1965-04-30

NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, exercising the ancient right of the citizen, I wish to present a petition to the Honourable House of Commons, in Parliament assembled, on behalf of the tenants and staff of the Roxborough Apartments, with respect to the proposed demolition of the Roxborough and the Union Station by the National Capital Commission.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House may be pleased to reconsider the plans for the Roxborough's and Union Station's demolition in the name of civic progress and capital re-development. We are confident that many citizens of our capital city would concur and support this presentation.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to inform the House that the hon. Member speaks only for himself, because I certainly did not sign the petition.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, while this is the period where private members may put questions to ministers in order to obtain information, I see that there are very few of them in the house at the present time and this in effect deprives us of our right and privilege of directing questions to ministers during this period.
As there are now very few ministers in the house, I wonder if this is not deliberate absenteeism in order to deprive us of the right and privilege of obtaining information by putting questions to ministers. As a matter of fact, there are only about five or six of them in the house at the present time and I think this is nothing but arrogance on the 22620-50
part of the ministers toward private members.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, members of the government do have duties to perform and as sittings start at 11 a.m. on Fridays-


An hon. Member:: Where is the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette)?


Mr. Martin:: -the ministers cannot attend to all the problems concerning their own departments.
As for the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), as the hon. member for Lapointe knows, he is now in the United States fulfilling an engagement taken a long time ago. He will be back in a few hours.
The hon. member for Lapointe will himself admit that he does leave the capital once in a while.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the question of privilege raised by the hon. Member for Lapointe. I think it should be pointed out to the hon. Member that it really does not matter how many cabinet Ministers are absent, because the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) are in attendance, and they know everything about everything.


Mr. Knowles:: But they won't tell us.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, asking him whether there have been any discussions among the United States, Canada and other countries regarding a request for aid either in the form of equipment or supervisory service personnel for South Viet Nam. At the same time I should like to ask whether Canada was aware of the intention of the Commonwealth of Australia to send a battalion into that area before that announcement was made. Was there any
April 30, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry discussion among Commonwealth countries there is any authenticity to the report that regarding contributions from other parts of this is becoming an East-West communist the Commonwealth?	fight?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there have been no discussions among Commonwealth countries as such regarding contributions by the Commonwealth or by individual members of the Commonwealth to Viet Nam. Shortly before the announcement by Mr. Menzies in the Australian Parliament, the Government of Canada was made aware of the intention of his government to dispatch a battalion to Viet Nam. The decision taken by Australia is taken in the context of the fact that Australia is a member of SEATO and has, of course, an understandable immediate interest because of the fact that the regrettable situation in Viet Nam is taking place in Asia itself.


John George Diefenbaker: Has there been any suggestion that Canada should supply or make available munitions or materials?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there has been no suggestion made to Canada that I am aware of that we should provide military equipment or personnel. We are extending a substantial amount of external aid to Viet Nam. We increased our external aid to Viet Nam within the course of the last six months when we agreed to make an additional half a million dollars available to Viet Nam for external aid purposes.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs say whether the Government was advised in advance of the reported decision of the United States Government to send two additional divisions to this area?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easi: No, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Twice before this week I have asked the Minister of External Affairs about the safety of Canadian nationals in the Dominican Republic. In view of the widespread fighting taking place there now, and in view of the fact that apparently United States forces are taking part in the fighting as well as reports that Cuban Communists are directly involved with the rebel forces, can the Minister tell the House whether he has any word about the reasons behind the United States action and whether


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Stale for Exlernal Affairs: I prefer not to comment in any way on the last part of my hon. friend's question until I have more facts than are available to me now.
However, with regard to the first part of the question I can say that early this morning we received a message from our Embassy in Santo Domingo informing us that a further evacuation of 17 Canadians took place by means of the facilities offered through the United States Department of State. No casualties amongst the Canadian community were reported. The number of Canadians evacuated so far from Santo Domingo and its environs is 24. This accounts for about half the Canadian community in that area. All the wives and children of Canadians in Santo Domingo have been evacuated with the exception of one family that has elected to remain. Officials of the Canadian Embassy informed me by telephone at 10.45 this morning that they are maintaining contact with the remaining Canadians in order to assist further evacuation when requested.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of what appears to be a difficulty on the Pak-istan-Indian border, could I ask the Minister whether we still have a military mission in Pakistan and, if so, what is its position and responsibilities?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the other day when I was asked a question about the situation in the area of the Rann of Kutch I mentioned the existence of the United Nations observation group in Kashmir of which Canada is a part. I think I was in error if I gave the impression that the current dangers between Pakistan and India in the Rann of Kutch were covered by the operations of this United Nations group. That is not the situation.
Yesterday I asked the High Commissioners of India and Pakistan if they would be good enough to come and see me. We had a discussion about this matter. In the name of the Government I expressed our interest and our
April 30, 1965

concern as a member of the Commonwealth, and as a country that has close relationships with both India and Pakistan. Yesterday the Prime Minister of Great Britain made a proposal to both Pakistan and India. We are awaiting the reactions of Pakistan and India to this proposal which proposes the reestablishment of the status quo as of January 1965. It will be interesting to see what are the reactions to this proposal, which might serve as a basis for negotiations.


Harold Edward Winch: As a supplementary question may I ask the Minister to expatiate a little further and tell us what are the responsibilities, if any, of our Canadian military mission under the present circumstances?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The responsibility of the Canadians on the observer group in Kashmir is to act as observers and to report to the United Nations authorities under the Security Council, any act in that area which threatens the peace between these two countries, pursuant to the mandate given to the group by the United Nations.


Harold Edward Winch: I have one more supplementary question. In view of the statement just made by the Minister, could he now inform the House whether through the United Nations, through reports being made by the Canadian military mission, he has received any advice as to who was the aggressor?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thought when I rose to reply I had indicated that the area in question is outside the field of operations of this particular United Nations observation group which, as hon. Members know, operates along the cease fire line in Kashmir.
This observation mission of the United Nations has no authority in respect of the particular area of concern that now involves both India and Pakistan, but we have taken steps such as I related in calling in the two High Commissioners. Likewise we have noted and are following with interest the proposal made by the British Prime Minister that might lead either to mediation or negotiation and a settlement.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in connection with the series of questions he answered a moment ago. Did he mean to imply that reports of clashes between the forces of India and Pakistan in Kashmir are 22620-505
Inquiries of the Ministry erroneous? I do not refer to reports of clashes occurring in the Rann of Kutch.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker; I was referring to the particular incidents that are causing special concern to India and Pakistan and to all Commonwealth countries. This has to do, as I said, with an area outside the field of operations of the observation group established for Kashmir by the United Nations. The area where these incidents are taking place is an undemarcated section of the India-Pakistan border near the Arabian Sea.


John Angus MacLean: I am aware of that, Mr. Speaker, but there are reports that there have also been clashes in the area where the mission operates.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, any such incident would be a matter for that group in Kashmir, which would make a report to the United Nations.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs on a matter of great importance to all Commonwealth statesmen, a matter which the British Prime Minister yesterday indicated was being discussed by Commonwealth Governments. Is the Minister in a position to indicate what is to be Canada's attitude toward Rhodesian independence and the discussions with respect thereto?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am. The Government has made clear on a number of occasions our view that a unilateral declaration of independence by the Rhodesian Government would be a deplorable act which would lead to very serious economic and internal political difficulties in Rhodesia. Moreover, we think the repercussions throughout Africa, particularly on race relations, might be serious. We have conveyed our views to the Rhodesian Government. We earnestly hope that the Southern Rhodesian Government will take no such action. We have of course paid particular attention to the statement made yesterday in the British House of Commons.
In his statement in this House on July 17, 1964, following the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting, the Prime Minister indicated that Canada would not recognize the validity of a unilateral declaration of independence by the Rhodesian Government. If
April 30, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry such a declaration took place we would have to consider other measures, in consultation with other Commonwealth Governments.
I should, however, add that negotiations on independence between the British and Rhodesian Governments are still going on. I hope they will eventually result in agreement on a program which will lead to independence for Rhodesia within the Commonwealth, in the words of the communique issued by the Prime Ministers' Conference, "at the earliest practical time on the basis of majority rule".



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the Minister aware of the exchange of telegrams yesterday, I believe, between the Premier of Manitoba and the Prime Minister of Canada with respect to the transfer to Montreal of personnel from the Air Canada maintenance base at Winnipeg, in which the request was made that the Minister of Transport might be dispatched to Winnipeg to try to clarify the situation? Is he going to Winnipeg?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the exchange of telegrams. In fact I have a copy of the exchange in front of me at the moment. In the Prime Minister's reply to Mr. Roblin he repeated the answer he had given to Mr. Roblin on the 21st of March, 1964, which I also put on Hansard in replying to the hon. gentleman last night; and as it appeared to the Prime Minister and to me that this did clarify the situation, there would not appear to be much purpose to be served in the Minister of Transport going to Winnipeg to repeat it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister not realize that at times things can be made much clearer if one is there in person rather than by a telegram; and in view of continuing confusion over the situation will the Minister not reconsider the request that he go to Winnipeg? I would be happy to support the idea.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has had the experience, which not a few other politicians have had at times, of going to some place and making state-
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).l
ments that are not as accurately reported as they sometimes are in this House, with the result that the situation is not always clarified.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question. In view of the very close relationship between the Minister and the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, if that hon. Member would go along with the Minister does the Minister not think that would be a circumstance that would cause him to visit Winnipeg?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The situation would appear to be one in which some mediation is needed, and perhaps it is in a field with which the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre is more familiar than I am, because I understand there is a serious difference of view within the ranks of the trade union in question.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake SI. John):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question.
I should like to ask the Minister of Transport, in connection with the transfer of Air Canada workshops from Winnipeg to Montreal, whether he still believes, as he believed two years ago, that the government must support the recommendations of Air Canada's experts when they decide that something must be done, as was the case, for instance, in 1963, when the present government supported the decision of the experts on the question of purchasing DC-9's instead of Caravelles.
Does the minister believe that he must also support the decision of Air Canada at this time?
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I should remind the hon. gentleman that the Government saw fit to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into this matter. I believe the Commission will be reporting in the very near future, and I think it would be premature for a Minister, or any member of the Government, to express any views in anticipation of that report.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I wonder if the Minister will consider including in today's Hansard the correspondence between the Premier of Manitoba and the Government?
April 30, 1965


John Whitney Pickersgill: If it were felt that would be a convenience to the House and to the Members, I would agree. I could table the telegram to the Prime Minister and his reply. I would see no objection, because there is nothing secret about these documents.


An hon. Member:: Make it an appendix to Hansard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If that is agreeable.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


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



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the Minister tell the House if the Government intends to take any action on the Porter Commission recommendation concerning securities administration and control?


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: The matter is under study and has been for some time, Mr. Speaker. If and when the Government decides that some particular action is called for, it will give the appropriate notice at the appropriate time.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Does the Minister intend to set up the Canada Development Corporation without some sort of action on the recommendation by the Porter Commission that a regulatory commission or advisory body should be established, as mentioned on page 348 of that report?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think a more appropriate time to discuss that particular question would be when the resolution proposing the Canada Development Corporation is before the House. I may say that I have received very enthusiastic comments from a number of people about this proposal.



ELIMINATION OF INCOME TAX ON PRIVATE POWER CORPORATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of a statement made yesterday by Premier Smallwood of Newfoundland who, when he was referring to the elimination of corporation income tax
Inquiries of the Ministry on privately owned power corporations, said "the budget is neither the time nor the place to make this particular announcement". I would like to know whether, because of the well known close relationship between the Minister of Transport and the Premier of Newfoundland, there is some other time when this announcement is going to be made. If so, there are other provinces in the country that would also like to know when this announcement will be made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss to discover the connection between this statement, which I have not seen, and the responsibilities of the Minister of Transport.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-LACK OF FUNDS UNDER MUNICIPAL LOAN ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Kon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I undertook yesterday to provide answers to two questions asked by the hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich.
In answer to his first question, to the best of my knowledge the Government has not received any communication from the Government of British Columbia or from the Premier of that Province in respect to the using up of the Provincial quota of the municipal development and loan fund.
The second question concerned a statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the House during the second reading of the Municipal Development and Loan bill on August 2, 1963. At that time the question had to do with the possibility that provincial quotas might be used up before the closing date of March 31, 1966, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave a general reply to the effect that under certain circumstances the Government would not hesitate to come back to Parliament-and I quote his words- "to be sure that the purposes of the Act are fulfilled". That is the end of the quotation.
I think it would be agreed that the purposes of the Act have been met in a most satisfactory manner. An examination of the record will show that during the passage of the legislation I and other spokesmen for the Government made frequent references to the fact that the municipal development and loan fund was a short term measure intended to promote a rapid increase in municipal construction and employment during the next two years following the passage of the legislation. It now appears that the $400 million fund will be almost completely used up by
April 30, 1965
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry the terminal date of the legislation on March 31 next. No decision has been made by the Government to increase the amount of funds available.
Mr. G. L. Chalierlon (Esquimalt-Saanich):: A supplementary question. In view of the repeated statements by the Minister at the time of the passage of the Bill to the effect that the object of the Bill was to promote employment, is the Minister now saying that the unemployment situation in British Columbia and New Brunswick is such that no further action needs to be taken?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: All I have said is that the employment situation in those two provinces particularly, and in Canada as a whole, has been improved tremendously in the last two years. I have not said that it is satisfactory as yet by any means, but various measures are being taken to improve the situation, and I think my hon. friend will see that this will happen during the course of this year.


George Louis Chatterton: A further supplementary question. Would the Minister not now concede that the per capita basis of allocation was completely unrealistic, in that it had no relationship to actual need within any province?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: As far as I can see the hon. Member is asking me to say that I thought the action taken by Parliament in passing this legislation in 1963 was wrong. On the contrary I thought Parliament had ample opportunity to discuss it and did a very excellent job.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. I wonder would he comment on statements emanating from union leaders in the United States to the effect that the United States Government has the right to insist that the Canadian Government impress upon the auto manufacturers that the advantages they received in the recent agreement be passed on to the consumers.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, obviously the representative of the United Auto Workers Union, in giving evidence before the United States Congressional Committee has every right to make any observations he wishes and, if he so wishes, to give his suggestions as to what

the Canadian Government might do. I would point out in this respect that the Government has made it quite clear that over the course of the next few years, as the motor car manufacturers in Canada are able to lower their costs of production through increased and more rationalized production, the cost of manufacturing cars in Canada will come down, and under the impulsions of the competitive system in this highly competitive industry, the motor car manufacturing industry, one can be reasonably certain that with reduced cost of the manufacture of cars in Canada the cost of cars to the general public will go down.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister would now comment on the statement by Mr. Burt to the effect that the $50 million advantage gained by the car manufacturers each year should be used to maintain the salaries of the 1,600 employees to be laid off at Windsor, Ontario, under the Martin plan?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there have not been 1,600 employees laid off at the Ford motor car plant in Windsor. As yet it is not too clear precisely what will be the implications of the proposal of the Ford Motor Car Company to retool its plant with a view to increasing both production and employment. There will be, unquestionably, some changes and some temporary lay-offs. As a consequence of the discussions yesterday it emerged that the earlier anticipated or mentioned figure of 250 lay-offs occurring in May in fact will not be 250 but only 49.
All this indicates that the newspaper report which appeared last week alleging 1,600 layoffs was in fact highly premature. The Department of Labour has mobilized its efforts to ensure, not that workers should be paid for idleness but that there will be no idleness and that workers will be maintained in work to the maximum extent practicable.


Mr. Hales:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do hope we are not getting into a general argument. If it is a real supplementary question of course that is all right.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question to the Minister. In the event that full
April 30, 1965

employment is not maintained, will the Government make the necessary representations to the auto manufacturers so that at least part of the 50 million they are to gain in one year will be used to supplement unemployment insurance?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think I can reassure the hon. gentleman that the Government will take the steps that may be necessary to see that there is no undue hardship.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Last November the Minister of Fisheries told the House that arrangements would be made to provide an opportunity for members of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to visit the site of sealing operations and obtain firsthand knowledge of the manner in which seals would be killed during the 1965 season. Would the Minister please advise the House whether this has been done and if so, what was the result?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks I have had the opportunity to answer a number of questions dealing with the sealing operations. In direct reply to the hon. Member I think the best answer I can give is to quote from a statement made by the President of the S.P.C.A., Mr. Alex McLaurin, who told a press conference on April 14 in Montreal, as reported in the April 15 issue of the Montreal Gazette:
We are entirely satisfied with the methods which were used for the hunting of seals this year and the manner in which the Government enforced these new methods.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Further in the article there appears this paragraph:
Mr. McLaurin expressed his thanks to the Minister of Fisheries for his swift action in bringing humane conditions back to the seal country and thus prolonging the life of both the seals and the sealing business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: And only yesterday I received another letter from Mr. Vallee, a representative of the S.P.C.A. who was right on the site of the operation on three different occasions, who also expressed his thanks and complete satisfaction.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries. Would the Minister, since he has all this information at hand, ask someone to supply the answer to my order paper question of April 8?


Frank Howard: A supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker. In his capacity as a swift acter-


An hon. Member:: "Actor" is right.


Frank Howard: -I wonder if the Minister would mind telling the House how he is progressing with the establishment of straight base lines, which matter was dealt with in the House about a year ago now.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, this matter is under very active consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put this question to the Minister of Justice. I asked the question about two weeks ago, but I am not making anything of that because the Minister was away, although his Parliamentary Secretary was here. My question has reference to a man named Talbot who was sentenced to eight years imprisonment in the penitentiary in Alberta and was afterwards moved to the minimum security institution in British Columbia. Is that correct; and if so, what was the reason for it?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will complete my investigation and report to the House.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfort-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Defence. Is it the intention of the Department of Defence to purchase non-military vehicles direct from the manufacturers, thus by-passing local and franchised car dealers? If this is the case, this will help neither business nor employment in the country. Could the Minister give me some information on this matter?
April 30, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National the agricultural program in the future will Defence): Mr. Speaker, I think this would be use a greater percentage of the Budget than an excellent question for the order paper. it has heretofore.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Stralhcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Since it has been some time since we held a most impressive ceremony at the raising of Canada's maple leaf flag, I wonder when the Government intends holding a similar ceremony for Canada's second national flag.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, Canada has decided, through this Parliament, to have one national flag.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would remind the Acting Prime Minister that Parliament had to also pass a second national flag; and since the Commons was asked to go to the trouble of passing that flag, would the Government go to the trouble of honouring it in the same manner?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence I will direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. A recently published report stated that 23 per cent of our tax revenue dollar was spent on defence, yet in the year 1963-64 only 2.1 per cent was spent on Canada's primary and most important industry, agriculture. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if his Department would consider substantial increases to the agriculture industry.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I
think this is a question which I might not be expected to comment on, but I will bring it to the attention of the Minister. I am sure
[Mr. Rapp.I



CHEESE-REPORTED INCREASE IN EXPORT SUBSIDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence perhaps I should address it to the Minister of Forestry or the Parliamentary Secretary. A recent press release from the Department of Agriculture stated that the subsidy to aid in the export of Canadian cheese has been raised from 2 cents per pound to 4 cents per pound. Can the Minister say whether under this new Government policy this is one of the expenses that will be deducted from the subsidy payment due to the producers of manufacturing milk?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I do not know the exact answer to that question. I will refer it to the Minister of Agriculture, and if he is not here on Monday I will provide the answer.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In the light of published reports that the likely choice for a new aircraft is the Northrup M-5, would the Minister now advise the House when he expects to announce this decision?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: First of all I should like to congratulate my hon. friend on his patience in this matter. I wish to advise him that the decision will be taken just as soon as we can be sure that it is the right decision.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question. I am wondering whether the Minister is once more flying a kite rather than an aircraft.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker. I can assure my hon. friend that the aircraft being considered are pretty potent weapons systems and will be a great addition to the equipment inventory of our armed forces.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence on the subject of air-
April 30. 1965

craft. Could I ask him whether he has been officially informed that the United States is taking out of service its aircraft on the Pacific coast on what used to be the early warning system because the manned bomber threat has diminished to the extent that they are no longer required? If so, is he therefore considering the fact that the United States is of the opinion that there is no manned bomber threat?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is not the time to enter into a debate, but I am a little surprised at my hon. friend's information, which is incomplete. The diminution of the bomber threat was long ago admitted and acknowledged, but the reduction in defence measures against it has been phased over a long period of time and some measures are still required. The United States has taken a number of steps to reduce the proportion of its forces going into air defence and so have we, the latest step we have taken being the discontinuation of operations of the remaining portion of the mid-Canada line. We are fully aware of what the other is doing in the field and fully cognizant of the extent of the threat and the measures to be taken against it.


Harold Edward Winch: Then why are you still maintaining the Bomarc?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Because it is required.



EARTHQUAKES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. My question is based on very disturbing reports of a very severe earthquake which occurred in British Columbia and portions of the western United States, which reports indicate that some people were killed and scores injured in several cities; that the tremor did structural damage to some hydroelectric circuits at the giant Grand Coulee dam; that it caused swaying buildings, bouncing ornaments and rattling windows on Vancouver Island, in the Okanagan valley


Mr. Speaker:: Can we have the question, please?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -in north-central British Columbia and as far as Trail. This is a matter of great importance because one third of my
Inquiries of the Ministry constituents live south of the High Arrow dam, which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has recommended to the people of Canada.
My question is, would the Parliamentary Secretary get the latest information with respect to these reports and bring this information to the attention of the House?


Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the engineers of the seismology division at the Dominion Observatory who report to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys have the situation very carefully under observation. I might also add that the Minister of Northern Affairs is in Vancouver today and is receiving reports directly from the site.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Len-nox):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance which arises from a statement made in the budget speech. What is the new allowable rate of income tax write-off for expenses of farmers in respect of tile drainage of their land?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I hope we will be returning to the budget debate in a few minutes.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister what the new allowable rate is for write-off of expenses of farmers in respect of tile drainage of their land. At page 427 of Hansard for April 26 the Minister stated, in reference to an amendment:
*-it will permit a farmer to deduct amounts spent for clearing land or laying drainage tile.
Now that the new season is opening up, my constituents want to know what this rate will be.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my understanding that the Minister got the gist of the question.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I think this question should be deferred until the Bill is introduced, but the intention is that these expenses will be allowed as deductions from income.
April 30, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry
flii. Diefenbaker: To the extent of 100 per
eept?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: The farmers have been deducting expenses at the old rate of 2| per cent per year, and they want to know what the new rate will be.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There will be an opportunity to discuss this.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, surely if the Minister of Finance has the information he should give it to the House. If he does not have that information we will have to wait. The hon. Member who asked the question stated that, with the arrival of the new spring season, the farmers want to know what this new rate will be. Unless the Minister does not have the information, surely he can clarify the situation as to whether the expenses will be deductible to the extent of 100 per cent.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to make this clear. The hon. Member read what I said and I can only repeat it. These expenses will be allowed as deductions.


John George Diefenbaker: To the extent of 100 per
cent?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Of course; there is no qualification.


John George Diefenbaker: All right; that is all you had to say.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I have a supplementary question. Can I take it from what the Minister has said, that a farmer will be allowed to write off all his expenses incurred in this regard in one year? We want to know the rate at which he can write off these expenses.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am having some difficulty, Mr. Speaker, and if it is my fault I apologize. Farmers will be allowed to write off these expenses against their incomes, and they can write them off in one year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Starr:: That took a lot of dragging out.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The hon. Member just could not understand the answer.


John George Diefenbaker: No wonder you needed three assistants to help you out.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport who, I presume, is the Acting Secretary of State, and ask him whether he is now in a position to answer the question I asked the day before yesterday which the Secretary of State took as notice yesterday. I refer to my question in respect of redistribution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am still having a little trouble, as I indicated the day before yesterday, about the propriety of inquiries in respect of the reports of these commissions. These commissions are proceeding, according to what I hear, with due dispatch, and I believe the evidence in respect of the commission in Prince Edward Island supports that statement.
The House has charged these commissions with certain responsibilities, and it does seem to me that inquiries made by the Government might be interpreted as an attempt in some way to interfere. However, if hon. Members think I should communicate with the chairmen of each of these independent commissions to ascertain the dates on which they expect to have their maps published, I suppose I could do so, but I really wonder whether that would be a proper action for the Government to take.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Minister's sensitiveness in this area, but will he consider sharing with this House any intelligence he may have gained in this regard through mental telepathy, clairvoyance or by some other type of extrasensory perception?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am always willing to share with this House what little intelligence I have.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I hope that is not carried too far. I trust now that there has been an expression of a general feeling of absolution of the Minister if he communicates with each of the commissions, he will do so and pass on the information to the House. It is a matter of considerable interest to this House to know, generally speaking, when these reports may be expected.
April 30. 1965	COMMONS


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the representation commissioner is an officer of Parliament and is a member of all of the commissions, I will be glad to communicate with him. Perhaps I should inform the House that at the moment the representation commissioner is not in the country and will not be back for three or four days. Perhaps you will permit me to say, Sir, that I think the representation commissioner has pursued his activities with commendable zeal, to the point that he really was jeopardizing his health. He was asked to take a rest for a few days. As soon as he returns I am sure the Secretary of State will communicate with him and then give to the House the information obtained.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Salfsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Health and Welfare. Perhaps in her absence I should direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the letter *of Dr. J. A. Hannah, managing director of Associated Medical Services Incorporated, to Premier Robarts to the effect that the setting up of a Provincial medical care program would have serious shortcomings and increase *costs to patients in the Province of Ontario, is the Government prepared to proceed with a national medicare program before this and *other inadequate schemes are introduced?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will refer this question to the Minister, who has already indicated the progressive intentions of this Government.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In support and in recognition of the role played in our national development by the gold mining industry, is it the intention of the Minister of Finance to authorize the striking of a gold coin or medallion by the Canadian Mint to commemorate Canada's Centennial?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which will be given considerable attention.
DEBATES	783
Inquiries oj the Ministry


Maurice John Moreau: Mi*.
Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Minister of Finance. Was the Minister surprised by the fact that the hon. Member for Timiskaming does not consider a silver coin to be a more appropriate commemoration for our Centennial?
[DOT] (12:00 noon)


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I was not surprised, Mr. Speaker.


William Arnold Peters: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I explain that while it is true I represent the silver industry as well as a large section of the gold mining industry, the fact remains that if a gold coin is going to be used on the occasion of our Centennial in commemoration of that industry, there will have to be some change in the act dealing with the coinage of gold. Is the Minister prepared to say whether the Government will consider such a change for this one specific purpose, so that many of the interested areas can give consideration to the matter now inasmuch as time is going by?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not think there is anything I can usefully add, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Since for some time there has been a great deal of talk about amending the Canadian constitution and especially about the Fulton-Favreau formula, could the Minister of Justice tell us whether he has considered the advantages contained in the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition that the Canadian constitution should be an original Canadian statute?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is undoubtedly very interesting, but it does seem to me to open the door to a long discussion which would not be in order at this time.

April 30, 1985
The Budget-Mrs. Jones THE BUDGET



ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, April 29, consideration of the motion of Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Nowlan.
Mrs. Eloise Jones (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the budget with regard to which I should like to give my views on a few subjects.
First of all I wish to refer to the field of education. I was somewhat disappointed that during the budget speech the Minister of Finance did not see fit, in the interim between now and the report of the Bladen Commission, to do something at the Federal level in the field of education. It is clear that at the present time education is the most costly service in Canada for all Governments. It involves the highest spending outlay.
The Economic Council of Canada feels that in the future education will continue to be the greatest expense, and that the margin is going to increase rapidly as time goes on. In 1963 total Government expenditures were over $2 billion, which was $90 million higher than the next highest figure for Government expenditure. The Economic Council of Canada expects that by 1970 this figure will reach $3 billion.
This figure represents only two thirds of the total cost for higher education. At present the real burden of higher education does not fall on the Federal Government. This is primarily a provincial field, as I know and as other Members have mentioned. The share of the Federal Government in 1962 was $59 million out of a total of $266 million spent by all Governments on higher education, or just under 25 per cent of total expenditures. Out of the $59 million spent by the Federal Government for higher education in 1962, $26 million was in the form of research grants to the National Research Council.
The Provinces and the Municipalities bear the great load with regard to expenditures for education, and the municipal burden has now reached the point of bankrupting municipalities. Mill rates are soaring, and the largest percentage of these rates goes for education. For example, in Ontario education requires approximately 50 per cent of

municipal tax revenues, and education now accounts for over 47 per cent of the Ontario provincial budget.
The Minister of Finance stated during the budget speech that he was waiting for the report of the Bladen Commission before doing anything for higher education, but the fact is that the Canadian Universities Foundation, which was responsible for setting up the Bladen Commission, recommended to the Minister of Finance in 1963 that the per capita grant should be brought in line with student enrolment and operating costs. Today that would mean a $3 per capita grant. I should like to quote the following from the Regina Leader-Post of April 27:
Mr. Thatcher expressed concern about progress in the field of education unless the Federal Government can find some way of increasing financial aid for technical sohools and universities.
The former premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Lloyd, said:
The ignoring of the needs of education is "a far cry from Mr. Gordon's statement of last year when he said mere selected and long term measures are needed such as the better education and technical training of our people". Both the Federal and Provincial Government have failed to recognize the contributions education makes to the expansion of the economy, estimated by some economists to range from 20 to 40 per cent.
The Federal grant last year for higher education was $27 million, but the trouble is it is calculated on a per capita basis per province and, as other Members have pointed out, the per capita increase in population is less rapid. The per capita increase in population of a province is about 2 per cent, while the per student increase across the country averages between 11 per cent and 12 per cent, and the student population is increasing at a progressively faster rate each year. In addition the operating costs of the universities are increasing even more rapidly, by 16 per cent each year. So we can say that while student enrolment and especially operating costs are increasing, they are not nearly being met by the per capita increase on which the grant is based. So what has happened is that the grant per student or per operating cost has diminished each year, and the real value of the grant is diminishing rapidly.
This grant should be calculated on a per student basis. On the present basis the grant to the Province of Saskatchewan for the year 1962-63 was $269, and by 1964-65 it had fallen to $199. So the real value of the grant to the student is rapidly diminishing. The figure for Saskatchewan is away below the
April 30. 1965

national average and is actually the third lowest in Canada. The population of Saskatchewan has not been increasing for many years. We hope that at the present time it will start to increase. It used to be said that one of the greatest exports from Saskatchewan was people when it should have been wheat, and we hope this condition will now be alleviated.
With regard to enrolment of full time students at universities, in 1954-55 they represented 4.4 per cent of young people in the 18 to 24 age group. However, by 1964-65 this figure had risen to over 9 per cent, and it is estimated by the Canadian Universities Foundation that full time students will represent over 15 per cent by the year 1974-75, and this is probably a low estimation. This is the probable expansion. Some 15 years ago the United States had over 8 per cent of that age range in universities, and today they have close to 40 per cent.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
University fees have been skyrocketing. I think we are moving in the direction of providing free education. The Canadian Union of Students has asked for free tuition in its recent brief to the Bladen Commission. I believe the Prime Minister went so far as to endorse free education. Fees, however, are really a very small part of the cost of education, since they form only about one quarter to one fifth of the cost to the student.
What should the Federal Government do about this? If Governments do not make money available to cover the rise in the cost of education, then the universities will have to draw from the only source they control, and that is fees. The student will then bear the cost of the Government's failure to meet this need. A rise in fees is the only other alternative, and they will go up and up.
Federal spending in direct grants to higher education during 1964-65 amounted to only one third of 1 per cent of total spending. This is ludicrous and should not continue. If we expect the provinces to bear almost the full cost of primary and secondary education, then the Federal Government must take more responsibility and must give much more for higher education in this country.
In conjunction with the subject of education I want to talk about health services from a national point of view. Both education and health services are investments; they are not handouts. I should like to stress that point. They represent real investments in the advance of mankind in every sphere. They will
The Budget-Mrs. Jones pay off on a dollar and cents basis. Some of the European countries in which a very high percentage of the national income goes into Government have also very productive economies. Both education and health needs are urgent in Canada now. They must progress together; they must advance hand in hand for the universal benefit of all Canadian people regardless of income.
I do not object to the term "war on poverty". I used it myself in my maiden speech last July. However, if it is to mean anything it must be an actual war carried on with effective weapons. It must not be allowed to wax and wane in a skirmish that is purely vocal, evasive and ineffective. In other words this must not be a phony war. Some people have drawn back in a state of apprehension and are paralysed by their fear that if a national program of health services is implemented, the funds needed in the field of education cannot be provided. Some are fearful that we cannot have either. Truly this is a time, I suppose, to excite the daring and test the strong. A society, in order to be healthy, must advance on all fronts. This must be a total war.
When I use the word "health", I mean not only a literal interpretation of that word. I am thinking of it in its broadest sense. For the benefit of those who are somewhat fearful may I point out, as the Minister of Finance has already pointed out, that the nation's finances are under firm control. This is nice to know; it is very encouraging. The expected increase in the gross national product will provide the revenue needed in both the education and health fields. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has asked Canadians to "think big." Well, that is fine; that is very encouraging. I would assume that this approach presages an aggressive export policy, because this also must be included. I shall not make the mistake of including wheat sales in this particular outlook, because I understand that would be inappropriate.
I should like to quote from the Star-Phoenix in this regard. The editorial is dated April 12, 1965 and is under the caption "What about the next budget?"
Presuming taxes will be slashed-
This is an overestimation of what actually happened.
-the welfare program can be pursued on the assumption that the gross national product, the sum total of goods and services produced, will expand sufficiently to pay for the welfare spending spree.
April 30, 1965

The Budget-Mrs. Jones
I should like to interject here that I do not really feel that Federal funds devoted to the advance of education and health services could come within the definition of a "spending spree". As I pointed out, I feel they are absolutely necessary. I continue with the quotation:
A dramatic growth in the GNP would depend directly on establishing new Canadian export records...
If we have any hope of reaching the targets determined on by the Economic Council of Canada, then we must puli out all the stops. Canada must expand production for domestic and foreign consumption, it must look to an intensification of trade with Russia and Communist China.
If there is any wheat sale to Russia in the offing, we will all cheer for the Wheat Board. I continue the quotation:
In addition, Canada must embark on extended trading relations with the emerging nations, and it must face up to the protectionism of the European Common Market which threatens to hurt us deeply in the long run.
In the Throne speech, relatively little attention was given to Canada's greatest challenge-the promotion of a huge growth in exports. Without that, many of the major goals set by the Economic Council of Canada will prove meaningless. [DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
Those who shrink from tax increases resulting from the implementation of a universal national health service are not generally the people who have been hit hard by severe, prolonged illness, either mental or physical. The parent of a retarded child, the parent, wife, husband or any relative of an acutely mentally disturbed person, the relative of a handicapped person who is vegetating either in a home or an institution-ask those people how they feel about an increased expenditure of public funds for more effective research and more rehabilitation. I was listening to the hon. Member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands when he was talking about the subject of taxation. I agree with him that none of us would object to higher taxation for these areas that have such a high priority and in which there is such a need at present in Canada. The time has come when something concrete has to be started in an organized way to provide assistance for people who need help. Next year or the year after will not do.
I wish to quote from the foreword to volume II of the report of the Royal Commission on Health Services:
We emphasized in volume I and we wish to repeat here that time is of the essence in the development of certain health services such as the implementation of crash programs for the education and training of health personnel, the expansion and organization of health research, the introdution of children's dental programs and

the provision of expanded health services for retarded and crippled children. Similar urgency applies to the expansion of the scope of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, particularly the inclusion of mental health hospital services under the coverage of that act.
This will be a good interim measure. Mental hospitals are currently being emptied. The patient population at the mental hospital in Weyburn reached an all time high of 2,600 back in the 1940's. When I arrived there on staff in 1950 it had a population of around 1,300, and has now reached an all time low of 800 patients.
The foreword to the Hall Commission report continues:
In fact we are heartened by the initiative shown by some of the provincial governments which are proceeding with the development of extensive programs of education and training of health personnel, and we refer particularly to the imaginative program involving $100 million announced recently by the Ontario government
In yesterday morning's Globe and Mail I noticed an item respecting the expansion of a research centre on the emotionally upset child. This is a $500,000 building program and is something that is very greatly needed.
I now return to the quotation from the Hall Report:
In other fields, no less important in the development of comprehensive and effective health services for all Canadians, haste should be made slowly because of the important long-term implications of the comprehensive programs which we have recommended. We visualize that full implementation of the programs may take seven years so that by 1971, Canadians would have all the health services which scientific genius and human skill can provide We have also presented evidence that given the continued economic expansion of our country, which is fully realizable, Canada will have the means in terms of qualified manpower, capital facilities and financing to undertake these programs without in any way interfering but, on the contrary, strengthening the economic capacity and growth prospects of our country.
I should now like to quote briefly from an editorial in the Toronto Star of January 30:
No one expects the federal Government to implement the Commission's report immediately; the Commission itself proposed that its recommendations should be brought into effect over a period of years.
But the Government should lose no time in making clear that it accepts the Royal Commission's report in principle and that it intends to take the preliminary steps for its establishment in the near future. Without at least that much guidance, provinces concerned with filling the medicare gap in the years immediately ahead may find themselves headed in the wrong direction.
That is an important point. Has the Federal Government in fact given the green light to the provinces to go ahead and start their own programs? Is it not going to give any
April 30, 1965

leadership on the national level for the provision of a health service program for Canada?
At the present time there are many areas in the health field that are crying out for help, for research, for improved care and for effective treatment. There are the mentally ill who have been the most neglected. There are the retarded children, the crippled children, people with debilitating diseases and our old people.
Excellent organizations like the Canadian Mental Health Association and the Canadian Association for Retarded Children have done much in the past to enlighten the public and give leadership in the care of the mentally ill and the retarded, but they cannot do it alone. In this year's estimates I notice that the Department of National Health and Welfare's grant to the Canadian Association for Retarded Children is raised from $15,000 to $25,000, but the Canadian Mental Health Association grant is still $15,000. I know every little bit helps, but what can a national health organization do to effectively wage the kind of war I have been describing, with princely sums like these?
I suppose they constitute a kind of governmental stamp of approval and evidence of continuing good will on the part of the Federal Government, but more concrete evidence of Government good will is required.
In preparation for the implementation of a national program of effective health services, all kinds of pilot projects need to be set up across the country. Since last fall I have been trying to get a grant for a pilot project, a community employment workshop, for those permanently and mentally handicapped in Saskatoon, which would provide a blueprint for community shelter workshops for people all across Canada who are permanently mentally helpless and who are classed as unemployable. All these people can do now is sit in complete idleness, living on relief and other government allowances. I found a great deal of interest and enthusiasm for this project among the people of Saskatoon. Surely the Federal Government should provide some leadership and sponsor pilot projects like this across the country.
Research projects carried on in Canada cannot always continue to rely on our neighbours to the south for the necessary funds to carry out their work. One psychiatrist on the staff of the University of Saskatchewan has for some years been carrying out a research program in the community partly
The Budget-Mrs. Jones financed by the provincial Government but to a larger extent by the United States Government. The National Institute of Mental Health in Washington has provided an annual grant of $20,000 on a three-year basis, and this year will provide an additional annual grant of $8,500 which will continue for the next three years. Both the N.I.M.H. grants from Washington and the private American foundation grants are going to dry up for us here in Canada. The Americans are beginning to say that we should finance our own research projects. Canada has something like one tenth of the population of the United States, and it is easier to do things on a broad basis and be able to validate them. The kind of research programs that could be carried out in Canada could provide an important Canadian contribution to the world, but at present in this whole field of research we are living on the largesse of our big brother down yonder. I think this helps destroy our sense of freedom, our sense of responsibility and our sense of identity.
The Minister of Finance seems very concerned about a sense of identity in Canada. He is thinking about protection for Canadian publications, and he wants to start the Canada Development Corporation, which goes along the same line of thinking in the sense of preserving our Canadian identity. In the century in which we live, with the great velocity of change in many fields, rapid advance in technology, increasing complexity in our society, governments becoming bigger and industries becoming bigger, people are tending to become more remote from participation in the affairs of their country. They do not participate as personally as they did, say 30 years ago, in questions of government, industry and many other spheres. Mr. Adlai Stevenson has referred to this whole question of the process of the alienation of the individual that exists in this world of ours at the present time by saying that man in this century does not need so much to fear becoming a slave as becoming a robot. This puts the whole thing in a nutshell.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
However, Mr. Speaker, there is a heartening kind of movement down at the grass roots in communities. In recent years people have been showing an increasing desire to take more responsibility, to express their concern in regard to all kinds of problems, social, health and welfare, educational; problems of business expansion, developmental problems of every kind. They have shown
788	COMMONS
The Budget-Mrs. Jones their desire to play a part in making decisions relating to their future well-being. This movement is counteracting this destructive mechanization of man, and is doing so in a very encouraging way; because we certainly need, in the latter part of this century, a kind of human renaissance that will parallel the rapid advances that have occurred in technology and other fields during the earlier part of this century. The voice of the individual is increasingly being directed to the ear of Governments, and this Government must heed and provide definite leadership and concrete encouragement in this interflow of communication.
Those who do research in our universities, hospitals and other community fields need to be given funds, freedom and security of tenure. At the time of the National Retardation Conference here last fall I was talking with the head of a training school in Saskatchewan, who told me that he had a great deal of trouble getting a research psychologist and holding him. On the last two occasions -as happens all the time-a research project had been started, and the research man hardly got settled in when he had to send a report justifying his program in order to get his grant for the next year. This kind of thing is discouraging. Grants provided on a yearly basis are just ludicrous from the standpoint of any kind of valuable research taking place. So these people were lost; one of them went to the United States. This is one of the reasons we have a brain drain out of this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member but her time has expired. Does she have the unanimous consent of the House to continue her remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eloise May Jones: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. Members for this courtesy. I will be very brief. I want to say something about the removal of the tax on drugs. I noticed that the Minister of Finance decided that this matter should be referred to the Special Committee on Food and Drugs. This I found somewhat surprising, because I had felt that the consensus was that this tax should be removed. I do not know of anyone in this House who would oppose that. I put a question on the order paper last July, and the answer given was that it would be dealt with during the preparation of the budget.

DEBATES	April 30, 1965
I realize that the removal of the tax on drugs will not be any great bonanza and will really, practically, amount to only a few cents on the dollar. But this is something which is an added burden on people who are suffering illness and need medication, and I think the tax should be removed. This certainly could be done in the interim period before the recommendations of the Hall report in regard to prescription drug services are implemented. I would like to see this done, Mr. Speaker, and I do not quite know why the question was referred to the Special Committee on Food and Drugs.
At this point I want to speak very briefly on a subject that is of special interest to the people of Saskatoon at the present time. Parliament votes to give in the neighbourhood of $100 million a year to the C.B.C. This money comes out of the public purse; it is provided by the taxpayers. Recently, without reference to Parliament, an additional $10 million was allocated to the C.B.C. to provide an extra broadcasting centre for Expo '67.
I want to say something about the establishment of a C.B.C. channel in Saskatoon. The people of Saskatoon and the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix want to know about this. From inquiries, I find that in June, 1963 an application was made by the C.B.C. for the reservation of a channel in Saskatoon. I believe at that time ten channels across Canada were under consideration. The Board of Broadcast Governors refused to consider the reservation of all these channels except two, one for Saskatoon and one for Saint John-Fred-ericton. I understand that at the request of the then Secretary of State, the present Minister of Transport, a troika committee was set up including Dr. Stewart, Mr. Jamieson, who was then President of the C.A.B., and Mr. Ouimet. In the fall of 1963 this committee of three submitted a report on the radio and television situation in Canada. I further understand that on the basis of the report of this committee it was decided that applications for new and alternative television services could not be approved until July 1, 1964.
That was the first freeze. Why this freeze was made, I do not quite know. It is interesting, however, and I do not want to say anything further on this matter except to note that the Members from the constituencies which these channels would serve are all on the Official Opposition side of the House.
The present Advisory Committee on Broadcasting was set up on July 6, 1964;
April 30, 1365

then the whole question went into a really deep freeze and we are told that we must wait until the committee finishes its deliberations -this is supposed to be accomplished by next month-at which time a report would be produced. This is all very interesting, Mr. Speaker, but I think there are many questions that still could be asked about this matter. I mention it because the people of Saskatoon are at the present time busy signing a big petition to present to the Minister responsible for reporting to Parliament for the C.B.C., and I believe they are quite responsible in this kind of attitude. I hope their efforts will produce some results in this regard.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to use the time I have available in this debate for two purposes; the first to make some general observations about the budget, and the second to deal in rather more detail with the economic and human problems arising out of the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
In a general discussion of the Budget, I must say on behalf of my constituents that they are plainly very disappointed. Everyone tries to give epithets to a budget, and I would say that this one is very much a status quo budget. Last year's budget was a stand pat budget; and I am afraid I shall run out of synonyms for conservative-with a small "c"-no change budgets if the Minister continues to produce this type of budget. Because it is our contention, Mr. Speaker, that a budget can be used as the instrument of social justice, it can be used as the instrument of economic planning; and I find neither of these in this particular Budget.
In my riding most of the people are workers in industry, and I would say that a fair average wage would be $5,000 a year. Many of the people in my riding are old age pensioners trying to eke out an existence on a pension of $75 a month. I would think that if we are to have-and we have to welcome it-a measure of relaxation from taxes, that relaxation ought to be applied to those who most need it. If we are to have social justice in this country it means a greater degree of equality; it means helping those who are in difficulties. It seems to me ludicrous to be talking in the Speech from the Throne about wars on poverty, and then a little later producing a budget the effect of which is to give an added income of $6,000 a year to those-
The Budget-Mr. Brewin


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Oh, please.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am sorry; my tongue slipped for a moment, and I did not mean to arouse the Minister from his present relaxation. I meant, of course, to say $600. I do not believe a person with an income of $30,000 needs an extra $600 at the present time. I think most of those fortunate enough to be in that bracket would continue to be willing to pay the taxes needed to effect social justice and carry out a war on poverty. I am quite certain that the people in my constituency would rather forgo the $30 a year they are supposed to be saving in order to see that the older people in their midst do at least receive $100 a month.
I have had many, many letters, as has, I am sure, the Minister and I imagine all other hon. Members, before the Budget came out urging that if there were to be tax reductions they should take the form of relieving those at the lower end of the income scale from the necessity of paying income taxes at all by means of raising the exemptions. I have also had letters, as I imagine has every other hon. Member of the House, saying how extraordinarily difficult it is to ask older people to live on $75 a month. If we are to use the Budget as an instrument of social justice, then this is what we should be doing. That is why I say my constituents will be disappointed in this particular Budget.
This Budget does not have an expansionary or growth effect, as I see it. If one takes the situation, as one must, in light of the immediate economic effects of the Canada Pension Plan, the net result is that in the year 1966 most of the people in a constituency like mine will in fact have less money to spend on the necessities of life and on looking after their families. I illustrate that by pointing out that if we take the average taxpayer in my riding who is earning $5,000 a year by way of salary or wage, in 1965 he will pay $15 less in income tax. In the year 1966 he will pay $30 less. But in the year 1966 he will be obliged to pay, or it will be paid for him out of his wage or salary, $79.20 to the Canada Pension Plan fund, quite apart altogether from what his employer has to pay; and as we all know, no benefits become payable until 1967.
I do not mean for one moment to suggest that we do not welcome the Canada Pension Plan; and it is, of course, necessary in a contributory plan to start paying contributions before you can begin to receive benefits. But

April 30, 1965
The Budget-Mr. Brewin the adjustment of income tax should be directed toward seeing that in the lower income brackets the effect of the Canada Pension Plan does not bring about a reduction in the purchasing power of the average worker. Of course if my constituent who is earning $5,000 a year happened to be a self-employed storekeeper he would have to pay $158.40 to the Canada Pension Plan; therefore his saving by way of income tax over the two years would be more than eaten up and would be very much exceeded by his payments to the Plan. So the net result of the operation will be less income in the pocket of the ordinary person for consumption purposes than was the case before.
I think this state of affairs is a thoroughly traditionally-minded approach on the part of this Government, which is trying to justify a tax reduction of $600 for those with incomes of $30,000 while conferring on those of small or modest means minute benefits. In fact, some receive no benefits at all. This does not correspond, as I understand it, with the advice of the Economic Council, which urged the necessity for maintaining purchasing power as an anti-deflationary method of maintaining a high level of demand and employment. The Minister of Finance must be quite satisfied, from the form of his Budget, that no sort of expansion was necessary. He took comfort, as we all do, from the fact that there is a reduced rate of unemployment, the figure now being 3.9 per cent or nearly 4 per cent of the working force. But that is not a satisfactory level of employment, and it seems to me that we should continue to buttress demand by giving tax reductions to the people who need them the most and who would spend the money the quickest.
The most retrogressive step in the Budget is one which no doubt will be hailed with the greatest enthusiasm by supporters of the Government. This is the proposal to create a Canada Development Corporation. We in this party have believed in the necessity for a Canada Development Corporation. We believe we can provide for and expand economic growth by a publicly owned, publicly directed marshalling of investment funds and their integration into an over-all plan for the growth and expansion of the Canadian economy.
What the Minister of Finance has proposed, as I understand it, is a very different thing. A Corporation will be set up by a contribution of $100 million from public funds; the borrowing of another $100 million, perhaps

from public funds; the transfer of the highly successful, publicly owned Polymer Corporation to the new corporation; and the raising of the balance by various means, including insurance companies, trust companies, state trusts, individuals, and I think provincial governments were mentioned. As I understand it a limit is to be imposed on contributions by any one individual or body. The limitation is to be 3 per cent of the total capital involved, which is to be $1 billion, or a limitation of $30 million.
I am sure not too many Canadians or companies other than large corporations will have $30 million to invest. This corporation is not to be publicly owned or publicly directed. Its policies will not be integrated in an over-all economic plan controlled by the Government, but in a short time I suggest it will be controlled by the larger shareholders. Anyone who is aware of the economic facts of life knows that you do not need a majority of shares to control a corporation. If the various insurance companies and other financial institutions each subscribing 3 per cent get together in some sort of mutual trust or arrangement there is not the slightest doubt that they will be able to control the people who will be the majority directors.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
The Minister of Finance thinks there is something magic about having a minority of directors on some boards, and that was evidenced in the legislation he produced previously; but a minority holding is not a great deal of help if the investments of these people are controlled by financial organizations.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is typical of this present Liberal administration. It starts out with an announcement about Liberal and Progressive policies, most of which it has borrowed from the Party of which I am a member. We have talked about Canada Development Corporation for years. The Minister has borrowed the name, but the actuality is something different. I know he will feel that he is being attacked from both sides, because I notice the financial press is beginning to criticize him on the ground that this is a socialistic experiment. It is nothing of the sort.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Would the hon. Member permit a question, Mr. Speaker?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Certainly.
April 30, 1905


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I wonder whether he has been communing with Mr. Donald Fleming in respect of this particular matter, because he seems to be taking the same line.


Francis Andrew Brewin: That gentleman is both a personal and professional friend of mine, but when I want to ascertain things about financial policies I do not consult Mr. Donald Fleming. I entirely and totally disagree with Mr. Fleming. I assure the Minister that I would be very happy to protect him from the accusation of Mr. Fleming that he is bringing in some sort of socialistic institution. It is far from that. He is bringing in an institution which will help to bolster a private investment fund for financial institutions which are now doing very well. I realize that Mr. Fleming is a director of a number of organizations which perhaps feel their interests are affected by this proposal, but I do not find his contribution at all helpful.
I suggest to the Minister that if we are going to have a Canadian Development Corporation it should be in such a form that the public will have control, so the policies of this Corporation can be part of an economic plan for the benefit and expansion of Canada as a whole, consistent with the advice that should be given to the Government by the Economic Council and other instruments of economic planning and advice. If we do not do that we will get something which in name is a Canada Development Corporation but in fact is another superfluous institution.
I indicated that I intended to deal with the automobile agreement made between Canada and the United States which was announced on January 10 by the Minister of Industry. We in this Party, and I believe a great many people outside as well, believe this agreement is generally sound. It does hold out the hope that eventually there will be an expansion of Canadian markets. It does provide for the integration of this industry, and we hope and believe that in this movement toward more free trade we will be putting the Canadian industry on a sounder basis. However, we know this is only an experiment and that other action along this line may be expected in respect of other matters.
There are a number of matters connected with this automobile agreement which are of tremendous importance because, as I say, this is a change in the whole trade pattern of Canada. We are, however, disquieted by a number of things. This action was taken by Order in Council, I presume under the auspices of the Tariff Act rather than
The Budget-Mr. Brewin by legislation, so we have not had an opportunity in this House of discussing the details of this plan or of having them explained to us.
There are two specific features of this agreement which we find extremely disquieting. One is the fact that we are told that eventually, after a long term, the Canadian consumer may receive the benefit of reduced prices for automobiles. At the present moment the effect of the plan will be to give a bonus of roughly $50 million in reduced duties to the three main Canadian automobile corporations which, as everyone knows, are subsidiaries of United States companies. This reduction is not being passed on, and the Government in making this agreement with the automobile manufacturers does not seem to have sought to exact any term which would require the passing on of this $50 million in reduced prices to the Canadian consumer. Prices have remained exactly the same. The expectation of reduced prices has not been realized and may not be realized for many years.
I understand that the spokesmen for these automobile companies have claimed that they need the $50 million for internal expansion. These companies do not make public their profit figures, I understand, but I have every reason to believe that their profits are considerable and that these are large and well to do corporations, perfectly able to finance their expansions without, as it were, a bonus of $50 million.
I suggest that when future plans of this sort are evolved part of the structure must be in the form of an undertaking by the manufacturers who are to benefit to pass on that benefit in reduced prices to the consumers. It has been suggested that increased competition may bring this about, but who seriously believes there is effective competition in respect of the prices of automobiles among the very few companies which are in this field? We know these companies live in a regime of managed prices. I suggest that when the Government of this country enters into agreements of this sort with other countries for the benefit of manufacturers in this country-and it is merely incidental that they are subsidiaries of United States companies-it should exact as part of the agreements undertakings that the benefits will be passed on to Canadian consumers.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
792	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Brevoin AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with the disquieting factors arising out of the United States-Canada automobile agreement and I had dealt with one, namely the failure to pass on the benefits of reduced costs to the consumer. I now want to pass on to the second disquieting factor, the failure of the Government to make clearcut, adequate and timely provision for the individuals dislocated or affected by the adjustments to be made as the result of the agreement. It would, I suggest, be most unfair and it would be an effective deterrent to the working out of more agreements of this sort in the future if the burden of the adjustment were to fall on individual employees and their families.
I have already pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that it is estimated that some $50 million will be saved by the three major companies involved by way of reduction in the duties that they are required to pay. Canadian consumers can also hope to benefit in the future. But it would be totally wrong if the benefits that are going to the companies now and the benefits that we hope will be passed on to the consumers later were to be achieved at the expense of serious economic loss and the loss of jobs by those in the industry. I suggest, therefore, that the Government has a duty to ensure that individuals in the Canadian automobile industry directly affected should not suffer economic loss as a result of the agreement.
I want to make a contrast, which does no credit to the Government I think, between the situation in the United States, the other partner to the agreement, and the situation in Canada. Under the American legislation, which is being discussed at the present moment in Congress, there is detailed provision for the protection of those who are affected.
I urge that Canadian workers are entitled to protection at least as definite and at least as generous as that being accorded to American workers in the same position. I have here the American legislation, which I do not have time to go into in detail. The Bill is H.R. 6960 and Title 3 deals in detail with what is called adjustment assistance. I might summarize some of the effects of this adjustment assistance. It supplements the benefits payable under the United States Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and proposes liberal guidelines for the granting of adjustment assistance benefits over and above those provided for in the 
DEBATES	April 30, 1965
Trade Expansion Act. Adjustment assistance benefits will be the equivalent of 65 per cent of the individual worker's average weekly wage or 65 per cent of the national manufacturing average weekly wage, whichever is less. Excluded from these benefits, which is a very important point in working them out, are the supplementary insurance benefits payable under the collective agreements within the industry itself.
The .Canadian situation has been very different. The United Automobile Workers have been seeking for months to find out from the Government just what action was proposed. The prospective lay-offs have been anticipated for a matter of months but it has not been possible to find any equivalent action. I presume one of the reasons for this is that action in Canada has been taken by Order in Council and not by legislation. I suggest that we need legislation spelling out the assistance to which dislocated workers are entitled which is just as clearcut as the American legislation.
I know that even yesterday a deputation from the United Automobile Workers' Union called upon Members of the Government and spoke to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-Eachen), the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury), I believe, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), who naturally has a special interest in this matter. But it is just not good enough to have the sort of vague announcement that the Minister of Industry gave us today in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis). All he said was that the Department of Labour is going to mobilize its efforts, and we are told that some formula is going to be worked out. My suggestion is that we need action on this matter at once. The industry needs it, the people of Canada need it and so does Parliament because this is a very important problem. If the program of developing trade on a continent-wide basis is to be expanded, we must be sure that the result of this first experiment is not dissatisfaction, dislocation and hardship to individual workers.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
We know already, and we were told today, that the first big lay-off at the Ford Motor Company of Canada has been reduced, perhaps as a result of discussions, to some 49. However, in the course of this year this one plant will probably lay off 1,500 people. They may be able to obtain other employment, and I hope they will. The Minister was optimistic about this. I suggest we need something to
April 30, 1965

guarantee to the people concerned that they will be retrained, and their expenses of relocation will be paid if they have to go to other areas.


Maurice John Moreau: Will the hon. Member permit a question?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have very little time, but I suppose so.


Maurice John Moreau: Is the hon. Member not aware that these lay-offs at the Ford plant are of a temporary nature while renovations to the plant are being made?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Of course they are of a temporary nature. I suggest to the hon. Member who asked the question that to be laid off temporarily for six months and have a substantial reduction in income is not a light thing to be disregarded. What is required is some form of income maintenance during the period of retraining or relocation, so that it is not a burden on the individuals or their families.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this matter has come to the attention of the Congress of the United States in terms that I do not believe are too flattering to this Government or this country. The United Automobile Workers, through their Vice President Mr. Woodcock, are making representations to the Committee of the House of Representatives, which is sitting at this moment, to look into the United States treaty and the statute which is giving effect to it. The automobile workers are in favour of the general principle of this particular agreement. However, the Vice President of this very large organization had this to say, according to a report:
He also decried the failure of the Canadian Government thus far to provide protection for Canadian workers and their families similar to that proposed in the United States and he scored auto manufacturers for failing to pass on to consumers in Canada the $50 million a year savings they are realizing as a result of the removal of the Canadian tariff.
Woodcock told the committee the UAW was able to support the bill because of the machinery it sets up to provide adjustment assistance for American workers who may be injured through loss of employment as a consequence of the act.
"In the absence of such provisions," he said, "we would have no alternative but to oppose it."
The agreement has been entered into because our Government believed it would bring benefits to our country and to the people of our country, but, in achieving those benefits for the people as a whole, adjustments will undoubtedly have to be made within the auto industry.
Jobs will be lost, new jobs will have to be found and other adjustments will have to be made by
The Budget-Mr. Brewin
auto workers in this country as side effects of an action taken by our Government for the benefit of the country as a whole.
Farther along, this report reads:
Commenting on the failure of the Canadian Government to provide protection for Canadian workers displaced by reason of the new agreement, Woodcock called on the Johnson administration to make known to the Canadian Government the concern of the United States that adequate safeguards be provided for the Canadian workers affected by the agreement.
Do we have to be told by the President of another country that we should look after our own workers? I think this is a most unhappy and unsatisfactory situation. I continue to quote:
Refusal of the Canadian Government to act will certainly jeopardize the fulfilment of hopes that the principle of the automotive products agreement will be extended to other industries, Woodcock said.
For, if the Canadian Government refuses to step up its responsibilities toward those adversely affected by the agreement, he warned, Canadian workers can be expected to oppose vigorously the negotiation of other similar agreements.
Then, he went on to deal with the laying off of some 1,500 or 1,600 from the Ford Motor Company of Canada, and he said this, which I feel is very sound:
The industry is morally obligated to pass those cost savings and production. Lower prices would mean increased employment-
This does not read too clearly.
Lower prices would mean increased employment in both countries for auto workers as well as workers in other industries which supply materials, parts and components used in auto factories...
Finally, he urged that the Johnson administration make representations to the Canadian Government, pointing out that maintenance of artificially high prices serves only to enrich a handful of U.S. corporations at the expense of Canadian consumers and Canadian ar.d U.S. workers.
The words used by Mr. Woodcock before the committee of the House of Representatives of the United States are words which it should not have been possible to put forward in another country. This Government has known, as I say, for months that this difficulty was going to come up. All we have had during this time have been vague and general references. If we have not the legislation in Parliament-these Orders in Council are passed I presume under the Customs Tariff-we should spell out as they have done in the United States precisely what is the machinery required to bring about this adjustment.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. Member allow a question?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Yes.
April 30, 1965

The Budget-Mr. Brewin


John George Diefenbaker: Can he tell the House what are the specifics of the United States plan regarding those men who are displaced, either permanently or temporarily.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I assume the right hon. gentleman was not in the House when I spoke a little earlier. I did try to spell out part of the program.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman has done that, I will withdraw the question.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have done that in part, and since I do not have too much time I do not want to do it again. I think the hon. gentleman can either find it in Hansard or I will make it available to him.


John George Diefenbaker: I will read what the hon. gentleman said.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I want to call attention to the adjustments that have been requested of the gentlemen in the auto industry itself, and I want to ask some Member of the Government to tell this House specifically during this debate what the Government proposes to do about them. These are the requests:
1.	Preferential hiring of displaced workers to insure that those who have lost their jobs as a result of the program will be given every possible assistance to remain in the industry and not lose seniority, pension, vacation and other credits, as well as the level of wages they had achieved in the industry,
2.	An earning-related adjustment benefit payable during the period of transfer from one job to another or during the period of retraining;
3.	Transfer allowances covering the cost of transportation of the displaced worker and his family as well as his furnishings to a new location after he is re-employed or to a training centre away from home:
4.	Federal Government action to end age discrimination in hiring practices in the industry so that older workers who may be displaced will not be refused employment with auto producers whose work force is expanding as a result of the program:
5.	Federal Government initiative to obtain management co-operation in having advance notice of major changes in the levels of employment in the auto and auto parts industry, in order to minimize the effects of dislocation:
6.	Supplementary pension benefits payable to older displaced workers who wish to retire early at their own option rather than remain-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. Member because his time has expired, unless he has the consent of the House to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I thank the House very much. I shall not abuse the generosity by continuing for more than one or two extra minutes.

I am just reading the specific things the workers in this industry asked some months ago should be incorporated. I think I had come to the supplementary pension benefits. Last, but by no means least, the workers in this industry have said that, in order that they may know what has happened, in order that Government, management and the union -it is a strong union with adequate research resources-in order that all of us may be able to plan together to make the adjustments with the least possible dislocation, we ask for the creation of a tripartite council consisting of one part Government, one part management and one part union, so that the workers in this particular industry will not have to read press releases to learn what is happening. They will be able, through this means, periodically to consult as to the required adjustments.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I ask the Government to tell the House some time why this proposal has not been carried out. Is it because industry is unwilling or that management are unwilling to carry it out? If it is so, I suggest, whatever be done in this case, that in all future cases where we have a similar program of this sort which requires adjustments and which involves agreements with the companies, the manufacturers who are going to benefit from this sort of agreement should be regulated by having included in the plans and agreements the setting up of adequate tripartite councils to see that the adjustments are made as efficiently and as harmoniously as possible with the individuals concerned.
I thank the House for giving me a little extra extension of time. I do hope that during the course of the debate the House may be made aware, not in vague generalities but in specific statements, of what legislative or administrative procedures are going to be undertaken to make sure that this new experiment in this new form of treaty is carried out in a way that will encourage the Canadian people to try it again. If this is not done we will continue to have rigidity. It will continue to be impossible to make treaties of this sort and carry them through because of the ill. effects of the adjustment on a few people. Beneficial trade changes will be difficult unless we can carry this through. I cannot see why the Government cannot introduce a trade expansion act, or trade adjustment act-I am not sure which it is-such as the United States has, and also introduce legislation dealing specifically with adjustments in this industry.
April 30, 1965


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I begin these remarks by extending my congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) for the budget message he delivered to us the other day, a message he delivered with such grace and eloquence, and I congratulate him most of all because of the demonstration that he gave us on that occasion of his qualifications for the post that he occupies and of his successful stewardship over our national finances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I say these things because I recall only too vividly the abuse that was showered on my hon. colleague some two years ago in the House. On that occasion I had the privilege of helping to defend him against the very unfair attacks made upon him. I believed then, as I believe now, that Canada has never had a more dedicated or a more competent Minister of Finance.
When the Minister of Finance took over the management of our finances they were in a state of disorder and confusion. There had not been an adequate accounting for a couple of years, as is better known to those who were Members of the House at that time than it was to me; but I heard something about it from the outside, and I remember only too well, since I was engaged in an election campaign against a former minister of finance, how much the disorder and confusion of those days told against the government then in office.
Not only were the finances of our country in a state of confusion when this Government and my colleague took over, but there was even greater confusion and uncertainty throughout the country, as I can testify since I was one of those who, at that particular time, did not have the privilege of sitting in this House and had to judge events from the outside. The greatest tribute that I can pay to my colleague this afternoon is to say that our finances are in order and confidence has been restored.
Perhaps the best evidence that I can present on this subject was produced for me yesterday by the hon. Member for Qu'Ap-pelle (Mr. Hamilton) who gave a most extraordinary speech in the House in which, in effect, he said that his Government did not have control over policies in the financial field. He admitted this. One has only to read the speech to recognize the fact that he knew, even though he seemed to have been
The Budget-Mr. Sharp unable to persuade his colleagues, that the monetary policy of the country was out of the control of the Government.
The hon. Member for Qu'Appelle in the course of his speech yesterday also spoke about how the star of my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, was rising. I am sorry the hon. Member is not here today but I can only say to him and other hon. gentlemen that nothing delights me more. It may be that in making these remarks the hon. Member for Qu'Appelle was thinking about his own Party when trying to drive a wedge between the Minister of Finance and me, but I can assure you that we rejoice in one another's successes and we share in one another's misfortunes. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, when the star of the Minister of Finance is in the ascendancy the Government is in the ascendancy, and we all know this.
Just about a year ago during the budget debate, the hon. Member for Digby-Anna-polis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), as reported in Hansard for March 16, 1964, at page 996, said in reference to the claims of the Minister of Finance that he was working toward a balanced budget at a high level of employment:
If that, Mr. Speaker, is a step toward a balanced budget, then it is going to be a long, long time before we attain that end.
It did not take a long, long time. It took exactly one fiscal year to reduce the deficit in our national finances to about $80 million which, when we are raising and spending such large sums of money, is the same thing as saying that our accounts were in balance. And when I think back to the years before we had the privilege of the stewardship of the present Minister to the deficits of over $700 million, then I am thankful, and I say it once again with the greatest confidence, that we have the present Minister in his present job.
But, Mr. Speaker, a balanced budget is not the only purpose or even the main purpose of Government financial policy, and in this respect I agree with the remarks made yesterday by the hon. Member for Nanaimo-Cow-ichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron), and so, I know, does the Minister of Finance. The aim of this Government is and has been to balance the budget at a high level of economic activity, and we have succeeded. Not only do we have these purposes and these policies, we achieve them.



April 30, 1965
The Budget-Mr. Sharp
I admit, as the hon. Member has said, that a balanced budget is by no means the main purpose of Government financial policy; nor is a chronic deficit. I get the impression from listening to my hon. friend and some of his colleagues on that side that they look upon a chronic deficit as the supreme financial virtue. I have listened very carefully to their speeches because the New Democratic Party always gives me the impression of being the party with a halo around its head, as having invented all the good things, and being the only Party in the House that is opposed to sin.
I am never very much persuaded by what I hear, but one thing does impress me; that is,
I do not think they realize that it is important for the attainment of high employment, that it is important for the elimination of unemployment, that the people of this country and of the world as a whole have confidence in the financial integrity and stability of Canada.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
One of the reasons my hon. friends do not make the impact upon the country that they would like to make is that the public believes they do not understand that. Now, Mr. Speaker, when one looks at the economy of the country as distinct from its national finances, the contrast with conditions two years ago is even more striking. We are undoubtedly experiencing one of the great periods of expansion and certainly one of the most prolonged in the history of the country. I do not say by any means that this is due only or primarily to the policies .of the Government. What I do assert with confidence is that the policies followed by this Government have helped, and helped .substantially, to achieve the results that have been achieved. One of the best evidences of this is that although we are, of course, as we always are, influenced greatly by conditions abroad, and particularly in the United States, our economic record surpasses that of the United States.
I give some of the credit for this to the policies of my colleague the Minister of Finance and of the Government as a whole. When I say this, Mr. Speaker, I think about some of the complaints from the Opposition, that our policies were going to damage the economy; that they were going to bring the expansion to a halt. Indeed, on every occasion that I have heard any speaker from the other side speak in a budget debate, they have said, "The Government is not following the right policies. They are going to bring this expansion to a halt. They are very fortu-

nate; they have horseshoes around their necks; they have four-leaf clovers in their hands. It is not due to anything the Government is doing; it is just good fortune. The policies they are following are wrong. The country is prospering notwithstanding the stupidity of the Government". This is the kind of argument I have heard over these last two years.
I would like, by way of answer, to point to the record, and the best record I can point to in this respect is that of the investment intentions, plans and expenditures of Canadian businessmen. If in fact the policies of this Government had been of such a character as has been charged by the Members of the Opposition, that would have been reflected in the actions of Canadian businessmen. I remember in particular the moans from the other side of the House about the effect of our policies, particularly our taxation policies, upon business investment in new plant and equipment. It began two years ago; the complaint was made that businessmen were going to be discouraged. Were they discouraged?


Mr. Skoreyko:: Yes, they were.


Mitchell William Sharp: At the beginning of 1964, by way of answer to this charge-which is again being repeated-I tabled the first estimate of investment intentions for the year 1964. I tabled that report with some satisfaction because it showed an increase of approximately 8 per cent in investment intentions of Canadian business. In spite of what the Opposition characterized as the discouraging policies, or the detrimental policies, of this Government I was able to report to the House, at the middle of the year 1964, after we had made another survey of the intentions of Canadian businessmen and of their expenditures, that expenditures in 1964 were going to be, not 8 per cent better than 1963 but 16 per cent better. This is the kind of discouragement we were giving to Canadian business. I heard my hon. friends say at that time that this was only the effect of the sales tax, that the businessman was trying to get ahead of the increase in the sales tax. But when we did the survey again at the beginning of 1965, it showed that businessmen intended to invest another 14 per cent or 15 per cent over and above what they had invested in 1964. If this is discouragement, it is the kind of discouragement that I think we would all like to see. A 30 per cent increase in the level of business expenditures for new plant and equipment, in two years-that is the result of the policies being followed by this Government.
April 30, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	797
The Budget-Mr. Sharp


William Skoreyko: What kind of average has dian dollar, which was urged upon the Gov-been maintained since the last war. What are ernment for a long time before it was put you talking about.	into effect.


Mitchell William Sharp: There has never been, in any single year or in any two-year period, such a large percentage increase-


William Skoreyko: Nonsense.


Mitchell William Sharp: -in the volume of business investment. I can recall only one previous comparable increase and that was not under the previous administration but under a man who has been vilified in this House, Hon. C. D. Howe. This increased investment means additional jobs now in the equipping of these new factories, and it means additional competitive power in future years. When businessmen act as they are now acting, they are expressing their confidence in the future of Canada. While I know that all businessmen would like to have taxes reduced, and I know that they particularly dislike the sales tax on new machinery and equipment, it is evident that they do not regard the policies of this Government as discouraging to enterprise.
It may be-and it has been argued in this House-that the Minister of Finance should have made a more thoroughgoing review and revamping of our taxation structure; but I would point out to my hon. friends opposite that it was the Government which they supported and which was in office up until 1963 that appointed a Royal Commission to look into the structure of Canadian taxation, and I find myself in agreement with the Minister of Finance that we should wait for the report of this Commission before undertaking any thoroughgoing revamping of our taxation structure.
Mr. Speaker, may I go on to say a word about our export business and particularly about our exports of manufactured goods. The hon. Member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) when speaking yesterday said that this Government had not been giving sufficient encouragement to exports. I would challenge him or any Member of this House to find a year in our history with a record comparable to 1964, when there was a 19 per cent increase in the value of Canadian exports.


William Skoreyko: 
Mitchell William Sharp: It may be, as has now been interjected and as other people have said, that there are many factors involved in this, and I quite admit that one of the most encouraging factors has been the devaluation of the Cana-22620-51


John George Diefenbaker: And opposed by the hon. gentleman and every last one of them over there.


Mitchell William Sharp: Not by the-


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman
opposed it himself.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I would remind my right hon. friend that I recommended that course of action in February, 1960.


John George Diefenbaker: Do you have no influence over your colleagues?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I was not in politics then.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How was it the Prime Minister went across this country talking the way he did?
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: I think the only objection which anybody on this side took to the devaluation of the Canadian dollar was the unnecessary exchange crisis which was produced at the time. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) is not here because I do not think that anybody in Canada did more to contribute to that unnecessary exchange crisis than he.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the Minister answer a question. Is it not a fact today that our imbalance of payments with the United States is about as great as it has ever been at any time in the economic history of this country?


Mitchell William Sharp: If the hon. Member wants me to extend my remarks to go into the great improvement in the balance of payments position with the United States I would be happy to do so. The balance of payments deficit in 1959, when hon. Members opposite were in charge with an enormous majority, was $1,500 million; last year it was less than $500 million.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the Minister deny that the imbalance for the last fiscal year was $1,379 million, which is the figure put upon it by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I quite admit that our bilateral balance with the United States is much too large; that is one of the reasons I hope my hon. friends opposite will support a little more fervently than they have the agremeent with the United States on automobiles, because this is directed at the
7S8

April 30, 1965
The Budget-Mr. Sharp root of the problem. When I hear their captious criticisms I wonder whether hon. Members opposite are really interested in the fundamental problems affecting prosperity, and continuing prosperity, in this country.
May I say a word more about exports.
I have talked about the 19 per cent increase, and as Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board I quite freely acknowledge that a very large part of the increase in exports last year was due to wheat sales. I know that my hon. frends opposite who represent the prairie provinces are happy that that was so, but even if we eliminate wheat the increase in the export of other goods was 17 per cent, which was the largest year to year increase in exports in our history.
While speaking of wheat may I say this. Although in the present crop year we are not going to attain the very remarkable alltime record of last year, this will probably be the second largest crop year for exports of wheat and flour in our history. Moreover, I have fixed a target and announced it, so that everyone can look at it. Our objective for this crop year and the two following years is 1,200 million bushels of wheat and flour, which is more than has ever been exported in any three-year period. When I hear hon. Members opposite say that we do not have objectives for the expansion of Canadian trade, I can put forward that figure as a prime example of our courage and enterprise.
The most important aspect of the increase in exports last year was the continuing increase in the export of manufactured goods. I say this because it has been alleged that the policies we have been following have not been sufficiently expansive in this direction. I have acknowledged, and I acknowledge again, the initiative taken by the previous Government. They took some very useful initiatives in expanding trade. I have always considered, and I do now, that this is an area in which there is precious little room for partisanship. It is an enterprise in which we all have such great stakes and we should join in the efforts that are being made. However, I do want to point out that the increase in exports of manufacturing goods has been nearly 100 per cent in the last three years. That is, the increase in the export of end products, all types of machinery, equipment, finished consumer goods, which rose by one third last year, has increased by nearly 100 per cent over the last three years. That is the measure of the continuing

emphasis which this Government is giving to the export of manufactured goods.
May I also add a word about our trade with Britain which, for some reason I find difficult to understand, has not been commented upon by any of the speakers who have participated in this debate. When this Government took office in April 1963 we found the British people and the British government extremely disheartened about their trade with Canada. I took advantage at the earliest opportunity of going to London to discover the reasons and to try and remove the psychological block that seemed to exist in relations between Britain and Canada with respect to trade. My colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) made a trip as well for the same purpose, and we found out the reasons the British were so disheartened. May I recall what they were.
First of all, they were very disheartened by the memories of the attitude of the previous government to Britain's application to join the European Common Market. This seems to have had a peculiar effect upon the British, who felt that somehow Canada was no longer interested in the welfare of the British people and would be willing to stand in the way of what they considered a constructive move.
Then their exports to Canada had been hurt by the devaluation of the dollar: One of the unavoidable effects of that step. But more important, their exports had been very badly damaged by the surcharges which had been imposed, as I said before, to meet the most unnecessary exchange crisis which this country has ever had to suffer.


John George Diefenbaker: What about 1948? That was more serious.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I say to my right hon. friend that that exchange crisis arose out of the generosity of the Canadian people in helping in the post-war reconstruction of Europe.


John George Diefenbaker: Let's be reasonable.


Mitchell William Sharp: The exchange crisis we had in 1962 was an exchange crisis that arose out of the folly of the Government.


John George Diefenbaker: Just nonsense.


Mitchell William Sharp: at 90, so they split the difference and fixed it at 92J. I remember the effect of this on the financial community of the world and of Canada. They were a little worried lest the then Minister of Agriculture's counsel would prevail and we would be in for another exchange crisis similar to the one we were then going through. The surcharges caused very great damage to trade between Britain and Canada. The British also felt that they had been unfairly discriminated against by changes made by the previous administration in the method of valuing goods from overseas for dumping duty. Finally they had been profoundly disturbed by the high unemployment and general lack of confidence in the ability of the then Canadian Government to handle the affairs of this country.
Many of these causes of discouragement, Mr. Speaker, have been removed. There is now renewed confidence in the future of Canada. The British people know that this Government, like previous Liberal administrations, is sympathetic to the desire of the British people to improve their trade.


John George Diefenbaker: When did it become sympathetic?


Mitchell William Sharp: Since we took office.


Mr. McIntosh:: Have they heard of Rivard yet?


Mitchell William Sharp: The only one of these discouragements and causes of disheartenment which remained was the method of valuation, and for this reason I was very pleased as a Member of the Government to support my colleague the Minister of Finance in the announcement he made in the budget speech that he was going to bring forward for revision the Customs Act in an effort to remove what appeared to be inadvertent discrimination against overseas suppliers, including the British.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
It is my hope and expectation that this will finally remove the psychological block to British export efforts. I also hold hopes in respect of British investment in this country, but this is not within our control, the British Government at this time facing an exchange crisis of its own.
I have heard from representatives of the British Government that the latest announcement by the Minister of Finance has had a very good effect on British business. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce I wish them the greatest success in their efforts to
22620-51 j
The Budget-Mr. Sharp obtain a larger share of Canada's import market.
In conclusion, I submit that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) has presented a budget suitable to our times and to the needs of this country. If it turns out that this is the last budget before an election I will have no concern whatsoever, nor do I think anyone on this side of the House will be concerned. In any event I do not think it is possible as some individuals on the other side of this chamber would suggest-perhaps that is an indication of how they would behave if they were in office-to bribe the electors in the form of giving them something they do not deserve in order to win their votes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: I can only say to my friends opposite that I prefer the honest approach of the present Minister of Finance, who has put before this country an honest and straightforward accounting of the affairs of this country. I share his pride in the state of the economy today and in the state of our national finances.


William Skoreyko: Where does one find a Liberal with that kind of an approach?


Mitchell William Sharp: They vote for me, and I get a big vote.
This is, beyond question, the most favourable statement of accounts that has been presented by any Minister of Finance for a very long time. He has given us an accounting of the state of an economy which is more flourishing than any other at any time in living memory, and if that is not a good budget on which to go to the people, I do not know what a good budget is.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this budget is laying the foundation for further progress. One of the outstanding characteristics of this budget is that the Minister of Finance brought before us an accounting of last year in which he balanced expenditures and revenues and then moved forward from that position to make tax cuts in order to maintain the impetus of progress. However, I am inclined to disagree with my hon. colleague in one respect. I am not convinced that we are going to have a budgetary deficit of the size he has suggested.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order, please. I regret to inform the Minister that his time has expired. Does he have unanimous consent to continue?
800	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: I only need one or two more minutes to complete my remarks.


An hon. Member:: Will you answer questions?


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I hate to come to the Minister's rescue, but I think you will find that he has unlimited time.


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not intend to take advantage of any rule to speak for an unlimited period of time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order, please. The Minister does not have unlimited time at his disposal. He is allowed to speak for 30 minutes only, unless unanimous consent of the House is forthcoming. That unanimous consent has been given.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I believe I can complete my remarks in one or two minutes.
I was stating that when the Minister of Finance brought down his budget last year he had budgeted for a deficit because he thought that was proper action under the circumstances in order to stimulate national expansion. His approach in that regard was successful, with the result that he did not in fact have a deficit of the size he expected. Once again I think it is quite possible that as a result of his foresight and courage he may not end up with a deficit at all, that he may once again be able to balance the accounts. Certainly that is a desirable objective.
It is also my hope, on the basis of the kind of accounting that our Minister has given, and on the basis of his very courageous and forward looking policies that we will be able to proceed to the achievement of what I know is one of his objectives, and an objective of this Government, and that is a much more thorough review and restructuring of our tax system.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it will take me only a few moments to deal with the backscratching we have witnessed during the past 30 minutes. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) has been very complimentary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). I take it that he is now serving notice that he no longer intends to fight with the Minister of Finance at Cabinet meetings.
He has spoken of abuses of the Minister of Finance in the House of Commons, but over-
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif).]
DEBATES	April 30, 1965
looked mentioning what has taken place at Cabinet meetings. For his edification let me call to his attention a recent article written by Peter Newman in the-


An hon. Member:: Who is he?


Malcolm MacInnis: Did I understand someone on the Liberal side to ask who Pej;er Newman is? Whoever that was may regret that question.
Mr. Newman spoke of Cabinet battles being fought by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He also listed a number of victories the Minister of Trade and Commerce won over his colleague, and then stated:
At another level it was Sharp whose prairie-spawned free trade philosophy won out over Finance Minister Walter Gordon's protectionist tendencies, in what was undoubtedly the Pearson cabinet's most bitter ideological split to date: the controversy over its attitude toward the current Kennedy Round of tariff negotiations in Geneva-
The Minister of Trade and Commerce made reference to honest Liberal cabinet Ministers, and spoke in glowing terms of their financial position. All I can say in that regard is that it is no wonder the Liberal cabinet has been able to attain a good financial position, particularly when we keep in mind that a certain Minister has allegedly been involved in a $10,000 racetrack influence peddling scheme.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Is the hon. gentleman alleging that any Minister of this cabinet ever offered any bribe while he was a Minister?


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I used the word "allegedly". There is no doubt that at the time of the alleged influence peddling charges, in respect of which a charge was laid, there was a Minister in the Liberal cabinet by the name of Dupuis. I do not recall his constituency at this time, and I do not mind referring to him by name, because I no longer consider him to be a Member of this House. He has not been here for a considerable period of time, unlike the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Rouleau), who at least has been in attendance during the last two months on paydays. Where else but in the Liberal Cabinet could you find a Minister who operates on the pay-as-you-go-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order, please. I recognize the hon. Member for Dollard on a question of privilege.


Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, I have been away from the house because my
April 30, 1965	COMMONS
health was impaired by the insinuations and smears of the opposition.That is why I was away. I have now fully recovered and intend to fill the mandate given to me by my electors and to ask for another one.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I regret I was unable to catch what was said because I did not have my earpiece on. I made a remark about this particular Member's absence and I wonder why the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), with his honest Cabinet and honest Government, dismissed him from his position.
I would also call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Member's beautiful tan and ask hon. Members to look about them. Who else in the House has a similar tan, and where would the hon. Member get it around Ottawa?
Before the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) leaves I would also call his attention to those Liberal Cabinet Ministers who enjoy pay-when-they-like credit arrangements. There is no doubt that today the Minister served notice on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) of his intention not to fight any longer with him in the cabinet, as Mr. Newman indicated.


An hon. Member:: Very cheap.


An hon. Member:: Very true.


John (Jack) McIntosh: You get back to your seat.


Mr. Choqueiie:: You will be back home after the election.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the denial of privileges or the imposing of restrictions is something which each and every Member should protest when he has the opportunity to do so. I want to register the strongest possible protest against the unauthorized and dictatorial attitude of the Minister of Finance who on Monday last took it upon himself to push the public around by arranging to have 78 seats in the ladies gallery reserved for budget night. This, Mr. Speaker, is nothing short of arbitrary action on the part of the Minister of Finance, who took it upon himself to push around those Canadian people who saw fit to stand in line hopefully for a couple of hours, only to find that they were denied the seats to which they were entitled.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not intend to push anybody around. My hon. friend is suggesting, I think, that in some way I was
DEBATES	801
The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis trying to make sure that a few people would be present to hear my speech. That was not my intention. I think there has been fair interest in the budget so far, and I did not have to do that.


An hon. Member:: Why did you do it then?


Malcolm MacInnis: The Minister says he did not intend to do so. The fact remains that he did push the public around. People who showed enough interest to come to the House of Commons and stand in line for hours were denied the opportunity to sit in the ladies gallery. They were displaced, although they had waited for hours. I say that this was a dictatorial, arbitrary and unauthorized action on the part of the Minister of Finance.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I don't know what you are talking about.


Malcolm MacInnis: You don't know what I am talking about? Did you not reserve 78 seats in the ladies gallery for personal friends? Are you denying that?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If I may interject again, Mr. Speaker, all I am saying is that I did not know anything about it. If my hon. friend was so exercised last week, why did he not speak to me about the matter then? I do not know what he is talking about.


Maurice John Moreau: Will the hon. Member permit a question?


Malcolm MacInnis: This matter was raised on Monday evening with the Speaker of the House of Commons. What the Minister of Finance is doing is making liars out of those members of the protective staff who had to stand outside that gallery and turn the public away. If the Minister wishes to get further information he can check with the Speaker, with whom the complaints were registered on Monday night. Seventy-eight seats in the ladies gallery were denied to the public, although it was their privilege to have them.


Maurice John Moreau: Will the hon. Members permit a question? Did he see the press reports which indicated that the galleries were not completely full on budget night?


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister just said they were.


Malcolm MacInnis: It is quite possible the galleries were not full because people realized they were being discriminated against, and they turned around and went back home. The discrimination was very evident so possibly that is why the galleries were not filled.
April 30, 1965

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis
I should like to give my full support to the remarks of the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) who indicated his concern about the automobile agreement. I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to take the opportunity at some other time to tell the House how the Canadian Government can push this agreement on the basis that it is going to improve our imbalance of trade with the United States, while at the same time the American Government is telling its people that the agreement will in no way affect the favourable trade balance that country has with Canada. You cannot have it both ways. The American Government has taken the approach that the agreement is not going to affect in any way, shape or form that country's favourable trade balance with Canada while the Canadian Government is trying to push the agreement upon us by saying that it will improve our imbalance in trade with the United States.


Mitchell William Sharp: It will.


Malcolm MacInnis: You cannot have it both ways.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, you can.


Malcolm MacInnis: After the speech made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce I would refer to the Minister of Finance as the minister of contradictions. Before doing so I would point out that it is very interesting to note that following the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) at the Chateau Laurier Hotel on Wednesday last the Minister of Finance saw fit to get up and laughingly inform the House-why he was laughing I do not know-that the Minister of Agriculture had proved to the farmers' delegation that he knew something about agriculture. If the Minister is concerned about where I get this information he can look at page 689 of Hansard where he will find the statement he laughingly made that the Minister of Agriculture had proved that he knew something-and I emphasize "something"-about agriculture. It is also interesting to note that we have yet to hear a similar statement from the Minister of Agriculture about the Minister of Finance and his Department.
When I say that the Minister of Finance is the minister of contradictions I would recall what was said by both him and the Minister of Trade and Commerce a few moments ago. He claims he has always been a firm believer in the devaluation of the Canadian dollar. However, I would call his attention to this statement he once made:
[Mr. Maclnnis.)
I believe I was the first person to state publicly that devaluation caused a stagnation of the economy.
Again 1 say to the Minister that he cannot have it both ways.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting again-


John George Diefenbaker: You cannot interrupt.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I can, on a question of privilege-but I have said to this hon. Member before that I made no such statement and I expect him to accept that. Everybody knows it is not true.


John George Diefenbaker: Every last one of your colleagues said that.


Malcolm MacInnis: I agree that the Minister of Finance has said the same thing to me before, but I say to him now as I said on that occasion that he has no argument with me and I do not have any with him. If he wished to deny that statement he should have raised a question of privilege when it first appeared in the Peterborough Examiner on March 30, 1963, following a speech the Minister made at Cobourg on March 29, 1963. I quote it again:
I believe I was the first person to state publicly that devaluation caused a stagnation of the economy.
If he had any question of privilege I suggest he should have taken it up with the Peterborough Examiner some time ago when the matter was drawn to his attention; but that is a challenge he never accepted. I would also remind the Minister that one of his first answers to a question in the House was to the hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) who inquired about his intentions with regard to devaluing the dollar at that time. I will paraphrase and not quote the Minister's answer. It was to the effect that it would not do for any hon. Member of the House, especially the hon. Member who put the question, to cast reflections on the soundness of the Canadian dollar. A few weeks before when the Liberals were carrying on their election campaign with Diefenbucks throughout the country, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce supported the Minister of Finance in that stand, and they lent themselves to campaigning on that basis. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Digby-Annap-olis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), that what this country needs is a $3 bill with Walter Gordon's face prominently displayed on it, is exactly in line with the type of campaign
April 30. 1965	COMMONS
run by you, and you, and you, during the last two elections. How would you like to see a $3 bill with your picture on it?


Mr. Simpson:: Maybe it should have been a six buck bill.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Malcolm MacInnis: This budget has been referred to by some outstanding financial writers in the country as a political budget. It was certainly politically presented. Emphasis was placed on the two years the Government has been in office. One contradiction was pointed out by the hon. Member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) in the White Paper, in the very first paragraph, which says:
In terms of economic achievement, the year 1964 was a remarkable one. As we were often reminded, in 1964 Canada was in the fourth year of a cyclical upswing whose length in itself was unusual.
The mention of the four years in the White Paper is a denial of that statement that was made while the budget was being presented. There are other contradictions in this White Paper. There are further denials and further contradictions. It was contradicted in a recent speech in Hamilton, already referred to in this House. The budget was condemned by none other than Mr. Robert Winters.
A further contradiction, Mr. Speaker, was seen just ten days prior to the presentation of the Budget in the announcement that 58 men at the Fortress of Louisburg received notice that the Government had no money with which to continue the work. These 58 men were to be laid off because there was no money. They were the first prisoners of the war on poverty. When I mentioned this matter the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) undertook to appoint himself as the one to discharge the function of the Speaker and ruled the question out of order. The amazing thing about this is that he got away with it. On the thirteenth of this month I was denied the privilege of debating this question during the half hour reserved for that purpose. Later-13 days later-when I returned to the House the question was considered in order, no doubt after reflection. I have my own reasons for assuming why it was considered to be in order.
I cannot understand, however, the attitude of the Prime Minister or any other Government Member who would get up and rule on whether or not a question is in order.


Robert Simpson: They like to push people around.
DEBATES	803
The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis


Malcolm MacInnis: Yes, especially the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). This proposed layoff of 58 workers at Louisburg was later cancelled. They found the money. Probably they got some of it returned. The amazing thing is that this Government has a habit of trying to make heroes out of themselves in the oddest of ways. I think this tendency was summed up by the Cape Bretoner who said, "This Government will give you the sleeves out of their vests any day in the week". They announced the lay-off of 58 men at the Fortress of Louisburg, then when the pressure is applied these lay-offs are cancelled and they assume that they are heroes. The 58 men were thrown into the water by the Liberals, then they pulled them back out and want to pronounce themselves as heroes.
The same type of approach was evident not long ago when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) announced in answer to a planted question that it was not this Government's intention to remove the ice information office from the City of Sydney. The Government is hard put to give favourable answers, so they plant questions in order that they may give this type of answer. Why not; they planted the rumour that the office was going to be moved, and this gave the Minister of Transport an opportunity to give at least one favourable answer in the House of Commons.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think the budget is something like the answers to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), "This does not require too much of an answer". I concern myself with the average wage earner in my constituency. I need not say any more than that I criticize severely the approach of this Government and this Minister of Finance who would bring down a budget providing for a married couple with two children on an income of $3,000 a year the great saving of less than one cent a day. He provides a saving of less than a cent a day for a married couple with two children on an annual income of $3,000. The people who need the most get the least, in this particular case less than a cent a day. Apparently the Minister of Trade and Commerce believes this may be an election budget. There is a lot of house cleaning to do before you get around to that.
In so far as the 11 per cent sales tax is concerned, where the Minister of Finance could have effected some benefits to the Canadian people, he chose to stand pat. The II per cent sales tax is very detrimental to young people establishing homes, and very
April 30, 1965

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis detrimental to both young and old who are trying to build houses. Nevertheless, this tax remained, despite criticism offered by bodies right throughout this country.


Maurice John Moreau: Tell us about the tax cuts in 1958, 1959 and 1960.


Malcolm MacInnis: I should imagine the hon. Member for York-Scarborough would be interested in reviewing what has happened in the previous years. I would call to his attention the fact that taxes in 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961 were somewhat lower than they were last year under a Liberal administration.


An hon. Member:: That is because incomes were lower.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am not talking about incomes. Then, there is the war on poverty. Apparently the hon. Member for York-Scarborough is not aware of anything that has happened in the last couple of months. He has put four or five questions to me. Since I have my own work to do, my own responsibilities to look after, I suggest that he do his own research, rather than interject questions from his seat. Possibly he might find some of the answers over in Hull.
It is an amazing thing that this Government adopted for itself a United States slogan "The war on poverty". Again, I should like to refer to the touchy attitude of the Prime Minister. When I referred also to a United States phrase, "The battleground" in this war on poverty, it touched off the Prime Minister, and he successfully ruled a question out of order which 13 days later was considered legitimate. The background was referred to in the war on poverty in the United States. When I referred to it the Prime Minister, rather than permit a reference to what he considered to be beneficial legislation, got very touchy and said I was not supposed to ask questions about it. The United States designated the Appalachians as their first battleground when they started the war on poverty. I suggest to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and other Members of the Government that the Maritimes, Cape Breton, might possibly be a good first battleground.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I understand that over the week end the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) is going to tour Cape Breton in a helicopter. Perhaps this is a military observation exercise. Maybe from the helicopter he will see things that are going on in Cape Breton or, as I should rightfully say, things that are not going on in

Cape Breton, to which he could give his attention following his tour.
The Government has looked to the United States for something to hang its hat on, and I suggest it should closely examine the pitfalls that are attendant upon any war on poverty. At present it is freely stated in the United States that there is a bigger attack on their war on poverty than there is on poverty itself, with blue chip salaries being paid to build up administrative staffs, which seems to be the only accomplishment to date in the United States war on poverty.
I would like to know what the Government's approach will be in this matter. It has not indicated in any way, shape or form what the tactics of this war will be. Will it work in close conjunction with the Provinces and will the Provinces participate in the arrangements and decisions that are to be made? I suggest the Government take on as advisers those who know most about poverty, and I am sure that among the many unemployed in Cape Breton and the Maritimes they could find qualified advisers.
During his tour by helicopter the Minister will see there are many opportunities there where battles against poverty can be fought. I shall not go outside his own constituency when I refer to the program at Louisburg initiated by the previous Government under the leadership of Right Hon. J. G. Diefen-baker. The present Prime Minister should interest himself in that great development which is beginning to show the results of the initiative taken by the previous government.
In its war on poverty the Government would be well advised to spend as freely on Louisburg, Cape Breton and the Maritimes generally as it is spending on behalf of the C.B.C. in the Montreal area. I have no objection to Canada putting its best foot forward in a centennial project, but I do object to the Government's blank cheque approach in this matter.
There is another wonderful opportunity for the Government to get back on the rails by following the example of the previous Government and keeping the Point Edward Naval Base in operation. However, this does not seem to be any cause of worry to the Minister of Labour, who has not made what we from Cape Breton and Nova Scotia consider to be the proper representations on behalf of maintaining the base. The Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) says he has no responsibility for the men who were laid off during the term of office of the former
April 30. 1965

associate minister, who is now Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin). He tells us his only concern is with those now employed at the base and who will be laid off. He completely disregards the approximately 300 men who were laid off some time ago, the group for whom the former associate minister said they had achieved substantial success in placing through an alternative work program; but as yet we have not been informed how many of these men have been placed in other work.
The Government is lying back on its heels, trying to take responsibility for programs initiated by Industrial Estates of Nova Scotia, with the support of the Stanfield government. Though talking about a war on poverty, the Government is spending less today in Cape Breton than ever before. Four hundred men have been laid off, yet Government Ministers think themselves heroes because they are going to start a college at Point Edward Naval Base, a coastguard college that will not employ as many men as have already been laid off. For the benefit of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), I tell him this is something which was initiated at the time the Stanfield Government employed a co-ordinator, who put the matter before the Federal Government on behalf of the Nova Scotia Government. It is not something initiated by the Minister of Transport.
I compliment the Government for carrying on the credit arrangements which made possible steel contracts for the Sydney steel operation, credit arrangements due to the personal intervention of the former prime minister Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, who went to Mexico and made the various necessary arrangements there.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Tardif): Order. I regret to inform the hon. gentleman his time has expired.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I assumed on the basis of the generosity shown on this side to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), and the previous generosity shown to another hon. Member on this side and to the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), that I would be permitted to finish the few remarks I have remaining. I am not pushing this particular point but I would draw to your attention that during the time allotted to me I had several interruptions for which the Chair has not made any allowance.
The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would hope the House would agree to extend the time to the hon. Gentleman.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have no intention of
abusing this privilege, Mr. Speaker, and I am thankful to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) for allowing me to win at least one argument very easily.
With reference to the war on poverty a good initial action would be a decision by the Federal Government to provide a grant to the coal operations in Cape Breton. Dominion Coal is in dire need of assistance, and unless further assistance is forthcoming the company will be unable to meet the demand for projected markets in Nova Scotia, which will nullify some very good legislation introduced by the former administration, which provided for subsidies on coal transportation. Unless the Government provides assistance to Dominion Coal to enable it to open another colliery the effect of the previous legislation will be nullified. I would hope the Minister of Labour, who represents that area, will do his utmost in seeing such assistance is provided. There are also many opportunities at Sydney Harbour for projects in the war on poverty. Civic bodies interested in the possibility of a Sydney Harbour crossing have developed some very interesting thoughts that are worthy of consideration.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) to pass on to his colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), because it does involve the operations under his jurisdiction to a certain extent, the necessity for harbour improvements in Glace Bay. The money was voted for these improvements on two occasions by the former Government, but because of certain problems at the time in Glace Bay the project was not then undertaken. I think the Minister of Public Works and, I am quite sure, the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), have been made aware of the fact that this problem no longer exists, and since money was on two occasions voted for these improvements I suggest that this is possibly a good time to undertake this very necessary project, rather than perhaps saving it as election bait at a later date.
8C8

April 30, 1965
The Budget-Mr. Olson
I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Nicholson), the former postmaster general, would have been present in the House at this time because the approach of this Government to projects in the Maritimes is most unusual. Perhaps this is what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) had in mind when he spoke of honest approaches. I would ask him to consider this approach. The Federal Government were, through the Department of Public Works, going to build three post offices in the constituency of Cape Breton South. Some time later I was approached by the then Postmaster General who informed me that there was to be a cut-back in this particular program. Having announced through a defeated candidate, or through the Executive Assistant of the Minister of Labour that they were to build three post offices in the constituency of Cape Breton South, the Minister approached me, as I say, informed me that there was going to be a cut-back and only one post office was to be built. He asked me to pick out its location. I did not have the necessary information to do so at the time, and on consideration I decided that it was an opinion he would never get from me; because the honest approach of this Government at that time was to ask me, following their decision to build three post offices and their announcement that this was to be done, to take them off the hook and announce the cancellation of two.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: This is exactly what the Postmaster General asked me to do. I repeat this for the benefit of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the honest Government that he spoke about. Having announced the building of three, the Postmaster General asked me to pick out the location of the one they intend to build. This was tantamount to requesting me to announce the cancellation of two. Is that an honest approach? When I refused to announce the cancellation of the building of these post offices, as I told the then Postmaster General, lo and behold, this honest Government built all three.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of specific items in the Budget that I want to discuss this afternoon. Before I do so I think we should remind ourselves that the item before the
House for debate at this time is an amendment to the motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, constituting a want of confidence motion based on such things as the removal of the sales tax on building materials and so on. It is well to remind ourselves that these phony no confidence motions are simply no confidence motions, regardless of what may be the wording that follows; in other words, they are very simply an expression by this House, should they carry, of no confidence in the present administration, and all the reasons that may be spelled out in the wording of the motion have no effect whatever.
Mr. Speaker, you and all other hon. Members of this House know full well that if this motion is carried-in fact if it were carried unanimously- by the Members of this House, it would not have the effect of reducing the sales tax on building materials. The only effect that could come from supporting the motion now before the House would be the requirement that the Government resign, that this Parliament dissolve, and that we have an election. That is what we have to decide when we vote one way or the other on this motion.
The Canadian Press, who are usually very fair and objective in their reporting of the proceedings in this House, had this to say in an article datelined Ottawa which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of today, April 30:
Social Credit Leader Thompson and his three western followers voted against the increase in exemptions and the old age pension rates-
That is a complete and absolute misrepresentation of the facts, Mr. Speaker, and to prove that point-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I see there is some mumbling over here in the Tory Party. There were a number of times between 1958 and 1962 when ever;/ one of the 208 Members that were present-and most of the time they were not all here-voted against this kind of no confidence motion; against one that called for an increase in family allowances, for example. They voted repeatedly against this kind of motion that called for changes in the income tax structure.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals even voted for debt free money on one of these phony motions in 1962.


An hon. Member:: So debt free money is phony, is it?

April 30, 1965


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: All I am trying to do is establish the fact that these motions are ones to dissolve Parliament, and nothing else. When they are reported in the press and they single out certain Members as being against increases in the basic exemption for income tax and raises in the rates of old age security pensions, that is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I think we have long passed the date when we ought to have some changes in the rules of procedure in this House so that we do not need to perpetuate this kind of deception. There are a number of cases in the past, and every single Party-particularly the two Parties which have had the responsibility of administration-has been put in the position of apparently voting against something that is desirable. Those of us in this House and in the Press Gallery and other places should understand the effect of supporting this kind of motion, and should know exactly what they are for, and it is not what has been reported in the press during the last few hours.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I thought you were going to bolster up the Government when you started your speech.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) seems to be pretty handy with the heckling right at the moment. There are one or two things in the budget that I am going to discuss within a few minutes, and I think after I am through with them he will not be quite so willing to interject; because if he does, it will be in self-defence of a position that is indefensible in respect of some of the action he and his Government took in the past.


Mr. MacEwan:: Now why don't you say something?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the provisions of the budget in that important sector of our economy, namely agriculture. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), as reported at page 428 of Hansard, said in his speech on Monday night:
All areas of the country, almost all types of industry and agriculture, and most groups in the community are sharing in this advance.
Of course he is referring to the current situation, and the outlook, as far as the economy is concerned.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I have some reports before me published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. One of them was published in March 1965, and in the section dealing with the net income 22620-521
The Budget-Mr. Olson of farm operators from farming operations between the years 1962 to 1964 it indicates that the net income to farmers for all Canada in 1962 stood at $1,627 million. By 1963 this figure had gone up to $1,654 million; in other words, a slight increase of some $27 million in the net income of farmers in the country. During 1964, Mr. Speaker, it slipped to $1,432 million, or went down over $200 million.
If what the Minister of Finance has said in this budget speech is true, and if that is his opinion and he has facts and figures to back up his statement that agriculture has shared in the advances of the economy in 1964, then I would suggest to him that he tell the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to quit publishing false reports. Because if net farm income went down by $200 million between 1963 and 1964, surely those farmers have not participated in the expansion of the economy. It does not take a great economist to realize that it is the net income that matters.
Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made a comment on this question. The hon. Member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler), following on what the Minister of Finance had to say, asked, as reported at page 428 of Hansard:
Is that why the farmers are coming to Ottawa on Wednesday?
And the Prime Minister interjected:
To get even more.
To get even more decline in their net income; is that what the Prime Minister meant? Because the Dominion Bureau of Statistics indicates that that is what is happening. It also suggests that if there was not something very seriously wrong with the net income position of farmers in Canada today we would not have had the kind of demonstration which we did have on Parliament Hill last Wednesday. Farmers are generally not prone to making displays such as this, unless they are severely provoked into so doing. At the moment I prefer to accept the figures published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, which indicate there has been a substantial decline in the net income of farmers, rather than the opinion expressed by the Minister of Finance that agriculture too has shared in the growth of the economy.
Another publication was issued, Mr. Speaker, by the Department of Agriculture in August 1964 entitled "The Economic Annalist". On page 74 the following appears, and I will refer directly to it so there is no misinterpretation of what the index figures

April 30, 1965
The Budget-Mr. Olson stand for. According to this the prices of commodities and services used by farmers, the things required by farmers which go into their cost of operation, based on an index figure of 100 for the period 1935 to 1939, went up to an index point of 309.9 in April 1964. There are other figures to indicate what is the index figure for the commodities they sell, and at the same period they had reached a composite figure of 245.8. Therefore the difference between the cost of operation and the prices received by the primary producers of food and groceries, as the Minister of Agriculture prefers to call them, indicates a 65 point lag since 1939. I think it is highly unfair and unjust, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Finance to suggest that the agricultural sector of the Canadian economy has shared in the expansion of the whole of the Canadian economy.
In the budget papers attached as an appendix to Hansard on Monday last there appears at page 145 a table showing the total appropriation out of the federal treasury for the Department of Agriculture for the year ending March 31, 1961, namely the amount of $194.5 million. For the year ending March 1962 the figure had gone up to $218.7 million. In 1963 it had slipped back to $183.4 million; and for the year ending March 31, 1964 it had gone up again to $225.7 million. The estimated expenditure for this past year is down to $168 million. Many hon. Members have referred to this same matter in this budget debate. If the Dominion Bureau of Statistics is correct in suggesting that there has been a decline of $200 million in the net income of all farmers in Canada, it seems to me that it is the wrong time for the Minister of Agriculture and the Government of the day to be appropriating less money to this important, in fact basic, sector of our whole economy. It is rather disturbing, Mr. Speaker, to note that the $168 million appropriated is to cover all expenditures to support management, research and everything else for agriculture, and at the same time there is a requirement of well over $1 billion by way of interest on the national debt.
This net income problem for agriculture generally has reached a crisis. In Western Canada it has not been felt quite as severely lately because of a certain sell-off of inventory. There was an accumulation of large quantities of wheat during the 1950's and there was an enormous sell-off of this wheat in 1961, continuing into 1962, 1963 and 1964. I suggest that when this inventory has been sold and the farmers return to an income level based on current production the effects are going to be felt in Western Canada, even though the pain has not yet arrived. However, the crisis already exists in most parts of Eastern Canada.
While the Minister of Agriculture announced some change in dairy policy which may be beneficial, provided it is pursued vigorously and more effort and money is put into it, I suggest that this crisis has reached the position where we need some kind of immediate action to tide us over the intervening period. Following that we need to work out a whole new agricultural policy for Canada which will not only stop this decline in the net income but bring about an increase once more from year to year.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Not many days ago, Mr. Speaker, I said in this House that we will give the Conservatives full marks for all the policies they brought in which were beneficial and useful to farmers generally. We will give the Liberals full marks for all the policies they brought in, such as increasing the availability of farm credit through the farm improvement loans legislation, and so on. None of these policies has done anything to come to grips with the cost-price squeeze that has been taking place.
The cost of production has been accelerating, yet the prices the farmers receive for their produce have been, if only slightly, declining. This problem requires long-range programming. Surely the time has come when we should stop worrying about which Party receives the credit for accomplishing certain things. There are some men in all Parties of this House who I am sure could make valuable contributions to the development of policies and programs which would reverse this trend. I hope there will be a determined and concerted effort to work out policies of this kind in order to provide farmers with positive results, without too much concern about which Party should receive credit.
The Minister of Finance also mentioned in his budget speech, as well as in answer to a question today, that the cost of land clearing and draining would be allowable as a write-off from income in the current year, to the extent of 100 per cent. I have had a great deal of experience in this regard and I appreciate the Minister's statement to that effect. I should like to ask the Minister a specific question in relation to a related expense. Will the cost of land levelling in irrigation districts in Canada, such as Southern Alberta, be allowable as write-offs from expenses in

April 30. 1965



current years? The Minister will appreciate that the levelling of land is important to a successful irrigation project. In the past these expenses have not been allowed as write-offs in current years. There was some suggestion that these expenses should be added to the value of the land but, of course, land does not depreciate, so there is no capital cost allowance in this regard. I hope the Minister will take this into consideration and allow these costs to be deducted in the same way that the costs of draining and clearing land are to be allowed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Those are legitimate expenses for increased production.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is right. We are somewhat disturbed that there is no provision in the budget for the removal of the discriminatory corporation tax on private power companies. Mr. Smallwood said yesterday that the budget is neither the place nor the time to make this particular announcement. I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) today, because I know he is very close to the Premier of Newfoundland, whether there was some other place or time more appropriate for announcing that this corporation tax on private power companies is to be removed. He replied that this had nothing to do with his Department and that he did not see why he should be expected to answer the question. I thought, in view of the fact the Premier of Newfoundland had made that statement, that the Minister of Transport would know when and where it would be appropriate to make such an announcement. I can think of no more appropriate time for such an announced removal of corporation tax than during the Budget speech. I hope I am not being overly suspicious, but perhaps there is a more politically appropriate time to announce such a removal of tax. If that is what the Premier of Newfoundland had in mind, surely the Minister of Finance should indicate to this House, perhaps not today, when and where that announcement will be made.
Several years ago the Premier of British Columbia called a special session of the Legislature, after the former Government decided not to remove this tax, with a view to expropriating the power companies in that Province. It is my hope that this present Government is not attempting by its policy in this regard to force those Provinces which have not expropriated these private power companies to take over those companies.
It can be proved with solid, sound and almost indisputable fact that the private
The Budget-Mr. Olson power companies in the Province of Alberta, operating similar sized plants with the same kind of fuel as those operating in the Province of Saskatchewan, can produce power much more cheaply than can be produced in Saskatchewan.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why do you not tell Mr. Bennett that?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Why did you not tell Mr. Bennett and the Minister of Finance that you intended to remove this discriminatory tax during the time when you were in power, with 208 Members?
Federal Governments, both past and present, have stubbornly refused to treat these power companies in Alberta and in Newfoundland on the same basis as the power companies in the rest of Canada are treated. Publicly owned power corporations are not subject to this same tax. Calgary Power and several of the other private power companies in Alberta have given a firm undertaking to pass on any savings resulting from the removal of this tax, to which they are subjected, to the consumers through lower power rates. There is no provision for the removal of this tax in the Budget speech.
There are one or two other subjects which I should like to mention. There is no provision in the Budget speech for adjustments to the 11 per cent sales tax on materials in masonry walls. The brick tile and ceramic industry in Canada has been discriminated against very severely by reason of the fact that there is an exemption from sales tax on poured concrete in walls, except for the cement content, which is a very small part of the total cost. There is also an exemption from sales tax on concrete bricks used in the construction of walls. On the other hand, the full tax applies to bricks and other ceramic tiles, including raw materials, labour and transportation, used for the construction of walls. Surely this is an injustice. The method of calculating the tax on materials used for this type of construction should be the same, regardless of the materials used. I hope the Minister will give some consideration to this situation.
I should now like to refer to our national accounts. At page 428 of Hansard the Minister stated:
If the accounts are translated into a form more suitable for measuring their impact on the economy, that is, into terms of the national economic accounts, the change in two years is from a deficit of $399 million in 1962-63 to a surplus of $332 million in the last fiscal year-an improvement of over $700 million.

April 30, 1965
The Budget-Mr. Olson [DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
We need some explanation of what he is talking about when he speaks about national economic accounts. If you look at the papers that we filed you find that we have an $83 million deficit. In addition, we find on page 137 of the appendices that the increase in the net debt during the fiscal year was $479.4 million. Dirt farmers like the hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and myself, Mr. Speaker, do not understand how you can have a $399 million surplus and at the same time add $479 million to the national debt. Then we have another figure which shows an $83 million deficit.


Mr, Gordon:: I wonder whether my hon. friend would permit a question from another sometime dirt farmer. Have the explanations that were given in the Budget White Papers and in the Report of the Bank of Canada as to the difference in these accounting methods come to his attention?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have all the papers before me, Mr. Speaker, the Budget White Papers and the Report of the Bank of Canada for the year 1934. I want to say to the Minister that I have read all of them very carefully but I do not understand it all. That may be my problem, but I wonder whether the Minister and all the officials of his Department and the Bank of Canada agree on these figures and on the formula of arriving at these certain positions of surplus and deficit all over the place.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, they do.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wonder whether they do. We would like to have some understanding of these things. The Minister of Finance prefers to use the national economic accounts. Do they take into account total productivity? Are they something similar to the gross national product, with certain adjustments being made for intergovernment transfers and so on? Is this an adjustment that has been made in Canada's relationship with regard to other countries? It is all rather confusing, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to use different bases to calculate what the end result is going to be. As a dirt farmer I am interested in the results.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This is more complicated than dirt farming.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There is another point. There is an increase in the national debt of $479.4 million. I should like to ask the Minister this question. Is this figure before adding on the

$396 million transferred from what he called the actuarial deficit in the superannuation fund, or is it the case that during these past few weeks we have added $800 million rather than $400 million to the net national debt? There was an item in the supplementary estimates that provided for the transfer of this so-called actuarial deficit to the national debt of Canada and I want to know whether we are that much more in debt in addition to the $479 million.
There is another point on which I should like information. What about the interest that was paid? I hope I am getting these terms right, but was this actuarial deficit of $396 million with interest or without interest when this deficit was being carried in the superannuation account? If it was without interest, then the Canadian people have been paying something like $20 million a year in interest charges that have not been reported. I am not blaming the present Minister of Finance because I know that this practice has been going on for a long time and that the former government was covering up.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. Member as his time has expired. Has he unanimous consent to continue beyond his time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Thank you very much. I want to express my appreciation to the House for this consideration. To get back to the argument, I should like to know whether this $396 million was with or without interest. I should also like the Minister of Finance to answer this question. When the former Government was in office and this actuarial deficit was building up, was there not an obligation on the part of the Government of the day to make these transfers as required, and was the practice followed not simply a bookkeeping way of covering up an additional deficit that they should have shown? In other words, the large deficits that did occur every year while the former Government was in office were not being accurately reported through the estimates and through the Budget.
I am not going to abuse the privilege granted by the House of speaking beyond my time. I seriously question the wisdom of bringing in tax cuts and budgeting for a deficit at the same time. I say that because the interest charges on our national debt have now reached almost $1,100 million. If we relate this figure to other expenditures we
April 30, 1S6S

will find that the interest is now twice as much as all the family allowances paid for all of the children in Canada. It is about 50 per cent more than all the old age pensions paid to all of the senior citizens of Canada. When you think in those terms, Mr. Speaker, it is evident that it is a great deal of money.
This afternoon the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) brought up a very interesting point. He said that maybe the deficit of $300 million being budgeted for will not materialize. Have we not reached the point, Mr. Speaker, where we can have the expenditure and revenue estimates placed before the House, after being calculated as accurately as possible? Is the Minister of Finance attempting to budget for a deficit of $300 million when he really and honestly believes it will not be that high? As a matter of fact, the former minister of finance, the hon. Member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), suggested that the interest charges on the national debt shown in the blue book are deliberately changed. In other words, they are deliberately expressed in such a way that people are unable to anticipate what is in the Budget. I make a plea to the Minister of Finance that all the figures in the estimates and in the budget be calculated on the most accurate basis possible within the limits imposed by trying to estimate before they are brought before the House.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that while there are probably some beneficial provisions in the budget we think that the matter of the discriminatory tax on private power corporations, the collecting of taxes on masonry walls and other things that were not dealt with should also be taken into account by the Minister of Finance, and that he should at least try to do justice so that Government taxation does not upset the competitive balance between the various sectors of our economy.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Alexis Caron (Parliamentary Secretary to the Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, one can hardly imagine the difficulties I have encountered in order to deliver my speech. Yesterday, members spoke for an hour at least so as to prevent me from speaking and today, thanks to the generosity of the ministers and other members, those who had the floor before me spoke so long that there are barely 20 minutes left at my disposal. Nevertheless, I shall begin with the remarks 1 was to make at the end of my speech, for I will probably not have enough time for all
The Budget-Mr. Caron those things I wanted to say, since the discussion on the budget has to be called off at five o'clock, and I am sure the house and the government will not do me the favour of allowing me to continue beyond my time.
Mr. Speaker, for the last two years a special committee has been considering the possibility of shortening the sessions. During that time, many changes were brought about, particularly with respect to committees; for two years we have been sitting continuously and without holidays.
I wonder if that committee did not think for a moment about the possibility of changing human nature. Had it been able to change human nature, we could have avoided prolonged debates and saved time during the sessions. But everything is going on as before, in spite of changes, and I am even wondering if we will be able to enjoy holidays this year. It seems that we will witness long debates. The most academic debates, namely those on the speech from the throne and on the budget, do not fall under that category because they have a limited period; but when we discuss legislative measures, I am convinced that the opposition will bring forth many objections, and in view of this obstruction, I am wondering if we shall not be compelled to call a general election. In my opinion, at the present time, this would be the most practical and most logical step.
Mr. Speaker, changes must be made, and particularly basic changes.
For instance, we could do away with the non-confidence motions. I know that this scares some people who claim that we would thus be drifting away from England where a vote of non-confidence has always existed; however, we must admit that we have closer links with the Americans than with Great Britain, whether we like it or not. In fact, when Mr. Thatcher, the premier of Saskatchewan, was asked what he would do if the province of Quebec seceded from the rest of Canada, he replied: "We would become the 51st American state". This is proof that even the English Canadians feel they are closer to the United States than to England, and therefore I suggest that the non-confidence vote is outdated, as far as Canada is concerned.
That era is long past, and I suggest that we should do away with non-confidence motions. In so doing, we could have a general election at fixed dates, every four or five years, and we would not see these rows at every session, for an election would not

the Greber plan which provided for two stations, one in the north and the other in the south. And it is the southern station that they want to build two miles further away. The northern station would be built in Hull, about two miles from parliament. The management of the Canadian Pacific might have been asked at that time to run their express trains between Ottawa and Montreal from Hull; the service would have been faster because the distance on the north shore is 20 miles shorter.
Nothing of the sort has been granted. Things remained unchanged. They seem to have the impression that there is nothing important on the Hull side; that there is no need to attend to that. Well, I for one claim that the Hull side is important.
The city of Hull was enjoying a special treatment when it was represented by a minister in the cabinet. In fact, the Printing Bureau was built in our city when the hon. Mr. Fournier was minister of Public Works. True, with the assistance of the deputy minister of public works, the Conservatives set themselves to make believe that this building had been erected in a sort of slough, in an area where water was running all day long.
However, Mr. Speaker, I can say this: the finest land in either city had been chosen for the National Printing Bureau. It was a piece of land covered with gravel 17 feet deep and under the gravel the Department of Public Works found rock after boring further into the ground.
It was believed to be rock; huge boulders were struck and it was thought that solid rock had been reached. The layer was determined to be of a certain depth but when the excavating contract was awarded, the contractor found out that the rock consisted only of huge boulders and that further borings would have to be carried out. A contract for excavation to a further depth of 15 feet was awarded but when solid rock was reached, it was found that the foundations would be under the river level and that the water was seeping right through to the site. Consequently, the place was flooded. Means were found to evacuate the water through a city sewer and, today, another underground storey, 15 feet high, could be built if necessary. It would still be possible to evacuate the seeping water. Mr. Speaker, that goes to show that the minister who obtained that project was truly useful to the city.
I did not ask to be appointed to the cabinet. If it was thought that I lacked the required
The Budget-Mr. Caron qualifications, it would have been a simple matter to let me know. I could have resigned so someone could be found who had all the qualifications in the world and had graduated from Laval University or the University of Montreal as an economist. The people of Hull thought I could perform my duties. But if I had been told those things, I would have resigned and made way for somebody better qualified or apparently better qualified to take over the duties of a member of parliament. But enough of that.
I hope that during the year now beginning the department will look toward Hull, because we do not intend to be continually ignored. We plan to insist and insist most strongly, because we are not being refused a favour, but a right. That right we have earned. I am asking for it and will keep asking for it in another session.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is running short and that I will not have time to deal with all the questions I put down.
I find that all members of the opposition always seem to agree on one point, that is bilingualism. Hon. members opposite always agree on one thing, and it is to revolt when mention is made of bilingualism.
Bilingualism is a national reality that cannot be overlooked because it compels recognition in Canada, if confederation is to be maintained. Confederation will not be maintained if bilingualism is not recognized throughout the country.
I have heard members opposite, mostly new Canadians, criticize the action taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), when he proposed the adoption of a flag and when he established the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. They criticized him then but they forgot to say, for instance, that he was the first man in Canada, the first prime minister of Canada who had the courage to choose a new flag and to set up a commission on bilingualism whose members tour Canada to find out what we have the right to expect from Canada.
It must be remembered, Mr. Chairman, that if bilingualism is not recognized within a few years, confederation will be in danger.
The province of Quebec has lost her inferiority complex. The province of Quebec and the French Canadians are beginning to demand what they have a right to expect.
And when I hear criticism from some hon. members, I say to them: You do not know Canadian history, you did not study it properly. I admit that in Quebec and Ontario

April 30, 1965
The Budget-Mr. Caron some history books are not what they should be. But a certain commission is working today to set the record straight as far as Canadian history is concerned.
However, one thing cannot be denied: the Paris treaty of 1763 gives us some guarantees. Mr. Murray, governor in 1760 after the fall of Quebec, also gave the French Canadians what they had the right to have and since then tradition has always given the French Canadians what they had the right to ask for. But things deteriorated until the French Canadian insurrection of 1837. I admit that revolt was a tragedy, a mistake, but lacking arms and money we still showed that we did not intend to let anyone step on our toes.
Since then confederation took place and in 1867 when it became a reality, it was decided to give equal rights to the French Canadians in the spirit of confederation.
But since then, things went wrong in the provinces. It started in New Brunswick and later on the trouble spread to Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba; in short, things went wrong everywhere. Mr. Speaker, in view of those facts, I think that the time has come to give the matter a second thought. If there is no change within the next few years, I will endorse the statement made not too long ago by a Laval University professor who said: "I am no separatist, but if I were convinced that there is a danger of our being submerged and losing our identity in being a part of Canada, I would soon become one".
I therefore ask new Canadians and Canadians of every party in the house to forget the short-lived political gains they may get by fighting French Canadians. Let us unite to get what we are entitled to. I know that if French Canadians in other provinces were, as far as schools are concerned, treated on the same basis as English Canadians in Quebec, in short, if those people had the right to have their own school boards and establish their own curriculum, we would no longer advocate the separation of French and English Canadians, and the constitution would continue to function.
That is why I am asking my friends opposite to think well before making any decisions and to see to it that there is better understanding among the two races of Canada. We could then save confederation and go on for another 100 or 200 years constantly improving the situation, so that all Cana-

dians across Canada might be respected by the various races making up our population. [Text]


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



TRANSPORT


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-5, to amend the Transport Act and the Railway Act (B.C. water carriers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this represents the fourth occasion on which I have introduced a bill similar to the present Bill C-5 which is before the House for second reading. I introduced it when we had Mr. Chevrier, our present High Commissioner in London, as minister of transport; when we had Hon. George Marler as minister of transport and, if I remember correctly, on the last occasion on which I introduced it we had the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) as minister of transport.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I have to confess at once that on none of those occasions did the House see fit to accept the principle of the bill at second reading, even though each time I suggested I would be quite willing to see it referred, after second reading, to the appropriate Committee where it could be studied in detail. I must now pin some hope and reliance on the fact that the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has perhaps a more intimate and detailed acquaintance with some of the problems faced by people living in particularly smaller coastal communities, than did his predecessors that I have named. I am sure that since the day when he was introduced to the people of Bonavista-Twillingate, with what I have been told was a good deal of fanfare, by the Premier of Newfoundland, he has had occasion to learn something of the kind of problems that are faced by the people of Canada.
I have had a number of Members who represent inland constituencies ask me, "What is this Bill all about?" and I have explained to one or two of them that the principle of this Bill can be put very simply. I have suggested that if, for example, the railway companies of Canada were completely free, at their own will, to abandon
April 30, 19S5

all their branch lines across the Prairie Provinces, tear up the tracks and discontinue services, if they were free to double their freight rates overnight, that would be an exact parallel of the situation that is faced by the people involved in coastal shipping on the coast of British Columbia who are dependant upon this form of transport.
As I have mentioned on previous occasions when introducing this Bill, my concern in regard to this subject matter dates back over a period of a good many years. As I have previously mentioned, on the occasion when the original version of the present Transport Act was introduced into this House in 1938 by Right Hon. C. D. Howe, who was then Minister of Transport, the then Member for Comox-Alberni, the late Mr. A. W. Neill, sought by an amendment in Committee of the Whole to accomplish the precise purpose which I have in mind in introducing this Bill.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the obvious misunderstanding of the purposes and effect of my Bill, which was manifested by speeches made by certain spokesmen on the other side of the House when I introduced it last, on this particular occasion I would like to clarify the purpose of the Bill by making some very direct reference to the terms of the Transport Act itself. Thereby I hope to eliminate what were some very apparent misunderstandings of its effect at that time. The Transport Act is in five parts and is preceded, as far as Part 1 is concerned, by a rather extensive interpretation section which makes quite clear the terms used in the Act. Part I of the Act makes it quite clear that for purposes of transport under this Act, the Board of Transport Commissioners are to perform similar duties to those which they perform under the Railway Act. Section 3 of the Act, for example, says:
It is the duty of the Board to perform the functions vested in the Board by this Act and by the Railway Act with the object of co-ordinating and harmonizing the operations of all carriers engaged in transport by railways and ships-
I think perhaps the time may come when a suitable amendment might be proposed which would include not only railways and ships, but air lines, in a co-ordinated regulation of each transport system. Certainly as far as transportation in the coastal area of British Columbia is concerned, some element of co-ordination between public air line services and public water carrier services is a very necessary thing in my view. Section 5 of the Act, which I think is one of the main
Transport
operative sections, makes clear, I believe, what I have in mind when I advocate as the basic principle of this Bill that the Board of Transport Commissioners should have the authority to license ships which are engaged in the public transport field in the coastal area of British Columbia. I may say at once, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of my Bill really is to delete an excepting paragraph which is set out in section 12 of the Act, and its main effect would be to delete the phrase which says:
The provisions of this Part do not apply... between ports or places in British Columbia-


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Member permit a question?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Is it not the fact that there are some regulations in respect of ocean shipping on the coast that are effected by the Public Utilities Commission; or do they have no jurisdiction whatever?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The Public Utilities Commission of British Columbia, as far as I am aware, has absolutely no jurisdiction over coastal shipping in British Columbia. The only body that I know of which has any regulatory function is the Canada Steamship Inspection Service, which of course, as I am sure the hon. Member understands, is concerned only with ensuring that the ships which are engaged in travel operate in a manner which is safe, that they carry the necessary life saving apparatus, and that sort of thing.
As I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, section 5 of the Act, which has to do with the matter of the Board of Transport Commissioners dealing with applications for licences, sets out the considerations which the Board may take into consideration in dealing with such applications. I would like to quote part at least of that section. Section 5 (a) says:
Any objection to the application that may be made by any person or persons who are already providing transport facilities, whether by rail or water, on the routes or between the places that the applicant intends to serve, on the ground that suitable facilities are or, if the licence were issued would be in excess of requirements, or on the ground that any of the conditions of any other transport licence held by the applicant have not been complied with;
(b)	whether or not the issue of such licence would tend to develop the complementary rather than the competitive functions of the different forms of transport, if any, involved in such objections;
(c)	the general effect on other transport services and any public interest which may be affected by the issue of such licence; and

April 30, 1965
Transport
(d)	the quality and permanence of the service to be offered by the applicant and his financial responsibility, including adequate provision for the protection of passengers, shippers and the general public by means of insurance.
Mr. Speaker, those are the considerations which, as far as I am aware, generally apply in every other field of transportation in Canada, whether it is by air, bus line- which, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), I would point out comes under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of British Columbia- or whether it is by rail. It also applies in certain parts of Canada under the provisions of the Transport Act, but it does not apply between ports or places in British Columbia. [DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Part III of the Act has to do with traffic, tolls and tariffs and contains what I think most people in Canada consider to be the normal provisions with respect to the filing of tariffs, and with opportunity being given to the public being served to register objections and to have their cases heard if they feel that any increases in freight rates or passenger rates are unwarranted. These are the operative provisions of the Transport Act, but as the Act stands these operative provisions have never had any operative effect along the coastal area of British Columbia.
I could recite a long list of the communities of people who have established themselves along the British Columbia coast and who have suffered at times rather extreme hardship owing to the fact that they have had absolutely no court of appeal to decide whether or not they were going to have the service continued or discontinued or whether or not different firms could engage in cutthroat competition and run one another into bankruptcy, thereby leaving communities without any services. This sort of thing has been going on year after year and certainly I and, as I mentioned earlier, the long-time member for Comox-Alberni, Mr. A. W. Neill, recognized the danger of the situation.
In particular, during the period since the end of the Second World War when air traffic entered into coastal transportation as a major factor, steamer services have been disrupted without notice to those being served. This has meant disruption of services which have provided the necessary communication to keep a community operating. It has made very difficult and complicated the work of the people charged with the responsibility for the transportation of the mails along the coast of British Columbia.
fMr. Barnett.]
I could go on and enumerate the kind of problems which have resulted in many communities receiving poorer service today than they had 50 years ago.
I have a letter before me which has reached my office, mailed from Winter Harbour on April 12 of this year, which touches on this very important situation. I should like to read part of this to the House:
I have been informed this morning that the Island Tug & Barge Company that services the village of Winter Harbour and this logging operation-
By the way, this letter is written by the proprietor of the logging operation.
-will drop their weekly freight and mail service and replace it with a once every second week service.
The Winter Harbour Post Office is serviced by this barge and this announcement will mean we here go back 30 years in postal service.
The reason given for the dropping of Winter Harbour by Mr. Sterling Beek, traffic manager of Island Tug & Barge is that they "must meet their deadline at Port Alice for the pulp load".
The village of Quatsino is also dropped from the once a week service... I have called the Rayonier Company-
That is the company which operates the Port Alice pulp mill.
-to help us in any way they can but felt you might be able to exert some form of pressure to assist both villages.
The fact that this particular Bill No. C-5 has now come up for second reading gives me an opportunity publicly to put on the record of this House the problems faced by the people of these two communities, creating a situation from which they have no appeal except to their Member of Parliament. There is no body of any kind to which they can go which has any authority to deal with this kind of situation.
The letter goes on to say:
The service of this company has been excellent and we fail to see why at this late date they would make a sudden change.
When the roads come to this area we will have alternate routes but we are quite helpless to do anything but si* by and watch this company eliminate two small villages from a decent freight and mail service.
I suppose I have had dozens of letters of a similar nature to this one during the years I have been a member of this House. I have had telegrams couched in frantic terms informing me that, effective the following week, there would be no service of any kind to bring in mail or supplies. I have previously tried to argue that this is a situation which is simply not good enough. I have always made it clear that it was not my view that any private
April 30. 1965

transportation company should be required indefinitely to maintain a service which is completely uneconomical to operate. If there are situations where services are sufficiently essential, then we have our system of subventions under the Canadian Maritime Commission, which of course is operative in certain instances on the coast of British Columbia. But it is only when a subvention under the Canadian Maritime Commission does become operative for a particular service that the company providing the service has any public responsibility or accepts any public guarantee that it will maintain that service, and maintain it according to an announced schedule of rates.
I am sure that no Member in this House, Mr. Speaker, expects that all the water carrier services, through the operation of the Canadian Maritime Commission, require or need subventions, but I do submit that people in these communities should have some court of appeal to go to when the companies which have accepted responsibility for providing these services suddenly, without notice, decide to change them in the drastic manner that I have been attempting to describe.
I also suggest that in my view there should be some kind of protection afforded to people who invest their money in ships to provide such services. Quite frankly, I have found it hard to understand why over the years the major shipping companies, at least on the British Columbia coast, have registered their objection to the proposals advanced in this Bill and, as I understand it, originally registered objection to the attempt of the former Member of Parliament for Comox-Alberni, Mr. A. W. Neill, to have this particular phrase removed from the original Transport Act.
As I recall the discussion we had in the House last year, at least one of the British Columbia members who spoke registered some concern at the effect of my Bill, which would bring under this kind of jurisdiction and licensing the many operations which are conducted under some form of contract where goods are carried in bulk for private companies. I refer to the transportation and movement of such things as booms of logs, rafts of logs, log barges and the transportation of what is now becoming a major element of traffic along the coast, namely pulp chips, and in some cases the carriage of ore in bulk.
I should like to point out that in both Part II and Part III of the Act specific reference is made to the fact that carriage of goods in bulk does not come under the licensing pro-
Transport
visions of the Act. While that provision may not appear in the particular amendment which I have moved, if anybody wishes to refer to the Act which I propose to amend and is prepared to read the definition section dealing with bulk goods, he will immediately be aware of the fact that the purpose of my Bill is to provide that there be some form of public regulation of those people who are, in effect, public carriers; and that is all I seek to accomplish by the amendments.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I hope on this fourth attempt in respect of this Bill that the House will see fit to accept the principle contained therein, which would merely give effect to a principle which is accepted generally with respect to public transportation utilities, be they in the field of air lines, railways, bus transport or even, in certain parts of the country, in respect of the carriage of goods by water.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of addressing this House in respect of a Bill presented by the hon. Member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) which was identical to the Bill now before the House. On May 21, 1964 in the hon. Member's opening remarks he explained, as he has done today, the purposes of the Bill. On that occasion he said that this Bill would regulate carriers operating in British Columbia coastal waters by placing them under the jurisdiction of the Board of Transport Commissioners,-that is to say, that the whole provincial water traffic should be regulated from Ottawa, 2,000 miles distant. At page 3449 of Hansard the hon. Member said, and this should be noted when considering this Bill:
I should like to point out at once that it is my understanding that the operation of this publicly owned ferry system would not be covered by the terms of the bill I am now proposing.
That is a reference to the ferry system in British Columbia which operates in the Straits of Georgia, which is the main body to be considered in relation to this Bill.
The hon. Member then went on to state:
In other words, provision for licensing by the Board of Transport Commissioners would not apply in the case of provincially-owned vessels.
Apparently provincially-owned vessels would be excluded from the regulations of the Board of Transport Commissioners. If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly he indicated today that bulk cargoes such as wood chips, gravel, sand and the like carried up and down the Straits of Georgia by barge,

April 30, 1965
Transport
would not come under the regulations of the Board of Transport Commissioners. If I understood him correctly, goods moved under contract, which is a common method of carriage up and down the Straits of Georgia, particularly in relation to the construction, pulp and paper and lumber industries, would not come under the regulations of the Board of Transport Commissioners.
It seems to me that the traffic up and down the Straits of Georgia which would come under the regulations of the Board has been somewhat narrowed by the definitions given by the hon. Gentleman both today and on May 21, 1964. At this time I should like to review, as I did on a previous occasion, the traffic which plies these waters. I think it is important during this discussion to have a picture in our minds of the waterborne traffic in British Columbia coastal waters.
The Straits of Georgia is an inland strait.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. Member permit a question? The hon. Member has suggested that I confined my remarks to the Straits of Georgia. That is not the case. There is a great deal more to the British Columbia coast than just the Straits of Georgia and I suggest that the hon. Member widen his horizons.


Grant Deachman: There is, indeed, more to the coastal waters of British Columbia than the Straits of Georgia, but the majority of shipping which would be affected by this measure certainly would be that shipping which is carried on up and down the Straits of Georgia. I do not think my hon. friend would disagree with that statement.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: You should move around the Province of British Columbia and get a better picture of the extent of coastal waters. I certainly do disagree with your statement.


Grant Deachman: My hon. friend does disagree with my statement. Perhaps I should pause at this stage to remind my hon. friend about the amount of shipping that takes place in the Straits of Georgia. I have in my hand a supplement to the 1964 annual report of the National Harbours Board, which has just been distributed to Members of this House. I should like to turn to the section which deals with the Port of Vancouver, which comes under the jurisdiction of the National Harbours Board.
The Port of Vancouver lies in Burrard Inlet, and the entrance to Burrard Inlet is from the Straits of Georgia, so the traffic which goes in and out of the Port of Van-

couver also goes in and out of the Straits of Georgia. In 1964 there were 1,924 deep sea or ocean-going commercial arrivals at the Port of Vancouver with a net registered tonnage of 10,186,000.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: This Bill has no relation whatever to deep sea shipping.


Grant Deachman: In respect of coastal or inland commercial ships, including the fishing fleet, there were 19,538 vessels, with a registered tonnage of 8,484,913, in and out of Vancouver port. Let us compare that traffic with the traffic which moves in the Port of Montreal, in order to get some comparative idea of the volume. The number of deep sea or ocean-going vessels in and out of the harbour of Montreal in the same year was 3,667, compared with the 1,924 which travelled in and out of the Port of Vancouver. That is slightly less than twice as many. However, in respect of coastal or inland traffic, including fishing vessels, there were 2,349 in and out of the Montreal harbour compared with the 19,538 to which I referred in and out of the Port of Vancouver. One would have to go to the Rhine to find inland water traffic as dense as the inland water traffic in and out of the Port of Vancouver. This traffic all must ply the Strait of Georgia before entering that port, and this is the traffic which my hon. friend would like brought under the regulations of the Board of Transport Commissioners.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. Member permit me to ask another question?


Grant Deachman: Yes, I would be pleased to listen to your question.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman feels it is absolutely necessary to use my Bill for the purposes of promoting the Port of Vancouver. This type of Board of Trade promotion is very good, but I wish the hon. Member would discuss the purposes of this Bill if he intends to speak on it at all.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, while I recognize the interest of my hon. friend in giving guidance to me in my argument, we are talking about shipping in the Strait of Georgia; we are talking about this Bill which would regulate that shipping, and we are talking about the 19,000 odd, commercial vessels which ply the inland waters of British Columbia and which my friend would like brought under regulation of a board which is 2,000 miles away.
April 30, 1965

[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
As I listened to the hon. Member I wondered what was bothering him, in connection with the transportation of goods in British Columbia, which led him to believe that certain regulations should be applied from Ottawa to this booming traffic. Does the hon. Member believe, for example, that there are delays involved? Let me deal for a moment with that question. As the years have gone by, the network of roads on Vancouver Island has been vastly improved, and both my hon. friend and I would agree heartily with that. They have been extended mile after mile. Not only have they been extended up the island, but they have been extended across the island and even now are beginning to reach out to the west coast which now, for the first time, from day to day, though not all year round, can be reached by automobile traffic. So roads are coming to the aid of many of these areas which heretofore did not have any access except by sea for the bringing in of their mail and their goods unless, of course, they had them transported by air.
May I remind my hon. friend that the ferry service back and forth across the straits has also been improved over the years. May I remind him also that the van or truck service moving back and forth across the Straits of Georgia on the ferries is now about as efficient as anywhere in the country. Therefore, with the improved network of roads, with the extension of roads up and down and across the island and with the improvement of the ferry service and the trucking service to the island, many more points in a fortunate island are being provided with increasingly efficient transportation facilities.
Let me deal with the growth of air transport in the Province of British Columbia. Nowhere in this country, and perhaps nowhere on the North American continent, is an area better served by air than British Columbia. Mail is taken by seaplane and flying boat from Vancouver airport to many of the waterways up and down the coast. The seaplane delivery of mail and small cargo has now made quite unnecessary the carrying of much of the traffic slowly and laboriously by log boom or by barge. The delivery of mail to logging camps, fishing camps and so on up and down the coast of British Columbia has been speeded up.
With regard to lack of competition I want to ask my friend this question. In an open market such as this, is there any lack of competition in providing him with efficient
Transport
service? Are there excessive charges in an area where competitors have ample freedom to operate? I want to say to him that it is an area in which there is little regulation and in which we find real, free enterprise at work. Where this is so, what do we find? We find one of the best developed transportation systems by land, by air, by sea, by road and by rail that can be found anywhere in the whole of Canada. Why would my hon. friend want to poke his finger into that area which is regulated so well by competition, and introduce subventions which would be charged to the taxpayers of Canada? Why would he want to bring it under the control of a regulatory body 2,000 miles away?
I cannot for a moment subscribe to the Bill that the hon. Member now has before the House if it would result in those things being done. The history of the people of British Columbia has been one of going into the wilderness, and they have never had to move out of such areas because of a lack of transportation. In fact, what has happened up and down the coast of British Columbia is that the expansion of transportation facilities has enabled them to do many things in an enormously difficult territory with what seems to be incredible ease. I suggest to the hon. Member that if there is any place where free competition should be allowed to reign and which regulatory bodies should leave alone, it is in the area of the free flow of transportation in the Province of British Columbia.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Vicioria (B.C.)):: Mr. Speaker, I do not differ from most of the facts presented by the hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman), particularly when he talks about the high density of traffic in the Straits of Georgia, but I do differ from him in the conclusions he has drawn, and I rise to speak in support of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) and his colleague, the hon. Member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron), come from two constituencies on the northern tip of Vancouver Island which are very close to my own, and I might point out something to the House which they are perhaps too shy to mention. They are two of the most beautiful parts of Canada one can possibly imagine. The hon. Member for Comox-Alberni has in his riding some of the most fantastic fishing grounds I know of anywhere, at Nahmint Bay, Comox Bay and Campbell River. He also has magnificent

April 30, 1965
Transport
stands of the finest timber in Canada, and in the summertime it is a vacationland which I think is pretty hard to beat.
That part of Canada, however, has peculiar problems because it is still a frontierland. From my own experience I know that charts of the West Coast of Canada showing what the coastline is have only recently come into the hands of the public, and only a very few years ago when I was travelling back and forth on these waters there were large parts of the shoreline which were shown in dotted lines as not having even been surveyed at that time, only 10 years ago. In the area on the West Coast of British Columbia now under discussion there are a fair number of smaller communities which are not self-supporting, however important they may be to our economy. These communities cannot yet depend upon roads for communication purposes and, as we all know, communication by air is an expensive proposition. They must rely in large part upon water transportation.
I know that there are few enough freedoms today, and freedom of the seas is something which is quite close to my heart. But I also believe that with that freedom goes a responsibility, and in the absence of competition from other means of transportation up and down our coast I think that these small communities need the protection which only legislation such as this can provide them. Unless the transportation companies, which are admittedly in business to make money, are charged by the country with the responsibility of servicing, not only the more lucrative portions of their routes but also the smaller communities which may not produce much in the way of revenue to the transportation companies, I think we are failing in our duty with regard to the development of our West Coast, a duty which can only be fulfilled when these small communities are provided with the service that will enable them to expand.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Now, this is hardly what I would call a new principle. Surely, this is a principle which we applied in the early days to give air service to many parts of the country. No one can pretend that in the early days of Trans-Canada Air Lines, some of the communities serviced by Trans-Canada were providing a paying load to the air system. No, Mr. Speaker, the service was provided because it was going to benefit the community, and without it the community would never have been able to grow to the position

which many of these communities have reached today. Many of these same cities, which were small, are now providing a fair share of the revenues of Air Canada. I think this is a principle which we applied some years ago to the then air frontier of Air Canada, and which should be applied today to this same type of operation which is being conducted on the West Coast in order to provide proper transportation, proper communications, for the smaller, isolated communities.
If I want to take this further, Mr. Speaker, I think we could say the same principle was applied recently to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We spend millions of dollars each year in this country on the Canadian broadcasting system in order to provide service to communities where the service is needed, but where it cannot carry itself. We are expanding that principle today within the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to provide television to isolated communities. I think it is only right that we should do the same thing for the isolated communities in British Columbia in order to provide them with transportation and communications.
I apologize to the hon. Member who introduced this Bill because I was absent for the first three minutes of his presentation and I may have missed something. However, I feel his Bill could have drawn more support in the past than it has if he had given the House a full explanation of what he is trying to achieve. When I discovered this Bill was coming before the House today, I looked up as many back copies of Hansard as I could to ascertain what had been said previously. I found there had been the same complaint every time, that the explanatory notes to the Bill did not indicate its true purpose. I find them a little difficult to understand even yet, but I am content with what I have heard the hon. Member say. I think he and I have a community of interest and thought on this matter. I do not wish to speak at too great length because perhaps there are others who wish to speak.
However, if his description of this Bill indicates that the Bill is meant to provide legislation which will assure proper service to the smaller communities on our western frontier of British Columbia, and that this service should be charged, under legislation imposed by the Federal Government, to the companies already supplying the service to larger communities, then I am in favour of it.
April 30, 1S65

Transport


Mr. J. E. Lloyd (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, on entering the debate on Bill No. C-5 I wish to state that I could not contribute anything specifically to the regional problem of British Columbia. However, I am prompted to speak on this matter because it seems to me if we are to adopt a policy of regulation of rate making and service that is going to affect coastal shipping, then we should proceed on the basis of a national policy. I believe that what would be done on the West Coast would certainly be of concern to the East Coast. Indeed, wherever shipping may be operating for captive users, I think this principle put forward by the hon. Member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) could be accepted. I believe there is no question, wherever you have a private corporation, or even a public corporation of the Crown Corporation type providing service, there must be some Government supervision and regulation of rates and service, otherwise there is no opportunity for public necessity and convenience to be fully protected.
I accept, in principle, this thought which I believe the hon. Member wished to express in this Bill. The problem that confronts me, however, is that it should not be done on a piecemeal basis across the country. I feel the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) should be concerned with the application of policy generally throughout Canada. I am sure all of us have shared in the observance of the various methods and procedures adopted by countries to regulate monopolies and to make certain, as I said earlier, that public necessity and convenience is fully protected. We see public utility boards regulating telephone rates and railway rates because, obviously, you have a monopoly situation which could only exist under the operation of proper public utility boards who can analyse all the cost factors essential to a determination of fair and reasonable rates, or the extension of services.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I ask a question?


John Edward Lloyd: Yes.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wonder if the hon. Member has consulted section 12(4) (b) of the Transport Act which, in effect, places his part of the country in the same category as British Columbia?


John Edward Lloyd: If it applies to the East Coast?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If I may say so, if the hon. Member would like to introduce a similar bill covering the East Coast, I would be pleased to support it.
e (5:50 p.m.)


John Edward Lloyd: I took it for granted, since it was a general provision in the statute, it would be a matter of Government policy that what is set out in Bill No. C-5 would be adopted right across the nation wherever the same principle applied. We can reduce it to its essential element, that wherever you have a situation in which captive users of the supplier of the service are exposed to his particular viewpoints of rate making and service, without regulation, then you have a bad social condition which should be brought under regulation. The converse of that is that where you have competing services and can clearly stipulate and identify them, then you hesitate about applying a government agency of a regulatory nature to enter into the production, as the end result, of rates that would come about by competition.
We have just finished some interesting Committee meetings on the proposed railway Bill. The very nice, all embracing term is used, that we are going to rationalize the railway transportation system in Canada. We know there are a lot of shortcomings and we start off with a Bill that seems to take care of them, but then we find in turn that it does not cover many situations that exist. Obviously there will have to be some real approach to the question of railway legislation.
During the course of the Committee meetings I was struck by the necessity to be alert in many situations where you have captive users across the country. You can have a captive user of an air line, of a shipping line, and indeed of a railway, and there must be many situations in Canada where the Department or the Minister of Transport might give some thought to a single agency regulating rates and services in the entire transport field. I would like to suggest the advisability of bringing all three, ship, rail and air, under one board, because it was quite clear in the Committee meetings that what the proposed Bill was trying to do was to provide a procedure whereby a board could identify areas of adequate competition to ensure protection of the public.
Then again you get into those situations where there are not exactly agreements between the large suppliers of transport but where you wonder if, in their mutual interests, there is not a tacit agreement which may require examination by a Government regulating authority.

April 30, 1965
Transport
What I am saying is that the principle on which this bill is founded requires greater concentration of thought on the part of the Minister and his Department, and we should look at what it attempts to achieve from a national policy point of view. It would be a shame if we were to deal with a relatively small section of the problem in B.C. without applying the policy generally throughout Canada. Such a bill should be on a nationwide basis and be applicable wherever the same circumstances arise.
There would be a great deal of merit in examining the wisdom of establishing a single, national authority to regulate rates and services in the three transportation fields of air, railway and steamship lines. If that approach were taken I feel confident that the numerous attempts of the hon. Member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) to achieve what he is trying to achieve in B.C. would be successful. On such short notice I cannot imagine all the kinds of situations that will arise when you try to distinguish between strictly competitive forms of transport, and monopoly situations, but some Government agency should exist to do this.
In the Atlantic region we are concerned that the proposed railway Bill suggests that the Board of Transport Commissioners would be able to regulate rates after some figure of 150 per cent above operating costs. We recognize some thought must have been given to this figure, but we want greater explanation why 150 per cent was selected in preference to 100 per cent, 75 per cent or even 200 per
cent, before we can feel fully confident that this kind of policy should be supported.
We should press for the establishment of a Federal body that would regulate all three transportation services. Until we have that we will continue to add to our difficulties. Governments must be constantly alert wherever there is a monopoly situation.
Sometimes I wonder whether the C.B.C., operating as it is as a Government agency, and being confronted with a single C.T.V. station chain is in a truly competitive position. If there were two private C.T.V. station chains then we would have a competitive position, but we have not yet really polished the apple of administration to the extent that we can say that the C.B.C. and the single C.T.V. chain of stations are strictly competitive and therefore need no regulation. I think a very close and detailed examination along these lines might reveal some interesting facts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private Members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting House Leader if I am correct in assuming we will continue with the budget debate for the first three days of next week?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Sir, that would be the intention, if we are spared.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
April 30, 1965



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
MOA319 YB132	1965 Apr 29 pm 3.48
Y LLA346 77 = FD Winnipeg Man 29 218P CDT=
Right Hon Lester B Pearson P CMP-
Prime Minister of Cda Ottawa Ont=: Further to my telegram of April seven, local opinion is strongly opposed to continuing transfers of Air Canada personnel. This is felt to be violation of your promise to freeze situation pending receipt of Thompson Commission Report. Continuation of these moves is bound to prejudice policy decisions your Government must take when Thompson Commission Reports submitted to you. Earnestly request Transport Minister Pickersgill come to Winnipeg soonest to clarify situation with unions municipalities and provincial government representatives =
Duff Roblin
Prime Minister's Office April 30, 1965
Hon. Duff Roblin,
Premier of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Man.
Your telegram regarding transfers of Air Canada personnel received. You suggest transfers are felt to be violation of my promise to freeze situation pending receipt of Thompson Commission Report.
You surely recall the answer I gave you on March 21, 1964, to the question put to me by you about employment at Air Canada Maintenance Base. Your question was as follows:
Question: In terms of your statements in Parliament, what undertakings do you consider you have given about the maintenance
of employment at the Winnipeg TCA overhaul base?"
Answer: "I said in Parliament on December 17 last year:
''It is the policy of the government to do everything possible to maintain employment at the TCA base in Winnipeg and, if possible, to increase it."
So far as TCA is concerned, this means that the base will continue to be used for the overhaul of Viscount aircraft as long as these aircraft are in service.
As far as the government is concerned, it means further that we will do everything we can to ensure that other aircraft work is available in Winnipeg so that the eventual withdrawal of the Viscounts is at least balanced by new activities.
This policy should not be interpreted as a guarantee that each particular job now filled in Winnipeg will continue indefinitely. Normal changes in technology and work methods, and the provisions of seniority rules between employer and employee, may lead to the disappearance or transfer of particular jobs. A dynamic industry cannot be frozen into a particular employment pattern.
My undertakings mean that there will be no transfer of work from Winnipeg by deliberate policy. On the contrary, the policy is to do our utmost to secure enough aircraft work to maintain or improve the present employment level."
Information provided by Air Canada indicates that all transfers made or in contemplation are being made pursuant to collective agreements in strict accord with my answer given to you and with all subsequent statements made on behalf of this government.
L. B. Pearson.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 3, 1965