1965-04-28

CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance) moved: that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish an investment corporation, to be known as the Canada Development Corporation, to provide through savings by Canadians a supplementary large-scale source of financing where substantial sums of equity capital are required for the initiation or expansion of larger enterprises in Canada and for facilitating, in the case of offers to purchase or sell shares of such enterprises, the acquisition of such shares by Canadian residents rather than non-residents; to authorize the issue by the Corporation to Canadian residents, at an initial issue price of five dollars per share, of shares of the Corporation the total number of which outstanding at any time shall not exceed two hundred million; to authorize the Government of Canada to underwrite the issue of shares of the Corporation, and at its discretion to invest in shares of the Corporation on its own account not exceeding in number ten per cent of the total number of issued and outstanding shares of the Corporation, the amount of which underwriting commitment, together with the total amount invested by the Government of Canada in shares of the Corporation, shall not exceed two hundred and fifty million dollars; to authorize the Government of Canada to make loans to or purchase debentures of the Corporation to an aggregate amount not exceeding one hundred million dollars and to sell to the Corporation the holdings of Canada of shares of certain Crown corporations; and to provide further for other necessary and incidental matters relating to the establishment of the Corporation, its objects and powers, and its management, operation and control.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Coales: 1.	What are the rental rates available to owners of three quarter yard and one yard shovels through the M.M.R.A.?
2.	What are the rental rates available to owners of three quarter yard and one yard shovels through the P.F.R.A.?
3.	What are the rental rates available for Caterpillar D-4, D-6 and D-7 bulldozers through the M.M.R.A.?
4.	What are the rental rates available for Caterpillar D-4, D-6 and D-7 bulldozers through the P.F.R.A.?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of Slate):: I am informed by the Departments of Forestry and Agriculture as follows:
1.	Rates prevailing in district for the particular type of work to be done and working conditions, but not exceeding the following unless especially authorized: f yd. shovel, $15.50 per hr.; 1 yd. shovel, $21.50 per hr.
2.	Rental rates for three-quarter yard shovels-$12.00 to $14.50 per hour-for one yard shovels $14.50 to $17.50 per hour. See Notes 1 and 2.
3.	D-4 Tractor and Dozer: 30-40 H.P., $5.75 per hr.; 41-50 H.P., $8.00 per hr. D-6 Tractor and Dozer: 51-60 H.P., $9.00 per hr.; 61-75 H.P., $11.00 per hr. D-7 Tractor and Dozer: 76-95 H.P., $11.75 per hr.; 96-115 H.P., $13.75 per hr.
These rates include costs of operator, fuel, lubrication and repairs.
4.	Rental rates for tractors equipped with bulldozers are determined in accordance with the draw-bar horse power rating of the tractor to be rented. The horse power rating for Caterpillar models may vary according to the model year.
Rental rates for bulldozers on tractors having the horse power ratings indicated are as follows:
D. B. Horse	Power	Hourly Rates(26 to 40	(D-4)	$ 5.05 to $ 5.75(41 to 50	$ 6.70 to $ 7.65(51 to 60	(D-6)	$ 8.60 to $ 9.90(61 to 75	$10.80 to $12.50(76 to 96	(D-7)	$13.00 to $15.05(97 to 128	$16.70 to $19.40See Note 1.	Note 1: The	rental	rates indicated have
been developed from the Canadian Construction Association Schedule of Rental Rates.
The rates include machine rental, payment for fuel, oil and grease, and an allowance of $1 per hour toward the operator's wage. When

April 28, 1965
Questions
the operator's rate exceeds $1 per hour the increased amount may be added to the authorized rental rate. The rental rate applicable varies, that is minimum to maximum, according to job conditions.
Note 2: An additional allowance of 50 cents per hour may be paid if matts are required and used, or if the machine is equipped with "mud tracks" and such are required. This has not been included in the rates given under answer No. 2 above. An additional amount, equivalent to wages paid to a "helper" may be added to the rate where a "helper" is required and supplied.


CUT-BACK OF RESEARCH FACILITIES, NAPPAN EXPERIMENTAL FARM
Mr. Coates: What has been the result of the meetings held between officials of the Department of Agriculture and the provincial department of agriculture and marketing for Nova Scotia with regard to the proposed cut-back of research facilities at the Nappan experimental farm?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: There have been no formal meetings between officials of the two Departments on this subject. In informal discussions officials of the Federal Department have informed those of the provincial Department with respect to plans for the Nappan Experimental Farm but have not requested formal approval by the provincial officials.


TORONTO AIRPORT-CLOSINGS THROUGH WEATHER CONDITIONS
Mr. Millar: 1.	What number of days per year is the Toronto international airport closed to air traffic because of weather conditions (a) wholly (b) partially?
2.	Has the Department of Transport given consideration to the improvement of the runways at the London, Ontario, airport to accommodate larger type aircraft and thus provide an adequate standby airport?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. (a)
One; (b) Twenty-eight. The airport has been
closed 1.45 per cent of the total time available in the past year based on hourly observations.
2.	A second runway and associated taxiway is being strengthened to accommodate Vanguard aircraft. No consideration is presently being given to further improvements to accommodate larger aircraft on a standby airport basis.


GUARDS AT ARMOURIES
Mr. Hales: 1.	Of the 89 armouries which were placed under constant guard in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, how many were there in each of these provinces?
2.	Why has the Minister of National Defence not rescinded this order and withdrawn all such guards?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Quebec, 67; Ontario, 17; New Brunswick, 5.
2.	See answer to Part 5 of Question No. 2876 reported on page 12465 of Hansard for 17 March 1965. A number of armouries were closed consequent upon the recommendations of the Commission on the re-organization of the Canadian Army (Militia). In addition new security measures taken at the remaining armouries have permitted an authorized reduction in the security guard in excess of 50 per cent with a consequent financial saving of approximately $600,000 per annum.


SHIP CONSTRUCTION SUBSIDIES
Mr. Chaiierton: 1.	How much has been paid in subsidies for ship construction since passage of the Ship Construction Assistance Regulations in 1961 for (a) the whole of Canada (b) each of the shipyards on the Pacific Coast?
2.	What was the percentage of such subsidies to the total cost of construction (of those vessels which qualified) for (a) the whole of Canada (b) each of the shipyards on the Pacific Coast?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
Canadian Maritime Commission advises as follows:
1.	(a) $95,644,349.35.

April 28, 1965

(b) Name of Shipyard Allied Shipbuilders Ltd.
B.C. Marine Engineering & Shipbuilders Ltd. Bel-Aire Shipyard
Benson Brothers Shipbuilding Co. (1960) Ltd. W. E. Bond
Burrard Dry Dock Co. Ltd.
John Manly Ltd.
McKenzie Barge & Derrick Co. Ltd. International Shipyards Ltd.
Osborne Shipyard Ltd.
Star Shipyard (Mercer's) Ltd.
Victoria Machinery Depot Co. Ltd.
West Coast Salvage & Contracting Co. Ltd. Yarrows Limited
Total Paid to B.C. Yards
2.	(a) 32.324%; (b) See right-hand column of the above table in reply to Part 1 (b).
The above percentages are based on payments made to date and include some progress payments. Additional progress payments have been committed by Agreements on vessels still under construction.


JURISDICTION OVER LIGHTHOUSES, NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to transfer jurisdiction over lighthouses on the west coast of Newfoundland from the Charlottetown Marine District, Department of Transport and, if so, for what reason is this change being made?
2.	What is the annual expenditure involved in the administration of these lighthouses?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. Yes, St. John's is the communication centre for air and water transportation in the Province of Newfoundland and in Labrador. There is also administrative advantage in having the Department's offices in St. John's. At the time of Confederation, there were several major coastal lightstations on the West Coast of Newfoundland owned and operated by Canada and to these were added at Confederation West Coast lightstations owned and operated by Newfoundland, for operation from our Charlottetown base until the Newfoundland base at St. John's was modernized. This has recently been completed and staff and facilities are now available to bring all Newfoundland 22620-441
Questions
Amount of	% of subsidy paid to total approved cost of construction
Subsidy	in Pacific
paid	Coast Yards
$ 1,231,675.87	2.179
364,720.25	.645
65,997.66	.116
531,747.62	.941
3,400.00	.003
4,111,453.82	7.275
606,630.08	1.073
886,703.84	1.569
266,689.98	.472
12,023.43	.021
736,051.20	1.302
8,320,998.31	14.725
49,944.34	.088
4,402,794.07	7.791
$21,590,830.47	38.2%
aids to navigation under one control at St. John's.
2.	The annual expenditure for 1964/1965 was $302,000.


INSTALLATION OF SEWER AND WATER SYSTEM, AVONLEA, SASK.
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	What are the names and business addresses of the various tenderers for the installation of sewer and water systems in the Section House at Avonlea, Saskatchewan?
2.	What were the amounts of each of these respective bids?
3.	To what firm or person was the contract
awarded?
4.	When will the C.N.R. be calling for tenders for the installation of sewer and water systems in the Station at Avonlea, Saskatchewan?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The Management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows: 1, 2 and 3. Only Moose Jaw Heating and Plumbing Company Limited, of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, responded to the invitation to tender and contract was awarded to that firm. It is not the policy to disclose the amounts of tenders for railway contracts.
4. It is not known at the present time when such installations will be made.


APARTMENT BUILDING AT EXPO '67 SITE
Mr. Thompson: 1.	Is an apartment building, to be known as Habitat '37 to be constructed on the Expo 1967 site by the Canadian Corporation for 1967 World Exhibition?

April 28. 1965
Questions
2.	If so, how many apartments will Habitat '67 provide?
3.	What is the estimated cost of the project?
4.	Who designed the building?
5.	Was the design decided by an architectural competition?
6.	What is the purpose of this building of apartments at Expo '67 site?
7.	Will the apartments be sold or rented?
8.	What is the expected cost to the purchaser or monthly rent to lessee, as the case may be?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. Habitat '67 can best be described as a housing complex rather than an apartment building. It will be constructed on Expo '67 site by the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition.
2.	Habitat '67 will consist of approximately 165 apartments.
3.	The estimated cost of the project is 11.5 million dollars (including design, engineering and supervision fees).
4.	Moshe Safdie, David, Barott, Boulva, Associated Architects, are the architectural designers of the building.
5.	The design was not the result of an architectural competition.
6.	Habitat '67 is a housing exhibit and its purpose is to stimulate and demonstrate new construction methods and techniques. It has already aroused international interest as one of the major features of Expo '67.
7.	After Expo '67 the project will be disposed of in the same manner as the other assets of the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition.
It is not known what the future owner contemplates doing with the project, whether he will rent or sell the houses.
8.	During the Exhibition Habitat '67 is expected to be leased mostly to officials of foreign governments who wish to have reception facilities in proximity of the site of the Exhibition.
After the Exhibition, the purchase price or rent of the apartments will be related to the local market conditions and in any case will be decided by the new owner.


GRAIN SCREENINGS, CHURCHILL ELEVATORS
Mrs. Jones: 1.	How much grain was cleaned at Churchill terminal elevators from October 1963 to October 1964?
2.	How many tons, bushels or pounds of screenings were handled?
3.	How were such screenings disposed of, and at what price?
4.	Were the screenings shipped out by (a) rail (b) water, and to what destination?
5.	Who pays the railway freight on the screenings to Churchill?
6.	Who receives the money for the screenings when sold?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The National Harbours Board informs as follows:
1.	21,511,000 bushels.
2.	31,057,275 pounds.
3.	Sold by the owners of the screenings for the best price obtainable.
4.	Shipped by rail, and by water to Montreal and Quebec.
5.	Owners of the screenings.
6.	Owners of the screenings.


EMERGENCY HOSPITAL PLANS
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): 1.	Has the government received a brief from the Hotel-Dieu hospital in Chicoutimi or that city's medical association on the need for an emergency hospital plan which could be available to the public in the event of disasters or catastrophes?
2.	What conditions or procedures are necessary for obtaining such an emergency hospital plan in Chicoutimi?
3.	How many such emergency hospitals have been established across Canada?
4.	What is the average cost of such an emergency hospital plan and is this cost borne entirely by the federal government?
5.	In order to supplement this mobile hospital plan, does the department provide a helicopter for remote areas?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. A brief has not been received. But a telephone inquiry was received in April 1964 from the director of the Hotel-Dieu Hospital in Chicoutimi requesting assistance in the preparation of a hospital disaster plan. This request was forwarded to the Quebec Provincial Emergency Health Services for action.
2.	The preparation of a hospital disaster plan is the responsibility of the hospital concerned. Advice is available from the provincial Emergency Health Services.
3.	Approximately half the hospitals in Canada have disaster plans.
4.	There is very little expense involved in a hospital disaster plan as it is developed by the hospital staff with outside assistance as required.
5.	No.


SUBSIDY ON FERRIES FOR B.C. GOVERNMENT
Mr. Deachman: Since the inception of the federal subsidy policy for shipbuilding (a) what total sum has been remitted to shipbuilders on ferries built for the account of the government of British Columbia or its toll authority (b) what is the estimated subsidy on ferries approved but not yet completed?
April 28, 1965


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
Canadian Maritime Commission advises as follows: (a) $9,564,491.98; (b) $3,469,814.69.


ACQUISITION OF SUPPLIES AND CREW, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT SHIPS
Mr. MacLean (Queens): 1.	What Department of Transport district marine agency usually administers the supply purchasing and crew hiring for CCGS Chesterfield and, at what port are the operations of this vessel usually based?
2.	What Department of Transport district marine agency usually administers the supply purchasing and crew hiring for CCGS Saurel and, at what port are the operations of this vessel usually based?
3.	What Department of Transport district marine agency will administer the supply purchasing and crew hiring for the new ship which will replace the above two ships in 1967 and, at what port will the operations of this new vessel be usually based?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1, 2 and
3.	The Quebec Marine Agency, Quebec, P.Q., is responsible for the supply, purchasing, and crew hiring for the CCGS Chesterfield, and the CCGS Saurel. The new replacement vessel will be delivered in 1967 and will be located at the same Agency.


CALLING OF PERPETUAL BONDS
Mr. Kennedy: 1.	Is the government giving consideration to the calling or conversion of Dominion of Canada perpetual bonds in which Canadians invested their savings during the 1930's and, if so, does the government intend to call or convert the same at face value?
2. Has any consideration been given to the taking of such steps as will permit individual holders of such bonds to negotiate the same at a value comparable to their initial investment in these bonds?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. The Government of Canada 3 per cent Perpetual Bonds are subject to redemption by call at the option of the Government at face value plus accrued interest, on 60 days' notice on September 15, 1966 or at any time thereafter. It is not possible to indicate whether the Government would wish to exercise its right of redemption when it is entitled to do so.
2. The value of outstanding marketable bonds is determined by the prevailing conditions of supply and demand in the bond markets. Apart from specific rights of redemption in respect of an issue, the Government is not able to take steps to permit holders of marketable bonds to negotiate the same at prices other than those based on market
Questions
values. Holders will, of course, have purchased their bonds at different times and at different prices.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO MUNICIPAL AIRPORTS
Mr. Stenson: 1.	Is the Department of Transport considering long term lease agreements instead of the requirement of ownership by municipalities when they make application for federal grants to municipal airports?
2.	Will there be financial support available for airports with grass strips and for runways without hard surfaces?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The answer to this question was provided in the Minister's statement to Parliament on March 25, dealing with the question of airports assistance.


RESTORATION OF H.D.-4 HYDROFOIL
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): 1.	Has the structural restoration work begun on the H.D.-4 hydrofoil?
2.	When it is anticipated that this restoration will be completed?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: The H.D.-4 Hydrofoil is the old Baldwin Hydrofoil which it is understood is going to be restored for preservation at the Bell Museum, Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
This Hydrofoil does not belong to the Federal Government and no one associated with Hydrofoil work in DDP, DRB or DND has any details of the possible restoration work.


REPLACEMENT OF GRAND NARROWS BRIDGE N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): Is consideration being given by the Canadian National Railways either independently or in conjunction with the Nova Scotia Department of Highways to replacing the Grand Narrows Bridge, between Cape Breton County and Victoria County, with a permanent crossing which would carry both highway and rail traffic?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The Management of the Canadian National Railways advise as follows: No.


INSPECTOR OF DREDGES, SAINT JOHN, N.B.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): 1.	Who is the present inspector of dredges, Department of Public Works, in the Saint John, New Brunswick area?

April 28, 1365
Questions
2.	How long has he held this position and was there a competition held for such a position and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Mr. Frederick A. Magarvey.
2. He was promoted August 1, 1963, by the Civil Service Commission, from the position he was occupying in the department. There was no advertised competition; however, an appeal period was allowed and no appeals were received.


COASTGUARD ICEBREAKING BUOY SHIP
Mr. Bell: Were tenders called for the construction of the new coastguard icebreaking buoy ship recently and, if so, what were the names of the shipyards, amounts of tenders, with successful tender?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Yes. The following oilers were received and the contract was awarded to Davie Shipbuilding Ltd., the lowest tenderer:

PRICES FROM TENDER FORMS (LESS SALES TAX) TWIN SCREW ICEBREAKING SUPPLY & BUOY VESSEL QUEBEC AGENCY
Canadian General Electric/ Fairbanks Morse 8 cyl	Canadian General Electric/ Fairbanks Morse 9 cyl	Canadian General Electric/ Montreal Locomotive Works Alco	Canadian General Electric/ Rust on Hornsby	Canadian Westinghouse/ Fairbanks Morse 8 cyl	Canadian Westinghouse/ Fairbanks Morse 9 cyl	Canadian Westinghouse Montreal Locomotive Works Alco.	Canadian Westinghouse Ruston HornsbyDavie Shipbuilding	5,278,200. *5,466,200.	5.284.200. 5.472.200.	5.280.500. 5.468.500.	5.292.200. 5.480.200.	5.300.200. 5.488.200.	5.306.200. 5.494.200.	5.302.500. 5.490.500.	5.314.200. 5.502.200.Canadian Shipbuilding & Engineering Limited	5,298,200. *5,480,200.	5.304.200. 5.492.200.	5.300.500. 5.488.500.	5.312.200. 5.500.200.	5.320.200. 5.508.200.	5.326.200. 5.514.200.	5.322.500. 5.510.500.	5.334.200. 5.522.200.Port Weller Dry Docks	5,409,302. *5,474,980.	5,398,599.	5,396,396.	5,429,151.	5,418,449.	5,416,245.Saint John Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company Limited..	5,777,700.	5,782,700.	5,737,700.	5,776,000.	5,781,000.	5,736,000.Canadian Vickers Limited	5,861,707.	5,865,627.	5,870,997.	5,869,397.	(
Column Prices indicated by * (asterisk) are for maximum Canadian Content.
April 28, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	683
Questions

April 28, 1965
Questions


GRANTS UNDER FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT ACT
Mr. Caoueiie: 1.	What athletic associations in the county of Villeneuve have received grants under the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act during the past three years?
2.	What is the share that each of the provinces received under the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act during the past five years?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. None. However, while federal grants under the fitness and amateur sport program are given directly to national amateur sports governing bodies and organizations or associations carrying out programs which are national in scope or for purposes of national interest, these include programs for French speaking organizations and it is very possible that the county of Villeneuve may have benefited through training provided in this way. At the same time, to assist local or provincial groups and programs carried out at the local or provincial level, the federal government enters into agreements with the provinces whereby it reimburses them for sixty per cent of expenditures on projects, up to the limit of the provincial allocation. To date the province of Quebec has not signed an agreement with the federal government in respect to fitness and amateur sport.
2. The Fitness and Amateur Sport Act was passed on September 25, 1961. Since then the amount received by each of the provinces was as follows:
1962-	1963-	1964-63	64	65$	$	$Newfoundland	30,672	22,332	40,316Prince Edward Island	30,581	9,100	38,311Nova Scotia	31,527	29,998	40,743New Brunswick	27,328	27,496	52,521Ontario	51,408	25,000	95,015Manitoba	36,947	64,185	64,203Saskatchewan	34,681	7,500	36,866Alberta	34,612	41,544	45,349British Columbia	34,685	11,066	50,423Yukon	20,957	3,366	26,478Northwest Territories	22,382	7,331	23,868355,780	248,918	514,093


TAX ON WORKS OF ART
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Does federal tax on building materials apply to works of art?
2.	Does the same tax apply to materials used in the framing of works of art?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. Works of art listed in tariff items 695a, 695b, 695c and 695d generally covering sculptures, paintings and drawings are sales tax exempt. This is true with respect to the same works produced in Canada.
2. Materials used in the framing of paintings, drawings and pastels valued at not less than $20 each are exempt from sales tax.


EXPO '67-TENDERS FOR C.B.C. BUILDING
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Has the C.B.C. called for tenders for the construction and equipping of its pavilion at the site of Expo '67 and, if so, on what date?
2.	What is the date for the closing of such tender call, if any?
3.	What is the target date for (a) awarding the contract (b) the start of construction?
4.	If a tender call is not being made is the C.B.C. negotiating with contractors for an agreement to build and equip its Expo 1967 pavilion?
5.	If so, with how many and what are their names?
6.	Are such firms (a) Canadian owned or foreign controlled (b) long established subsidiaries of foreign owned or controlled firms, or (c) recently organized subsidiaries or branches of foreign controlled firms?
7.	Into what particular class above do each of the negotiating firms fall?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1 and 2. No. Although the C.B.C.'s normal practice is to prepare detailed specifications and call for tenders, there was insufficient time to permit carrying out this procedure. The building must be ready several months prior to the opening of Expo '67 in order to permit installation of equipment and training of staff. It was necessary therefore to retain an experienced organization which could carry on detailed design and construction work simultaneously.
3.	(a) The contract for the building and its associated electrical and mechanical equipment was awarded April 1, 1965. Contracts for radio and television electronic equipment have not yet been let; (b) Contractor began work on the site on April 15, 1965.
4.	This has been done.
5.	One. The Austin Company Limited.
6 and 7. The Austin Company Limited of Toronto and Montreal is a long-established
(Mr. Cantin.)
April 28, 1965

Canadian subsidiary of an American engineering and construction company. The Canadian company was incorporated under Dominion Charter in 1930. It has at its disposal the specialized knowledge of the parent organization which has a great deal of experience in the design and construction of radio and television studios for the large American networks.


CONSTRUCTION OF SWEETSBURG PENITENTIARY
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	What will be the final cost of the proposed Sweetsburg penitentiary?
2.	Who got the final contract for this building?
3.	How many tenders were submitted with a view to obtaining this contract?
4.	Who were the parties tendering for this contract and what were their respective bids?
5.	How many subcontracts were let for this construction?
6.	What were the amounts of each of these subcontracts?
7.	How many tenders were there for each of the subcontracts?
8.	What were the amounts of the tenders for each of these subcontracts?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. It is presumed that the penitentiary referred to is the medium security institution at Cowansville, Que. This project is still under construction and the final cost is not therefore known.
2.	Phase I: Site preparation, services, grading, etc., B & M Construction Ltd., Sweets-burg, Que.; Phase II: Medium Security Institution Buildings, Argo Construction (1961) Ltd., Montreal, Que.
3.	Phase I, 9; Phase II, 8.
4.	Phase I: B & M Construction Ltd., Sweetsburg, $362,298; Walsh Canadian Construction Co. Ltd., Montreal, $369,696; Pentagon Construction Co. Ltd., Montreal, $381,341; Eastern Township Construction Co. Ltd., Cowansville, $397,500; Richard & B. A. Ryan (1958) Ltd., Montreal, $430,810; Desourdy Construction Ltd., Lafleche, $462,300; Ron Engineering & Construction Ltd., Ottawa, $476,248; Henry J. Kaiser Co. (Canada) Ltd., Montreal, $478,266; Royalmount Construction Ltd., Montreal, $499,300.
Phase II: Walsh Canadian Construction Co. Ltd. and B & M Construction Ltd., Brossard, $5,953,825; Argo Construction (1961) Ltd., Montreal, $5,986,000; Compagnie de Construction Omega Ltee, Montreal, $6,100,000; Perini Quebec Inc., Montreal, $6,259,000; A. N. Bail Compagnie Limitee Montreal, $6,340,000; Pi-gott Construction Co. Ltd., Montreal, $6,509,-
Questions
000; Desourdy Construction Ltee, Lafleche, $6,900,000.
5,	6, 7 and 8. Securing of tenders for subtrades and awarding of subcontracts is the responsibility of the general contractor.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LOANS, VILLENEUVE COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Caoueite: 1.	How many loans has the Industrial Development Bank granted in the county of Villeneuve during the past five years?
2.	What was the amount loaned in each of the municipalities in that county for the same years?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1 and 2. The information requested is not available. Loan approvals are classified by provinces on pages 14 and 15 of the last Annual Report of the Industrial Development Bank and by types of businesses on pages 16 and 17 of that Report.


COST OF NAME CHANGE TO AIR CANADA
Mr. Mather: What was the total cost, in dollars, of changing the name "Trans Canada Air Lines" to "Air Canada"?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The
Management of Air Canada advise as follows:
The total cost of changing the name "Trans-Canada Air Lines" to "Air Canada" up to the end of February 1965 was $566,000.
It is expected that a further $380,000 may be added to this cost before all necessary work is completed.


GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Mr. Mather: Has the government given consideration to the introduction of a policy similar to the one In effect in New Zealand under which foreign companies interested in taking over New Zealand concerns must register their bids, which may be banned by the New Zealand government?


Lawrence T. Pennell: No. The Government has, however, introduced measures to encourage a greater degree of Canadian participation in the ownership of industry in Canada.


FARM SYNDICATE LOANS
Mr. Alkenbrack: 1. How many machine syndicates have been formed and approved in each province of Canada since the Farm Machinery Syndicate Bill was passed, and

April 28, 1965
Orders for Returns
how many of these syndicates have borrowed from the government?
2.	Wht is the total amount, by provinces, lent under this Act?
3.	What is the average size of machinery syndicate loan resulting?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the following is the answer to starred question 172 concerning farm machinery syndicates. It is divided into three parts. With regard to part 1 concerning the number of syndicates formed in each Province, in British Columbia there are 2; Alberta, 13; Saskatchewan, 9, Manitoba, 2; Ontario, 2; Quebec, 1; and no others, for a total of 29.
The answer to part 2 concerning the number of dollars expended by each Province is as follows: British Columbia, $19,600; Alberta, $208,003; Saskatchewan, $38,546; Manitoba, $2,860; Ontario, $10,540; Quebec, $1,000, for a total expenditure of $280,549.
With regard to part 3 concerning the average of these loans, the answer is $9,674.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Dube: 1.	What are the ships for which Canadian subsidies have been granted since the inception of the policy on subsidies?
2.	Who are the owners of these ships?
3.	How many and which of these ships have subsequently been transferred to foreign registry?
Return tabled.


WINTER WORKS PROJECTS, VILLENEUVE COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Caouefie: 1.	How many winter works projects were put into effect under the incentive program in municipalities in the county of Villeneuve during the years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65?
2.	What was the total value of each such project and what was the federal government's share?
Return tabled.


EXPENDITURES ON HOUSING AND ALLOWANCES FOR INDIANS, QUEBEC
Mr. Laprise: 1. What amount did the federal government spend during the years 1963 and 1964 (a) for the construction of housing (b) toward repairs of dwellings for Indians in (i) East Main (ii) Fort George (iii) Lake Mistassini (iv) Lake Simon (v) Lake Waswanipi (vi) Nemascau (vii) Obedji-wan (viii) Pointe-Bleue (ix) Rupert House (x) Weymontachie?
2. What amount did the federal government spend during the years 1963 and 1964 (a) for family allowances (b) disability pensions (c) old age pen-
[Mr. Alkenbrack.j
sions (d) various assistance for needy Indians of (i) Fort George (ii) East Main (iii) Lake Mistassini (iv) Lake Simon (v) Lake Waswanipi (vi) Nemascau (vii) Obedjiwan (viii) Pointe-Bleue (ix) Rupert House (x) Weymontachie?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. J. B. Siewarl (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, motions 4 and 11 are acceptable to the Government. In the case of motion 9, there is no such correspondence, so I should like to suggest that the motion be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall motions 4 and 11 carry, and motion No. 9 be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John B. Stewart: Would Your Honour please call motions 2, 5, 6 and 12. I ask that the remaining motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the motions being stood, No. 1 standing in my name for the production of papers concerning the automobile trade agreement with the United States has been stood twice, or maybe three times, and I hope the Minister will produce these documents the next time it is called.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is not in the House today.


Mr. Churchill:: What difference does that make?



CORRESPONDENCE WITH FORD, CHRYSLER AND GENERAL MOTORS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 2-Mr. Hales:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged between Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, Chrysler of Canada Limited and General Motors of Canada Limited and any department of the government of Canada between the 1st day of December 1964 and the 16th day of January 1965, relating to the subject matter of order in council P.C. 1965-99 dated 16 January, 1965, or order in council P.C. 1965-100 dated 16 January, 1965.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the correspondence being sought was tabled in the House on Monday last.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Industry is looking at No. 2 and not No. 1. No. 2 was tabled, but I do not think No. 1 was.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. Member withdrawing motion No. 2?
April 28, 1865


Alfred Dryden Hales: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



BICULTURALISM COMMISSION QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 4-Mr. Nasserden:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the printed questionnaire authorized by professor Meisel, employed by the Royal Commisison on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, together with a copy of those questions directed to be asked orally, by those authorized to conduct a survey of members of parliament, in this connection.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 5-Mr. Howard:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all submissions, presentations, briefs and other documents and a copy of any speeches delivered at, or to the recent Dominion-Provincial conference on Indian affairs by each provincial government or any person representing a provincial government.
Hon. J. H. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this particular motion or one similarly worded came up at the last session of Parliament. At that time I stated that the request was of such a nature, in that it covers submissions, presentations, briefs and other documents and copies of speeches delivered at the recent Federal-Provincial Conference on Indian Affairs by Provincial Governments or by any person representing a Provincial Government, that it cannot be accepted. Each of the Provincial Governments concerned was invited to put forward its views, and different views were put forward by the different provinces. This was done on a confidential basis; therefore the government cannot accept this motion.


Mr. Howard:: Then I suggest that this motion be put forward for debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to standing order 47 this Motion is transferred to Notices of Motions (Papers).


FEDERAL SUBMISSIONS AT CONFERENCE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all submissions, presentations, briefs and other documents, and a copy of any speeches delivered at, or to the recent dominion-provincial conference on Indian affairs by the Canadian government, or any person representing the Canadian government.
Inquiries of the Ministry
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The answer I gave to the previous motion, No. 5, Mr. Speaker, applies to this case, only this is the converse situation. These are briefs presented by the Government of Canada. We cannot accept the motion, and I would ask that it also be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to standing order 47 this Motion is transferred to Notices of Motions (Papers).


INTERNATIONAL TOLL BRIDGE, FORT FRANCES, ONT.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 11-Mr. Fisher:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all representations made by the Member from Kenora-Rainy River to the government since 1945 regarding the toll-bridge between Canada and the United States at Fort Frances, Ontario, including any suggestions that an alternative toll-free route at this general location should be initiated through the co-operation of the government of the United States, Canada, Minnesota and Ontario.
Motion agreed to.
REMOVAL OF OTTAWA UNION STATION Motion No. 12-Mr. Howard (for Mr. Peters):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all letters, briefs, and other documents since the first day of January, 1954, exchanged between the National Capital Commission, the Government of Canada, or any other Department, organization or persons concerning the moving of the Ottawa Union Railway Station from its central down-town location.
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minisier of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the hon. Member for Timiskaming. Apparently the hon. Member is interested only in the correspondence which opposes the moving of Union Station from its present location, and it was agreed that I would table that correspondence only.
Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation as expressed by the Minister, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Labour for the Province of Quebec, who said that
April 28, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry the day may not be far off when the National Employment Service will be asked to close up shop in Quebec and leave the field to the provincial government, will the Minister advise whether he has been approached by the Government of Quebec to discontinue the federal National Employment Service in that province?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker, no such approach has been made.


Michael Starr: I will ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister contemplate opening negotiations with the government of Quebec for a treaty covering the operations of the federal National Employment Service in that province?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.


Michael Starr: If he should, will he assure the House that such treaty talks will have the prior knowledge and approval of the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Did he meet a delegation from the farmers unions this morning, and as a result of his meeting with the farm representatives is he planning to introduce at this session any legislation to deal with the problem of the cost-price squeeze from which the farmers are suffering as a result of the fact that the increase in farm costs is out of relation to farm prices?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to meet the delegation this morning, as well as the President from Saskatchewan who was there also. I was most interested in his summing up of the meeting we had, in which he said that every government for the last 20 years, including the government of Saskatchewan, has failed to realize the position of their group. I think we had a very good meeting, and they certainly know what this Government intend to do and what we have done. I think we will come nearer to meeting the needs of the farmers than any previous Government has ever done.

[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that the Minister shares my views in respect of the Government of Saskatchewan.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he would answer the specific question I asked. That is, does the Government intend to introduce legislation to deal with the problem in respect of the cost-price squeeze which is adversely affecting the farmers of Canada?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, all these problems are under consideration by the Government.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister receive an invitation to meet with this delegation of farmers at the Chateau Laurier this morning?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I received an invitation.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of what the Minister has just said pertaining to the cost-price squeeze, may I ask him whether he has taken any steps to implement the recommendations in the report of the Tariff Board just tabled with respect to the importation of live turkeys into Canada? I understand the recommendation is that the tariff be increased to 3 or 4 cents per pound. Have any steps been taken in this regard?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, this recommendation has been under consideration and was also put forward by the Government. All these things will be taken care of in due time.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a further supplementary question. Has the Minister made the necessary representations to GATT in order to make such an increase possible?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I realize that these things have to be negotiated in so far as GATT is concerned. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is very familiar with this situation, and has been aware of the recommendation since the report was made.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the disastrous effects on the Canadian industry of the importation of United States turkeys last fall, does the Minister not feel that some immediate action is necessary in this regard?
April 28. 1965


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Can the Minister inform me as to whether these farmers who have come here to make representations to the Government in connection with farming will be entitled to a deduction pursuant to paragraph 10(c) of the income tax resolution proposed for this year?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) gave me notice of his intention to ask this question. I think it is perfectly clear from the wording of the resolution that such expenses will be allowed as deductions.
Perhaps I should say, in the event I am asked this question, that I also was invited to meet this delegation. I am very sorry I was unable to do so. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture made a very frank and full statement this morning, and that the members of the delegation are quite convinced that he really knows something about agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Does the Minister realize that he is expressing strictly his own opinion?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melfort-Tis-dale):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. It refers to the statement he made this morning to the farm delegates to the effect that if he were to implement a proposal to make deficiency payments on eggs semi-annually and regionally it would be detrimental to the Eastern farmers. Would the Minister repeat this statement in the house so that his farmers can read it?


Harry William Hays: If this question could be put on the Order Paper I would be glad to make a proper explanation so that everybody in Canada would be familiar with it.


QUEBEC-ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Would the minister inform the house whether he has replied to the letter sent to him by the Quebec minister of agriculture, Mr. Courcy, requesting assistance for farmers
Inquiries of the Ministry in Abitibi-Temiscamingue? If not, does he intend to do so in the near future?


Harry William Hays: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put to the Minister of Agriculture a supplementary question to that put a few moments ago by the hon. member for Chapleau.
The minister replied that he had assured farmers in northwestern Quebec that they would receive help. Could he tell us what is the nature of the assistance he intends to give them?


Harry William Hays: I said I was going to answer the letter.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question to the one I asked a moment ago.
Since the question is still under consideration, could the minister request assistance from the officers of the Department of External Affairs, for I have noticed that they are more expeditious than his own officers when it comes to providing assistance to foreign countries?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and relates to certain remarks he made last night in a speech to the John Howard Society in Toronto, wherein he stated that offenders in Canada are treated under conditions that vary not only substantially, but sometimes unfairly, in different parts of the country, and that many of these disparities in probation, training or detention facilities are notorious and the result of our federal system of government itself. Will the Minister tell us when he intends to institute a full program for penal rehabilitation and correction in Canada?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me state that the hon. gentleman must realize that each part of my speech has to be read in context
April 28, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry with the preceding part. I was suggesting that a reunion be held between the representatives of the various welfare agencies, more particularly the after-care agencies, and the Minister of Justice some time before the end of this summer. This is one of the matters which we will have to discuss, but my main purpose in convening the meeting will be to discuss the allocation of parole supervision as between after-care agencies and governments so as to finally make the adjustment which has been under discussion for the last 10 years or so.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My question was not in relation to the parole system alone. It was in relation to a complete program for penal rehabilitation and correction, a program which is certainly very much needed.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the answer I can give to this question at the moment is that by next Tuesday I shall be in a position to announce the names of the members of the special committee on penal reform, including the names of the consultants in each field of concern who will be attached to that committee.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the committee just described by the minister in addition to the committee of the Senate and House of Commons envisaged in item No. 10 on today's Order Paper?


Guy Favreau: It is a special committee aside from the committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. I tabled its terms of reference in my speech during the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will this committee to be announced next week be given as part of its work the task of looking at the plans for the new maximum security institution; and will the minister take note of their opinions in view of the fact that the advisory committee he has had up to now have already told him they do not like his plan and he has ignored their opinion?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since we now have two committees which apparently are going to consider the same subject simultaneously, when are we going to get the report of the special committee on juvenile delinquency?
[Mr. Favreau.1


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, around the end of March the report of the committee on juvenile delinquency was prepared and completed in draft form. Either the revision is now completed or will be very soon, and I will be able to give a more definite answer then.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In answering the hon. Member for Red Deer the Minister of Justice used the word "reunion". Will Mr. Banks and Mr. Rivard be invited to this reunion?



QUEBEC-LEGALITY OF RAIN MAKING OPERATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Giiles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Following requests made to the minister in the house several weeks ago, is he inquiring into the legality of operations of companies making artificial rain in the Sague-nay-Lake St. John and Abitibi regions?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to take the matter under consideration.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare or, in her absence, to her parliamentary assistant, if there is one in the house?
Is the Department of National Health and Welfare studying the effects of artificial rain on the health of residents and citizens in the areas concerned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take the question as notice.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



NATIONAL DEFENCE '


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence based on a short news item in yesterday afternoon's Ottawa Journal, which reads:
Defence Minister Paul Hellyer said Monday night that "measures will be taken permitting French Canadians to feel at home in the armed forces."
April 28, 1965

Would the Minister indicate to us what are the measures he proposes, and also he might explain why he has come to the conclusion that those of French Canadian background do not feel at home in the armed services? On the basis of a considerable number of years' experience, during which I commanded quite a number of units in each of which there was quite a number of French Canadians, I did not find that this was the case.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think I should send a copy of my speech to the hon. gentleman so he might have the text of it-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He does not deserve that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -and he will find I did not say "to feel at home" but "to feel more at home". I think measures are possible which will bring this about, which I think would be in the interests of both the armed forces and the country, and in particular of national unity.



TEACHING FACILITIES AT ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Vicforia (B.C.)):: Mr. Speaker, I have a message for the-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: You mean you got a message.


David Walter Groos: -a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is the Minister now in a position to say what action he is proposing to take with respect to new instructional equipment and facilities at the Royal Military College, following upon the recommendations of the Defence Committee?
Kon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, the long range plans for teaching facilities are under study in the Department, but I would like to take this opportunity to say that when the cadets of the Royal Military College leave that college they are as well equipped to carry out their duties as any cadets in the world, and we are delighted to have some third year cadets with us in the gallery today. They are a credit to their nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE-TRANSFER TO TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I have a question for the Associate
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of National Defence. May I ask the Minister whether he is now in a position to provide any information with reference to the future civilian complement at the Point Edward Naval Base, as he promised some days ago.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I was preparing to give the following information on this subject today. The Point Edward Naval Base, Nova Scotia, is being transferred to the Department of Transport, which will continue to operate the Coast Guard school now located there. The naval service stores operation will be discontinued when the space which it now occupies adjacent to the jetty is required for industrial development.
The Department of Transport, with the Industrial Estates Corporation of the Province of Nova Scotia, is working out arrangements under which Canadian Motor Industries Limited will establish a plant at this location and provide for other industrial development. Employment will be created for approximately 500 by the initial industrial development, and employment for considerably larger numbers is expected in the future.
The Department of National Defence now has a stall of approximately 243 at the base for its storage operations and for maintenance and servicing of the base. Some of this staff will be transferred to the Department of Transport which will assume responsibility for maintenance and servicing formerly done by the Department of National Defence. Arrangements have been worked out by the Department of National Defence and the Department of Labour to ensure that employment opportunities as they are created by the industrial development will be available to the remaining staff, and that the rundown of the national defence activities is timed to fit in with the availability of new jobs.
In view of these arrangements, alternative employment opportunities will become available for those now employed at the naval base and, in addition, it is expected that many new jobs will develop for others in the area.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Can he tell the house what employment provisions will be made for the several hundred civilian employees who have been laid off already from the base?
April 28, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: My statement referred to the 243 people who are presently employed at the base. It seems to me that our responsibility is to take care of those people now.


Malcolm MacInnis: The Minister refers to his responsibility for taking care of the people who are already employed at the base in the event of a lay-off. Some months ago he promised a review of the alternative work program supposed to have been set up by the Federal Government. Is he now in a position to answer the question which was put to him several months ago, and tell the house how many jobs were actually provided under this program for the 400 who have already been laid off-a program which his predecessor said had met with considerable success?
Mr. Speaker, we were promised an answer to this question some time ago by the Associate Minister and by his predecessor. This is a simple question which requires an answer before the Government starts making plans for another group to be laid off.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The hon. Member refers to me as being Minister some months ago. I was appointed on February 15-


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order, I did not refer to this Minister as having been a minister some months ago. I referred to the fact that his predecessor in office reported that this program had met with considerable success, and I pointed out he had failed to tell us what had in fact been done for the group already laid off. Now plans are being made for another group to be laid off.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport and ask if he could give the House some indication when it is expected the remaining nine redistribution commissions will make their reports, in the light of the fact that one has already reported.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose in the absence of the Secretary of State I am the Minister who would reply about these matters, but as these are independent commissions I would really be a little hesitant even to communicate with them about so delicate a subject.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B Nesbitt (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs but in his absence perhaps I might direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of reports that mentioned only the United Kingdom as being among the friendly countries trying to bring about a cease fire between India and Pakistan in the Rann of Kutch area-Canada was not mentioned, Your Honour-would the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or in this case the right hon. Prime Minister, tell the house whether Canada is to be considered a friendly country in this context, and whether our government has made any representations as to a cease fire to the governments of India and Pakistan, two sister commonwealth nations?
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are in touch with both Commonwealth governments in respect of what I think must be described as an unhappy development, and anything we can do as a friendly member of the Commonwealth to help, we will be very glad to do.


Mr. Nesbitt:: As a supplementary question, does the Prime Minister expect this matter will affect the holding of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in June; whether perhaps it will come before the conference and, if so, what attitude will Canada adopt in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope this matter will be amicably settled before that conference meets in the middle of June.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I have already sent him a copy of my question which reads as follows:
Regarding your press release of April 17 announcing an extension of the winter works program, the following conditions were mentioned:
(1)	Work must have started in November.
(2)	Its duration must be at least five months.
(3)	It must not be interrupted, except for two weeks of bad weather.
April 28, 1985	COMMONS
(4)	Other similar projects must have been forced to stop operations at the same time.
Does the Minister of Labour not agree that because of such inapplicable conditions his press release is nul and void?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't share that opinion at all.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Can the minister tell us how many projects that have been approved will be carried on until the end of May under this rather strict regulation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the information at my disposal now, but I shall be glad to give it to my hon. friend.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
further supplementary question?
When such an extension project is adopted by a province, can it be rejected by the federal government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. SHIPPING



ST. LAWRENCE-REPORTED STATEMENTS RESPECTING ACCIDENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention had been drawn to a statement by Mr. McLagan of Canada Steamship Lines to the effect that many of the ships along the Seaway were overstocked with crews, and asked the Minister to look into this and see if that was the cause of some of the accidents on the Seaway. I would now like to ask whether in the course of this study it has been ascertained that certain ships operated by Canada Steamship Lines cruise along the Seaway at speeds ranging up to 20 knots an hour and many do not have lookouts on them, and that this might be the cause of some accidents.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My researches have not carried me that far yet.
DEBATES	693
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS



PLACE DES ARTS, MONTREAL-BOYCOTT BY U.S. UNION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour?
Is the hon. gentleman aware of the boycotting threats on the part of the Actor Equity of New York against the Place des Arts in Montreal? If so, has he considered making representations to his American counterpart in this regard?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this situation in Montreal. I have had discussions with individuals involved, but I have not considered making representations to the United States government.



VICTORIA, B.C.-RESTRICTIONS ON EMPLOYMENT ON AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterion (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I am informed by telegram just received that on a federal Government project at Victoria International Airport the local subcontractors who are members of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway and General Workers Local 234, an all Canadian union, have been ordered off the work project, the apparent reason being that the main contractor has an agreement providing for employment of Teamsters members only.
My question is, is the Minister aware of this, and is it the policy of the Government to let contracts with companies which have made agreements to restrict employment to members of one union only?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have not received any telegram, but I will be glad to investigate the circumstances and advise the hon. Member later.



REQUEST FOR RETURN OF PORTRAIT OF SIR JOHN THOMPSON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heaih Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I think is appropriately directed to the Chief Government Whip. It is based on surreptitious but
April 28. 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry none the less careful research in a tempo- Can the minister tell us whether he has rarily unfamiliar place. Will he co-operate made any promise or given any assurance, as in having returned to its proper place the reported by the Quebec minister of natural portrait of the great Conservative Prime resources, to the effect that some day the Minister, Sir John Thompson, now hanging federal jurisdiction over the Eskimos would in the Liberal lobby?	be passed on to the province of Quebec?


Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my only reply can be in the form of a question as to the value the Official Opposition placed on this picture when they walked out of that lobby and left it there.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport?
In view of certain difficulties that seem to exist at this time in Quebec concerning the Jacques Cartier bridge, would the minister inform the house if the federal government would not be prepared to assume the maintenance and repair costs of that bridge? [Text]


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada through the Harbours Board has at the present time the care and the custody of this bridge, and whatever steps may be necessary in the way of repairs to keep it in a safe condition will be taken, and taken promptly.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Transport agree to cross the Jacques Cartier bridge in an automobile to see for himself immediately that it is badly in need of repair and that the roadway is in very poor condition?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
gentleman seems to have made some assertions rather than ask a question, but I will consider them, o (3:10 p.m.)



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I have not seen any communication or statement by Mr. Levesque in recent weeks. I would want to study it before making a reply to this question.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, April 26, 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.
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: If the Minister of Finance could have foreseen the gallery we have this afternoon, and had he written a budget speech dealing with agriculture, it would have given me an opportunity to reply thereon and we might have had a more topical subject for discussion.


An hon. Member:: Nothing for agriculture.


George Clyde Nowlan: Unfortunately the budget
speech is entirely barren-and this does not surprise us-as far as agricultural matters are concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


George Clyde Nowlan: There are no strangers here, of course, but if there were I would express to all those in the galleries not my apologies but my regrets that this situation is such that I cannot deal today with agricultural problems.
Nor do I intend to deal in detail with the matters contained in the budget speech. As always, of course, the important changes are to a substantial extent dealt with by resolution, and these resolutions will have to be debated on their own merits, if any, when the times comes. I do not intend to go into the subject matter of these resolutions to any great extent this afternoon. Rather I should like to discuss in a general way the speech made by the Minister on Monday night.

April 28, 1985	COMMONS
The Minister said-and I think this is the key to the situation-that this is an expansionary budget. He based this assertion on the statement or the inference-I am not trying to quote him-that there were substantial tax reductions which would result in an increased flow of money into the pockets of the taxpayers and subsequently to those of the merchants, thereby causing an increase in consumption and an increase in demand across the nation.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
That is a plausible argument, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps we could accept except for the fact that the Minister himself apparently did not accept it a few months ago. Somebody once said, "O that mine enemy would write a book", and if he does not write a book perhaps it is just as well that he makes a speech, because I happen to have a copy of the speech the Minister made in Hamilton, Ontario, a few months ago in which he took an entirely different viewpoint. I am going to quote very briefly from the statement made by the Minister of Finance speaking to the Canadian Club in Hamilton on September 13, 1964, roughly seven months ago. He was referring to the tax cuts in the United States and the pressure which was being brought to bear upon him-and I can quite understand the pressure that was brought to bear upon him- to carry out the same system of tax cuts in Canada. This, in part, is what the Minister said:
Those who favour this course-
That is, the course of tax reductions:
-argue that the increased personal, disposable income resulting from such a policy would give the economy the kind of fillip which it needed at the time Unquestionably this would have been one way to stimulate expansion, but we estimated-
That, I presume, is the Government, the Department of Finance, or a combination:
-that a significant proportion of the additional expenditures resulting from a tax cut would have resulted in increased imports of consumer goods, thus adding to the current account deficit in our balance of payments, rather than adding to the employment opportunities in Canada.
That is a statement of a very learned, a very able and a very experienced gentleman made seven months ago. We had a statement made on Monday night virtually to the contrary. Both these gentlemen happen to be named Walter Gordon, and I am wondering which Walter Gordon we are going to believe. It is rather an interesting problem. In September this was a bad thing to do because it was going to increase the balance of pay-
DEBATES	695
The Budget-Mr. Nowlan ments deficit and would not increase production in Canada except to an insignificant extent. Today this is one of the great measures which is going to substantially increase employment in Canada.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I think my hon. friend is carrying his paraphrasing just a little too far. I suspect that I did not say anything at all like what he has just said in the last sentence.


George Clyde Nowlan: I certainly did not say the Minister said there are two Walter Gordons. He certainly did not say that. Of all the blunders the Minister has made, I do not think he would ever make that one. I quoted exactly what the Minister of Finance said. He will have an opportunity to reply when my speech is over, and he can then deal with this matter as he sees fit. No tax cuts, in Hamilton; tax cuts, in Ottawa. I am wondering, is this another retreat on the part of the Minister of Finance? This is a very interesting question. The Minister said on Monday night and I am quoting:
We can expect the rate of private expenditure to increase by nearly this amount.
That is, the amount of the reduction of taxation. This is, as I said, entirely different from the statement the Minister made a few months ago when speaking on the very same subject in Hamilton. I am not going to embarrass the Minister by reading statements, which I could, from several papers in Canada. Maurice Western wrote some columns in the Winnipeg Free Press about that which perhaps are scathing and critical, but I am not going to indulge in a reference to the four-leaf clovers and horseshoes with which the Minister has been blessed. It was said that everything was right except the Minister's own policies. When you get such diametrically opposed statements, and a contradiction such as that to which I referred a moment ago, you can quite understand why there might be some question as to the horseshoes and the four-leaf clovers which the Minister had hanging around his neck and which he now has to translate into action.
Dealing generally with the budget speech, Mr. Speaker, I have here an excerpt from a well known, reputable and one of the ablest- there are several of them-financial commentators in Canada, Mr. John Meyer of the Montreal Gazette, who writes a column every day in that newspaper. He wrote an article yesterday, which of course was at short notice, written the morning after the
696	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Nowlan Minister had brought in his budget, and he had this to say about the budget:
The budget, judged in all its implications, must be found entirely political. It is not an economic instrument at all.
This, Mr. Speaker, is rather a striking phrase for any responsible journalist to use:
It is an outrageous bid for political favour at the risk of financial instability.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is the statement of one of the responsible financial journalists in Canada, and with that perhaps I should leave the general discussion of the budget alone.
The Minister says we are going to have a tremendous, expanding economy because of the tax reductions. I wonder what these tax reductions mean, Mr. Speaker, to the average Canadian. We have seen some of these figures produced in the press and I am not going to weary the House going over many of them in detail; but I think it would be worth while, in view of the pressures which have been brought to play on this matter, to refer to some of them. The political pundits, I know, all read into this budget an election. I am going to deal with that in a moment, but if they can read an election into these figures they have bifocal glasses much stronger than I have, because I cannot see an election. As a matter of fact, I said on budget night "Well, there's one sure thing; there ain't going to be an election this year", and unless the people across the way are crazy I still say that is a fact.


An hon. Member:: They are crazy.


George Clyde Nowlan: You must remember, Mr. Speaker, that the great majority of Canadian taxpayers, approximately three quarters, although not quite, of all Canadian taxpayers-
I mean income taxpayers-are in receipt of incomes of $5,000 a year or less; so when we talk about great, substantial reductions we should look at this through the glasses of the average taxpayer who is in receipt of an income of $5,000 a year or less and, as I have said, this takes in approximately three quarters of all Canadian taxpayers. What will they see in this budget?


Mr. Lambert:: They see a rich man's budget.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.l


George Clyde Nowlan: That may be. I am going to refer to that in a moment. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I should give some of these figures with respect to the average Canadian income taxpayer, who for the most part you and I are representing in this Parliament today.

DEBATES	April 28. 1965
The single taxpayer with an income of $3,000 a year has a reduction of 6J cents a day; with $4,000 a year income, 10.9 cents a day, and with an income of $5,000 a year, 16.1 cents a day. For married persons the figures are not quite the same, of course. The married taxpayer with no dependants who is in receipt of an income of $3,000 a year gets the magnificent reduction of 2.7 cents a day, which really is going to make the coins rattle in his pocket. If he earns $4,000 a year he gets 64 cents a day reduction. I was going to say that his weekly reduction would amount to approximately the price of a package of cigarettes, but the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not here so I should not discuss the price of cigarettes. Then a married taxpayer earning $5,000 with no dependants will be offered the magnificent saving of 10.9 cents a day.


Mr. Roxburgh:: It is very easy to criticize when you do not have to bring a Budget down.


George Clyde Nowlan: Well, if I had, it would have been a lot better than the one brought down on Monday night. I suggest that the hon. Member concentrate his chirping on the Minister of Health and Welfare, who he says has ruined the tobacco industry, and we will be a lot better off. Perhaps he had better keep quiet and get back to hockey, about which he has not been too successful in the last few years.
A married taxpayer with two dependants earning $3,000 a year will benefit by .82 cents a day, but I will not pursue these figures because they have all appeared in the press. I simply suggest that according to the business indicators the problems facing the Canadian economy suggest that in the durable goods area-refrigerators, washing machines, and that type of thing-there may be, though I hope the indications or prophecies are wrong, something of a softening in demand for these items during the last part of this year. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that no finance company in Canada, no matter how bitter the competition may be, will finance a refrigerator on a payment of $25 a year, which is the maximum amount that can be achieved as a result of any of these tax deductions presented to us in the budget. So, having looked at these figures I do not quite follow the Minister when he says that this is an expansionary budget.
As a matter of fact, I think the head of the Globe and Mail bureau in Ottawa, George
April 28. 1985

Bain, wrote a very humorous column this morning, in which he referred to the fact that a married man with two dependants under these income tax savings would save $3 a year. If he was lucky and lived long enough he could tuck the first $3 under the mattress on the bed, keep it there, and at the end of the second year he could bring it out and he would be able to spend $5 to buy one of these Canadian Development Corporation shares certificates which the Minister mentioned the other night, and he would have $1 left over to buy something else.
Hon. Members talk about $265 million as being a very round figure, which appeals tremendously. They talk about $175 million in one year, which to me is an awful lot of money, more than I can contemplate. When you talk about two cents or three cents or four cents you are talking in a language which I can understand and which the average taxpayer can understand. That is why I said, and said quite sincerely, on budget night, and I say it again, that with all due respect to our intelligent pundit friends up above us, this is not an election budget. If it is, then the Liberal party is much more bankrupt than I realized was the case, because this certainly will not appeal to the voters.
I must say that the public relations boys, the public relations officers in the Minister's Department, have done a very good job in selling this Budget, according to the headlines which appeared in the press the following morning and the publicity given to it on radio and television. If one believes the rumours which circulate around this place, although one necessarily discounts 90 per cent of them, one would be encouraged to believe that the Minister of Finance is the one Minister in the Cabinet who willy-nilly is trying to drag his colleagues into an election, and he may have been influenced by his P.R.O. boys, who to a great extent have suggested that this would be an election budget. If it is, then as I say I doubt very much whether it will have any great appeal for the public.


Mitchell William Sharp: Are you worried about the result, then?


George Clyde Nowlan: Not half as much as you are; make no mistake about that.


An hon. Member:: And you have not as much experience as he has.


George Clyde Nowlan: If this was to be an election budget I certainly would not present a budget like this, as you know, Mr. Speaker. But I would not be surprised if some of my more
The Budget-Mr. Nowlan intelligent colleagues around this place, or more smart politically anyway, including those to the left of us as well, rather than have a "Diefenbuck", as we did in 1962, would have a $3 bill with Walter Gordon's face on it. That might be one way to win the next election-to have a $3 bill with Walter Gordon's face on the face of the bill.


An hon. Member:: Why not two bits?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, because I know many hon. Members want to speak in this debate and that time is circumscribed, I wish only to speak to some of the highlights. If I may now deal with the figures in the green book, there are roughly 3,300,000 Canadian taxpayers whose income is $5,000 or less, representing not quite three quarters of all taxpayers in Canada. There are 20,700, odd, income tax payers in Canada whose taxable income is over $25,000, and their savings, of course, will be much larger. They can possibly contribute to the development of the economy, and I realize that the Minister prayed the other night that their savings would be directed toward that end. But these people who have incomes of $20,000, $25,000, or $30,000 and over have already bought their refrigerators and washing machines. They are going to use this money for investment or, probably more to the point-and I do not blame them one bit-they will use it for a trip to Spain, or be able to spend two more weeks in Spain than they otherwise would have spent had these tax deductions not been made. So, as I say, the argument that these tax cuts will increase consumption does not, I think, bear analysis.
As a matter of fact, as far as these tax cuts are concerned this budget gives the least relief to those who need it the most. It gives the most to those who need it the least, and any contribution to an expanding economy is absolutely and completely infinitesimal. I think that is a fair summary, in general. I do not expect the Minister to agree with that wholeheartedly, but I do not think he can help but admit that generally that is the situation with respect to these tax cuts.
There is one specific matter, Mr. Speaker, to which I want to make reference and which was not included in the budget speech. I dealt with it briefly the other night and I want to emphasize it again this afternoon. I am referring to the failure of the Minister to deal in any way whatever with the sales tax on machinery and equipment entering
698	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Nowlan into production. Virtually everybody in this country agrees-I am sure some of the Minister's colleagues must have had some heated arguments with him about this, and certainly the financial press editors have urged this in every way possible-that it is necessary to reduce our costs and maintain efficiency. In fact, the report of the Economic Council says just that.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
This statement has been made by every financial writer in Canada. In spite of this fact, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has failed completely to deal with this matter in any way, shape or form, and one cannot help being driven to the opinion, the judgment or conclusion that he has taken this position because he is sensitive about this matter as a result of the many changes and retreats he has had to make in respect of budgets brought down in the past. He has now taken a firm position and has maintained the sales tax on equipment and machinery for production.
I am not now dealing with the sales tax on building materials, although I intend to say something about that at a later stage. Certainly it is the prerogative of the Minister to adopt the position he has taken in this regard and I would not be too critical of him, although I think he may have been in error. However, in spite of his prerogative regarding the sales tax on building materials and his decision not to remove that tax, irrespective of the substantial number of representations made, there is no reasonable excuse for the Minister's failure to remove the sales tax on equipment and machinery for production.
As I have said, one could quote from many documents and articles in this regard, because numerous arguments have been advanced by many competent authorities in Canada, as well as by some incompetent ones I suspect, which have urged the Minister to make this tax cut. I should like to quote from one of these many articles, and I have in my hand a pamphlet published by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association under the heading "Industry". This is the April publication of this pamphlet.
While I realize that the Minister may not agree with this article and will say, as perhaps will many others, that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association is prejudiced and biased and looking after its own interests, if it is read in conjunction with the many other similar articles that have been published,

DEBATES	April 28, 1985
it will be appreciated that the secondary industry-the manufacturing industry must be developed and increased. We have been exporting primary products for a great many years, and we will continue to do so I hope at an accelerated rate; but the Canadian economy and those young people who sit in our galleries from time to time and look down upon us wondering what we are going to do with respect to their future depend to a great extent on the expansion of manufactured goods. For those reasons I make no apology whatever in reading from this pamphlet produced by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association under the heading "Industry".
This pamphlet is the April, 1965 issue and I should like to read two paragraphs as follows:
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.
That is an expectation, or a forecast, and it is followed later in the article by a qualifying paragraph which reads as follows:
Rightly or wrongly, it is industry's expectation that Mr. Gordon in his forthcoming budget will cut both corporate and personal tax rates, and scrap altogether the absurd, cost-inflating sales tax 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.
I am sure most hon. Members have read statements by the President of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, dealing with this budget, which appeared in several newspapers today. We recognize the fact that Mr. Cumming is speaking from a manufacturer's point of view and no doubt is swayed because of that fact. The Minister can deprecate these statements to any extent he sees fit, but the fact remains that Canadian manufacturers represent one of the keystones of the Canadian economy. Manufacturing in Canada is one of the great foundation stones upon which our economy must be based, and it must be encouraged to grow and grow.
The President of that Association is reported in today's issue of the business and finance section of the Montreal Gazette as having said:
From the manufacturing industry's point of view, it's a damp squib budget-
He also is reported as having said:
The producer, the mainspring of the national economy, remains overtaxed.
April 28, 1985	COMMONS
The article then states:
Mr. Cumming also attacked Mr. Gordon's failure to remove the 11 per cent tax on machinery and equipment.
This failure is "a major let-down and a serious error in judgment"-
The article then refers to corporate tax rates to which I will make a passing reference in a moment.
On the evening before last when I was dealing with this matter I referred to a statement made by the President of Chemcell to its annual meeting on April 20, 1965. The import of that statement was that this tax on production machinery and equipment should be removed. In part it reads as follows:
This tax is a serious brake on national progress. Industry is temporarily encouraged through various tax incentives to embark on capital expenditure programs, while at the same time it is burdened with an 11 per cent tax on production machinery and equipment which cuts down on its ability to compete with foreign producers. These two situations are to say the least not compatible. Only the general level of Canadian prosperity has concealed the innate viciousness of this tax, and when the economy weakens, we in Canada may well have lost our ability to compete.
The next sentence is the one I quoted the evening before last, Mr. Speaker, and is:
Chemcell will pay in 1965 over one million dollars as a surcharge on capital if this tax is not removed.
The tax has not been removed and I suggest -and I will deal with this aspect a little more fully before I conclude-that it would be better for the Minister to deal with a tax such as this than to deal with a general tax reduction across the board. One tax is related to personal income tax while the other is related to industrial and economical development.
In round figures the Minister has suggested that as a result of this general across-the-board tax reduction $170 million will be left in the hands of Canadian consumers. This will happen as a result of the saving to individual taxpayers. The amount will vary depending upon income and I would not want to suggest how much you will save, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Six hundred dollars.


George Clyde Nowlan: The Budget-Mr. Nowlan
Our corporate tax rate is roughly 52 per *cent while the American rate is roughly 48 per cent. As I said, the Americans have social security taxes, but our people are soon going to have to make Canada Pension Plan contributions. This is a problem to which [DOT]the Minister of Finance will have to pay very special attention, because I can see a situation developing in the very near future where Canadian subsidiaries of United States companies will be paying a higher rate in Canada than their parent firms in the United States. This may very easily be happening right now because we are right on the verge, right at the breaking point. This is what happened in Windsor, Ontario, last week. If such a situation should develop, then the situation about which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) protested to high heaven last week, would be nothing but a spring shower, a summer breeze, compared with what will happen if these tax rates are not kept somewhat in line.
I could go on to deal with various matters included in the budget but I am merely going to refer to one specific matter in which I have a tremendous interest, as have all hon. Members to a greater or less extent.
I am referring now to the subject of education. The Minister paid lip service to education in his budget. Last Monday evening he said it was unfortunate that no solution could be found for this problem and he prayed that the Bladen Commission would soon bring in its report, inasmuch as it might perhaps contain a solution to the problem. The Minister was looking for help and guidance but, Mr. Speaker, he did not do anything himself with respect to the problem, and he could have if he had wanted to do so.
I suggest to the Minister that the problem of providing educational facilities is one of the most important problems, if not the most important, with which Canada is faced at the moment. I have spoken on this subject before and I am not going to bore the House now by going into detail with reference to the constitutional problem. May I simply say that I have never been able to see how the fact that the Dominion Government made X millions of dollars available to any Province with only one string attached, namely, that the Province should not reduce the contribution it was making to education because of the money it received from the Federal treasury-how that in any way constituted an impingement upon provincial rights. I do not think I could ever be convinced that


such action would be an impingement upon provincial rights with regard to education. The Provinces would have free scope. The only thing they would have to do would be to spend at least as much money on education as they are now.
The last Conservative Government raised the grant for university students twice and finally brought the grant up to a level of $2 in 1961 or 1962.


An hon. Member:: It was 1962.


George Clyde Nowlan: It was 1962, I am told. We are now in 1965 and the grant is still being paid at the rate of $2 per head of population in the Province. The Minister is not responsible for that formula. He inherited it from preceding governments, as we inherited it; and I must say we followed it. I do not like it. There may be some constitutional reason for it. As I said the other day in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, I can see a constitutional fiction in not wanting to break away from provincial populations, in that thereby you can maintain a semblance of provincial control because the grant is based on provincial population. I do not agree with that, but in any event what was there to prevent the Minister, in this great, expanding economy of which he spoke where he is giving everybody money, everything from the package of gum to the lower paid to the trip to Egypt to the higher paid, from increasing the student grant per head of population from the level of $2 set in 1962? The population of a Province increases relatively slowly. The population of every province in Canada is increasing and provincial pride may lead some to say that the population of their Province is increasing fairly rapidly, but on a relative basis the increase is slow, compared with the astronomical and fantastic increase in university population.
I say that the time is long past when this matter should have been dealt with. It should have been dealt with in the budget. If it can be dealt with in no other way, then it should have been dealt with by increasing the grant of $2 per head of population to $3 per head. The Minister would at least have been making an approach to dealing with the overall problem. I am sure the Minister will be the first to agree that the problem is an important one and must be dealt with. If one reads the report of the Economic Council he sees that it emphasizes the necessity for education and training as being fundamental to Canadian development. The Conference of Canadian Universities and other organiza-
April 28, 1965	COMMONS
tions in this country are all unanimous on this point. Something should and must be done about the matter now.
There are other matters to which I should like to refer but, as I said earlier, this is only the beginning of the debate on the budget. In a way, I am presenting a general summary. Many of my associates and, of course, Members of other Parties will take part in the debate, and various facets of the problems will be dealt with by my associates during the next few days of debate. After the budget is ultimately adopted, if it is, we will then be dealing with the resolutions in detail, at which time we can discuss them and perhaps amend them. I think it would be a waste of time and an infringement on the rights of Members generally if I were to deal with the resolutions at length at this time, but I must say I am rather intrigued by one or two of them. I would refer to the Customs Act resolution, to which the Minister made a casual reference the other night, which gives the discretion to the Governor in Council to fix values.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I was reminded of debates in days gone by.
I was reminded of the frenzied screams of the now Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), his voice raised to high heaven, and all the rest of them, saying that it was an insult to the Canadian Parliament because there was no appeal. They said, "You did not provide any appeal." How can you provide an appeal from a section which says "When the Governor in Council is satisfied", I ask any lawyer on the other side of the House, how can there be an appeal when His Excellency is satisfied?


Mr. Woolliams:: You don't have to go over there.


George Clyde Nowlan: I know of course we have the experts here, but I want to give the juniors on the other side a chance to give legal advice.
This resolution brought back old memories, and I can recall the debate that took place some years ago when a resolution which I introduced was finally allowed to die in another place not too far away.


Mr. Knowles:: Maybe the other place might defeat it again.


George Clyde Nowlan: But we may have abolished the other place by that time.
There is a resolution dealing with newspapers, and I could not sit down without making some slight, passing reference to that. I am sure many people read the editorial in one of Canada's leading newspapers this
DEBATES	701
The Budget-Mr. Nowlan morning. I am not advertising this paper because I do not always agree with its editorials, but the one today was intelligent.
What are we to do if that resolution means what it says? We are going to have the power to prevent the importation of periodicals. I can debate the aspect of the resolution which deals with deductions for income tax purposes. That is a debatable proposition. It is one which has been before the House and before more than one government in the past. I can quite understand the niceties of that argument and what consideration should be given to it but, Mr. Speaker, at the moment without some lucid explanation from the Minister on that, more than he gave us on Monday night, I am not prepared to accept the fact that we are going to ban or banish periodicals from Canada on the whim of the Minister of Finance and the Governor in Council.
Then of course we have the massive resolution dealing with the Canada Development Corporation; and again, as I said, it will be debated, and debated at length. We will listen to the arguments advanced by the Minister of Finance and we will listen to them carefully and then decide what action should be taken with respect to them.
That, of course, is a terrifically far reaching resolution. If it means what it says it will result in the taking over of one of the great Crown corporations which we own today, and there are other corporations which I am not going to mention at this time, but which one could think of and which could be included if we are going to take over any such corporations. As I say, that is a matter we can debate when the time comes.
Then, of course, there are other minor resolutions, but I do not think it is advisable to go into them at the moment and I will defer that until a later occasion.
So, Mr. Speaker, after considering these matters to which I have referred, I am now going to move an amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Starr);
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"This House regrets that the Government has failed to meet the most pressing economic problems of the country by refusing to abolish the sales tax on production machinery, which tax continues to penalize the manufacturing industry and business, thereby undermining Canada's competitive position in markets at home and abroad: and by not giving adequate relief from taxation for the lower income groups and increased assistance to old age pensioners in the face of the steadily rising cost of living."
April 28, 1965

The Budget-Mr. C. Cameron


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I always approach the budgets of my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) with lively interest because one never knows quite where he is going to lead one, or which way he is going to jump. I feel it might not be inappropriate to suggest that he moves in a mysterious way his wonders to perform, but we are not quite sure what these wonders are that he wishes to perform.
After a great deal of advance publicity-in fact I may say the publicity rather outdid the actual turn when it came on the stage- we were told he is going to cut taxes 10 per cent across the board and this is going to have a dynamic effect on our economy.
I have just been wondering what the purpose of this tax cut could have been. It can hardly have been to afford relief to those in our society who require it most, because in that event he would have put his tax cuts in the lower income groups. He would perhaps have raised the exemption level. Instead he left it as it is at present where, for instance, a young married man with two children, living on $3,000 a year, is given a tax cut of $3 a year and still pays $26 a year.
Now, $26 a year is probably quite important to a young couple in that position. In fact I know it is, yet at the same time the man who gets ten times that amount, $30,000, is to be given a tax relief of $600. What for? Why is he to get a tax relief of $600? Why are you and I, Mr. Speaker, to get tax reliefs when still the man on $3,000 a year is going to have to dig in his pocket for $26 a year which he can ill afford?
Therefore it cannot really have been for the relief of those who need it most that the Minister of Finance has made his tax cut in this form. Then we are told, of course, that the main purpose is to stimulate consumption, to stimulate purchasing power and thereby give a shot in the arm to the economy, if it needs it.
Again I wonder how the Minister of Finance thought he was going to do that through this particular method of tax cuts because, as the hon. Member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), who preceded me, pointed out, the man with $30,000 income has probably got his refrigerator by now, and probably his wife has a fur coat too, and it will probably result in his taking an extra two weeks in Spain or Florida with this unexpected windfall from the generous Minister of Finance.

Nor can it be that these tax cuts were made with the idea of moving toward some sort of equalization of incomes, because again I point out what happens is that those who need it least get most, and those who need it most get least. We who are in the $12,000 a year and up income tax bracket for tax purposes will get a somewhere around $150 and up tax cut. It is very nice and I am sure we are very grateful to the Minister, but I suggest to him that the price is too high if in order to have that it has been necessary to deduct from the very meagre incomes of those in the lower brackets just a little more of what they have earned than is necessary, o (4:10 p.m.)
I should have liked the Minister to raise exemption levels. I see no reason for his not having done so, because this would have met all the expressed objectives of these tax cuts. When they are all boiled down and when we take into consideration the effect of the contributions to the Canada Pension Plan, the dynamic economic effects of these tax cuts will, I suggest, be precisely nil. They will be completely unnoticeable and a complete waste of time from that point of view. They will simply have created and developed still more inequities in our society.
While I am on my feet I may perhaps say something which will make me unpopular with a lot of people. It has to do with our whole attitude toward taxes. I have noticed in the course of a long life laid waste in getting and spending that by and large the dollar I spend for taxes gets me a better bargain than the other money I expend. Of course, it is the "done" thing to growl about taxes, and for this reason whenever a Minister of Finance announces a tax cut he stands with a smirk of conscious virtue; he waits the grateful applause, and the applause comes. It all seems to me somewhat illogical-the grateful applauders might well have hesitated in an attempt to find out just what they were applauding. Because even in the hands of the most incompetent Government I maintain that what we get for our tax dollar is a better bargain than what we get individually. That is true even of this Government which has opened up new and unheard of vistas of incompetence and bungling.
There are people in our community to whom this does not apply. The rich have no need of the amenities which are provided by tax dollars. They do not have to worry about a proper medicare service being provided for citizens of this country, should that ever come
April 28, 1965
about. They do not have to bother very much about the public school system for the education of their children. They have a vested interest in the reduction of taxes. However, I suggest that those of us who are not rich have a vested interest in seeing that the total of the amenities of our country is continuously increased and that for our tax dollar we get a more comfortable life, a more worth-while life and a more satisfactory society in which to live. So I have no bouquets for the Minister with regard to his tax cut. In any event it is an ineffective one; it will do nothing of consequence apart from annoying a lot of people who find that their reduction amounts to only $3, though it will amount to $600 in respect of men earning ten times their income. Added to this will be the knowledge that the present Government is not likely to move ahead very rapidly in the field of supplying services and amenities and improving the whole quality of life in our society.
Another item in the budget which created a great deal of interest was the Canada Development Corporation proposal. Here again it has been suggested that the Minister stole some of the laundry from the Socialist washline. Perhaps this is the impression which it was intended to convey. Certainly it took in the Toronto Globe and Mail, because they actually imagine this measure amounted to Socialism by the back door. I would think that had they gone into the New York Stock Exchange they would have found out what it really is, which is, of course, the New York Stock Exchange version of peoples' capitalism. What Members opposite did steal, as is so often the case, was the name. But added to the name was a different idea.
The reason is not far to seek. Contrary to the general impression, the Liberal Party is a doctrinaire Party. Usually we Socialists are accused of being doctrinaire. But the Liberal Party is the most doctrinaire Party in the country because it applies one yardstick to every proposal, that is, it must fall within the confines of what is politely known as free enterprise; everything must be fitted to this Procurstean bed. They may deck their proposals out in semi-Socialist or progressive clothing but in the final analysis they must fit this doctrine which is rigid and unchanging. At the present time we see the Liberal Government taking this idea of a Development Corporation and fitting it into its doctrinaire pattern, proving once more what is the essential philosophy of the Liberal Party. This philosophy is that the main purpose of human 22620-451
The Budget-Mr. C. Cameron society is to provide opportunities for the more acquisitive members of that society to profit by the operation of a modern economy, and that everything else must be subservient to this idea.
The idea which animated most of us who invented the original name was that this would be another tool in the hands of the Government to stimulate the expansion of the Canadian economy. What have we got? We find ourselves with just a vast mutual investment trust, in no way differing from those which are already in existence except that you and I and the other citizens of Canada will be asked to sponsor it; we shall be given the chance to invest in it to the modest degree of $100 million, or 10 per cent. We shall also be asked to stand by with the buckets to bail this Corporation out of trouble, if necessary, to buy its bonds when needed, and so on. But we are not going to control it. In fact, the Minister says plainly that this Corporation will stand on its own feet free from Government control. If this is what the Globe and Mail calls Socialism by the back door I think its editors have a lot to learn.
I notice that at one point the Minister suggested that this Corporation would be expected to invest its funds in such a way as to serve the best interests of the Canadian economy. It would be "expected" to do this. He did not tell the house it would be made to do so. I suppose he pictures himself as a latter day Lord Nelson standing on the quarterdeck and giving the signal "England expects that every man will do his duty". You know, I think he is really more in the guise of Captain Morgan raising the Jolly Roger and beckoning all the buccaneers to climb aboard this richly laden merchant vessel, all ready to loot. And they will come vaulting over singing "Yo, ho, ho and a bottle of rum" because they are never slow in recognizing a proposition which is in their own interest.


An hon. Member:: They don't have enough to buy that bottle of rum.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Colin Cameron: They will. They will certainly have it on this occasion, because there can be no question about who is to operate this vast Socialist enterprise. The Minister tells us that while the general public will be invited to contribute their $5 bills, support will also be sought from a wide variety of sources. What are these sources? Banks, insurance houses, investment companies, trust companies. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, any

April 28. 1965

The Budget-Mr. C. Cameron possible set of conditions in which such people will invest sums of money from the concerns they direct, and not direct this new Corporation? I do not think we can be so naive as that. And once they have got control of the directorate, what will be their purpose? It will be the purpose of the directorate of all private Corporations, a perfectly legitimate one under these terms of reference, of maximizing profits at all costs, and any idea that this is a new deal to develop the Canadian economy goes by the board.
It is, again, a demonstration of the unspoken but firmly held conviction of Liberal Governments that the directors of insurance companies, the banks and trust companies are really better fitted to manage the country's affairs than those who have been chosen by the people, and that the Government's role is mainly that of handmaiden to serve the interests of private business. In fact, Mr. Speaker, as I read the description of this new company I was reminded of a definition of a politician that one of my colleagues in the British Columbia House gave many years ago, and I think it is very appropriate on this occasion; that the politician is the man who climbs the tree to shake the fruit down to the hogs below.
In fact, the idea that this is going to help the Canadian people, that this is designed to serve the interests of Canada, is blown sky high when we come to the suggestion that we are going to sell Polymer to them. Why are we going to sell Polymer to this Corporation? You and I, Mr. Speaker, are both share holders, very small ones-we hold about one-nineteen-millionth of the shares of the Polymer Corporation-and why is the Minister going to sell our property to a few people in Canada, when it now belongs to all of us? In what way is this going to stimulate the development of the Canadian economy? How is this going to improve matters for the economy of Canada? Why should these funds be invested in a concern that has already established a reputation for outstanding success and competence and efficiency? Why should funds be diverted there, when the Minister tells us that his purpose in establishing this Canada Development Corporation is to create an instrument for the development of the Canadian economy? This, I think, is just another demonstration of the fact that the Liberal Party has no faith in its own Members; that the Liberal Government has no faith in its own Members. Of course, I can understand their reluctance to place faith


in themselves, but on the other hand I am equally reluctant to place the faith that they place and that the Minister places in the hands of those who now control our financial institutions.
Having dealt with the Canada Development Corporation, Mr. Speaker, let us turn to some other aspects of the Budget and just see how well the Minister has done. I noted again this time that the Minister made his customary obeisance to the myths of the unqualified virtues of a balanced budget. I felt, I suppose, like some of those Christian missionaries used to feel when they found a native they thought they had converted to Christendom going out again and bowing down to the old tribal gods. Here the Minister does it again. He seems to suggest, again, that this is the summum bonum of national financing. He tells us we have brought the economy under control; we have now set our house in order. But have we? Is our house in order when we have 3.9 per cent unemployed; when slums disgrace every major centre in the Dominion of Canada; when education is in a crisis; when whole areas are, and have been for decades, in a depressed condition? Is this setting our house in order?


An hon. Member:: And with the farmers' delegation coming in.


Colin Cameron: Yes, and with the farmers' delegation roaming through the buildings? The Minister tells us that everything is wonderful. In fact, he stands up and, as Ministers of Finance always do, takes great credit for the fact that the Canadian economy at the present time is in a prosperous condition. I am always diverted by the manner in which Ministers do this. Whenever things are prosperous, then it is the result of the wisdom and sagacity of the Government; and when things go wrong, of course, it is an act of God. God is elbowed out of the way very quickly, though, when there is an upturn. He is allowed to be responsible for disasters, but not for benefactions.
The Minister tells us we are riding the crest of a boom; but what does he do about it? Does he do anything about these things that are staring us in the face, the squalour that lies behind much of our affluent society's fagade today? He boasts about the fact that he is bringing his budget almost into balance, that the debits and the credits are lying down together; but he does not do anything about the means with which to cope with these disease spots in our economy. What
April 28. 1965

does he do? He cuts a few taxes to make us forget the squalour. He establishes a vast private enterprise under Government sponsorship, and he leaves these other things untouched and uncorrected.
Let us turn to one of the matters in which we lag very far behind in Canada. On this occasion the Toronto Globe and Mail perhaps did a better job than it did when it characterized the Canada Development Corporation as a Socialist measure. This is a report of a speech made by Dr. Frank Forward as director of the Science Secretariat to the Privy Council, which was given to a number of Canadian researchers some few weeks ago. This article was published on April 3 this year, and it has this to say:
The problem is not that the Medical Research Council has decided to cut back on grants. It hasn't. In fact, it has increased its total amount of funds by about one-third over last year's. The increase is just not enough.
One precipitating factor in today's dilemma was the United States' decision to reduce its grants through its Public Health and National Institutes of Health to developed countries.
We had, of course, been living on our American friends' generosity, and when they decided they could not afford it any more, we found that the Canadian Government had nothing to put in its place. The article continues:
It is a question of policy, too-federal Government policy on science, or rather, the lack of it. Despite much talk and the appointment last May of Dr. Frank Forward.. .the Canadian Government still has no well-defined national goals in science.
Dr. Forward revealed this regrettable lack of direction and resolve a few weeks ago in an address to the Canadian Society for Clinical Investigation.
It says further:
It was not an easy audience for Dr. Forward to address. They were what their president described as a group of angry young men. And they were angry because, in the words of Dr. D. V. Bates of McGill University: "The Canadian Government has been worse served in its scientific research advice in the last six or seven years than any other Western government". They had at their fingertips a wealth of arguments and statistics to show their guests (Trade and Commerce Minister Mitchell Sharp attended the dinner as the Cabinet's representative) that, as a consequence, Canadian universities had inadequate facilities and vacant staff positions.
.. .Dr. Forward told them precisely what they did not believe and what they did not want to hear. After prefacing his remarks with the tantalizing caveat that if he were still in university he could "get up and say what I damn well thought", he claimed that there was no brain drain and that Canada s research funds were just about adequate for a country of her size...
The Budget-Mr. C. Cameron
Strangely enough. Dr. Forward himself once seemed to understand the situation. The lack of exciting research opportunities, he said, had deprived Canada of too many native scientists who had emigrated to the United States. "It's not just a matter of higher salaries over there", he said. "I know several brilliant researchers who would gladly come back to this country, for less money if necessary, providing we could offer the challenge and the stimulation".
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I have been approached by young scientists in the Government service who tell me of their disquiet and uneasiness over the failure of the Government to tackle the problem of scientific research. They point out that one of the necessary factors in scientific research is size. In the United States, for instance, there are five what are known as research parks in which there has been a concerted and integrated effort both by government and industry to develop a research centre which will attract first-class research brains, people who can go there and have the stimulating effect of exchanging their ideas with those of their colleagues. Here in Canada we have had nothing done by the Government to solve this problem.
I have here a letter written by the General Secretary of the Canadian Medical Association to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh). Dr. Kelly has this to say:
We agree with the dictum of the Royal Commission that the education of physicians is a matter of national concern and, despite the constitutional complexities which are inherent, we ask that the Government of Canada recognize this and express its concern by making very substantial funds available for purposes of medical education and medical research. Education and research in our field of interest are so intimately related that they should be regarded as inseparable in the current context.
Let me also quote from a letter written by the physician-in-chief of the Royal Victoria Hospital, who is also director of the McGill University Clinic at McGill University. He
says:
I will be pleased to hear of your progress In calling this to the attention of the Government.
That is the lack of research facilities.
I think Canadian biological research is at the crossroads and that our present position is entirely dependant upon the Government's lack of recognition of the problem. Either we become a second, third, or even fourth rate nation with respect to contributions to biological research or we must have relief. I think government is near sighted in recognizing that if it doesn't have teachers and individuals guiding the clinical care of patients, who are also investigators, the level of competence of our graduates from medical school
706	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. C. Cameron [DOT]will gradually fall and the over-all level of medical care throughout our nation will become increasingly poor.
These are expressions of opinion from people who are experts in the field. Yet the Government bring in a budget which makes not the slightest provision to correct this situation. All they do is do a snow job on the people of Canada to try and make them believe that real research facilities are being established and that real research programs are being carried out. In fact no real effort is being made to do this. Instead, the Minister of Finance comes before us and smirks modestly that he has almost balanced the Budget. He tells us we are riding a wave of prosperity. He tells us that everything is lovely today in our Canadian garden under the aegis of the great Liberal Party. Yet in these most vital areas of national development today this Government is doing precisely nothing and has exhibited not the slightest intention of doing anything. Yet we are asked to applaud the Minister when he comes before us with his budget.
I suggested last year, Mr. Speaker, that we had at least progressed to the point where it was understood that a budget is more than merely a statement of the housekeeping expenses of the Government. We had advanced to the point where we realized that a budget is a mechanism by which a Government, if it is active, alert and intelligent, will direct and guide the development of the economy, will sponsor those areas which need help, will see that the economy expands and that the distribution of national income is not too inequitable.
I suggest now, Mr. Speaker, that we have something else to face as well. I suggested at that time there was something else which the Government had to do, and that was to take into consideration the quality of life in our society. I was very much struck by the report of the Economic Council for Canada when they tell us that we are going to require one and a half million jobs by 1970. But they do not tell us what kind of jobs. They do not tell us what sort of jobs these people are going to occupy. They do not tell us what sort of things will be achieved by these jobs. They do not tell us whether this is going to improve the nation of Canada or whether it is not. They do not tell us what sort of lives these one and a half million job holders will be condemned to. These are questions which now have to be faced by modern governments, because they surround the whole question of the quality of life in our national community.

DEBATES	April 28, 1965
It is not enough for the Government to come before us and say that our gross national product has expanded immeasurably and this year will reach $48 billion. Statistically this sounds very wonderful; but I suggest that sometimes our statisticians and economists should take a drive through the slum districts of the principal cities of Canada, that they should examine the sort of lives lived today by 25 per cent of our people, people who, experts tell us, are living at or near the poverty line. Then we could put this whole business of gross national product and economics into its proper perspective and realize that governments have to do more than merely stimulate the economy and make it expand; they must also decide in what way the economy will expand and what sort of quality of lives the people in our society are going to live.
We hear a great deal these days about revolutions, and many revolutions are in fact taking place-technological revolutions, political revolutions-and most of the time we consider revolutions within that framework. But I suggest that there is another revolution going on today, perhaps a more serious one, certainly one that is more difficult to discern and to define. It is a revolution in the ideas of men, a revolution in the sense of values of people in our modern, affluent society. In our naivete we used to imagine that most of our problems would be solved, once we had solved all the physical problems of life, such as giving everybody a good job, making sure they had a satisfactory income, a good place to live, and consequently the new Jerusalem would arrive on time. These things are all important, and I consider that in light of the wealthy economy that is Canada's the existence of some of the things I have outlined today is nothing but an indication of sluttish housekeeping, of which we should be thoroughly ashamed. We should not tolerate it for another moment because we are too rich and wealthy to tolerate, with good conscience, this sort of thing.
But having done that we will have to face this other revolution, and it is beginning to make itself felt in our society today in rather disturbing ways. For example, it is making itself felt among our young people, in some cases in an encouraging manner. I read and heard a lot of critical comment about the young people who took part in the recent demonstrations in front of this House, in front of the American Embassy in Toronto, and at various places and for various causes. Whatever we think about the value of the causes
April 28, 1965

or the wisdom of the method of conveying their protests, nevertheless these young people were expressing a concern for the human race which went beyond their own individual welfare and individual satisfaction. I think this is an indication of one part of this revolution which is taking place in the thinking of men.
The other part is not so encouraging. There are the continued outbreaks of senseless violence against people who are unknown to the young people concerned. Groups of young thugs go about beating up people for no conceivable reason, which again is an expression of dissatisfaction with the sort of society we have provided for them. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is not much that you and I and those of our generation, and younger, can do about this in the way of direction. We cannot tell this rising generation what sort of values they should have; they have to work them out for themselves. What we can do is give them the intellectual tools by which they can work out a new scale of values that will be more satisfying to them than the scale of values of the present affluent society.
I hope that before too long Governments in advanced countries such as Canada will take into account this terrible need which now lies before us of providing a more satisfactory life for people who have become disillusioned with an affluent society. This will require immense investment in education. I agree with the hon. Member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) that we must not allow constitutional barriers to interfere in this regard because this is something too serious to allow legalities to stand in the way.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I do not think we can solve this problem merely by providing funds for higher education in the way we have been providing them to date, because much of the failure in respect of Canadian education occurs at an earlier period of time when ill-trained teachers in schools with classes far too large attempt to cope with an impossible situation. Somehow we must deal with this problem and divert to education the vast funds which are now being drained from the Canadian economy.
Perhaps when our young people who protest in one way or another have succeeded in establishing new values we shall then have not merely a prosperous Canada, but a civilized Canada in which people will be able to live lives more satisfying, pleasurable and useful than they are now living.
The Budget-Mr. Leboe
I now wish to make more precise the amendment advanced by the Official Opposition. I move, seconded by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom all the words after the words "lower income groups" and by inserting instead thereof the following words:
"by exempting from income tax all single persons with incomes up to $1,500 a year and all married persons with incomes up to $3,000 a year, and by failing to raise the old age security pension to $100 a month".


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part-


Gilles Grégoire: What is going on?


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on behalf of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cameron, High Park):: Order, please. Is the hon. Member rising on a question of privilege?


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Speaker, I was rising to speak on behalf of the Social Credit Party.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of the Liberal Party.


Mr. Peters:: We have already heard from a Member of your Party.


Gilles Grégoire: Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce rising on a point of order?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am rising to speak-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cameron, High Park):: Order. It is my understanding that the Minister is rising to reply to a motion of want of confidence. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has the floor. I called upon the Minister of Trade and Commerce to speak because I am following the list of speakers which was given to me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, may I say that it has been the custom during the budget debate for the Minister of Finance to speak first, and then for a spokesman from each of the Opposition Parties to speak before a Member of the Government speaks again. I do not know what list of speakers was handed to you, but certainly nothing was said to me about it and it seems to me we should carry on the custom of allowing each Party to contribute to the debate before a second Member of any Party is allowed to speak.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, may I say that my intention this afternoon is to speak on behalf of the Social Credit
708	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Leboe Party, in the absence of the hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson).


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to speak on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cameron, High Park):: Order, please. Perhaps I should make a ruling at this time. Let me say that I was following the order of speakers contained in a list handed to me, but in view of the fact that we do have an established custom I will recognize the hon. Member for Cariboo as the next speaker. I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be glad to yield his place.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the very short time available to me I should first like to address my remarks to the budget as it relates to the fiscal and monetary policies of the Provinces of Canada.
I think it most important that we recognize the fact that the Provinces of Canada are the custodians of our natural resources, and that as custodians of our natural resources the policies of provincial Governments have more effect on the economic life of Canada and its prosperity than Federal Government policies.
With this fact in mind I should like to refer briefly to the May 1, 1965 edition of Maclean's magazine, as it bears out exactly the position I have advanced in respect of provincial Government policy and the relationship of these fiscal policies to Canada's prosperity.
The article in this magazine to which I refer is headed "Anybody can have a boom-but B.C.'s got three". The introductory paragraph reads:
Two mighty rivers, a flock of new mines and a billion or so trees are making British Columbia the fast-buck centre of Canada. But the most wondrous natural resources of all are Mr. Bennett, who runs the place, and the array of coast-style go-getters who have learned to prosper without the blessing of eastern financiers.
The boom that is taking place in British Columbia is one that commenced quite recently. It is a boom that is affecting the whole economic life of Canada. Approximately $1 billion worth of goods have been bought by British Columbia from Ontario and Quebec alone in the last 12 months. When the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec refer to the economic conditions that exist in those provinces they should look westward to the boom taking place in Western Canada with thankfulness because herein lies the secret of their success.

DEBATES	April 28, 1965
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Early in his budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) referred to the balance of payments, and certain words in this connection caught my attention. He said that the improvement in the balance of payments had been achieved "not by restricting imports and travel by Canadians". If this is so, why have we not relaxed the regulations with regard to the total value of the goods that Canadians can bring back to Canada from the United States or other countries? Why can we not bring about a situation whereby our people can bring in more goods and services duty free, if it is not going to affect our balance of payments?
I have had numerous requests, as every Member of the House has, that consideration be given to raising the total value of goods that can be brought back to Canada by Canadians returning from other countries. According to the statement made by the Minister in the budget, this is not affecting the balance of payments. Therefore I am surprised that the Minister has not done something about this matter because he must have had representations made to him just as you and I have, Mr. Speaker. If we are to encourage free and easy travel between Canada and the United States and other countries, and if we expect the people of these other countries to visit Canada, certainly this is one avenue that should be explored to bring about a better relationship between different countries. People visit Canada and spend money in our country, and they will expect us to treat them as well as we are treated when we travel abroad.
The Minister also stated in his Budget speech that capital must be found to carry out economic expansion both for business and for government. I should like to ask the Minister this question: What is capital? I know he can give me the answer. I have said before and I say again I have never seen money grow on bushes in my life, and if it is money we are short of I say that a dollar brought into being by our central bank will be just as effective in doing business as a dollar that is imported from some other bank that is financing a prospectus. If we want industrial expansion, then I say that when we revise the Bank Act we should give the banks a little more leeway. Let us give them the opportunity to enter into the mortgage field by lending on fixed assets.
We know that today the expansion of credit is largely confined to the terms of section 88
April 28, 1965	COMMONS
of the Bank Act. Surely there is room for the banks as Canadian institutions to supply some of the financing for industry on the basis of taking chattel mortgages on certain fixed assets. It is no secret that an individual may have a very great potential with regard to dealing with a natural resource, but Canadian banks under the law are not in a position to provide the type of service that is required for that individual to go ahead with his expansion program. He has to pay higher interest rates on money he has raised from other secondary sources. This hampers the individual and hampers the industrial expansion of Canada. It hampers the material growth of the nation. It hampers trade patterns. The result is that we find ourselves in the position of having many more foreign owned industries in Canada than we would have if the banks, after their charters are reviewed, were given more freedom by being granted the power to accept mortgages.
Before five o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to the fact that so far as I can see the Economic Council of Canada in its report failed absolutely to make reference to Provincial fiscal policy and industrial expansion in the Provinces. It seems to me that there lies the very foundation of our society. This is where we must start if we are going to create a million and a half jobs within a certain period of time. This is where we must look to find out exactly where we are going. But in the review of the Economic Council of Canada we find nothing regarding the effect of Provincial policies on the economic life of Canada. I should like to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact it is five o'clock, and adjourn the debate.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private Members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, Notices of Motions, Public Bills.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of the creation of a Water Pollution Control Division, composed of representatives of the 10 provinces, within the framework of the proposed National Resources Council, with powers and funds required to institute research programs, collect, collate, and analyse water control data, and to co-ordinate the water pollution control objectives for the provinces; in addition, to further the study of water pollution control problems of a national character.
DEBATES	709
Proposed Water Pollution Control [DOT] (5 :00 p.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with the topic which I wish to discuss for a few minutes this afternoon I want to say how much this group welcomes the hundreds of farmers who came to Ottawa today to lay their complaints before the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) and the Government. I do that because I have great sympathy for their cause. I am actually one of the few hillbillies left in Canada. I farm in the mountains of Kootenay West, in the Selkirk range, and am more acquainted with grub hoes, cross-cut saws and pickaxes than farmers on the prairies. I am very glad the farmers are taking this aggressive and militant action in presenting their views to the Minister, and I am sure their talks with him and with other members of Parliament will bear fruit in the days ahead.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are surrounded by and we are part of the eternal flux of life in an environment of natural forces, particularly when we come to deal with the question of water pollution and its increasing effect on mankind. An Eastern proverb states:
To survive all men must hold hands, and all living things are kin in the wholeness of nature.
Any wrong which nature may commit she has centuries to repair, but we whose days are short-and some of us are very conscious of that fact-must walk warily lest we become the victims of the wasteland we are rapidly making in Canada under present circumstances.
Water is Canada's most important natural resource. It must be clear to all those who have studied this problem that a national water management policy is a priority which must continue to concern all governments in Canada, all organizations interested in this problem and the people of Canada generally.
Before proceeding I wish to pay tribute to the good work that has been undertaken to date, with limited resources, by the Canadian section of the International Joint Commission, particularly with respect to the St. Lawrence Seaway and some other waterways. I want also to pay my tribute to the personnel of the water resource divisions of the national and provincial governments which, from our point of view, have had very limited budgets to deal with the problem that faces us at this time. I also want to pay tribute to all those public organizations interested in the conservation of all our renewable natural resources.
April 28. 1965

Proposed Water Pollution Control
Further, I willingly pay tribute to that section of the press that is interested in reporting what is done in this Parliament and various other Legislatures to meet this problem. Some sections of the press would rather deal with the divorce problems of a Hollywood star, but we do have some solid people in the Press Gallery and throughout the press of this country, who realize how important it is to inform the Canadian people on this question. I particularly wish to mention Mr. J. S. Cram of the Family Herald, whose articles on the subject have done a great deal to inform a wide section of the public, particularly the farming public, on this question of vital importance.
I must also say I am particularly pleased with the actions taken to date by the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers and its determination in recent months to pay particular attention to the problems of air, soil and water pollution. Once again I have no hesitation in mentioning the former Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, the hon. Member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), for the progressive approach he took to this situation and for all the work he did in bringing that conference into being in Montreal.
This is a problem that affects all of Canada. It is a problem on the St. Lawrence, on the Great Lakes, on our lakes and rivers across the country which are close to large centres of population, and I am very sorry to say we now have the problem developing in Kootenay West, which is the constituency I have the honour to represent. To date we have been pretty fortunate in that the Columbia and Kootenay Rivers, and all the lakes in that part of Southeastern B.C., are practically unpolluted, but there is a danger because of increased population in certain areas and of industrial expansion that pollution will proceed at a much increased rate in the years ahead.
In that connection I want to quote from the Nelson Daily News of September 14, 1964, a report headed, "Cady Call for Attack on Pollution Supported," meaning supported by the municipalities of Kootenay district:
Commissioner Cady felt the task should be given to the National Research Council or some other allied group.
That is the purpose of the resolution we have before us this afternoon.
"We are slowly losing one of our greatest resources-water-and industry has already heard this warning and has got the message," he said.
[Mr. Herridge.l
"So far as municipalities are concerned," Mr. Cady stated, "They are unable to correct the situation without aid."
He also said:
A systematic plan of attack upon pollution should be devised and government sources should
provide the necessary resources____"The day is
coming when we can't go to the kitchen tap and draw a glassful of uncontaminated water. We must do better than that."
I might mention in passing that Mr. Cady has been nominated as the Liberal opponent of the N.D.P. candidate who will be nominated to contest the next election in Kootenay West, but I give him credit for his interest in this problem. I forgot to mention that he also had a little go at Mr. Bennett and stated:
If Premier Bennett can lend the province of Quebec $100 million to finance their projects it ought to be possible for the provincial government to provide low cost loans to municipalities for financing their share of pollution control costs.
The districts particularly concerned in my constituency are the City of Nelson, the City of Trail and the villages of Castlegar and Kinnaird, and Mr. Cady has urged that Premier Bennett provide these municipalities with low-cost loans.
I have drafted out what I think a water control division should give consideration to, and I would be very happy to hear suggestions from other hon. Members. I suggest a water pollution control division should undertake the following research and development program, as a possible nucleus for continued research to meet the problems that arise from changing living habits, new industrial techniques and continued urban, agricultural and industrial expansion:
1.	Establish engineering parameters which will continuously assess the total pollution and the actual state of our water resources. That is essential because then we would be informed on the problem with which we are going to deal.
2.	Probe for new methods of waste treatment geared to remove any and all contaminants. There is a great field for research here.
3.	Evaluate the health and economic aspects to crystallize public opinion and establish a basis for a national policy, which would be worked out in co-operation with the provincial governments.
4.	Develop adequate hydrologic, geologic and geographic data, co-ordinating these data into a nation-wide scheme, making inventory of our total water resources using drillers' reports and other data.
April 28, 1985
5.	Set up a comprehensive watershed research program to learn the effects of logging, farming, recreation, construction and other activities on the quality of water.
6.	Collect reliable basic data on water usage by industry and by region from coast to coast, including a detailed survey of selected industries.
7.	Investigate the individual and composite effects of the many complex substances that are polluting air and water. This includes a study of agricultural chemicals and how these are handled, suractants such as alkyl benzene sulfonate, phenols, cyanides, and others. The studies should be concerned with the methods of treatment and the establishing of safe limits under continuous exposure.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
8.	The division might further evaluate the effect of suspended solids on benthic organisms in conjunction with such United States workers as Hoak of the Mellon Institute who has done a great deal of valuable work in this field and, in so doing, set rational limits to pollution of this type.
9.	They might set up a program for monitoring and releasing radioactive wastes; measure alpha and beta radiation for both suspended and dissolved solids and then determine better treatment methods; determine the safe levels for aquatic life by finding the concentration factors of the critical radioisotopes; organs or tissue which accumulate radioactivity; the most sensitive stages in the lives of marine biology; the method by which organisms assimilate radioactive materials. This is a field about which we must be more concerned than we have been in the past.
10.	They could evaluate oxidation stabilization ponds particularly for various Canadian regions; establish their effects on groundwater; establish their effect on pathogenic bacteria and viruses; establish reliable design criteria and especially ascertain the design relationships between B.O.D. loading, volume, depth and desired degree of treatment. Establish any other limitations such as types of wastes.
11.	Establish the inactivation of pathogenic organisms that is obtained by all the modern recognized methods of treating sewage and handling sludge; determine the minimum disinfection required for each method. This is very necessary for smaller communities and villages which cannot undertake large expenditures.
12.	It could study the travel of pathogenic bacteria and viruses in the water tables and
711
Proposed Water Pollution Control in various formations. It is interesting to note how these viruses travel through soil formations and how pollution is found in water a long distance from where the pollution originally occurred.
13.	It could obtain full data on areas using septic tanks; methods of construction, laying of tile, proximity to wells and the effects on these wells.
14.	It could assist industry in the study of its problems, realizing that many industrial waste problems are highly complex and may require a combination of industrial and sanitary engineering skills.
15.	Conduct oceanography studies as related to waste disposal, including a study of salt water intrusion into groundwater resources. This is of particular interest to communities close to tidewater.
16.	Establish the purification capacity and water quality criteria for all rivers and streams of economic importance.
This is a big program but I do suggest it is not beyond the limits of a water control division, provided it has funds to undertake these studies. It would provide a great opportunity to graduates from our universities who are particularly interested in the conservation of renewable natural resources and, in this instance, all the problems related to the maintenance of a pure water supply for the Canadian people, and the improvement of situations where this does not exist at the present time.
I am very pleased with the work outlined by the Council of Resource Ministers. The council has a public relations officer, Mr. Walter Gray who is, I believe, ideally suited for this position because he is deeply interested in the conservation of natural resources of all types. He kindly came to give an address to the annual meeting of the Canadian Tree Fanners Association, of which I happen to be the president. He outlined the establishment of the council, how it operates, what it is intended to undertake, and so on. In the course of his speech he said:
The Council has so far held three plenary sessions. The first, as I have mentioned, was in Toronto in September, 1962. The second was in Montreal in November 1963, three months after the Secretariat was organized. At that time the Council authorized the Secretariat to carry out an inventory of the 70 Federal-Provincial and interprovincial resource agreements.
I think that was a good undertaking. Mr. Gray went on to say:
A review team was organized and worked until last September amassing data. The final draft of

712	COMMONS
Proposed Water Pollution Control the inventory is now being prepared for presentation to the Council at its next meeting, in Victoria, B.C., in May.
The Secretariat was given its second major assignment at the third plenary session in Prince Edward Island last June. At that time, Council agreed to sponsor a conference on water, air and soil pollution. The National conference, to be called, "Pollution and our Environment" will be held in Montreal in the Spring of 1966.
I see my time has almost expired, but I do wish to mention that there is a great deal of work to be done in this connection. I also wish to congratulate the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) on the excellent speech he made at the Northwest Pacific Trade Association held in Portland recently, in the course of which he emphasized the need for the conservation of our water resources in Canada and the determination of this Government to protect those resources for this and future generations before dealing with Government in the United States with respect to the export of water and so on. I was very glad to hear that.
The question of water conservation is a most important one and it has caught the imagination of many people. I noticed in today's Globe and Mail a report of a meeting addressed by Mr. Robert Turnbull, a Globe and Mail feature writer. He is another of the press men to whom I pay tribute. He is deeply interested in this question. Addressing the Sixth Convention of the Ontario Institute of Professional Agrologists and the Agricultural Institute of Canada he urged establishment of a Federal Department of Water Resources. He went on to say:
Geologists have warned that the demand for water in the United States may exceed the supply as early as 1970 These same geologists have added that the unpolluted river systems of Canada and Alaska could be tapped to meet U.S. demands.
Hence, a Federal agency is needed to protect Canada's most abundant resource. Hard on the heels of the Columbia River project-
I will not go into that now, because I could talk about it at some length-
-a proposal has been advanced to divert Canadian and Alaskan waters to the benefit of the West Coast states.
He went on to say:
The public is only casually aware of the growing crisis in water supply. Everywhere we turn nowadays we see people marching with signs damning The Bomb or segregation or a host of other ills, but have you ever seen any mass rising to shout about the water crisis?
Mr. Turnbull goes on to give examples of ancient civilizations which were destroyed as a result of the exhaustion of their water supplies. He points out that today the per capita
[Mr. Herridge.l
DEBATES	April 28, 1985
consumption of water in the United States is in excess of 560 gallons a day, and that this consumption is expected to double in the not distant future. Further on he writes:
Dangerous diseases have been transmitted by the pollution of U.S. tidal waters and the consumption of shellfish from these waters.
He ends by saying there is a possibility that the United States might annex Canada to gain access to our water resources. That is a bold prophecy. I hope it will never come about because of the attention paid by this Government and future Governments to this important question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Member's time has expired, e (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. D. G. Hahn (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member who has introduced this motion is supposedly, according to the stories I have heard, going to retire. I have also heard him referred to as the Baron of the Kootenays, and I gather from the hon. Member's interest in this topic that he is determined that when he does retire and returns to his baronage, or whatever it is that a baron goes to, he shall have clean water there. I am not about to retire, I am not a baron, and I do not come from the Kootenays; but I agree with him wholeheartedly and commend him for bringing this topic forward because I do think it is a matter of interest and concern. During the Throne Speech debate I spoke about the problem of water pollution on the Great Lakes and I do not today want to rehash what I said then. I do think, though, that before I get into the specifics of the motion proposed by the hon. Member I should go back to a few of the fundamentals involved in this problem.
We all know that water is an essential resource. We all know that we have an ample supply of water for our present and forecast future needs in this country, provided we do not destroy the water that we have. There is ample evidence that we are destroying this water; we are in process of destroying this resource. This is why the problem has come before us now and is receiving attention generally throughout this country and the United States. The problem really varies in its severity and its nature from region to region across the country, but I think it is safe to say that virtually all waters that are surrounded by any large group of people are contaminated or polluted to some degree. It is also fair to say that the problem is probably most severe in the Great Lakes
April 28, 1985

region and possibly in the St. Lawrence region, particularly the Great Lakes because the water there does not flow swiftly. These are reservoirs, and the pollutants tend to collect and stay there. With faster moving streams, faster moving bodies of water, they tend to some degree to flush themselves. So the problem is probably most severe in the Great Lakes area.
I have some figures that I think are interesting and give some idea of the economic impact of this problem. They are figures that have been prepared by Dr. A. E. Berry, who was formerly, I believe, Chairman of the Ontario Water Resources Commission and is now Secretary-Treasurer of the Canadian Institute on Pollution Control. He has come up with some figures that give, Province by Province, an annual estimated cost of the pollution of our waters. I will give these figures now, Mr. Speaker: for the Province of British Columbia, $32 million per year; Alberta, $30 million; Saskatchewan, $20 million; Manitoba, $23 million; Ontario, $175 million; Quebec, $156 million; New Brunswick, $18 million; Nova Scotia, $18 million; Prince Edward Island, $2 million; Newfoundland, $10 million-for a total of $484 million per year. He has, in arriving at these figures, considered the cost of the following items. He has regarded the effects of pollution as affecting drinking water supplies, recreation in all forms, industry, agriculture, commercial fisheries, sport fishing, the effects of nutrients on the production of algae and other conditions in the waters, the build-up of chemical products, the destruction of fish and aquatic life by poisons, the effects of herbicides, pesticides, and so on. So he has come up with a figure of $484 million per year as the cost right now of the pollution of the water resources of this country. It is a significant amount of money; it is a significant problem, and let us see what really should be done to stop it.
On its face, it should be a simple problem to solve because there are only three real sources of pollution. First of all we have the pollution caused by the discharge of untreated or improperly treated sewage from our municipalities. The cure would appear simple. We just have to instal adequate sewage treatment plants in all our municipalities so that this pollution does not occur. In order to do this we require, really, two things. We require the necessary provincial legislation and we require a very, very large sum of money. I have no idea, because I have not been able to
Proposed Water Pollution Control get a reasonable figure, of how much money really would be required, but I do know that it would be substantial. A figure I gave in the Throne Speech debate indicated that Toronto, which has done a very good job of treating its sewage, would require another $300 million or so to do a completely adequate job. This is just one major community of many across this country.
The second source of pollution is industrial waste. Surely if industry would stop dumping pollutants into our streams, this would cure that problem. There has been an estimate-and I am quoting from an article in a Toronto paper, the Toronto Star of Thursday, April 22-that 30 per cent of industrial wastes in the Province of Ontario are discharged in a polluting condition into the waters, streams, rivers and lakes of that Province. The great need there is, (a) for legislation, and (b) money, so that industry can deal with this problem. I was very glad to see in the budget that was brought down on Monday that the Federal Government is going to allow tax concessions by allowing a depreciation rate of 50 per cent on capital works that are put in by industry so that industry will not dump raw pollutants into our waters. I had a notice of motion on the order paper that called for this sort of approach. I certainly do not claim any fatherhood for the item in the budget, but I am very glad to see that this step has been taken, because there is no use introducing legislation forcing industry to take this step if industry does not have the financial resources to do so. Therefore I think the item in the budget has gone a long way toward making it possible for the Provinces to enact legislation knowing that industry will be able to finance the capital works involved. It may be necessary, and I am not sure, to go even further and to allow industry that does not have sufficient capital to, possibly through the Industrial Development Bank, obtain a form of low interest loan to enable them to quickly put in the plant required. But that is the second part of the problem, industrial waste.
The third major source of pollution is from shipping, ships that discharge garbage and sewage as they ply the heavily travelled waterways of our country. To deal with this problem we need Federal legislation, amendments to the Shipping Act that will prevent ships from doing this and will prohibit them from doing it. We need, of course, the concurrence of our American friends, who share these waterways, that they will pass similar
714	COMMONS
Proposed Water Pollution Control legislation so that no ships, particularly those sailing through the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes area will be allowed to discharge and dump sewage into these waters.
In addition to this we have the problem of pleasure craft in some of the smaller recreational areas in the country. I think of the Muskoka Lakes, that I am familiar with, in Northern Ontario where, because of the large numbers of pleasure craft plying those lakes, and lakes such as Lake Simcoe, there is a problem of pollution caused by their sewage. So I think the day is not very far away when we will have to pass legislation requiring pleasure craft to instal some form of container or tank so that raw sewage is not pumped from the boats into the water.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
If this is all we need do, these three things-stop municipalities from dumping sewage into the lakes, stop industry from doing that as well as preventing shipping from doing it-then why do we not go ahead and do this? What are the problems or difficulties which are holding us back? There are really four major deterrents or problems. First of all, there is the problem of co-ordination. Canada and the Great Lakes area and many of our streams and rivers are only half the problem; we must remember we share these bodies of water with another country.
Second, there is the cost required to deal with the problem. Vast sums of money are required by municipalities and by industries to put in the necessary treatment plants.
Third, there is the problem of public education so that various levels of government will be able to raise taxes and spend money for this purpose. Like the hon. Member for Kootenay West, I too commend those people in the press who have taken this problem to heart and are starting now to give it adequate publicity and treatment, so that the general public is informed.
The fourth thing which needs to be done concerns the problem of research. We do not have enough information about the methods of treatment. We do not have enough information about the tolerable levels of pollution which any stream or river can take. There is much more to be done in this area. In the Great Lakes work is being done by the United States. The Great Lakes Institute is also doing work on the Canadian side in this regard. But the amount of money the Great Lakes Institute has to work with is such that their funds from the Federal Government amount

DEBATES	April 26, 1965
to about $240,000 per annum, and that is all. When we consider that we are talking of losses in the Province of Ontario alone of around $175 million per year, it seems pretty paltry to spend $250,000 to do the fundamental and necessary research required for this problem.
I think we are starting now to take the correct steps toward a long term solution of the problem. The hon. Member for Kootenay West mentioned the conference which is going to be held in the spring of 1966 by the Council of Resource Ministers to deal with the specifics of air, water and land pollution. This meeting will be dealing with a whole series of topics and with the co-ordinating mechanisms between Federal and Provincial Governments which will be necessary so that concerted action can be taken to deal with the problem in the country.
Some of the topics they will be considering I think are worth putting on record. They are going to consider the historical perspective on environmental pollution and its control in Canada; the nature and sources of environmental contamination; the effects of such contamination on public health; the effects of such contamination on the national environment and economy; the pesticide contamination of the Canadian environment; the solid waste disposal and land improvements; radiation pollution; the extent of water pollution in the Provinces and the programs for its abatement; the participation of the Federal Government in investigations concerning pollution; programs of control-essentially legislation; industrial accomplishments in the control of pollution in Canada; criterion standards for a cleaner environment; the development of new instruments for measuring pollution; pollution control techniques; legal safeguards against pollution; an analysis on Canadian and other water pollution control organizations; and the economics of pollution control and methods for financing pollution control.
I think that if they study these topics carefully an adequate program and method can be devised to deal with the problem of pollution of our water, air and land resources. I think they will also be the only body in this country which can do that, because of the jurisdictional problem, where water resources are essentially a provincial resource. The Provinces have to enact legislation with respect thereto, yet the Federal Government has a certain part to play. Obviously it has a certain role to play in providing finance. This meeting which is planned for the spring of
April 28. 1965
1966 will, I think, be the answer to our pollution problems. I think it really meets the requirements of the motion suggested by the hon. Member, and for that reason I do not think we should pass the motion.
There are only two, I think, shortcomings in this program which the Resource Ministers will be putting forward. First, I am of the firm opinion that the Great Lakes region cannot wait for the long-term solution to the problem which this meeting will start to work on. I believe the Great Lakes requires action before the results of these meetings come forward. I believe the problem in the Great Lakes is simple enough-it only involves one Province-that we should now deal with that area.
Second, I think the Federal Government should now step up the sums of money it allocates to research in these fields. I do not think we require a Council of Resource Ministers to tell us we should be spending more than a quarter of a million dollars a year on research in this area, when the potential losses run in the region of half a billion dollars a year. To me this ratio does not look very reasonable, so I think we do not need a meeting of Resource Ministers to tell us of our shortcomings there.
Subject to action being taken quickly on the Great Lakes, and subject to action being taken to increase soon the amount of money we spend on research, I believe that the meetings scheduled for the spring of 1966 will meet the requirements of the motion proposed by the hon. Member for Kootenay West; and I believe they will meet the longterm needs of the country as far as dealing effectively with the problem of pollution of our water, and in addition our air and land, is concerned.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the discussion which is taking place this afternoon is one of those discussions we have had over the years precipitated by the initiative of our good friend from Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). It deals with a problem in which he has had a vital interest over a number of years. Indeed, during all the years I have been in this House I think the hon. Member for Kootenay West has provided an opportunity for Members to make a contribution to a consideration of the wise management and multiple use of our renewable resources, of which none is more vital than water.
As a result of these discussions which have taken place over the years, I do not think we
Proposed Water Pollution Control need any further background information as to the nature of the problem. It is true enough that for many years there was lethargy and indifference concerning the conservation of our water resources. But now, as a result of many recent activities, I feel that the attention of the nation has been aroused to the necessity for immediate and urgent action to come to grips with this one aspect of wise management of our water resources, namely the control of pollution.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I, as one Member in this House, heartily support the motion which has been moved by the hon. Member for Kootenay West this afternoon. I think also that I can speak on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, because certainly our activity during our brief term in office demonstrated in a clearcut way that we were not only interested in talking about this problem but also intended to proceed with immediate action.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You get full marks for that.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I thank the hon. Member for Kootenay West for those kind words.
There has already been some review made of the recent developments in this area of water control, so it is not necessary for me to recover that area of the subject.
The hon. Member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn) spoke a moment ago in reference to a conference to be sponsored by the Resource Ministers Council to be held in 1966, as the next great step forward in effective control of pollution. This development was contemplated by the Resource Ministers Council conference held in 1961. If there is any doubt about the adequacy of the background information on the subject and the delineation of the problem, Mr. Speaker, let me refer hon. Members to the voluminous reports which were made by that Resource Ministers Conference held in Montreal in 1961.
At that time this whole area of water control was thoroughly and exhaustively examined by the most competent people from all walks of life and areas of responsibility in Canada. One of the specific recommendations made by that conference related to the formation of a National Advisory Board on Water Conservation. That recommendation had the immediate support of the then Prime Minister and I would anticipate, and I do not think I am putting any thoughts into the mind of the mover of this resolution, that the sort of water pollution control division that he con-

April 28, 1965

Proposed Water Pollution Control templates would parallel very closely the functions of the National Advisory Board on Water Conservation, the establishment of which was the subject of one of the major recommendations of the Resources for Tomorrow Conference.
It is useful to note, Mr. Speaker, that the Government of Canada, and this House, and more recently the Resource Ministers Council and its supporting secretariat, have not waited for additional legislation before making a contribution to the solution of this problem. There are already existing Acts in force which can be used to come to immediate grips with the more extreme abuses. I refer, of course, to the fact that as soon as the Resource Ministers Council steering committee met to plan the conference it realized that the critical time was upon us, with the result that the Government in 1959 moved immediately to provide some means whereby municipalities could deal with local pollution problems. Sewage and water control legislation had been the means of direct action toward the control of pollution in most of the major municipalities across this nation.
Within the next few weeks my own City of Brandon will complete the construction and development of its first venture into the area of sewage control. This is a minor development, but it is typical of the kind of action municipalities have taken across Canada.
There is also in existence the Canada Water Conservation Act which was approved by Parliament in the early 1950's. This Act remained dormant until the latter 1950's, and up to the present time there have not been many major water control and conservation projects launched under the provisions of this Act.
Perhaps I should refer the hon. Member for Broadview to the major project which has been launched under the Canada Water and Conservation Act, namely the Metropolitan Toronto water conservation development which by now must be in its latter stages of development. This is being carried on under the direction of Dr. Berry, for the Province of Ontario, and the Division of Water and Resources of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. This is the first major co-operative attempt by the three levels of Government-Federal, Provincial and local-to come to grips with all aspects of water control and conservation in one of Canada's major metropolitan communities. The Federal contribution toward this project was some $14 million, and that will illustrate the vast sums of money which are required
[Mr. Dinsdale.)
to really provide a solution to this problem. That $14 million represented only 33J per cent of the total cost of that project.
To bring my brief remarks to a conclusion, in order that other hon. Members will have an opportunity to make a contribution to this discussion, let me suggest that we have observed various ad hoc, almost hit or miss, emergency projects. Up to this time sewage legislation has been of this ad hoc nature. The action contemplated by the Budget speech of Monday night, whereby industry will be able to derive some tax benefit from moves toward the control of industrial pollution is the kind of ad hoc, hit or miss project which has been developed in an attempt to correct this situation which has reached a critical state.
If the Resource Ministers Council can create the sort of organization that was recommended by the Resource Ministers Conference of 1961-at that time it was called the National Advisory Board on Water Conservation-I am sure that everything contemplated by the hon. Member in his resolution now before the House will be achieved.
I should also like to join with other Members who have spoken today in complimenting men such as Walter Gray who, at some personal sacrifice to his journalistic career, accepted the position of information officer for the newly formed Resource Ministers Council in order that he might devote his full attention to informing the public about the critical nature of this problem. Canada has been a land of limitless and renewable resources. The frontier concept of outward expansion has remained with us far too long. I think it is an encouraging sign that we have received agreement from all sides of this House today, and I hope that at long last the Governments of Canada at all levels will move together in a co-ordinated way to ensure that this most vital of all our renewable resources will be preserved and conserved for the future.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Speaker, I rise only to congratulate the hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) on bringing forward this resolution. In doing so I believe he has brought to the attention of the House one of the more important matters confronting our people today. Certainly the outline he gave of what the task of such a water pollution division would be was quite full and complete. As a member of the Committee on Mines, Forests and Waters, I hope
April 28, 1965

that the words he has uttered in regard to this matter will be taken into account by the Government frontbenchers. I know the motion is not going to come to a vote because these motions very rarely do, and I note a Member on the Government side rising to make sure that the motion did not come to a vote.
If we were to give the necessary consideration to this very vital problem I think we would have to spend a lot more time on it in the House, and would also have to be prepared to vote a great deal of money for purposes of research and in order to avoid the pitfalls that have beset other countries in the world with regard to water pollution. In order to allow time for a vote I am simply going to say that we are very much in favour of the motion of the hon. Member for Kootenay West and we would like him to know that we support him wholeheartedly in his efforts along this line.


Mr. Jack Davis (Coast-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words as a private Member from what is probably one of the most water resource rich constituencies in Canada, that of Coast-Capilano. We have a long seacoast and a number of substantial rivers and streams, and the people of that area are very much concerned, of course, with pollution as well as other matters of water management. I should like to make several suggestions in the few minutes left to me and they are made in my private capacity.
First, I should like to see the very excellent provision contained in the budget with regard to a fast two year write-off on machinery and equipment structures for water pollution control, extended to air pollution control. I think this would be very desirable and would result in measures generally beneficial to the rest of our society, particularly society other than industry. I should like to see special grants made available for research into pollution control not only in respect of water pollution but also air pollution. I should like to see one department of Government in Ottawa assigned the responsibility for looking after the management of water matters, including not just power and navigation but also pollution control, etc. In other words, the multipurpose use of water should be looked at comprehensively by one department to which this responsibility has been specifically assigned.
I should like to see more effective machinery set up for Federal-Provincial and even
Proposed Water Pollution Control Federal-Provincial-Municipal co-operation in respect of water matters. In this country the jurisdiction with regard to pollution is divided between the Federal authority and the Provincial authority in a fashion which does not lead toward an administratively easy approach, at least, to a matter which should be attacked on all fronts simultaneously. In summarizing that position I should like to quote Professor Bora Laskin who was one of the contributors to the Resources for Tomorrow Conference which has been referred to by other Members who have spoken today. Under the heading "Jurisdictional Framework For Water Management" there is the following in a summary of a paper he gave in 1961:
Legislative regulation, or even extinction, of these private and public rights and legislative control of other aspects of water resources are, in some respects, within federal and, in others, within provincial competence. Federal authority is comprehensive with respect to land and water lots owned by the Federal Crown. Where, however, it must rely on legislative power only, it is doubtful that its navigation power is ample enough to justify ancillary regulation of water power rights, flood protection, pollution and the like. Yet provincial legislative power in these matters, otherwise fairly broad, is subject to the paramount authority of Parliament in relation to navigation and shipping, and fisheries. Limited power exists in Parliament under its criminal law power, e.g. as to prohibition of pollution, but short of conceding to its authority to legislate in the interest of general public health, regulation here rests in general with the Provinces.
There are some gaps other than this very difficult constitutional one which I think can be plugged either by the Federal Government acting on its own initiative or by the Provinces acting unilaterally on their own initiative. One is in respect of the pollution of waters immediately offshore. We had an expensive but interesting example of this in my own riding last year. A barge roughly 150 feet long and carrying 9,000 barrels of oil sank a few miles offshore from West Vancouver. This hulk sank in roughly 300 feet of water It was worth some $25,000. It was estimated initially that rescue operations would run to several times that amount, so the barge was abandoned. The hulk was no longer of value to the private oil company concerned and it was left for the rest of our community either to leave it there, in which case it would constitute a hazard over the long term because it would ultimately tear open, and also in the short term because it was leaking, or to get the Federal Government to do something. The Federal Government had to move in this connection, and it
718	COMMONS
Proposed Water Pollution Control did so to the extent of some four months of effort and an eventual cost of more than a quarter of a million dollars.
The barge was raised and its contents were sold for a fraction of the cost of raising it. The result was that the Federal treasury, in the last analysis Canadian taxpayers, was left to foot the bill. There is a large gap in our Federal legislation in this respect. It should be possible for the Federal Government to move against someone for negligence of this type. This vessel was afloat, admittedly in a sinking condition, for several hours before it sank. Something could have been done about it had action been taken early enough, and possibly action could have been taken by the private interests. At the very least there
DEBATES	April 28, 1965
should be legislation to take care of cases of this kind.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour set aside for the consideration of Private Members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there to be an announcement about the business for tomorrow?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It will probably be the Budget.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the Budget debate tomorrow.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, April 29, 1965