1965-05-03

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all hon. members in view of the fact that on April 28 last the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) gave a false reply to a question I had directed to him. That question can be found on page 689 of Hansard and it read as follows:
Would the Minister inform the house whether he has replied to the letter sent to him by the Quebec minister of agriculture. Mr. Courcy, requesting assistance for farmers in Abitibi-Temis-camingue? If not, does he intend to do so in the near future?
The minister answered:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Later on the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) asked the minister the following supplementary question:
The minister replied that he had assured farmers in northwestern Quebec that they would receive help. Could he tell us what is the nature of the assistance he intends to give them?
The Minister of Agriculture answered:
I said I was going to answer the letter.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have here a letter from the deputy minister of the federal Department of Agriculture which prompts me to ask some questions. That letter is addressed to Dr. Ernest Mercier, deputy minister of agriculture in the province of Quebec, and is dated from Ottawa, April 22, 1965, that is six days before the answer given to me by the minister on April 28. I quote the letter sent to Dr. Ernest Mercier: [Text]
Before my minister left Ottawa last week, he asked me to tell you that it had been decided that the Government considered it should not participate in payments to farmers for crop losses in Quebec 1964.
Your very truly,
S.	C. Barry,
Deputy Minister

The content of this letter shows clearly that a decision had been taken long before April 28, and that in spite of that fact the minister misled the house in deliberately giving a wrong answer.
Here is my question of privilege. Why is the government refusing to help farmers in the province of Quebec although a request has been made to that effect? Is the minister aware that Quebec is still part of Canada and that the government is not so penny pinching when it comes to granting similar assistance to other provinces or other countries?



MR. CHOQUETTE-FIRE IN CONSTITUENCY OF LOTBINIERE

Mr. Auguste Choqueite (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will allow me to raise this brief question of privilege.
A conflagration threatened the whole population of St. Gilles in Lotbiniere county. Fortunately it was brought under control and there was no loss of life; however, this calamity turned several families into the street.
I should like to take the opportunity afforded me in the house to express my deepest sympathies to all the stricken families and ask on their behalf the federal, provincial and municipal authorities to provide them with some assistance.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-100, respecting the bilingual designation of certain crown corporations.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the explanation is quite simple. I list in this bill eleven crown corporations which have only an English name.

May 3, 1965
Questions
I suggest in this bill that those names should be translated into French so as to prove that those corporations, coming under federal jurisdiction, must have a French as well as an English designation.
I think all hon. members will understand that it is important those corporations should be somewhat Frenchified.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: that the House go into Committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:
That the House do go into Committee of the Whole at its next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:-
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the disposition of Indian claims and in relation thereto,
1.	To provide for the establishment of an Indian Claims Commission:
2.	To provide for the duties of the Commission, its decisions and awards:
3.	To provide for appeals from the decisions and awards of the Commission to an Indian Claims Appeal Court;
4.	To provide assistance to Indian bands in preparing and pursuing claims; and
5.	To enact such financial provisions as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. McCutcheon: What was the total of the per diem or special allowance for each member of the Royal Commission on Health Services from the time of its inception to the present date?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: The total per diem allowance received by each Commissioner during the period June 20, 1961 to January 1, 1965 is as follows:
Baltzan, D. M., $18,750; Firestone, O. J., $47,250; Girard, Miss Alice, $15,000; Strachan C. L., $15,200; Van Wart, A. F., $14,550; McCutcheon, M. W., Nil; Hall, Justice E. M. (Chairman), Nil.
[Mr. Caouette.)


PERSONNEL OF HONG KONG IMMIGRATION OFFICE
Mr. Lambert: 1.	As at April 1, 1965, what is the actual number of the personnel of the Canadian immigration office at Hong Kong and what are the relative proportions between those of Canadian citizenship and those hired locally?
2.	What is the breakdown by positions in the establishment of the Hong Kong immigration
office?
3.	Are any increases in the size of staff contemplated for this office?
4.	Are there any persons undergoing training for posting to the Hong Kong office?
5.	What were the relative figures with respect to April 1, 1964, where applicable, to the above questions?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. As at April 1, 1965, personnel at the Canadian Immigration office at Hong Kong totalled 23, 8 Canadian and 15 locally engaged.
2.	The present establishment for the Hong Kong office is as follows: Canadian: 1 officer in charge; 1 assistant officer in charge; 6 visa officers; 1 secretary.
Locally engaged: 1 registry supervisor; 1 senior stenographer-interpreter; 1 senior typist-interpreter; 6 stenographer-interpreters; 1 receptionist; 2 senior registry clerks; 2 registry clerks; 1 messenger.
3.	No. However, the reorganization of the Immigration Branch now under way which includes a staff requirement survey at each overseas post may result in an increase at Hong Kong.
4.	Not specifically for Hong Kong. Officers accepted for overseas service in the Immigration Branch receive training which qualifies them for rotational service at any overseas post including Hong Kong. A group of foreign service officers are now undergoing general training and a further group will be taken on strength shortly.
5.	(a) As at April 1, 1964, personnel at the Canadian Immigration office at Hong Kong totalled 21, eight Canadian and 13 locally engaged, (b) As at April 1, 1964, the establishment for the Hong Kong office was as follows:
Canadian: 1 officer in charge; 1 assistant officer in charge; 6 visa officers; 1 secretary.
Locally engaged: 1 registry supervisor; 1 senior stenographer-interpreter; 1 senior typist-interpreter; 6 stenographer-interpreters; 1 receptionist; 2 senior registry clerks; 1 messenger.
May 3, 1965


RESTORATION OF H.D.-4 HYDROFOIL
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 91 (Supplementary)-Mr. Muir
(Cape Breton North and Victoria):
1.	Has the structural restoration work begun on the H.D.-4 hydrofoil?
2.	When is it anticipated that this restoration will be completed?
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. No.
2.	In 1969.


REDUCTION OF C.N.R. FREIGHT SERVICE, WOODSTOCK, ONT.
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	To what extent are C.N.R. freight services being relocated of curtailed in the City of Woodstock, Ontario?
2.	Are further curtailments of C.N.R. freight services presently planned?
3.	What are the reasons for the present relocation and curtailment of C.N.R. freight services?
4.	Have the new arrangements caused a delay of one full day in the delivery of freight to Woodstock?
5.	What is the cost of transporting freight by truck from the City of Brantford to the City of Woodstock?
6.	How much money is saved by these new arrangements?


Mr. Jean-Charles Caniin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The
Management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows: 1. As of March 15 express freight traffic, which theretofore had been handled on and off of line service cars directly at Woodstock, is now routed through the Railway's major distribution terminal at Brantford from where it is delivered by highway vehicles.
2.	There has been no curtailment of Canadian National Railways service, either carload or express freight, and none is contemplated.
3.	The change in the manner in which express freight traffic is handled is part of a pattern of similar changes being made at other points in an endeavour to improve the service and extend potential market areas. It enables the Railway to take advantage of through cars moving between Brantford and other principal market centers, thereby reducing the number of times the traffic has to be handled and achieving a better utilization of rail equipment and accelerating express freight train schedules.
4.	Initially, there were some delays caused by a local handling error. However, corrective action was taken and further checks confirm there has been no deterioration in the previous service standards.
Questions
5.	It is the opinion of Management that to disclose cost data on one particular service or route could be prejudicial to the competitive position of the railway.
6.	The primary purpose of arrangements of this kind is to provide improved service which will attract additional business. However, in this particular case, the cost of operation is expected to be less under the new arrangement than under the previous pattern of service.


EMPLOYMENT OF CREW OF TUG &quot;CANSO&quot;
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	On what date was the Department of Public Works tug Canso taken out of service?
2.	How many crew members were released from employment as a result of the decommissioning of this vessel?
3.	How many members of the crew have been placed in other positions with the department and what are their names and addresses and new positions?
4.	Has the former master of this vessel been considered for any other available employment that the department may have?
5.	Has the former master of this vessel been referred to other government departments and agencies for employment on vessels or elsewhere in the public service?
6.	Has the former master of this vessel been placed on a lay-off list and considered for future vacancies on the departmental vessels or for other departmental positions becoming vacant?
7.	How many years service has the former master of the vessel had with the Department of Public Works and is he a veteran?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Taken out of service at the end of the season, December 15, 1964.
2.	Ten.
3.	One; O. E. Bourgeois, Cheticamp, Inverness, N.S. mate of Canso to mate on Dredge 400 in Newfoundland.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.
6.	Yes.
7.	Sixteen years. He is a veteran (merchant marine).


OTTAWA-N.C.C. PURCHASE OF PROPERTY
Mr. Thompson: 1.	When was the property owned by Harold Nesbitt purchased by the National Capital Commission, and for what price?
2.	What does the N.C.C. intend to do with this property?
3.	Has any action been taken with regard to the proposed use of this land and, if so, what has been done?
4.	Has the N.C.C. been approached by any individual or concern with a view to renting this property for other purposes?

May 3, 1965
Questions


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I am informed by the National Capital Commission as follows:	1. The property,
formerly owned by Harold Nesbitt, comprising 356.14 acres located in Lots 11, 10, 9, 8 and 7, Concession 1, Ottawa Front, Nepean, was expropriated by the National Capital Commission on 7 July 1959 (Inst. No. 390,735). Compensation in the amount of $344,998.67 was made for this property and included value of the disturbance and interest from the date of expropriation to the date of settlement.
2.	The Nesbitt property was acquired for Greenbelt purposes. Seventy acres have been leased to the Northern Electric Company for the erection of a pilot plant for various electronic developments. The balance of the property will be used for reforestation and will be planted with mixed stand of hardwoods and softwoods under the direction of or by the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests.
3.	Seventy acres have been leased to the Northern Electric Company and the building on the site is nearly completed. Arrangements have been made with the Province of Ontario to carry out the program of tree planting.
4.	From time to time the National Capital Commission has been approached by individuals wishing to rent the Nesbitt property for farming. Messrs. Lake and Phanenhour were tenant farmers in 1960-1962 and 1962-
1965 respectively. Both left the property owing the Commission a substantial amount of rental. In the first instance, the Commission had been unable to collect the arrears and in the second case, negotiations to collect the arrears are continuing. An informal approach to a member of the N.C.C. staff was made by the Agriculture Representative for Carleton County of the Department of Agriculture of the Province of Ontario, Mr. D. Black and also from Wm. Wammes asking to rent the property for farm use. However, the Commission analyzed the desirability of using the property for farm purposes and found that to make the property suitable for farm use would likely require an expenditure of about $20,000 to $25,000. The rental for the Nesbitt Farm based on the leases with the former tenants, amounted to $3,200 per annum.


HOUSING LOAN APPLICATIONS
Mr. Caouelfe: 1.	During the past three years, how many loans were applied for from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in (a) Canada (b) the province of Quebec and (c) Villeneuve county and of these how many were approved?
2.	What is the average and total amounts of loans approved in (a) Canada (b) the province of Quebec (c) Villeneuve county?
3.	On what criteria is acceptance or refusal of such loans based?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1 and 2.
Direct CMHC Loans for New Housing, Under the National Housing Act 1962-1964
Canada
Province
of Quebec Federal Constituency of Villeneuve
Loan'1'		New Loans Approved		
Applica-				Average
tions				Amount
				of Loan
Dwelling	Dwelling	Amount	Per Dwell-Units	Loans	Units	$000	ing Unit $82,884	59,773	67,995	816,872	12,01424,886'2>	20,021	20,896	252,468	12,082<3>	111	117	1,291	11,023
<1* Loan applications do not include preliminary negotiations relating to loans to limited-dividend and non-profit corporations.
It should be noted that differences between the number of loan applications and the number of loans approved arise not only because of applications rejected by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation but also because of 
withdrawals and cancellations by prospective borrowers.
(2>
Excludes applications relating to Hull area up to mid-1964 when the CMHC Hull office was opened. Prior to that the area was served by the CMHC Ottawa office and separate data on loan applications were not compiled for the Hull area.
May 3. 1965

Data on loan applications are compiled only by CMHC field office areas and are not therefore available for other geographical divisions.
3. The approval of loan applications relating to dwellings for owner-occupancy depends mainly on the ability of the borrower to repay the proposed loan and the expected value of the proposed dwelling over the life of the loan.
There are a number of requirements under the National Housing Act relating to the assessment of these two matters. For example, monthly payments of loan principal, interest, and taxes, should not, generally, exceed 27 per cent of the borrower's monthly income. The regulations under the Act also require that the borrower provide equity from his own resources of at least 5 per cent of the value of the property. This equity may be in the form of cash, land or labour or a combination thereof.
So far as the property is concerned, a principal requirement is that construction meet the standards set by the National Building Code and any local ordinances. Sewage disposal must, generally, be by sewer rather than by septic tank. Special attention to the long-term value of the property is given if it is located close to an airport or pipe-line for hydro-carbon materials.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPLICATIONS, DORCHESTER COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Boutin: 1.	How many workers of the county of Dorchester applied for unemployment benefits in the years 1960-61-62-63-64, and of these (a) how many applications were approved (b) how many were rejected?
2.	In proportion to the manpower available in the said county, what were the percentages of unemployed during the years 1960-61-62-63-64?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: 1. The Unemployment Insurance Commission advises that statistics concerning the number of workers residing in the county of Dorchester and who applied for unemployment insurance benefit in the years 1960-61-62-63-64, are not available.
2. The National Employment Service does not maintain statistics on manpower available by counties nor can it supply percentages of unemployed in the county of Dorchester for the years 1960-61-62-63-64.


ACCIDENTAL POISONINGS
Mr. Malher: 1. How many persons were treated in Canadian hospitals in 1964 for accidental poisoning?
Questions
2. What, giving numbers, was the substance most often involved in these accidental poisoning cases?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Approximately 20,000.
2. Acetylsalicylic acid, about 5,000.
RETENTION OF UNION STATION, OTTAWA Question No. 171


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Is it the intention of the government to retain Union Station, in Ottawa for some suitable purpose as well as for its historic value, when its use as a railway station has terminated?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I am informed by the National Capital Commission as follows: The Parkin Plan for the redevelopment of Confederation Square which was approved in principle by the Government calls for the removal of the Union Station together with the buildings between Union Station and Sussex Street. The Plan proposes the widening of the Canal basin at this point and the construction of a convention hall.


PENSIONS OF RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. Knowles: 1.	How many retired civil servants are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the following brackets: (a) less than $20.00 per month (b) $20.00 to $29.99 per month (c) $30.00 to $39.99 per month (d) $40.00 to $49.99 per month (e) $50.00 to $59.99 per month (f) $60.00 to $69.99 per month (g) $70.00 to $79.99 per month (h) $80.00 to $89.99 per month (i) $90.00 to $99.99 per month (j) $100.00 to $149.99 per month (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month (1) $200.00 to $249.99 per month (m) $250.00 to $299.99 per month (n) $300.00 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of retired civil servants are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of retired federal civil servants and also the number of widows of retired federal civil servants presently residing in each province?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Retired
1.			Civil Servants	
(a)	less than $ 20.00	per month	462(b)	$ 20.00 to $ 29.99	ii	"	1,230(c)	$ 30.00 to $ 39.99	"	ii	1,761(d)	$ 40.00 to $ 49.99	it	ii	1,722(e)	$ 50.00 to $ 59.99	ii	ii	1,705(f)	$ 60.00 to $ 69.99	ii	ii	1,570(g)	$ 70.00 to $ 79.99	ii	ii	1,436(h)	$ 80.00 to $ 89.99	ii	"	1,345(i)	$ 90.00 to $ 99.99	ii	ii	1,261<P	$100.00 to $149.99	it	ii	5,523(k)	$150.00 to $199.99	it	it	3,851(1)	$200.00 to $249.00	it	it	2,652(m) $250.00 to $299.99	it	it	1,464(n)	$300.00 or over	ii	a	1,835830	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
2. (a) less than $ 20.00 per month		Widows 1,619
(b) $ 20.00 to $ 29.99	ll u	1,760(c) $ 30.00 to $ 39.99	It It	1,680(d) $ 40.00 to $ 49.99	ll it	1,463(e) $ 50.00 to $ 59.99	ll tt	1,348(f) $ 60.00 to $ 69.99	It It	1,171(g) $ 70.00 to $ 79.99	u ll	1,112(h) $ 80.00 to $ 89.99	ll ll	750(i) $ 90.00 to $ 99.99	ll ll	561(j) $100.00 to $149.99	ll ll	1,594(k) $150.00 to $199.99	ll ll	367(1) $200.00 to $249.99	It ll	104(m) $250.00 to $299.99	tt It	50(n) $300.00 or over	tt It	31Retired 3. Civil Servants	WidowsNewfoundland	298	110Prince Edward Island	162	89Nova Scotia	1,236	653New Brunswick	805	415Quebec	4,847	2,426Ontario	12,115	6,037Manitoba	1,397	561Saskatchewan	902	369Alberta	1,489	647British Columbia	3,958	1,959Territories	30	8Outside Canada	578	336


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position to give a report to the House regarding events which are taking place in the Dominican Republic. Is he in agreement with the President of the United States that communist conspirators are endeavouring to turn the Dominican Republic into another communist base? Has he given assurance to the Government of the United States of the support of Canada in any action they may take to prevent this area becoming a communist country?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has been in touch, through its embassy in Washington, with the United States Government with regard to the tragic developments in the Dominican Republic; it has been recognized that the United States Government has intervened in the Dominican Republic for the protection of its own citizens as well as 
DEBATES	May 3, 1965
those of other countries. It is recognized also, Mr. Speaker, that evidence has been stated to exist indicating intervention in the Dominican Republic with a view to bringing about a Castro type government in that island.
I am not able to assess the significance of that evidence at the present time. I do realize that, as President Johnson has already stated, the responsibility for the restoration of stability and security in that unhappy country, apart from the responsibility which attaches to its own people, is in the hands of the Organization of American States, and that organization has at present a committee of five in the Dominican Republic.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I could also give the House a word about the position of Canadians on the island. Officials of the Department of External Affairs have been in telephone communication with the officers of the Canadian Embassy in Santo Domingo Saturday, Sunday and this morning. The Embassy reported that a further 11 Canadians were evacuated over the week end and others were expected to leave today. All Canadians, wives and dependants, who wished to leave have left. Officials informed us this morning they are maintaining contact with several Canadian citizens who have elected to remain in Santo Domingo, in order to extend any further assistance and keep informed of their welfare. There are no reports of Canadian casualties.
Outside of Santo Domingo there are approximately 110 Canadian citizens. According to present reports none of these appear to be in danger. However, should the civil disturbances spread to the countryside, evacuation facilities will continue to be available for Canadians living outside the capital as well as those in Santo Domingo. The Embassy has been in touch by telephone with Falconbridge Nickel plant about 40 miles from Santo Domingo and reports the plant is operating without difficulties, although they may start today to evacuate some of their personnel.
The Embassy is also investigating reports that the main branch of the Royal Bank of Canada has been looted.


John George Diefenbaker: I know the House will be happy to learn about the situation regarding Canadian nationals. I should like to ask the Prime Minister now if he would answer the question I asked, namely, has Canada communicated with the administration of the United States to give its support to the stand being taken by the United States? Has it been in touch with the Organization of
May 3, 1965

American States in this connection? I seem to recall that during the Cuban situation the right hon. gentleman thought we ought to tell the United States that we were with them 100 per cent, and mentioned also that we should join the Organization of American States without delay. I should like the Prime Minister to answer the question I asked in this regard so there will be no misunderstanding in the United States as to the stand taken by Canada. Has there been such a communication and, if not, why not?
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is accurate to equate the situation in Santo Domingo, tragic as it may be, with the situation in Cuba to which my right hon. friend referred, when the question was one of active intervention by the Soviet Union in Cuba. There is no situation of that kind in Santo Domingo so far as I know at the present time.
In so far as the intervention in the rebellion in Santo Domingo by elements that are attempting to bring about a communist takeover is concerned, we have not received sufficient evidence from the United States authorities-and we are in touch with them on this matter-to justify any conclusion on our part at this time. So far as the Organization of American States is concerned, we have been following the discussions of that body, of which we are not a member, and we view with interest and concern the step they have taken, which I have already reported to the House, in sending a committee to Santo Domingo with a view to bringing about a cessation of hostilities and the resumption of peace.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to dwell on this too long or to ask too many questions, but with our mission in Santo Domingo and with the administration of the United States so close at hand, does it not strike the Prime Minister as strange that no information has been received yet by the Government of Canada indicating not only communist infiltration but encouragement and support?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence in our possession-and we have been trying to get all the evidence we can-which would lead us to the conclusion that communists from Cuba are taking over the rebellion, although they are no doubt involved in it. But I repeat, Mr. Speaker, there is a distinction in my mind between the 22620-531
Inquiries of the Ministry intervention of the Soviet Union in Cuba and the intervention of Cubans in Santo Domingo.


John George Diefenbaker: I have one more question. Has the Prime Minister in this case recommended another pause to the President of the United States?


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Does he not think it would be advantageous at this time if Canada were a member of the Organization of American States, and does he not think that the reservoir of good will and the good offices of Canada could be used to better effect at this particular time if Canada were within the organization instead of without?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested to receive the hon. gentleman's opinion on this matter.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the Government of Canada received any information as yet as to whether there is any relationship between the bomb explosion at the United States Consulate in Montreal and the present events in the Dominican Republic?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question, and I want to ask him this question not as Prime Minister but as a humane individual. Does the Prime Minister in his own heart think the United States has the right to violate the sovereign rights of the Dominican Republic by the landing of marines?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is well known in international law-indeed it is accepted in the Organization of American States-that a government has the responsibility for protecting its own people in situations of insurrection and disturbance when those citizens are in danger and when the forces of law and order seem to have temporarily disappeared.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question?
Last night I heard a direct broadcast made by the President of the United States. He said that former president of the Dominican
832	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Republic, Mr. Bosch, was now in the hands of communists and that the United States had to take steps to protect her citizens in that country as well as citizens of some 30 other countries. The President added that the United States would not tolerate another communist government in this hemisphere or in the western world.
Has the President of the United States been in touch with the Prime Minister in this regard? Is the Prime Minister aware that 30 countries are affected by what is happening in Santo Domingo? Does the Prime Minister feel that Canada must follow to the letter the policy advocated on television last night by the President of the United States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have received statements that have been made by the President. We are following very closely what is going on in the Dominican Republic and also in Washington with respect to this matter.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question. My question to the Prime Minister is this. Has he and has his Government differed with the President of the United States with respect to their policy concerning the Dominican Republic as he did, and as his Government did, with regard to Viet Nam? Has there been that kind of disagreement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not accept the hon. Member's premise. I have made it clear that this Government has supported the purposes of U.S. policy in Viet Nam. I have nothing to say on United States policy in Santo Domingo in the very difficult situation of the present time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will the Prime Minister not openly admit that he had a row with the President of the United States with reference to their policy in Viet Nam?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. That is a false statement.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: My
question is supplementary to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. While we are pleased to hear that there are facilities for evacuating Canadian nationals from Santo .Domingo, may I ask the Prime Minister to tell us which country is in charge of these evacuation arrangements? Is this being done through the Canadian air force or are we relying on the Americans?

DEBATES	May 3, 1965


Lester Bowles Pearson: The United States has made its evacuation facilities available to Canadians and nationals of other countries, and I think we should be very grateful for the services of the United States in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a further supplementary to the Prime Minister in connection with the situation in the Dominican Republic.
When the President of the United States states that he will not tolerate in this hemisphere or close to our western frontiers the setting up of another communist government, is he authorized to speak on behalf of the Canadian people and the Canadian government, in short for Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The President was, of course, speaking for his own country and for his own Government.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: My question is not directed to events in the Dominican Republic. I want to ask the Prime Minister what his intentions are with regard to house business after the debate on the budget has been completed. In particular I should like to know whether he intends to go ahead with the reform measures affecting Parliamentary procedure. I ask this question in view of what seem to me to be inspired stories that the Government intends to use such a debate to create a situation leading to dissolution.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not know what the hon. gentleman means by "inspired stories" unless he is referring to his own column.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to assure him that in my view the inspiration for that column is often very dubious.
As to his question, which is a very reasonable question indeed concerning the business of the House, I hope to be able to make a statement on that matter tomorrow.
May 3, 1965	COMMONS



CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO BANK ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the rather lengthy, complicated and important nature of the subject, can he tell the House when the Government intends to introduce the amendments to the Bank Act?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I hope very soon, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is "very soon" a matter of within the next few days or within the next fortnight?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The Prime Minister said he would be making a statement tomorrow about the order of business, and I think it would be inappropriate for me to say anything further at this moment.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the Minister aware that the disastrous frost and cold spell of last winter in British Columbia caused heavy losses in soft fruits, besides damage to the apple crop and heavy damage to trees, as a result of which the whole fruit industry has suffered a costly setback?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with this situation, and I am in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture of British Columbia at all times.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


David Vaughan Pugh: A supplementary question based on the last words of the Minister. Would the Minister keep in touch with his departmental officials so that when the losses are fully calculated a program of aid, in conjunction with the Province of British Columbia, may be made available?


Harry William Hays: I might tell the hon. Member that last year he will remember-I believe he voted for it-a crop insurance scheme was set up in which all provinces could participate. Under the scheme the Federal Government pays 20 per cent of the premiums and half the administration cost. We hope the Government of
DEBATES	833
Inquiries of the Ministry British Columbia will see fit to implement such a crop insurance scheme in which these people may participate.


David Vaughan Pugh: A further supplementary. I quite realize all that has gone on in crop insurance since the scheme was first brought in, but would the Minister care to say when he last had any correspondence or conversation about crop insurance with the Minister of Agriculture of the Province of British Columbia?


Harry William Hays: I cannot say just when, Mr. Speaker, but I will be glad to get the information and pass it to the hon. Member.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, further to the answer given by the Minister of Agriculture a short while ago, I should like to put to him another question about joint programs of crop insurance.
Has the province of Quebec made known its intention to take part in this federal-provincial program of crop insurance which the minister intends to establish or about which he has been talking for a year and which is now under consideration by the provinces?


Harry William Hays: If they have, Mr. Speaker, they have not communicated with me.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Just a few moments ago the minister stated that he was ready to consider a claim from the government of British Columbia so as to provide assistance to the farmers of that area. Could he tell us what kind of assistance was asked of him by the Quebec minister of agriculture and why he has refused to provide such an assistance to the Quebec farmers?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I did not assure the hon. Member from British Columbia that we were doing this; if the hon. Member will read the answer tomorrow he will learn that I did not say that.
So far as Quebec is concerned, as hon. Members are aware, it is the responsibility of the provincial Governments to provide assistance to farmers who have suffered crop losses as a result of adverse or abnormal weather conditions. The Federal Government
834	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry however, has always been prepared to participate in any relief assistance program established by a province when the magnitude of the emergency was such as to make it difficult for a Province to finance such a program alone. During 1964 the Federal Government has participated with the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan in providing freight assistance on fodder shipped to farmers in dried out areas of those provinces.
In so far as the request received from the Province of Quebec for federal participation in relief assistance to farmers in that Province who suffered crop losses during 1964 from other causes, the Government has reviewed this request and is of the opinion that the relief programs proposed by the Province are such that they could be financed by the provincial authorities. Under the circumstances we have advised the Province that we will not participate in the relief programs proposed.
I should point out that in order to provide an organized program under which farmers throughout Canada would be assured at all times of securing some financial protection against crop losses, the Federal crop insurance program was established. Under this program the Federal Government provides, as I said, 20 per cent of the premiums so far as the farmers are concerned and half the administration cost. I would hope that the Province of Quebec would see fit to institute such legislation.


Gérard Laprise: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister tell the house whether his refusal to give assistance to the farmers in the province of Quebec-which had been requested by the minister of agriculture of that province-is intended to compel the province of Quebec to accept the crop insurance program of the federal government?


Harry William Hays: I would not say so, Mr. Speaker, but I hope they will consider it.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture which is a follow-up on crop insurance. In asking my supplementary question on crop insurance I did not wish to leave any impression that we have had anything less than a disaster to the fruit industry in the Province of British Columbia. Trees have been killed, with disastrous consequences to growers for

DEBATES	May 3. 1965
somewhere up to 10 years in the case of apple trees which have been lost; in other words, there will be no production during that time.
My question was on a soft note to the Minister because I merely want to make sure, first of all, that he is aware of the situation, and second, that exclusive of crop insurance or any other aid which may be forthcoming from the Province the Minister will keep his mind on the losses which have been incurred and at the proper time will be able to assess the situation and see whether, first of all, there is responsibility on the part of the Federal Government, and second whether the Federal Government will come to the aid of the Province and of the fruit industry.


Harry William Hays: I thank the hon. Member for all his suggestions.



TAKING OF BLOOD SAMPLES FROM ONTARIO DAIRY FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the Minister aware that the Federal Department of Health has representatives calling on dairy farmers in Ontario to take blood samples from the farmers in connection with kew fever?


Harry William Hays: I am not familiar with that fact, Mr. Speaker, but I know of a few people around here who should have blood samples taken.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that apparently none of the representatives calling on these farmers can supply an explanation, will the Minister explain what kew fever is?


Harry William Hays: Yes. If you will come out behind the barn I will tell you.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC-PROVINCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN HOUSING AND JOB PLACEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in his capacity as spokesman for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in this House. My question is based on the statement made by the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs over the week end. Has the Government of
May 3, 1965	COMMONS
the Province of Quebec, in a spirit of cooperative federalism, informed the Minister of its desire to take over the responsibility for housing in that Province? If not, is it the Minister's intention to contact the Quebec Government in this regard?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, there has been no communication on this subject from the Government of the Province of Quebec.
I know that in the conversations that I had with the Prime Minister of Quebec and some of his Cabinet colleagues in early March they did indicate they intended to become more active in the housing field. Just what form their activities will take, whether they will or wish to proceed along the lines of establishing a housing corporation similar to that of Ontario, I do not know, and there has been no discussion about the matter since that March meeting.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question directed to the Minister of Labour. Has the Government of the Province of Quebec, in a spirit of co-operative federalism, made its desires known to this Minister of the Canadian Government regarding the Province's wish to take over the job placement field and, if not, is it the Minister's intention to contact the Province of Quebec in this regard?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is no.


William Heward Grafftey: Then I have a further supplementary question which I will now direct to the Prime Minister. Do not both these instances convince the Prime Minister that the time has now come to set up a parliamentary committee to study and modernize our constitution, making it a made in Canada constitution?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I said previously on this very important matter.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the question asked by the hon. Member for Oxford a moment ago respecting the deplorable conduct of certain individuals in connection with the bombing of the United States Consulate in the city of Montreal, the Min-
DEBATES	835
Inquiries of the Ministry ister of Justice being absent perhaps the Prime Minister could let the House know whether or not the R.C.M.P. has any responsibility for the protection of Embassies, mission buildings and the like and whether any information is available at the moment indicating that those who committed this act are about to be apprehended or have already been apprehended?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope my right hon. friend will allow me to take that question as notice and to answer it tomorrow.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. The question arises out of the announcement by the R.C.A.F. that all Argus antisubmarine aircraft in the Air Force have been grounded as a result of the discovery of corrosion in the fuselage of one of the aircraft. Can the Minister indicate to the House what type of investigation will be carried on, how long the aircraft will be grounded, and whether there is any suspicion that this was the cause of the crash of the Argus in the Caribbean area a month or so ago?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minisler of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, during a routine maintenance inspection of Argus aircraft a technical defect was found. As a matter of precautionary safety all this type of aircraft operated by the Department are to be grounded until the investigation into this matter has been completed.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister of National Defence in a position to tell us what was the technical difficulty to which he referred?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was stress or granular corrosion to one of the fuselage members.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Can the
Minister give the House any idea how long it will be before the investigation into the tragic Caribbean accident will be completed?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the investigation has been going on, but has been handicapped somewhat by the location of the crash. I am not in a position to say at this moment when the investigation will be completed.
May 3, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry REDISTRIBUTION



INQUIRY AS TO REPORTS OF PROVINCIAL COMMISSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to certain questions asked by the hon. Member for Queens and the hon. Member for York-Scarborough last Thursday, to which reference was also made in the House on Friday.
I have communicated with the office of the Representation Commissioner and am informed as follows. The reports to be made by each Commission under section 17 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act have been tentatively set for the following dates: New Brunswick, May 8; Newfoundland, May 14; Quebec, May 15; British Columbia, May 19; Nova Scotia, May 22 and Ontario, June 15. The commissions for the Prairie Provinces are not yet in a position to give an estimate of the time their reports will be completed. In respect of Prince Edward Island, I am sure all hon. Members are aware that that report was published on April 24.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last, April 26, the hon. Member for Skeena inquired as to whether the Government would consider broadening the scope of the inquiry being undertaken by an interdepartmental committee to include hunting and fishing rights to Indians not covered by treaties. I expressed the opinion that the directions that had been given to this committee were quite wide enough to include such a study, but I promised that I would make sure if this was the case.
On investigation I found that my opinion was correct. It was always the intention of the Government that the inquiry should cover the hunting and fishing rights of all Indians, not simply those residing in treaty areas.



INQUIRY AS TO STUDY OF NATIONAL GRID

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, every year at about this time I direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I should again

at this time like to ask him how the study of a national power grid is progressing.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, we have let a contract for the second phase of the total study. The reports we are receiving are to the effect that these studies are moving along very well indeed. I expect a report from the second level of these studies some time in 1965.



APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HIGH ARROW DAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Can the Minister inform the House whether he has received an application from Dr. Hugh Keenleyside, co-chairman of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, for the licensing and building of the High Arrow dam under the International River Improvements Act?


Arthur Laing: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not received such an application as yet.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Challerlon (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Last Wednesday he undertook to check into reports that certain subcontractors were being ordered off the job at the Victoria airport. Can the Minister now say whether he has looked into this situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I asked that an investigation be carried out into this situation. I have not as yet assembled all the information, but I will try to provide an answer to my hon. friend as soon as possible, hopefully tomorrow.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister arising out of a statement issued last week by Sister Mary Vianney, Administrator of Providence Villa in the city
May 3, 1965

of Toronto, and endorsed by Metro social service officials, in which she stated that pensioners do not have enough money to feed themselves properly. In view of that statement, will the Prime Minister have a change of heart and begin his war on poverty by bringing in legislation at once to increase the old age pension?



NATIONAL ANTHEM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In view of the parliamentary difficulties experienced in respect of the introduction of a new flag, and in view of the Government's intention as announced in the Throne Speech to institute "O Canada" as the National Anthem, will the Prime Minister give serious consideration to the launching of a national contest to provide "O Canada" with new and modern words which would be acceptable to all Canada? The winning lyrics of such a contest could be selected by a special committee of the House.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope that during this session of Parliament we will be able to adopt "O Canada" officially. I believe such a move would receive the general support of this House. I am not sure whether it is desirable to hold a contest to provide new words, but I will be glad to give consideration to this suggestion.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister assure this House that when a bill is brought forward to make "O Canada" our official anthem, it will be designed so there will be only one version applicable to all nationalities in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think that is a very interesting suggestion and has a good deal to commend it. We already have had some good discussions on this subject during private members' hour, and I am sure we will have more interesting discussions on the resolution before very long. Perhaps at that time we can deal with the matter in greater detail.


Mr. R. W. Pritlie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister related to the one asked him about "O Canada". Can he give the House the assurance that no measure dealing with "O Canada" will be brought before the House until after September 1?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the learned and capable Minister of Transport relating to what is reported to be one of the most serious shortages of refrigerator cars ever faced by the potato shippers of Prince Edward Island. Will the Minister make inquiries as to whether the C.N.R. has taken steps to alleviate this hurtful situation?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I shall be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to pose to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Before the Minister makes a report to the House in respect of amendments to the Veterans' Land Act, which he indicated to the House a day or two ago he would be making in a short time, will he take into consideration the suggestion that the amendments include a reduction in the size of land holdings required to qualify for a loan?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


George Louis Chatterton: I have a supplementary question. Can the Minister give us his assurance that the proposed amendments to the Veterans Charter will be submitted to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that veterans legislation coming before this Parliament will be referred to that Committee. [DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for
838	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry the Prime Minister. Is he aware of the protest made by Mr. Claude Edwards, President of the Civil Service Federation of Canada, with respect to the apparent decision of the Government to take no action in the matter of increasing the pensions of retired civil servants? May I ask him this further question. In view of figures placed on Hansard today indicating that more than 5,000 retired civil servants and more than 5,000 widows of retired civil servants are drawing pensions of less than $50 a month, will the Government reconsider this important question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have received a letter from Mr. Edwards expressing their disappointment, which I can understand. In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I should like to add that we have considered the representations made on behalf of retired civil servants on at least two occasions during the past year. The Government considers that the additional provision which Parliament has recently made to increase the amount of the old age security benefit by $10 a month, and to lower the age of eligibility next year to 69 and progressively thereafter to 65, does represent an added benefit for most retired civil servants and indeed for most other elderly Canadians, which is more substantial and significant and applies to a larger number of retired civil servants than the request the Federation has made.
So far as the question of increased living costs and reduced purchasing power and the effect upon the position of these former employees, which is an important part of the argument made by the retired civil servants, the Government considers that it has an equal responsibility to all our citizens to do what it can to protect them in this regard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the Government give consideration to the very effective case made on behalf of the retired Civil Servants by the hon. Member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Groos), during the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I hope my hon. friend will believe me when I say we gave long and earnest consideration to every aspect of this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.

DEBATES	May 3, 1965



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice of which I gave him notice, but in his absence perhaps his Parliamentary Secretary could reply. What was the price per unit for the 127 vehicles purchased recently by the Government directly from the Ford Motor Company for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Surely the hon. Member knows this is really a question for the order paper.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: With due deference, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be allowed to ask a supplementary question that will explain the urgency. Is the Government aware that this action has resulted in the Government of Canada going into the used car business, which is illegal under section 12 of the Manitoba Highway Traffic Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Important as this question obviously must be, may I suggest it be put on the order paper.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister intend to meet this week with Mr. Paul Gerin-Lajoie in order to discuss Quebec's intentions with regard to the signing of agreements and treaties between that province and foreign countries?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am at the moment in contact with the Prime Minister of Quebec with a view to arranging a very early meeting, I hope, with him and Mr. Gerin-Lajoie on this and other matters.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the attention of the Government been directed to the remarks of His
May 3, 1965
Excellency Francois Leduc, French Ambassador to Canada, in this connection wherein he is reported by the Canadian Press to have said that what has taken place is perfectly normal? Will the Prime Minister secure a copy of the remarks of the Ambassador; because it seems rather strange that in a controversial matter such as treaty making the Ambassador should be giving his observations on the question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If my right hon. friend had read the text as I recall it, and I hope I am being accurate, his statement was to the effect that it was perfectly normal for Quebec to seek cultural and educational assistance from France, or words to that effect. That seems to me quite a reasonable statement to make.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has omitted the material part, which was:
Call them agreements or ententes if you like. We French have very precise minds and we like to see arrangements in writing.
I would ask the Prime Minister to have this matter looked into, because the statement would indicate that a little more care should have been taken before it was made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to secure the text of what was said.



EARTHQUAKES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to bother the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources again but I should like to ask him a question based on certain inquiries. On Friday I asked his Parliamentary Secretary if he could give a report with respect to the earthquake that did damage to Seattle and was felt as far north as Trail. The Parliamentary Secretary said the Minister was in Vancouver and was obtaining reports on the situation. Has the Minister anything to report to the House at this time in respect of this earthquake which was felt most severely in Seattle?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is generally agreed that there has been little or no damage in the Province of British Columbia. There was concern, of course, because the effects of the quake were felt over a range of some 600 miles and very severe damage has been done in Tacoma and Seattle. However, there is no evidence of 22620-54J
Inquiries of the Ministry positive damage to any building or dam in the Province of British Columbia.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport?
Would the minister tell us why the news agents service aboard the trains between Quebec and Cochrane, and especially between Senneterre and Cochrane, have been discontinued? This change considerably curtails the Canadian National services to its passengers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was good enough to send me notice of his question and I was able to get a reply from the Canadian National. With a view to improving service to the passengers, effective April 24 a coach lounge was put into service between Montreal, Senneterre, Noranda, Rouyn. Sandwiches, coffee and beverages are served in this car. It is considered that this provides an improved and more acceptable service than that previously offered by the news agents.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Has Hal Banks filed his 1964 income tax return? My question is based on the answer given me by the Minister last September from which I gathered that a hypothec had been placed against Hal Bank's property in the Province of Quebec. If he has not filed his return, will a penalty be added; and is the Minister taking steps to levy on the hypothec filed last August?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald Augustine Regan: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of



May 3. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry Finance with reference to the provision in the budget respecting a tax concession to encourage industry to take anti-pollution measures in connection with our lakes and streams. Will the Minister indicate to the House whether this would include steps taken by industries such as fishing plants in connection with harbours and bays where pollution can become quite serious at times?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I can assure my hon. friend that I am interested also in the fishing problems of the Atlantic region. This does raise a very interesting point, and I shall be glad to look into it.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received from the city of Winnipeg a copy of a resolution passed by the City Council urging the establishment of a Federal-Provincial health plan along the lines recommended by the Hall Commission report? Will the Prime Minister be replying favourably to this communication?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot remember offhand, Mr. Speaker, whether I have received such a communication. If so, I assure my hon. friend I will be replying to it at once.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did the Prime Minister miss one word in my question? I asked him if he would be replying favourably.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be replying to it in a very friendly way, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of the intention of the Canadian Government to promote and develop the tourist industry in Canada, is the Minister giving consideration to the removal of the $2 entry fee tourists have to pay when they pass through or go into national parks? Would the Minister not consider this penny wise and pound foolish, in view of the fact we wish

to build up tourism and the amount of money Canada receives from these tourists when they enter Canada?
Arthur Laing: The fee we
charge is very nominal; it is $2 for the season. We think it has the advantage of bringing to the attention of Canadians the fact that they are in a park. There are certain people on business trips only who say, "I am not staying in the park, why should I pay?" Since the trans-Canada highway runs through the park they feel they are badly treated. We get a few complaints, but not many.
However, if my memory serves me correctly revenue from the $2 fee amounts to about 35 per cent of our total park revenues, and our total revenues are of the order of $3 million or $4 million. We are spending $23 million or $24 million on the parks. When we are spending so much I would hate to see such a large proportion of our revenue go all at once. We have been trying to increase our revenues by way of a variety of fees. We want to bring these up to an equity with the fees that are charged by Provincial parks and by private people who are competing with us in the provision of these services. We have even endeavoured to increase the price of hay and grazing in those parks where we are still allowing that. I would hesitate to give much hope to my hon. friend that the $2 fee is going to be reduced.


Mr. Mclnlosh:: I may be misinformed, and the Minister can correct me if I am, but I understand that in the Maritimes the Federal Government does not charge the $2 fee to go through national parks. If that is the case, is that not discrimination? I do not want to get into an argument with the Minister, but perhaps the net income from this fee is not as large as he thinks it is, in view of the cost of keeping personnel at the parks to collect this fee.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. McIntosh:: I would like the Minister to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that the hon. Member put the question on the Order Paper; then there should be ample time for a reply.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 30, consideration of the motion of Hon. Walter L.
May 3, 1965	COMMONS
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.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, it might be well at the beginning to review the amendment which was moved by the official critic of the Conservative Party, the hon. Member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). The amendment reads:
This House regrets that the Government has failed to meet the most pressing economic problems of the country by refusing to abolish the sales tax on production machinery, which tax continues to penalize the manufacturing industry and business, thereby undermining Canada's competitive position in markets at home and abroad: and by not giving adequate relief from taxation for the lower income groups and increased assistance to old age pensioners in the face of the steadily rising cost of living.
I suppose by now the Minister has read with some interest the editorial comments in various newspapers and the headlines about the 10 per cent tax cut. The sunshine budget, the expansionary budget, has now been somewhat exploded. This has happened at a time when we had borrowed a slogan from the United States. I believe it was about a year ago this January that the President of the United States, in his address to Congress, mentioned that his Government was preparing war on poverty. If this was to be a budgetary war on poverty, may I suggest to the Minister at the outset that it has become a war on the poor.
This budget has given little if any relief to those in the lower income brackets. The Minister said it was a 10 per cent cut. Actually this is a misrepresentation, when you realize that this year the relief does not start until July 1. It becomes, therefore, a tax cut of 5 per cent. In this bracket in which we have, as the financial critic mentioned, two thirds of the population of Canada I will say on submarginal salaries, this tax cut becomes a reduction of about one cent per day. This is the reason I label this budget as not a war on poverty at all but a war on the poor.
I am going to deal with these points separately. The second thing is the failure of the Government to abolish the sales tax on production machinery used by manufacturers. This means an increase in the cost of production at a time when the Minister of Trade and Commerce, speaking to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, stated that manufacturers in Canada must be prepared to cut their costs so they can compete in world markets and so they can stay in business.
DEBATES	841
The Budget-Mr. Woolliams This is not only a tax on production machinery, but at the outset I would say it is a surtax, as the Minister knows, when the sales tax is imposed on the production itself. It amounts to double taxation. If Canadian industry is going to compete with United States industry or any other industry in the western world or the communist bloc, then I ask how can it compete when the Government itself imposes a sales tax on production machinery?
I believe the Minister, in his own heart, believes that the tax should be abolished. I believe he would like to abolish it. However, it is the last thing remaining from his original budget, from which he retreated so much, and if he were to retreat from this there would be nothing left of that budget. The manufactures have been told they must cut costs or they cannot compete. The Minister is placing a stumbling block in their path which prevents costs being cut because the sales tax creates a surtax. How can our industries compete with those of the United States and other nations?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
During this session and the last session we heard a great hullabaloo about a contributory pension plan. The government has done nothing to relieve the position of senior citizens whose pensions, as with veterans and any other pensioners, are a frozen, set income; and when this is considered in the face of the ever escalating cost of living and the cheapened dollar, it means a great hardship. In other words the contributory pension plan and the budget ignored the needy and the aged.
In a nutshell what the Government did in this budget was to accomplish nothing except, to put it in round figures as someone else did the other day, the Cabinet Ministers increased their own salaries by $600, because that is what the tax cut means to them. They declared war on the poor and they increased their own salaries by $600. The Minister laughs, but that is why I say it is a war on the poor and not a war on poverty.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: You benefit too.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes; in reply to the Minister I benefit by $600, but I am not saying this is a philosophical argument as to the logic of what the Government has done through the budget. That is no explanation whatsoever.
On this indictment I ask all parties in the Opposition to give consideration to voting for the amendment on three grounds; (1) that
May 3, 1965

The Budget-Mr. Woolliams the Government failed to abolish the sales tax, which means added costs to the manufacturers; (2) that it declared war on the poor rather than war on poverty; and (3), it failed to consider the demands and the pressures on the pensioners of this country, particularly the senior citizens.
I may tell the Minister I have spent some time reading a rather famous speech he made when he was the financial critic of the Liberal party and sitting just about where I am today. If it was not his maiden speech it was his first financial speech in the House, and the date was October 22, 1962. In it he laid down 9 or 12 points containing his master plan.
What were the criticisms he offered on that occasion? One was in regard to the imbalance of trade between the United States and Canada and, if I interpret him correctly, on that occasion he said that if payments between the United States and Canada, and between other trading nations and Canada, continued in imbalance it would mean an increase in unemployment and create an economic situation that would be difficult to solve in terms of the conditions laid down by the Economic Council of Canada, which was a creature of the Conservative government and which has said we must have 1,700,000 new job opportunities created between now and 1970.
When I listened to the Minister of Trade and Commerce on Friday afternoon last, and to the Minister of Finance earlier, it almost appeared that they were the ones who invented prosperity. I only wish some of these Ministers would be honest and admit that our economic resurgence is really the result of economic prosperity in the United States and in the western world generally, reflected in Canada. Economic resurgences have occurred from time to time, and there are graphs which show the occurrence of recesses and deflation.
If the Minister of Finance had been fair, and if the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is unavoidably absent today having gone down to the United States, had been fair, they would admit that the gross national product in 1962, the last year the Conservatives were in office, increased by 8 per cent. We did not take all the credit for that at that time. We appreciated there was an upsurge in business in the western world generally.
Let us face up to the facts as economists rather than as politicians, and try to paint the


picture in its true colours. Let us look at the imbalance of payments for a few moments. In October, 1962 the Minister of Finance made a startling attack on the Conservative government. He said that an imbalance of payments between the United States and Canada would eventually mean unemployment. It is true that because of the upsurge in business there is less unemployment today, but what will happen to us when the United States gets into difficulties? What will happen to us when the western world is suffering economically? If the Minister was right then, he is wrong today.
What is our imbalance today with the United States? When I posed this question on Friday afternoon the Minister of Trade and Commerce said it was only $500 million. I say, let's do our homework. Before posing that question I called the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to see if I could get an honest answer, and I must say I got an evasive if not dishonest answer from the Minister. I found that at the end of the year our fiscal imbalance in trade with the United States was $1,379 million, something which can be checked by the press of the country and by the Ministers themselves.
Somebody says well, what is a billion dollars? I don't know. I don't suppose I will ever see that amount, but the fact remains that our imbalance was $1,379 million while the Minister said it was only $500 million. In 1962, when the Minister criticized the Conservative government, our imbalance of trade with the United States was less than $1 billion. It is now in worse shape by $500 million, yet the Minister was the man who had a master plan, a cure-all for Canada. How does he reconcile the position he took in October 1962 with his position today, when we have an imbalance of trade with the United States of $1,379 million?
In 1962 he read his speech, which was well prepared, and he left the impression that the Conservatives were responsible for that situation. But anybody who has read anything about economic history knows that in 1957 when the Conservatives took office the imbalance was more than $1 billion, and we improved that situation.
Let us take a look at the over-all picture and see whether this is a sunshine budget or not. Our trade with other nations gives a little better picture, because we have a favourable balance of payments situation with some nations as a result of our wheat deals and, for instance, our coal deal with Japan.
May 3, 1965	COMMONS
With all other nations we have an imbalance of trade totalling $652 million; thus our trade imbalance is in a worse position now than at any time the Conservatives were in office.
The Minister was the master mind who was going to cure all our economic ills, but all he can say today-and I must say I am somewhat jealous of him because he can say it-is that things are good. Things have been good since 1962. Things have been good in Europe since 1962, and things have been good in the United States since 1962. If Canada were to have a recess when all the western world was buoyant, then there would be something wrong.
I should now like to put on record what the Minister said on October 22, 1962, as recorded at page 817 of Hansard for that date. You know, Mr. Speaker, when these politicians come in they are great fellows to start with. They have a five year plan or a 12 point program, but they always forget it once it goes into a Hansard volume and is placed in the library. This is what the Minister said:
As the third point In the program, it is clear that we cannot go on paying more to foreigners each year for goods and services than we receive from them for the things we sell to them. To do this would lead only to another exchange crisis and it would mean the continuance of the present problem of finding jobs for people who are unemployed. The right policy for Canada in these circumstances is to increase production in this country, wherever this can be done without increasing costs.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Let us analyze what he said in October 1962, because this was the Gordon manifesto, this was the Gordon who was going to cure everything. He said we could not continue to buy more from foreign nations than we sell to them. But what has he done about it? He has done nothing. The imbalance of trade with the other nations of the world is higher than it was under the Conservative administration, and as high as it was in the time of the former administration in 1956 and 1957. But the point I am making is this. On top of it all, in his first budget he proposed and implemented a sales tax on production machinery. His last words in that paragraph are words to remember: "The right policy for Canada in these circumstances is to increase production in this country without increasing the cost." Well, he did the very thing he said should not be done, and he did it through taxation.
How has the economy been able to remain as buoyant as it is? I admit it is buoyant. No one will deny that the business of the nation

The Budget-Mr. Woolliams is good. It was good in 1962. But let us see what someone else had to say about the situation. The Minister of Finance is most fortunate that the Conservatives consummated wheat deals with the communists. I have heard him say so in the West when he goes there to throw out his chest and boast about this accomplishments. He does not remind them that it was the Minister of Trade and Commerce who advised them not to grow more wheat because there would be a surplus leading to reduced prices. If he had not had behind him the former Conservative Minister of Agriculture and the Conservative party to see that the wheat was produced and, above all, to consummate these contracts, he would be facing a serious exchange problem today. I will quote as my authority the former Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Graham Towers. This is what he said on January 28, 1965: "Obviously, the devaluation of the Canadian dollar has contributed to the progress made in the last two years."
I might pause there for a moment. The Minister does not like to be told that. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, and in particular the Prime Minister, went across this country saying that the devaluation of the dollar would mean higher cost to consumers and restricted opportunities to the primary producers of this country. Now they say this was a good policy. Mr. Towers says the policy is a good one, but there is one aspect of it which must be watched carefully. Every time something is created there is a backlash. What is the backlash attached to the devaluation of the dollar? Maybe a year from now what I am saying will seem more important than it does now, because Graham Towers is a man who has had some experience and I believe I understand exactly what he means when he says:
it is well to remember, however, that devaluation produces certain painful results. It means amongst other things, that we pay more for our imports and tend to receive less for our exports-therefore, the terms of trade turn against us. Hopefully, lower prices for export products will stimulate demand for these goods, but it does make it more difficult to cure the trade deficit, as we must sell that many more units to earn the same income.
As far as a layman can judge, 1965 will be a good year. But what comes next? What is the point I am making? It is this. In order to derive full benefit from the devaluation of the dollar, which was Conservative policy, the Minister of Finance should have created a climate favourable for the expansion of
May 3, 1985

The Budget-Mr. Woolliams industrial and manufacturing concerns in this country, enabling them to reduce costs and prices. Instead he imposed a sales tax which had the direct effect of increasing costs. If there is to be a backlash consequent upon pegging the dollar, the Minister is responsible for that backlash inasmuch as he introduced measures which increased the cost of production. That is the situation.
In summary, on this point, let me say this. If we have a prosperous economy today it is due in the main to the influence of prosperous economies in the rest of the western world. Though the Conservatives, when in power, devalued the dollar, they did not impose a sales tax to increase the cost of production. We tried to create a climate favourable to export sales. Had there not been sales of wheat amounting to a billion dollars the Minister of Finance would have been in trouble. He has only been pulled out of trouble by the action taken by the previous Government.
I come now to my second point. As everyone who has spoken earlier from this side of the house has said, the reductions in taxation which the Minister announced mean nothing. The effect on those in the lower tax brackets is infinitesimal. The effect in the medium bracket is small, and even with regard to people in the higher tax brackets the effect on capital investment will be very slight. We have a progressive system of taxation in Canada similar to that which exists in other capitalistic nations; and here, I would say, we need reform.
I say this because on one hand we talk about foreign ownership of our industry, and on the other we take away so much money from those engaged in production in this country that nothing is left to invest in our nation. Professional and business men and corporations are well aware that the biggest partner today in any industry today is the Government. I am certain the Minister is aware of this, too.
I am talking about taxable income; I am not talking about income. The Minister himself is confused on this point, as can be seen from one of the schedules printed on page 444 of Hansard. He has confused taxable income with net income. I am one of those who believe it is not a sin to make a profit. I say this. The only way to increase the gross national product in this country is through investment, and the only kind of capital produced in this country which creates funds for investment of this kind is that which flows

from production, not from Government spending or Government enterprises upon which public money is spent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Time someone said that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is time somebody spoke up for the people in business today. On $15,000 earned in business in a year, $4,070 has to be paid in income tax plus an additional 45 per cent above that figure, and if more than $25,000 is made, 50 cents on the dollar has to be paid in tax. That is where the investment funds are going. The Minister talks about the expansion of industry but, in a nutshell, all the Government did by this budget was to increase the salary of Cabinet Ministers by an additional $600 a year.


John George Diefenbaker: And $30 to the working man.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: At one time the Minister of Finance knew better than to give these glib answers in the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: Louder.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You are the last person who should talk that way. You should go back to the seat where you belong.


Gerald Augustine Regan: On a question of privilege, I should like to point out-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have the floor and I do not intend to have my time wasted now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Is the
hon. Member for Halifax rising on a question of privilege?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Yes, I am rising on a question of privilege. The hon. Member for Bow River has tried to indicate in his wild, arm-waving manner that I made an interjection. I did not make an interjection of any kind.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then I will say I am sorry.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Furthermore, if the hon. Member would contain himself, I would point out that while I am not interjecting or speaking I have a right to sit in any seat I please. [DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: I must say to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) that I do not see any point of privilege.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the reason for his interjection was to try to get me off my stride, so that he could make a little press for
May S. 1965	COMMONS
himself. Because he is never capable of making a speech himself.


Howard Russell MacEwan: If he can hold on to one seat, he is lucky.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right; I must agree with that. Why has the Minister failed Canada? He and other Ministers have been going across the nation talking about putting the financial matters of Canada in shape. I have pointed out the imbalance of payments and what effect the income tax deductions have had. In fact, when the Minister brought down the first budget, which was a budget of retreat and of confusion, he had to withdraw everything in it which he proposed because he was so inept. The newspapers at the time, even his great friend the Globe and Mail, spanked him for that.
Now, what has happened since that time? This great lion-hearted critic of October 1962 has now been reduced to a mere lamb, and he has to bring in the most innocuous Budget today because he cannot stand any criticism. If he questions my word in this regard let me take for a few moments an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail on June 21, 1963. I shall quote only a small portion, and if I should violate the rules I can paraphrase it practically word for word. Talking about the budget it said:
If this is not enough to persuade Mr. Gordon of his duty to resign he should remember that the Liberals were elected to restore confidence in Canada abroad. They had considerable success in this direction until a week ago. Mr. Gordon by his ineptitude and-let us be frank-simple bad judgment has destroyed that confidence, as shown by an editorial in The New York Times quoted on this page yesterday. It does not matter if that newspaper is right or wrong in its judgment. The fact is that this is what our friends abroad are thinking, and thinking this way they cannot have confidence. Thus Mr. Gordon has prejudiced the record.
Then the final sentence:
Mr. Pearson may not want to accept Mr. Gordon's resignation, but Mr. Gordon should insist on delivering it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, why do I make this point? Although it may be said that I am hurting the Minister's feelings, the point is that when he was sitting on this side of the House in opposition he was the lion-hearted critic; but now, because of his failure, he has become a lamb and has produced this innocuous document which he calls expansionary measures for Canada.
Somebody mentioned the Minister of Agriculture's talks. No doubt the Liberal Agriculture Minister will deny that he made this
DEBATES	845
The Budget-Mr. Woolliams statement, but my hon. friend did say that the only policies which were any good for agriculture were those of the Conservatives, and he only ran as a Liberal because he thought the Liberals might win and he wanted to carry on those policies.


Michael Starr: Did he say that behind the barn?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, this was not said behind the barn; this was said outside the front door right beside the manure spreader.
I turn now to a third point. As the trading world expands the western world is trading more with Communist nations, and must do so. The Liberals criticized us at the time when we traded with the Communists in grain. I see the hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) is not in his seat today. He is one who is so critical of absenteeism, yet he was not able to collect enough chicks from his own members to propose any motion of his own to this House the other day.


An hon. Member:: Ha, ha.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Someone says "ha, ha", but he is one who criticized wheat sales to Communist China. As we expand we in the Western world must deal not only with Communist nations but also compete with Western nations, such as the United States, Japan, France, Germany and others. We also have to be prepared now as never before to compete against the Communist bloc.
If I may come back to a point I made earlier, the Canadian system of progressive income tax which has developed in this country and other capitalistic countries over the years must be reviewed and reformed. We have only to look in this regard at such experts on the subject as Mr. W. O. Twaits, who made a comment about this in July of 1960 in an article entitled "Philosophy of Realism". The Minister of Finance was going to reform taxation, but now the Government says that while a Commission is studying the matter they cannot do anything about it. The fact is they are frightened to do something about it because they have no policies. They know that if they had cut taxes they might have had a greater deficit, which is the reason they did not cut taxes. But why not tell the Canadian people the truth?


An hon. Member:: Why?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, why? Let us see what Mr. Twaits said in his article of July 1960:
In editorial pages and current commentary, one is struck by an increasing preoccupation with the
846	COMMONS DEBATES	May 3. 1965
The Budget-Mr. Woolliams
philosophy and objectives of our western democratic system. There is an increasing awareness that our ability to compete with the Communist world is not just a matter of missiles and ideology, but also of our basic economic strengths.
Now let me come to another point. A philosophy of socialistic policies has grown up in Western Canada. Some people believe that it is a sin to make a profit. Even the people living within the Communist bloc today believe you must make a profit. You must have capital to produce investment and productivity. If you have investment with productivity you get an increase in the gross national product.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: I regret to interrupt the hon. Member but his time is up.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Does the hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the House to continue?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Grudgingly.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we would all be disappointed in not hearing more from the hon. Member. I certainly hope he will continue, but not for too long because some of the rest of us want to speak this afternoon.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate that from the Minister of Finance and I will be only a few moments. If it were not for the progressive system of income tax, labour unions would be less prone to ask for an increase in wages. Corporations would be less prone to increase their prices if they did not have 50 per cent taken off their profit level to reinvest, bringing about expansion in the country. I ask the Minister to take a look at this question, because we do need reform of the progressive system of income tax.
In summary, and leaving out some of the remarks I intended to make, I say that what Walter gives, Walter takes away. In fact, what Walter gives, Walter takes more away. That is what industry knows today and it is the socialistic philosophy of the Government. In fact, I believe that the Liberal Party is a New Democratic Party in a hurry. They have out-socialized the socialists of our time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know my hon. friends do not want to hear that, but nevertheless it is the fact. It is a fact which cannot be denied.
There are two other points I want to make, Mr. Speaker, one of which is this: When the Minister stood in his place the other day to

reply to a question I asked him about the table which compared Canadian and United States income taxes, he said that Canadians pay less income taxes than Americans. Let me remind the Minister that Mr. Lambert, the president of the Toronto-Dominion Bank of Canada, has pointed out in a recent speech that the United States citizens pay less income tax. The Minister has overlooked these sorts of exemptions and deductions: (1) they can deduct their taxes with reference to real estate; (2) they can deduct interest against any mortgage; (3) they can deduct interest against any consumer goods; (4) they can deduct any interest; (5) they can deduct $600 exemption per child instead of $300; (6) they have greater medical exemptions by way of drug, dental and optical expenses. In fact, deductions in the United States are so generous that you just cannot compare our income tax rates with theirs; and when the President of the Toronto-Dominion Bank in this country says in a recent speech that they pay less tax per capita per dollar, then I will take his word for it.
In conclusion, I ask these questions: Can it be against Canada's interest to defeat a Government which deceived the Canadian people over the devaluation of the dollar?
Can it be against Canada's interest to defeat a Government which stated categorically that the imbalance of payments must be brought into balance, and then did nothing about it? [DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Can it be against Canada's interest to defeat a Government which declared war on the poor, instead of war on poverty, and made a mockery out of the United States slogan?
Can it be against Canada's interest to defeat a Government which implemented a sales tax increase in the cost of productivity to the country, and refuses in the face of favourable economic facts to abolish it?
Can it be against Canada's interest to defeat a Government whose main leaders, when in the opposition, spread dissension, gloom and doom, at a time when we had an exchange crisis similar to the one of 1947, in the days of Mr. Abbott, and similar to that crisis which Great Britain is going through at this time? Destroy the country, but elect Liberals; victory at all costs, say the Grits-irrespective of responsibility and irrespective of the results.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I thought that after the budget speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) the Liberals would have followed more
May 3, 1965	COMMONS
assiduously this debate, which lasts but six days. At present, there are 14 Liberal members, out of a total of 129, present in the house; and some ten minutes ago, there were but five. Only one minister is here in his seat, namely, the Minister of Finance. Among 23 cabinet ministers, only one is here to listen to what the opposition has to say against the budget speech.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Liberals are ashamed of this budget to the extent that they remain in their offices rather than in the chamber to hear-


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Stupidities.


David Réal Caouette: Listen to the hon. member for Longueuil. Fortunately, he will not be here after next election, and we will no longer hear his nonsense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. The hon. member has no right to make remarks concerning hon. members who are present in the house.


David Réal Caouette: I was not making remarks, Mr. Speaker, but merely mentioning a fact.
I intended to move-but I am precluded from so doing by the standing orders-an amendment to the amendment of the Conservative party, and it would have read as follows:
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom all the words after the phrase "economic problems of the country" and inserting instead the following words: by omitting to present a measure so that requirements of public capitaland not private capital.
I see the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) who is familiar with public capital.
-of public capital be met by the creation of new credits without interest by the Bank of Canada.
I am convinced that the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska understands that point and would have supported such a measure. But I am not allowed by parliamentary procedure to move a subamendment because we are discussing the budget.
As my first comment, after a review of the budget brought forward by the Minister of Finance Monday night, April 26, I should like to say that, in general terms, that budget is a colossal hoax and the information media that made favourable comments on that budget have knowingly misled the Canadian taxpayers. We saw the headlines in some papers:
10 per cent income tax reduction.
DEBATES	847
The Budget-Mr. Caouette
And the C.B.C. comments:
The Liberal government, in its great generosity, gave the Canadian taxpayer a 10 per cent tax reduction.
It was with unconcealed pleasure, in fact, that commentators from those information media, especially those who are handsomely paid by the C.B.C. out of the taxpayers' money, presented as a miraculous measure the 10 per cent cut on personal income tax announced by the Minister of Finance.
Here are a few figures showing that the praise given to the Minister of Finance is totally uncalled for and unjustified. On page 441 of the budget speech of the Minister of Finance, appear the following examples of the reduction granted to single taxpayers without dependants:
$2,000 income, $10 reduction; $5,000 income, $59 reduction; $10,000 income, $180 reduction; $20,000 income, $565 reduction.
Consequently, the reduction on an income of $5,000 is six times bigger than that on an income one third as high, $2,000. On an income of $10,000, which is five times the last mentioned amount, the tax relief is 18 times greater and on an income ten times that same amount, the relief is 56.5 times higher.
Such is the anti-social justice or the social injustice of the present Liberal government.
Let us come now to the reduction granted the average taxpayer, the father of two children in receipt of family allowances. Let us take the case of the father of a family who has a budget deficit-I hope the minister understands what I mean here-of a salaried worker who cannot make both ends meet because his income is too low, and let us see how generously he is treated by the Liberal government and by the Minister of Finance whose speech seems to have been dictated by Bay street financiers, in Toronto.
On a $3,000 income, an annual reduction of $3 is given a little less than one cent a day. On the other hand, on a $10,000 income, the reduction is $135; and on $15,000 income, it is $493, that is 164 times more than that granted the poor father of a family earning only $3,000 per year.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Speaker, according to table 25, on page 41 of budget papers tabled by the Minister of Finance, the consumer price index increased by 3.7 during the last two years alone. For the low wage earner who is single and earns $2,000 a year, that increase, that price inflation means that he must spend
May 3, 1965

The Budget-Mr. Caouette $74 more a year on those consumer goods and services he requires. Now, the Minister of Finance, in his great generosity, grants him a $10 reduction per year. Under the Liberal regime, the poor are becoming poorer than before-


Mr. Gauthier:: That is true.


David Réal Caouette: -because there is absolutely nothing in the budget to increase the purchasing power of people with an income below $3,000. Absolutely nothing to assist those who need it most.
To take the example given by the minister, let us consider the case of a family head with two children eligible for family allowances and earning $3,000 per year-assuming that he is a taxpayer, because of his low income-out of all his earnings, that man must spend on consumer goods and services $111 more, the amount which is taken off his income by the increase in the consumer price index alone. The Minister of Finance specifically stated, in his budget speech of April 26 last, that in his great generosity, he was granting that man a tax reduction of $3 per year, while he has to spend $111 more to maintain the same standard of living as two years ago.
With the Liberals, the poor are becoming poorer, the situation of small wage earners is becoming more precarious, and times will be harder in thousands of Canadian homes.
With the budget which was presented this year, do the millionaires, or those whose income is $35,000, such as the ministers, or members of Parliament, earning $18,000 a year, need personal income tax deductions? Or would it not rather be the small wage earners, the small taxpayers, the poor people who must receive special care from the government, a government which instead of applying social injustice or an antisocial policy, as the one which is being offered to us now, should see to it that the poorer members of our population, the small wage earners, the families with small income, be granted more attention by the Government? Those are the people upon whom the Minister of Finance should pay attention.
But the social injustice and the antisocial and antifamily policy of the government, which claims that it is "liberal", is even more evident when it grants higher tax reductions to those who have no family responsibilities.
Here are a few instances of this so-called "liberal" policy, which I call antisocial and antifamily: for a single person whose annual

salary is $3,000, the tax reduction is $24 a year; for a married man with no dependants, it is $10 a year, and if he has two dependants, it is $3 per year. A single person earning $4,000 a year will save $40; a married person without dependants, $24 per year, and a married person with two dependants, $15 per year. A single person earning $5,000 a year will save $59; a married person without dependants has a reduction of $40, and if he has two dependants, his reduction is $30.
With such an antifamily policy, it will not be necessary for the government to take direct birth control measures, as is done in other countries. This is an indirect measure to attain the same objective.
In the speech from the throne, much is made about the war against poverty, want and destitution, but the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance told us that the speech from the throne did not necessarily refer to poverty-stricken people, but rather to the lack of opportunities, the lack of education, the lack of training, and actually not to the lack of purchasing power among Canadians.
Poverty and destitution are unknown in Canada.
This is what the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance actually told the house, whereas the speech from the throne referred to war against poverty and destitution as they exist. The Liberals no longer know what terms to use, because they are confused and mixed up.
Is it by favouring the rich and disregarding the poor that the government intends to fight poverty and destitution? Is it by making the rich richer and the poor poorer that the government proposes to set up a socially fair economic order, a system enabling everyone to enjoy the wealth resulting from our national production?
Is it by reducing the purchasing power of the poor that the government policies of the Liberal party will fight poverty? Is it by reducing the taxes of rich people that we shall enrich the poor? Is it by giving to the rich that we shall help the poor, those who need to be looked after by the government, a government which claims to be government of the people, when it is controlled by finance and for finance? Is it by granting reductions to the more affluent classes of society that the government means to establish a socially fair economic order?
On many occasions, we have heard the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), the minis-
May 3, 1965

ter of the Liberal new guard, the minister who does not get along with others, the minister who wants to smash the old guard of the Canadian Liberal party, who said recently in the province of Quebec that he would not follow the old guard, the old gang of the Liberal party. Has the Minister of Forestry done anything in the house ever since he became a member of the cabinet?
On the contrary, government policies seem designed only to benefit the mighty and the rich and to crush the poor further. In so doing, the Liberal government is paving the way for an unprecedented social and economic disorder, after allowing disorder and brutality to prevail in the political field and in the relationship between the two founding races of our country.
After initiating policies conducive to confusion and national dissension, the Liberal government is in the course of laying down the basis of unprecedented economic and social disorder by allowing the less favoured groups of our population to be reduced to increasingly abject economic conditions.
In a speech delivered two weeks ago before thousands of pilgrims gathered at St. Peter's in Rome, Pope Paul VI said:
We must have the virtues conducive to peace, the capacity to give precedence to human over economic values
Human values, Mr. Speaker, that means the value of all individuals, of every man, woman and child, not only the wealthy and the powerful; the value of the individual must have precedence over economic values, over financial values, over money.
The concern about all human beings, without an exception, taking advantage of riches within reach and designed for them, must have precedence over the concern to safeguard the tyranny of the dollar sign, the tyranny of the makers of money and of credit. [DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In a joint letter sent on March 22, 1964, that is barely a year ago, to the President of the United States, 22 prominent personalities of the country warned him that if the solutions he advocated were not applied within a short time, which meant as soon as possible, the American nation would be faced with an unprecedented economic and social disaster. And we know that Canada follows in the wake of the United States.
Here are some of the personalities who signed that letter: Mr. Ralph Helstein, of Chicago, president of the United Packing House Workers; Mr. Gunner Myrdal, Swedish
The Budget-Mr. Caouette economist, of the Institute for International Economic Study; Mr. Ben B. Seligman, director of the Department of Education and Research, Retail Clerks International Association; Mr. Robert Theobald, consulting economist, of New York; Mr. Stuart Hugues, professor of history at Harvard University; Mr. Linus Pauling, Nobel Peace prize winner; Mr. John William Ward, professor of history at Princeton University. What did those prominent personalities say? I quote:

As a first step to a new consensus it is essential to recognize that the traditional link between jobs and incomes is being broken.
The economy of abundance can sustain all citizens in comfort and economic security whether or not they engage in what is commonly reckoned as work. Wealth produced by machines rather than by men is still wealth. We urge therefore that society through its appropriate legal and governmental institutions, undertake the unqualified commitment to provide each individual and every family with an adequate income as a matter of right, not a gift.

Mr. Speaker, it must be noted that no longer are full employment and a high employment level being mentioned; but an assured income is being advocated, which is far removed from the present government policies. In fact, what did the Minister of Finance say in his speech:
When this government first came into office we stated a number of economic objectives. Our first goal was a high level of employment for Canadians-
"A high level of employment"; that is the aim of the government as recognized by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech.
On the other hand, we of the Ralliement Creditiste do not believe that the first objective of the government or of the present industrial system is to provide jobs. On the contrary, we believe that the purpose of economic activities is to promote the welfare of the home, of the family, in short, of the consumers.
Mr. Speaker, may I quote from a report submitted to the general meeting of the churches of Scotland in 1962 by a group of theologians, economists and sociologists. Here is an excerpt from this report entitled "Money, a Christian View":
We have come to believe that any job Is better than no job at all and that the main purpose of any economic policy is to create employment. In our opinion, the purpose of production is consumption: and while employment is part of this process, it is not the main factor. From a Christian point of view, man should not have to do a job which a machine could perform.
May 3, 1965

The Budget-Mr. Caouette
Those are the words of economists and sociologists. This is exactly what supporters of what is called Social Credit stand for. We are indeed in good company.
What is the opinion of Rev. Father Georges Henri Levesque, Dominican, a former joint chairman of the Massey-Levesque royal commission? In a pamphlet published by "Les Editions du Levrier" in Ottawa, in 1936, Rev. Father Levesque said this about Social Credit and the policies advocated by its founder, Major C. H. Douglas, and I quote:
But it is not enough for Douglas to set his economics in a spiritual setting or environment and to direct it, as it were, from the outside, toward spiritual values. He incorporates this spiritualistic finality to the very core of his system. This system is entirely based on this great Christian principle: the true purpose of any economic activity is to satisfy human needs and not to create wealth for wealth's sake.
The true aim of production and distribution, as Douglas often says, is consumption. The function of an economic system is to supply adequate goods to the consumers who really need them.
All the reforms advocated by Douglas, adds Father Levesque, spring from the argument regarding the supremacy of the consumers and tend to put the economy at the service of man, of all men.
And in his booklet, Father Levesque added this for the newspapermen and politicians who describe Social Credit in a fantastic and false manner:
Therefore, when newspapermen, well paid by political parties, claim that Social Credit is antiChristian socialism, beware of their theological philosophy. It is usually too rudimentary to give you safe directives. And, in this case, it could not reasonably justify its anathema, especially because it is too interested. When those men become self-appointed theologians, it is in general much less to stand by the revealed truth, than to safeguard the petty interests they defend in their writings. To this end, they will resort to any means.
Beware of them, continued Father Levesque, even when they approach Social Credit from its economic aspect. Reigning politicians see in this movement a growing and threatening political power.
The Minister of Finance is aware of that. I continue:
Bankers see in it the avowed enemy of their valued monopoly. So do not be surprised if their publicists attempt to disprove its doctrine or to ridicule it, which is much easier and requires less intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, in this last part of my speech, I wish to deal briefly with the baneful policy of our present banking system which is the cause of the growing indebtedness of every level of government, corporations and individuals in every class of society. I wish to state that it is precisely on account of the monetary policies of the present government

and the previous ones that Canadians are so heavily taxed and hundreds of thousands of Canadians are destitute and live in abject poverty.
The other day I heard the Minister of Finance speak about our balance of payments with foreign countries, of our international payments. He then blamed the Conservatives as being responsible for the almost intolerable situation existing in Canada.
At this point, I refer to page 45, and more especially to Table 28 of the budget papers tabled by the Minister of Finance.
In looking over this table, we find that in 1956, while the Liberal party was in office in Ottawa, there was a deficit of $1,366 million in our balance of payments. The Liberals were the first to pile up a deficit of a billion dollars in our trade with other countries. And now, they blame others for having exceeded the billion dollar mark after they themselves set such an example.
Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest a few ways of solving this problem by means of the Social Credit policies.
During the fiscal year, according to the estimates of the Minister of Finance, the Liberal government is going "to siphon off" and I use these words advisedly-$6,685 million to say nothing of the non-taxation revenues, which amount to $840 million and the revenues from the old age security tax which amount to $1,145 million.
Such are the amounts of money that the Canadian government is going to take from the pockets of the poor Canadian taxpayer.
And how will those revenues amounting to $8,670 million be chiefly used?
First, for the public debt charges, or the interest paid on the debt: $1,103 million, which is twice the amount that will be earmarked for national health and welfare and almost three times more than the amount that will be spent under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act.
Mr. Speaker, when we advocated not long ago a full tax exemption to every married person earning less than $5,000 and to all single persons earning less than $2,500, I myself met newspapermen who told me: "It would cost Canada $1.2 or $1.5 billion to grant such exemptions."
But those same newspapermen never asked themselves where Canada got $7 billion during the war to help our allies and try to win the peace which we still have not got. Where did the money required come from then? That does not worry the newspapermen.
May 3, 1965

But the moment one speaks of granting exemptions to the Canadian taxpayers, you hear somebody say:	"But where will the
money come from?"
Debt charges amount to $1,103 million. That is what the government will pay this year to financiers. And let no one try to tell me that the Canadian people will profit by it. Who holds government bonds at present? In a proportion of 90 to 95 per cent, they are deposited in collateral security in Canadian chartered banks. That is where government bonds are, and the government knows it quite well.
Second, our defence expenditures amount to $1,581 million.
Mr. Speaker, when we, Creditistes, ask that family allowances be brought up to the level of the cost of living index since 1945, here is the answer we get: We have no money, we are unable to find the money to increase family allowances. Some people like the hon. Member for Longueuil, the hon. Member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin), the hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Mitchell), and the hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Godin) claim that we cannot afford to raise family allowances. And yet Canada finds it possible to give credit to scores of countries but it cannot do anything for its younger population.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder what Liberal members on your right are doing.
With the exception of Creditiste members, no one speaks against the tribute-money that Canadians are forced to pay to bankers; no one protests against the $1,103 million we will have to pay in interest this year.
When it is a question of increasing the national debt by $346 million as in 1961, by $791 million as in 1962, by $691 million as in 1963, by $1,150 million as in 1964 and by approximately $479 million as in 1965, according to the table published in the budget papers which I have here, no one gets alarmed, no one takes exception, no one objects. When it comes to paying interest on bonds, no one stands up to proclaim how nonsensical it is for Canada and the Canadian people to run more and more into debt in a country so rich in natural resources, in goods and services of all kinds. This is an illogical situation, a nonsensical situation of which not only the Creditistes are becoming aware but also high officials of the U.S. administration.
On September 21, 1964, just seven months ago, the banking and credit committee of

The Budget-Mr. Caouette the House of Representatives in the United States introduced a report published by the U.S. government and available in the publication department of the U.S. government. This document, entitled "Money Facts", is made up of 169 questions and answers on the subject of money.
Question No. 69 reads as follows: e (4:40 p.m.)

If the government can issue bonds, why can't it issue money and save the interest?

Here is the answer given by that same committee:

A few clear-headed and firm individuals, such as Abraham Lincoln have insisted that the government should. The late Thomas Edison stated this matter this way "If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member for Villeneuve to remind him that his time has now expired, unless he has the unanimous consent of the house to go on with his remarks.


Mr. MacNaughi:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have permission to explain briefly to the House why I must object to the extension of time, and I want to assure the hon. Member that there is nothing whatever personal in this. This is a debate the time of which is fixed. There are a great number of Members on all sides of the House anxious to speak. If we extend the time of each speaker by three, four or five minutes we are going to deprive those Members of a right that they have under the rules. Therefore with a great deal of regret I must refuse consent to this extension of time.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Speaker, on this point of order, if it is one, I would just like to say that the leaders of the other parties were granted extra time, and it seems to me if the Minister would just state that this refusal applied to everybody else, then the rest of us would be quite happy.


John Watson MacNaught: Could the hon. Member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) tell me just how much time he needs to finish this portion of his remarks?


David Réal Caouette: It may take me about five minutes.
May 3, 1965

The Budget-Mr. Caouette


John Watson MacNaught: Then I will consent this occasion to the five minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course this requires the consent not only of the Minister but of all the Members of the House. Is there unanimous consent to the hon. Member's continuing his remarks?


Michael Starr: May I speak on this point of order. I want to say I agree entirely with the Acting House Leader, and in this case to the five minutes extension, because it affects the Leader of the Ralliement Creditistes, which would be acceptable; but from now on there should be no extension of time to anyone else.


Mr. Patterson:: I understand the situation as it is at present, but just a few minutes ago the hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Wool-liams) was granted an extension of time. However, I think the hon. Member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) should be allowed to continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is the understanding of the Chair that the hon. Member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) will be allowed an additional five minutes. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: I thank very sincerely the hon. members for their courtesy. On the other hand, may I point out, Mr. Speaker, that each time we have been asked whether we agreed to allow a Liberal member the latitude he required to complete his speech, we agreed. Each time a Conservative member was concerned, we agreed, as well as in the case of N.D.P. members. In my case, however, a five-minute limit is set, whereas others amongst the Liberals took 20 additional minutes.
I would simply ask the hon. member who kindly allowed me five minutes to be a little more tolerant and not to interrupt me as he did a few minutes ago, when he could have said simply and obligingly: "Well, we believe he should complete his remarks."
Mr. Speaker, I shall go on with my remarks. [Text]
It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 millions in currency. Both are promises to pay: but one promise fattens the usurer and the other helps the people.
However, it has been one of the political facts of life that private banks must be allowed to create the lion's share of the money even if not all the money. Thus there is little opposition to the government's printing bonds and then permitting the banks to create the money with which to buy these bonds: but the proposal that the Government itself create the money instead of the bonds has always set off tremendous political upheavals. For

On example, Lincoln set off a political furore when he insisted upon having the government issue $346 millions in money (the so-called "greenbacks") instead of issuing interest bearing bonds and paying interest on the money.

The following question provides an answer to those who claim that such a solution would cause inflation. It reads as follows:

If the Government issued more money instead of government bonds, isn't there a danger that a government would issue too much money and cause inflation?

This is the answer provided by the U.S. government banking committee:

No. It is no more or no less inflationary for the private banks to create $1 billion of new money than it is for the Government to create $1 billion of new money. Furthermore, as an agency of the Government, the Federal Reserve System decides in any case the total amount of money to be created.

How, they ask, do banks render a service to the government or to the people by buying treasury or government bonds? Here is the answer given by members of the U.S. government committee to this particular question:

No, because they create money, an obligation of government, simply to buy bonds guaranteed by the government. There is no risk involved as there is in loans to businessmen and consumers. Their reward for buying bonds with money they create is the "subsidized" profit they enjoy.

And here is question No. 132, following immediately the above answer:

What is the burden of U.S. government bonds held by the private banking system?
The burden is the heavy bond interest, borne by the taxpayer that goes to the private bankers, when the same amount of money could be created by agency of the government.

Question No. 167 in that same paper, asks which reform is required in the present banking system in the United States. Answers are just in the same vein. We of the Social Credit party have been giving those answers here in Ottawa for a long time. First the reorganization-

The reorganization of the federal reserve board, toward greater responsibility.
May 3, 1965	COMMONS

That is the little gimmick which is going on in Ottawa every Wednesday when controllers of the economic life blood regulate Canada's wealth and purchasing power.

Abolition of the open market.

The actual balance between total credit in circulation and the wealth of Canada.

Co-ordination of monetary with other economic policy.
Financial accountability, via audits. A reappraisal of the "tight money" policies. A lessening of private banks' influence in the Federal Reserve System.

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what Social Crediters have been demanding for a long time and we will continue to do so until the Minister of Finance and the government understand that it is proper and necessary to help the ordinary citizens who have to live and who are justified in wanting to live in Canada.
[DOT] (4:50 pm.)


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly to the amendment before the House.
The criticisms that have been made of the budget so far seem to have been directed at single items in the budget proposals, and limited to suggestions that while the objectives set out in the budget speech are desirable the approaches might have been different.
As far as I have been able to detect, however, there has been no comprehensive criticism of basic aims. This is understandable. It would be difficult indeed to criticize in any fundamental way the achievements of the last two years. It would be particularly difficult to criticize Canada's accomplishments in 1964.
The reduction in unemployment in that year was a record of 13.4 per cent, nearly double the rate of reduction accomplished in the United States. The total output of goods and services by Canada last year was 8.9 per cent greater than the year before. This was one third as much again as that achieved by the United States.
The deficit was reduced to $83 million, according to the parliamentary accounts.
DEBATES	853
The Budget-Mr. Gordon There was a surplus of over $300 million, according to the national income accounts. These are the best results for seven years.
I acknowledge the dilemma of hon. gentlemen opposite in attempting to criticize these accomplishments or our plans for ensuring that this phenomenal growth is continued throughout the current year.
Instead, the criticisms-somewhat carping and ungenerous, if I may say so-have been directed at the edges. It is claimed by Opposition spokesmen that despite their sorry record during the six years they were in office, despite the loss of so many of their former leaders-I am thinking of Messrs. Hees and Fulton and Halpenny and Sevigny and Noel Dorion and Fleming, among others-they could do better if only they were to be given a second chance.
I should like to examine three or four of the particular criticisms which have been made. The budget proposes an annual cut of $265 million in personal income taxes. The hon. Member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan)-I do not want to be unkind to him in any way but I was going to say, speaking to a brief which sounded at times as if it had been prepared, at least in part, by an association of manufacturers with some slight assistance from a well known Senator,-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -suggested it would have been better to have cut corporation taxes.


Mr. Nowlan:: I acknowledge my own authorship.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I was trying to let the hon. gentleman off the hook a little.
I have in my hands a table comparing corporation income taxes in Canada and the United States. The Canadian totals include the combined Federal and Provincial taxes in Ontario or Quebec, and also the 3 per cent Old Age Security tax. The United States taxes shown in this table include the Federal tax and a 5 per cent State tax. I should explain that 37 states plus the District of Columbia impose corporation income taxes at rates ranging from 1 to 10 J per cent. The rate of 5 per cent was chosen because it is imposed by the majority of states-more often that any other rate.
The table shows that corporations with a taxable income of $100,000 or less pay lower taxes in Canada than they do in the United States. At $500,000 of taxable income, the taxes in Canada are $249,850 compared with $246,500 in the United States-a difference of $3,350 or just over 1 per cent. At $1 million
854	COMMONS DEBATES	May 3, 1965
The Budget-Mr. Gordon of taxable income, the Canadian taxes are $509,850 compared with $499,500 in the United States-a difference of $10,350 or 2 per cent.
Capital cost allowances are more generous in Canada than in the United States. Accordingly, I think it safe to say that, on the whole, corporation taxes here are lower than they are across the line. Certainly to suggest they are higher here is incorrect.
I wonder if the Opposition were aware of these facts when they moved the amendment that is before the House?
In arguing that corporation taxes rather than personal income taxes should be cut, I am curious to know whether my hon. friend would have cut the rate for small companies as well as large ones. The 21 per cent rate which is payable by small companies is lower than the rates paid by similar sized companies in other countries. It is also lower than the rate that will be payable by individuals after the proposed tax cut on any taxable income in excess of $6,000. Yet I cannot believe that even my genial friend opposite would cut the rate for the very large corporations and not do something for the smaller ones.
Does he not think, as I suggested in my speech, it would be best to wait until we get the report of the Royal Commission on Taxation, which was sponsored by my hon. friend, before we decide what should be done in this important area?
Does not my hon. friend think that the extension of the fast write-off allowances to December 31, 1966, will have a much greater effect on stimulating capital investment than anything else that could possibly be done? I believe this, and it is not just idle speculation on my part. We know from the experience of last year the effect which this measure introduced originally in the budget of 1963-I wish the hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) were still here-has had in stimulating capital investment.
The fourth question is this. Corporation profits, as the hon. gentleman knows, are running at an all-time high. Corporations have never been so prosperous. Does anybody really believe that Canadian corporations are being held back by present tax rates? Surely the facts show just the opposite.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


George Clyde Nowlan: Since I cannot reply at this time, I can only ask the Minister a question. I assume he knows that the budget resolutions are to be debated very shortly, and I will take the opportunity to reply at that time to the questions he has raised.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I shall be delighted. I hope they come before us soon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the House will proceed to private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely Notices of Motions.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of underwriting a Youth Extension Program of the Parliament of Canada to (a) promote and nurture an interest among the youth of Canada in the principles of our Constitution, the political liberties which root and support our social, civic and economic liberties, the self-denying duties of selfgovernment, and in the evolutionary role of the Monarchy; (b) promote relief in the power of reason as applied through public discussion as preferable to silence coerced by law-the argument of force in its worst form: and so answer the cry most appealing to youth: "Give us more efficiency; get something done; stop this long-drawn-out parliamentary debate; act; look at Russia-imitate them; let the arbitrary forces prevail over the deliberative." (c) provide annual seminars for young Canadians from shore-to-shore under the supervision of M.P.'s and officers of the House of Commons and Senate to gain insight into, and understanding of, the workings of government in deliberation and action.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is quite lengthy but as it is self-explanatory and will appear in Hansard my remarks will be quite brief. This is an appropriate time to bring it forward because of the recent announcement of the establishment of the Company of Young Canadians.
I speak generally about the problems of youth from my experience as President for a number of years of the youth branch of a wing of our political party, and it is my impression that one of the greatest difficulties which has faced youth in the post-war period has been that they did not have the outlet for their energies that we had in the war years. I hesitate to use the term "juvenile deliquency"; someone has suggested that it might be more appropriate to refer to "parental delinquency". An illustration of this term was recently given in a story about a public opinion poll in which parents were called at their home in the evening and each one questioned to see whether they knew where their children were. The first six calls were answered by children who said they did not know where their parents were, that they were out.
May 3, 1965	COMMONS
There is great urgency to this problem of youth. I feel we have failed to give the subject proper attention. We all know the sort of headlines of late which have appeared in the press. There have been sit-down strikes, demonstrations and revolts. In my opinion the culmination was reached the other day, when in Russia, some of the parents and older people who were attempting to go to Church on Easter Sunday were jeered in the streets by their children. Therefore I would recommend in a general way that full study and research continue into this problem. The report on juvenile deliquency, we are informed, will be available shortly, after a great delay which we all regret. The Vanier Council on the Family is continuing its work. There should also be a greater appreciation of the role of law enforcement. The R.C.M.P. and police officers are in great disrepute because they are the only ones who say no to our young children. There should be greater family participation in sports and in outdoor life. There should be a reassessment by parents of material things and status symbols. We must strive to strengthen our own institutions of honesty, integrity, unselfishness and, above all, respect for authority. Lastly, there should be particular outlets for energies of youth, and this is where my motion comes in.
I am proposing that an annual seminar, as outlined in my motion, be held each year. This would be a combination of the Rotary adventure and citizenship. A model parliament is to be set up in 1967, as proposed by Bill Fair of Saskatchewan, and this could be held when Parliament opens. It is to be patterned on the American Hearst Foundation Seminar and I hope private business will also become interested in it.
I envisage a three to five day seminar. The R.C.M.P. and military could look after our young people who would come here from other parts of Canada. I should like to see the Supreme Court included in the plans. Many Members of Parliament have already shown interest in bringing young people from their ridings to Ottawa. I recall that the former Minister of Finance, Hon. Donald Fleming, did this each year, and I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) sponsors young people from his riding each year. This would supplement the idea which has been put forward by others before me and make it a permanent occasion.
It has three particular advantages. First, it would be a way of dealing with the obvious
DEBATES	855
The Budget-Mr. Ian Watson restlessness of youth. Boredom and social pressure would be put aside and the angry young men could play their part more constructively in our parliamentary process. Second, it would provide greater knowledge of our parliamentary institution which is surely needed. The role of the monarchy, which is misunderstood by our youth today, could be dressed up and presented to our young people in a modern way. Third-and this is very important-it is difficult for people from east and west to obtain the money required to come to Ottawa, and my motion would provide for some sort of fund or subsidy to be set up for this worthwhile cause for each Province from shore to shore. Our generation has the opportunity to improve itself, and I reckon we can either strengthen our values and give our youth some guideposts and memories for their peerless future or we can do nothing at all.
I hope that this idea will commend itself to all Members of this House and will go to repair some of the breakdown in understanding which has taken place between adolescents and older people.
Therefore I propose that the Government underwrite a full Youth Extension Program as outlined in my motion. This will demonstrate that we are concerned with the welfare of youth and would tangibly recognize the importance they hold in our future and in the future of nations such as ours, with I hope the result they will be presented with an enthusiastic challenge for their vigour and energy, and in turn may pass on the best, and not the worst, of our system of Government.


Mr. Ian Watson (Chaleauguay-Huniingdon-Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member who has just spoken for the suggestion which he has just put before the House. I think all of us in this House have realized for some time, certainly since we have been here, that throughout Canada there is a desire among our youth for opportunity for service, and for opportunity to participate more fully in Canadian life. Youth today feels a little left out of things. There is an abysmal amount of ignorance about our parliamentary institutions, and I am convinced that the hon. Member's suggestion should be seriously considered by the Government. I suggest that the Ministry to take up this suggestion should be the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
During the last two or three months I have been quite interested to learn of the
May 3. 1965

The Budget-Mr. Ian Watson numerous activities which the Department of Citizenship has been carrying out along this line for several years. They have considerable staff working on youth problems and acting in an advisory capacity to youth organizations across the country. I would think that the suggestion the hon. Member has made would fit in with the present activities of the Department of Citizenship, and within the present framework it would be a fairly simple matter to hold the type of seminar he is suggesting by 1967. Those of us who live fairly close to Ottawa have the opportunity of receiving students here quite frequently during the spring months. I always make a point of having the students addressed by two, three or four Members of Parliament, followed by a question period, and I am convinced that these students leave Ottawa with a better appreciation of how Parliament works. I think a complete study along the lines suggested by the hon. Member would produce results in high schools across this country, and would diminish the disrespect which I think youth today holds for our parliamentary institutions.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
We here in this House, and perhaps I should limit this to the few Members who over the past two years have employed tactics of obstruction, are at least partly responsible for the situation referred to by the hon. Member, in respect of which he suggests that we should cease this long drawn out parliamentary debate, come up with something efficient and get something done. We in this House are partly responsible for that situation. I think the greater part of the responsibility in this regard falls on a limited number of Members in this Chamber.
The Government has, in announcing the proposed establishment of a Company of Young Canadians, taken a long step toward providing Canadian youth with opportunities for service, for which they have been asking at least since the end of World War II. During wartime the youth of this country was called upon to serve this country, but since the end of the last war succeeding generations have felt a lack in Canada of opportunities for service in peacetime. A youth corps or Company of Young Canadians, as has been announced by the Government, I am sure will provide an outlet for the energy of these young Canadians and I hope that such a Company of Young Canadians will be directed by a secretariat, a committee or a commission which could, in turn, make 
recommendations to the Government in respect of all areas of youth interest.
There are several important Government-sponsored plans for youth activity. There is, for example, the Centenary Commission, which is doing a wonderful job arranging for a mass interchange of students among the various Provinces in Canada. This is to take place next year and in 1967, and I hope this student interchange will be encouraged and expanded.
The approach which the Government has been talcing, as far as the Company of Young Canadians is concerned, is one which will involve the obtaining of advice from youth organizations in this country. These organizations are being asked to make suggestions regarding the functions of a Company of Young Canadians, which it would be expected to fulfil. I think this is a proper approach. Too often Governments tend to bring in legislation without really consulting the people who are to be involved. In this case the youth of this country is being asked to make suggestions to the Government. By sending in these suggestions at this time they will in effect be taking part in the creation of this Company of Young Canadians. This is surely the right kind of approach to take in respect of something which is new to the Canadian scene.
I am sure the Government has a number of ideas along the lines of this Company of Young Canadians suggestion, which it will probably develop. We are going to be faced with a number of difficulties in launching an internal youth corps program in Canada, because we must restrict ourselves obviously to areas that are within Federal jurisdiction. We will have to be very careful about overlapping, which means that we must start to work with our Eskimo and Indian population on the reservations and in the villages in which these Canadians live.
Rather than setting up an agency whereby white Canadians from the south will go to the Indian and Eskimo villages, I am personally convinced that we should, as far as possible, be careful to use young Indians and Eskimos in this youth corps Company of Young Canadians. I am sure that any other approach than that will meet with great difficulty.
One of the grave problems in respect of encouraging Indians and Eskimos to take part in this kind of program is the distrust on the part of these native Canadians for white men's intentions. We must use as com-
May 3, 1965

pletely as possible the available Indian and Eskimo talent which now exists. Young Indians and Eskimos in Canada during the past 10 or 15 years have been educated. We now have a large number of these native Canadians graduating from high school, or dropping out from high school courses, although reasonably well educated, and returning to their homes, villages and reserves in areas of the north where there are few available employment opportunities. One of the most useful functions that such a company of young Canadians could fulfil would be the channelling of educated and properly trained young Indians and Eskimos into Northern Affairs work. In these areas there are large groups of very competent and well educated young native Canadians without jobs. These trained personnel should be directed to these areas where they could act in the capacity of career advisers, of whom there is a terrific lack in the north. Most youngsters do not have any idea of the sort of job for which they should train themselves. This is one function that is needed immediately in the north. I am convinced that the Company of Young Canadians should take steps to provide personnel of this type, and I would suggest that where it is at all possible these personnel should be Indian or Eskimo.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
With regard to the external program of the Company of Young Canadians, I think we should work initially through the very excellent framework of CUSO, which has been developed over a number of years. The Government has announced its support for CUSO by spending upward of half a million dollars this year, I believe. I think we will find that the program will become so large that CUSO will not really be able to handle it and that eventually we will require for the external program a combination of CUSO and the Company of Young Canadians.
I am convinced that Canada could not spend its money more wisely than by investing it in such a program. The benefits we would reap abroad, as well as the benefits that our youth who participated in the program would reap, would be beyond compare when contrasted with the military aid type of program which our governments have tended to support in the past. These programs have their place, of course, but dollar for dollar I think nothing will produce as many beneficial results for Canada and the people we are trying to help as the Company of Young Canadians.
The Budget-Mr. Thompson
There is another area where I hope the Company of Young Canadians will be beneficial within Canada, and that is in dealing with problems in areas of rural poverty and also in urban slums. This is a field where we are going to have difficulty because of the provincial jurisdiction involved. The need for career counselling in areas of rural poverty and urban slums is just as pressing as among our young Indian population. I think we can be more useful in this area than in any other.
Canada is a country that is relatively undeveloped and I cannot help but feel that the youth of our country are not taking advantage of our fantastic wilderness areas in the same way that the youth of many European countries and even the youth of the United States do with regard to their own wilderness areas. We may be developing along this line but our people do not really enjoy being outdoors. I think there is room for a Government program. I know that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) has been doing something along the lines of encouraging our youth to make greater use of our national parks, but certainly much more can be done by the Government to encourage the enjoyment by our youth of our wilderness areas and our national parks. I should like to congratulate the hon. Member again for his suggestion. I think it is certainly worthy of consideration and I hope that next year the Department of Citizenship and Immigration will take up his idea and put something into effect along the lines suggested.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) on bringing forward this motion. I believe it is a very commendable one and has a most important objective. With regard to the continuing of a strong system of parliamentary government such as we have in Canada, certainly we who are part of the parliamentary system at this time owe it to those who will take our places to make sure that they have not only a wider knowledge but a deeper understanding of the principles that are involved as part of our responsibilities.
I think most Members of the House are aware of the plans of a group of young people headed by a Mr. William Fair of Saskatoon to include as part of our Centennial celebrations a youth parliament that would sit on or about the 1st of July. In this youth parliament there would be representatives from
May 3. 1965

The Budget-Mr. Thompson every Province who would carry on a mock parliament, so to speak, as part of the Centennial celebrations. I think this idea has been endorsed by all parties in the House and certainly it has been given the endorsa-tion of every provincial Government. In fact, I believe that the provincial Premiers are ahead of us in realizing the importance of such a project. I was going over some of the clippings and letters I have on this subject in my file, and came upon the very definite and well stated comments of the Premier of Prince Edward Island. He said:
The stimulating of interest in public affairs on the part of our younger people and an expanded knowledge of national and international problems confronting governments today would seem to be a very commendable objective. The gathering together of youth delegates whose eligibility would involve a course of training and investigation and their presence as observers on the parliamentary level, as well as the broadening of the conference to take in areas outside of Canada, would seem to be quite worth while.
I think this statement goes right to the heart of the suggestion that has been made in this motion and I believe that all of us should support it. I would hope that the motion could be passed this afternoon because it would indicate our own interest and concern in a wider grasp and a better understanding of the parliamentary set-up. The proposal for a Centennial Youth Parliament envisages that it would be held on the 100th anniversary of Confederation, July 1, and that for every Member of Parliament in the House there would be a member in the Youth Parliament. It is also proposed that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cornwall, be invited to attend to represent the Crown. I think this is an excellent suggestion and could well provide the opportunity for Prince Charles to take the first step toward accepting his own responsibilities as heir apparent to the British throne.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Another thing that the youth parliament would emphasize would be a Canadian Youth Week as part of the Centennial program. Not only has this suggestion received rather wide support from those who are Members of the Parliament and Legislatures of Canada, but there is also much support elsewhere. In fact, the committee for the Canadian Assembly of Youth Organizations has discussed this matter and made recommendations. On October 29 of last year they submitted a report to the Centennial Commission recommending such a youth program for Centennial year. They have made

other recommendations also which would strengthen this into more of what I believe this motion intends, that would give administrative support and body to the centennial project. It seems to me that this motion is right in line with that suggestion from the Canadian Assembly of Youth Organizations.
Let us look at the motion briefly, Mr. Speaker. I notice that the first particular objective of it is to promote and nurture an interest among the youth of Canada in the principles of our constitution, the political liberties which root and support our social, civic and economic liberties, the self-denying duties of self-government, and in the evolutionary role of the Monarchy. I think that is well stated, and possibly every Member of this House ought to give it support and support now.
In looking at the second objective, I suggest perhaps that the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) may clarify further his suggestion. He says it should promote relief in the power of reason as applied through public discretion as preferable to silence coerced by law-the argument of force in its worst form. I think I understand what the hon. Member is getting at, but I believe he has beclouded his objective a little of getting a permanent youth extension program set up that would have as its objective the educational study and discussion of the beliefs and functions of the democratic system as they relate to Parliaments and Legislatures.
I would agree, however, completely with the third point. It is to provide annual seminars for young Canadians from shore to shore under the supervision of Members of Parliament and officers of the House of Commons and Senate to gain insight into, and understanding of, the workings of Government in deliberation and action. I feel this is a specific area of need that is so important that it should not be confused with the Company of Young Canadians or some other youth organizations which have legitimate and worthwhile programs. We should not cover the particular area as if the objectives of this motion were to be relegated to that generalized picture. Perhaps in so doing we would miss the vital importance that I understand this motion represents.
I have the opportunity to speak to university groups and high school groups very often, and while I am amazed at the lack of information many of these groups have concerning the functioning of our parliamentary system, on the other hand I am encouraged by the
May 3, 1965
fact there is a hard core of young people who are interested in and concerned with what is taking place on the public scene. I feel we should encourage them and help them in making this particular study one of greater relevance to them. I believe that as some of us see the functioning of this House, we are not too happy with it. Many are concerned that we should have permitted the functioning of the House of Commons to drift along in such a way as to further the general impression across the country at this time that Parliament is not the institution it should be. Parliament, in the democratic system we have in Canada, is the heart throb of democracy. As we lose sight of Parliament, in exactly the same way democracy becomes less effective.
Again, I give my support to this motion. I urge everyone in the House to do likewise. Let us pass it, and let us show the young people of Canada we are actually interested in them, that we want them not only to understand but to become part of the parliamentary system and functioning of Government.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I, too, should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) upon his initiative in bringing forward this interesting resolution. I join with the hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) in expressing the hope that this motion will be passed. I am going to temper my words to that very hope, even though I see the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) here, who is a fairly well tried talker-outer.
I am glad the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert, indeed all those who spoke before, wasted no time in deploring the moral lapses or prevailing attitudes of the youth of today. All down through the ages men have deplored their fellow citizens who were younger. A clergyman once said that in the olden days it was said, "When duty whispers low thou must, the youth replies I can". It is said now, "When duty whispers low thou must, the youth replies oh yeah". I do not believe this is the case. I would say, too, it would be an ironic situation if on this very motion, geared to pointing up the emphasis upon parliamentary performance and the inspiring of our young people's appreciation of that, we should revert to this inexplicable, often hypocritical situation of talking out. I very much hope we will pass this motion, and that we will think more about it.
In looking over the resolution carefully, I see that the word which has bothered the hon. Member for Red Deer should be "belief"
The Budget-Mr. Macquarrie rather than "relief". This makes the motion read a little better. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, we Canadians have perhaps been afraid of being completely enthusiastic or completely nationalistic and so have failed to inspire our young people in the appreciation of many of the eternal verities of our political society. I feel we would not have got into so much trouble over a flag had our young people been instructed in what a flag meant.
I had the opportunity of attending school at an early age in the United States. It is easy for us Canadians to make fun of their obvious nationalism. However, they do inspire the young people in some of the meaningful values of their history. At the moment I am very much interested in the Monarchy. Our young people, indeed our old people, must give some thought to what the Monarchy means as part of our system, as the democratic guarantor of democratic freedoms, indeed as part of our working political structure. It is absolutely essential to provide the stability necessary in a society which can become at times quite unstable. I think, too, that the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert is right in focussing attention upon the workings of our Parliament and this House, the nerve centre of our national life. We live in an era, I think unfortunately, when it is far too easy to concentrate upon the Provinces and to look upon the national apparatus as something which comes after. In this heyday of Provincialism, I am worried when I see people denigrate Parliament as an institution. It is all very well for them to make fun of the politician as an individual; he is fair game. However, the institution is far greater than the individual.
This is the only place where I part company with the hon. Member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie (Mr. Watson). I would not so readily attribute blame to any one quarter for what happened in a certain recent prolonged debate.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Like the hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), who is not here at the moment, I too look forward to the youth parliament, but unlike him I would not call it a mock parliament. I would hope it would be a model parliament. I am convinced with the leadership young Mr. Fair has been giving all across the country, we will see in this a tremendous display of seriousness and perception on the part of the young people of this country, that will give us all great heart and encourage us to go forward and cope with the problems

May 3, 1965

The Budget-Mr. Lloyd that will not vanish in the years ahead, no matter what party takes power here in Ottawa.
We need national inspiration. We need to take time and look particularly hard at the young people of this country. I am told there are 5 million Canadians under 35 years of age. I am one of those who would like to see the young people vote at an early age. I thought the Government was going to do something about reducing the voting age, and I would not be at all fearful for the country if the franchise were extended to those from 18 years on.
I would like to say too that while there are great challenges for those who go into the north there are great opportunities for the Company of Young Adventurers, and I commend the Government for its inspiration on that, even if it is a re-inspiration. We have drawn our ideas from the British and Americans for years, so why be so upset about this, so long as it is good?
We Canadians are very pragmatic and when we have chances to be idealistic we should not shy from them. I was glad the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) mentioned the adventure in citizenship in which the Rotary clubs have been giving outstanding leadership, but his proposal in paragraph (c) would be on a more comprehensive and more permanent basis, constituting a program which would be extremely worth while.
I wish I had more time to discourse on this most interesting initiative of my colleague from New Brunswick, but I do not want to monopolize the time of other hon. Members. I would just like to say he has produced an excellent idea and it is for us to give it some vitality and reality. The passing of this resolution would be only the beginning, just as the establishment of the Company of Canadian Adventurers is but part of a program which we should bring to all Canadians. I commend him for it and lend my hearty support.


Mr. J. E. Lloyd (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, the essence of this resolution is really an expression that we need to do more in educating youth to the realities of democracy in Canada, but the method chosen to achieve this enlightenment of our youth does an injustice, I feel, to the rather more responsible and higher objectives which are expressed later on in the resolution. Nevertheless one can only commend the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) for focusing the attention of the House on this very important question.
[Mr. Macquarrie.)
Indeed it may very well be that this could be an action taken by a government and by a parliament in a spirit of good will and with no partisan viewpoints, but it would seem to me we should first identify how we are going to achieve the very worth-while objectives expressed in the resolution. Before I deal with that I should like to make some comments on those things, which are really not part of the resolution but which have evoked discussion by hon. Members opposite.
Reference has been made to the Company of Young Canadians, and I think everyone will agree this is a useful and practical exercise for young Canadians. It is welcomed by everyone in Canada. It is recognized as a contribution to working with reality. It gives an opportunity to those who have recently graduated from the academic life, with which they have been occupied in the main, to work with people concerned with the realities of living in Canada and in other countries.
Certainly the young student of economics who has read something about Rostow's Process of Economic Growth, and who works with a couple of young Canadians in an underdeveloped country will have brought to his mind an experience factor which will provide him with skill, and at a later time he can make his contribution in a more effective way at home in whatever professional or other c areer he may seek. There is no question about that; but today we are talking about developing an appreciation among the youth of Canada as a whole for the liberties of our great democracy.
I am sure the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert does not confine his desire for enlightenment among our youth only to those who have successfully achieved the graduacy of a university. I aim sure he recognizes there are many young Canadians who have left high school to go into vocations and trades and who, with experience in life, have developed an ability to identify common sense and isolate nonsense. I am sure he wants to help those who have not been exposed so well to the disciplines of university, who are not so familiar with sociology, who have not had a formal education in political economy, who have not been informed in the broad range of social sciences but who, nevertheless, have a capacity to understand.
I would think this is the viewpoint and I would say this is certainly a worth-while program for a Government to contemplate, to somehow separate for those people some of the contradictions that those who are knowledgeable about semantics bring to our
May 3, 1965	COMMONS
attention from time to time. We want to enable them to protect themselves against the tyranny of words which so often besets those of us in democracy. Indeed we have had a bit of that sometimes in this House. I am sure one hon. gentleman enjoys this observation, because of his ability on occasions to make some contribution to this tyranny.
It is no wonder that many Canadians look at the House of Commons trying to figure out just what we are attempting to do. They do not understand the subtleties and the strategies of debate. These are wasted upon them. They come to this Chamber and they try to understand something of the procedures. Well, let me say, Mr. Speaker, even an hon. Member who is not youthful in years but who may be youthful in terms of experience in the House, when he first comes here and asks for some explanation of the wisdom of years expressed in the procedures of the House, is handed that most enlightening document called Bourinot's, or somebody else's rules and, unless he has been educated in university in jurisprudence and can interpret quite readily the legalese of those who write such works, he will not find his way.
[DOT] (5:50 pjn.)
Or he may be presented with a work by another young Canadian, Dawson by name, which, if you like, criticizes the procedures in which we engage. It is no wonder then that any hon. Member of the House, including the mover of this motion, would make a plea for the enlightenment of Canadians in the procedures of the House, and certainly there is no question but that this is a matter that will require the attention of the Government. Indeed, the Government is taking some steps in this regard. Certainly when the Government brings forth the measures forecast in the Speech from the Throne we shall have a wonderful opportunity to rid ourselves of some of the accumulation of years past which no longer serves a useful purpose in the operation of Parliament. I hope those who, in principle, say there is a need for enlightening young Canadians on the workings of democracy will recognize this fact when the opportunity occurs to improve procedures in this House. That will be the time to show in a meaningful way how sincere they are in wishing to provide for youth a procedure which they can comprehend, one which they understand and one which will produce for us in this House a more effective and more rapid conduct of business.
Reference has been made to the model parliament proposed by a young Canadian 22620-55
DEBATES	861
The Budget-Mr. Lloyd named William Fair. There is no question but that this young man's interest in this subject deserves the support of us all. He has taken this matter to a stage at which I understand the Canadian Centennial Administration has proposed an agreement with him to engage his services.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let us have a vote on it.


John Edward Lloyd: I am sure the hon. gentleman opposite who has just made a characteristic contribution to the debate wants a vote on this question. But I suggest to him that several of those glittering generalities, such as flow from his lips, are expressed in the motion before us.


William Heward Grafftey: Do you think your bombast will impress the young people?


John Edward Lloyd: Let us read the motion. It suggests:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of underwriting a Youth Extension Program of the Parliament of Canada-
In what manner is it suggested that this program should be underwritten, and what is specifically meant by the phrase "Youth Extension Program"? I suggest we should vote on something far more substantial, something which the youth of Canada would probably appreciate much more, such as the measure outlined in the Speech from the Throne, rather than this kind of political manoeuvring.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There is no political
manoeuvring in the Speech from the Throne?


John Edward Lloyd: That is what bothers the hon. Member. He is really puzzled by what is contained in the Speech from the Throne.


William Heward Grafftey: Would the hon. Member for Halifax permit a question?


John Edward Lloyd: No.


William Heward Grafftey: Does he feel his speech this afternoon will impress the youth of this country?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; may we have order in the House? The hon. Member for Halifax has the floor.


John Edward Lloyd: I think it would be a great inspiration to the youth of Canada if the hon. Member who asked me that question would produce some evidence that he understands the rules. If he would direct his question in the proper fashion I will be happy to give him an appropriate reply.

May 3, 1965
The Budget-Mr. Lloyd


William Heward Grafftey: I would ask the hon. Member if he feels in all sincerity that his efforts this afternoon in this House will impress the young people of this nation.


John Edward Lloyd: I am certain that the young people of this country understand straightforward observations such as I have been making today.


William Heward Grafftey: Horsefeathers.


John Edward Lloyd: They fully understand that when a measure such as this is put forward asking the House of Commons to consider the feasibility of underwriting a youth extension program we should be informed precisely what these phrases mean. It does recommend, in all fairness to the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell), that provision should be made for "annual seminars for young Canadians from shore to shore under the supervision of M.P.'s and officers of the House of Commons and Senate to gain insight into, and understanding of the workings of the government-
I think we would have an interesting time considering which Members would conduct the supervision. It might be necessary to have four or five representatives to make sure that all the parties have an opportunity to expound the appropriate party philosophies. The resolution does not say which officers of the House shall be concerned in this project, leaving the whole proposal vague and uncertain.
There is no question but that we should seek to enlighten young Canadians to the fullest extent possible with regard to the purposes of our Canadian democracy. Nevertheless it is my submission that this resolution requires a great deal more thought; we should be told clearly how it is intended to achieve this worthy objective. I am sure that any venture intended to enlighten youth as to the workings of our parliamentary democracy would also enlighten the instructors. But I do not see in this resolution the kind of program likely to achieve really valuable results. Indeed, I regret that the resolution does not go further. It seems to me the hon. Member desires to warn our young people against those societies in the world today which would eliminate the place of the individual and destroy freedom. That is obviously a worthwhile objective; but the accomplishment of such a goal would require a clearer directive and a better resolution than the one we have before us today.
[Mr. Lloyd.l


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock the hour for the consideration of private Members' business has expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty pursuant to Provisional Standing Order 39A to inform the House that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock today are as follows; the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) Public Service-superannuated federal employees-request for increased pensions; the hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) Industry-direct purchase of automobiles for Mounted Police.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Nowlan.
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the official spokesman for the Opposition also suggested that it would have been better to restore the sales tax exemptions on production machinery, and presumably building materials as well, than to have cut personal taxes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He did not say that.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: You cannot do everything. This is a matter of opinion. I notice that in an editorial this morning a Tory newspaper, in discussing this point, had this to say:
Mr. Nowlan, moreover, proved himself a poor prophet when he objected to elimination of the exemption in 1963.
That is the sales tax exemption.
He said it would retard economic development and produce unemployment. On the contrary, industry has experienced steadily increasing prosperity.
May 3. 1965
That, Mr. Speaker, is the comment of the Globe and Mail this morning, a paper which, I have noticed, does not often support the views of the Government.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Which Government are you talking about?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am talking about "the" Government.


Michael Starr: That is how you got into office, because they supported you.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The Excise Tax Act contains a number of anomalies and contradictions. I said in my budget speech that I am sympathetic to the number of complaints which I have received about the application of the sales tax. I said that in my opinion the Act needs to be thoroughly revised. I had hoped this provision would have been in this year's budget but as we know, the report of the Royal Commission has been delayed. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it would have been foolish to embark on a major revision of this Act without the benefit of this expert study which was commenced nearly three years ago.
As I say, I am sympathetic with some of the complaints that I have received about the sales tax. Nevertheless we should keep things in perspective. The sales tax is deductible in one way or another in computing the taxable income of corporations. This ineans that if a corporation pays tax at, say, 50 per cent, the effect of the 11 per cent sales tax is reduced by half-that is to say, to 5i per cent-and if the equipment on which the sales tax is levied lasts five years the extra cost thus works out at 1 per cent per annum. Now, this is not insignificant but neither is it completely devastating, as the current level of corporation profits would seem to prove.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the Minister permit a question at this point. Is he telling us that a corporation, after having passed the 11 per cent sales tax on to the customer, gets half of it back from the treasury?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not. I would be glad to go into this with my hon. friend. It was brought up by a member in another profession, but in this particular case I was talking about the sales tax on productive machinery, which is eligible for depreciation on capital cost allowance. As it is written off over a period against profits, then the cost of the machinery and the whole cost, including sales tax, is amortized against the profits of the corporation over a period of years, depending on the circumstances, and 22620-551
The Budget-Mr. Gordon to that extent it reduces the 50 per cent corporation income tax.


Michael Starr: But that is only in certain areas.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not know in what profession my hon. friend was brought up; sometimes I wonder. However, I do not think I will try to explain it to him. If I might finish my speech hon. Members can ask all the questions they like, provided there is still some time left.
Let me turn now to another important problem which is dealt with in the budget. This involves the competitive difficulties faced by Canadian magazines and also the very vital matter of preserving Canadian ownership and control of Canadian newspapers. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that a majority of Canadians will agree, at least in principle, that because of the important, the vitally important role played by newspapers in influencing public opinion we should ensure that they do not fall under foreign control. Yet since budget night we have been presented with a variety of arguments set forth in newspaper editorials as to why the Government's proposal should not be proceeded with.
Some newspapers have asserted that we are striking at the freedom of the press. The arguments put forward in support of this assertion are difficult to follow. The real issue involved at this time, of course, is not freedom of the press at all; it is a question of whether this country will have a Canadian press which presents news and views in a Canadian light.
Another editorial comment or argument is based on the premise that foreign ownership of newspapers is not a problem at present, and that therefore there is no need to do anything about it. I suggest that if we did nothing until the problem arose, these same critics would be the first to accuse us of locking the barn door after the horse was stolen. Some people have said that while the objective of preventing the sale of Canadian newspapers to foreigners is acceptable, they disagree with the method chosen. This is the view of the publishers of the papers owned, for example, by F.P. Publications.


George Clyde Nowlan: Is that the paper which said that you locked the door and left the fox in the hen run?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am not the Minister of Agriculture; I think he could answer my hon. friend's question better than I.

May 3, 1965

The Budget-Mr. Gordon
Under the F.P. Publications proposal a better plan would be for the directors or owners of a newspaper to pass a by-law which says that none of their shares could be sold to a non-resident of Canada. That sounds fine, but we all know that some future owners of these shares would be in position to pass another by-law rescinding the first one.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Much like Liberal policy.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Apparently the editor of one of their papers, the Ottawa Journal, takes a very different line. I challenge anyone, this being, I think we will all agree, a most difficult question, given the political climate in Canada at the present time, to come up with a better proposal than the one put forward by the Government which would have any chance of being implemented. I say to all of the critics of this particular proposal, let us hear what they have to say. Let us have a counterproposal that has some chance of being workable.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Let me now come to the criticisms that have been made about the Canada Development Corporation, some of them by people who do not seem to have studied the proposal very carefully. The official spokesman for the Opposition was properly cautious in his remarks; not so his predecessor in office, the late lamented Donald Fleming.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The late Donald Fleming? Is he dead?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am tempted to answer that question, Mr. Speaker, but I shall refrain from doing so.
In rather typical fashion Mr. Fleming, shooting from the hip, let off what sounded like a 21-gun salvo, described as 21 reasons for not doing something which most people seem to find constructive. I am not clear from newspaper reports whether Mr. Fleming's real motive was to get back in the news with his erstwhile colleagues, Mr. Fulton and Mr. Hees, just in case some vacancy or other might occur at some time before too long. Perhaps Mr. Fleming has no such aspirations and was merely speaking on behalf of certain investment companies with which he is said to be now associated.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Those are the ones you left behind in Toronto.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I was not associated with him. I left a lot behind in Toronto, and Mr. Fleming has only begun to sniff around the edges.


In any event, I have been more impressed with the reactions of such newspapers as the Financial Post and the Financial Times whose editors perhaps had greater opportunity and perhaps took greater pains to assess the present proposal-not the one Mr. Fleming was fighting about some years ago-for a Canada Development Corporation. As might be expected, their reports are more accurate and their comments more enlightening than Mr. Fleming's heavy breathing.
I take it that most hon. Members and the majority of Canadians are concerned about the increasing degree of absentee control of Canadian businesses and Canadian resources. But speaking now from experience, I think I can say on this matter anyway, that when an effort is made to do anything about it the particular measures suggested are inevitably criticized.
I seem to remember that some proposals I made nearly two years ago were criticized as being negative. Those proposals are to be supplemented by another which, in its very essence, is clearly positive. I believe this combination of measures can have some effect in slowing up a trend which most people say they deprecate.
I would remind hon. Members that the purposes of the Canada Development Corporation are to supply a pool of capital which can participate in new long-term developments, including developments in the resource and manufacturing fields. This pool of capital will also be available in cases where the present owners of existing Canadian corporations are forced to sell for one reason or another. Furthermore, it will be available to turn to, in cases where foreign owners of Canadian businesses wish to sell out to Canadians or, on occasion, to take in Canadians as partners.
Quite apart from this, the Canada Development Corporation will provide a vehicle through which individual Canadians, and they will be given a priority, as well as Canadian financial institutions, can participate in the long-term growth and development of Canada. I am getting a very good response to this proposal.
Obviously, to be successful, it will require support in business and financial circles. Before putting it forward I had the benefit of the advice of some of the leading and most respected members of these fraternities. Since budget night, I have requested the Investment Dealers Association for their help and assistance. I propose to do the same thing with other groups who will be affected and whose advice can be most helpful. I include in these
May 3, 1965	COMMONS
groups, and very high on the list, representatives of labour unions whose members seem to be very interested in this proposal. I am glad to get some support from an area which seemed to be somewhat critical of this particular proposal.
It is very important that workers in factories, members of labour unions and farmers should have a chance to participate easily in this Corporation. There will, of course, be ample opportunity for full discussion of all aspects of this proposal before it is enacted into law. In the meantime, all I can repeat is that hundreds of thousands of Canadians would like a chance to participate in the growth of Canada. They will get this chance though the Canada Development Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, a vote tonight in favour of this amendment, as the hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) made clear last week, is nothing more nor less than a vote of non-confidence in the Government-a vote against tax cuts, a vote against measures designed to continue the expansion of the economy and the improvement in the conditions of employment. I would urge all hon. Members, including even a sprinkling from the opposite side of the House to vote the amendment down.


Mr. Skoreyko:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the Minister would permit a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Minister of Finance wish to reply to questions?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to accept one question, but perhaps it would be unfair to other Members who wish to speak to prolong the questioning at this time.


William Skoreyko: I have one short question. Does the Minister recognize that the reason for the statement made by the hon. Member for Medicine Hat is that he must justify his position in this House, and that that is why he supported the Liberal proposition?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I find the question to be rather silly, but the answer is I am certainly delighted to justify my reason for being in the House. If you really want to push me, let me ask you about the changing conditions in this country.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to make one comment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. I recognize the hon. Member for Pictou.
DEBATES	865
The Budget-Mr. MacEwan


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, the House has just been treated to a second edition of the budget by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), who apparently thought it wise to explain some of the things which he brought forward in his budget. We will leave it to the Members to decide whether or not he has done that.
It was pointed out, when the hon. Member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) spoke first regarding the economic position of this country, when he referred to the White Paper issued by the Minister of Finance, that there had been changes. In that White Paper to which the hon. Member referred appears the following statement:
In terms of economic achievement, the year 1964 was a remarkable one.
I think we will all agree with that statement. The statement then continues as follows:
As we were often reminded, in 1964 Canada was in the fourth year of a cyclical upswing whose length in itself was unusual.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The Minister referred to various policies this evening which he said the Opposition had had nothing to do with. I think the hon. Member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) dealt with that matter. In my view the great flood of oratory which flowed from the Minister on the night of the budget can be summed up by recalling that a great Roman historian, Plutarch, once said:
A mountain is in travail and then a mouse was bom.
I think these words of Horace the Latin poet also hit the budget right on the nose:
The mountain was in labour and brought forth a ridiculous mouse.
I think that sums up the budget. As was pointed out when the Minister was presenting the budget, the figures which he brought forward represented selected statistics. Members opposite will ask: Why do you make these submissions and suggestions? The Minister said that there was nothing to the claim that the 11 per cent sales tax had done so much harm in this country. As reported in the Montreal Gazette of April 28 the president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Mr. A. A. Cumming, referred to the budget as a "damp squib budget". I have great faith in Mr. Cumming because he is a native Nova Scotian, and Nova Scotians know what they are talking about. With

May 3. 1965
The Budget-Mr. MacEwan further reference to the budget Mr. Cum-ming went on to say, as reported in the Gazette:
All in all, while not the shocker that his first budget was, Mr. Gordon's third effort, so far as business and industry are concerned, falls short of the glowing advance billing it was given by the professional kite-flyers.
That is certainly the case. The Minister said that the sales tax would do no harm.
I should like to read a short telegram which was received by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Stenson) whose riding is a heavily industrialized area. The telegram is from the Fisher Gauge Works, Peterborough, and it poses a question which I believe the Minister should think about. With reference to the sales tax it says:
Does the House realize that for every dollar paid in wages to tool for production in Canada whether for export or not more than 30 cents must be paid In sales tax alone or nearly one dollar in tax for every hour worked? This raises Canadian labour rates for tooling higher than U.S. rates. It is hardly necessary to wait for the Royal Commission report on taxation to correct this absurd situation.
Another matter referred to by the hon. Member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings which is very important, especially to the Maritime area, was education. When no change was made in this regard various submissions were put forward from the Maritime Provinces. In particular, the President of Acadia University, a well recognized university, had this to say:
The fact that the budget makes no provision for interim financial help for the universities pending the report of the Bladen Commission is bound to cause profound dismay among those responsible for higher education. Our situation is critical and immediate action is imperative.
The Halifax Chronicle-Herald also had an editorial on the subject headed "Why Wait"; in other words, why wait for later in the spring, do it now. The editorial had this to say in part:
Mr. Gordon could have acted, but chose to wait. We hope that the strong representations made to him to reconsider his decision will bear fruit, and that extra aid designed to last until more permanent measures arising from the Bladen report are implemented, will be announced before Parliament's summer recess.
There is another very important matter which I recall the Minister dealt with in his first budget. He took some pains to deal with the large amount of money set aside for shipbuilding subsidies. We know how important these are to the shipbuilding areas of Canada in the Atlantic Provinces and on the West Coast. We also note that this year there has

been a cutback from $32 million to $27 million in this regard and that an interdepartmental committee has been set up by the Government to study whether the shipbuilding subsidies will be continued. They are being continued for fishing trawlers. Let us hope the Government will continue them for other types of shipbuilding in this country.
When the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) issued his statement about February 8 he pointed out that because of the large backlog of work in this country the shipbuilding subsidies could be deferred. I am not inclined to agree with the Minister in this regard. He referred to the naval shipbuilding work which will be forthcoming but I do not think we can hope for much from that. I put a question on the Order Paper for the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) inquiring when the first keel would be laid under the new shipbuilding program and the answer I received was that it would be in 1966. After all, there are only four of these destroyer escorts and apparently two transport ships that will be built, and we certainly have more than six shipyards in the country. Therefore I hope that the committee which has been set up will not take too long to report. Otherwise, the amount of work will drop off, and we all know what a terrific amount of employment has been provided by the shipbuilding subsidy program introduced by the former government.
All I need to do is to point to the shipyard in my own area, Ferguson Industries in Pictou. I think they are on their fourth trawler at the present time. These ships have all been built under the subsidy program and without the program they would not have had anything in their yards. They have had very few refit jobs since the present Government took office. The situation is quite different from the formers days. I submit to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance that the report should be made as soon as possible because the shipbuilding program is important not only to the yards themselves but to the producers throughout Canada of the many components which go into these ships.
With regard to the tax cut, perhaps it will be repetitious if I go into the figures that have been presented. The hon. Member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings pointed out that a married man with an income of $3,000 a year and two dependants would save $3 a year. It is also true that nephews, nieces, aunts and uncles have been added to the list of
May 3, 1965
dependants. I am reminded of that old song: "Sisters and brothers and cousins by the dozens are proud of Uncle Sam". Perhaps we might paraphrase that and say: "Nephews and nieces and uncles and aunts are proud of Uncle Walter", but I do not know how proud. That is the extent of the exemptions.
In this regard I would refer to another native Nova Scotian who has aspired to great heights and has achieved them. With regard to the tax cuts, Mr. Donald MacDonald, secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress, said that the budget was "thin and unimaginative". He went on to say that "the income tax cut will give most benefit to those in the higher tax brackets".
The other day the hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Gratftey) asked the Minister a question regarding inflation, and perhaps the hon. Member will go into this subject in a speech. I should like to quote briefly from Mr. John Meyer's column in the Montreal Gazette of April 27 in which he said in part:
What is significant is that the factories and mills, in spite of their continually expanded facilities, are running at capacity. This is where the inflation risk is to be found, in the pressure of that additional buying power upon limited supply, in the renewal of the old cycle of too many dollars chasing too few goods.
He went on to say:
"It's no good arguing that the inflation risk is worth taking. It's never worth taking, as the experience in the mid-fifties ought to have taught." [DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
We know that in the last two years the cost of living in this country has gone up and up. Personal income taxes have been cut in this budget, but the suggestion has been made also that corporate taxes should have been cut in order to reduce the possibility of inflation.
I was going to go into things which the Minister said were done as reported on page 428 of Hansard. Among other things, he pointed out the provision of massive assistance to the Provinces in the fields of technical and vocational training. We know that the former Government brought in a provision to pay up to 75 per cent of the cost of construction of vocational schools, together with the furnishings. The Minister referred also to a vigorous expansion in the loan programs of the Farm Credit Corporation. We know who set up the Farm Credit Corporation and got it cracking. It was done by our Minister of Agriculture of that day. The present Government has just followed these policies.
The Budget-Mr. MacEwan
Of course, the pegging of the dollar is something which the Minister would not want mentioned. Then, reference was made to increased amounts and improved terms for credits and insurance to finance a rapid increase in exports. We know what was done in this field by the former Government, especially to assist exports, by the former Minister of Finance when he helped to obtain an order for steel rails from Mexico which provided a great deal of work for the Sydney steel works.
I could go on and on. He mentioned the Atlantic Development Board. This was established by the former Government. He did not refer to the Atlantic Provinces Adjustment Grants. These were set up by the former Government and have not been rescinded. This indicates the present Government is following all these policies which were good ones for the Atlantic Provinces, and indeed for all of Canada.
I do not want to be too tough on the Minister. I would say this in his favour. He suggested that there will be a tax allowance for companies adopting measures in connection with water pollution, which is an important matter in this country in this day. We know that our water resources are very important, one of the most important resources we have. In adopting this policy, the Minister has made a move in the right direction. The Province of Nova Scotia has set up a water authority to look into this matter. I am sure this provision will be of help to some companies. I know that this water authority in the Province is starting to do a lot of good work in that line.
In so far as the Maritimes are concerned the Minister, of course, is still looked upon with a little bit of suspicion as a result of the Gordon report on economics. He pointed out in his first budget that if the tax incentives, that is accelerated depreciation, and the three year tax holiday did not help the Maritimes, then he did not know what would. Some suggestions have been made that these incentives have brought industry into areas such as my constituency as well as into the Cape Breton area. I am not going to debate that tonight, whether those things have been the factors which brought these industries into the area.
In passing, however, I would say that Industrial Estates, a Crown Company established by the Province, has had a lot to do with it. They had a lot to do with bringing

May 3, 1965

The Budget-Mr. MacEwan Scott Paper Company to my area by providing water lor that company. Other factors were brought forward by Industrial Estates, such as guaranteeing the bonds for Clairtone, and that must have had something to do with the establishment of that company. I am not going to rely on my own opinion, but I should like to refer to a report from the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council to the Atlantic Development Board. In referring to these tax incentives, as reported on page 12, they say:
We noted that tax incentives by themselves are not likely to be a very successful inducement for regional development, and should only form a part of a more general program.
Farther along they say this, and I think this will bear repetition:
Our investigation indicates that during the first three years of location in the Atlantic Provinces a new enterprise is not likely to do much more than meet the "break even" point.. therefore, if it is intended to offer a three year exemption from income tax as an encouragement to industrial development, the exemption should be offered at least during six years from the inception of the new enterprise.
This is nothing new. The hon. Member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) made that statement when this matter was brought forward first. May I also quote from an editorial in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of April 24, 1965, which is entitled "Mixed View". I quote:
We look with favour and fear on the news from Ottawa that the Cabinet has reached "firm agreement" to pay direct grants of up to 25 per cent of capital cost to industries locating in areas of high unemployment or low average income.
I think this is the pertinent part, Mr. Speaker.
With favour because capital grants would represent a welcome extension of the tax incentive policy of a three year income tax exemption and accelerated write-offs of the capital cost of machinery, equipment and new buildings acquired by new manufacturing and processing enterprises which located in "designated areas" of high unemployment.
With favour because full benefit from the present policy is only possible when a new industry is able to achieve profits immediately. This rarely happens.
I should like also to refer to an editorial from the local paper the New Glasgow Evening News, which points out that these incentives are advantages not actual benefits to industries. I quote:
Under certain circumstances there are advantages -a much better word under the circumstances than "benefits". If the new plant is a money maker from the start, the Federal Government graciously permits the owners to keep the money they make."

As is pointed out here, Mr. Speaker, the industry must make these profits during the first three years. This is the exception rather than the rule.
In the last few minutes I have at my disposal, I am going to refer to a suggestion which was made by the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council to the Atlantic Development Board to the effect that there should be a grant of 25 per cent of the capital cost of new industries. I refer the Minister back to his statement about the first budget when he said that if these incentives do not help he did not know what would. I feel that this organization, APEC, has pointed out what will assist our area a great deal.
Before continuing, I should again like to quote from the APEC submission, pages 3 and 4. I quote:
Areas for assistance should not be chosen simply on the basis of surplus labour without regard to the potential of such areas...
Then, they suggest that the whole Atlantic region should be designated for assistance. APEC pointed out six particular locations and then said:
This selection is based on rather preliminary investigation and we stand ready to accept changes in the light of further examination.
In this regard, I am suggesting that they should include the area in my constituency served by the New Glasgow employment office. Then, on page 4 of the report it is stated:
We suggest also that a like capital grant should be available to the provincial authorities in respect to each advance factory constructed by them on the industrial parks located in the growth centres, and in respect to each factory on the parks constructed by private interests. In addition, we suggest a like grant to each firm now located in the region undertaking expansion which is likely to lead, either directly or indirectly, to additional employment, e (8:40 p.m.)
I think this is true and I recall that just last fall I was visiting the heavy steel plants, in my area where the railway cars, axles and so on are made. I talked to one of the chief executives in that plant, who said he believed that existing plants undergoing extension should also receive grants and incentives. The Minister should bear this in mind. Not only must we attempt to bring in new industry, but we must hold on to the industry which we have. This is clearly pointed out in an editorial in the Evening News where it says that APEC should include our area as one to be given these 25 per cent capital cost grants.
In my area we have heavy steel manufacturing and all kinds of secondary industry.
May 3, 1965
6S9

We have a thermal plant which was enlarged, thanks to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act which was introduced by the former government. We have cheap power and skilled workers and I contend our area should be given the benefit of these additional grants.
I believe the hon. Member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) stated recently that we should not cast seed upon rocky ground. We have a little rocky ground in Pictou county, up in the Garloch area, but in the rest of the county we have heavy industry which should receive these additional capital grants.
My time is just about up, but in conclusion may I repeat we are just a little bit leery of the Minister of Finance because of the royal commission which he headed when he said he was going to give us one way tickets out of the Maritimes. I think he has changed his mind since then. This evening he mentioned tax incentives and accelerated depreciation. I hope he will give consideration to these 25 per cent capital grants for new industries and extend them to existing industries in the Atlantic area. We do not want to be too harsh on him or too suspicious of him.
We look to our Atlantic Provinces Ministers to assist us, and especially do we from Nova Scotia look to our Nova Scotian Minister who, as the hon. Member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) pointed out, was touring the area by helicopter last week end. I think some of these Ministers had better get out of the clouds, put their feet on the ground and start to work.
In my area the naval refit work in the Pictou shipyard has apparently gone up the river. We have lost the Fergus contract to another company and we hope the Minister of Finance will do something for our area. I urge him not to drop the shipbuilding subsidies which mean so much to our shipyards. By retaining them he can do much to help our area.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Member for York-Scarborough.


Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. As Your Honour may be aware, it is similar to the one I brought to the Chair's attention on Thursday evening of last week. We are in the midst of a debate in which in recent instances a pattern of 22620-56
The Budget-Mr. Gregoire speakers has been followed through an agreed list of speakers being presented to the Chair. That is not the case today. You do not have an agreed list of speakers and an attempt is being made to change the pattern, to reduce the number of speakers allotted to the smaller parties in the House, and I object to this being done.
I say again, as I said on Thursday night, that this should be worked out by agreement. There has been at least one meeting since my protest on Thursday night, but no agreement has been reached. Whatever Your Honour does, I do not think this rearrangement of speakers can be made without protest.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, last week we protested against changing the order of speakers. At that time, in all corners of the house, it was understood that the house leaders of the various parties would get together in order to agree upon the list of speakers on the budget speech. That meeting was held, and it barely lasted 25 minutes; the representatives of the third parties were ready to accept a suitable compromise. We were ready to admit, to a certain extent, some of the requests put forth by the Liberal and Conservative parties, but the representative of the Liberal party, the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught) promised us that another meeting would be held today in order to reach an agreement on the list of speakers.
But there was no such meeting. There was no understanding and, under the circumstances, I suggest that the Speaker of the house, whose responsibility it is to protect the minorities, should continue doing so on the basis of the precedents established for two years now in this house, namely that following a spokesman for the Liberal and Conservative parties, a representative of the minor parties would take the floor, and so on. Those were the established precedents.
Moreover, I should like to point out that we were ready to discuss with the government house leader. We were ready to make concessions and to accept compromises, but, unfortunately, the proposed meetings to reach an understanding did not take place.
There was, of course, a short meeting which was called just before the house met Friday morning. We agreed on the procedure to be followed Friday afternoon, but on the understanding that we would meet again
May 3, 1965

The Budget-Mr. Gregoire today. However, that meeting did not take place.
In the circumstances and since we gave evidence of our good will, since we showed our willingness to reach a compromise and we even made offers, since the government house leader or his representative, the Solicitor General, did not call any further meeting and did not make counter-proposals, in short, because there is no agreement at the present time, I suggest we follow the precedents established and, at this stage, let the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) have the floor.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, because a motion has not been made in a formal way I move, seconded by the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), that the hon. Member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) be now heard.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the hon. Member present his motion in writing?


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker-


Maurice John Moreau: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Gilles Grégoire: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. May I suggest to hon. Members that there is first a question of privilege that has been raised by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I might rule on this at the moment-


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Minister
addressing the Chair on the question of privilege?


John Watson MacNaught: Yes. I just want to point out to the House that up to the present time 18 members have taken part in this debate. Of those 18 members-


Gilles Grégoire: Order. There is a motion before the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have asked the hon. member to present his motion and it has now been placed on the table.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. The motion has been presented but has not been put. The question of privilege is still under consideration.


John Watson MacNaught: I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that up to the present time 18 Members have taken part in this debate. Of those 18 Members six have been from the Government side, six from the Official Opposition, two from the N.D.P., two from Social Credit and two from Kalliement Creditistes.
0	(8:50 p.m.)
According to a mathematical arrangement of the speakers, the New Democratic Party will not be entitled to another speaker until after we have gone beyond 28 members. Certainly, the Social Credit and the Credit-iste groups would not be entitled to another speaker until away beyond that point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Watson MacNaught: I would suggest to the hon. Member who has made this motion that he is doing a grave disservice to those other hon. Members who are waiting to take part in this debate. If a recorded vote is called at this time the hon. Member will be in effect depriving one hon. Member of his right to speak.


Maurice John Moreau: On the question of privilege
1	should like to point out that the Members on this side of the House also have rights. We have been putting up with an order of speakers in this House ever since I have been a Member which has given the people over in that corner of the House the same speaking time as Members on the Government side, though we represent 48 per cent of the membership of this House. I happen to represent four times as many people as any Member speaking from that corner and I feel it is time for a change in our proceedings. My disillusionment with the Members of that party is complete. I am sure that the Members of the former C.C.F. party would have had a better sense of justice than that shown by their friends tonight.


Mr. Howard:: I was just about to say that it sounded like an awful lot of sour grapes on the part of the hon. Member for York-Scarborough, because I think it is simply a fact of life here that the only time generally speaking when Government backbenchers are allowed an opportunity to speak is on such occasions as this-formal debates. At other times they are told to sit down, stay
May 3. 1965

quiet and keep their mouths closed. Let no one deny it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: These are their instructions, either from their own whip or from their own Government.


An hon. Member:: What of it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May we have order, please. I presume the hon. Member for Skeena is addressing himself to the question of privilege.


Frank Howard: Just as much as the hon. Member for York-Scarborough, whom you allowed to venture far afield to vent his anger on the occasion of the one opportunity permitted to Liberal backbenchers by his own Cabinet; he feels put out by this-


An hon. Member:: What is your point?


Frank Howard: My point is simply that this is so much sour grapes on the part of Members opposite.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Has the hon. Member completed his argumentation?


Frank Howard: 1 was trying desperately to do so, Mr. Speaker. From the noise and the catcalls on the other side of the House it is obvious we have drawn blood by telling the truth for a change-


An hon. Member:: For a change?


Frank Howard: -and it is obvious the hon. Member is upset about it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is in the same difficult position as it was on Thursday last when a similar situation arose. Before the motion proposed by the hon. Member for Timiskaming is put to the House I should like to reiterate the point of view which I expressed at that time. I am referring, of course, to the occasion when this question was first raised, last Thursday. When there is no agreement among Members as to the order of speakers it is well established that the House must rely on the judgment and discretion of the Chair. In this instance the Chair has, I suggest, to take into account the relative numerical importance, if I may use that word, of the different groups in the House and also the number of Members from each of the various groups who have already taken part in the debate.
As has been pointed out by the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught), five members have 22620-561
Division
taken part in the debate from the Government side, five from the Official Opposition, and six from the other groups-according to my own figures, and subject to correction. However, I am prepared to accept the statistics put forward by the Solicitor General- six from the Government, six from the official opposition, and two from each of the other three parties. In the circumstances I suggest it is not unfair for the House to recognize at this point the hon. Member for York-Scarborough.
There is now a motion before the House. The hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) moves that the hon. Member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) be now heard. Is there a seconder for this motion?


Frank Howard: I gladly accept the invitation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) and the hon. Member for Chateauguay-Hunting-don-Laprairie (Mr. Watson) should retire.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
After the taking of the vote:


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


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege concerning an in-
cident which occurred immediately before the vote and which has occurred in the past as shown by the facts.
Before every vote, the Liberal and Conservative party whips usually wait outside the chamber until they can gather all the members of their party. Then they walk in together through the central door and proceed to the table, so as to indicate that the time has come to take the vote.
But we have noticed that when the Liberal and Conservative parties vote the same way then both whips agree to enter the chamber without notifying the whips or the representatives of the third parties.
Here is my question of privilege: members of third parties are at a serious disadvantage because, unlike the two main parties, they cannot decide when all their members are in the house.
A similar situation occurred about a month ago. We were then told by the Liberal whip that, in future, he would wait until he had heard from us before entering the house. Now, I find that this did not take place this evening and that is why I am asking Your Honour to lay down a rule or determine the practice to be followed in such a case. Is the time when a vote is to begin to be determined by the whips of the two main parties? If such be the case, should not the whip of the official opposition also consult the whips of the smaller parties? In my opinion, sir, it would be a good thing if you were to rule on that matter tonight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Member cannot, of course, ask questions of the Chair. I can assure him that the matter he has just raised, in respect of which he has suggested there is a question of privilege, although it was not followed by a motion, will be taken into consideration by Mr. Speaker.
I recognize the hon. Member for York-Scarborough.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to know whether, under this new set of rules established by this coalition between the Liberals and the Conservatives, in applying this rule fairly the hon. Member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) will be allowed to speak only once in every 265 times.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. Member will realize that there
May 3. 1965



has been a vote in this House and the question has been decided in support of the Chair. I now recognize the hon. Member for York-Scarborough.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When the question was put earlier, some hon. members, for instance the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel), took the liberty of coming into the house when the vote was in progress-


Mr. Habel:: That is not true.


David Réal Caouette: I hear the hon. member say that it is not true, but it is and we were witnesses-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member for Villeneuve resume his seat?
The point of order which the hon. member wishes to put before the Chair is based on the fact that some hon. members entered the house after the question was put. I should like to point out to the hon. member that he is wrong, for no hon. member entered after that.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, you may not have seen the hon. member enter the house, but we have seen him and we have witnesses to prove it.
Now, if we must appeal your ruling, we are prepared to do so and ask the house to vote on it.
On another matter, we should like to point out that there are still some difficulties in regard to making the list of those who will want to take part in the debate on the budget-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The matter was decided by the house and the hon. member cannot discuss it, especially since a vote was taken and the house decided to give the floor to the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau).


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member entered the house after the question was put.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must recognize that a vote was taken and that the house decided to give the floor to the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau). That is not a ruling of the
Question of Privilege
Chair, but of the house which recognized the right of the hon. member for York-Scarborough to take the floor.
As regards the matter raised a while ago by the hon. member for Villeneuve, it is not impossible that an hon. member may have entered the house without being seen by the Chair, but in any case, the Chair has followed the provisions of standing order No. 12 which provides that no hon. member must enter the house when Mr. Speaker is putting a question. To my knowledge, no hon. member entered the house at that moment.
Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Villeneuve to co-operate so that the decision of the house may be carried out and so that the hon. member for York-Scarborough may make his remarks.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, it is merely-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member for Villeneuve rising again on a point of order?


David Réal Caouette: It is the same point of order, because I want to co-operate with Your Honour. However, I maintain that an hon. member has entered the house after you had put the question. And if we must vote on this matter, we are going to ask for it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The point of order of the hon. member for Villeneuve does not cancel the vote which was taken a while ago.
In fact, the house did vote, and to maintain order in the house, I suggest that all members co-operate with the Chair and allow the hon. member for York-Scarborough to proceed with his remarks.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. A ruling has been made to the effect that the point of order was not justified and giving the floor to the hon. member for York-Scarborough.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker-
^r* Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member for Megantic wishes to rise on another point of order, I will listen to him.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, it is an altogether different point of order.
Not only have we seen the hon. member mentioned by the hon. member for Villeneuve coming into the house but a minister, who should set the example, did the same
May 3. 1965

The Budget-Mr. Moreau thing. We have seen the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) come in when both whips had already taken their seats to vote.
If the government wants the co-operation of the house, it should start by setting an example.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hard won opportunity to speak.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Maurice John Moreau: As everyone in this House will appreciate, there are not many opportunities for a Government Member to speak in this Chamber, and there are some proposals in the budget about which I feel rather keenly.
Mr. Speaker, I am one of those individuals, like most Canadians, who did not get everything I wanted in the budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), but like most Canadians I am appreciative of the circumstances-


William Arnold Peters: You are not speaking loudly enough. I cannot hear you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Let me remind hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Timiskaming, that we should give the hon. Member for York-Scarborough an opportunity of being heard.


William Arnold Peters: He is not speaking sufficiently loud, and we are having difficulty hearing him.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Speaker, I am appreciative of the circumstances and the difficulties with which the Minister of Finance has been faced. I think he should be complimented for the excellent job he has been doing, which was so clearly indicated by his budget speech on Monday last and again by his speech today. [DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
It should be pointed out that in spite of considerable increases in social spending and increased tax sharing arrangements with the Provinces, he has managed to bring order and control to our fiscal accounts. This is. in considerable contrast to the record of recent years.
There were two areas of particular interest to me, Mr. Speaker, that dealing with the Canada Development Corporation and that dealing with the publications legislation. These relate directly to the problem of foreign ownership and control and affect the long-term interests of all Canadians. '
[Mr. Langlols.i

For some years now many Canadians have been increasingly concerned about the degree of foreign ownership in our country. Thoughtful Canadians are concerned not for reasons of narrow nationalism or anti-American sentiment, but because we wonder whether our continued political independence is possible if we allow the key sectors of our economy to fall into the hands of non-residents.
I have no quarrel, Mr. Speaker, with those who argue that American investment has been beneficial to our country and has financed the development of our resources or that this has improved our standard of living. These arguments are undeniable and are the positive effects of foreign capital. We must remember too that we are a young country, a large and only semi-developed nation, and that we require and will continue to require a great deal of development capital to build our communities and industries and to develop our natural resources. What we must consider are the other aspects of foreign capital, the long term effects on our ability to manage and decide our own affairs, the kind of capital we are importing, where and how it is being invested and whether any regulation is desirable or even possible.
It is disquieting to me to realize that some of the key sectors of our economy already are under predominantly foreign control, not because these companies have not on the whole acted as good citizens but because the investment has been concentrated and uneven and has occurred in the most vital and dynamic sectors of our economy. Statistics, for instance, revealing that 45 per cent of manufacturing is controlled by non-residents do not begin to tell the whole story when we realize the key industry in manufacturing, the automotive industry, is almost entirely foreign owned and controlled. There are many other examples of this kind of concentration in the most dynamic and fastest growing industries in our economy, but the problem is particularly more acute if we note that the investment by non-residents has also been concentrated in the hands of American citizens rather than being spread among the nationals of many countries. This being so, it is not difficult to visualize circumstances where the policies of these companies may not be in the best interests of Canadians. If the investments were spread more evenly throughout our economy and distributed among nationals of several countries, the danger of one foreign country's policies adversely affecting Canadians would be minimized. I should point out that Canadian
May 3, 1965	COMMONS
interests may even be affected without deliberate intent, but as a consequence of policy changes in another country.
I do not intend to go into all the ramifications of foreign ownership and the advantages a subsidiary firm has over Canadian competitors, what policies they may have that affect our import-export problem, United States taxation policies and so on. Many of these have been outlined by a variety of authors and economists during the past few years, the most notable of which was the report of the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects. I should point out, however, that the parent-subsidiary operation has not given us the most efficient structure in our economy. For instance, we have eight or nine basic chemical industries producing petrochemicals in our country when perhaps two or three at the most would have provided sufficient competition in our own economy and would have made us more competitive in the international market.
Whether or not foreign controlled industries have acted as good citizens, Canadians must weigh the consequences of continued investment by non-residents in the most dynamic sectors of the economy. We must consider, not necessarily what has been but what could be if this trend is allowed to continue, whether our political survival would be possible if our communications media, our financial institutions and the most important industries were all foreign controlled. I happen to believe that here in Canada, through our own political institutions and given our human and natural resources, we can build a society which will be the envy of the world, even the envy of our American friends. I believe also that most Canadians would agree with me, and in fact Maclean's magazine of last June 6 reported on a survey which indicated that 74 per cent of Canadians were in favour of restricting United States take-overs.
Therefore we must not repeat the mistakes of the past, and while foreign investment in the post-war period did provide a base for our high rate of expansion in the '50's, we must make some adjustments to finance the high level of expansion which is expected in the late 1960's and the 1970's. This period of great expansion was predicted by the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects and has been confirmed by the first report of the Economic Council of Canada. It is clear that large amounts of investment capital will continue to be re-
DEBATES	875
The Budget-Mr. Moreau quired in Canada for some years, but our past experience indicates that we must devise new ways to utilize existing pools of capital in our economy, must encourage Canadians to participate more fully in the ownership of our industries and must obtain what foreign capital is required more in debenture form rather than in equity investment.
Our present Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) has already taken steps to restrict the equity ownership of our financial institutions and has, through an adjustment on withholding taxes on dividends, given incentives to subsidiaries of foreign owned companies to make their shares available to Canadian residents. We have also broadened the investment powers of some of our financial institutions such as trust and insurance companies who control very large pools of capital in our country.
We have in the present budget proposals a further important step in the Canada Development Corporation. This Corporation is designed primarily to encourage Canadians to participate in the ownership and development of our fast growing economy. The Minister of Finance has indicated that the Canada Development Corporation would have two essential aims: First, to prevent takeovers of existing Canadian concerns either permanently or temporarily until suitable resident ownership can be found and, second, to provide a pool of investment capital to finance new, large scale developments or at least share in these developments with other investment companies. I would add a third objective, that of the substitution of foreign debt capital for foreign equity capital by debenture borrowing if necessary in foreign money markets. I would hope that in setting up the powers of the corporation this would not be overlooked.
We can all recall some notable examples of the take-over situation and the public outcrys which resulted. Some recent examples were Canadian Oil and Labatt Breweries. In most cases, if not all, there was not a Canadian management group who could assemble the necessary finances in the time available to compete with a well timed and well executed take-over bid by a foreign controlled company.
We can also recall some startling and major developments in our resource industries where insufficient capital was available in Canada to finance these industries into production. There were also other considerations but the major limitation was the lack of capital.
May 3, 1965

The Budget-Mr. Moreau


Mr. Bigg:: Would the hon. Member permit a question?


Maurice John Moreau: I do not have much time and I hope to finish before the vote.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I would not want to interrupt the reading of your speech.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Maurice John Moreau: This was apparent in the potash industry in Saskatchewan, the iron ore mines of Labrador and the tar sands in Alberta. In some cases, Mr. Speaker, the discoveries and initiative were provided by Canadians who had to turn to the United States for development capital. This capital was not provided as loans but came in the form of equity investment and control of the industries involved. It is important to note here that the so-called American know-how was really provided by Canadians in many of these industries.
This, then, is the role which I anticipate this Canada Development Corporation will fulfil and which it is intended to fulfil. We must, therefore, now consider carefully the mechanism which will allow it to succeed in fulfilling its intended role. If it is to succeed in preventing a take-over, it must have the confidence and support of the business community, otherwise the directors would not have the intimate and prior knowledge required to act in time. It is therefore essential that the directors be appointed from among our top financial and business leaders. Also, it would not be desirable to have too great a degree of Government participation and control. There are additional reasons for limiting Government participation, which I shall go into further, but certainly the 10 per cent Government participation outlined by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) should dispel any fears of massive Government intrusion into business, or back-door socialism.
Another consideration is the size of the fund and how best to encourage Canadians from all walks of life to participate. It must have sufficient funds to undertake the largest of new developments or the take-over of the largest size corporations, either on its own or in partnership with one or more existing financial groups. A billion dollars would seem to be adequate capitalization, provided the Corporation is given the power to borrow debenture money. Provision should also be made in the capitalization for bond issues with convertibility provisions or for bonds with common share rights, subject to the

decision of the directors. This could be used also to encourage investment by many of our citizens who like some guaranteed returns, or who by reason of age or circumstances may not feel that the common shares would meet their particular needs. I feel also that while the shares should be available to institutional buyers such as insurance companies, pension trusts and so on, the first offerings should be made to individuals on the broadest base possible. We should, for instance, make provision for purchase by payroll deductions much in the same way that Canada Savings Bonds are offered.
I believe thousands of Canadians will welcome the opportunity to invest in our country, particularly if they feel confident that they are investing in a Corporation which has a solid base and good sponsorship. The decision to sell Polymer to the Canada Development Corporation was a good one, in that it provides a sound base for the Canada Development Corporation and it is in the best interests of Polymer. I am sure that progressive management of that Crown Company will welcome this proposal. They will be able to participate in secondary manufacturing ventures arising out of the petrochemical industry, if desirable, without the criticism that there is Government intrusion into business, and the move will also enable them to play a more aggressive part in setting up subsidiaries internationally.
Although, Mr. Speaker, the Canada Development Corporation should not become a depository for troublesome Crown Corporations, I hope the Government and the directors of the Corporation will look carefully at some other Crown Corporations. The Government should consider whether the best interests of these Crown Companies might not be better served by dissociating them from the Government. The directors would then have to consider whether they were a good investment, and would make the decision as to the advisability of buying.
I suggest that Eldorado is in this position, and with an improved outlook for uranium the longer term outlook of the company and the community involved must be considered. Under Government control, the company is seriously limited in its exploration efforts and in its attempts to obtain production contracts in competition with other producers. Without markets and an aggressive exploration program, the company and the dependant community are doomed.
We should consider also the sale of Air Canada to the Canada Development Corpora-
May 3, 1965	COMMONS
tion if they could also purchase C.P.A. Canada's best interests would be better served by one air line, and certainly the job of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), of formulating an air policy, would be much simplified.
Whatever the result of these and other proposals, the decision to buy must be left with the directors of the Canada Development Corporation. The Corporation, if it is to succeed in encouraging Canadians to participate in our future, must take an investor's view. We must appoint top management people to the Board of Directors and they must have the freedom to work in close cooperation with existing investment companies and financial institutions. We should encourage also the Canada Development Corporation to even participate with foreign owned companies who may have taken the initiative in a development project.
The Canada Development Corporation could also take on the role of placing, over a period of time with Canadian buyers, shares of a foreign controlled company who desired to qualify under the 25 per cent Canadian ownership provisions. Many business leaders have felt that stock issues from some of these subsidiaries would be too large to place in Canada, although the experience of Union Carbide would seem to dispel these fears.
The Canada Development Corporation could also play an important role in establishing those cornerstone industries which provide a base for many secondary manufacturers, such as was done with Polymer when it was first organized. This could be done in co-operation with several smaller competing companies who could collaborate in setting up the basic industry. In many cases a catalyst or focal organization is needed to bring them together, and who may further provide an outside and disinterested balancing force. They could also, through the co-operative enterprise, support basic research on a scale not possible individually and in a way which might allow them to compete more effectively with United States concerns.
These then, Mr. Speaker, are some of the aims and objectives which the Canada Development Corporation would have. I hope that the broadest powers are given to this Corporation so that these and other even more imaginative roles might be fulfilled. I believe thousands of Canadians will take the opportunity to share in our future growth, particularly if it is pointed out that much of the capital used in takeovers and development enterprises by foreign owners has been
DEBATES	877
The Budget-Mr. Moreau provided by profits from Canadian operations. The initial relatively modest investments have, in many cases, grown tremendously with our economy. We are entering a period of very rapid growth and Canadians must not find that the ship of opportunity has sailed again without them.
The second area of the budget that relates to the foreign ownership of periodicals and newspapers is of concern to me. I welcomed the announcement that ownership of newspapers would be limited to Canadians. I regret those arguments which intimate that we are in any way impinging on freedom of the press. On the contrary, we are insuring a free press, a Canadian press, able to reflect Canadian viewpoints on current policies and issues of the day. The proper time to act-


Douglas Mason Fisher: What about Time and Reader's
Digest?


Maurice John Moreau: -is before we are faced with a fait accompli. We have seen the difficulty in applying so-called retroactive legislation in the case of Time and Reader's Digest, and I welcome the timeliness of this action on newspapers.
On the subject of Time and Reader's Digest-


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


Maurice John Moreau: On the subject of Time and Reader's Digest-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Will the hon. Member permit a question?


Maurice John Moreau: No, I have not the time. I had hoped some distinction would be drawn between these foreign controlled periodicals and Canadian publications. I have, however, some hope remaining that something will be done, and I am encouraged by the sentence in the budget speech which reads:
The question of subsidized postal rates now enjoyed by the Canadian editions of non-Canadian periodicals will be studied as part of a general review of postal rates.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I am not aware of what will be done but I consider it significant that that sentence is there and I hope the Minister of Finance will not let me down in that respect.
It seems to me there is an omission in this proposal in that no mention is made of disallowing advertising expenses incurred by placing ads on border T.V. and radio stations. If the principle of disallowing advertising in foreign periodicals is valid, and I agree it
May 3, 1965

The Budget-Mr. Grafftey is, then I consider it is equally valid to disallow advertising on border T.V. stations such as Bellingham, Pembina, Buffalo and Detroit. This action, in my opinion, would increase the total advertising pool available for Canadian media, and for those who argue that such stations could not survive without this advertising, I say let us license our own Canadian stations and stop supporting stations which have been set up to circumvent the provisions of our Broadcasting Act.
There were a number of other proposals which I feel are also of great importance. There were changes dealing with incentives for scientific research, and proposals concerning water pollution. Both these areas have long-term significance to all Canadians. I consider science and technology are really our new frontier and the areas in which large scale developments are most likely to occur. Time does not permit me to outline my views on the need for a greater Government role in basic scientific and industrial research. I hope, however, I shall be given an opportunity to discuss these important matters before too long, if people on the other side are a little more co-operative in affording speaking time to Members on this side of the House.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, this is a wait and see budget. Canada's financial position and our economy only move forward when everything possible is done to improve the health of Federal-Provincial relations. Yet we are told to wait and see if questions relating to our constitution and Federal-Provincial affairs will merely disappear while the Government stands by, and goes from crisis to crisis when action is needed.
The Government must immediately convene a national conference to study our constitution. An all-party parliamentary committee should meet with similar bodies in every province. The result will be a modern constitution suitable to modern times, a made-in-Canada constitution.
We are told to wait and see if the war on poverty will begin by itself. Those in the higher income brackets are given a $600 a year tax reduction, while those in the lower income brackets are mostly given a reduction amounting to a couple of cups of coffee a week. The Government ignores the question of price stability, and tells us to wait and see if problems involving inflation and automation pass away, while millions of Canadians, living in grinding poverty, are obliged

to pay higher prices on shrinking incomes. We are told to wait and see if some stroke of magic-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being nine o'clock, pursuant to standing order 58(5) I am obliged to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question on any amendment before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. ITranslation]


Mr. Martineau:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin); had I voted, I would have voted in favour of the amendment.

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Robichaud). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MacRae:: I was paired with the hon. Member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Dube). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Baldwin:: I was paired with the hon. Member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I was paired with the hon. Member for Charlotte (Mr. MacLean). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


William Heward Grafftey: May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Speaker, we will continue the budget debate tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Provisional Standing Order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the orders for the day this afternoon I directed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) based on the protest made last week by Mr. Claude Edwards, President of the Civil Service Federation of Canada, with respect to the decision of the Government to take no action in the matter of increasing the pensions of civil servants already retired. I regret that the answer given by the Prime Minister this afternoon was one of the two answers which the Liberals have given to this question over the years. Those two answers are as follows: Either the Government says it will consider the matter, or it says it has considered the matter and cannot do anything about it. Today we get the second answer. Many of us do not think this is good enough, and I join in the protest registered by Mr. Edwards which he has made not only on behalf of the Civil Service Federation of Canada but particularly on behalf of our superannuated civil servants.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Mr. Flemming (Vicloria-Carleion):: I was By coincidence, question No. 176 on the paired with the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Order Paper in my name was answered
May 3. 1965

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion today, and the answer will be found in today's Hansard. It gives the numbers of retired civil servants and of the widows of retired civil servants drawing pensions of various amounts. If anyone will look at the answer given to question No. 176 he will discover, as I indicated on Orders of the Day today, that more than 5,000 retired civil servants are drawing pensions of less than $50 a month, and likewise more than 5,000 widows of retired civil servants are drawing pensions of less than $50 a month.
We feel that something should be done to increase these pensions. As a matter of fact, pensions of even higher orders should be increased and I remind the Government, as I have done on several previous occasions, that at long last, by making the provision in the Canada Pension Plan, it has accepted the principle that pensions, after they have been put in pay, should be adjusted if the cost of living goes up. In that case it will apply both to the benefit under the Canada Pension Plan and to old age security. I submit if that principle has been accepted by the Government, then it ought to apply it to its own employees.


David Walter Groos: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I welcome the applause given by the hon. Member for Victoria (B.C.) (Mr. Groos), and I was able to commend him this afternoon on the speech on this subject which he made during the Debate on the Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I only hope the Government will pay attention to the voices raised on behalf of the retired civil servants by the various parties in the house including, in this instance, a Liberal spokesman.
I draw attention to the words of Mr. Edwards in his recent letter to the Prime Minister, when he said:
In other words, unlike the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States, which have legislated to provide for regular adjustments of civil service pensions to compensate for cost of living increases, your government apparently cannot see that it has a similar responsibility in its role as an employer.
It seems to us, however, that the Government becomes acutely aware of its role as an employer when it comes time to discuss salary revisions for its employees.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a case that surely should not have to be argued in the House of Commons, because some of us have been arguing it for two decades or more. But the need is still there. Justice still calls for these faithful servants of the Federal Government to be recognized as having made their con-

tribution, and to be recognized as deserving of an opportunity to bridge the gap between their pensions and rising costs after they retire.
I realize that in the last 12 months or so there have been two full rounds of considering this matter and reviewing it, but in view of the heightening of the problem, in view of the increasing number of people who believe these pensioners are justified in what they are seeking, and in view of the fact that the Government itself has broken the dam so far as pensions are concerned by declaring that pensions, once put in pay, should be adjusted as the cost of living goes up, I ask the Government will it not now reconsider its position and give to its own retired employees the benefit of the justice they really deserve?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, in the three minutes available to me I would like to summarize the arguments, some of which were given this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), and others which I have organized myself.
The great majority of the 5,000 retired civil servants and of the 5,000 widows of retired civil servants to whom the hon. Member referred are receiving, in addition to pensions as retired civil servants, old age security pensions of $75 a month. This benefit they receive in the same manner as other Canadians over age 70.
Since this Government came to power Parliament has increased the old age security benefit by $10 a month, and this has benefited the majority of these retired civil servants.
Provision has also been made to reduce progressively the age of eligibility for old age security, beginning January 1 next. This will affect beneficially those retired civil servants who have retired on small pensions and have not yet reached the age of 70.
I would also like to refer to the fact that both the Canada Pension Plan benefits and old age security payments will now and for the future be tied to the cost of living index, and therefore the matter of inflation will be looked after.
I should also like to throw some light on the reasons for the large number of small pensions to which the hon. Member referred. These smaller amounts arise from the fact that the employees concerned have worked a relatively short period of time. Pension benefits, as is well known, vary with length
May 3. 1965

of service, and where the period of Government service has been relatively short it is hardly to be expected that the pension benefits will be comparable to those which longer term employees might properly expect to receive.
I repeat again what the Prime Minister stated this afternoon on the question of pension adjustments in relation to increased living costs and reduced purchasing power. The Government wishes to do everything it possibly can to improve the lot of all retired civil servants. However, it has an equal responsibility to all Canadians, and it does not believe that it should discriminate in this matter in favour of its retired civil servants over other retired persons in similar circumstances. In effect, the hon. Member's argument is that retired civil servants should be treated differently from the rest of the population.



INDUSTRY-DIRECT PURCHASE OF AUTOMOBILES FOR MOUNTED POLICE

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The
subject I wish to discuss in the brief time at my disposal was placed on the agenda in a slightly different form on a previous occasion. I refer to what was said by my hon. friend from Wellington South (Mr. Hales) who drew attention to some pertinent points last Thursday evening, I believe it was. At that time the Minister of Industry was not in the House, and for this reason the discussion came to a somewhat unsatisfactory conclusion. However, the Minister is with us tonight and I hope we may be able to come to grips with this issue and deal with some of the problems arising from the new Government policy on the central purchasing of automobiles, other than military vehicles.
The point which concerns me at the moment is the recent purchase of 127 vehicles from the Ford Motor Company. This contract was originally won by the Chrysler Corporation, but because a strike was taking place in its plant at the time, it was offered to the Ford Motor Company. The price, as I understand it, was a remarkably low price per unit. I am particularly concerned with the unit cost price and perhaps the Minister can provide us with information on this subject when he replies.
There is another aspect of this central purchasing procedure which seems to have been overlooked by the Government. It is this. It automatically puts the Government of Canada, through Crown Assets Corporation, into
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the used car merchandising business. Already I have received from my Province complaints that the R.C.M.P., for whom the vehicles were purchased, are offering used automobiles for sale. Other Members of Parliament from Manitoba have received similar complaints. This situation presents many difficulties. First of all it leads to the breaking of the agreement undertaken by every dealer franchised by the manufacturer concerned. Even worse, from the standpoint of dealers operating in the Province of Manitoba, it breaks the law of the Province concerning the merchandising of used cars.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
Section 12 of the Manitoba Highway Traffic Act says:
No person shall carry on business as dealer or wrecker unless he is the permittee named in a valid and subsisting permit for the purpose issued to him by the registrar, and has paid the fee therefor prescribed in Schedule A.
I want to make it clear that I am not against central purchasing. Indeed, I think that the plan which was initiated about three or four years ago is the ideal approach to this problem. It makes it possible for the Government to have central purchasing to the extent that the manufacturing companies concerned-and this only involved the Big Three-were able to process the tenders, and each one of the three in turn submitted the lowest tender on the purchase of vehicles to the Government. It was done on this basis because it was appreciated that an important part of the sale of an automobile is the warranty, and the servicing which goes on after the sale has been completed. With the expanded warranties and with the improved guarantees this is all the more important at the present time.
So we have this further difficulty. The Government, it would seem, is now purchasing direct from the manufacturers. The franchised dealers are being bypassed, in contravention of the agreement they have with their manufacturers. In my Province at least it places the Government of Canada in the used car business, which is contrary to the Manitoba Highway Traffic Act.


Mr. Hales:: Without a licence.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, without a licence. I do not see how the Government of Canada could be issued a licence, either, because the same section of the Act says that the registrar can use his discretion in determining the issuance thereof.
May 3, 1965

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. Winch:: How do you dispose of the used car?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The dealer does.
There is one other aspect of the matter, and I want to give the Minister sufficient time to reply. The Ford Motor Company, the Company concerned in this particular sale of 127 cars to the H.C.M.P., is in the process of transferring all its purchasing operation to the Detroit factory. That means that the Government will be dealing direct with a United States company. For the life of me I cannot see how this is being fair to the company itself. I am sure that Ford of Canada is anxious to live up to the obligations which it assumes in this very precise statement in the dealer agreement, a copy of which I have in my hand; but obviously they are being forced, because of pressure from the Government. This was obvious in this case, where Chrysler originally had the deal and it was turned over to Ford because of the strike in the Chrysler plant. I trust that the Government will return to the plan which I believe was operating successfully before.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, just let me correct what appears to be one small error. A purchase of 127 cars has not been made for the R.C.M.P. Tenders have been called but no contract has been awarded. There have been two earlier tenders called and two earlier contracts awarded. Neither of them was for the number quoted by the hon. gentleman, 127.
The hon. Member has asked what were the unit prices in respect of the 127 vehicles. I can give him the top and bottom prices for the earlier contracts, but not for the 127, as no contract has yet been awarded. In the case of the earlier contracts, which were for the R.C.M.P., for the first 158 vehicles, including 151 sedans and seven station wagons, the prices ranged from $2,209.40 for a two-door sedan delivered at Toronto to $2,865.40 for a four-door station wagon delivered in Nelson, British Columbia.
In a subsequent tender for 171 vehicles, including 155 sedans, nine station wagons and seven half-ton trucks, the range of prices was from $2,172 for a two-door sedan delivered in Toronto to $2,799 for a four-door station wagon delivered in Nelson. In addition there was a half-ton truck, four by four, priced at $3,326. I think that will give an indication of prices.
The new policy has been entered into as a consequence of a recommendation made by

the Glassco Commission, that the Government should employ, in its acquisition of motorcars for civil departments the techniques and procedures which have been followed, with great success and at considerable savings to the taxpayer, by the Government for a number of years in respect of the purchase of vehicles for the Department of National Defence.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Automobile dealers are also taxpayers.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The policy followed in respect of the Department of National Defence has been to call for tenders from motor-car manufacturers direct, we propose to invite them to quote prices giving the places of delivery, including in every case manufacturers' warranties, and including in some cases where the Department of National Defence or other Departments have facilities for light repair and overhaul the normal repair warranty, and where the Department of National Defence has no facility of its own for overhaul or repair, to include dealers' warranties, normally or ordinarily known, as I understand it, by the term "policy"-which means that the dealer undertakes to put and keep a car in good running order, during the initial period, at the expense of the dealer and at no expense to the user. The dealer is reimbursed for this by the manufacturer. So that tenders will be called for deliveries to different locations and involve one of three levels of warranty-a warranty to be carried out by the dealer, who is reimbursed for his expenses in this connection by the manufacturer. These expenses are included in the tender price.
In respect of repairs, at the same time the manufacturer will quote a schedule of repair charges authorized for the dealer making the repairs. These repairs are made on an as-needed basis, according to the schedule of prices. The dealer invoices the manufacturer and the manufacturer in turn invoices the Department concerned. This is a scheme which the hon. Member will see does not eliminate the dealers from the chain of operation.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, it does. Who sells the used cars?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I did not interrupt the hon. gentleman. Let him keep quiet for a moment or two. The dealer delivers the car and is
May 3, 1965	COMMONS
paid for it. There is no cost to the dealer who executes the warranty and is, in the ordinary case, reimbursed by the manufacturer. Finally, the dealer does the repairs and invoices the manufacturer, who in turn invoices us.
DEBATES	883
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif): I regret to interrupt the Minister who is speaking on this very important question, but his time has now expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.42 p.m.

Tuesday, May 4, 1965