing, mergers and monopolies which have a bad influence on the economy of the nation. However, banks are excluded from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. Banks can merge. They can fix prices and do all the things, for instance, that the oil industry cannot do. They can do all of these criminal acts-criminal for other companies-and are completely exempted from prosecution under the Combines Investigation Act for criminal activity.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
If there is the desire to bring some degree of competition to bear on the banking industry, which is the principal base of the Combines Investigation Act, then I submit that my hon. friend's government should have spent their time in the last couple of years in bringing about suggested changes to the Combines Investigation Act so that this very competition could be brought about. But they have sought to ignore that approach. Whether or not the Minister of Finance will introduce any amendments to the Bank Act, which in effect will incorporate provisions similar to those contained within the Combines Investigation Act, remains to be seen. The way is open for the Government to deal with monopolies and closely tied control, such as exists in the banking industry in Canada. They can do so by creating the so-called forces of competition in this field by way of amendment to the Bank Act. I doubt very much whether the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) will take advantage of this opportunity because he does not believe in doing things in that way. I do not believe this Government believes in doing things that way either.
To cite an example, several years ago Canadian Breweries was charged under the Combines Investigation Act with engaging in a merger or an operation detrimental to the best interests of Canada. That firm was prosecuted by the Minister of Justice, Mr. Davie Fulton, of the previous Government. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I understand that hon. Gentleman wishes to return to this place to carry on in the same manner as he did when he was here.
The case against Canadian Breweries under the Combines Investigation Act was lost by the prosecution. I understand that the case

April 29. 1965
Private Bills
was heard by Chief Justice McBuer of the Ontario Supreme Court. His judgment in effect stated that Canadian Breweries, and other breweries in Ontario, were governed so far as the price of beer was concerned by provincial laws and regulations, and therefore could not do any serious damage to the interests of the general public by reason of a merger.
It is my submission that banks are in a position that they can do as they wish in this field of operation, and operate a closely knit oligopoly to the disadvantage of the public, and solely in the interests of the banking institution. There is no competition in this field, and those who think there is or will be by increasing the number of chartered banks, are thinking in nonsensical ways or using cliches to make the situation sound reasonable.
It is not my suggestion that the hon. Member who is the sponsor of this Bill is not acting with sincerity. He speaks in glowing terms of the individuals connected with this proposed bank and uses phrases associated with free enterprise and competition to support this proposition. He probably believes in what he has said, but I suggest he is deluded in this regard, just as the Party to which he belongs is deluded.
An increase in the number of banking institutions in this country, such as the Lau-rentide Bank, the incorporation of which is being sought by this Bill, will not increase competition in this field of banking. Following the incorporation of such a bank I am sure it will make as much profit as possible, as quickly as possible, and become an associated brother in the Canadian Banking Association. Once that took place there would be no change whatever in the existing situation. One more bank would be in existence, with several branches, but there would be no increase in competition.
I think we must refer to what happened in this regard during the last Session of Parliament. During that Session proceedings were instituted in the Senate for the incorporation of the Laurentide Bank, the Bank of Western Canada and the Bank of British Columbia. What happened at that time should be referred to in order to make very clear what our position is in respect of these sought for incorporations. During the last Session the Senate put into operation whatever machinery it has to give its blessing to the Bank of Western Canada and the Laurentide Bank. It did not, however, give a similar blessing to the pro-

posed Bank of British Columbia, but saw fit to reject that particular Bill on the grounds that it is not wise for provincial governments to invest money in privately chartered banks.
That principle was subsequently echoed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), when Parliament reconvened following the Christmas recess, when he said that it was the policy of this Government to introduce legislation to revise the Bank Act. Presumably that legislation will be placed before us within a few months, and it will prohibit governments from investing money in banks chartered under the Bank Act, and prohibits provincial governments, which invest money in the share structure of such banks before the Bank Act is revised, from owning voting shares. Presumably that was the principle followed by the Senate when it rejected the Bill in respect of the British Columbia Bank.
A certain responsibility rests now on the promoters of the Bank of British Columbia which, so far as I am concerned, they must meet if they are still interested in promoting that Bank. I am not advancing any argument on their behalf, and it is their business to present a petition to Parliament in this regard, but it is my understanding that if they intend to do so they must do so by May 17, which is the deadline for the presentation of petitions for private bills.
With all due respect to the eloquent argument made by the sponsor of this Bill, I do not believe we should proceed with it before May 17, because at that time we will then know whether or not the promoters of the British Columbia Bank intend to discharge their responsibility by reintroducing such a petition, as has been done in respect of the Laurentide Bank and the Bank of Western Canada. It is my submission that we should consider these three propositions as a unit in so far as Parliament is concerned, and that we should delay consideration of the Bill now before us at least until we know whether the promoters of the Bank of British Columbia intend to ask for the incorporation of that institution. At that time we can proceed with all three petitions, or, if the promoters of that Bank decide not to seek incorporation, we can deal with the petitions in respect of the Laurentide Bank and the Bank of Western Canada on their individual merits.
It is my impression that the promoters of the Bank of British Columbia based their petition for incorporation on an expressed desire by the Government of the Province of
April 29, 1965

British Columbia to invest a certain amount of money in the share capital of such a bank. Any hope in this regard has been put aside, at least temporarily, by the declaration of the Minister of Finance to the effect that the promoters or sponsors of the Bank of British Columbia may find it necessary to revise the capital structure of their proposed bank.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This may be the reason for their delay in presenting a petition to Parliament for the incorporation of the Bank of British Columbia. But because it was the present Government that decided to change the rules and move the goal posts in the midst of the incorporation proceedings respecting three banks, I believe that Parliament should give the promoters of the Bank of British Columbia the benefit of the doubt and delay consideration of these bills until the 17th of May. If at that time there is a petition before Parliament for the incorporation of the Bank of British Columbia, we will be able to proceed to deal with it and with the charters now before us.
No petition may be made. Quite frankly, knowing Premier Bennett as I do, I doubt that he will want to proceed as he originally planned. He probably has some other trick up his sleeve, such as a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. However, if by the 17th of May the promoters of the Bank of British Columbia have not presented a petition it is of no more concern to the Parliament of Canada and we will merely proceed at that time with the business at hand, the Bill to incorporate Laurentide Bank of Canada and the Bill to incorporate the Bank of Western Canada. It would be desirable then to accede to the appeal of the hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford), take the Bills at face value, examine their relationships to the banking institutions of Canada and the value they might have to Western Canada and generally deal with them on their merits. It is only a matter of a couple of weeks, however, and I submit it would be appropriate for Parliament to give the Bank of British Columbia the benefit of the doubt and hope they will accept their responsibility and meet the deadline. I see you rising, Mr. Speaker, so I assume my deadline has been reached.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Member's time has expired, unless he has unanimous consent of the House to continue. Does the hon. Member wish to pursue his remarks
Private Bills
beyond his time? Has the hon. Member unanimous consent of the House to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: I was not really pressing the point, Mr. Speaker.


Marvin Gelber: May I ask a question? The hon. Member has expressed his dissatisfaction with the House incorporating banks. I think a lot of Members would sympathize with him, but I wonder if he has considered the alternative? If the House did not grant bank charters, would he have the Government do so? The Minister would have to sign the charter. Is that the alternative he advocates?


Frank Howard: I had not proceeded to deal with alternatives. Let me say again that I am not familiar with the processes under the Bank Act. Quite frankly, I really do not know the exact procedure. If we pass this Bill, will the House be granting the charter err does this come about in some other way, or just what is the procedure? However, let us say that X steel company wants to become incorporated under the Companies Act. There are procedures set out by which it may go about doing this. I do not know what they are. I presume this is what corporation lawyers are for. If someone wants to bring about an incorporation he goes to a lawyer and says to him that he wants to incorporate a company for the purpose of conducting a certain business, and asks him to straighten things out. The lawyer then goes ahead and does whatever is necessary, and the company becomes incorporated. So far as I am concerned, a similar arrangement could operate with respect to private chartered banks. If there is some deficiency in that thinking, perhaps the hon. Member might point it out to me. Maybe we should propose some other arrangement.


Marvin Gelber: Is the hon. Member prepared to vest that much authority in the Government?


Frank Howard: Could I pose this question in reply? If my hon. friend wanted to incorporate a company to sell shoelaces, for argument's sake, how would he go about it? What would be the mechanics of getting the company incorporated? Who would give him his letters patent, or whatever they are? Perhaps he might explain that to me. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is a lawyer, but if someone can explain that to me maybe we

April 29, 1965
Private Bills
can draw a parallel relationship with regard to how banks should go about becoming incorporated.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the bill before us may I say I am certainly in agreement with what the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said concerning competition in the banking business. The fact remains that in my opinion there is no real competition in the banking business. As the hon. Member pointed out, it is a matter of the personalities of the bank manager and the accountants with whom the individual deals. I think one receives basically the same service from any chartered bank.
Since we are talking about incorporating banks, there is one point I think should be brought to the attention of the House at this time. Here we have a company, ostensibly a finance company, that now wishes to go into the banking business. It is known that at those times when the country is faced with a tight money policy there are certain leaks in the case of finance companies. When a tight money policy is going to be introduced it affects the line of credit that a particular bank will give to an individual who wishes to borrow money, and prior to the tight money policy coming into effect we find the strange situation of finance companies upping their line of credit to a great degree. This puts them in the advantageous position of being able to service the customer with money that rightfully he should have been able to get from a bank in the first place at 6 per cent, but for which he now has to pay up to 24 per cent interest.
When a tight money policy has been in effect many a person has gone to a bank to borrow money only to be told that, while he has a wonderful financial statement and ordinarily the bank could lend him such and such a sum of money on the basis of that statement, his line of credit limits him to so many dollars because the bank is operating under a tight money policy. Because he has already made use of that much credit he is told by the bank that they are sorry there is no money available for him, but if he will go across the street to such and such finance company they will certainly look after him. The finance companies are able to do so because they have been tipped off ahead of time and have raised their line of credit to the point where they can borrow from the banking system the very money that the individual should have been entitled to borrow from the bank.
This is only one phase of what we are up against so far as our banking institutions are concerned. There is the other matter of the direct creation of credit, which is an important feature. When we say that the banks are limited in what they can lend, this is not exactly so. Actually they are not limited, because by the purchase of Government bonds and other gilt-edged securities they can then use these securities to establish credit with the Bank of Canada and, having acquired credit with the Bank of Canada, can legally multiply their loans twelve and a half times, and under suasion generally about six times. [DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
This, of course, means there is a tremendous advantage to banks. You all have had the experience of going into a bank and some bank clerk has said to you, "We are on a tight money policy; we are borrowing our money at 6 per cent and we are lending it to you at 6 per cent. How do you expect us to exist?". This just is not so. For every dollar the bank would borrow from the Central Bank, it is able to lend out at least six times that amount, under what we call suasion, or up to 12 times under what we have set as the legal limit. The fact remains that the ratio was set from between 3 per cent and 12 per cent, but the Bank of Canada has never enforced the 12 per cent equity provision so far as deposit liabilities are concerned from the chartered banks.
We say, therefore, there is a lot more to the functions of banking than just going in and making deposits and then writing out cheques. We believe that the time has come when the banking institutions of this country should be given a much broader base upon which they can provide industrial capital. We believe that in Canada we have one of the best banking systems in the world today. There are certain limitations, and there are certain functions of the banks that we believe should be corrected. We believe also that the Central Bank should take its place, along with the present banking system, to round out the total amount of banking facilities that are absolutely necessary to equate the purchasing power of the nation with its productive capacity. Until this is done all the noise about the war on poverty will be just so many idle words. In my view we must come to the point where we recognize that we have to finance production and consumption in this country. The financing of production will be done through the industrial sector or the private sector and the financing, to a certain point,

April 29, 1965

of consumption that is necessary will have to be done through the public sector; in other words the Bank of Canada and the Government of the day. There is a way in which industrial expansion takes place without the banking institutions of this country. The people who are interested in the development of natural resources go outside of the country to get banking services. The banks of the United States, Belgium and France can monetize a prospectus which the banking institutions of this country, by law, cannot do.
I can give you an example. I come from a timber country. If some individual had a licence to cut timber and there was a good potential market for the material he would produce, a bank outside of Canada can monetize that prospectus, take security on the assets as they develop. In Canada today this is not possible under our banking system. The banks, themselves, cannot give that type of service. What do we find? We find a good many of our industries becoming controlled by people outside of Canada because of the lack of facilities in Canada.
Before I take my seat, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it abundantly clear that I am in accord so far as the proposed adoption of this Bill on second reading is concerned. However, I should like to see this Bill complete its passage through second reading of the House, and that we give the same recognition to the Bank of British Columbia, a Bill for the establishment of which I expect a bill will be introduced before long. I hope that application will receive exactly the same treatment. I do not believe for one moment that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) can give us any real ground for saying that control of 10 per cent of the shares of any bank gives control of that bank. Some time, perhaps during the Budget debate, I should like him to answer that question. I do not believe he can prove in any way, shape or form that this is a fact. We feel that, in principle, we can use more banking services. We do not believe this is going to make money any cheaper, but we do believe that there is room for more banking services in the country.
I believe it is six o'clock, and perhaps you would call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the desire of the House that I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I am glad we are going to finish this hour off because, according to one clock it is six o'clock, and according to
The Budget-Mr. Pennell another it is one minute to six. If I divide that in half and talk about the clock for half a minute, then I will not have to get into any new subject so far as the banking business is concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This minute has 60 seconds.


Bert Raymond Leboe: This minute has 60 seconds and this hour has seven days. I see an hon. Member has a question.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Is the example the hon. Member has just given an example of Social Credit time keeping?


Bert Raymond Leboe: I do not believe we were ever known for certain policies of time keeping at all, but we do keep time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; the time assigned to the consideration of private Members' business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Provisional Standing Order 39A to inform the House that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) Air Canada-Winnipeg maintenance base; second, the hon. Member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales); defence production central agency for purchasing Government automobiles.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Nowlan and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands).
Lawrence T. Pennell: When the House went on to other business at five o'clock I was about to
7S4
April 29, 1965

The Budget-Mr. Pennell turn to what might perhaps be considered the less controversial aspects of the budget. I do not propose to stand at any length between the hon. Member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) and the House, but perhaps I may be allowed to make a personal observation. It was with a great sense of personal satisfaction that I noticed the Minister of Finance had made provision for the introduction of a measure to prevent waste products polluting our streams and waters. I make bold to point out that in the course of my maiden speech in this house some three years ago I made a similar proposal, and it is pleasant to reflect that patience has its own reward and that my plea did not fall upon deaf ears. I am sure this proposal commands the universal support of hon. Members, because it seems to me it makes only common sense that, while we can, we should attempt to prevent the pollution of our streams and waters, one of our most precious assets, rather than attempt to cure pollution after it has taken place.
I wish to say a word or two about the proposal to continue the accelerated depreciation allowance. Once again I believe I am on solid ground when I say that the House generally will support this measure. In this age of rapid technological advance a manufacturer must think not only in terms of the original cost of a piece of machinery; he must also bear in mind the possibility that he may have to replace it within a year or so because, though it is still physically sound, it has become out of date. I agree with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) that we must make every endeavour to remain competitive. If industry goes along using out of date machinery it may well be doing so at the price of increasing the cost of production and decreased productivity. It seems to me only fair and proper that we should stand behind measures which are taken to speed up production and increase productivity.
Finally I should like to say a word about the war on poverty. Let me point out at once that the budget is only one weapon within the arsenal which must be deployed in this formidable task. Poverty cannot be measured only in terms of income. There is poverty of opportunity and poverty of education. I suggest that many of our older citizens are suffering from a poverty of opportunity. While many of them have the ability to work and to get ahead, they are the victims of poverty of opportunity.


William Heward Grafftey: A rich man's budget.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lawrence T. Pennell: When I consider the situation of those young people who are dropping out of our secondary schools, it seems to me this represents a failure on the part of our educational system and that these young people will soon suffer as a result of the poverty of their education. The Minister of Finance told us frankly that we must concern ourselves with the training of our young people. Already this Government has devoted approximately $100 million annually to assisting the technical and vocational training program. In addition, youth allowances will cost approximately $46,500,000 during the coming year. We are now awaiting the report of a committee which is inquiring into university finances and I am confident this Government will take action in the wake of that report.


William Heward Grafftey: What about the 10,000 scholarships?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Though there is a year of solid achievement behind this budget, no budget of itself can long sustain vigorous and healthy economic progress. That depends on the response we get from all our people from industry, from labour, from management and from the farmers. I recognize, though, that the primary responsibility rests with the Government. I suppose no hon. Member, least of all myself, or no Minister in this House, would claim he has a monopoly of knowledge on economic and fiscal matters, but I humbly suggest that the present Budget will meet the purpose for which it is created, that is, to sustain a healthy rate of economic growth.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Would the hon. Member permit a question? I understand that this afternoon when I was not in the chamber he made an estimate of the cost of implementing the amendment which I presented to the House. I am wondering whether he read the amendment, because it appears to me that his estimate was based on a misapprehension of what the amendment says.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I read the amendment, Mr. Speaker, and my remarks will have to speak for themselves.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: I am
very pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary should have chosen to say something about the difficulty attached to use by Governments of the monetary structure we have built into
April 29, 1965

the framework of our over-all management of the people's affairs. I am glad he raised this point, because the first subject I intend to deal with tonight is this question of inflationary dangers.
Before I proceed to do so, perhaps I may list the other three subjects on which I intend to speak, so as to give an idea of the scope of my remarks. The second subject I propose to deal with is the failure of the Government to give real support to the National Economic Council. My third point concerns the absence from the budget of either long term or short term objectives. The fourth is the Government's failure to support trade expansion in a real way.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The first of these subjects, the danger of inflation, is related to the other three, and to indicate the background I should like to describe briefly the main features of what has been happening in the last ten years. As everyone knows, there has been a great debate as to the place of the Central Bank in Canada, in relationship to the elected representatives of the people. In the history of this debate, as I see it, I would like to put one or two of the events into perspective. In 1957 and 1960 Canada faced two recessions. These were met, as far as we could meet them, by heavy fiscal expenditures on public works, increased credit for housing, for farmers, for small businessmen-yes, and exports. As I said, these were part of the powers that we had on the fiscal side.
On the monetary side though, as the Porter Royal Commission makes brutally clear, the course of action from 1958 to 1961 tended to be restrictive. If anyone wants to examine the charts and the various reports of the Bank of Canada he will see that the same form of restrictive action was applied against the Government in the years before we took office in 1957. We got it in 1958, 1959 and 1960. Now that the report has made it very clear that the Governor of the Bank of Canada must always bring his policies into conformity with the elected representatives, I think things have moved much more smoothly. This, Mr. Speaker, raises the main issue about which I wish to speak.
During the four years 1959 to 1962 inclusive, facing unemployment and unused capacity in all segments of industry, the fiscal expansion policies of our Government when in power were kept in check by monetary policies, which I think the following figures make clear. As I read these figures,
The Budget-Mr. Hamilton Mr. Speaker, I can collect two or three different columns of figures using different indicators, indicating the various amounts of money and other things that you can call part of the over-all money supply; but just let me give these figures as indicators. In 1956 the total, at the end of the year, of currency and chartered bank deposits was $11 billion; in 1960 it climbed to $13.9 billion. There was a static three-year period, 1958, 1959 and 1960; but last year, in 1964, at the end of the year it had climbed to over $18 billion.
What do these figures indicate? They indicate that in the last two years there has been a much freer use of the money supply to keep the economy moving forward and expanding. I am not quarrelling with that freer use, having been one of those who fought so hard to make it free and to tie it up to the needs of the economy rather than against the needs of the economy. I know how those in charge of this policy were terrified by the inflation after the Second World War; they were terrified of inflation during the Korean War, and they certainly were confused by the great influx of money that came into this country from 1953 to 1956. These fears which they had made them so conscious of inflation that when we were actually facing the opposite of inflation they imposed, in effect, tight money not only on us but on the previous Government at a time when both governments needed help.
1 think that matter has been cleared up by the Porter Royal Commission, and I expect, from looking at the figures I have just quoted, that the present Minister of Finance has had no such trouble as we experienced. The point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that during the period we were in office, because of the braking effect of this unused plant capacity, because of the braking effect of the potential productivity in the primary sector, because of the braking effect of the unemployed or the oversupply of employable people, the cost of living, using round figures, increased only by an average of 1 per cent a year during the four years under discussion.
When we got free of these monetary restrictions, particularly with the devaluation of the dollar, these expansion programs yielded big returns. Incidentally, all these charts and indicators go back to February, 1961, even though the devaluation of the dollar did not start until the budget of that summer; all these indicators that still go upwards started
April 29, 1965

The Budget-Mr. Hamilton in the year 1961, and ever since that time we have had an expanding economy. There was hardly a thing mentioned by the Minister of Finance the other night that has had any effect on our economy since that time, and when he mentions loans to university students, that is a perfect example of the type of thing he gave as having helped the upward movement. These loans have been in effect for over a year, and everyone knows this has not changed the economy upwards at all; it has not at any time had any impact upon the economy. But in spite of all the other things the Minister has done, he has not been able to check the advance that we started in 1961.


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not take all the credit for our Government, Mr. Speaker, but in the last year we have had-


Mitchell William Sharp: -could I ask the hon. Gentleman a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Go ahead.


Mitchell William Sharp: I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is suggesting that the Government of which he was a Member did not have power over monetary policy.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As I said in my opening sentence, Mr. Speaker, this is a debate that has been going on for ten years. If the Minister wants to read the record of this debate, it is present in every bank report and the debates of this House for the last ten years. I am simply putting the record in perspective. I want the Minister to listen, because what I have to say to him at the end of my speech will be worth listening to. I did not want to take all the credit for our Government, Mr. Speaker, any more than the Minister of Finance has the right to take any great credit for his Government.
I do want to point out, however, that we have to admit that last year we had an assist from outside Canada in the form of a reduction of taxes in the United States, and since so much of our economy is tied into their economy, their upward boost has helped us a bit.
Now the situation has changed. In almost every industry the capacity of the plant is almost completely utilized. I say this, in spite of the very rosy conclusion in the White Paper, on page (XI) of the Economic Review of 1964. I quote from that page of the Economic Review:
Productive capacities in general appear to be adequate to meet the probable demands. There may be some supply difficulties in specific localities and industries, which a high degree of mobility of both labour and capital would help to relieve.
Then going on a bit:
In these circumstances of productivity improvement and high labour force growth, the increases in output required to meet the demands outlined above are clearly within the growing capacity of the economy.
This is the view of the White Paper; it is not the view of many men engaged in industry in Canada. I am not going to quote the individual companies, because they will be making their views known, I am sure. But there is one writer, who has already been quoted in this debate, Mr. John Meyer of the Montreal Gazette, who had this to say on April 27, 1965:
The weakness in Mr. Gordon's approach is his assumption that an economy already functioning at close to capacity can be further stimulated by a tax reduction without the risk of overheating it.
Then later on:
What is significant is that the factories and mills, in spite of their continually expanded facilities, are running at capacity.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I would like to place special emphasis in a general way on two or three of these industries. Of greatest significance at the moment is the steel industry. In eight years production has climbed from approximately 4 million tons a year to toward 10 million tons. The industry now faces an immediate building program of approximately $1 billion, and more probably a $10 billion expansion in the long run. Likewise, the pulp and paper industry, one of our leading dollar earners, is engaged in a billion dollar expansion of facilities at the present time. Much more has to be done in increasing production and improving the facilities of moving the raw material to the mills. The petrochemical industries are just coming into a period of tremendous expansion to meet world demand. The same indications for needs of capital expansion are evident in almost all sectors of our private economy. To add to the difficulties, the Canada Pension Plan will withdraw some $400 million a year from the available capital. Also the Government shows no indication of checking the increase of expenditure in the public sector. On the contrary their public timidity is so great that no request is refused or postponed.
Therefore I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the country now faces a serious threat of inflation. Last year the money supply was increased by $1.5 billion, which is over twice

April 29. 1965	COMMONS
the average rate the previous government was allowed to expand when faced with unemployment and a slowdown in the economy inherited in 1957. The cost of living is now climbing by close to 2 per cent a year and everyone knows what that does to those of low income. More serious than that is the fact that there is no unused plant capacity now to take up the increased consumer demand that there was when we were trying to free the money supply. In respect to that I could quote several authorities from individual businesses.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this budget adds another inflationary force by trying to increase consumer spending. Second, there is a shortage of skilled labour in almost every line of activity, and this produces a cost-push inflation. It is no use telling us that we have 3J per cent of the labour force unemployed. What causes a cost-push inflation is when individual industries, which can be named one after another in the City of Toronto, cannot get enough skilled help to man their factories. In the search for skilled labour you get a pushing upwards of costs, which must eventually go on to the consumer. That is the difference now, compared with what was the case just five years ago.
Third, there is a tremendous need for new capital for plant expansion in the manufacturing industries. The business world is aware of these dangers; the economists are aware of them. Why is the Government not aware of them?
Another point I should like to make tonight is the failure of this budget to support the National Economic Council. In 1962 we proposed that we set up a National Economic Council. The present Government had the honour to carry the legislation into the House and get it through. Their annual review has been published. There is nothing more serious in this budget, Mr. Speaker, than the failure of the Government in departing from the emphasized suggestions of the Economic Council. I should just like to quote a few of the statements from the chapter on implications for policy. First of all, talking about trade agreements, they say:
This conclusion reinforces our conviction that we need a strong and concerted national effort to promote the highest possible gains in productivity and in industrial efficiency-
There is nothing in the Budget to remove the 11 per cent tax, which is a heavy burden on industrial efficiency if we are to move out in competition with the world, not only with
DEBATES	757
The Budget-Mr. Hamilton the industrial nations but with the lower cost producing nations.
The second direction of this policy is stated thus:
In addition, we need a commercial policy directed at securing a substantial improvement in access to foreign markets, coupled with a vigorous program of export promotion, to facilitate the attainment of the required growth of competitive exports.
Where do you find, Mr. Speaker, in the Budget any move to carry out this recommended implication for policy?
Third, again dealing with trade:
New business policies and methods may be needed, as well as a willingness to incur additional risks. Moreover, the need for large increases in exports will be accentuated rather than modified with a more rapid growth of domestic income and demand, and it is crucially important if high employment and dynamic economic growth are to be achieved, that Canadian manufacturing industry should become increasingly export-oriented.


Mitchell William Sharp: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) says "hear, hear". I will ask him to listen to this part of my remarks-


Mitchell William Sharp: I am.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -because tonight I want to point out that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is no longer riding high in the Cabinet. He has been downgraded, and the man who has gone to the top is one who believes in another philosophy, the Minister of Finance. The interesting thing about the last two years, after the fiasco of the 1963 budget when we saw the Minister of Finance go into eclipse, with all the forces of the business world turned against him, is this: The Government only talks of export drives and measures to help industry. The businessmen hear talk of how Walter has now come back to the leadership of the party in power, and the theme song is: Walter, Walter, lead me to the altar. But we know, Mr. Speaker, why the businessmen are worried. The Government thought they had put up this very bright fellow, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was to guide the Cabinet. Now the influence has slid right into the hands of the Minister of Finance again, and this is why the businessmen are worried.
My main charge against the Government and its budget is that it has not paid any attention to the book on economic goals which has just been published. The Government has ignored it. As the hon. Member for Digby-
April 2E'i, 1965

The Budget-Mr. Hamilton Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) pointed out yesterday, the Minister has failed to eliminate the tax on production machinery, which would be a major step to increase efficiency. As the same hon. Member said yesterday, the Government has ignored the most pressing problem there is today in Canada-education. He suggested that if they took this $265 million reduction in personal income tax, which does very little for the fellow who saves 3 cents a day, and which does very little for the man making $20,000 a year who saves $600 a year or $50 a month, and used it to cut out the tax on production machinery, then the man saving 3 cents a day would see more jobs available and the man saving $600 a year could even see an extended future. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that even though the Government will not remove this 11 per cent tax to save the pride and face of the Minister of Finance, perhaps they will consider throwing this $265 million into education. Not just $1 per capita or something, but throw in the whole works, and do the same next year if the money is available. Education is where the survival of this nation lies. The time for worshipping old myths is past; the time to face new realities is here, and modern education is one reality to be faced.
I mention myths and realities simply to point out that the only trouble with the Minister of Finance, who is a very sincere man, is that he has been brought up on myths which are 60 years out of date. This is what frightens the businessmen. They have now come into the twentieth century and they realize that our policies of expansion are what they wanted. When the Minister brought in his budget in 1963, he carried out exactly what he said he would carry out in his book, at the Kingston Conference and in the Gordon Royal Commission. Before 1963 no one bothered to read the book. But now the businessmen have read "Mein Kampf", they are worried.
Third, trade. Once again may I welcome the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the debate, because it is very clear that the budget speech is not an election speech. You could not get elected to a doghouse with this budget speech. It is certainly not a big factor in the economic policy of the Government. It is certainly not a trade expansion budget. In this respect it ignores completely the suggested policy line of the Economic Council.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
On October 8 last I put forward in this House six proposals on new techniques for

increasing trade. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) listened to them, but apparently he has little influence over the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), who apparently is now restored to popular favour in the Liberal Government. I will again list those six proposals: first, international commodity agreements for products of newly developing nations; second, private international trading companies; third, selling agencies; fourth, purchasing agencies; fifth, an international bank for short term credits; and sixth, growth rate exchanges.
These proposals I have just listed are for consideration. I happen to believe in them, but I admit that they are long-term proposals. They are based on the fact that many of the newly developing nations are state trading nations. They are based on the opinion that to give maximum economic independence from the vertical pull to the south, we have to reach more and more in a horizontal direction to find new and additional markets, not just the United States and European markets. If any of these policies have merit, they were certainly overlooked in the budget speech.
Mr. Speaker, my time is rapidly running out, but I should now like to refer to the subject of business planning. Looking at the budget from a businessman's point of view is completely different from the point of view of the Government policy maker. The policy maker tends to look at long-term projects, whereas the business planner tends to plan ahead for two or three years. This budget lacks any pronouncement on longterm policies to give guidance to either businessmen or Government policy makers. It lacks short-term policies that would help the businessman plan his programs.
In view of the fact the Minister is tied to his own thinking, as indicated in the Royal Commission report of 1957, his remarks at the Kingston Conference of 1960, his book "Troubled Canada", published in 1960, and the budget of 1963, perhaps it would be propitious for me again to offer a few suggestions. I make these suggestions for the purpose of helping business planners know which way the Government wants them to go. I accept the premise that the expansion we all want will be accomplished primarily by private business, and I work on the assumption that the Government should set the climate and provide the objectives. These suggestions aim to achieve just that.
First, we need a sharp increase in the ceiling to which the 20 per cent income tax rate
April 29. 1965

for corporations applies, to a new level of approximately $100,000, in order to encourage expansion of family firms. If over-all corporate tax rates could be reduced, so much the better.
Second, we need excess write-offs of expenses incurred in promoting export sales in new markets for a three to four year period, or even longer.
Third, we need special tax treatment for export associations, even to the creation of a special legal entity for such associations. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that we amended the Combines Investigation Act in 1959 to allow companies to combine for several purposes, one of which was related to exports. Now give them special tax treatment.
Fourth, we need special tax treatment for firms producing products which are subject to reduction in tariffs, once again for a three to five, or even ten-year adjustment period.
Fifth, we need a special liaison export committee, or an organization made up of the Departments of Trade and Commerce, Labour, Industry and Finance to operate on a continuing basis, with a permanent organization. This committee should be concerned with at least 14 different subjects, and I could list a dozen or more if I had the time. This liaison export committee, or organization, of these Departments should be concerned with the following: (1) assisting Canadian firms to get into the export business; (2) evaluating areas of specialization for Canadian business and recommending taxation incentives; (3) active encouragement for the formation of export associations where manufacturers are numerous and small; (4) promotion of training for Canadian business people in respect of export markets, such as travelling seminars; (5) coordination of all Canadian Government production and export activity with the plans of the Economic Council, and this would leave the Council politically free, but not unheeded, as it now seems to be; (6) a widening of the provisions of anti-combine and other legislation which tends to prevent mergers for exports; (7) improvement in trade where state controlled boards are concerned; (8) an increase in Canadian productivity-and there is still need for improvement in this field-; (9) the promotion of co-operation between Government and Canadian Export Associations; (10) the creation of new and improved export financing facilities; (11) the development of proposals for North American free trade in various products, when comparative advantage gives us a chance for accelerated

The Budget-Mr. Hamilton growth; (12) the development oi proposals for market development in respect of Canadian goods in underdeveloped areas, particularly related to foreign aid programs; (13) a reduction in the duplication of Federal and Provincial efforts in respect of trade promotion, and the co-ordination of all Canadian effort; and, finally, (14) we need promotion in respect of research of production and selling methods, and the dissemination of information.
Mr. Speaker, the House has been very cooperative in listening to me while listing these proposals. I made similar proposals last October and I hope that the Government will consider them. I have no wish just to criticize the Minister of Finance because he has not done everything that everyone desires, but I do think in respect of this matter of trade we should begin to bring forcibly to his attention the fact that Canada must, of necessity, concentrate on trade, regardless of how fast we expand our domestic markets, because we cannot keep up with potential primary and secondary production. We must find markets in the U.S.A. and in Europe, even though they produce the same products. We must move in a horizontal direction and get into these new markets where there is a great demand for our products. We must not only stick together politically on the North American continent, but in an economic way.
I do not know how I can create a word picture which everyone will understand, and I am sure that no one could do so, but let me suggest that sometimes I think we are much like Siamese twins: We cannot cut the knot which links us. But that does not mean we must lose our individualities. We must learn to walk and shift together, while preserving our own identities.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Member's time has expired. Does he have the unanimous consent of the House to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Thank you. I have just two more sentences. I have seen the honeymoon of Hyannis Port of just two years ago descend into what has been called the bearpit of Berchtesgaden. I have seen three weeks ago a Speech from the Throne which calls for a war on poverty. Yet three days ago we get a budget which has changed the war on poverty as the main item in the Government's plans, very quickly indeed, into a war on the poor.

April 29, 1965
Question of Privilege


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Member for Hull.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege relates to the order of speakers in this debate on the budget. I understand Your Honour has a list from which you are working today. I must say to you that the list you have is one that has not been agreed to by all the whips representing the various parties in the House. I must therefore protest against a change which is being made in the order of speakers.
Earlier this session in the debate on the
address, and likewise last session in the debate on the address and the debate on the budget, the agreement was, after we got through the first round of speakers, that there would be a block of nine speakers, three from the Liberal Party, three from the Progressive Conservative Party, and one each from the New Democratic Party, the Social Credit Party and the Ralliement Credi-tistes. Whether or not that pattern was satisfactory, it is the one that was agreed to and under which we have been operating.
Today, Mr. Speaker, an attempt has been made to change that pattern without the agreement of those concerned and, indeed, without consultation. I feel Your Honour should be advised that the list you have was not agreed to by three of the whips in this House, and until there is consultation and agreement to change the pattern we have had I believe you should continue recognizing Members in accordance with the pattern we have followed in the previous debates. I put this to you as a point of privilege for Your Honour's decision. If necessary, of course, I could move the appropriate motion, but it seems to me that in all fairness the plan we have been working under should not be changed without appropriate consultation.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, to begin with I do not think it is a question of privilege because, as I understand the situation, it is the duty of the Speaker to see whatever Member he wishes to hear, and the only point raised by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre was that you should not see the Member you had recognized. So it is not a matter of privilege. It is something that falls clearly within Your Honour's responsibility and jurisdiction.
As to the subject matter that the hon. Member raised, may I say I am not aware, except from his repeated assertions, that there is any such agreement, and if there is any such

agreement it seems to me it is manifestly unfair. I point out that the group he represents has 18 Members and if he will do a little arithmetic he will find that, if all Members are to be granted an equal hearing, a Member of his party would have the opportunity to speak every fifteenth speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not mathematically correct.


George James McIlraith: Well, every fourteenth
speech. All I say in that regard is that all one has to do is divide 18 into 264, so I will let hon. Members do the arithmetic and make up their own minds whether or not what he suggests is fair. In any event, my arithmetic indicates to me that that would be the result.
So far in this debate we have had two Government speakers, two speakers from the Official Opposition and one from each of the other three groups. Now the hon. Member is asking that his group be given a second speaker, with the result that in two days of debate his group would have exactly the same debating right as the Government from the point of view of number of speakers. I do not know how far I need to develop the argument. The hon. Member's request seems to me to be patently unfair.
With regard to the point the hon. Member made about moving a motion, if he decides to put a motion we will have to vote on it and deal with it as I would hope it would be dealt with. With regard to his other proposition about consultation, may I say I will not be here tomorrow but if he feels some other arrangement should be made with regard to speaking I will be glad to call a meeting of the House Leaders on Monday morning.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the President of the Privy Council permit a question on that point?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does he not feel it would have been better to have had a meeting of the House Leaders to discuss changing the pattern, rather than presenting it to us as a fait accompli?


George James McIlraith: I do not admit there is a change of pattern. I found out for the first time at the end of the debate on the Speech from the Throne that there seemed to me to be a most unfair distribution of the right to speak. I inquired about the matter. I asked my colleague, the Minister of Trans-
April 29. 1965

port, just a matter of minutes ago if he had made any such commitment or agreement or arrangement, or what have you, when he was House Leader and my understanding is that he did not.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I think the House should welcome this new breakthrough and should welcome the fait accompli on the part of the Government. We have had so few. It seems to me that the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre is the great guardian of the rules and customs of the House if it happens to suit his convenience. The order of speakers today and the ratio suggested by the Government House Leader reflects what the people of Canada, for good or bad, have done to Parliament, and I presume this can be changed at the next election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Whistle all you like, my friend, but don't whistle here: I am not a mathematician but I have taken the trouble to calculate, and for the second time in this short speech may I say that the ratio suggested by the Government is fair. If we consider ratios as between the New Democratic Party, if I am allowed to name parties in the House, and the Government, the Govern-men has given up a speaker to whatever is to the left of the New Democratic Party, from the point of view of seating, but to the far right in every other way. I think we should press on with this fait accompli. I for one welcome it.
Mr. Pa+lerson: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre has raised a legitimate question of privilege. The President of the Privy Council states that he does not have any knowledge of any understanding regarding the particular formula that has been in operation. I think he has been around here long enough to know just what has been going on. I do not think he has been keeping his eyes closed altogether. We have been working under this particular formula for some time now. At this moment we are not going to raise the question of whether or not the particular formula we have had is fair. In fact, personally I would go to the extent of saying it may not be fair. Nevertheless, I believe it would have been much better if the President of the Privy Council had taken the other parties into his confidence. He has not been doing that too well recently, but I suggest he ought to take us
Question of Privilege
into his confidence and discuss the matter and perhaps we can arrive at a satisfactory formula. In a situation where co-operation is absolutely essential to get the business of the House done, I think it is highly unfair that any change should be forced upon us in this way without consultation with the other parties.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
The order of speakers is established by the various party whips or by the Speaker himself. If the whips are entrusted with that task, nothing has been done in that connection in this case; there has been no agreement between the whips. Consequently, if the order of speakers is to be determined by the whips, no change can be made tonight, in my opinion, since the whips have taken no decision in that respect.
If the question is settled by the Chair, then you are the one who must attend to it, Mr. Speaker. In the past, you set a precedent which was respected long enough to be recognized now. For the past two sessions, the order of speakers has always been the same in the house, during the debate on the Address in reply to the speech from the throne, during the budget debate or during discussion on a motion or resolution. Out of nine speakers, there were three Liberals, one Conservative, one member of the New Democratic party, one Thompsonnist and one member of the Ralliement Creditiste. If the decision is for the Speaker to take, then we are surprised to see you go against the precedent you have been following for years and take another attitude now.
What must we conclude from all that?
We note that the Conservatives and the Liberals get along like brothers, in this case, to try and diminish the contribution of the third parties to the work of the House of Commons. This constitutes an abnormal breach of the right of speech and of democracy.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, ever since I began to sit in this house, I always thought that the most important job of the Speaker was to protect the rights of the opposition. Now, the third parties in this house are the opposition. Even if we are a minority, even if the Liberal and the Conservative parties get together, the role of the Speaker is still one of protecting the opposition, including minority splinter parties.

April 29, 1965
Question of Privilege
The Liberal and Conservative parties may well vote with the majority, but I refuse to accept that the majority as such is always right. Majority does not necessarily mean righteousness and equity.
I think splinter parties, particularly under such circumstances, have to rely on the protection of the Speaker so that their right of speech may be fully recognized as it has always been in the past.
Let me say in conclusion that I am surprised by the stand taken by the leader of the government on this occasion. He is always asking for our co-operation, he is always seeking the co-operation of the opposition parties, yet today, when we have to settle a matter such as this, he starts by placing the matter before the house and then states that he will call a meeting of the house leaders. This is no way of co-operating. On the contrary, this is bound to indispose members of the opposition and it seems that the government house leader is now quite wrong and not playing the part he should as house leader, that is to organize peacefully the business of the house. He seems to be trying to provoke the opposition rather than obtain the co-operation of everybody. If the government house leader is trying to deprive us of our right of speech, I can assure him that we will find more occasions than he thinks to exercise that right in this house.
Mr. Speaker, the government house leader is suggesting that a meeting be held next Monday. We are willing to accept this proposal, but on condition that, until then, we follow the same order of speakers as in the past. Until then, we cannot accept that the order of speakers be changed and the meeting held afterwards.
If the government house leader is sincere, he will accept that, until next Monday, when the house leaders will meet again, we continue to follow the order previously established. That meeting will provide an opportunity for discussion. But there is no reason at all for making any change before the meeting takes place, because that would be acting in bad faith and a violation of the parliamentary and democratic rights of members of the smaller parties, who were elected to this house with a heavy percentage of the popular vote.


Mr. Caron:: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that an hon. member is only entitled to speak once on such a matter.
I maintain that the hon. member who has just been complaining about the right to speak

in the house is precisely the one who speaks most often.


Gilles Grégoire: It is because I have something to say.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Since he is always on his feet trying to prevent others from speaking, it would be in bad taste for him to claim the same right as others.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order-


Alexis Pierre Caron: I am speaking to the question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has the floor on the question of privilege at this time. We might allow him to complete his remarks and then I shall gladly recognize the hon. member for Beauce.


Gérard Perron: It was on a point of order. I was wondering if the hon. member was speaking on a question of privilege or was just hurling charges at the hon. member for Lapointe.


Alexis Pierre Caron: As stated by the leader of the house, Mr. Speaker, I think that if we proceeded according to numbers, six members would speak on this side, five on the other and the hon. member's party would have only one speaker. I say that would be the logical way to proceed.
The first mistake was made by hon. Mr. Macdonald when he was Speaker of the house. But in our parliament there is only one party in office and one opposition. The first mistake was made by hon. Mr. Macdonald in recommending that the C.C.F. party be recognized as an opposition party. I say that we should let good sense prevail and proceed according to the number of members for the right to speak.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Rarely do I rise to support the hon. Member for Hull, but in this particular instance I do. In my position in this Party-


Gilles Grégoire: The Grits and Tories together; they are all the same.


Eric Alfred Winkler: -I represent a number of seats in this House, and I feel that the greatest degree of discrimination that has been practised here since the change in Government in 1963 has been not only against the Members of the Conservative Party but-I hate to admit this-also against the Members of the Liberal Party. As a result of my own observations in this regard I have placed Notice of Motion No. 27 on the Order Paper.
April 29, 1965

In consideration of these facts, I am prepared to support the order of speakers which is presently being recognized by you, Sir, as Speaker of the House.


Robert Norman Thompson: I think the real issue that is involved here tonight is that what has been taking place is not something that has been imposed upon the Government or the Conservative Party as some dark plot. It has been the basis of an agreement. When the House Leader says he spoke to the former House Leader, the hon. Member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), who knew of no such basis of agreement, I believe the former House Leader is badly mistaken or his memory has failed him. Whether or not this was a written agreement, it has been the basis of operation, and I will say this to the hon. Member for Royal, that it was the basis agreed upon several years ago. I am not arguing whether the basis is right or not. I think probably there should be some adjustment.
However, it seems to me that for the sake of harmony, and in the name of fairness and justice at least, the House Leader could have spoken to the other House Leaders and suggested the change instead of bringing it in out of the blue the way he has. He needs cooperation in this House, and it seems to me he could have just a little thought about this matter and deal with it in a co-operative manner. I regret the way in which this argument has arisen, as if the minor parties have been somehow holding a club over the rest of the House, so that we could speak more often than we should.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A pretty soft club.


Robert Norman Thompson: I think this is unfair, and I would suggest to the House Leader that he have a meeting with the other House Leaders and come to some kind of agreement.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: I wonder if the hon. Member would permit me to make a word of explanation on one point he raised? I proposed calling a meeting of House Leaders the day before yesterday, but I was not able to do so because one of the House Leaders was absent all the forenoon of that day. I had intended to call one today, but I regret to say I was not feeling equal to it and, while I stayed in the building all day, Members may have noticed I was not in my place in the House. That is the reason a meeting was not called. I shall not be here tomorrow.


Robert Norman Thompson: Could not somebody else have called it?
Question of Privilege


George James McIlraith: In any event, I want to make that explanation.


Mr. Caouetie:: Mr. Speaker, we are now faced with the following paradox: the two old line political parties which vie with each other in telling us about the protection we should give minorities, are about to deny it to the minority parties in this house; and this is discrimination.
A while ago the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) upbraided the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) for always being on his feet. If the latter rises so often it is because he has something to say, while the member for Hull never has anything to say, and no one prevents him from rising for that matter.
We never objected to the hon. member for Hull speaking in this house; however, every-time he rises he puts his foot in it, and this is not the fault of the member for Lapointe or of the third parties.
Today, it does not seem logical to change the order of speakers in the house after having followed such an order for two years. Even though the Conservatives loudly applaud the decision of the President of the Privy Council, it does not mean that both are right.
I will therefore appeal to the President of the Privy Council. When there are important debates in the house he asks for our cooperation and tonight he is trying to deprive us of our right to speak under certain circumstances. Now, there will be other occasions when we shall have the right to speak and at that time the President of the Privy Council, the leader of the government, as well as government members can expect a fight and we will be ready and able to give a good account of ourselves.
The only thing we ask in terms of cooperation-and we are ready to co-operate -is that the order of speakers, as established two years ago, be respected.
It is said, I understand, that you are the one who recognizes or gives the floor to an hon. member, but there are practices, manners and customs which have been followed in the house for the past two years, and which are quietly being changed today without anyone being notified.
We strongly support the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and we beg the President of the Privy Council, the

April 29, 1965
Question of Privilege
government leader to be a little more understanding; it changes are required, let him meet with the leaders of the various parties to discuss the matter and come to an agreement, but until then let us keep to the order of speakers established and followed in the house for the last two years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I be permitted to make a clarification in view of what the hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) has said. I was the Leader of the House during the first session of this Parliament, and at no time then did I concern myself in any way with the order of speakers. That was arranged, as I understood it, among the whips of the various parties-


Gilles Grégoire: Wait a minute.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. Gentleman mind allowing me to go on? I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman and he might do me the same courtesy. I want to say it is altogether wrong to suggest I had anything whatever to do with these matters. They were arranged by the whips. But I have always understood that under our parliamentary system, though we have deviated from it for many years, it has been the custom to recognize that in the first round of these formal debates speakers should be chosen in turn from each of the parties or groups in this House, but that thereafter it was a debate between the Government and the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It does seem to me an incredible proposition to put forward that a Government is only entitled to put up one speaker against two from the other side of the House-that only one-third of the time is to be allotted to a defence of the policies of those who are entrusted for the time being by the electorate with the task of carrying on the Government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It does seem to me that a doctrine of that sort is a doctrine of modified anarchy, and it does not agree very well with the idea of there being two sides to the House and a flow of debate back and forth. While I had nothing to do with the incident which arose tonight, as far as I am concerned I do not think we can have any satisfactory debate unless there is play back and forth, and the Government has at least the right to be defended each time it is attacked and not

be subject to two or three attacks before, by the grace of some small group, it is allowed to have a speaker.


Robert Norman Thompson: On that point, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) has already taken part in this debate?


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I can confirm what the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Caron) said tonight. I think the hon. Member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is the last man who should rise in this House and say anything about discrimination as to speakers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. Member, as perhaps I should have suggested to the hon. Member for Hull, that nothing can be gained in seeking a solution to this problem by trying to examine the contributions individual Members have made to past debates. I suggest to the hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac that he limit his remarks to the question of privilege or to the point of order at issue.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: The point tonight is one of discrimination, and if you will refer to Hansard, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will find that no Member has taken up more time in the House of Commons and said less than the hon. Member for Lapointe. I think he should be the last Member to raise this point in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: On this question of privilege, may I say that ever since I have been here, in these brief eight years I have always considered that the Members of the Opposition sat on your left, Mr. Speaker and that the Leader of the Opposition, in recognition of their role in the House, represented the Opposition as a whole, not five parties, or four, or three, or anything else.


An hon. Member:: Groups.


Gilles Grégoire: I protest. I do not want to be represented by him.
On a question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. Member is raising a third question of privilege, but I should like to rule on the second, which was raised by the hon. Member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) and say there is no question of privilege in what he has put forward. I would request the co-operation of hon. Members in allowing the Chair to express an
April 29, 1965

opinion and, probably, to make a ruling on the point originally raised by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Gilles Grégoire: On a question of privilege. As to what the hon. Member for Grey-Bruce has just said, I have to protest because I do not want to be represented by the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no question of privilege, there.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I should like to clarify one point on this question of privilege. We are not arguing as to the fairness or lack of fairness of this principle. We are simply saying that if there were an opportunity for consultation there is no doubt but that the problem could be resolved without any difficulty. We believe there is discrimination in the set-up, as far as the major parties are concerned, but we simply say that with consultation it can be ironed out without all this squabbling.


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I say that I agree with the Minister of Transport-
Division
Parties. In view of this agreement, suggestions have been made to the Chair as to the order which should be followed in calling upon Members to speak.
There was then a specific pattern to be followed. However, it is something to be agreed upon among the different Parties, and if, as in this instance, there is no agreement we are left, of course, with the Standing Orders. I refer hon. Members to Beauchesne, citation 121(2), which says:
The succession of speakers is left entirely to the Speaker.
In this case the Speaker saw the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Caron). The only remedy left is the provision of Standing Order 29, which gives the right to an hon. Member to make an indirect appeal by moving that another hon. Member be now heard. So there is a point of order, perhaps, to this extent, but certainly there is no question of privilege in what has been raised by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: There is no question of privilege. The hon. Member who had the floor was speaking to the question of privilege originally raised by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: I think I was one of
the parties involved. I do not think I take up too much of the time of this House either on account of the number of speeches I make or their length.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
With regard to the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Caron), if they had wanted to change the agreement, or the practice we have had for the last two years, I would have been only too glad to co-operate. Have we suddenly become unapproachable, that we cannot discuss these things and settle them in a gentlemanly manner? What is this new co-operation or coalition between the Liberals and Conservatives?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: The same old stuff.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. It is the responsibility of the Chair to recognize one Member among two or three who stand at the same time. The task of the Chair in this respect is greatly simplified, of course, when there is a previous agreement among the Parties in the House. This situation prevailed during the last month or so, when there was agreement among the different 22620-49


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of what you have just said, and under the provisions of Standing Order 29, I move, seconded by the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard):
That the hon. Member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) be now heard.


William Heward Grafftey: Shame. Guardian of the rules.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Undue force.


Mr. Smallwood:: Why don't you join the Liberal Party?


Gilles Grégoire: Dictatorship.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I read with interest the remarks made a day or two ago by the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) regarding the conduct of Members in the other place when voting on questions in respect of which they have a personal interest. I now take objection to the action of the hon. Member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) of the New Democratic Party who voted on this motion, in respect of which he has a personal interest.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. While I should be interested in listening to arguments by both the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Caron) and the hon. Member for Timmins in respect of this question of privilege, I feel I am now in a position to rule on it. In my opinion there is no legitimate question of privilege, and I now recognize the hon. Member for Hull.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) already registered his disapproval, and there is no reason for him to do so again. [DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Alexis Pierre Caron: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that the few remarks I wanted to make this evening have been delayed in such a manner.
I have listened to the budget speech and found it really very well "balanced".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I realize that some members of the opposition at the far end of the house should find this a laughable matter, but I also know that their monetary system is not one about which we could talk anywhere, anytime.
I suggest that considering our present monetary system, the Minister of Finance
April 29, 1965

(Mr. Gordon) has introduced a budget that is very well balanced and I am happy to be able to support it.
I heard the critics of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. It is normal for him to criticize; it is his job. The hon. member who is the official financial critic of the opposition looks for all kinds of faults in order to criticize.
I even agreed that he should put an amendment. That is normal; we expected it. But when I see the amendment to the amendment from the New Democratic party, well I am very much surprised. Those people ask us to reduce taxes and to increase the old age pension to $100 per month. That is the most inconsistent thing I have ever heard.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I hear someone laughing over there. I can see that he knows what inconsistency means and he cannot help laughing when he hears the word.
But I suggest it is impossible to increase pensions and to reduce taxes in one fell swoop. This is a long term project. We shall find it possible to do those things as the country develops. That is why I was quite surprised at the members of the New Democratic party moving this subamendment. If they knew that someday they could become the most important party in this house, they would have been careful and they would not have moved it. But knowing that they will remain in the opposition forever, they can afford to say whatever they want and whenever they want to say it, without paying attention to the administrative problems which such measures may bring about.
I understand that this is more difficult for us who are in office, and even for the Conservatives who have a chance of coming back into office some day, because they must weigh their amendment so as not to make any nonsensical motion which they would never be able to carry out if they ever moved back to this side of the house.
Both the Liberals and the Conservatives are parties with possibilities and not parties that no longer have any possibilities, such as those of the extreme left, and that is why I am surprised to see the N.D.P.'s move this amendment.
Naturally, the Creditistes, who are at the far end of the house, will support them. They never make any sense, no matter what they do or say and each time they rise in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Division


Alexis Pierre Caron: As for the one who was complaining a while ago that he was being refused the right to speak, the one we hear most often and, according to what the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) said, has always something of great interest to say, well, it is exactly the opposite, because he is always talking through his hat. He does not know what he is talking about. I admit that it is surprising to hear such nonsense from a person who studied law, even though he was not admitted to the bar. I should say, in short, that one is surprised to hear him utter such nonsense.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support the budget speech of the Minister of Finance. I know that the opposition criticized it, a little rashly, without examining it in detail, and they found only general grounds on which to criticize the measures put forward in the budget; besides, it is always in general that they criticize, and it is not by so doing that the business of the house will progress.
I suggest that the opposition should have criticized particular points, because I am sure that even our Minister of Finance cannot know everything and cannot achieve perfection only. He cannot avoid making mistakes and the criticism should be directed to those mistakes. We would then be able to reply, but it is practically impossible to do so when criticism consists in generalities.
I suggest that this is not the way to act and that is the reason why I am happy to tell the hon. Minister of Finance that I shall give him my full support and vote in favour of his budget speech.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 9.45 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 of Standing Order 58, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I read with interest the remarks of the N.D.P. Deputy Leader, the hon. member for Port Arthur, the other day about Members of the other place voting on questions in which they were selfinterested. I object, on a question of privilege, to the hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) trying to vote himself $25 a month.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please. The hon. Member for Lake St. John.


Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote on the subamendment because I am not confident that the official opposition or the New Democratic party can do any better than this government, in the present circumstances.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Macdonald).


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would have voted for the subamendment. I was paired with the hon. Member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey).


Mr. Chapdelaine:: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote.


Mr. Ouellei:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Postmaster General (Mr. Tremblay); had I voted, I would have voted in favour of the amendment to the amendment.
April 29, 1965	COMMONS



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue the Budget debate.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Provisional Standing Order No. 39A deemed to have been moved.

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week, as recorded at page 633 of Hansard, certain questions were put to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) regarding the transfer to Montreal of personnel employed at the Air Canada base at Winnipeg. The initial question on Tuesday was asked by the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), who wanted to know whether such transfers could not be postponed until the Thompson inquiry had been completed and the Government had announced its policy concerning the base. The Minister of Transport, if I may capsulize his reply, indicated that it was not the policy of the Government to intervene directly in the internal affairs of Air Canada. I then asked the Minister of Transport if he did not feel that the commitment given by the Government in the early part of 1964, one in which, as I understood it, Air Canada had concurred, should be honoured, and that during the lifetime of that commitment there should be no such transfers.
At that point there took place a brief altercation between the Minister of Transport and myself as to what the facts were, and it seemed to me that the proper resolution of that altercation was to post this question for a brief discussion in the overtime period.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I want to put to the Minister tonight a question in somewhat narrow terms. We are not at this point arguing the question whether or not the base should be transferred. The reason we are not arguing that at this point is because that whole question is in the hands of the Thompson inquiry. What we are concerned about is the matter of personnel being transferred from Winnipeg to Montreal prior to the completion of the Thompson inquiry
DEBATES	769
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and the presentation of the report on the basis of that inquiry.
It is the contention of those of us from Winnipeg who have been following this matter, Mr. Speaker, that the commitment made by the Government in the House of Commons on November 22, 1963, should be honoured fully. On that day the Prime Minister indicated that the previously proposed phasing out of the Winnipeg base would not be proceeded with, but that the base would be maintained at full strength for a 10 year period. I asked in particular for a commitment that the number of employees at Winnipeg would be maintained. The answer of the then Minister of Transport, now the President of the Privy Council, was that that level would not only be maintained but might be increased.
Subsequently, Mr. Speaker, there was an exchange of telegrams, a rather warm exchange, between the Premier of Manitoba and the Prime Minister of Canada. Premier Rob-lin's telegram was dated February 13, 1964, and the Prime Minister's reply was dated February 14, 1964. In that telegram by the Prime Minister-I do not think it necessary that I read it-the Prime Minister confirmed that the position stated by the Government on November 22 still stood. He made it clear that there had not been a directive as such to what was then known as Trans-Canada Air Lines, but that there had been a statement of Government policy in which T.C.A., as it was then known, had concurred.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that these two statements in particular-the statement of the Prime Minister to the House of Commons on November 22, 1963, and the statement of the Prime Minister in his telegram to Premier Roblin on February 14, 1964-constituted a Government commitment that the base would stay there for 10 years and there would be no whittling away or diminution of the jobs at the Winnipeg base.
In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, quite a few personnel have been moved. I do not think we would argue over the number; it was of the order of 90. The Government contends on behalf of Air Canada that this has been done under the terms of a collective agreement. The point I wish to make, which is crucial to this whole situation, is that if these transfers are being made under what is referred to as an agreement, it is an agreement signed on or about March 13, 1964, practically a month after the Prime Minister's confirmation to Premier Roblin and several months after the commitment given to this House.
April 29, 1965

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


John Whitney Pickersgill: March 13?


Stanley Howard Knowles: March 13, 1964. The Minister knows-he might want to use this as part of his reply but it will not faze me-that there is a disagreement within the ranks of the union over what has been done, over whether or not that agreement of March 13 should have been entered into. Some think it was a proper agreement; some of the employees think it was not properly arrived at. That is for the union to resolve.
The position I take in this regard is one taken by many people in Winnipeg. Air Canada should not take advantage of an agreement, if there was one, arrived at after a commitment was made. Air Canada should stand by the commitment given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on November 22 in this House and confirmed in a telegram to Premier Roblin on February 14. It is not good enough for Air Canada to rely on the technicalities of an agreement, which was reached after certain negotiations about which there is argument, in making these transfers. It seems to me that good faith should be practised in this regard.
I am not now, as I have said, arguing the whole case with respect to the transfer of the base, but in view of the firm commitment made by the Prime Minister on the dates I have indicated, and there are other dates involved, there should be, as the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) requested a day or two ago, a postponement of transfers, be they of union employees or non-union employees, until the Thompson inquiry has been completed. As the minister knows-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, but his time has expired.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. If the Minister speaks now, will he close the debate on this subject?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Under the rules, the Minister is entitled to three minutes in which to reply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact I have only three minutes in which to reply, I do not intend to apologize for reading one document.
The hon. gentleman pointed out that the collective agreement under which the company and the union are operating was concluded on March 13, 1964. The definitive

undertaking given to the Government of Manitoba was given in reply to a series of questions put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) by the Premier of Manitoba. If I remember correctly, these questions were posed both in this House and in the Manitoba legislature. I should like to read the first question asked, and the answer which was sent in the form of a telegram on March 21, 1964. The question is:
In terms of your statements in Parliament, what undertakings do you consider you have given about the maintenance of employment at the Winnipeg TCA overhaul base?
This is the Prime Minister's answer:
I said in Parliament on December 17 last year: "It is the policy of the government to do everything possible to maintain employment at the TCA base in Winnipeg and, if possible, to increase it."
So far as TCA is concerned, this means that the base will continue to be used for the overhaul of Viscount aircraft as long as these aircraft are in service.
As far as the government is concerned, it means further that we will do everything we can to ensure that other aircraft work is available in Winnipeg so that the eventual withdrawal of the Viscounts is at least balanced by new activities.
This policy should not be interpreted as a guarantee that each particular job now filled in Winnipeg will continue indefinitely. Normal changes in technology and work methods, and the provisions of seniority rules between employer and employee, may lead to the disappearance or transfer of particular jobs. A dynamic industry cannot be frozen into a particular employment pattern.
My undertakings mean that there will be no transfer of work from Winnipeg by deliberate policy. On the contrary, the policy is to do our utmost to secure enough aircraft work to maintain or improve the present employment level.
I have checked with Air Canada on each occasion of a transfer and I have been assured that every transfer from this base has been as a result of collective agreement and the operation of the seniority rule. I have not conducted a first-hand investigation into this matter, but I am sure that management has given me this assurance in good faith.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have something to say on this particular problem and I wonder whether I could speak now.


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly would like to accommodate the hon. Member for St. Mary but the rules are very definite and I must apply them. They provide for a total of 10 minutes of which seven are given to the person raising the question and three to the person replying. The hon. Member for Wellington South.
April 29. 1965	COMMONS



DEFENCE PRODUCTION-CENTRAL AGENCY FOR PURCHASE OF GOVERNMENT AUTOMOBILES

Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, my question involves the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) who is not in the House, but I am assured that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) is going to speak on his behalf.
Since the first of the year there have been a number of rumours circulating that the Government of the day intends to institute a system of central purchasing of all nonmilitary cars and trucks for the Dominion Government. On April 6 the following question was placed on the Order Paper by the hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale):
1.	Has there been any recent departure from the policy of purchasing cars for the R.C.M.P. and the Department of Northern Affairs by having individual tenders from local dealers processed through the manufacturers concerned?
2.	If so, what is the nature of the change and for what reason was it made?
On Tuesday I asked the Minister of Industry if it was the intention of the Government to set up a central purchasing system and he advised me that it was the intention of the Government to do so. Several other hon. Members asked questions, all of which he was unable to answer at the time. Therefore I suggested I should like to bring up the matter for debate at ten o'clock at the first opportunity.
There are one or two questions I should like to ask the Minister and they are these. How does the Government propose to handle the resale of these cars? It should be noted that in most cases the Government purchases cars and trucks free of sales tax. If the Government then elected to place used vehicles on the market in direct competition with franchised dealers they would do so with a distinct advantage, and the disposal of a quantity of such vehicles in any given market area would have a serious effect on the automobile dealers in that area who are maintaining facilities for merchandising used vehicles.
Second, how does the Government propose to handle the servicing of these cars and trucks? The sale of a new vehicle usually entails such services being performed by the manufacturer's dealer representative in the area in which the new vehicle is delivered. Direct sale by the manufacturer, with direct delivery, suggests bypassing the dealer completely and raises the question of purchase
DEBATES	771
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion without a warranty, and the further question of how warranty services could be performed.
Third, how would the Government propose to handle the case where a Federal employee might wish to purchase a car through this proposed central purchasing system? There is another question of which I have not had a chance to give notice. How many cars and trucks would the Federal Government buy in one year?
I have no particular quarrel with the principle of central purchasing by the Government, but on behalf of the Automobile Dealers Association I must protest most vigorously any plan which will either put the Government in business in opposition to retail merchandisers or tend to destroy the service and the value of the franchise system. The franchised auto dealers constitute a large and respected industry. There are almost 5,000 of them in Canada. They employ about 72,000 people with a payroll of approximately $331 million a year, and yearly sales of almost $4 billion. So they do represent a large taxpaying group of people who are trying to provide a genuine, honest service to the people of Canada.
The franchise system has been built up over the years as the best method of automobile merchandising for the public, for the manufacturer and for the dealer. So I cannot think for a minute that it is the intention of the Government to help to destroy this industry, or to do anything that would be detrimental to this respected industry, which is providing a legitimate service. I ask the Minister, therefore, if he would answer those four questions which I have put to him?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I regret the absence of the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) this evening. If I had known the hon. Member was going to put forward four such specific questions, I might have suggested that he should defer his questions until another evening when the Minister of Industry was present. In the course of asking these questions he also suggested the answers he would like to those questions. I compliment him on the way he has put forward his views in support of the franchised auto dealers, and assure him I will bring his comments in this respect to the attention of the Minister and of the Department.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Friday, April 30, 1965