1966-03-21

Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, may I call the attention of the house to the presence in the gallery of a delegation from the Canadian Indian Youth Council, who have come here from coast to coast to discuss problems affecting Indian youth and Canadian Indians generally.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Caouette: 1.	Did the C.B.C. offer, free of charge, periods of time to the various provincial political parties during the last election in each province?
2.	If so, how many hours were allocated to each party in each province?
3.	What is the cost of these hours based on the rates of rental for every provincial party in each province during the last provincial election in these provinces?
4.	What is the total cost of the expenses incurred by each political party during the official period of the last federal election campaign for the rental of facilities of private television stations, and of the government-owned network, as reported to the B.B.G.?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Board of Broadcast Governors as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.
HOURS ALLOCATED TO EACH PARTY IN EACH PROVINCE English and French radio and television
Network	Local
LIB.	P.C.	U.N.	N.D.P.	S.C.	LIB.	P.C.	N.D.P.	S.C.Newfoundland	
2:15	2:15	-	1:15	-	:30	:30	-	-Prince Edward Island	
1:30	1:30	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Nova Scotia	
1:40	1:55	-	1:25	-	:15	:15	:15	-New Brunswick	
3:00	3:00	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Quebec	
5:30	-	4:30	-	-	-	-	-	-Ontario	
2:50	3:20	-	1:50	-	:30	:30	:30	-Manitoba	
1:00	1:30	-	1:00	:30	:15	:15	:15	:15Saskatchewan	
1:15	-.45	-	1:30	:30	-	-	-	-Alberta	
1:00	1:00	-	1:00	2:00	-	-	-	-British Columbia	
1:22*	1:07*	-	1:37*	1:52*	:22*	:22J	:37*	.37*3.	To be answered later.	including the C.T.V. network: Liberal, $317,-
704.40; P.C., $236,133.52; N.D.P., $93,047.26;
4.	The following are the costs incurred Sodal Credit; $25,070.20; Creditiste, $20,173.-
by each political party for private stations, 50; Others, $24,836.85.

March 21, 1966
Questions


WORKING CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATION COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Pursuant to section 10 of the Representation Commissioner Act chapter 40 of the Statutes of Canada, 1963, did the Treasury Board give approval to the salaries and expenses of officers and employees of the Representation Commissioner as fixed by the commissioner and/or did the Treasury Board approve the prescription by the commissioner of their conditions of employment?
2.	If so, what are the names of such persons whose salaries and expenses were so approved by Treasury Board and what were the salaries and expenses so approved by Treasury Board?
3.	What were the conditions of employment prescribed for each such person to which Treasury Board gave approval?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. Yes. The Treasury Board approved the salaries and expenses of officers and employees of the Representation Commissioner and the prescription by the commissioner of their conditions of employment.
2.	The Representation Commissioner appointed the following persons at salaries which the Treasury Board had approved. The Treasury Board directed that such persons may be paid expenses e.g. travelling expenses, in accordance with the regulations made pursuant to the Financial Administration Act governing such payments to civil servants.
Salary
on
Appoint- *
Name	ment
Per
Annum
Albert J. Gravelle	$11,800
Ronald L. Stewart	8,310
Robert A. Pasch	6,300
Arthur J. Linegar	5,730
Madeleine Strelbisky	5,340
Richard Lalonde	4,260
*Susan Petrie	4,260
Elizabeth L. Leger	3,750
Gloria L. Bureau	3,750
*Ruth Petrie	2,970
Agnes Pigeon	2,970
Nancy Haigis	2,970
*Victoria S. Delaney	2,820
Oneita May O'Meara	4,410
Robert L. Fillman	3,090
Claire D. Papillon	3,150
*Margaret A. Henderson	4,050
*These persons are no longer on the staff of the Representation Commissioner.

3.	The conditions of employment approved by the Treasury Board are comparable to those prevailing in the civil service.


WORKING CONDITIONS, ELECTORAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION STAFF
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Pursuant to section 14(2) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter 31 of the Statutes of Canada, 1964-65, did the Treasury Board give approval to the salaries and expenses of any persons employed by any electoral boundary commission as technical advisers or other staff, including a person to act as secretary and/or approve the prescription by any such commission of their conditions of employment?
2.	If so, what are the names of such persons whose salaries and expenses were so approved by Treasury Board and what were the salaries and expenses so approved by Treasury Board?
3.	What were the conditions of employment prescribed for each such person to which Treasury Board gave approval?


Edgar John Benson: 1. Yes. The Treasury Board approved the remuneration and expenses of persons employed by electoral boundaries commissions and the prescription by the commissions of their conditions of employment.
2.	The commissions set up under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act do not report to the government so that the government does not have records giving the names of the persons employed by the commissions. The Treasury Board approved payment of remuneration: (1) to a secretary of a commission, of up to $180 per week; (2) for stenographic, typing or clerical services, at rates prevailing at the location in each province for the provision of such services; (3) for professional and technical services, at a fee of up to $75 per day.
When travelling on commission business outside their normal place of residence, the Treasury Board authorized payment to secretarial help of a living allowance of $15 per day plus actual transportation expenses. Other employees were authorized to be paid a $20 per diem living allowance plus actual transportation expenses.
3.	The conditions of employment approved by the Treasury Board are comparable to those prevailing in the civil service.


SCOTSBURN MARSH DRAINAGE SURVEY, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Did the Minister of Forestry receive a letter dated July 4, 1965 from a George A. MacLeod of
March 21, 1966

Scotsbum, Pictou county, Nova Scotia, charging M.M.R.A. officials with an error of approximately 2,000 feet in the Scotsbum marsh drainage survey?
2.	Did the drainage plan proposed by the M.M.R.A. engineers for this area approximate 1,200 acres at a cost of $47,610?
3.	Was the total estimated reclaimed land in the report by the M.M.R.A. engineers set at 270 acres?
4.	What would be the difference in the length of the drainage ditch necessary for reclaiming the 270 acres as contrasted to 1,200 acres?
5.	Is M.M.R.A. under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Forestry?
6.	Did the Minister of Forestry ask his M.M.R.A. officials to compute a revised estimate of the cost of draining the 270 acres and, if not, for what reason?
7.	Did the M.M.R.A. engineers propose the construction of a culvert approximately 150 feet to the west of the present bridge at an estimated cost of $12,000?
8.	Did the M.M.R.A. engineers consider adapting the present bridge to the proposed drainage plan and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry);: 1.	Yes.
2.	No. The drainage as planned would service an estimated maximum of 800 acres.
3.	Yes.
4.	No difference for the estimated 800 acres. For additional 400 acres, no information.
5.	Yes.
6.	No. This would be a provincial responsibility. However, the provincial officials have since made such a request and it is being acceded to.
7.	Yes.
8.	Yes.



SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY TO INDIAN RESERVES, MANITOBA

['That is right.']
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. (a) A
request from the Hollow Water Indian reserve to extend the power line from Pine Falls to the hamlet of Manigotagan was made to the superintendent of the Clandeboye Indian agency on February 1, 1961. (b) No
Questions
request has been received from the Little Black River Indian reserve.
2.	Yes.
3.	Not applicable.



Mr. Lefebvre: 1.	What projects under the ARDA program were undertaken in 1965 and what is their value in (a) the county of Pontiac, Quebec (b) the county of Temiseamingue, Quebec?
2.	What projects have been approved for 1966 and what is their value in (a) Pontiac county, Quebec (b) Temiseamingue county. Quebec?
3.	What projects are under study for Pontiac and Temiseamingue at the present time?


Maurice Sauvé: 1. The answer to parts (a) and (b) of this question is as follows: The province of Quebec has not to date submitted to federal ARDA any project proposals for consideration, to be undertaken in the counties of Pontiac and Temiseamingue, Quebec.
2.	Answered by 1 above.
3.	The federal government has not to date received from the province of Quebec any projects for consideration for the counties of Pontiac and Temiseamingue, and as it is the responsibility of the provinces to initiate and administer the majority of projects and programs under the ARDA agreement, this information would only be available from the province of Quebec.


ROAD CONSTRUCTION, BELLETERRE-LE DOMAINE, QUE.
Mr. Lefebvre: 1.	Is a road being built from Belleterre, county of Temiseamingue, to Le Domaine in 1966 and, if so, how much in federal funds will be allocated for this project?
2.	What amount has been spent so far on this project from federal funds?


Maurice Sauvé: 1. Particulars of the program for 1966 are not yet available.
2. The federal share of expenditures made to date on this project amounts to $92,983.60.


FORT CHURCHILL RECREATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Mr. Brand: With reference to the answer to question No. 246 (a) is the government aware whether the Fort Churchill Recreational Association has a legal

March 21, 1966
Questions
status as a corporation or association and, if so, what is that status (b) are any moneys paid to this organization by civilian firms in order to obtain franchises in the buildings owned by the Department of Public Works (c) has the Hudson Bay Company paid any moneys to this association in order to obtain a concession at Fort Churchill (d) if so, what has been the disposition of these moneys and by whose authority were they collected?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: 
SARCEE INDIAN RESERVE, ALBERTA
Mr. Thompson: 
Arthur Laing: 1. No, but
a petition dated October 20, 1965, was received requesting an investigation into the affairs and administration of the band under the present leadership.
2.	Yes.
3.	No, but it was followed by a petition from another group endorsing the leadership of the present chief and council.
4.	In the case of band funds managed by the band council under section 68 of the Indian Act, the Indian affairs branch does not require detailed accounts of the distribution of such funds. However, a copy of the audit report by an outside auditor, which is provided by the band at band fund expense, is required.
5.	Regulations governing procedure at Indian band council meetings make provision for the keeping of minutes of regular meetings of band councils elected in accordance with section 73 of the Indian Act. Such minutes are available for scrutiny by the Sarcee band members.
6.	Yes.
AbbibTANCE TO PRINCE ALBERT PULP CO.


Mr. Douglas: 
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by several departments as follows:
1.	The premier of Saskatchewan advised the Minister of Industry in September 1965
March 21, 1966

of the importance of a proposed pulp mill at Prince Albert to the economy of Saskatchewan, and expressed the hope that the project would be able to meet the requirements of the Area Development Incentives Act and Regulations in order to qualify for a development grant. Also, the area development agency has received an application for a development grant under the Area Development Incentives Act from the Prince Albert Pulp Company Ltd.
2.	No assistance has been promised or granted to the Prince Albert Pulp Company Ltd. The company was advised that the type of industry proposed was eligible, providing they met all conditions set forth in the act and regulations.
3.	No studies into the pulp mill proposed by the Prince Albert Pulp Company Ltd. have been made by the Department of Industry or any other government department. The area development agency is presently studying the company's application for a grant under the Area Development Incentives Act.
4.	No adverse report has been received by the Minister of Industry or his officials.


FOREIGN SHIPS WITHIN 12-MILE LIMIT
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	In each of the past two years, how many reports of foreign registry ships operating inside the 12-mile limit have been brought to the attention of the Department of Fisheries on the east coast and on the west coast?
2.	How many ships have been involved in such reports?
3.	Of what registry were these ships?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1.
	East	West
	Coast	Coast
1964	7	None1965	4	82.	East coast, 29 (2 fishing); West coast, 17 (none fishing).3.	East coast, 3 Spanish; 25 U.S.S.R.; 1 United States.
West coast, 17 U.S.S.R.


NATIONAL AND PROVINCIAL PARKS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson): 1.	Has the government given any direct financial assistance to the National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada?
Questions
2.	Are government employees distributing literature for the National and Provincial Parks Association and soliciting funds on their behalf?
3.	Do they do so for any other group?
4.	Does the government feel that this is a truly national organization?
5.	Are funds to this association allowed as income tax deductions?


Arthur Laing: 1. On April 18, 1964, a grant of $20,000 to the National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada was made. This is the only grant made and was for the purpose of assisting the association to establish itself as an independent private, non-profit organization to "promote the benefits and assure the protection of our great national and provincial parks so that Canadians, as well as visitors to this country, may enjoy them unimpaired for all time", as set out in its objectives.
2.	Not at the present time. Literature was distributed to park visitors to advise of the organization's existence in the early stages.
3.	At present, federal government employees are officially authorized to solicit funds for the United Appeals of Canada, and the Carleton University campaign for the Ottawa-Hull area and the government of Canada through the sale of Canada savings bonds. During official fund raising activities, they are authorized to distribute literature related to the campaign, the fund raising organization, and the purposes for which donations will be used.
4.	I am informed that the National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada's board of trustees is composed of men whose official places of residence are: Vancouver, Campbell River, British Columbia; Calgary, Edmonton, Alberta; Ottawa, Ontario; Toronto, Ontario; Simcoe, Ontario; Thorold, Ontario; Quebec City, Montreal, Quebec; Lancaster, New Brunswick; St. John's, Newfoundland; and Yellowknife, N.W.T. Additional trustees residing in Manitoba and Saskatchewan will be appointed. It is incorporated under federal charter. The membership of the association appears to be national in scope.
5.	Donations to the National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada in excess of the annual membership dues are an allowable deduction for income tax purposes.

March 21, 1966
Questions


FEED GRAIN IN EASTERN STORAGE
Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	How much feed grain was placed in storage last fall in eastern elevators for use under the feed grains assistance program for eastern Canada?
2.	How much feed grain was in storage on February 15, 1966, in eastern elevators for use under the feed grains assistance program?
3.	What was the cost of this storage for the months of October, November, December 1965, and January 1966?


Maurice Sauvé: 1.	As the quantity of western grain stored in eastern elevators in the fall can be diverted at a latter date to livestock feeding, industrial uses and export, it can only be identified as specifically eligible to feed grain storage assistance as it comes out of such elevators.
Quantities of grain in western wheat No. 5 and lower, oats, barley in eastern elevators (in '000 bushels)
October December February 27, 1965	22, 1965	9, 196620,346	37,297	27,0452.	Nearest reporting date February 9, 1966 -27,045,000 bushels.3.	Expenditures on storage assistance- October 15-31, 1965, 0.0; November, 1965, 12,218.73; December, 1965, 50,640.87; January, 1966, 22,006.87 (incomplete).


PRINTING BUREAU COMPETITIONS 65-721 AND 65-722
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Were competitions Nos. 65-721 and 65-722 for the Department of Public Printing and Stationery prepared by the staff training and development section of the Canadian Government Printing Bureau?
2.	On what dates were these competitions posted?
3.	Who authorized the competitions?
4.	What is the normal salary for these positions?
5.	What was the salary quoted?
6.	How many applications were received?
7.	Who was the successful applicant?
8.	Have these competitions been withdrawn and, if so, who authorized the withdrawal and for what reason?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have been given the following information by the Civil Service Commission;
1.	No.
2.	November 5, 1965.
3.	The Civil Service Commission.
[Mr. Laing.l
4.	When advertised as technical officer 4, ((a) competition 67-721, planning and estimating officer, (b) competition 65-722, copy editors) the salary was $6480-$7140. As a result of salary revisions announced on December 9, 1965 the salary for this class is now $6804-$7497.
5.	$6580-$7140.
6.	Competition 65-721-12 applications; Competition 65-722-23 applications.
7.	None declared since the competitions were cancelled before selections were made.
8.	These competitions were cancelled by the Civil Service Commission at the department's request because the positions had been reclassified to printing and stationery officer 3 ($7119-$7609).


CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION 66-H517
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	What are the names and addresses of the applicants in the recent civil service commission competition 66-H517, park warden (seasonal). Cape Breton Highlands National Park?
2.	Who was the successful candidate and when will his duties commence?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have been given the following information by the Civil Service Commission:
1.	Having regard for the right to privacy of candidates and the possibility that the release of information could prove not only embarrassing but prejudicial to them, the commission holds in confidence information concerning candidates whose names do not appear on the eligible list.
2.	The information requested is not available since the competition has not been completed.


HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS, MCBETH POINT, MAN.
Mr. Stefanson: Has the government any plans for improving the breakwater and harbour facilities at McBeth Point on Lake Winnipeg, Manitoba and, if so (a) what is the nature of the work (b) what is the estimated cost (c) when will the work be carried out?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): Yes; (a), (b) and (c). Since this is still in the planning stages it is not possible to provide the answers to these questions at the present time.
March 21, 1966


PEOPLE REPORTED LOST
Mr. Godin: 1.	How many people have been reported lost during the following years: 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965, in each of the following provinces and territories (a) Newfoundland (b) Prince Edward Island (c) Nova Scotia (d) New Brunswick (e) Quebec (f) Ontario (g) Alberta (h) Manitoba (i) Saskatchewan (j) British Columbia (k) Northwest Territories (1) Yukon Territories?
2.	For the same years and with respect to the same provinces and territories, how many (a) have been found (b) have not been found?
3.	For the same years and with respect to the same provinces and territories, how many female persons of each of the following age groups have disappeared (a) 10 to 20 years of age (b) 20 to 30 (c) 30 to 40 (d) 40 and over?
4.	For the same years and with respect to the same provinces and territories, how many female persons (a) have been found (b) have not been found?
Questions
5.	For the same years and with respect to the same provinces and territories, how many male persons of each of the following age groups have disappeared (a) 10 to 20 years of age (b) 20 to 30 (c) 30 to 40 (d) 40 and over?
6.	For the same years and with respect to the same provinces and territories, how many male persons (a) have been found (b) have not been found?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1 and 2. Information requested is not available as data from 1955 to 1965 are not comparable. In 1962, the uniform crime reporting system was implemented and data reported by the police under this reporting system for 1962 to 1964 are given in the attached table. Data for 1965 are not yet available.
3,	4, 5 and 6. Information requested is not available.


NUMBER OF PERSONS REPORTED MISSING, BY POLICE, NUMBER LOCATED AND NUMBER NOT LOCATED
[Stage Direction]
1962	1963	1964	Missing Number	Located Number	Not Located Number	Missing Number	Located Number	Not Located Number	Missing Number	Located Number	Not Located NumberCanada	
34,767	33,699	1,068	40,441	39,524	917	45,218	44,233	985Newfoundland	
511	508	3	621	621	-	1,212	1,206	6Prince Edward Island	
26	25	1	29	26	3	122	120	2Nova Scotia	
684	643	41	941	918	23	1,022	970	52New Brunswick	
626	616	10	6S9	685	4	858	851	7Quebec	
5,932	5,665	267	6,795	6,630	165	8,581	8,402	179Ontario	
14,561	14,259	302	17,328	17,077	251	19,114	18,775	339Manitoba	
2,509	2,359	150	2,512	2,325	187	2,778	2,629	149Saskatchewan	
1,228	1,211	17	1,269	1,256	13	1,232	1,215	17Alberta	
3,512	3,368	144	4,431	4,235	196	4,981	4,886	95British Columbia	
5,118	4,994	124	5,763	5,694	69	5,304	5,167	137Yukon and Northwest Territories	
60	51	9	63	57	6	14	12	22926	COMMONS DEBATES	March 21, 1966
Questions
March 21, 1966

Mr. Caouelie: Is the Minister of Defence Production contemplating sale of any plants and, if so, (a) what was the cost of construction (b) what was the maintenance cost during the last five years (c) what were the profits and losses of each such plant for the past five years (d) what is the estimated value of such plant (e) for what reason does the Department of Defence Production intend to sell them?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: In so far as Canadian Arsenals Limited is concerned: Yes-The Val Rose Plant of Canadian Arsenals Limited, located near Quebec City; (a) Original cost of land, buildings and equipment, $21,906,000; (b) and (c) The Val Rose Plant was one of three plants in the Quebec area which were operated as the Quebec Division of Canadian Arsenals Limited. Since accounts are maintained on a divisional basis, it is not possible to obtain the maintenance costs, profits, or losses of the individual plants which form the Division; (d) Negotiations for the sale of the plant are being proceeded with at the present time and therefore it is considered that it would not be in the public interest to give this information; (e) To provide more extensive utilization of plant facility by the introduction of commercial products, to increase employment and to stimulate the economy of the area.


SPRINGHILL PENAL INSTITUTION SUBCONTRACTORS
Mr. Coates: How many subcontracts have been awarded by the prime contractor for the young offender's penal institution at Springhill, N.S., what are the names of the subcontractors, and what is the amount of each subcontract awarded?


George James McIlraith: Securing of tenders for sub-trades and awarding of subcontracts including the amount of each subcontract is the responsibility of the general contractor. Consequently, this question cannot be answered in total. However, the general contractor nominated the following 10 main subcontractors in his tender form: Precast, prestressed and architectural precast concrete, Schokbeton; Aluminum windows, Robert Mitchell; Security hardware and metal work, Chubb, Mosler and Taylor; Kitchen equipment, Rideau Aluminum; Laundry equipment, Canadian Laundry Limited; Roofing, Tasco Roofing and Sheet Metal; Structural steel, Canada Iron; Water storage tanks, Steen Mechanical Contractors;
Questions
Plumbing, heating and ventilation, Steen Mechanical Contractors; Electrical work, Canadian Comstock.


RECRUITING TRIP BY ASSISTANT TO DEPUTY WORKS MINISTER
Mr. Coaies: 1.	Did the executive assistant to the deputy minister of public works go to Europe to secure staff for the department?
2.	For what period of time was he in Europe, where did he visit during this period of time, and for what period of time was he located in each area?
3.	What was the total cost of the visit?
4.	Why was this work not carried out by officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have been given the following information by the Civil Service Commission:
1.	The executive assistant to the deputy minister of public works went to the United Kingdom on February 25, 1966 as a member of a three man examining board under the direction of the Civil Service Commission. The board, consisting of the executive assistant who is an engineer; an engineer from the Department of Transport; and an officer of the Civil Service Commission, went to the United Kingdom to interview candidates, who responded to advertising by the Civil Service Commission in the United Kingdom and France, for professional engineers required by a number of departments, including public works.
2.	The itinerary of the team is as follows: London, February 26 to March 6; Birmingham, March 7 to 10; Liverpool, March 11 to 14; Glasgow, March 15 to 19.
The executive assistant, being bilingual, will visit Paris on March 21 to 25 to interview candidates there, returning to Ottawa on March 26.
3.	The total cost of the executive assistant's travelling is not known at this time but is estimated at $1500.
4.	While officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration have been most helpful in making all the preliminary arrangements for the recruiting team, it was advisable to have the two departments most interested in the engineers to be recruited, participate in their selection. A detailed and first hand knowledge of the specific needs of departments was important if candidates were to have as complete a picture as possible of the employment opportunities offered.

March 21, 1966
Questions


SALT WATER PIPE LINE, LOCKPORT, N.S.
Mr. Bower: 1.	Has the Minister of Fisheries in process an investigation as to remedial action on the salt water pipeline at Lockport, Nova Scotia?
2.	Has the investigation been completed?
3.	If not, when is it estimated it will be completed?
4.	If it has been completed, when will a report on the findings be available?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	The report is now under consideration.


CUSTOMS OFFICER, GRINDSTONE, MAGDALEN ISLANDS
Mr. Keays: Did the Civil Service Commission recently call for applicants to fill a position of Customs Officer at Grindstone, Magdalen Islands and, if so (a) how many applications were received and what were the names of the applicants (b) how many wrote the examination and what were their names (c) how many were called for the oral examination and what were their names (d) who was the successful candidate (e) were there any veterans included in the above list and, if so, was any additional credit given to them?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have been given the following information by the Civil Service Commission:
Yes. (a) 12. Having regard for the right to privacy of candidates and the possibility that the release of information could prove not only embarrassing but prejudicial to them, the commission holds in confidence information concerning candidates whose names do not appear on the eligible list; (b) 11, see (a) above regarding names; (c) 5, see (a) above regarding names; (d) There were two qualified candidates, namely, Mr. Ade Devau, Mr. Joseph Pierre Paul Langford; Mr. Devau was appointed to the position, collector 1, Grindstone, on February 16,	1966;	(e)
Neither of the successful candidates was entitled to the statutory (veterans) preference for war service. This preference becomes operative only with respect to candidates who have attained a sufficiently high general rating to be declared qualified.


ASSISTANCE IN SECURING OLYMPIC GAMES FOR MONTREAL
Mr. Allmand: Has the mayor of Montreal requested any federal assistance in his attempt to obtain the 1972 Olympic Games for Montreal and, if so, what assistance has been or will be given?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The mayor of Montreal has not requested any federal assistance in his attempt to obtain the 1972 Olympic games for Montreal.


LEGISLATION TO SHORTEN ELECTION PERIOD
Mr. Knowles: Since it requires only three or four weeks to hold a general election in the United Kingdom, is the Prime Minister planning to recommend legislation to shorten the period of time for the holding of a general election in Canada?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this question inquires whether the Prime Minister is planning to recommend legislation to shorten the period of time for the holding of a general election in Canada.
I agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is desirable to shorten the period of time for the holding of a general election in Canada, but a number of steps must be taken before any improvement can be contemplated. Because of very different geographical conditions it may never be possible to be in a position to adopt as short a period as that adopted by the United Kingdom.
In addition to the time required to select enumerators, it now takes 37 days to prepare voters lists, that is to complete enumeration and to print and revise the lists.
Under section 9 of the Representation Commissioner Act which was passed in 1963, the commissioner is required to review, study and report on methods of registration of electors and absentee voting. This study is to get under way after redistribution is in effect and the commissioner, under the law, has two years to complete his study. It is hoped that this study will show that permanent voters lists are feasible, for only then will it be possible to reduce the period of time for the holding of a general election.


C.B.C. PROGRAM &quot;TELESCOPE&quot;-PAYMENT FOR APPEARANCE
Mr. Howard: 1.	Did one Alanis Obomsawin or Helen Riley, or Helen Robert (s), or Helen Robert Riley appear on the C.B.C. program "Telescope" recently and, if so, was she paid for that appearance or for anything connected with the said show?
2.	In what form was she paid, and if by cheque what was the name of the payee thereon?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Yes. Alanis Obomsawin was the subject
March 21, 1966

of a "Telescope" program on February 10 and she was paid.
2.	By cheque, made out to Alanis Abom-sawin.


SYMPOSIUM ON WARM WATER POND FISH CULTURE
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Is it the government's intention to participate in a world symposium on warm water pond fish culture which will be sponsored in Rome during May by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations?
2.	If so, what are the names of the Canadian delegates who will be in attendance?
3.	Will representatives of the Canadian fishing industry be invited to participate?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1. Yes.
2.	C. P. Ruggles, chief biologist, maritimes area, Halifax, N.S.
3.	No. So far as is known no one in industry is interested in warm water pond fish culture.


PROCESSED FOOD PRODUCTS, ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Flemming: What was the value in dollars of processed food products produced and exported from the Atlantic provinces in the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964?


Robert Henry Winters: (a) Value of shipments
from manufacturing plants of processed food products1 Atlantic provinces.2 1960, $259,772,144; 1961, $280,910,527; 1962, $301,592,751; 1963, $343,168,488; 1964, not available.
'Including fish products industry but excluding beverage products industry and feeds industry.
"Atlantic provinces include Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
(b)	Domestic exports of all processed foods (including fish and fish product foods) cleared through customs ports in the Atlantic provinces during the years 1960-1964 were as follows:
Calendar	All Processed
Year	Foods
1960	$ 71,108,000
1961	72,440,000
1962	76,543,000
1963	83,762,000
1964	101,126,000
23033-1851	
Questions


OLD TOWN CLOCK, HALIFAX
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What was the last day in which the old town clock on Citadel Hill, Halifax, kept proper time?
2.	What is the cause of the current breakdown, and when will repairs be effected?


Arthur Laing: 1.	February 1, 1966.
2.	A broken glass face is binding the clock hands. Replacement glass has now been received and will be installed by contractor as soon as weather permits.


DUTY ON ATHLETIC TROPHIES
Mr. Harley: 1.	Is a duty imposed on trophies brought into Canada by Canadian athletes who are successful in winning such trophies?
2.	If so (a) under what authority is this done (b) what is the rate of duty charged (c) is the government considering the removal of this duty?


Edgar John Benson: 1. Trophy cups of metal and other metallic prizes, not usual merchantable commodities, won abroad in bona fide competitions by Canadian athletes are admitted free of duty under item 69200-1 of the Customs Tariff.
2. N.A.


SECOND NATIONAL PARK, P.E.I.
Mr. MacDonald (Prince): 1.	Has the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources received an offer of land from the government of the province of Prince Edward Island for the development of a second national park?
2.	If so, when was the offer made and where is that land located?
3.	Are negotiations still being carried on with regard to the establishment of a second national park in Prince Edward Island?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes.
2.	On May 19, 1965; the land is situated in Prince county in the West Point area.
3.	Yes.


GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION &quot;INVITATION TO CANADA&quot;
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): 1.	In the new government publication "Invitation to Canada," what criteria were used to decide which cities and places would be mentioned?

March 21, 1966
Questions
2.	On what grounds was Hamilton, Ontario, excluded from this publication?


Robert Henry Winters: 1. The concept of the booklet called for two pages of space to be allotted to each province, and two pages jointly to the two Territories, covering 22 of the booklet's 52 pages. Then, two pages each were devoted to the following 15 subjects: map of Canada, introductory message, transportation, government, accommodation, outdoor recreation, national parks, water sports, events, shopping, culture, fishing and hunting, winter sports, annual events and addresses of travel offices. The objective was to indicate the wide variety of tourist attractions and facilities of Canada while space limitations.
In deciding what cities and places would be mentioned, selection was made from amongst the best colour photographs available with particular attention to their ability to attract visitors.
2. Hamilton is identified on the map on the inside front cover but is not specifically represented in the pictures or text. Given the size of the booklet and its concept, it is not possible to show or mention every important Canadian city, travel attraction or event.


AREA INCENTIVE PROGRAM, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Forreslall: 1. Have many firms have been assisted in Nova Scotia under the area incentives program?
Designated N.E.S. Area
Amherst
Inverness
Liverpool
New Glasgow
New Glasgow
New Glasgow
New Glasgow
Sydney
Sydney
2.	Where in Nova Scotia are these firms located?
3.	What are the names of these firms?
4.	To what dollar extent has each been assisted?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	The area development agency of the Department of Industry has been informed, as at February 28, 1966, of 29 projects in which businesses have declared their intentions to establish facilities in designated areas in Nova Scotia in order to qualify for the benefits under the area development program.
2.	Ten of the eleven National Employment Service office areas which have been designated in Nova Scotia have shared in these projects as follows: Amherst 3, Bridgewater 2, Inverness 1, Kentville 2, Liverpool 1, New Glasgow 8, Sydney 2, Sydney Mines 1, Truro 4, Yarmouth 5.
3.	It is not in the public interest to divulge the names of the businesses which may benefit from the provisions of section 71A of the Income Tax Act and the Area Development Incentives Act. However, 15 of the businesses have received letters of assurance indicating that their plans for the projects, if carried out, should meet the requirements of section 71A of the Income Tax Act or the Area Development Incentives Act. Among these, the following nine businesses have announced publicly their intentions to establish:
Company
Amherst Woodworking (Maritime) Ltd. Eastern Land & Housing Limited K. & W. Enterprises Limited Acadia Fisheries (Canso) Ltd.
Clairtone Sound Corporation Ltd.
Benro Forest Products Ltd.
Bickerton Co-operative Ltd.
C.L.A. Cape Breton Ltd.
Deuterium of Canada Ltd.
4.	Businesses which qualify under section 71A of the Income Tax Act may receive an exemption from income tax during the first three years of operation. Eligible businesses which elect to take the capital grant under the Area Development Incentives Act will receive payment in three parts during the first two 
years of operation. None of the businesses which have qualified to date have been in production long enough to have received the full benefits. Thus actual levels of financial assistance by the government in each instance cannot be determined at this time.
March 21, 19GB


ASSISTANCE TO SKI ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
Mr. Malher: 1.	Does the government spend public funds to alert young people to the health dangers of cigarette smoking?
2.	Does the government spend public funds to promote amateur sport and physical fitness programs and, if so. is the Ski Association of Canada one of the sport groups thus aided by public funds?
3.	Does the government approve of the acceptance by the ski association of awards sponsored by cigarette companies?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The federal government does not have jurisdiction over this or other sports governing bodies and therefore any question of approval does not arise.
Questions


NATIONAL DEFENCE PAY KATES, HALIFAX-DARTMOUTH
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1003
Mr. Douglas:: 1.	What is the rate of pay at each of the Department of National Defence establishments in the Halifax-Dartmouth area, including Shannon park, the naval magazine, the Albro Lake radio station and the armament depot, for the following classifications: driver; light equipment operator; driver (heavy); and heavy equipment operator?
2.	How are the rates of pay in each instance calculated?
3.	Do the members of the motor transport section at H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax, and at H.M.C.S. Shearwater do the same type of work?
4.	If not, what is the difference in the work performed between the two establishments?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1.
Driver
Light equipment operator Driver (heavy)
Heavy equipment operator
Shannon Park Naval Magazine, Armament Depot $2.05 2.10 2.25 2.35
Halifax-Dartmouth
area
Albro Lake $1.85 1.90 2.05 2.15
Note: Motor transport services are provided to Shannon Park, naval magazine and armament depot by Halifax Dockyard employees who are carried on the Dockyard payroll.
2.	The rates of pay are calculated by Treasury Board based upon recommendations of the Department of Labour.
3.	Yes.
4.	Not applicable.


WAGE COMPLAINTS, H.M.C.S. &quot;SHEARWATER&quot;
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has there been any investigation into wage complaints at H.M.C.S. Shearwater since September 1, 1965?
2.	If so, on what date or dates was such an investigation or investigations held?
3.	What were the names and positions of the people who participated in such an investigation or investigations?
4.	Were formal reports submitted to the government?
5.	If so, who signed the reports?
6.	What recommendations were made in the reports?
7.	What action has been taken on these reports by the government?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. Yes.
2.	After a meeting between Hon. Leo Cadieux, Associate Minister of National Defence, and representatives of the Halifax Dockyard Trades and Labour Council in Ottawa on 7 September, 1965, a thorough investigation was carried out by members of the Department of National Defence, Department of Labour, and Treasury Board staff, culminating in a meeting in H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax, on 2 December, 1965.
3.	Associate Minister's Committee:	Mr. Kenneth R. Scobie, (Chairman)-Director General, Civilian Personnel, DND; Mr. Cameron A. Smith, Director, Civilian Personnel, Industrial Relations and Compensation, DND; Mr. Robert P. Smith, Treasury Board Staff; Mr. Gordon E. Hotchkiss, Department of Labour; Mr. Hugh R. Stewart, (Secretary) -DND.
Dockyard Trades and Labour Council: Mr. James Johnson, President; Mr. Eric Sharp, Vice President; Mr. Basil Conrad,

March 21, 1966
Questions
Recording Secretary; Mr. Leslie Brown, Financial Secretary; Mr. Dennis Bona, Sergeant-at-Arms.
Dockyard Management: Commodore Edward
N.	Clarke, Commodore Superintendent Atlantic Coast; Captain Frank Harley, Manager Ship Repair; Mr. John B. Breen, Administration Officer Atlantic Coast; Mr. George H. Logie, Civilian Personnel Officer Atlantic Coast; Mr. Edward C. Waddington, Industrial Relations Officer Atlantic Coast.
Dockyard Local Union Representatives: Mr. Ross Isenor, President, Local Union 1723, International Association of Machinists; Mr. James W. DeYoung, President, Local Union 1250, International Association of Machinists; Mr. Thomas Kimber, President, Boatswain Section, Local Union 273, Canadian Labour Congress; Mr. Richard Butler, President, Local Union 1133, International Association of Electrical Workers; Mr. Allen W. Cooke, President, Local Union 1405, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; Mr. George Dunham, President, Local Union 409, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association; Mr. John Conrad, President, Local Union 282, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada.
4 and 5. Yes, Hon. Leo Cadieux, Associate Minister of National Defence.
6. (1) Proposal: Halifax Dockyard drivers and garage employees to receive same "callback" pay as ship repair employees (ie four hours minimum pay).
Recommendation: Recommended. (2) Proposal: Dockyard drivers and garage employees to receive same shift differential as for ship repair (ie time and one eighth). Recommendation: Recommended. (3) Proposal: Forty hour week for fire tug crews. Recommendation: Subject to decision on Fire Fighter Class under study. (4) Proposal: Board and lodging expenses for prevailing rate and ships officers, ships crews to be equalized. Recommendation: Recommended. (5) Proposal: Two levels of seamen class to be established instead of existing single class. Recommendation: Agree, should be studied by Bureau of Classification Revision. (6) Proposal: Triple time for work on statutory holidays. Recommendation: Recommended. (7) Proposal: Double time for all overtime worked in excess of four hours, Monday to Saturday. Recommendation: Recommended. (8) Proposal: That Prevailing Rate employees be permitted to retain their Jury

Duty fees in addition to their take-home pay. Recommendation: Recommended.
7. The government agreed with the recommendations.


PAY RATE COMPARISON. HALIFAX
Mr. Douglas: 1.	With reference to the answer to question 476, what is the one comparison used to determine all rates of pay in H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax?
2.	Do the wage rate data used for determining the wages paid to the motor transport section at
H.	M.C.S. Shearwater, Dartmouth, referred to in the answer to question 476, include such outside employers as E.M.I. Cosser, Imperial Oil Limited, Volvo, Fairey Aviation and Texaco?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. Except for a small number of highly specialized occupations which are not found in the shipyards, rates of pay for prevailing rate employees at H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax, N.S., are determined by reference to the rates paid by seven shipyards in the maritime and St. Lawrence areas.
2. Since the selection of employers from which wage rate observations are drawn is a matter which comes within the purview of the Department of Labour, this information should be obtained from that department.


CANADIAN CARS SOLD IN U.S.
Mr. Korchinski: How many Canadian cars were sold in the United States in each year since 1960?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Exports of Canadian cars to the United States were as follows: 1960, 637 units; 1961, 615 units; 1962, 1,136 units; 1963, 3,504 units; 1964, 19,094 units; 1965, (Jan.-Oct. inch), 29,202 units.


CANADA-U.S. VISITORS-RACIAL ORIGIN
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Do officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration take cognizance in any way of the racial origin of American citizens entering Canada as visitors and, if so, is any discriminatory action based on this?
2.	Has Canada any reciprocal agreement with the United States concerning the racial origin of Canadian citizens entering the United States as visitors?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I.	No. 2. No.
March 21, 1996	COMMONS


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. MacRae: 1.	Between the period of June 1, 1965, and February 15, 1966, what grants have been approved by the Atlantic Development Board in each of the four Atlantic provinces?
2.	What grants were actually paid in the above period?
3.	What is the total of the commitments to each of the four Atlantic provinces to date and what grants have actually been paid?
Return tabled.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the right hon. gentleman in a position to report to parliament regarding the Canadian oil lift to Zambia, it having been confidently predicted some months ago that the Smith administration would have collapsed by the end of March? What has the Prime Minister to say? Is there any information he can give the house as to whether the oil embargo is proving successful and, in general, the degree to which through third country or third party assistance supplies of oil have been finding their way into Rhodesia?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry I cannot give the right hon. gentleman a detailed reply to this question at the moment, though I will be in a position to do so tomorrow or the next day. As the right hon. gentleman and the house know there have been, if I may use the expression, oil leakages into Rhodesia though not, I am informed, to the extent which some press reports would indicate and not to the extent that there is not pressure on the Rhodesian economy because of the shortage of oil and petroleum products. I would be very glad to try to secure full information, and to make a considered statement tomorrow or the next day on this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister at the same time give the house and the country information as to the amount of oil transported by the Canadian air lift, by the use of Canadian aircraft and the like?
DEBATES	2933
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is another question. I am sure I can get the information. This concerns the amount of oil transported to Zambia?


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: desire to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder whether the minister could tell the house when he plans to launch the investigation into the high prices of farm machinery, which he promised to undertake when he was in western Canada last fall.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: The matter is under advisement and an announcement will be made very shortly, I hope.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melforl-Tisdale):: Would the minister not consider setting up a royal commission, if a house committee cannot be set up to investigate these prices?


John James Greene: The machinery of the inquiry, if any, will be announced in due course.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. In view of the fact that the expiry date for the suggested proposal for developing heavy water through the Canadian General Electric Corporation was reached last week, does the minister have any announcement to make as to what has been decided in relation to this matter, particularly with regard to the location of a possible second plant?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Atomic Energy of Canada has received a proposal from Canadian General Electric. At the present time the proposal is being considered by Atomic Energy of Canada and senior officials of the government. A joint recommendation is to be made to the government, and I would hope a decision may be reached so that a further announcement may be made shortly.
March 21, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry No decision has yet been made by C.G.E with respect to location. If the government accepts the offer made by C.G.E a contract will be let within the next 60 days and in the contract other matters, including the proposed source of energy, will be included.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: As a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, would the minister indicate whether he has made representations to Canadian General Electric to take a serious look at locating this plant at Estevan, which was the site originally intended for the heavy water plant to be constructed by Western Deuterium Limited?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, Atomic Energy of Canada receives offers from C.G.E., and I think the responsibility for trying to attract C.G.E. to any particular place is more in the hands of provincial premiers, one of whom is in the gallery today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I would ask the minister whether the government has ascertained if Canadian General Electric have an improved process for the manufacture of heavy water.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, when there will be an agreement between Atomic Energy of Canada and Canadian General Electric, the understanding will be that C.G.E. will fulfil the terms of the contract.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breion South):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is not the minister aware of the British American process that failed to materialize?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



DOSCO-REPORTED INTENTION TO REMOVE EQUIPMENT FROM SYDNEY PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and ask him whether the government is aware of Dosco's intention to remove production equipment from their wire and nail mill at the Sydney steel plant. If so has the government received a request for aid, or does it intend to give aid to that area?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: was not aware of this intention, Mr. Speaker, but I shall make inquiries.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the question posed by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, may I ask the minister is he aware of the statement made in the Nova Scotia legislature by the former Nova Scotia minister of trade and industry that the Sydney area could wither and die within 15 years unless an answer is found to the problems facing the steel industry? I would ask the minister whether he agrees with this, and if he has not seen this statement would he check and give his views to the house as soon as possible?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is suggesting a debate, not asking for information.


Robert Muir: With all due deference to you, sir, I am not asking for a debate. I am asking for information because we are very worried about the steel industry in Nova Scotia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is he yet in a position to advise the house and the country when he intends to bring down his forthcoming budget?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be able to make that announcement very shortly indeed.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer a question asked by the hon. member for Calgary North relating to overhaul and repair contracts for the Department of National Defence. His question was:
Is it correct that overhaul and repair contracts for the R.C.A.F. have been grouped into three categories which have been let to three large corporations, two of which are American subsidiaries, with the result that a considerable number of smaller Canadian companies, which are dependant for their existence on this work, are now going to have to close down?
March 21, 1S66

Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government has been, where adequate specifications exist, to call for overhaul and repair work to be done on a competitive tender basis. About a year ago the companies engaged in overhaul and repair work for the R.C.A.F. in relation to aircraft instruments-not the aircraft themselves but merely the aircraft instrumentation-were advised that we were now reaching the point where it would be possible to issue specifications to enable competitive tenders to be called. This advice was not only given to the industry but in particular to the four companies engaged in this kind of instrument overhaul work during the previous year.
As a consequence about a year later-and that was some months ago-the overhaul and repair work for instrumentation was divided into three packages. Competitive tenders were called and contracts awarded on this basis. It is estimated that the saving to the government as a result of this competitive arrangement will amount to some $1 million. Further, when four contractors were engaged two of them were American subsidiaries. Now under the new competitive basis only one of the successful tenderers is an American subsidiary.
I would also like to advise the hon. member that we have no information that this change in procedure is going to cause any company to close down.



HATE LITERATURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Justice. I wish to ask the right hon. gentleman whether he could inform the house when we may expect the report of the Maxwell Cohen committee on legislation concerning a possible amendment to the Criminal Code dealing with hate literature.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be very glad to look into that matter and try to reply tomorrow or the next day.


David Lewis: May I ask the right hon. gentleman, if the report is not yet printed, would he at the same time give consideration to tabling copies of the report pending such printing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to give consideration to that suggestion. I know the report has been completed; it was being translated

Inquiries of the Ministry when I last inquired. I will be glad to find out exactly what has happened to the report and when we will be able to obtain it.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question. In the absence of the Minister of Justice may I ask whether the Prime Minister now is prepared to give an answer to a question asked by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition with reference to the Truscott case, as to whether the cabinet now has considered a royal commission to look into this matter, or what is the position at the present time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet received the report from the Solicitor General to which I referred the other day. As soon as this report is received we will give it immediate attention.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask a question of the Prime Minister about the matter concerning which the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister had a useful exchange on Friday, and to which reference has already been made today. In view of the wide public interest in the case of Steven Truscott, whom I had the privilege of seeing on Saturday, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will interest himself personally in this case so there may be an early decision on the request for an inquiry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already done so and I propose to follow the matter up with the Solicitor General, who is making, as I have said, an investigation into this matter. I propose to take a personal interest in the matter, of course, and I am sure every hon. member in the house is very concerned with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the statement just made by the Prime Minister is welcomed. May I ask him whether anyone is making an examination point by point and paragraph by paragraph of Mrs. LeBourdais' book on the subject, in which she deals with
March 21, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry
the trial in great detail and with the weaknesses of the evidence she alleges on the basis of the investigation she has made?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that any investigation of this matter along the lines I have suggested would require a very careful examination of that book.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to ask whether the government is still investigating the possibility of setting up an all party parliamentary committee to study changes in the Canadian constitution. I would like to ask whether a decision has been reached, and whether we can expect an announcement very soon.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No decision has yet been made.

Mr. Speaker, in answering the question posed to me by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi a moment ago I should have added that I was given notice of a question last Thursday by the hon. member for Greenwood regarding this same subject. He asked:
In the light of the publication of a declaration on Canadian unity signed by 60 prominent French and English speaking Quebeckers urging the necessity for a new constitution, will the Prime Minister give further and urgent considerations to setting up a special committee of this house to study this matter?
I should point out that the so-called Canada committee, referred to in the question, in its declaration, dealt with a number of matters relating to federal-provincial relations and the equality of the two founding groups in Canada. Reports thus far available in the press do not indicate that it called for a new constitution, as the hon. member for Greenwood suggested, but rather for a few specific changes. I have asked for a copy of the full report so that it can be studied. It is one of the many things the government wants to consider before deciding whether to recommend the establishment at this time of a special committee on constitutional matters.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the anxiety in respect of the matter, and in view of the tabling of the report concerning Hong Kong veterans, is the minister now in a position to advise what the government intends to do regarding the pensions for these veterans?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can report first that it is not necessary to pass legislation in this regard. Second, the Canadian Pension Commission now has decided to implement the various recommendations. The commission plans to proceed with a review, first of all, of all those claims for peptic ulcer which had been previously rejected. The next group to be dealt with will be those who have been rejected because of arteriosclerotic conditions, and these will include both lifetime claims and death claims. The commission then will proceed to review the files of all who are pensioned for avitaminosis, with a view to ascertaining whether increased assessments in these cases are in order. Essentially what the commission is doing is reviewing all the Hong Kong cases in the light of the recommendations and findings in the Richardson report.


Mr. G. S. Chaflerfon (Esquimalf-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. The minister has promised that the Pension Act will be brought up for amendment. Would the review now taking place be repeated if the Pension Act is amended, particularly with regard to the pensions of the veterans?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, in this regard I would not be prepared to comment until I have received the report of the inquiry under Mr. Justice Wood who is now examining the procedures, organization and interpretation of the commission. I am informed the committee hopes to conclude its hearings either late this month or early next month. Until that report is at hand I think it would be unwise for me to comment.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koofenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I presume the standing committee on veterans affairs will have an opportunity to discuss this report when it commences its sittings?
March 21, 1966


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I would hope so, Mr. Speaker. [Later:]


Mr. R. A. Webb (Hasiings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In the review of the flies of the Hong Kong veterans by the pensions commission, would the minister say whether any pensions awarded will be made retroactive?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer this question, because it will be a matter for the Canadian Pension Commission to decide.
Inquiries of the Ministry
with the question regarding the importation of pork, can the minister advise the house whether any investigation has taken place as yet, particularly in view of the fact that the retail price of pork has not gone down despite the drop in the price of dressed carcasses from 45 cents to 32 cents a pound in a couple of weeks?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the question is, but I will take note of the right hon. gentleman's remarks.



REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF DAIRY POLICY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is extremely concerned about the tremendous fluctuations in the prices of hogs to producers. Farmers generally are alleging that processors are-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question cannot be preceded by a statement. The hon. member should put his question.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I was laying the groundwork for the question.


Mr. Speaker:: It cannot be done in the way you commenced to do it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has information that there are large importations of pork products by processors to depress the domestic market.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I am aware there has been some importation of pork products. But pork prices generally have been good; but I will certainly investigate the effect of these importations on the general price structure.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief supplementary question. The minister has indicated that he will look into this matter. I wonder whether he will be so kind as to find out who are the processors who imported this product.


John James Greene: I will attempt to do so, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in connection 23033-186J
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Since the new dairy year will start next week could the Minister of Agriculture tell us whether he will announce the new dairy policy this week in the house?


John James Greene: Soon, Mr. Speaker.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the minister.
Could the minister tell us whether a minimum price of $4 per hundredweight for industrial milk can be expected at this time?


John James Greene: The policy will soon be announced, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, asking him what action if any has been taken in response to the representations from the Canadian Pacific Railway employees unions asking for government assistance in the reconciliation of the Canada pension plan with the Canadian Pacific pension plan.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: A series of steps have been taken, Mr. Speaker, including arrangements for a meeting in Ottawa tomorrow morning between senior officials of the unions of the employees involved and officials of the company.
March 21. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry CROWN ASSETS
HARMON BASE-DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS HEAVY EQUIPMENT On the orders of the day:


Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry. With reference to the question asked on Wednesday last by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays), since the minister may now have some information, would the minister inform the house whether the sale of heavy equipment from Harmon air force base is imminent, and how Crown Assets Disposal Corporation propose to sell this equipment?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the base is in the process of being closed down by the United States authorities. When this is complete such equipment as is surplus to the United States needs will be sold in the usual way through the government agencies. I would reassure the hon. gentleman and, I hope, the hon. member for Gaspe, that the government agencies in question will ensure that there will not be a depression of prices as a consequence of flooding the market with an excess load.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In answering the question the minister referred to "surplus to the United States needs." Does he not realize, or is it not so, that all equipment on the base would have to remain in Canada and therefore is automatically surplus?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I realize that, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Muir: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the question just asked of the minister and the reply given, and the undoubted urgency of this matter, could I not now have a reply to the question I posed regarding the jobs of several thousand steelworkers which are in jeopardy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member posed a question to which a reply was given. He was continuing with a supplementary question with regard to a matter that had been discussed before, and the way in which the question was put was not acceptable under the rules.



TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY-NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING INCREASED TOLLS On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piclou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of 
Transport. I wonder if the minister could tell the house whether meetings will be held at an early date between representatives of the St. Lawrence Seaway authority and their American counterparts; and if so, could he advise us of the date when these meetings will commence with regard to the matter of tolls on the seaway?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, discussions have been going on for some time, and I would have to refresh my memory as to the stage which they have reached at the moment.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and ask when he intends to introduce into the house amendments to the Indian Act.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of amendments that we very much wish to make, and I would hope it would be in 1966.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the always precise Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In order to tranquil-ize any suspense that has been caused by press releases in respect of the possibility of the government grubstaking prospectors in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, would the minister inform the house whether there is any substance in these reports, and if so when government policy will be announced?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker,
I hope the hon. member is not confusing the loan program to assist exploration, which we announced last week, with the grubstaking program for prospectors. This latter program has been in operation in the Northwest Territories and Yukon for many years, and our officials and the recipients are of the opinion that it is a good program. I do not know the details, but I shall be happy to write my hon. friend telling him the number of grubstake grants made and the amounts.
March 21, 1966	COMMONS



EXPO '67 REFUSAL OF PERMISSION TO RECORD R.C.M.P. BAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['No, Mr. Speaker, I have not any information that I can pass on to the house at this particular time.']
Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Has her department investigated complaints that a Toronto record producer has been refused permission to record the R.C.M.P. band at Expo '67, as a Canadian cultural project, by the American Federation of Musicians head office in New York?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question should be placed on the order paper.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I will raise the question this evening, Mr. Speaker, at ten p.m.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the government has now received the report of the special mission of Mr. Chester Ronning, and in view of the increased tempo of fighting in Viet Nam, does the Prime Minister have any information he can pass on to the house in this connection?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not any information that I can pass on to the house at this particular time.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address the question to the house leader, the Minister of Public Works. In view of the fact that the Auditor General has laid before the house two reports, could the minister give us some idea when these reports will be referred to the public accounts committee in order that it may proceed to study them?


George James McIlraith: I will look into this matter, Mr. Speaker, with a view to having this done in the very near future.
DEBATES	2939
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



ALBERTA-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IN PEACE RIVER DISTRICT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture the urgency of which is emphasized by the imminent approach of spring, and the fact that the collateral program of the province of Alberta to assist the farmers of northern Alberta will cease at the end of this month. Can the minister at this time give a final and categorical answer to the request for assistance which has been made on behalf of thousands of farmers, so they will know how to conduct themselves and arrange their programs?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, since the time he raised in this house the question of payments supplementary to P.F.A.A. payments for the farmers of the Peace river district, a similar request was made by the farmers of the Bonnyville district. I think this indicates the correctness of the government's decision that we cannot make payments supplementary to P.F.A.A., and to date we have received no requests which would enable us to give aid on any other basis.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and not an argumentative one. Will the minister not agree that there is this distinction, that the request on behalf of the Bonnyville farmers was not supported by the provincial government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I suggest to the hon. member that his question is argumentative.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. For the sake of clarity, would the Minister of Agriculture repeat what he said in regard to a request being made for payments supplementary to P.F.A.A.?


John James Greene: What I said was that a request was made for aid which in effect would be supplementary to P.F.A.A. payments.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskaioon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, who seems to be in a very
March 21, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry talkative mood today. I was wondering whether he could tell the house if the meeting between the P.F.R.A. in Saskatchewan and the group known as the Mistaseni committee to move the plains Cree Indian shrine has reached a conclusion; and can he indicate whether his department will be able to help?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member communicate directly with the minister, or put his question on the order paper.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important matter in view of the fact that there are only days left in which a decision can be reached in this regard. The order paper is of no use; we have had questions on the order paper for months.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the point of order I would say that this is a very important matter. It has to do with an Indian shrine that will be covered with the waters of the Saskatchewan unless action is taken. A question was put on the order paper and there has been no response thereto. There remain but a few days before this shrine, which the Indians have had for hundreds of years, will be covered by the waters of the river and that will be the end of it. I think it is very important, sir, that there should be an answer.


John James Greene: May I say that this matter is under immediate consideration, and I hope to be able to have an answer for the hon. gentleman and the right hon. gentleman within a very few days.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour arising out of the current strike of the teamsters union. Can the Minister inform the house whether decision has been reached on the eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits of those employees of trucking firms which ceased operation during the strike between teamsters' union local 880 and Consolidated Trucking Limited?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I know of no change in the

position which I announced some weeks ago. In the case of labour disputes, involving either strikes or lockouts, there is no provision for payment of unemployment insurance.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, might I ask a question of the house leader in relation to the business for today. In view of the fact that we will be considering a supply motion, which would take precedence over private members' time, I wonder if the house leader would care to ascertain whether the house would take the traditional two hours off between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m., perhaps both today and tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, since this is the traditional opportunity for the opposition to move want of confidence in the government-


Mr. Churchill:: Just an amendment to the motion, not necessarily one of confidence.


George James McIlraith: In any event, Mr. Speaker, personally I find the idea very attractive. I think if the opposition is agreeable certainly the government would be willing to take two hours off between 6 and 8 today and tomorrow, because the new rules extend the time for the amendment of the motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair by two hours on each day. I would be very glad to consider the matter further if the opposition is so disposed.
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of fhe Opposilion): Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to that, the other day we had a two hour adjournment because the ministers could not agree among themselves. This, however, is one occasion when I think there would be general agreement, as far as Her Majesty's loyal opposition are concerned, that a two hour period might well be made available to our members, who have been working very steadily day and night.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Does that order apply for today and tomorrow?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 21, 1966	COMMONS



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister been able to examine the protests which have been made against the narrowing of the north Atlantic Air lanes, and is he now in a position to state what is the government's position with regard to the opposition which is coming from the air lines pilots associations?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I could make a statement on this subject which is about three paragraphs long, but I think that would be transgressing the rules. I can say very briefly that the view taken by the government is that in no circumstances is any pilot who takes any exception to this rule asked to fly his plane in the narrow corridor. Meanwhile the whole matter is being further studied.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi in his capacity as chairman of the privileges and elections committee. I would ask the hon. gentleman what happened to the unanimous report of the committee, which provided that the Canada Elections Act should be referred to the privileges and elections committee?


Mr. G. Roy McWilliam (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, the point was
raised that the privileges and elections committee at its first organizational meeting acted beyond its terms of reference. Subsequently opinions were requested from officials of the house. These opinions have been received, and they will be presented before the committee for further action.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question. I would ask the hon. member whether it is not a fact that no one in the committee during the time it met raised any objections. I would ask the hon. gentleman who raised these objections.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot ask a question which suggests its own answer. That is a leading question.


Frank Howard: I did not think I would get an answer anyway, Mr. Speaker.
DEBATES	2941
Increased Cost of Living SUPPLY


Mitchell William Sharp: that the house go into committee of supply.



THE INCREASED COST OF LIVING

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this motion provides the traditional opportunity to bring matters before the house which, in the opinion of those introducing them, are of first importance and deserve the attention of the house. Also, an amendment may be moved and a vote taken on the amendment. There are a large number of matters which could have been taken up. Various suggestions have been made. Had we proceeded earlier last week, as anticipated, with a motion to go into supply, and the terms of reference had been available to us, it would have been possible to bring before the house the totally inadequate and improper nature of those terms of reference in the matter which has been submitted to Mr. Justice Spence.
We in Her Majesty's loyal opposition do not intend to accept the finality of the terms of reference, which in our opinion were not so framed as to place before the judge the allegations which were made in this house and in respect of which the judge is to make inquiries. However, I make it as clear as I can at once that, while we are not moving an amendment, believing that it would not be appropriate to do so, we do not accept the arbitrary nature of the terms of reference which were determined by the government and formulated in an order in council, and then placed before the house without discussion or consideration of the views of the members of this house.
Having made that clear, I want to bring before the house and the country the general economic situation in the nation as a whole. I particularly want to deal with one phase of the economic situation which affects the people of our nation to a greater extent than any other, and I say that on the basis of mail which I receive.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The two subjects in which people are particularly interested, if one's mail is to be any measure of public feeling, are these. One is the alleged barbarities in the slaughter of seals, and the other is the general position of the average Canadian in the face of a rising and accelerating cost of living. In order to
2942	COMMONS
Increased Cost of Living provide a background for what I have to say in this connection, I point out that there are serious economic difficulties facing this country which have not been met by the government.
It is interesting that today, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) spoke at the Canadian Club in the city of Toronto, he dealt with the difficulties that ministers have in arriving at a consensus of agreement regarding the courses to be taken by cabinet when it meets. We had an example of this the other day, showing the disunity that prevails in the cabinet, when ministers openly were in disagreement with one another, when they could not agree as to what certain legislation meant. That was on March 17. Each minister had a different idea of the meaning of the legislation, and the house ended by providing an adjournment so that they might get together to determine for themselves agreement regarding the legislation, which no one seemed to understand in the same way as another.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce said to the persons in the club in the course of his address:
There will undoubtedly be decisions taken by the government, and supported by me, which will cause some concern to many of my friends. The question inevitably arises as to whether one can serve best by trying to work from within the government, or whether he can be more effective and constructive if he has the freedom to express his private views. Every minister undoubtedly wrestles with this conflict from time to time.
I will make reference to that statement a little later on. It is very obvious that the minister, having had several years experience in private business, realizes that some of the measures of the present government cannot be understood by business or anyone else. He made a form of apology in the city of Toronto to those who were present at his meeting today.
Then he goes on to say, after dealing with the high level of economic activity:
The high level of economic activity, stimulated by an extraordinarily large capital program, and coupled with shortages of labour and the difficulty of finding sufficient funds to finance all planned undertakings, will impose inflationary pressures.
This will be one of our most pressing problems as the year advances, particularly having regard to the fact that we experienced an adverse external balance on current transactions in 1965 in excess of $1 billion, and that this figure is apt to be higher in 1966. It will be recalled that the corresponding figure in 1964 was less than one-half billion dollars ($433 million).

DEBATES	March 21. 1966
So the minister goes on. He points out that costs are of importance. Indeed, there are many who are saying today that because of high costs, she is becoming non-competitive in the markets of the world. The minister says that taxes are an important element of costs, and he gives advice-all of which we have endeavoured to give, but our efforts in this regard have fallen on barren soil.
The minister continued to say:
If we are to avoid too great a disparity between our taxes and those of other countries with whom we compete for manpower, capital and markets, the government must be selective in its spending program and resolute in resisting pressures to spend beyond its means.
These are some of the things that we have been saying. He goes on to say that the reason the government voted against the increase to $100 in old age pension was that it was difficult to find revenues to cover current spending. He says, "We would like to have done so." .
It is an interesting speech and it reveals in large measure the effectiveness of the criticism which we levelled at the government. Instead of the political planning promised during the 60 days of decision, proudly paraded as the courageous course to be followed by this government, we have had nothing but forward and retreat, retreat and retreat, from the very beginning of the administration.
Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce dealt with guide lines. I suggest that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) might study what the Minister of Trade and Commerce had to say in this regard. He goes on:
There were some misunderstandings in interpretation of the intentions of the guide lines and misapprehensions about their impact on the Canadian economy.
Then he goes on:
At the recent meeting-Canadian ministers were assured by the United States authorities that the United States Government was not requesting United States corporations to induce their Canadian subsidiaries to act in any ways that differed from their normal business practices as regards the repatriation of earnings, purchasing and sales policies,-
And so on. Then these general words appear again:
The United States members of the Committee reemphasized the view that United States subsidiaries abroad should behave as good corporate citizens of the country where they are located.
March 21, 1966

Then he says:
Special attention and encouragement should be given to help these companies to adhere to the guiding principles of good corporate citizenship.
Sir, until the opposition pressed for action, the attitude of the government on guide lines was that all was well, despite the fact that Canada was being treated in a way that can only be described as that of an economic beagle-b-e-a-g-l-e.
Now we find the minister saying that the balance of payments problem is a serious matter. The deficit with the United States is rising steadily. We have a deficit which is at an all-time high in peacetime. We have prices, and costs rising. We have Canadian exports being priced out of the markets of the world on account of rising costs. The cost of helping the United States meet its balance of payments problem has been met in part by action that falls on the Canadian consumer; by action that falls on Canadian industry, and on the Canadian manufacturer.
Sir, these are things that we have been saying, while the attitude of the government throughout has been that all was well. One has only to look at the last quarterly balance of payments report to see that the current account deficit with the United States in the third quarter of 1965 had increased $137 million or 11J per cent, over the year before.
You do not see any sign of the government restricting expenditure. They just spend and spend. This government's expenditures are $2 billion higher than ours were at any time. Federal expenditures this year in the main estimates will be $9,318 million. When the supplementary estimates are finally brought in, I am sure that those expenditures will pass the ten billion dollar mark. Last year's expenditures were $8,506 million. If no regard is taken to supplementary estimates that represents an increase of $811 million, or 9J per cent.
That sir, is the general position. Yet the attitude of the government is that all is well. When every person in Canada that I have spoken to is complaining about the high cost of living, with no action being taken by the government, the government's attitude is that all is well.
One of the most interesting articles that I have read, which puts the matter strongly, is an article written by Richard Needham today, in the Globe and Mail, in which he says:
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Take the simple instance of a man who bought a $1,000 Government of Canada bond. This paid him
Increased Cost of Living interest last year of $55 from which income tax (at 25 per cent) took $13.75. That's the official tax. The unofficial tax of inflation was more than twice as high. Consumer prices rose by 2.84 per cent in 1965, meaning the bondholder lost $28.40 on his $1,000 investment. His total tax thus came to $42.15, which, subtracted from his $55 interest, left him with earnings of $12.85, or 1.285 per cent on his investment.
Everywhere the inflation signals are flying. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) with his usual nonchalance laughs about this.


Edgar John Benson: I rise on a question of privilege. I did not laugh about it at all. I simply inquired what happened when hon. gentlemen opposite refinanced the national debt- how much did people lose?


John George Diefenbaker: I pointed out the
jocularity. There must have been some reason for it.
These are facts which have been pushed aside by the present government until they must, now, face a serious problem. Across this nation, inflation signals are flying. I will read only briefly from press reports and their headings. From the Financial Post: "Inflation Fires Heat Up Again". This paper asks "Can growth continue without excessive price increases"? That was in December. Major-General R. H. Keefler, according to the Toronto Telegram, in his year end message on December 30, referred to "The upswing which began back in March of 1961". All agree that the upsurge began during the period when we were in office. After speaking of rising labour costs, shortages of skilled labour, price increases and tigher credit, he said:
If allowed to continue unchecked, all this can add up to an alarming price spiral.
Each and every one of these papers has been warning the government. Almost without exception, newspapers throughout Canada have dealt with this problem. The cost of living index is at an all time high. Everywhere attention is called to the danger of our moving into an inflationary period which cannot be controlled and which might easily backfire into a depression. Here is another heading, "Braking Inflation Sharp's Prime Task". This appeared in the London Free Press on January 5. The article says:
In essence, the minister has called for restraint in wage and price increases and urged that the brakes be applied to over-all spending.
Well, that was good advice to others. But what about the government? It has been

March 21, 1966
Increased Cost of Living spending as never before. Nine governments across Canada are spending without correlation. Capital expenditures are multiplying in a way which cannot but lead to ever-increasing inflation. Yet we have a government which declines to take any action.
Here is an article by Bruce Hutchison. No one can ever accuse him of admiring anything more than he admires the present government. This is what he says as reported in the Ottawa Journal of February 26:
The risk, of course, is that we shall price our goods out of the world market when we have a special chance to price them in.
So I could continue.
Yet we have a government which has done nothing about this, though no doubt they will pretend that had they had more time they would have brought measures before the house to deal with these things. But nothing appears on the order paper; nothing has been set down there to meet this problem. The other day we had an example of the ill-digested legislation of which I spoke a moment ago. We had to adjourn with nothing done.
When Mr. Gordon went, everybody felt the excuse he had given, that he had offered the government wrong advice, was only a subterfuge intended to cover up the real reason. But there has been no change in policies.
Let us see what The Economist has to say about this question, and about what the government has done. I read from The Economist of January 1:
Prices moved up a full 3 per cent last year, against a 2 per cent average for the previous four years .... Falling corporate profits, especially in the second half of 1965, could easily trigger further price increases in 1966. Severe shortages of skilled and professional labour take much of the bloom from the employment figures. And the rate of increase in productivity is lagging.
We in Canada have followed the United States. The United States has experienced the greatest expansion in history and, naturally, it affects us. The article goes on to say this about what this government has done.
Beyond Mr. Pearson's fledgling manpower department, and a request last spring for the Economic Council of Canada to study the feasibility of prices and incomes policy (the council has not yet reported), the government has not moved directly to combat the problems of inflation, lagging productivity, and an adverse balance of payments.
That was on January 1. When the election came, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) went across Canada with profligate hand-here a rink and there a rink; no matter what they asked for, they were promised.

No doubt the minister's answer will be: You will have to wait until the budget. This is something which has been going on for months. It is no excuse to say that a budget will be forthcoming and that all will then be well. Action should have been taken earlier. Already the fires of inflation are burning. Many economists fear it will be difficult to put an end to those fires. The housewife, the wage earner, the war pensioner, the old age pensioner, the retired civil servant and all who live on fixed incomes are today facing tremendous increases in the cost of living. It will go still higher in all parts of Canada as one province after another imposes its own sales tax. The value of the dollar is continuing to shrink. Canada as a nation is spending more, and all its people are spending more. The inflationary trend is moving. It is accelerating with the passing months.
We find the prime lending rate increased today by the Bank of Canada from 4f per cent to 51 per cent-the highest figure for many years. The small businessman is virtually loaned out because of tight money. What are the figures? I took the trouble to secure those figures so that there might be no question raised as to their accuracy. Let us look at the record. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) asked the minister a question. He asked what was the cost of living index for the period from January 1, 1965 to December 31, 1965. This was the answer, on the basis of the index in the year 1949 being equal to 100: January, 136.9; February, 137.2; March, 137.3; April, 137.7; May, 138.0; June, 139.0; July, 139.0; August, 139.4; September, 139.1; October, 139.3; November, 140.2; December, 140.8; January, 1966 141.2 and February, 1966, 142.5.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
What does all this add up to? So far as the average Canadian is concerned it adds up to unjustifiable food prices. Everywhere across the nation there has been a cascade of increases in food prices, yet the federal government has not declared a war against inflation.
In 1966 food prices are 6 points higher than they were in January 1965, and everywhere people are asking what is going to be done about this matter. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics in its February 1966 report said the food index in February 1966 was 142.5 points as compared with 133.1 points in February
1965.	Housing was up 3 points in February
1966,	clothing was up 3.8 points, transportation was up 3.7 points, health and personal care were up 4.6 points. These are some of
March 21, 1966

the things of importance to the average person.
What has the government done? The answer is, nothing. True enough, the authority over prices rests with the provinces, but there is action that the federal government could take, and which it has not taken. We cannot accept the excuse, "If you wait until the budget we will do that which we have not done during the last 15 months."
Let me give a few examples. The Ottawa Journal in its issue of Wednesday, March 16, carried advertisements showing the prices of certain foods, and I compare those with the prices which were in effect on March 10, 1965.
During the past few weeks dressed carcasses of pork came down from 45 cents a pound to 32 cents a pound, but nobody knows who gets the advantage. What about the consumer? Has there been any reduction in the price he pays? Let me give some figures at random, and these are not selected to give the proof that there is inflation.
Tomato juice in 1965 was selling at 88 cents for three 48 ounce tins. In 1966 the price is 95 cents. Three 28 ounce cans of tomatoes sold for 88 cents in 1965. Now they are selling at two for 59 cents. In 1965 side bacon cost 69 cents a pound; now it costs 99 cents a pound. Pure pork sausage cost 55 cents a pound in 1965; now it is 65 to 79 cents a pound. Boneless red brand beef roasts, all types, cost 79 cents a pound a year ago; now they cost $1.09 a pound. Steaks were 85 cents a pound, now they are $1.60. Breakfast bacon was 69 cents a pound; now it is 85 cents a pound. Cottage rolls-ham-cost 49 cents a pound in 1965. Today they cost 75 cents a pound. Beef rib roast was 69 cents a pound; now it is 89 cents a pound. Beef rib steak was 79 cents a pound; now it is up to 98 cents a pound. I could give the entire list. Spare ribs cost 52 cents a pound in 1965; now the price is 79 cents a pound. Boneless loin pork roasts were 69 cents a pound in 1965; today the price is 82 cents a pound.
All the way across the board prices are up in one year. Who gets the advantage? The farmer? Not at all. The farmer still continues to receive about the same return for his products.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Oh, the new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) will finish that.


John George Diefenbaker: No amount of explanation can account for this tremendous increase

Increased Cost of Living in food costs, with the farmer not receiving additional amounts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: There is a great spread between the price the consumer pays and the amount the farmer receives. Fair and reasonable profits are proper. Consideration must be given to the cost of packaging and the like, but there is no explanation which can be given for this great spread. At the same time, as has been pointed out so frequently by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp), the prices of farm machinery are mounting.
The Minister of Agriculture went west on his pilgrimage. Not since La Verendrye went out there did anyone receive equal publicity. He said, "You know, when I get back east there is certainly going to be action. I am warning you-there is going to be action." I can just see him when he met with some of his colleagues in the cabinet and they told him, "You are just a new minister. You have ideas, but we don't work that way."
The minister said he was going to have an investigation into the price of farm machinery. What happened to that?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Nothing.


John George Diefenbaker: Today, with Lincolnesque calm, when he was asked, "What are you going to do about this" he said, "It is under consideration." The minister does not have to wait for the budget. Let us get an investigation under way and find out the facts.


William Heward Grafftey: Another royal commission.


John George Diefenbaker: Let us find out who is getting the advantage of this great layer of fat between the price the farmer receives and what the consumer pays, and let us not forget that at the same time the farmer wants to know why his machinery prices are going up, and up, and up. I had great hopes when I read what the Minister of Agriculture said. I thought, well now, we have got a minister; he is going to act. But he was mortified in the presence of the others, and they said no. Then he decided, we can still make the same explanation-"The matter is under active consideration."
Are there combines? Has there been any investigation into this spread? What action has been taken in order to preserve the consumer from these increases? The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) took

March 21, 1966
Increased Cost of Living action in connection with copper and copper products to assure that there would not be shipments abroad. But what action has the government as a whole taken? It started the spiral when it put the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Get the date of that and you begin to see it roll. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said he did not believe in that tax.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But he has done nothing about it.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, and when he spoke today in the city of Toronto he said, "After all, don't blame me for anything I did not do, because we in the cabinet cannot do everything we want to do."
What has been done to meet the problem of the fabulous rates charged by some companies on consumer credit? What is being done now? I can only express the hope, so far as the sales tax is concerned, that when the budget comes it will be removed; but if it is, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) will then be asking the Liberal party sitting opposite to do that which they voted against only a few weeks ago when we produced our resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: It has been said that there must be a sharp reduction in government spending, but just before coming into the house I was given an example of public spending on the B and B Commission, which was to settle all our problems in Canada. Well, it sat $3J million worth. Let me give some of the figures in connection with that commission. The staff of the commission now has grown to 225, including 35 who receive more than $10,000 a year. Of the 35 $10,000 a year men, 15 are full time employees. The B and B Commission has 193 full time employees and 32 part time workers. That is just an example of the way they go on. There must be some unified action in this country to deal with inflation. With the responsibility in part constitutionally resting on the provinces, we need a government that will act, a government that will bring together the representatives from the provinces, and together make a concerted attack on inflation which today is the thief that is robbing the average Canadian of his savings, and those on fixed revenues from a fair income.

We need action in the field of agriculture. We asked for action on behalf of the dairy farmers. Nothing is done, but the promise is given that some time action will be taken. When we brought about the devaluation of the dollar, the chief criticism by the present Prime Minister was that that would bring about a great increase in the cost of living, and I have his words here. He complained bitterly, but it did not turn out that way. When we were in office we maintained a level which in no way could be described as inflationary, and that continued throughout the entire period of office.
It is time for agreement-and by agreement I mean a liaison-between the federal and provincial governments on the question of priorities. Everybody is spending, spending as never before. There must be a concerted effort, and this can be brought about only when the federal government once more exerts leadership on behalf of this nation, rather than dissipating its energies in gigantic considerations regarding national unity which have produced disunity.
What happened to the automobile agreement? They boasted about that. They said it was their finest hour. You can almost see them in the position of Sir Christopher Wren, when somebody asked where was his monument. You, sir, know the reply: "I do not know; but, if you would see the monument, look about you." This is the monument: $50 million per year by the removal of excise taxes. Who gets the advantage?


An hon. Member:: The Liberal party.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it the consumer in Canada? Nothing of the kind. You would have thought when they entered into the agreement they would have made arrangements whereby Canadians would be able to have their cars reduced in price. But what a business! These companies export to the United States, are able to compete over there against United States prices, and at the same time Canadians are paying through the nose. Is there any wonder, with a government that will not act, that the cost of living continues to go up and up?
Sir, we tried to bring about a reduction in taxes, but on our motion, which I mentioned a moment ago, in respect of building materials and production machinery, they voted against us. We ask that action in this regard be taken. What about the old age pension? Well, an old age pensioner has written to me in respect of the $75 monthly in the old age
March 21, 1966

pension, which was started in October, 1963. Since the cost of living and price index has jumped, the $75 monthly now has a purchasing power of $70.20. It has lost $4.80 in the intervening months with the added cost of living.
Now, the government is flying another kite. They voted against the $75 a month, and they have had a lot of criticism over that. When the Minister of National Health and Welfare went west, he said the Senate proposal would provide for a basic guaranteed minimum income at age 65. He said the Senate proposal would prove less burdensome on taxpayers, and the Senate plan he said would correct a major anomaly in the old age pension program-the paying of higher pensions to persons who do not need such assistance.
Then in the next couple of days the Minister of Agriculture made another pilgrimage. He went to the Prime Minister's constituency and he let the people know this had an appeal. Well, everybody wants to see benefits being assured to the older people of our country. But, such a somersault on the part of the government. A few weeks ago when I mentioned $100 a month, they said no. Every last one of them voted against it; and now under the pressure of public opinion and with recognition of the effect that the rising cost of living is having, suddenly they forget who it was who gave consideration to the plight of the old age pensioner.
In addition to that, what about the war pension; what about the retired civil servants who have been denied anything whatever from this government? Five thousand of them receive less than $50 a month in retirement allowance. No assistance is to be given to them. The government goes on with its other programs and spends and spends.


Mitchell William Sharp: On universities and such things.


John George Diefenbaker: All this then adds up to the fact that Canadians today are paying the highest prices in history in peacetime. In wartime there were controlled prices. I recall very well the debate in 1951 at which time the then minister of finance, now Mr. Justice Abbott, was quoted as saying that as a result of the control of prices someone said the saving ran into hundreds of millions of dollars. It is not a question of control of prices; it is action in respect of the prices paid on things the people need, such as food, clothing, shelter and recreation.
I have looked over the taxation records of the other countries in the western world and
Increased Cost of Living if we are not the most highly taxed people, I know of no other nation which approaches us: All this, in a matter of three years. What the Canadian people want is action. In order to give them that opportunity I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr):
That all the words after "that" to the end of the motion be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"In view of the fact that the cost of living index for the month of February, 1966, reached an alltime high, namely 142.1 points, this House regrets that the government has failed to act effectively to hold down the cost of living and to halt inflation, which is having a serious effect on the economy generally and particularly on all people in receipt of social security payments, on war pensioners, old age pensioners, retired civil servants, those on fixed incomes, and all low income groups."
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I was very much interested in the speech just made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in which he tried at one and the same time to be a responsible leader in this house concerned about certain inflationary tendencies in the economy, about which I and many other people are concerned, and a very strong advocate of very large additions to the expenditures of the government which could not help but have inflationary effects. I understand the position the right hon. gentleman is in, and it must be very difficult for him in the light of the many promises he made during the last election campaign when he went up and down the country promising, if not the sort of things he accused my leader of promising, then others somewhat more expensive.
When the right hon. gentleman began his remarks he made some reference to the general situation, before dealing with the question of the inflationary pressures and the rising cost of living. Since he did not amplify his reference to the general economic situation, this recalled to my mind the sort of conditions which existed in this country when he and his government were in office. I can recall only too well the stagnation of the Canadian economy in those years. Unemployment in those years was the highest in the civilized industrialized world. I know the right hon. gentleman was concerned about this, but his concern was never translated into effective action.
When I listened to the right hon. gentleman talking about our government's finances, I

March 21, 1966
Increased Cost of Living recalled the state of the finances of Canada in those years and, indeed, the succession of deficits of $750 million annually. When we took office in 1963 this was the first major problem with which we had to cope.
When I listened to the right hon. gentleman talk about the monetary conditions which exist today, I could not help but recall that famous incident in which there was some difference of view between the governor of the Bank of Canada and the government, which the government was not able to deal with effectively because it claimed on the one hand that the Bank of Canada was its own master of monetary policy, while at the same time it felt that somehow this was not really an attitude that was in keeping with the responsibility of the government for policy. The government of that day fell between two stools, and fell as hard as any government I have known.
I think of the mismanagement of the finances of the country in those years and how that government moved from crisis to crisis. I listened to the right hon. gentleman's statement that our criticism of the exchange rate had been based upon the fact of devaluation.
My criticism and the criticism of my leader was not of the devaluation: It was based on the manner of the devaluation. We had an unnecessary exchange crisis brought about by the most disastrous handling of any country's finances that has been seen in the modem world.
I recall the sequence of events only too well; the then minister of finance talking about nudging down the exchange rate; how it was nudged and began to roll, and how, in order to arrest the decline, the government had to stabilize the Canadian dollar. Even after that the exchange crisis was not over because the then minister of agriculture, who was a little unhappy about the decision that had been reached, suggested that the dollar should have been stabilized at 90 cents, not at 92J cents.
The result was another crisis in relation to confidence in the financial markets of the world. If the right hon. gentleman thinks that this is the kind of financial management to which the country should again be subjected, no one will agree with him, because we do not want a repetition.
Mr. Speaker, in the period of stagnation of the Canadian economy which existed during most of the period when my right hon. friend's government was in office-


John George Diefenbaker: And in the United States.


Mitchell William Sharp: -and in the United States, it was not difficult to hold down the cost of living. It is about the easiest thing in the world to hold down the cost of living when there are vast pools of unused resources that can be brought into production. That is the situation that prevailed during those years. The real problems arise, as they have arisen at the present time, when the country is operating at a high level of activity and when there is a very low rate of unemployment. There is in fact now the lowest rate we have seen for many, many years. Indeed, in some parts of this country there is no unemployment that could effectively be mobilized.
Mr. Speaker, this is the problem we are faced with today. I should like to agree in part with what my right hon. friend has said, that we have reason for concern, but may I put on the record some figures that will help to show the nature of the problem and remove some of the exaggerations that have been injected into this debate by the Leader of the Opposition.
First of all I should like to talk about the rise in prices throughout the world and relate them to the rise in prices in Canada. I do not have to quote from any selected figures. I suggest that we look at the report of the Economic Council of Canada which is to a great extent directed toward this very subject of price trends.
I have here some international comparisons of consumer price changes taken from table 2-5 at page 20 of the second annual report of the Economic Council of Canada. The percentage increase of Canadian consumer prices up to the end of 1965 in Canada was 9 per cent; in the United Kingdom it was 19 per cent; in France it was 20 per cent; in Germany it was 15 per cent; in Italy it was 26 per cent; in Sweden it was 18 per cent, and in Japan it was 35 per cent. The only country where there has been a slightly smaller increase in the cost of living is the United States where, between 1960 and 1965, there was an increase of 7 per cent compared with the 9 per cent increase in Canada. So that, Mr. Speaker, I think is the problem in perspective.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
We are not talking here about an increase in the cost of living or in prices that has been pushing us up at such a rapid rate that our competitive position in the world has seriously deteriorated. I should like now to quote
March 21, 1966
from the second annual review of the Economic Council, where they say at page 17:
The relatively moderate over-all extent of price increases in Canada over recent years has been quite remarkable considering not only the widespread strengthening of demand forces-both internal and external-but also the upward adjustments in prices and costs which might have been expected to follow the significant decline in the exchange value of the Canadian dollar between 1959 and 1962.
So we are not talking about a bad performance on the part of Canada in the past; we are talking about a remarkably good performance. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to maintain price stability when there are very many unemployed, as there were when my right hon. friend was in office, when there was no particular increase in investment, when the country was stagnating, worried, concerned, passing from crisis to crisis.


John George Diefenbaker: The upturn started in 1961, according to the same report.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes. I say to my right hon. friend that what we are now passing through is not only the period of greatest prosperity but the most prolonged, which began shortly before my hon. friend left office and I am sure he thought it would end shortly after we took office, but it has gone on and on and promises to continue much longer.
Now we come to what I think is the serious part of this debate, and that is the problem of the future. I should like to say to the house that I do not take a complacent view of the problem that is faced by the country today. I share, for example, the views expressed by the governor of the Bank of Canada in his report which was published the other day. In his annual report for the year 1965 he said:
In the present condition of high prosperity, the formulation of public policies intended to influence the total demand for goods and services poses peculiarly challenging problems. On the one hand, it is necessary to avoid a shortfall in total demand, which would result in increased unemployment and unused capacity. On the other hand, it is necessary to be alert to the dangers of excessive demand.


An hon. Member:: What page is this?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is page 4 of the governor's report. He continues:
The early symptoms in this latter case-
That is the dangers of excessive demand.
-may not arouse as much public concern. Unfortunately, if the warning signals are ignored and policy does not respond until a large number of
Increased Cost of Living unsustainable positions have been created, until costs and prices have risen very sharply and international competitiveness has been impaired, then the problem becomes much more difficult to deal with in a way that will not halt the expansion of the economy.
At the end of the next paragraph, summarizing what has gone on before he says:
In short, we now run the risk of overloading
the economy.
It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I am not complacent about the problems that we face. I am not going to deal at great length with what should be done under these circumstances, because in the budget speech that I hope to make in the near future I will deal with these questions at some length. I should like however to say in reply to the Leader of the Opposition that I trust he will have decided which position in this budget debate he is going to support. I had hoped at the beginning of his remarks that he was going to take a responsible attitude and was going to be concerned with the factors that really are instrumental in causing inflationary pressures. But as I listened to his speech I began to wonder whether he was not some sort of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, who trotted out his personality to suit the occasion and could even change it in the midst of his speech.
I believe it is important in the period ahead that there should be a concern about curbing inflationary pressures in the economy. I look upon this as a serious problem. I therefore say, Mr. Speaker, in reply to the motion that has been made, that this government has been following policies that have so far resulted in a remarkable degree of price stability. They have accomplished this even while bringing into use the large numbers of unemployed that were evident in Canada at the beginning of this administration. They have done it in the midst of one of the greatest booms this country has ever seen. I think of the figures of capital investment that I as Minister of Trade and Commerce announced to this house from time to time, increases of 17 per cent and 18 per cent annually in the total investment by governments and business. This is the evidence of the confidence of the people of this country in the future of Canada. They would not have made these investments, they would not be talking about another big wave of capital investment, unless they had confidence in the financial stability of Canada. I suggest that it has been the policies that have been followed

29S0

March 21. 1966
Increased Cost of Living by this government which have led to this great confidence.
I believe we now have a different kind of problem. Our problem now is not to put a brake on the economy; I suggest the problem is to see that we do not press too hard on the accelerator and throw the car off the road. Our problem in the future is going to be to keep the expansion going without inflation, and in this task I hope I have the support of all members of the house.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. minister permit a question? In his comments this afternoon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) quoted two authorities. I listened very carefully to his remarks and it seemed to me there was a clash of opinion between the two authorities he quoted. He first quoted the views of the Economic Council of Canada and stated that in the opinion of the Economic Council the economy of Canada is at present underdeveloped. A little later on he quoted the annual report of the governor of the Bank of Canada, and if I heard him correctly he stated that the governor is reported as saying that if we continue at our present rate we run the risk of overloading the economy. My question to the Minister of Finance is: Would he care to tell the house at the present time which of these views he supports?


Mitchell William Sharp: If I may be permitted to say so, Mr. Speaker, I intend to enlarge my views at great length in the budget speech, and I should not like to anticipate those views at this time.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: last 17 years they have had roughly 30 per cent of their savings taken away from them.
This steady increase in the cost of living -over 3J per cent in the last twelve months -has hit a wide variety of people. It has hit the people who are least able to protect themselves. I have already mentioned those on fixed incomes. The farmers and fishermen probably have the least economic bargaining power. I find on looking at the figures I have that the farm machinery index, which for December 1964 was 116, rose in December 1965 to 119.8, an increase of about 34 per cent. Hardware, which the farmers have to buy in large quantities in order to continue their operations, has gone up in that same 12 month period from 116 points to 122 points, an increase of almost 6 per cent.
If the farmer, who has seen his costs of production rising steadily, looks at the index commodity figure for the products which he has to sell in order to live, he finds, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, that the index for farm agricultural products in 1961 was 261.2 and for 1965 it was 261.5. It is significant, Mr. Speaker, that with all the increases in the cost of almost everything we buy, including food, in the past four years the index commodity figure for farm produce has risen less than three tenths of a point. It is virtually the same. There have been some fluctuations during that period, but within the general long-term framework from 1961 to the present the index for farm prices has remained more or less constant. Yet the farmers' costs have been rising steadily, with the result that they are caught in a cost-price squeeze.
The workers find that their wages are not keeping pace with the increased cost of living and increased productivity. It is true that those who are highly organized are able to bargin more effectively, but three quarters of the labour force in Canada is not organized. The latest figures we have for the third quarter of 1965 compared to the third quarter of 1964 show that profits during that period went up by 15.4 per cent, while wages and salaries went up by only 11.3 per cent. That, of course, is not just workers' wages; that includes executives' salaries and salaries of very astronomical amounts. If one were able to take out the executives' salaries and the managerial salaries, the actual increase in wages paid to the manual worker on the job would be very much less. However, even including all salaries with wages, profits have
Increased Cost of Living increased much more rapidly in the twelve month period between the third quarter of 1964 and the third quarter of 1965 than have wages.
I was disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) really did not come to grips with this problem at all. He cast some aspersions on the policies of the previous administration and he said there were some inflationary pressures he was thinking about; that he was going to prepare a budget speech and tell us all about it. But I do not think that the people of Canada will consider that good enough. Millions of housewives go to the stores every day, and when they step into the supermarket they see that the things they have to buy have gone up one or two cents since the last time they were there. They know when they go in with $100, that this amount of money will buy considerably less than $100 would buy in that same store 12 months ago. Housewives are concerned about it. They want to know what the government is going to do. So far the government has done nothing.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Also, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this: There is only one thing worse than for the government to do nothing, and that is for the government to do the wrong thing. I hope that the government is not going to do the wrong thing because there has been a growing clamour in financial circles and in financial papers and periodicals asking it to begin to apply anti-inflationary measures. I had a feeling that the Leader of Opposition in his speech several times veered in that direction without really spelling it out. I was afraid that the Minister of Finance himself was hinting that when his budget came down he might be trying to dampen down inflationary pressures.
We in this party want to warn the government that the worst thing to be done now would be to embark upon a general antiinflationary program. In attempting to reduce the availability of social and industrial capital, to reduce aggregate demand, particularly in low income groups and for those with fixed incomes, the result would be to stop the present economic growth, and create chronic unemployment. It seems to us that it is unrealistic to talk about inflation in a country where, first of all, according to the last figures issued by the Dominion Bureau of

March 21, 1366
Increased Cost of Living Statistics, there are 356,000 unemployed persons, over 80,000 of whom have been unemployed for more than four months. We are not yet using our full productive capacity. We are certainly not using it so long as we have over 360,000 men and women idle. We are not using our full industrial capacity, nor are we making use of all our vast natural resources.
I do not need to remind the house that in its first annual report the Economic Council told the people of Canada that we must maintain economic growth to the extent that will create 1J million jobs over the next five years, and anything that will curtail this economic growth can result only in unemployment. The only hope for full employment in Canada is continuing and steady economic growth.


Mitchell William Sharp: Without inflation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister says without inflation. There will only be inflation if we fail either to make full use of our productive capacity, or come to the point where aggregate demand exceeds our productive potential. Surely the Minister of Finance is not going to argue that Canada has reached its full productive potential?
Therefore, any clamping down of our rate of economic growth could be disastrous. This is what happened in Canada in the 1950's, and this is what happened in Great Britain in the 1950's. Somebody in both countries pushed the panic button, economic growth slowed down, and the result was that deflationary forces were set in motion, resulting in large scale unemployment.
I should like to urge the Minister of Finance to keep in mind that all parts of Canada are not experiencing the same degree of economic growth. Any shotgun approach to this over-all problem will have very unsatisfactory repercussions in some areas. It is all very well to look at one part of Canada and say: "We have almost reached our full potential," when, as in February of this year, unemployment in the Atlantic provinces was still 10.9 per cent, which is more than one worker in every ten out of a job. In the province of Quebec the figure was 6.5 per cent; in the province of British Columbia it was 5.1 per cent.
If the government embarks upon a general shotgun anti-inflationary program of tightening up the money supply, curtailing the amount of credit available for small businessmen and farmers, what will happen in those areas which do not need less money, but need 
more money? What will happen in areas that need more capital, and more credit, and more purchasing power, and more jobs?
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, our warning to the government is that we are concerned about the rising cost of living, but we want to make it abundantly clear that there must be a distinction between the rising cost of living and any attempt to impose anti-inflationary measures that could have the effect of curtailing the economic expansion upon which we are now embarked.
Some reference was made by the Leader of the Opposition to the cutting of government expenditures. I am not opposed to the cutting of any wasteful expenditures, and there probably are areas in which the government could save money by cutting out some extravagances. But, Mr. Speaker, there are still great areas of unmet needs in our society where, instead of curtailing expenditures, we should be increasing expenditures. Examples I have in mind are old age pensioners; veterans; groups whose increased purchasing power would provide the stimulus to the economy so that we could use our unused and idle capacity.
Mr. Speaker, we in this party have been urging the government for the past three years to give some measure of protection to the Canadian consumer. We live in a pluralistic society, in which various groups are able to band themselves together for their common protection. The manufacturers are well organized, as are the financial institutions, the life insurance companies, the banks and all the other various groups are well organized. They have organs to express their points of view and they have lobbies to present their opinions to the government.
Other groups are not so well protected. Labour is about 25 per cent organized. Those who are organized are able to bargain with some degree of success. However about 75 per cent are not able to bargain, and usually their wages lag behind both the rising cost of living and increased productivity. Farmers, as I have already pointed out, have virtually no bargaining power. Because their product is perishable, they must sell it when it is ready for market. They have no way of withholding their produce from market, and consequently the price which they have received for their produce has always lagged behind the cost of production.
But the most defenceless group in our society are the consumers. They stand naked
March 21, 1966	COMMONS
to the four winds of heaven. Nobody protects them. They buy most of the things they need in a market where half a dozen large corporations are able to set the prices of the commodities the consumer wants. There may have been a time-I doubt it-when there was sufficient competition in our society that people could shop around, and when this competition provided a measure of protection for the consumer. That is gone. Today the consumer buys in a market which is largely a closed market.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Some ten years ago the chief economic adviser to President Eisenhower said that 62 per cent of the prices in the United States were "administered prices". By that he meant they were prices which were determined, not by the law of supply and demand but by a few corporations in each indusry getting together and agreeing on an administered price. The only element of competition usually lies in service and in the respective advertising gimmicks which individual companies are able to put forth. The price charged to the consumer is something with regard to which the consumer has no protection whatsoever. There is no one to whom he can protest.
Prices are often increased, for no reason at all other than the fact that the companies concerned have decided that because demand is increasing, or for some other reason, the market can be saddled with a further 5 per cent or 10 per cent. We saw a good example of this only last year when the steel industry increased the price of steel by some $5 to $7 a ton depending on the grade. At that time the members of this party protested this increase pointing out that it was excessive and unwarranted. The Prime Minister suggested then that in the previous five years wages in the steel industry had gone up by 26.5 per cent. The fact remains that the productivity in the industry during that five year period had increased at such a rate that the labour content in a ton of steel had actually dropped from $27.57 cents in 1957 to $22.16 in 1963, a fall of $5.36 a ton. In other words the wage content in a ton of steel was $5.36 less in 1963 than it was in 1957. In spite of this, the steel companies raised their prices. Moreover, the profits of the Steel Company of Canada had gone up from $21,158,000 in 1957 to $43,630,000 in 1963.
There was no justification for a price increase either in terms of increased labour costs in a ton of steel or in terms of the profit
DEBATES	2953
Increased Cost of Living position of the company. The increase was levied because there was a greater demand for steel

a tremendous need for construction. And the steel company decided that the poor consumer could bear another increase. Of course, this increase has since been reflected in the increased price of farm machinery, hardware and other commodities.
The same thing has happened in the case of newsprint. The same thing has happened in te case of copper. The price of fats has risen despite the fact that the price of hogs has been falling. One of the most glaring examples of what is happening is the recent increase in the price of bread, despite the fact that the price of wheat has dropped by something over 12 cents per bushel, depending on the grade. The price of bread has gone up. Why? There was an investigation into the baking industry carried out by the combines investigation branch a few years ago. Everyone knows what the findings were. Here was a combine to fix prices without any relationship whatever to the cost. Nothing was ever done about it, and the baking industry is still doing the same thing-increasing the price of bread even though the raw material is costing less. So the farmer is getting less for his wheat while the consumer is paying more for his bread and for his flour.
We think the government ought to do something for the consumer and I intend to move an amendment setting forth what we think needs to be done. I move:
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
'and this house further regrets that the government has not established a prices review board to determine the extent to which price increases are unjustified and to take appropriate steps to reduce such prices accordingly.'
In the New Democratic party we have been advocating for several years that the government should set up a special department to concern itself with the protection of the consumer. We have argued that this protection should fall into three categories. First, we need to strengthen the combines investigation legislation and attempt to put some teeth into the act. We should give the combines investigation branch the staff which it needs to enable it to do an effective job in preventing large corporations combining for the purpose of exploiting the public.
Second, we have advocated that a consumers bureau should be established to deal with the question of uniform weights and packaging-to prevent dishonest advertising and

March 21, 1966
Increased Cost of Living misleading packaging so that when a housewife goes into a supermarket she may know what she is buying and how many ounces she is getting, and not be misled by packages which get larger while the contents year after year grow smaller.
The third point, which is the one we are stressing today, is that a prices review board be set up whose functions would be to look into increased prices in the case of any particular commodity as these increases are drawn to the board's attention. Such a board would be able to examine the books, the profit and loss statements and the cost accounting material of the particular industry concerned in order to find out whether or not increased wage costs and increased costs of raw materials warranted the increase which was being imposed upon the public.
It is true that the Prime Minister has asked the Economic Council of Canada to look into the matter of price increases. This is certainly better than nothing and I am hopeful of the result, when we get the report-we have been waiting for it now for nearly a year.
But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that when we get that report it will be out of date in three or six months. An investigation into the rising price of consumer goods is a continuous process that ought to be going on all the time. We need to have the machinery set up by which at any given time the government can investigate an increase in the price of steel, or of foodstuffs, of copper, of shoes, of hardware, or of farm implements, and which will be able to advise the government as to whether these increases are warranted or whether they are simply the result of unconscionable profiteering on the part of corporations that are taking advantage of the Canadian consuming public.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The tragedy of this rising cost of living, which is having such a ruinous effect upon millions of Canadian families on moderate incomes, is that the government has been doing absolutely nothing about it. It hides behind the constitution, and says from time to time that this is a matter for the provinces.
Nothing could be more ridiculous than to suggest that any single province could regulate the cost of living. How does a small province, which has no steel industry, have any power to regulate the price of steel coming into that province? It would simply be told by the great steel cartel, "You either pay the price or you do without steel."

It is true that there is a divided jurisdiction in the matter of prices, but I must say that the Prime Minister has not used the powers at his disposal. This matter will have to be dealt with in the final analysis by joint legislation. The federal government now has the power to deal with combines and illegal trusts set up for the purpose of exploiting the public. It has the power to investigate prices under a prices review board such as I have suggested and, if it were shown that prices were being increased unjustifiably, the government would then have two courses open to it.
Public opinion would certainly be roused if increases were found unjustifiable, and those who were responsible would be weighed in the balance and found wanting. But if public opinion were not sufficient the federal government, by joint legislation, which I am sure the provinces gladly concur in, could get the necessary power to roll prices back.
In the United States the authorities set guide lines under which they suggested a maximum ceiling to which the cost of living would be allowed to increase. Hon. members will remember that the late President Kennedy, when the steel industry increased its prices beyond what seemed fair and reasonable to his economic council, made them roll the prices back. More recently President Johnson has compelled the copper industry to roll back the price of copper.
Just last week when the Canadian companies increased the price of newsprint by $10 a ton they found that they ran afoul of the United States guide lines and have now announced that instead of a $10 increase in the United States there is going to be only a $5 increase, because the United States government has apparently made it perfectly clear to the newsprint industry that it is not going to allow it to break the guide lines unless it can give good and sufficient reason why it should do so.
I would remind the house that our Economic Council in its first annual review suggested an economic guide line for Canada. It pointed out that all the benefits of our increased productivity would be stolen unless we keep the cost of living from rising more than 2 per cent per year. But in the last 12 months it has gone up more than 3i per cent. We have already broken through that guide line, and the government has not even indicated it is concerned about the matter.
March 21, 19S6	COMMONS
Today the Minister of Finance spoke in very general terms about what a fine boom we are having, but he did not tell the house or the country what he proposes to do about a 3J per cent increase in the cost of living between February of this year and February of last year.
Is the government going to do nothing? Is it going to continue to hide behind the divided jurisdiction in the constitution? Our plea to the government is to use the powers it has, powers which it is not using at the present time and, when it has used those powers, if it finds they are not sufficient to cope with the situation, then let it call the provinces together and ask the provinces to join with it in joint action to grapple with what could be the most serious problem facing the Canadian people.
I say to the government the housewives of Canada, the people on small incomes and the people on fixed incomes are looking to this parliament and to this government for some leadership, and they are not getting it. Further delay is courting disaster.
We will continue in the future as we have done in the past to press the government to take some action-not to take shotgun action that will depress the economy, but to take a look selectively at those particular commodities and at those particular industries that are increasing the cost of their commodities to the Canadian consumer without those increases being warranted and justified.
We in this party, Mr. Speaker, feel that the time is long past due for the government to act. We have pleaded with it again and again to do something. So far we have been faced with dilatoriness and inaction. We hope, as a result of discussing this matter today, we will get a statement from the government on what it intends to do, and that it intends to do it very soon. If we do not, then we shall raise this matter again and again, because we believe that on this matter we are speaking for millions of Canadians who are looking to the government to act before it is too late.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make certain comments and offer a few suggestions concerning the Progressive Conservative amendment and the New Democratic subamendment.
Now, I want those comments and suggestions to be in keeping with the philosophy advocated by the Ralliement Creditiste.
DEBATES	2955
Increased Cost of Living
On March 8, when dealing with the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) reminded the government, and especially the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), of the promise the latter had made in 1963 to extend student allowances to the age of 21. Further on, he added, as shown on page 2381 of the official report of March 8, 1966:
It will be remembered that the former Minister of Justice, who now fills a high post in London, said to the house that the right hon. prime minister always kept his promises, and that he was giving himself four years within which to keep his promise to grant students allowances till the age of 21.
The hon. member went on to say:
If one compares the cost of living percentage points for 1945 with those of today, one sees that family allowances no longer meet the purposes for which they were granted in 1945.
We of the Ralliement Creditiste support wholeheartedly and completely those statements and comments made by the hon. member. I do not believe I could be accused of boasting if I say that we have been the champions and promoters of those claims. As a matter of fact, we have never stopped asking, and we never will, that family allowances be increased in keeping with the rise in the cost of living.
Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to doubt the sincerity of the remarks made by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska, who is an honourable citizen and a good father, but over the five years since his party came into office, what have they actually done to show that they meant what they said about increasing family allowances?
Every day, I get at my office requests asking the government to increase family allowances to $25 a month per child, and that up to 21 years of age. To prove what I am saying, I will read right now two resolutions sent to me by the voters in the northern region of my riding.
Sainte-Monique, Lake St. John.
February 23. 1966.
Mr. Alcide Simard,
Government Buildings,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
Enclosed herewith are two (2) resolutions passed at the last meeting of our committee.
First: That a request be made to Mr. Heal Caouette and Mr. Alcide Simard to insist strongly, when the Bank Act is considered, on the role that the Bank of Canada must play, namely: financing without interest all works undertaken by public bodies.

March 21. 1966
Increased Cost of Living
Second: After reading the statement made by the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, asking all Canadian citizens to reduce their living expenditures by 25 per cent to further the country's economic recovery, we strongly suggest that it would be logical and more humane to distribute a dividend of $25 per month at least to each Canadian citizen out of the production surplus accumulated each year by Canadians, instead of giving that same surplus to foreign countries as all our governments have done since confederation.
We believe, as a matter of fact, that if each citizen abstains from buying the country's production, that will not help the country's economy but will increase the number of unemployed.
Copy of that second resolution was sent to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Lester
B.	Pearson.
For most hon. members in this house, it seems utopic that the people who signed the resolution I have just read should ask for the distribution of a dividend of $25 per month at least to each citizen of Canada out of the production surplus accumulated each year by Canadians. Well, it is not so; those people know what they are saying and, most of all, they know what they want. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to bolster their claims with figures which will certainly test seriously the sincerity of the too numerous promises which are made at election time.
In the 1960, the national production was $36 billion; five years later, that is in 1965, that national production had reached $51 billion and consumption stood at $36 billion only. Consequently, there is a $15 billion surplus between national production and the national consumption. It is out of this surplus that we demand a $25 monthly dividend for every Canadian citizen.
Let us stop asking if there are still poor people in fabulously rich Canada. There lies utopia, the disparity between so much poverty amid such wealth.
Much has been said about the social problems of poverty, misery and economic uncertainty in Canada lately. Heads of families should receive a graduated salary according to the number of dependant children, or adequate family allowances to allow for their increased expenditures, without depriving their families. Officials, gravely discussing poverty, being paid $25,000 a year, are barely qualified to express their views on the problem; the workers should be consulted instead.
As far as those well-fed people who claim that poverty is the result of drink, laziness or lack of ambition, this is sheer hypocrisy, self-righteousness and cowardice.
There may be drunkards, loafers and people easily satisfied among the poor of course,
[Mr. Simard.l
but they are in minority and most would wish for an easier life for themselves and for their families. Many are sober and hardworking. And drunkenness and idleness have many more practitioners among the rich living off the poor, and often they have climbed not through ambition but through sheer luck, if not through dishonesty and political patronage.
The true causes of poverty, misery and insecurity are low wages, chronic unemployment due to repeated lay-offs, employment difficulties constantly increased, all because of the greed of the big companies and of the incompetence of the government and of well-fed high officials.
I need no other proof than what the Auditor General states in his annual report to the Government for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1965. This report is truly a "plank".
It is in four volumes and includes one thousand pages in all. It holds a wealth of information that we, in the opposition, are going to scrutinize all year round. In it are, potentially, all the scandals and all the blunders of the government; we will only have to find them in this mass of information that only a benedictine would have the patience of reading through. Here are some of the worst and most striking:
A.	Freight cars, parked on a track built at a cost of $400,000, are used only as protection against the wind for ferry traffic-
B.	The C.B.C. pays half a million dollars for work not performed-
C.	National Defence wastes $9 million to develop "Bobcat" vehicles without manufacturing a single usable one-
D.	National Defence sinks $7 million in the incoherent venture of bombing computers-
E.	A Canadian Arsenals Limited plant, the original cost of which had been $18 million, is sold for $1 million, subject to certain conditions to be complied with by the purchasers-
But the Auditor General seems to doubt that such conditions are equivalent to the slight difference of $7 million, compared with the market value, estimated at $8 million.
F.	One judge, in addition to his salary and travelling expenses, gets a living allowance of $100 a day, and performs the major part of his work at home-73 per cent of the Glassco report has not been implemented-Approximate total of unproductive payments reported for the year: 37 cases representing $23 million.
It is urgent that this shameful waste should-cease and that the government should take the necessary steps to increase immediately family allowances to $25 per month per child,.
March 21, 1966

up to 21. This would be an effective means of fighting poverty in Canada, which the government has only deplored by word of mouth during the election campaigns.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments respecting the amendment, and the amendment to the amendment, which have been moved this afternoon. Before doing so I want to say one or two words in reference to the opening remarks of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).
The right hon. gentleman suggested in opening this debate that in so far as the members of his party are concerned, they would not accept the disposition of the Munsinger case which occupied so much of the time of this house a few days ago. He suggested that they would not accept the terms of reference contained in the order in council, as well as a number of other things. I am not particularly interested in whether or not the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party accept the terms of reference, but I am concerned about what they intend to do with this whole matter at some time in the future.
I think it is their right and privilege to bring this matter back into the House of Commons whenever they choose to do so, because of the provisions in our rules which allow members to raise a question of privilege at any time they feel they have been abused or aggrieved by statements made either inside or outside this house. Having acknowledged that right I hope, if and when they do bring this matter back into the House of Commons, they will introduce it in a procedurally correct way so that there will be a motion before the house and some determination made of the debate and the consequences of that debate.
I must agree with the Leader of the Opposition that referring this whole matter to a judicial inquiry does not settle the alleged question of privilege referred to several days ago, because such an inquiry does not have the right to consider such a question of privilege. That is all I wish to say on that subject, Mr. Speaker.
In dealing with the matters now before the house, namely the amendment and the amendment to the amendment, it would be well for us to bear in mind that the concern expressed in those amendments and felt by hon. members of this house is felt by a large
Increased Cost o/ Living part of the Canadian population, and is similar to the concern which was felt about exactly this same matter in 1957. I have before me a page taken from the Financial Post of March 9, 1957. Under the headline "Inflation and Credit: The Great Debate", this article refers to whether there should be an easing or tightening in the credit and money supply, and it states:
The current debate about tight money is generating more heat among businessmen than any government policy for a long time.
The article then gives some explanations about the kind of arguments which monetary authorities would probably advance in favour of their policies.
At this time we are in a position where we can review in retrospect what happened when Canadians were concerned about inflation and the tightening or easing of money at that time. We can also review the consequences of the actions that were taken. In this regard we should bear in mind the shotgun measures suggested by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) to deal with this matter of tight or easy money during an inflationary period, and the undesirable side effects which accompanied those measures and lasted for longer than most of us in this country wanted.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Certainly we do not want a repetition of the consequences that flowed from the action of the government and the Bank of Canada in 1960, 1961 and 1962, because in those years we had the highest level of unemployment in Canada since the end of the second world war. Therefore if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and his advisers intend to use exactly the same kind of measures to meet the situation that faces us today, I hope they will also bear in mind the consequences of those measures.
I agree with many of the statements that have been made this afternoon. I agree with the statement that there is a regrettable increase in the cost of living and in certain commodities. There is no question at all in our minds about that. But I believe we also have the responsibility to examine in detail what has been the cause of the situation in which we find ourselves today. One of the most popular reasons given in the last few weeks for the increased cost of living is that the price of food has gone up.
If you look at the latest Dominion Bureau of Statistics report-and this report has been
March 21, 1966

Increased Cost of Living referred to a number of times today-you will find that from February, 1965, to February, 1966, there was an increase in the consumer price index for all items from 137.2 to 142.1. If you look at the increase for the single item "food" from February, 1965, to February, 1966, you find that it went up from 133.1 to 142.5. Therefore there is no argument but that there has been a greater increase in the single item "food" than any other item included in the consumer price index.
Statements have been made that perhaps the reason for this is that farmers are getting more money for the food they produce; that is, the raw material that goes into the groceries. Before that suggestion is accepted by any member of this house or the Canadian public generally, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be well for us to examine whether there has been an increase in the amount received by the food producers in the country which corresponds with the increase in the consumer price of food.
If you look at the situation in the early 1950's or 1949-that year, by the way, is the basis for the consumer price index, 1949 equalling 100-you will find that many of the major commodities that enter into the category of food, such as beef and pork, commanded for the farmers a price as high as that they receive today. Let us take beef for example. In 1950, 1951 and for part of 1952 the price of beef to the farmer was actually higher than it is today. That is, the price of live steers, or whatever grades they choose to sell beef in the marketplace, was higher in those days than it is in 1966. I shall say a few more words about that later.
In so far as pork is concerned, in those years the price of hogs taken to market by farmers was actually higher than it is today. Yet in the period 1949 to February, 1966, we find that the price of food has risen 42.5 per cent. The point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that while the price the consumer pays for food has increased some 42 per cent during the last 16 years or so, there has been no increase at all to the farmer in respect of many of the major commodities that enter into the price of food. Let us take wheat for example. The price of wheat was almost as high in those years as it is today, as far as the farmer is concerned. Therefore something has to be examined other than the price level being paid to the farmers for producing food.


I am interested in the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). It says:
"and this house further regrets that the government has not established a Prices Review Board to determine the extent to which price increases are unjustified and to take appropriate steps to reduce such prices accordingly."
I believe that we need a prices review board as the hon. member has suggested, but I also believe that quite apart from setting up any new boards the government has not taken all the action it could have taken under the Combines Investigation Act. I do not think it is necessary to go into a great deal of detailed explanation in this respect, because I believe it is well known that the distribution of food in Canada is gradually but constantly being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. In other words, the supermarkets which distribute food are not only falling into the hands of fewer and fewer people but we have seen a tremendous increase in so-called "vertical integration" in the distribution of food.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Supermarkets and retail stores that used to buy from wholesale establishments, which in turn made their purchases of the raw materials and even in some cases processed those materials, are gradually disappearing and the whole operation almost from the primary production right through to the distribution to the ultimate consumer is now being carried out by the same corporations and companies. I think there needs to be an investigation in this regard. I think the combines investigation authorities already have sufficient authority, if you want to call it that, to look into these matters, and I believe they should be looked into. A few months ago the price of wheat went down anywhere from 10i cents to 20 cents a bushel; I think it averaged something like 13 cents a bushel. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam pointed out that there was no reduction in the price of a loaf of bread or any other bakery product. Yet when the price of wheat has again risen to almost the same level it was about a year and a half ago, then, as I noticed in the paper very recently, one baker suggested the increased cost of flour was the major contributing factor in his over-all cost which gave him justification for increasing the price of his bread. Surely if there is no justifiable cause for lowering the price of consumer goods when the price of wheat goes down, there should not be justification for increasing the
March 21, 1966	COMMONS
price of bread by the same amount when the price of wheat goes up. Yet this is exactly what is happening in the consumer price scale today, and these are the reasons being advanced for this action.
Let us look at the price of pork for a moment. It is true that the price the farmers receive in the marketplace for pork or hogs has gone up substantially in the last two years. There is no question of that, and I do not disagree with it because I think about two years ago the selling price was below the cost of production. There has been at least a corresponding or perhaps more than a corresponding increase in the price of pork and pork products to the consumer.
During the last few days the price of hogs in the marketplace has gone down. I received a letter this morning from Calgary which advised me that in the marketplace there the price of hogs has gone down from a high of 41 cents per pound three weeks ago to around 30 cents per pound today for the same carcasses. But there has been no corresponding decrease in the price of bacon or pork or any other pork products at the retail level.
Therefore I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) will take cognizance of these price movements to consumers, and that he will look very carefully at the corresponding price movements of the products of the primary producers. I hope he will also have the combines investigation authorities take a look at the movement of prices at the consumer level and at least try to investigate the people involved in the distribution and processing of food to see whether they are engaging in some unconscionable profit-taking along with these price movements.
Looking ahead a little, Mr. Speaker, we are, as many of your members have indicated, concerned about inflation and the increased price of consumer goods, particularly food. However, it seems to me that the problem will be looming again in the future and that it will get worse instead of better, according to some of these other statistics which are available.
For example, in a Dominion Bureau of Statistics report on credit dated March 1966, the following appears. I am not going to read all these figures because this report is a matter of public record and anyone can look it up. But it indicates in relation to finance companies dealing with the financing of consumer goods that there has been a 10.1 per cent increase in the amount of credit outstanding for consumer goods. These 23033-187
DEBATES	2959
Increased Cost of Living figures cover the period December 1964 to December 1965 and are the latest available. The small loans companies show an increase of 13.2 per cent in their outstanding credit, and instalment credit from these small loan companies has gone up 24.1 per cent. This is in one year, Mr. Speaker.
In addition to that, credit outstanding on the books of department stores has gone up 11 per cent. Furniture and appliance stores show an increase of 4 per cent. Fully secured personal loans from chartered banks have gone up 18 per cent, and other loans 21.9 per cent.
This would indicate, Mr. Speaker, that there must be a shortage of effective purchasing power in the country to buy goods and services that we as a nation have produced. Because if it is necessary for the consumers of Canada not only to spend all of their disposable income but also during the course of one year to increase the amount of credit required for their purchases, then they have mortgaged their incomes for the future. Somewhere down the road they are going to need not only their disposable income, if I may use that term, to buy all these goods, but they will also have to pay back some of this consumer credit which has been extended to them by these financial institutions. So, Mr. Speaker, I think we would only be fooling ourselves if we looked at these figures and concluded that the situation is going to get better in the near future.
In so far as the prices review board and increased activity by the combines investigation branch is concerned, I should like the house to know that we in this party believe in free enterprise. But more than that, Mr. Speaker, we believe in free competitive enterprise. I do not believe that you can have free enterprise in the truest sense of the word unless there is competition. Therefore, when we talk of free enterprise the word "competitive" is extremely important, because enterprise is free no more without competition.
I also think there is justification for the federal government to look into the matter of food distribution to determine whether or not there is effective competition in the processing and distribution of food. If there is, and if they can prove that there is, then you would have to transfer some of the responsibility for increased food prices to customer demand. If the customers want food packaged and processed in more expensive and fancier wrappers and they are willing to pay for it, then

March 21, 1966
Increased Cost of Living that is their privilege. But if, as I suggested, agreements have been arrived at between the fewer and fewer number of people involved in food distribution with regard to some kind of pricing, then such would be a valid case for the combines investigation authorities to look into.
When we are trying to find solutions to these problems, in addition to setting up a prices review board-or whatever is the method used-to look into price differentials, perhaps the government should also look very carefully at its own expenditures. I know there has been some action taken by the government to postpone some of its own building programs because the price of construction has greatly advanced during the past few months, and I think we in this party would, to a degree at least, support that sort of action. I know that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Public Works are well aware that there has been an unusually rapid increase in the cost of construction during the past few months. We agree with this measure, provided it is done on a selective basis and provided there is not a cut-back in government construction in areas where there really is not a severe employment problem. Where there is still some unemployment, these project should go ahead.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Then, Mr. Speaker, we have also to look at the expansion of all government services. We must also look at areas where government services are a substitute for services previously paid by individuals. Perhaps this area is not so dangerous, so far as affecting inflationary pressures is concerned, but when one looks at the expansion of government spending from, for example, 1956 to 1966, he sees that one of the greatest increases in government spending has been in the matter of public debt charges. The Minister of Finance will be well aware that the estimates in the blue book for 1956 contained an item of $456 million for the total interest charges on the whole national debt, and that this year those charges for the same item are well over $1 billion.
One cannot blame the present Minister of Finance for all that increase, because I suppose the greatest upswing in these charges came about in the now famous conversion loan of 1958 which recalled a lot of bonds that had not matured, which were then reissued for a substantially higher rate of interest.

We in this party do not mind the government's meeting its obligations so far as bonds are concerned; but it seems to me unjustifiable to call back several billions of dollars worth of bonds on contracts that had been issued, and then offer a 50 per cent increase in the earning power of those bonds even before they had matured.
I suggest to you, sir, that the government's action respecting its handling of the public debt over the past ten years has been at least one of the major contributing factors to the whole increase in the cost of production and to the cost of living in Canada.
We hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government is not going to proceed with what has been termed a shot-gun solution to this matter of inflation. As has been pointed out, there are areas in this country which are not overextended in the economic field. We hope that the government will use the authority it talked about a while ago with respect to the mobility of workers, to help transfer manpower from certain areas to other areas of greater economic activity, so that workers transferred could be used in those areas of greater employment opportunity.
In the areas where there is a problem, government action will have to be taken to move workers into areas where they may be employed. I think it is fair to say that in Alberta and British Columbia, and perhaps other places, particularly in Toronto and Montreal, there is really not any unemployment at the moment. In fact in some areas there is a very severe labour shortage. In those areas I have mentioned there is a severe shortage of labour in agriculture; there is a severe shortage of labour in most of the professional groups, and in most of the construction occupations. Therefore, when the minister says that he is not going to put the brake on the economy, but that it is necessary to try to find a balance to control inflationary pressures without causing a depression or recession, we agree with him.
In some areas, Mr. Speaker, we do not agree with the minister. We were unable to select any positive steps that the Minister of Finance intended to use, to try to keep inflationary pressures down, and at the same time not put the brake on our whole economy.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I just wish to re-emphasize that we, in this party, would like the members of this house to know and the general public of Canada to know that this increase in the cost of living has not been
March 21, 1966

reflected in a corresponding increase of income to the farmers of this country, in producing food over the last five years.
We also want the Minister of Finance to know that we are going to support him if he can come forward with some action that will in fact keep our economy going at a very high level, at the same time take some selective action, if I may put it that way, to hold back in some areas where perhaps there is too much heat with respect to economic activity.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition, when he suggested that we voted against an increase in the pensions, that we keep hearing a repetition of the same charge every time a debate of this nature comes up.


Mr. Monleilh:: It must hurt.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Of course the truth of the matter is that in January we voted on a motion of non-confidence. All members of this house who want to be honest with themselves and to know anything about the rules in this house-


William Heward Grafftey: Oh, no.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -know that the wording of the non-confidence motions in the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, or of motions amending the motion that the house resolve itself into committees of supply, do not mean anything in terms of what the consequences of supporting these motions would be.


William Heward Grafftey: You protest too much.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If the Leader of the Opposition wants to go on trying to keep this from the Canadian people, that is his business.


William Heward Grafftey: Methinks thou doth protest too much.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You may think I protest too much, but I think every time some of the members of this house try to deceive the Canadian people, it is the responsibility of those of us who want to be honest-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -to repeat and to state the facts and the effects surrounding the consequences of those kinds of motions.


Robert Muir: You are showing your halo of blindness. Your wings are spread out.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. gentleman over there may not think that it is his responsibility- 23033-1871
Increased Cost of Living


William Heward Grafftey: A great speech.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -to be frank and honest with the Canadian people. I think this, Mr. Speaker: that some day soon even those hon. gentlemen over there, on my right, may realize that the general electorate in Canada is a little wiser than some hon. members of his party think it is.


William Heward Grafftey: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Over the past few weeks and months the opposition, and then the New Democratic party, moved motions of nonconfidence, and then tried to tie other motions in with the subject matter of those motions. The people across the country are not being taken in by that sort of thing any more.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the hon. member is aware of the provisions of standing order 56(4)(e), which is a rule which specifically makes it possible for an amendment of this kind to be put, voted on and to be carried, and yet for the government to ask the house to carry on. Does not that type of rule make possible the very thing that we are asking, namely a chance for the house to express its view on a subject without forcing an election?
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am very well aware of standing order 56(4)(e). As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) points out, he has been in this house a long time. But I wonder how many times this standing order has been used, or interpreted in the way in which he attempts to interpret it? I am not saying it is impossible-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Two or three times in my experience here.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, it has never happened since I came to this house in 1957.


Stanley Howard Knowles: These have been strange times.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I suggest to the hon. member that while he may have a point technically, it has not been the practice of this house to allow an amendment to a motion to go into supply to carry without parliament's being dissolved. This has been the general practice.

March 21, 1966
Increased Cost of Living


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member not realize that never in Canadian history has dissolution come about through a defeat on a supply motion? Sorry, there was one occasion-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I believe that is not quite right. On February 4, 1963-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry; only once.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whereas there have been perhaps a dozen occasions when there was a defeat but not a dissolution.


William Heward Grafftey: How would you vote if the government had a majority?


An hon. Member:: A good question.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The responsibility for the opposition to assist the government to govern the country would not be so great if they had a majority, and hon. members to my right know that very well.
Now that we have had this little review of the rules and discussed some of the technical possibilities I think we had better return to what is practical. I think this debate is useful. I believe the subject matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) pointing to this inflationary pressure has initiated a very useful discussion and I hope hon. members in all parties in all corners of the house will get on their feet and make positive suggestions to the Minister of Finance, suggestions which they will spell out and which they will support, for dealing with this very serious problem now facing the Canadian people.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Without intervening too far in the discussion we have just had on the rules one thing should be noted. The question whether one votes for a motion because of what appears on the surface or because of what lies underneath is an academic one. But I should like to point out to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that whereas his group supported the government in connection with old age pensions, not so very long ago the Liberal party supported the Social Credit group in connection with debt free money. I think things are just about even, whether the purpose was so obvious or not.


Robert Norman Thompson: Could I ask the hon. member a question? If we had voted otherwise in that particular instance would it have

brought about an increase in old age pensions for the people?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I would think so.


An hon. Member:: A dream.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Surely we do not have sham battles in this house. Had the house expressed itself as being in favour of an increase in old age pensions I believe the government would have had either to resign or to increase the pensions. The decision would have been one for the government to take, but the expression of opinion by the house would have been loud and clear; the government would have been obliged to act or to resign.
The most serious problem facing the average Canadian today is the constant increase in the cost of living. This applies whether a person is living on a fixed income or not. Admittedly the effects of inflation are felt more severely by those who are living on fixed incomes, whose hard earned savings dissolve as the cost of living rises. The dollar earned and saved in earlier years as a unit of real value in exchange for the necessities of life now brings less and less. A few years ago, we called such an increase "galloping inflation". That is a horse and buggy term and I think that inflation would in this modern age be better described as "jet propelled." The comparison is a good one, because the recent figures show it to be just that.
When we look at the figures for the cost of living for the month of February over the past ten years we see a dramatic increase. This is a situation which must be dealt with quickly if the economy of the country is not to suffer a serious blow. In February, 1955, the cost of living equalled 116.3; in 1956 it was 116.4; in 1957, it was 120.5; in 1958 it was 123.7; in 1959, it was 125.7; in 1960, it was 127.2; in 1961, it was 128.9; in 1962, it was 129.8 and in 1963 it was 132.00.
This represents a fairly constant and small annual increase of one or two points a year. In 1964, however, it goes up to 134.5 and in 1965, to 137.2-an increase of almost three points. And in 1966 it was 142.1, an increase of almost five points. This is a dramatic and most discouraging increase. As a rule I do not like to make comparisons but I think there is one I should make. In the five years from 1958 to 1963 during which a Conservative government was in power the cost of living increased by 8.3 points. In the three years since the present government took over, from
March 21, 196G	COMMONS
1963 to 1966, the increase has been 10.2 points, an increase greater in three years than that which took place in the five previous years.
May I call it six o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be debated at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott): Housing -Reported shortage of mortgage money; the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso):	Expo '67-Refusal to register
R.C.M.P. band.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


George James McIlraith: May I have permission to revert to motions in order to deal with some matters of government business for the latter part of the week?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the house give consent to revert to motions so that the minister may proceed with his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: As hon. members know, the government indicated that it would make available to private members government time for debate on the abolition of capital punishment. There have been some discussions going on between the leader of the house and the house leaders of the other parties, and also some conversations between the leader of the house and those who have put private members' bills on this subject on the order paper.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
The result of these discussions is that the four hon. members who had brought forward bills on this subject will today file a resolution jointly signed by them. In order that they can do so, since the practice of the house is that only one person can propose a resolution, we require the concurrence of the house
DEBATES	2963
Increased Cost oj Living to permit the four names to stand on this resolution.
I would therefore ask:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or any practice of this house, a resolution respecting the death penalty shall be permitted to stand in the joint names of Messrs. Byrne, Nugent, Scott and Stanbury, and to be so described as jointly sponsored in Votes and Proceedings and in Orders of the Day.
And I would ask that it be made an order of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George James McIlraith: Now that I understand the resolution has been filed, Mr. Speaker, I would also move:
That on Wednesday, Thursday and Monday, March 23, 24 and 28, 1966, the order for debate on the resolution standing in the names of Messrs. Byrne, Nugent, Scott and Stanbury respecting the death penalty shall take precedence over all orders of the day, both government orders and private members business, and
That consideration of the said resolution shall be deemed at all times to be the business of private members, and that standing order 31, section (2) shall apply thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Jay Waldo Monteith: May I ask the house leader if it is proposed to take estimates on Friday?


George James McIlraith: No, on Friday we shall take government legislation. I shall announce the details later in the week.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. Pursuant to special order made this day, this sitting stands suspended until the call of the bells at 8 o'clock p.m. Accordingly I do now leave the chair.
At 6.05 p.m. the sitting was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp for committee of supply.

Gordon Harvey Aiken: At six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was pointing out that the government has absolutely failed to maintain control over the cost of living.


Clément Vincent: And you were right.

March 21, 1966
Increased Cost of Living


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The effect of this failure is that the benefit from our social welfare legislation, as passed in previous and in recent years, is lost. What is the use of increasing pensions, salaries and welfare benefits if the result is a smaller purchasing power because of inflation and higher taxes?
The spiral of higher living costs, more wages, and higher production costs also affects our selling power abroad. The dollar devaluation, which was a powerful tool in increasing our foreign markets and reducing our imports, now is being offset completely by higher cost of production in Canada, with the result that our power to compete in foreign markets is being eaten away. This is proven very conclusively by our export-import figures.
According to a Dominion Bureau of Statistics release of March 11 this year, commodity imports into Canada in 1965 increased 15.4 per cent or $1,150 million over 1964. Our exports, however, were up only 5.6 per cent or $461 million over 1964. I should mention that this export figure includes the large grain shipments without which our commodity exports would be pathetic. In the result, in 1965 we lost $689 million in our foreign trade in respect of commodities. We must ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, to what do we attribute this loss?
I submit that inflation undoubtedly has a major part in it. Inflation increases the cost of production and thereby reduces our power to compete in foreign markets. I should like to turn for a moment to the attitude of the government in connection with the problems related to inflation. I think it generally is accepted that spending alone has a great effect on the question of inflation. We can look to the government itself to see what the picture is with regard to its spending while it has been in office. I have taken some figures from two books of estimates which are on record. The first is the book of estimates for the year 1962-1963, the last year in which the former Conservative government was in office; the second is the current estimates for 1966-67 which are the projected spending of the present government.
Total government spending in 1962-63 amounted to $6,276 million. In the current estimates the total is $7,950 million. This is a tremendous increase in spending on the part of the government itself which gives the example to others who are following the lead of the government.

I also picked out a few of the departments in which there have been dramatic increases in spending. I will admit that perhaps there may be differences in circumstances over these few years, but I have taken examples which are most dramatic and which I think at least have equivalent value. The estimates of the Civil Service Commission, for example, in 1962-63 show a figure of $4,815,000; for the coming year they are estimated at $8,087,000. That is a very large increase. As we go away from the wartime era and as the Department of National Defence is making an effort to reduce expenditures, we would also expect that the Department of Defence Production would be cutting back, but we find that while this department in 1962-63 spent almost $19 million, the projected spending for 1966-67 is $26 million. This is another dramatic increase. This does not include the Department of Industry which has the same minister. In
1962-63 there was no department and there was no spending, but for 1966-67 the Department of Industry has estimated expenses of $50,582,000. That is a new department and a new additional expenditure. In 1965-66 the projected estimate for this department was $36 million.
Many of us wonder about these two departments, Defence Production and Industry, Mr. Speaker. Are they really giving value for the tremendous sums of money which are being spent? Many people seriously doubt that value is being received. They have not yet seen, and many people in industry really do not expect to see, the value of this department in relation to its spending. If the question of exports and imports has anything to do with it, the picture is much the reverse, because I am going to show in a minute that our balance in commodities has decreased this year by a large figure, $680 million, over the previous year. Therefore, if the increased spending of $50 million in the Department of Industry has done anything it certainly has not increased our commodity exports.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I also looked at the Post Office expenditures. In 1962-63 they were $192 million; in 1966-67, they are $252 million. Where is the additional expenditure justified? I do not know. There have been increases in postal rates but the deficit seems to be increasing. Is this the result of bad management or an improper attitude toward the whole problem of increased spending and inflation?
The increases in the estimates for the Department of the Secretary of State have
March 21, 1966

me absolutely baffled. In 1962-63 the expenditures of that department were $5 million. The estimated expenditures for this year are $45 million. I appreciate that a portion of that results from a special statute but there is still an increase in the normal operating expenditures, being the difference between $5 million and $17,500,000.
As I have said, these increases in government spending are indicative of a careless attitude and an absolute lack of concern on the part of this government for the cost of government and the question of inflation generally.
In comparing the spending totals appearing in the estimates for the year 1962-63 with the current spending totals one can see there has been an increase of 25 per cent in that four year period, whereas during the same period the cost of living increased 9.5 per cent. Perhaps to be fair we should only look at the past three year period, from 1963 to 1966, during which the cost of living index has risen from 132 points to 142 points, an increase of ten points with a percentage increase of 9.3. This would indicate that the spending increase is roughly 25 per cent and the cost of living increase is 9.3 per cent. Therefore the government is spending at a rate of increase in excess of the cost of living increase. One can only assume that the government is thereby contributing to the spiralling cost of living rather than slowing it down. The government's spending has increased at a greater rate than even the tremendously increasing cost of living.
We have seen no evidence that the government is concerned about holding prices down. I can remember that in the 1956-57 period, when I was first running for election to this house, one of the most serious problems then being discussed was price increases and the related fact that producers were not getting a fair share of the increase while the consumer was paying more. The cost-price squeeze, as it was referred to then, was a major issue in the election of 1957, certainly so far as the rural areas were concerned. We have not heard very much about this situation in the past few years but it is beginning again to be of importance. Once more the cost-price situation is beginning to squeeze the farmers on one side, who are not getting increased prices, and the consumers on the other side, who must pay more for their goods.
I think some of the causes of this situation are the increased cost of administration, the
Increased Cost of Living increased cost of government and the increased cost of production. The cost of processing goods is once again out of control. It is no longer in the position it was for the past number of years during which fair prices were being received by producers while at the same time consumer prices were rising at a slow rate.
Just before the adjournment at six o'clock I pointed out that the cost of living in the past three years had increased ten points compared with an increase of only eight points during the previous five year period when the Conservative government was in power. I think this is something the people of this country should consider. Why is the cost of living becoming so high and why is the government apparently taking no action in this regard?
We are continually told that when the budget comes down we will perhaps be given answers to some of these questions. I hope the government can do something by legislation to alleviate this situation, but legislation is not necessarily the answer. In my view the real problem is related to the attitude taken by the government as exemplified not only through legislation but through administrative and executive action. It is my firm belief that this government has gone ahead with expenditures without making any effort to control the increase in the cost of living and that they have been very careless in this regard. Legislation placed on the statute books will not reverse an attitude displayed by the government.
The public is very quick to grasp such an attitude. The business community and everyone else grasp and understand an attitude on the part of the government which indicates that it is either trying to keep the lid on inflation and keep things under control or that no effort is being made to do this at all. It does not matter what legislation is passed, what the budget indicates or what we are asked to approve in the way of tax measures. These will not remedy the basic problem of this government, which is the result of careless spending and a careless attitude toward general cost increases.
I suggest finally that the answer to our present economic problem does not lie in legislative measures. Nor will it be found in budgetary measures. The answer can only be found if this government turns away from the easy answers and stops doing things on a helter-skelter basis because it feels it might

March 21, 1966
Increased Cost oj Living win approval from one segment or other of the economy.
It is my belief, Mr. Speaker, that this government must set a steady course and maintain it, giving the people of Canada the assurance that they are doing something toward controlling inflation and expenditure, setting an example which others in Canada can follow in maintaining fair increases in the cost of living. We realize that there has been an increase in the cost of living each year for a number of years. The Canada pension plan was based on a presumption that the cost of living would increase. It was assumed that the cost of living would increase at the rate of 2 per cent per annum and that wages would increase at the rate of 3 per cent per annum. On this assumption the Canada pension plan was devised to cover a built-in increase in pensions. That is satisfactory to the extent that it may provide some protection to old age pensioners, but it is indicative of the attitude of this government that this increase is inevitable. Such an attitude can only lead to a belief on the part of the people of the country that excessive spending is the order of the day and that with this government we cannot expect anything more than a continued and continual increase in the cost of living.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the house deals with inflation. Rising prices are always a problem. They are more of a problem in an economy such as that of Canada at the present time, namely, an economy approaching full employment. A few years ago when the economy was not expanding, when it was relatively stagnant, prices rose, but they rose relatively slowly at a rate of around 1 per cent to 2 per cent a year. In the last two or three years we have seen increases of the order of 2 per cent and latterly 3 per cent. This rate is becoming excessive. The answer is difficult, as I said before. We want, above all, full employment. We want to use all our factories and employ all our manpower. How do we manage prices under these circumstances? This is a burning question not only in countries like Canada but in many countries overseas which throughout most of the post-war period have been struggling with the serious problem of inflation. Their prices have been rising more rapidly than ours.

The question to which we must address ourselves in this house, however, is not so much the identification of the problem, because we admit to rising prices, but the solution of the problem. I contend that a number of steps have already been taken by the government which will help to moderate the rise in prices and I want this evening to advocate one or two others which I think could be pursued with a little more energy by the government in order to contain prices more effectively.
I should like to deal particularly with trade. By that I mean freer trade, because I think through international competition, indeed through competition internationally and domestically, we could help to contain prices.
First, however, I should like to refer to a recent report produced by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in Europe, the O.E.C.D. It is a report on Canada. It was released in December, 1965, and has several interesting things to say which I think might usefully be put on the record. At the very outset it states that in Canada "economic activity has been expanding very rapidly in recent years".
The report says:
Economic activity has expanded very rapidly in recent years, mainly stimulated by growing exports and gross fixed asset formation. Unemployment has fallen well below 4 per cent and capacity utilization rates have been raised. On the whole the pressure of demand would not seem to be excessive, and the rise in prices, although accelerating somewhat, generally remains moderate-
This is the view of the economists employed by the O.E.C.D. looking at Canada in a sequence of surveys which examined the economies of other countries as well. The
O.E.C.D. report goes on to say:
In Canada, as in the United States, the expansion that began early in 1961 has now lasted for nearly five years, longer than any previous peacetime upturn in economic activity. Following some signs of slowdown in the middle of 1962, the expansion accelerated in 1964 and continued at a high rate in 1965. Indeed, since the middle of 1963-
Incidentally, that is when this administration took office.
-activity has been expanding rather faster than in the United States and most European member countries.
The report goes on to examine the principal forces for expansion in the country, forces which also tend to increase prices. One is the remarkable increase in new investment by private enterprise. Another is the remarkable increase in exports. In other words,
March 21. 1966	COMMONS
exports, including exports not only of raw materials but highly manufactured products, together with new investment have been the two major factors tending to increase prices. Several hon. members during the debate today, including the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), have castigated the government for excessive expenditure. I should like to read a short paragraph from the O.E.C.D. report dealing with government expenditure. It says:
Government expenditure on goods and services in real terms has increased less rapidly than real (gross national product) -
In other words, government expenditure has not been growing as rapidly as national production and income. The report goes on to say that the provinces and municipalities account for most of the expansion. Government spending has been growing, though not as rapidly as the economy, and the growth is attributable almost entirely to expanded outlays of the provinces and the municipalities. The report concludes that particular paragraph with these words:
The increase in federal expenditure has mainly consisted of transfer payments.
Transfer payments are payments out of federal taxation to the provinces for the conduct of business which falls within the constitutional responsibility of the provinces. Therefore I think we see from this report, first, an indication that the Canadian economy is growing very rapidly; second, that prices, while they are increasing are certainly not out of control; third, that our performance relative to other countries is quite good and, fourth, that government outlays, particularly federal government outlays, are not a major cause of inflation in this country.
I wish also to refer briefly to the second annual review of the Economic Council of Canada which discusses the question of prices on page 24. It says:
In recent years, prices and costs have advanced much less rapidly in the United States and Canada than in overseas industrial countries.
This should be reassuring to us and particularly reassuring to our export industries. There are various solutions which a government can employ to solve the problem of rapidly rising prices, prices rising at a rate of 3 per cent a year or more. One is increased taxation; another is a ceiling on its own expenditures. But other measures have been taken by the present administration and I 23033-188
DEBATES	2967
Increased Cost of Living suggest these have had increasing effect in recent months. These measures taken through the Departments of Industry and Manpower-departments which are concerned with the efficiency of Canada as a producing nation-have had a beneficial and stabilizing effect on prices.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question at this point?


John (Jack) Davis: I would be very happy to answer any questions at the end of my remarks.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I will hold my question until then.


John (Jack) Davis: We must emphasize increased productivity. By this I mean increased output through the more efficient use of manpower. Essentially this means through new plants, new processes and new techniques, better utilization of labour, higher capital investment in plant and equipment. This is one of the principal objectives of the Department of Industry. This is one of the main reasons for its formation and I suggest that already in its young life-it is only about two years old-it has done a remarkable job in this respect.
Productivity is one thing. Other things are greater mobility, particularly greater mobility of our people and greater ease of movement of new funds for investment in new industries. These are also important factors which can help to contain cost and price increases. We need a more flexible economy. I believe we need a more open economy. We need a more research-conscious economy. Various measures have been introduced in the last three budgets aimed at increased expenditure on research and development. The main burden of my remarks, however, will have to do with trade.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
As I said earlier, I believe that in circumstances where we have relatively full employment we also have the best of all possible circumstances in which to reduce trade barriers, in which to cushion the impact of foreign competition on people who will have to change their jobs and perhaps even change the locality in which they live. Full employment cushions the impact of competition on old plants, plants which will either have to be re-equipped and enter into new lines of production or plants which may have to go out of business entirely. These are the best possible circumstances, with relatively full employment, in which to engage in this process

March 21, 1966
Increased Cost of Living of reducing tariffs and eliminating protection, particularly the protection of industries which are no longer genuinely competitive in the international sense.
The industrial engineer and the economist talk in terms of factors of production. These are men, materials, machines and money. We certainly have the men. We have people who are not only capable but people who are becoming increasingly more capable in the sense that our educational standards in this country are rising. We have the raw materials in great abundance and in most parts of Canada we have a great abundance of cheap energy. In other words, we have the men and the materials.
It may come as a surprise to some to know that in this country we also have, by and large, the machines. We are a more capitalintensive country, a more highly mechanized country, than even the United States. The recent report of the Economic Council of Canada indicated that on the average we use about 25 per cent more machinery and equipment per person employed in Canada than is the case in the United States. So we are heavily mechanized. We have the men, we have the materials and we have the machines.
What we basically lack in order to attract more money and certainly to improve our competitiveness and get our costs down are markets. We lack markets of adequate size. Often those markets can only be obtained by selling across the international border into adjoining areas of the United States.
The cure, I believe, in one industry after another is to move progressively in the direction of freer trade. Canada is by no means a free trading nation, far from it. We still erect man-made barriers against a wide range of manufactured goods. Our import duties on the average are about 20 per cent. This makes us in the eyes of many of our trading partners even more protectionist than the United States.
True, our tariff wall has been coming down. The fence which earlier generations of Canadians had built around us is not as high as it once was. Not only that, but it is being dismantled in a few important places. One such gateway was opened up last year by the present administration when it signed the Canada-United States, free trade agreement in respect of automobiles and parts. This agreement marks a major step in the right direction. It sets the stage for the uninhibited 
movement of motor vehicles and parts both ways across the international boundary line.
Canadian manufacturing plants are now free to specialize in the production of goods which they can sell not only at home in Canada but throughout the United States as well. In this way they can get their costs down. Mass production, or the economy of scale as it is sometimes called, is now on our side in respect of the automobile and parts industry. With modern factories and a cheaper Canadian dollar we can compete anywhere.
There has been considerable discussion as to the rise in prices of many categories of consumer goods. In respect of automobiles I suggest that prices over the past year have remained relatively constant. They have risen modestly in the United States. The Canada-U.S. price gap has therefore narrowed in respect of automobiles and parts. We have stabilized at least for the time being the price of automobiles to the average consumer in Canada. This is the sort of action I mean when I suggest that freer trade in respect of broad categories of industrial products will help to contain prices in this country to the benefit not only of the people who are going to produce these goods in increasing quantities but also of consumers right across the nation.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the present agreement expanded in the fullness of time. I should like to see it include repair parts as well. I should like to see-this is an expression of a personal opinion but I am sure that there are many other members in the house who would agree with me-the tariffs progressively removed between Canada and the United States at wholesale and retail levels, so that we eventually have something akin to price parity across the international boundary line in respect of automobiles and parts. This would mean that Canadians, at least in respect of the broad range of products produced by that industry, would be paying prices similar to those in adjoining areas of the United States.
Free trade in automobiles is, I hope, only the beginning of a process which will eventually open up the entire North American market for many of our more highly processed and a good proportion of our highly manufactured goods and services. The products of other industries will then be treated in the same way. Costs will be at a minimum, and prices to consumers will be much lower than would otherwise be the case.
March 21, 1966	COMMONS
As a westerner I am interested in highly paid jobs as well as lower prices for the consumers. But these too, can be created if our more efficient and larger resource-based industries can also tap expanding markets to the south. Doing away with U.S. tariffs in many instances will allow us to process more of our raw materials. As many hon. members know, the tariff which the United States imposes on our goods increases sharply as the degree of manufacturing increases. In other words, a penalty is imposed on jobs now in the United States; jobs, I suggest, in many industries which would otherwise exist in Canada. By reducing or eliminating tariffs in respect of these semi-processed and more highly manufactured goods we will patriate jobs to Canada. I suggest these jobs will be highly paid and are jobs which otherwise would exist only across the border in the United States.
I believe the products of our forests and our mines can be upgraded in this way. In other words, we will be processing more of our raw materials at home. This will mean more and better paid jobs for a great many Canadians.
I mentioned earlier that I was a westerner. The automobile free trade agreement, as I understand it, at the present time benefits central Canada in two important ways. It is providing many more jobs as well as a ceiling on prices. It is setting some sort of ceiling on prices for all Canada but it is not providing jobs in the rest of Canada. That is why I should like to emphasize and to advocate the opening up of negotiations in respect of the products of our forests and the products of our mines. This will create jobs in outlying areas as well as help contain prices and costs.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
What is wrong, for example, with Canada negotiating a free trade agreement in respect of pulp and paper? Newsprint and our cruder market pulps already go into the United States duty free. I would have us extend this duty free treatment to the higher valued papers and paper products, products which are valued at prices two, three and four times that of newsprint and the relatively crude pulps which we ship into the United States. By-products, including most sheet materials and wood-based chemicals, would then be saleable in the U.S.A. Not only would we be making better use of all the resources involved but we would also become manufacturers on a much larger scale. Granted, there will be opposition in some quarters. A few of 23033-1881
DEBATES	2969
Increased Cost of Living our manufacturers of fine papers in eastern Canada will be up in arms. Fearing the impact of low cost imports from the United States, they will band together with a view to maintaining the status quo. But we now have an answer which even they can accept. The clue is to be found in the various measures which the government has introduced in order to offset the adverse effects of foreign competition in the automobile industry.
The owners of old and outdated plants are being helped to build new factories and switch to new lines of production. Their workers are also being retrained, in some instances with federal funds, or they are being helped to move elsewhere. Adjustment assistance, using the federal taxpayers' money, is therefore helping to ease the pain of these few unfortunate people whose shoulders would otherwise have to bear the full brunt of foreign competition.
In years gone by there was a broad philosophy expounded frequently and with great energy across this country which was taken up by most of the small "1" liberals, an idea dear to many people in western Canada. They believed that tariffs should be slashed overnight. They believed that they should not only be reduced but wiped out and done away with at once. They believed that this would cause imports to flow freely and that ultimately the standard of living would rise, not simply by increasing wages but by keeping prices at a competitive level. That was the free trade argument. Those people wanted these things to take place instantaneously and overnight.
The traditional Conservative attitude was that of creating industry at home in this country, perhaps by government assistance. Certainly that attitude favoured protection. The idea was to have a hothouse type of growth resulting in industries which eventually would be able to stand on their own feet and which would eventually be able to withstand foreign competition and thus permit the lowering of tariff barriers. These two approaches were diametrically opposed.
Today a more sophisticated approach is taken, one being used I think almost universally in western Europe and to a lesser extent in the United States. It is that of bringing about this transition over a period of years and using government funds where necessary, through research grants, through vocational training, through the retraining of workers and through grants enabling people to move from one source of employment to another, to
March 21, 1966

The greater the variety of wood that can be used, the smaller the loss. Losses are reduced. Technology is important. Certainly the economies of mass production are opening up opportunities for further processing of wood at or around the sawmills which are usually at or near the raw materials. This is the type of industry which we ought to be developing in Canada close to the resources, close to nature. We ought to be developing an industry devoted to the shaping of industrial wood components and to the shaping of manufactured components not only for our own home markets in great volume but also for the adjoining markets of the United States. I hope that we will study these opportunities. Being thoroughly knowledgeable as to the nature of the industry we can then negotiate a tolerable agreement with the United States whereby the tariff barrier between our two countries would be removed entirely.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
In the wood products industry we have already seen some changes. A new plant was opened recently in southern Ontario to manufacture machined wood components, not just for the Canadian market but for sale in the United States. Its annual output will shortly be worth $5 million; it expects to eventually be worth $10 million. This type of new enterprise differs from the small, highly localized inefficient plants we have had traditionally in the wood products industry. It involves a great deal of investment; it involves the training of many people and it involves the introduction of skills which we do not now possess in this country. But we must move in this direction if we are to become more competitive and set a ceiling on prices.
At this point I should like to say a word about the broader picture and about the Kennedy round of tariff negotiations. The trade expansion act gave the United States administration authority to negotiate with the united states of Europe and reach what could amount to a bilateral agreement between these two major trading blocs. Canada, in some ways, is a spectator on the sidelines. But we all hope that these negotiations will succeed, because tariff reductions as between the European Common Market and the United States will be applied to all other countries and we will find that the barriers involved in shipping our goods to the United States and Europe will be reduced if those negotiations are successful. We must, therefore, wish them well. But we must remember
Increased Cost of Living that the two sides are negotiating with respect to goods in which they trade and that most of these are very highly manufactured and hence of a type which we do not necessarily produce in Canada. So the benefits of these negotiations are not likely to be as substantial as some people hope.
We must face the possibility also that the United Kingdom may within the next two or three years become a member of the united states of Europe and find herself behind that common wall so that there will be a tariff barrier between Canada and the United Kingdom similar to that which now exists between Canada and the common market countries.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member is off the
subject. He has a speech to make and he intends to make it. But what has this got to do with inflation?


John (Jack) Davis: My point, which may be difficult to understand, is that increased trade and freer trade will lead to greater competition and this in turn will help contain prices at their present levels or even reduce them. Prices have to do with inflation. I think the argument is logical and the broader scene is also important. I say that freer trade will help us contain prices.
We on this side of the house are moving toward freer trade. Through the automobile free trade agreement we have made a tangible and I believe significant first step in the direction of freer trade in many goods and services, freer trade not only with the United States but with all other countries of the world. So we are not discriminating.
Hon. members opposite may have their solutions to this problem. I should like to know where they stand with regard to trade barriers and the possibility of increased competition during this period of high employment in Canada. This is a time of great opportunity. This is a time when we can reduce these tariff barriers. It is not possible to do so when there is high unemployment and the country is passing through a period of stagnation such as existed a few years ago. Now is the opportunity. We must seize it. I believe there is a will to move in this direction. I personally would have us move, an industry at the time, in negotiations with the United States, particularly in connection with forest and mineral products.
I would not gamble everything on the Kennedy round. I would also be prepared for the day when the United Kingdom becomes a

March 21, 1966
Increased Cost of Living member oi the united states of Europe. I hope the United Kingdom can bring the tariff barriers down and act, so to speak, as a friend at court. But I would not want us to enter this new stage in Canada's history unprepared for the changing circumstances in which we find ourselves in the world today.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Would the hon. member now permit my question? The hon. member made a carefully prepared speech on the theory of foreign trade. How does he escape the fact that Canada's adverse balance amounted to $685 million in 1965?


John (Jack) Davis: I do not want to escape it. It is a fact that a rapidly growing country is also a country which is mechanizing rapidly and when it has an economy like Canada's it is importing a lot of machinery and equipment. It is well known that when this country has grown rapidly it has also, for a time at least, experienced an adverse trade balance. This is a problem and it is not one which can be glossed over.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a good deal of interest to the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Davis). I would have hoped it might be more apposite to the subject of the debate. In the free flow of debate I like to listen to hon. members and then try to add to what they have said or comment on the points they have made. But if I were to do so in the present case I would find myself completely off the subject because the hon. member for Coast-Capilano has certainly not restricted himself to the theme of our discussion. However, he has been putting forward his ideas and I am wondering whether he is now flying a kite to test the wind so as to see whether further steps can be taken along the lines of thinking he has outlined tonight. I have spoken about this in the past. It has not always been our experience of the Liberals that speeches made by Parliamentary Secretaries in the past expressed strictly their own ideas. I will leave the hon. member's speech as it is because it seems to me to be altogether irrelevant to the subamendment placed before us by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) as well as to the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).
To deal with the subamendment, in essence it calls for a prices review board to determine

the extent to which price increases are justified and then to take steps to reduce such prices accordingly. I find myself in some difficulty on a number of points with regard to the subamendment. First, I wonder whether the federal government has the constitutional power to set up such a board along lines which would enable it to act effectively? It would appear to me that the undoubted jurisdiction of the provinces in the realm of property and civil rights would demand at least a shared jurisdiction.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is what I suggested.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Certainly I do not believe we have any War Measures Act in existence upon the basis of which we could set up a prices review board or price control board or stabilization board such as existed in wartime, the provinces having agreed to vacate a particular field for the purpose of the prosecution of a war. But the amendment does not indicate any joint action with the provinces.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Then I have a second point. I find some uncertainty as to how it would work. Would the board have automatic powers of review or would it have to act on complaint about certain price variations in certain industries or with respect to commodities? Would it have an unfettered right to go into all forms of commodities, whether they be raw products, basic materials, or completely finished materials? Then there is the uncertainty as to how it would act. How would it enforce its decisions? Is there punitive sanction behind the authority of such a board?
There is a third point which one must consider also, namely, that in this country we are not particularly prone to accepting freely the principle of price control-and this is price control. When you start unwrapping the wrapping of this little package of a prices review board it comes down essentially to price control. That is all it means. The amendment even stipulates, "to take appropriate steps to reduce such prices accordingly." That is price control, and I do not think Canadians are prepared to accept price control in peacetime.
If one talks about price controls so far as commodities are concerned, there immediately comes into examination the question of the segments that make up the price of a commodity. There are the raw materials. Somewhere along the line they have been produced. There may have been something wrong in the pricing of the original raw
March 21, 19G6	COMMONS
product. Is that price going to be rolled back? An integral part of all commodities is the quantum of labour that goes into them, and there we come up against the real problem of wage control. I am sure the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, no more than I, does not want to institute a system of wage control or a determination of the wage scales that go into the cost of commodities.
I think the hon. member would immediately say, "We do not want wage controls". We have had to impose wage controls, with difficulty, during wartime. We have seen attempts made at wage controls in Britain in peacetime. More than one British government, more than one chancellor of the exchequer have gotten into real trouble with what they called a pay pause. Even now the present administration in Britain is having problems with its so-called unofficial wage controls. This creates industrial unrest. We have seen across the border in the United States attempts at a sort of unofficial wage control, with a lid being put on wages, which has had some rather drastic results and also some nonsensical ones. Therefore this area of uncertainty, the fact that price control is not acceptable to the Canadian people in peacetime, and the question of the constitutional right of the federal government to enter this field by itself, all give me pause and I personally find considerable difficulty in accepting the subamendment.
Let us look now at the subject of the cost of living. This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition put a number of figures on the record. I may repeat some of them for the purpose of my argument. I think they bear repeating because these are the things we are worried about.
The March 11 return of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics shows that the cost of living has reached the figure of 142.1 points, an increase from 137.2 points in February 1965. In June 1963, which is the median year-I have the Canada Year Book going back to 1913, if not earlier-based on the 1949 index, the cost of living was at 137 points even. In 1962 it was 130.7; in 1961 it was 129.2 and in 1957 it was 121.9. Over the six year period from 1957 to 1963 the total increase was 11.1 points. But from June, 1963 to June 1966, which is only forecasting for a few months, the increase will have reached a total of 10 points. Therefore the increase in the cost of living in the past three years has
DEBATES	2973
Increased Cost of Living been double the rate it was in the preceding six years.
I find it rather odd that today both the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys said it is so much easier during a period of what they called economic stagnation or depression to control the cost of living than during any other period. They say nothing happens to it in such a period. Let us look back at the record and see what happened in that context. What of the period from 1951 to 1956?
The cost of living index was at 113.7 in
1951	and it rose to only 118.1 in 1956. But those were the locust years. Those were the great, wonderful years of Liberal administration when everything was going well. The cost of living went up 5 points over a period of six years. Therefore the argument being made by the minister that it is easy during a period of so-called economic stagnation to control the cost of living falls to the ground unless he and his colleagues are prepared to accept that from 1951 to 1956 we were going through economic doldrums, which certainly is not the position they have taken.
I should also like the minister to explain how in a period of one year, from 1950 to 1951, the index jumped almost 11 points. There may have been some historic factor-


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: The Korean war.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That was the start of the Korean war, but from 1951 to 1954 we were in the Korean war and if the Parliamentary Secretary to the-is it the Minister of Justice?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: External
Affairs. You are as ill informed on that as on most other things.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, there have been so many changes taking place over there- musical chairs-but if the hon. member for Parkdale-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Wrong again.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) will look at the figures, he will see that from 1951 to 1956 there was a rise of less than 5 points. As a matter of fact, between
1952	and 1953 the index declined by one point. Therefore I would suggest that the argument put forward by the minister and the parliamentary secretary does not hold water.

March 21, 1366
Increased Cost of Living
With respect to the figures from 1957 to 1963, there was the factor of the imposition of a 3 per cent sales tax by the province of Ontario in 1962. That had quite an impact because Ontario represents one third of the country so far as population is concerned, and it had an effect on the cost of living index. During the last three years we have had the 11 per cent sales tax imposed by the former minister of finance on building materials and production machinery.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
What concerns the country and worries me -and I am sure hon. members opposite also are concerned-is that the government does not seem to be doing anything in respect of the most dramatic increases which hit us personally more than others, and these are in food and in housing. Let us look at food; it has gone up from 133.1 a year ago to 142.5. Housing has gone up from 140.1 to 143.1. Those are high increases. We can go back through the consumer price indices all the way down the years. For instance, in respect of food back in 1957 the index was 118.6 and in 1960 it was 122.2. In 1963 it was 130.
This evening I have been using a lot of statistics but this is the subject matter of the discussion, the movement of prices, and we can measure them only by the various indices. On many occasions this house has had motions before it with regard to the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and production machinery. Members opposite also have in this year's debate advocated the removal of that tax. It has been the contention not only of members of this house but also of many industries across the country that this has been, shall we say, one of the most potent taxes so far as the cost of living is concerned.
We can see, for instance, what has happened to the index on residential building materials over the years, and I have Dominion Bureau of Statistics records going back to 1955. The index for residential building materials stood at 298.6 in April, 1963. That was at the time of the take-over by this administration. As of December, 1965 it had reached an index figure of 346.1, or an increase of 47.5 in the period of some 32 months. We can see, going month by month through the years 1963, 1964 and 1965, the rather serious escalation every time there was the imposition of a stage of the 11 per cent sales tax.

May I indicate to hon. members that the most dramatic effect was reached in connection with lumber and its products. Lumber stood at 424.2 in April 1, 1963 and in December, 1965 reached 506.8. In other words, lumber in December, 1965 was five times as expensive as it was in the period 1935-39. Let us look at non-residential building materials, the things which go far more into the cost of producing goods and services in this country than do the costs of residential building materials.
True enough, you and I, as potential purchasers of building materials for residences, know what has happened to the price of a house, but from the point of view of being multiplied from time to time I would say that the cost of goods and services flowing from non-residential building materials has a greater effect than that which goes into residences. I should like to say that in April, 1963 the index was at 133.4 and in December of 1965 it had gone to 149.2, or an increase of 15.8. Again, lumber is the one in which there was the greatest increase.


An hon. Member:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If the hon. member will ask the question at the end of my remarks I will do my best to answer him.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), as well as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), this afternoon indicated what effect the increase in prices in Canada has had on international trade. If you do not think our international trade position is serious, I am going to refer also to the speech which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) delivered this afternoon in Toronto. I think it might be good if we put the whole of his remarks in that connection on the record. Among other things he said:
The high level of economic activity, stimulated by an extraordinarily large capital program, and coupled with shortages of labour and the difficulty of finding sufficient funds to finance all planned undertakings, will impose inflationary pressures.
This will be one of our most pressing problems as the year advances, particularly having regard to the fact that we experienced an adverse external balance on current transactions in 1965 in excess of $1 billion, and that this figure is apt to be higher in 1966. It will be recalled that the corresponding figure in 1964 was less than one-half billion dollars.
In 1961 we actually had a comfortable surplus on the commodity account but through payments and services and the tourist trade deficiency we certainly did have a
March 21, 1366

deficit in our external balance on the over all. However, it was not as bad as it was in 1957 when the deficit of the external balance on the whole, I remember, was something over $1,400 million and a good portion of that in those days was represented by a deficit in the commodity account.
It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys to say about producing goods that this government encourages by certain incentives the production of goods, but unless you are going to consume them yourself-and in this way you are selling in the domestic market-or unless these goods are sold in the external market there is no point in producing them, because there is nothing to be gained by producing goods merely to put them in warehouses to be stockpiled. This unfortunately is the position we may be driving ourselves to unless government, management and labour get together much more seriously than they have done in the past and with a much greater degree of concentration and co-operation than there has been in the past to see that we remain competitive in the international market. Otherwise Canada's industries one by one, particularly a number of the more sensitive export market industries, will wither on the vine. This is as clear as it is that the sun will rise tomorrow, because the government can go through all sorts of exercises and can provide all sorts of incentives for employment and the production of goods but unless those goods are sold the exercises will have been futile. Therefore, anything which goes to increase the cost of goods makes our position that much less competitive.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
This can be seen in relation to our wholesale price index and a number of other indices relating to commodity markets here in Canada. In the past three years we have been getting into a dangerous position. The only thing that has saved us in respect of a number of sectors of our economy has been a corresponding inflation in other countries.
We of the opposition suggest it is dangerous to have inflation in Canada, but it is widely reported in the United States at this time that the number one problem there does not relate to the war in Viet Nam but relates to the threat of inflation. We know from past experience how closely Canada's economy is related to the economy of the United States and how quickly it reflects major inflationary
Increased Cost of Living trends there. That is quite easy to understand. In 1958-59, when Canada did experience some form of economic recession, it was a reflection of the pattern set by the United States economy. In fact, it was not as severe in Canada as it was in the United States, but we know there was a relationship.
At this time we are experiencing the same sort of thing here in Canada in regard to inflation. What does this declining position in the trade picture do for us in Canada? I suggest it causes an economic slowdown. We cannot rely on one-shot, fortuitous, trading events such as the wheat deals with the Soviet Union to save our economic position. In 1963 there was a very serious threat to the value of the Canadian dollar and it was only as a result of the announced Soviet wheat deal that the pressure was removed. Were it not for that deal I am sure the situation would have been worse than that which occurred in May and June of 1962.
At this time we can read statements appearing every day in financial columns to the effect that there is some talk of pressure for devaluating the dollar because of Canada's continued deficit in international accounts. The minister has denied that there is any talk of this kind, as it is to be expected he would, but we know that pressures can build up. It may be that the United States financial community would not allow devaluation to take place because of the high stakes they have in Canada. Devaluation would be too costly and they could not allow it to happen. But this is part and parcel of the consequences of the policies advocated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
For the last few minutes I have been talking about how closely our economy is tied to the economy of the United States. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano has tried to tie it even more closely so far as international trade is concerned.
Continuing inflation will create a drive for higher wages, and that is readily understood. This will create industrial unrest and dislocate economic production. As a matter of fact, it may lead to a ruinous year for some of our major industries. My colleague, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, spoke about the negative effects of inflation on persons of fixed incomes and pensions. What is the point of arranging a pension for your retirement years if the value is going to disappear unless, of course, you are not going

March 21, 1966
Increased Cost of Living to live to see it disappear? We know what has happened to people who have arranged private pensions either through government annuities or private pension schemes. We have all witnessed the continued pressure upon older citizens on old age security, pensioners and others living on the benefits of insurance programs because of a decrease in their value.
I am sure that many hon. members here have arranged insurance programs for their families and realize that the value of those schemes in the past year has dropped by 4 per cent. I do not know what the net result of the year's fiscal operations will be but if the Minister of Finance is able to come reasonably close to a decrease in the deficit forecast by his predecessor, that will to a great extent be the result of the hidden effects of inflation. Taxes based on prices such as sales tax bring in higher government revenue without any increase so far as the national product is concerned, but this is a false picture. There is an over-inflation of government revenue. I recommend that hon. members refer to the Canadian Tax Foundation observations in this regard.
The present 9 per cent level of expansion of the gross national product must reflect more this year than in the past the effects of inflation. What can we do about this situation? I do not like wage controls or price controls because I think they breed more problems than they solve. Last August the government announced a program of stretching out or cutting back on some of its expenditures. It is too bad they were not able to consult with the provinces in this regard. All of the provincial budgets this year, without exception, forecast greater expenditures on roads and building. The budget of the province of Alberta this year reflects expenditures of $682 million and that province has a population of only 1,500,000.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is more than the budget of Canada in 1936.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A good deal of this money will be spent on education and other noncapital programs but a great deal of it will be spent on the capital expenditure side. The province of Alberta is no different in this regard from any other province. The provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia are in the same boat. That is why I feel there has been a sort of policy of drift or unwitting non-recognition of certain factors by the present administration. On the federal level it is 
turning more and more of the tax dollars over to the provinces and the Minister of Finance is handcuffed in that he cannot take steps as effectively as he could a few years ago in order to combat inflation. That is one of the consequences I have pointed out.
The federal government says it is going to apply a policy of self-denial because it feels there is some inflationary pressure. However, the provinces are free to act as they wish and they are following a course in the opposite direction. The net result is that there is no relaxation of pressure so far as building materials, labour and machinery are concerned. We are in just as bad shape in 1966 in this regard as we were in 1965. I do not think this picture is going to get better but rather it will get worse.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I still believe that the federal government and the provinces should have a conference in which they would agree on priorities of expenditure in the fields of education, health and welfare, and that we nationally must tailor our operations at the public level according to our resources in production, instead of going ahead helter-skelter and creating artificial pressures as we are now doing. I maintain that not only should those priorities be established and we should eliminate as much as possible the pressures on our resources through this, shall we say uncoordinated approach, but we should eliminate the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and production machinery. To my mind this was a hair-shirt fashioned by the former Minister of Finance. It has had a tremendous effect in creating inflationary pressure.


Mr. Walker:: Where are you going to get the equivalent revenue from? Would you get it from the sales tax?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With regard to the revenues, what did the Minister of Finance do? He turned around and spent them right away.


David James Walker: Where are you going to get them from?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I maintain that we must have increased immigration and not necessarily immigration of those at the skilled levels equivalent to grade 10 and so on. I refer to our need of immigrants such as those who have come into this country under sponsorship and who very often have had very limited education and could not speak English or French. The great many immigrants who have come into this country since the
March 21, 1966

end of world war I and world war II have not been less productive Canadians because of these limitations. I would say that perhaps it has given them an additional spur and they have been that much more industrious. I certainly cannot agree with the report presented to us the other day which recommended that we should have less sponsored immigration. I would say we must have more and we must obtain it from these untapped sources of manpower. We must get people, bring them here and if we have to train them, for goodness sake let us get down to the job of training them in the way we want. This will give us not only an additional domestic labour market but will help in many ways. I believe this is one positive step we can advocate and this house should join in recommending it to the governments.
The house has been very tolerant with me as usual, Mr. Speaker, in allowing me to speak beyond my time. I would commend some of these points to the attention of the ministry. I do not think the ministry has been doing enough with regard to the control of inflation and for that reason I enlist the support of all members of the house in supporting the amendment that is before us.


Mr. Lind:: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: I should like to ask the hon. member whether the large increase in the cost of building homes has been related to the cost of building materials, the cost of construction or the cost of land over the last eight years? Second, I understood the hon. member to say that lumber costs had risen five times from the period 1935-39 to the present time and I should like to ask whether wholesale lumber prices today, even with the 13 per cent increase in freight rates and the 11 per cent sales tax, are any greater than they were in the years 1958 and 1959.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With the indulgence of the house I will endeavour to answer those questions. As to the first question, Mr. Speaker, what I am pointing out is an index of certain building materials and components. Certainly the price of land has gone up, but I was not talking about the over-all cost of a house. I was pointing out the increased cost of certain building materials.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: I understood that the hon. member referred to the cost of a home.

Increased Cost of Living Mr. Lambert: I referred to the cost of a home simply to show that a home now costs more, as we know, because of the measures that have been taken. If the hon. member wishes to obtain catalogue No. 62002, which is a price index published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, he will have all the statistics he wants, if he likes statistics, and these figures will perhaps give him an answer to the question he has put to me.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: The hon. member did not answer my question about lumber costs having risen five times from the period 1935-39 to the present time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In 1958 the index for lumber was 409.8.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I think a fair question to ask-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member for Edmonton West has expired. The hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment put forward by my leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), which regrets that in view of the rising cost of living, the government has not established a prices review board to determine the extent to which price increases are justified and to take appropriate steps to reduce such prices accordingly.
At the outset I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who has just spoken, that in his remarks he may have overlooked several points which were made by my leader. I notice that the hon. member for Edmonton West views the subamendment with misgiving on three counts. The first was that a large share of the control of prices is provincial in scope while our subamendment proposes that the federal government should set up a prices review board.
I would point out to the hon. member for Edmonton West that our leader was very careful to point exactly to the fact that the federal government would of necessity have to take the provincial governments into consultation in setting up this board and specifying the work it should do. The federal government would be giving leadership in this field as it has in many others where jurisdiction is divided, because no province can possibly hope to cope with the question of prices within its own borders.
March 21, 1966

Increased Cost of hiving
The second point of the hon. member had to do with the fact that prices had been controlled in wartime and that the only time we had exercised any control over prices or attempted to deal with them was in a war situation. This is true. But for many, many thousands of people across this country the present situation is very serious indeed, and the government has given lip service at least to this situation by speaking of the necessity of waging a war on poverty. I have not seen any indications of the war yet but they are talking about it. Evidently they consider the situation that many thousands of people face today to be very serious.
I would point out that the fact that we have made some attempt to deal with prices in wartime and that conditions have changed might make it quite possible to institute some kind of measures to deal with prices in a way in which we were not able to deal with them a few years ago. Conditions have changed and today the Canadian people are very anxious to see the steady rise in the cost of living stopped.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The third point which the hon. member for Edmonton West made was that he believes the Canadian people do not want control over prices. The hon. member referred to the fact that price controls would entail wage controls. I am suggesting that before any trade union can get an increase in wages today it has to go through an elaborate process of collective bargaining and a great deal of red tape.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In order to justify it.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes, to justify it. On the other hand, in the matter of prices there is no such machinery whatever. The way prices are raised is that the manufacturer just decides he is going to raise them and the next thing any of us know about it is when we walk into a store and find a few cents or dollars added to the prices of what we want to buy.
If we consider it a good and necessary thing to make trade unions go through a whole lot of machinery to justify wage increases before they get them, I suggest that the consumers of this country have now reached the point where they are prepared to make the same demand on the manufacturers and processors in the country. They want to see a board created before which these manufacturers will have to appear and justify the increases they are proposing to make on 
items which are necessary for the households of this country. I think that the creation of this board would be completely justified.
A great many other questions were raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West concerning how the board would function, its machinery, and so on. I listened very carefully this afternoon but I would point out that I did not hear any concrete proposal made by anyone in his party which would provide the mechanism for dealing with the question of the rising cost of living unless, of course, it was removal of the sales tax. There was no proposal whatever with regard to a program to hold down the cost of living. They just blamed the government for their inaction, and quite rightly.
In my view this party has made a proposal which would provide such a mechanism in an attempt to hold down the cost of living. We propose the idea of establishing a review board before which manufacturers would have to justify increases in their consumer prices. I have yet to hear from any other group in the house any alternative suggestion. In these days when we are hoping to do things in a responsible way I think the least people who are criticizing can do is to offer an alternative method or suggest some type of action.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: We suggested that the farmers be given a fair share of the price.


Winona Grace MacInnis: That does not provide a mechanism to my way of thinking. I think more than generalities should be advanced: some sort of concrete proposal should be made.
From the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, we had a very elaborate speech about various factors of production, the need for expanding our economy, the need for mobility of manpower, the need for training and research, the need for greater trade and so on. As a speech it was perfectly all right but I do not think it went anywhere near the subject we have in mind.
The people of this country are asking for bread and they are being given the stone of government treatises. This has happened over and over again since this house opened its session. I do not think the government is prepared to grapple with the problem of rising prices. I think the government is fobbing us off with elaborate talk of trade, productivity and of all these other things
March 21, 1966

without once going near the end product of our economic system. They ought to see to it that the people of the country are enabled to provide for themselves collectively a moderate and good standard of living by their own efforts. The government should be the agent which does the planning by which this is achieved.
It just does not make sense to me to talk of an expanding economy when at the same time there is increasing distress for large sections of our people. An expanding economy with at the same time increasing distress for large sections of the community can only mean one thing. It means that too few people are getting too much of the benefits of the expanding economy and too many people are not getting enough. I do not see any other explanation. People can use all the economic jargon they like, but I do not think we can escape that conclusion.
In a period of expanding productivity and prosperity such as the present, when vast sections of our people are insecure and not so large sections are in real misery, there can be only one conclusion drawn, namely that all this affluence is not being distributed as it should. In my view the job which this government has badly neglected to do in this country is not so much related to productivity but to seeing that the results of our productivity are distributed across the country in a fair and equitable way and, particularly, that the sections of the country which need it the most are given a fair share and a moderate standard of living such as can be provided out of our resources, our machinery and our technical knowledge.
The question of steadily rising prices is one of the greatest problems to come before parliament this session. I think that tackling the problem has been far too long delayed. I have received mail, as have no doubt many other members, not only from people in my own constituency but from people clear across Canada. I have received letters from people who are desperate and keep asking what we here in Ottawa are doing. They tell us that we have good salaries and earn far more than any of them, and they ask why we cannot understand. They ask us: If, indeed, you are not too far removed from us, why can you not understand what our problems are regarding food, clothing and shelter, all the things which go to make life worth while and which we never get around to having because all our work, thought and care have to go into getting enough to eat and to wear and to

Increased Cost of Living educate our children? That is the sort of mail I receive, and I am sure the rest of the members of the house receive similar mail too.
I am going to suggest that it will not be very long before we will have to pay attention to this problem. There have been pickets of one kind or another and lobbies of one kind or another before, but I firmly expect that if we keep on turning the deaf ear and the blind eye it will not be very long before Mr. and Mrs. Consumer will come to Ottawa and picket in front of the Peace Tower. They will tell us that they are sick and tired of hearing us all moaning about the cost of living but doing nothing about it. I think it is time we grappled with the problem. When I say "we" I mean the government, which has the ultimate responsibility for coming to grips with the question and finding policies to meet the situation.
It is no good for the government to tell us, as we have been told over and over again, that they must wait for the Economic Council to make its report at the end of the year before they can find out what kind of measures they will take. That is one answer we have been given.
Another answer I was given when I asked a question on the orders of the day was that the government feels its present economic and other policies are enough to ensure that the cost of living will not keep rising. Today we were told by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp): "Just wait till I bring the budget down and perhaps you will find something there to deal with cost of living". I want to suggest that this is not good enough for the people of this country today.
What are the plain facts? The cost of living has gone up 3i per cent over the last 12 months. The February price index, the latest one we have, shows that prices are up on nearly everything-clothing, housing, household utilities of all kinds. The most alarming increase has been in the price of food. When you come down to food, Mr. Speaker, you get down to rock bottom. You get down to the only item which is regarded as flexible for budgetary purposes, because the other items carry a fixed cost and have to be met.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The foods which are particularly affected are listed in the February index, as they were in the January index, and comprise butter and other fats, meat, fish and poultry and vegetables. They are the foods which are

March 21, 1966
Increased Cost of Living absolutely essential for building healthy bodies and creating strong nerves and healthy minds. The women of this country have been propagandized by the government for so long now that they know these are the foods necessary to create good bodies, strong nerves and healthy minds. Now they are no longer able to buy those things and they cannot understand why the government they have elected, and the members they have elected to this house do not see to it that they are able to buy the foods that their families and husbands need to maintain good health.
I say that it is alarming to see food prices steadily going up. Food price increases hit us all but they do not hit us all evenly. You cannot look at people too much as if they are statistics in columns in a book. People are not statistics in books; they are all individuals and each one of their cases is different. Pressures on different people do not hit them the same way. The price rise in an item which merely irritates a person earning $10,000 a year may be a very serious thing for the worker with a family who earns perhaps $50 a week, and it may be catastrophic to a veteran or to somebody on an old age pension or some other kind of fixed income.
We do not realize that these rises in the price of foods are as serious as they are. Price rises strike at the very well-being of Canadian families. They particularly attack families in low and fixed income groups. I do not care, Mr. Speaker, how much we have in the way of automobiles, pulp and paper and all the other great things of our economy if we cannot find ways and means of feeding our families across this country. If we are not feeding them, we are not doing our job as members of parliament.
All these other things we have are simply wasted and useless unless the people of this country can have access to the foods they need. I think of thousands of families, not necessarily families in British Columbia but self-respecting families everywhere, most of them paying their own way, who are finding it harder and harder to make their pay cheques go around to buy the things they as families need to make a modern standard of living possible. They have every right to a modern standard of living.
I think of a young couple newly married who are trying very hard to set aside a little bit for the family they hope to raise, who are buying furniture on time, as are other people. Far from getting ahead, they are finding that

the rising cost of living is robbing them even of the little they have been able to put aside; the rising cost of living is destroying the plans they have been making. They find that their future is dwindling and shrivelling like something being burned up in a fire. They are filled with despair because while they are doing everything they can in the right way the rising cost of living is depriving them of the fruits of their labour.
I 'think of Mr. and Mrs. M. and their five children. Mrs. M. knows all about the things that children need to have. She is a good, faithful and intelligent woman. She knows the need for a balanced diet and she cannot get it for her children any more. I have seen this woman in my own riding and others like her in other parts of British Columbia going into stores to shop, hoping to pick up those things which they bought the previous week and trying to buy perhaps one or two little treats for the family but finding that the price has risen two or three cents on this product, perhaps five cents on something else and a few cents on something else. I have seen these women come out sad and feeling very apprehensive about what is going to happen the next time they go shopping.
Things are made much worse when one realizes that these women cannot buy the food needed for the health of their children. I am not talking only of British Columbia. Here is a letter from a woman in London, Ontario:
In this area over the last three months there has been an increase in milk, bread, butter, meat, fruit, vegetables, newspapers and bus transportation and not long before-hydro, water and telephone rates. It is pathetic to see our older citizens walk long distances in cold weather because they can no longer afford transportation.
Here is a letter from New Brunswick:
The (Federal) Government granted a ten dollar a month raise in the old age pension some time ago and all of us got our rent raised $10 a month immediately so you can see that raise did not go far . . . Now the Provincial government is raising the sales tax to 6% from 3% on April 1st.
That is why our leader proposed that Ottawa should take the lead in calling the provincial governments together to consider how to establish a price review board. The provincial governments are levying their own taxes and those taxes are attacking the same family budget that high prices are attacking and lessening the value of the same family dollar.
Therefore we have to make a concerted attack on this sort of thing and this is the only place from which a concerted, well
March 21, 1966

directed attack can come. All across the country millions of families are waiting to see what the government is going to do.
Here is a letter from a mother of a family in Newfoundland who has a sick husband:
Prices are preposterous and it's time someone did something about them. My sick husband needs a special diet, our son needs a high protein bodybuilding diet, our other children also need bodybuilding foods. Needless to say there is never enough to provide us with all this.
I want to say that all across Canada tonight these families are watching and waiting hopefully to see what if anything this government is going to do. They do not figure that a government that was just elected last fall has lost steam and they believe it still wants to do something. These people still hope that something is going to come out of Ottawa. However, they are not going to continue to believe that. They are not going to maintain that faith if there is no relief on the horizon.
What is the government doing about the rise in cost of living? This afternoon we heard the Minister of Finance say that now we are in a period of prosperity which is remarkable not only for being one of the greatest but also one of the most prolonged. That is simply not true for thousands of people in Canada today. They are living in insecurity and poverty and they need help badly.
What is the sense of having a society that is part affluent and part poor? In fact, those of us who are affluent will not long keep our affluence if we are going to permit poverty to exist. I say that instead of chasing all over Europe and the rest of the world looking for markets it is time we looked at the home market with a view to building up that market here in this country. Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that this matter which I raised last Thursday and today is a very serious one that really affects the interests of Canadians. I think it is depressing that an international union with headquarters in New York should dictate whether or not a

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion recording should be made of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police band at Expo '67, a band that is paid for by the taxpayers of this country.
Because the R.C.M.P. band members do not belong to a union Canadians are not going to be allowed to buy recordings of a tattoo by that band at Expo '67. This is a cultural project. It seems to me a very discriminatory practice that the American Federation of Musicians would not allow a Toronto recording producer, or for that matter any recording producer, to make records of the tattoo which is going to be presented by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police band. It is all the more discriminatory when such permission has been granted by this union to the U.S. army, air force, navy and marine corps bands whose members are also non-union and when their performances have also been cultural projects. But when the purpose of the R.C.M.P. tattoo is also cultural and a part of Canada's centennial celebration this union will not allow the R.C.M.P. band to make recordings.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I do not wish to speak at great length on this matter, but I think this is a ridiculous situation. The R.C.M.P. band is supposed to be one of the finest in our country and I think it is incumbent upon the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), whom I see in the house, to intervene in all possible ways so as to obtain permission from the union for the recording to be made. If all these approaches fail I suggest that the government provide facilities through the C.B.C. or the National Film Board or any other crown agency to have recordings made of this band.
As one who has at times acted on behalf of international unions I think this is a disgraceful situation. It is completely discriminatory to allow United States bands to be recorded but not a Canadian band. This band has not even been allowed to perform at the Canadian National Exhibition because of this discriminatory practice and I suggest that the Secretary of State make every intervention possible and adopt every means open to the government to persuade the union to give its permission to have this performance recorded or else to allow crown agency facilities to be used for this worth-while project.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker,
March 21, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the question put by the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) and drawn once again to the attention of the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) and of the house today, refers to a matter of great concern and interest to the hon. member and seems obviously to result from a report in the Toronto Daily Star of March 11, 1966, written by Mr. Douglas Hughes. The latter expresses the grievances of a company called Arc & Sound Limited, of Toronto, and reported by its promotional manager, Mr. Ken S. Warriner.
Incidentally, I do intend to disprove categorically that part of the item of the Toronto Daily Star to the effect that the report promised by the Prime Minister in his secretary's letter dated November 30, 1965, in reply to that of Mr. Warriner, dated November 17, 1965, had not yet been provided on March 11, 1966. I reviewed the file fully and a report was submitted to Mr. Warriner explaining the whole matter to him on February 1 and 16, 1966.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not concerned with an article in the Toronto Star of which I have no knowledge. I am concerned only with what action is to be taken with respect to recordings of this particular band. I am not concerned about the producer named by the Parliamentary Secretary but about what action is to be taken.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the suggestion of the hon. member for Hamilton West to the effect that there is discrimination-and it is the question put to the Secretary of State, by the Vice President of the American Federation of Musicians in refusing the request by Arc Sound Limited- is easily given.
The house and the hon. member should know that all agreements entered into by the
musicians' union and the recording companies, provide that companies may not record any musician who is not a member of the union, in this case the American Federation of Musicians.
Now the R.C.M.P. band are not members of the union and, consequently, there is no cause to cry foul play and discrimination.
Furthermore, since the hon. member and Mr. Warriner seem to insist upon what they call the ridicule of a Canadian band being dominated by a foreign labour organization, I may add that a similar proviso could be included in the regulations of a Canadian union and this company or any other would not have the right to record the R.C.M.P. band.
Mr. Warriner claims it would cost $40,000 in musicians' fees and suggests that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) find the funds to meet this obligation. Having presented his case to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), he was told that it would not be advisable to take this amount from public funds to record the music of a military band for purely commercial purposes. The same reply was given by the Department of Justice who has jurisdiction over the R.C.M.P., and by the Centennial Commission.
However, the R.C.M.P. has no objection to having the music of its band recorded for commercial purposes, but since this would be a competitive engagement, the recording company would have to obtain permission from the American Federation of Musicians and provide the funds or find an acceptable sponsor.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary would allow me to ask a question?


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.09 p.m.

Tuesday, March 22, 1966