1966-04-21

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Gerard Pelletier (Hochelaga) presented the first report of the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts.
[Note.' Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[Stage Direction]
He said: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house, I move, seconded by the member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme), that the first report of the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, presented this day, be now concurred in.
Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: In French and in English.


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to give unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hoche-lega probably knows that the unanimous consent of the house is required to move this motion. Since consent has not been given, the motion cannot be moved.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect, I should like to ask whether it is possible for the Prime Minister or the house leader, one or both, to find some way of making it possible for the committee to meet, instead of allowing one intransigent member of this house to frustrate the will of the committee, of parliament and, indeed, of the people of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINANCE


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that when I reported to the house on March 7 on the last meeting of the joint Canada-United States ministerial committee I drew attention to the discussion we had had on the proposed S.E.C. regulations applying to foreign securities traded over the counter in the United States.
I now wish to advise the house that the S.E.C. has announced that the exemption for foreign issuers from these regulations is being extended to November 30. Having regard to the time allowed for companies to register, this means that in effect no Canadian company would be affected before April of next year at the earliest. The government welcomes this announcement since it provides an opportunity for further discussion of the issues involved with interested authorities in Canada as a basis for working out a mutually satisfactory long term solution with the United States government.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my only comment on this announcement is that we will, of course, want to look into its implications. However, as in some of the other dealings the Canadian government has had with the United States government in regard to financial relations between the two countries, guide lines and what have you, there has usually been a quid pro quo. The minister has said nothing about whether Canada has had to make certain concessions in this regard, or whether this has been merely a straight extension. Canada having obtained certain concessions under the interest equalization act, we also know what sort of halter we put around our necks in order to do so.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, we are glad to have the announcement just made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This promises a respite from the proposed changes under the S.E.C. regulations. I hope, however, that the government will exercise all possible measures and persuasion to have the United States

April 21, 1966
Labour Conditions
government agree that as of April next these S.E.C. regulations will be waived entirely; because I think they have caused a good deal of concern in Canada, and it would be most unjust if they were imposed next April.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the house of an important change in the manpower mobility program. In the program as instituted at the end of last year, a worker can receive a grant to help him to move only if he has been unemployed for four out of the previous six months. Otherwise he can get assistance but only as a loan. We wish to broaden the grant part of the program, but the house will appreciate that this can be done only carefully, as our administrative experience of this type of assistance increases, so that we do not incur abuses.
The step forward we have now taken affects areas where the shut-down of an enterprise, or a lay-off, is of such a size in relation to total employment in the area that unemployed workers have little chance of getting jobs except by moving. This situation is particularly likely to arise in remote areas, as when a mine closes. The regulations have therefore been amended to provide that the minister may designate such an area, and that unemployed people in the area will then be eligible for mobility grants without the qualification of having been unemployed for four months.
Under the terms of this new regulation I have today designated Bissett, Manitoba, as an area where, for the next 12 months, mobility grants will be available on the new terms. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the need for this assistance arises from the shutdown of San Antonio Gold Mines. I should add that in view of the recent announcement of the intended closing of the Wabana mine, I expect shortly to designate Bell Island, Newfoundland, for similar assistance. The problems of the people there may be particularly difficult, and my department is urgently examining, in collaboration with other departments, what special action we might take in conjunction with the designation of the area for mobility grants.

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we have all listened with great interest to the comments made by the minister with respect to the change in the regulations concerning grants and loans. In particular he mentioned the Wabana area in Bell Island, Newfoundland.
Certainly what has now been announced is a decided improvement over what existed previously. In the long run, however, I suggest that it would be much better for the government to do all it can to provide employment in the particular areas mentioned, and in other similar areas, rather than providing the Gordon one way tickets out of those areas. That remark has particular reference to the maritime provinces.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: I am
sure that members of all parties, and those in the organized labour movement who have called for an expansion of the manpower program, will greet the announcement the minister has made today with a great deal of satisfaction. It indicates at least a beginning of a change in the government's thinking. It seems to many of us and to people outside the house concerned with this that the government and the departments concerned until very recently felt that the manpower program, such as it was, was adequate. It was very obvious to everybody concerned that a good deal needed to be done.
We think this announcement shows a step in the right direction. However, Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will shortly look at the recommendations of bodies such as the Economic Council which urge that the whole programs of loans be wiped out, and that this kind of problem be dealt with through grants. It is obviously unfair and impractical to expect people who for a long time have been unemployed to pay back money which has been advanced to them so they can move to a job where they can earn a living for themselves and their families. As a beginning, however, we welcome this.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the statement of the minister of manpower (Mr. Marchand) to the effect that, for certain areas of Canada, the government is ready to intervene and grant loans to those who need them and to facilitate their mobility when required.
April 21, 1966

These measures are liable to be of assistance to certain areas such as those the minister mentioned. I should, however, like to call the minister's attention to other areas which he has not mentioned this afternoon, for instance the area of Val d'Or-Malartic, where gold mines are to close. Other mines are discontinuing their operations and we have to attend to moving such manpower as is no longer needed.
If the minister were to make a thorough study of the situation prevailing in our region, I think he would ask his colleagues to urge the government to help create new industries and develop new mines wherever this can be done, so as to keep our manpower in our region and avoid any relocation. This would not only prevent relocation of workers, but it would also prevent them from running into debt because, according to government policy, they would have to pay back, over the next five or ten years, the loans obtained.
I, therefore, draw the attention of the minister to this matter. I hope that he will examine it thoroughly and that new industries will be attracted to areas where workers are already established so that they may go on living there.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



IMMIGRATION


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on government policy with regard to the entry into Canada of Jamaican workers coming to help with the crops and other agricultural work.
A thorough study of seasonal labour demands undertaken by the department and the national farm labour committee indicates that Canadian workers can meet the demand in the various parts of Canada, provided however that recruiting is intensified and the movement of labour is well planned.
Nevertheless, a shortage of workers for picking fruit and vegetable crops in southwestern Ontario is almost assured, this coming summer and fall.
Under those circumstances, my department has agreed to authorize, in advance, the entry of Jamaican workers, so that farmers and fruit growers might prepare for their crops. I wish to make it clear that the entry into Canada of foreign workers is permitted only under strictly ordered and specific conditions
Immigration of Jamaicans and must not interfere with the salaries, conditions of work and job opportunities enjoyed by Canadian workers.
After consultation with the Ontario branch of the federal-provincial committee on farm labour, the government stipulates that farmers, before hiring Jamaican seasonal labour, must agree to a number of conditions, including a minimum salary of $1.25 per hour, in addition to adequate lodgings; a period of work of not less than eight weeks and not more than 16 weeks, but which shall be extended so as to guarantee an average weekly salary of $50 during the period of employment; and the payment, by the operator, of travelling expenses to and from the operation.
Casual employment will be offered Canadian workers under similar or even better conditions than those I have just outlined, under the federal-provincial agreement on farm labour. Travelling expenses of workers hired for at least five weeks will be paid, as well as the return fare in the case of those having worked at least for that period of time. If, for one reason or another, a worker cannot complete his assignment, he will be paid the return fare of a substitute.
Fruit and vegetable growers in southwestern Ontario are requested to notify without delay the National Employment Service in regard to the workers they want to hire, under those or better conditions. Applications for Jamaican workers will not be accepted after May 15.
After the applications reach the National Employment Service, discussions will be held with Jamaican authorities with regard to the conditions of employment laid down by the department. The producers themselves will then conclude the negotiations with the Jamaican authorities. The Immigration Service of the department will look after the official procedures governing the entry of workers into Canada, in accordance with the agreements entered into with the authorities of Jamaica.
The Canadian government has agreed to seek in Caribbean countries, Commonwealth members with which our country has special ties, the labour it might need. The government of Jamaica has shown interest in our seasonal workers on several occasions. During his visit to Jamaica in November 1965, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson) was approached on this subject. But since the agreements will have to be entered into over a limited period of time, it has been decided
April 21, 1966

Immigration of Jamaicans to restrict to Jamaica, at first, the recruiting of workers. It is known that other Caribbean governments are interested in our seasonal workers. Therefore, if the present provisions are extended, the Canadian government would be ready to begin negotiations with the countries concerned.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the statement the minister has just made is extremely important. It raises a question which has concerned people in Canada and the United States for a number of years, the question of the importation of people from foreign countries to work on Canadian and United States farms.
The provision whereby these workers will be guaranteed a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour is a good one, as is the requirement that they be given adequate housing facilities. However, Mr. Speaker, I would hope the government will do more than merely put this on paper. To my knowledge, every year there have been complaints and well founded newspaper articles about the fact that agricultural workers in general, working on seasonal projects, have been housed under the most primitive and unsanitary conditions possible. I would expect that the federal government, which is arranging this plan, will also arrange for inspection of the housing accommodation provided for these people in order to make sure that the agreement the minister has announced will actually be lived up to and enforced.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, this decision of the minister or of the government to admit Jamaican workers into Canada to help bring in the crop, mainly in southwestern Ontario, comes as something of a surprise to me.
Every year this part of Ontario generally called the fruit and tobacco valley, cries out for additional manpower at a certain time of the year.
Well, every year in my area, as in many other areas of the province of Quebec, people are anxious to go and work at these crops in southwestern Ontario. Most of the time they are told that there is no work for them, that they cannot be hired. There are thousands of Canadians anxious to work at these crops.
I do not believe the minister at all when he tells us that there is a lack of manpower. Rather, I think that pressures are now being applied on the department and the government to allow the farmers of this part of
[Mr. Marchand.)
Ontario to get workers who will be paid about $1.25 an hour instead of $2 or even $3 an hour during harvest time.
Here, I should like to call the attention of the minister to the fact that not only are people over 30 asking for work, but that a great number of university students from Toronto, Montreal and Quebec city would like to work for these Ontario farmers at harvest time.
I wonder whether it is sensible at this time to invite Jamaican workers to come and help with the harvest of this part of Ontario, this Canadian region?
Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister does not tell us how many immigrants will thus be admitted into Canada. He says that, according to the data of the National Employment Service, it will be possible to establish the number of Jamaican workers who will come. I appeal again to the hon. minister, not because 1 am against the Jamaican workers or the farmers who want to obtain workers at a lower price, but since we have students who are looking for such work in order to earn money to continue their studies and workers who want to earn enough to allow them to live in their own province, I do not think that, under the circumstances, it is at all advisable to invite Jamaicans or other foreigners to help with the fruit or tobacco harvest in Ontario.
1English1


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the government is taking some action to resolve the critical shortage of agricultural workers, but what I fail to understand is why this is confined strictly to southwestern Ontario when representations have been made in this house on behalf of farm organizations from western Canada in respect of the serious shortage of workers on the prairies and in many other parts of Canada. Therefore it is very difficult for me to understand why the minister is confining this to the fruit and vegetable growers; why these are the only people from whom he will accept applications, in southwestern Ontario.


An hon. Member:: Also tobacco.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, representation has been made to the minister's department regarding the sugar beet workers in southern Alberta and southern Manitoba, but there has been no announcement to the effect that the nationals of other countries will be allowed into Canada to help overcome this problem. I
April 21. 1966

Criminal Code
am pleased that the minister has announced there will be some minimum standards set up in so far as living accommodation and wages are concerned, because certainly we do not want to bring in workers from offshore and cut down the standards of the people in Canada who are doing this type of work.
In Alberta I believe there has been some concentrated effort to bring Indian workers from the reserves in northern Alberta and northern Saskatchewan to assist in the fields of southern Alberta. I am wondering whether the program in respect of Canadian seasonal workers will be applied to these Indian workers who come from the northern part of the province into the south; because certainly if the manpower mobility program is to be extended to any workers, I believe these Indian workers have a right to participate in this type of a program.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Generally we are pleased to see that something is being done, but it seems that it is restrictive and discriminatory if it is to be confined in the way suggested.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-166, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (Habitual Criminals).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, the bill I am introducing to amend section 660 of the Criminal Code is for the protection of society as well as the rehabilitation of the criminal; it not only tends to punish but also to prevent crime.
In view of the spectacular failure of certain parole cases brought to light, while so many others have gone unnoticed when persons had through this method succeeded in being reinstated in society; also, in view of the less spectacular but no less real failure of the present penal system showing an average rate of relapse of 60 to 70 per cent which did not fail to be cited by the champions of criminal treatment against the believers in the specific value of the penalty, I deemed it my duty to move this bill.
In short, such deprivation of freedom will last as long as remedial measures are indicated.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING COMMUTATION OF DEATH SENTENCES

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Introduction of bills. Mr. Choquette-Bill intituled an act to amend the Criminal Code (repeal of power to commute a sentence of death).
Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in respect of the bill entitled "An act to amend the Criminal Code (repeal of power to commute a sentence of death)." This bill should not be before parliament and it has no place on the order paper. There can be no interference with the Queen's right to grant mercy, even though this member would abolish the Queen. This ought not to be on the order paper; it is unconstitutional and improper, and cannot be justified on any ground.


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) recently introduced in this house a bill providing for the abolition of the Senate. Such a bill is, on the very face of it, unconstitutional, and yet it was decided that once a bill is put on the orders of the day it must be given first reading without further ado. The objection of the Leader of the Opposition is unfounded.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will take into consideration and study the remarks of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I had not finished. This is in no way a Queen's prerogative. By referring to section 655, subsection (1) of the Criminal Code, the Leader of the Opposition will note that it deals specifically with the royal prerogative and, in my view, the bill in question is to amend subsection (2) of section 655 of the Criminal Code in a way that does not affect the royal prerogative.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what the difference is; commutation is an exercise of the royal prerogative.
4102	COMMONS
Introduction of Legislation


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I understand the situation, the question is not whether the bill should or should not be given first reading, because that has already been granted by the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In any event, as I said a moment ago the matter will be taken into consideration. The representations made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition will be considered along with the remarks of the hon. member for Lotbiniere.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South) moved: the first reading of Bill No. C-167, to amend the Food and Drugs Act (listing of ingredients).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Food and Drugs Act to require producers of foods and drugs placed on the Canadian market to accurately and completely list all ingredients on the labels of their products as far as possible. Ingredient labelling is of particular significance to the many Canadians suffering from various allergies, to whom knowledge of contents in the manufactured food is of great importance.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FARM CREDIT ACT


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Farm Credit Act to increase the authorized capital of the Farm Credit Corporation from $24 million to $40 million and thereby to increase the maximum borrowing capacity of the said corporation from $600 million to $1 billion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at

DEBATES	April 21, 1966
the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended tc the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act and the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Act to provide for a reduction in the contributions required to be paid under those acts as a result of the implementation of the Canada Pension Plan and for the correlation of the pensions or annuities payable under those acts with the pensions payable under the Canada Pension Plan; to extend the portability provisions of certain of the plans established under those acts; to raise the limit on the amount of the supplementary death benefit payable in respect of persons employed in the public service and members of the Canadian forces; and to make amendments of a general nature in connection with the administration of those acts and of the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act and the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Ex' hibition Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to give effect to term 29 of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada and to pay to the province, out of the consolidated revenue fund, in the fiscal year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1967 and in each and every fiscal year thereafter, an annual amount, by way of additional financial assistance as contemplated by term 29, of $8 million.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to inquire into and report upon a measure respecting employer and employee relations in the public service of Canada and upon such other related legislation as may be referred to it by either house; that 24 members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, be members of the joint committee, and that standing order 67(1) of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto; that the said committee have power to call for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses; to report from
April 21, 1966	COMMONS
time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable, and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto; and that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: In the absence of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the Prime Minister, who I know has received correspondence, telegrams and the like from house builders across Canada relative to the shortage of funds available to them under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Would the Prime Minister be prepared to have this matter looked into in view of the widespread criticism-possibly a better word would be the request

of builders everywhere across Canada that unless something is done in this connection there will be a very large reduction in employment and detriment to the economy as a whole?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister of Labour, I believe, made a statement on this matter yesterday. I can only add to that statement what I believe he said also at that time, that the question is being looked into as a matter of urgency and importance.


Mr. G. L. Challerlon (Esquimalt-Saanich):: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister give consideration to making further moneys available in the form of direct loans if the situation becomes critical?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is one aspect of the question that is being considered.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Solicitor General, and ask him if the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been asked to make an 23033-260J
DEBATES	4103
Inquiries of the Ministry investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of George Victor Spence.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: You said it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I mean Spencer. Has any report been received?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: understand a full investigation was carried out, there was a coroner's inquest and an autopsy performed. So far as I am aware, Mr. Speaker, the death was from natural causes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was referring particularly to the circumstances surrounding the death. Will the minister ascertain how it was possible for a man whom the Prime Minister said was under surveillance in order to protect him against possible assassination could have been dead for several days before the R.C.M. Police became aware of this fact?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am speaking from memory now, but I believe the statement that was made in the house was that the surveillance in this case would be adapted to the necessities of the situation. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police at all times continued to take such steps as were deemed necessary in the circumstances of the case.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Was the R.C.M.P. given orders to keep under constant surveillance Mr. Spencer's property or house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think that question is in order. The hon. member is asking if the R.C.M.P. was given orders or instructions. In my opinion, that question is not in order at this time.
[English1



REQUEST FOR ROYAL COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE ORGANIZED CRIME

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made yesterday, I believe, by the Minister of Justice for the province of Quebec, can the Prime Minister say whether he or his government has received any formal request or any request from the province of Quebec for the setting up of a royal commission to investigate organized crime in Canada?
4104	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: A communication has been sent by the federal government to the provinces, as I think I indicated in the house before the recess, dealing with the possibility of a conference to discuss this matter. I am not sure whether all replies are in, but I will inquire and possibly make a report when they all come in.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?
Does the minister remember the approximate number of Jamaican immigrants he says are needed to pick the fruit and tobacco crops in southern Ontario?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, when the agreement has been reached, those who want Jamaican workers will have to apply to the National Employment Service. I do not know how many will apply to that service under the conditions announced in the house.
[English!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration based on the statement he made earlier today. I should like to ask the minister whether he has considered or will consider applications from farmers in areas other than southwestern Ontario for additional farm labour if they should make application to him; for example, from sugar beet producers in southern Alberta.


Jean Marchand: Wherever there is a shortage of labour we are ready to consider the same proposition.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question. Can I ask the minister whether southwestern Ontario is the only place in Canada which is considered to be short of farm labour?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is argumentative.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, you have suggested that the question is argumentative but I was simply asking the minister which areas in Canada the government considers to be short of labour at the moment. I think it
[Mr. Nielsen.)
DEBATES	April 21, 1966
would be helpful for farmers in other parts of Canada to know, for example, whether or not applications would be entertained.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think applications have been filed by some Alberta agriculturists. These have been studied, and if they are ready to discuss them I am ready to meet these people and also to give the hon. member the reasons we have refused them.


Mr. T. S. Barneti (Comox-Alberni):: A supplementary question. May I ask whether the minister has had any official communication from the government of British Columbia with regard to bringing farm labour into that province from either Jamaica or Mexico?


Jean Marchand: To my knowledge, not from the government of British Columbia. I can try to get some information about this matter. Perhaps the communication came to my department. It did not come to me.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration? Has the hon. member received requests, for instance, from the province of Quebec, for help with the blueberry crop in the Lake St. John region?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Will the government or the department entertain applications for the bringing in of farm labour from other countries as well as from Jamaica?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we have
limited our request for workers, or rather imports of labour, to the Commonwealth countries. Now, if there still was a labour shortage and we had to look elsewhere for workers, even then the principle would not be affected as it would be a matter of discussing each case and finding out what type of labour is required. For instance, someone mentioned a while ago that anyone could pick fruit. Because of certain aspects of that operation, the work cannot be performed by just anyone, the workers required must be skilled.
April 21, 1968	COMMONS
We are therefore dealing with specific cases and I cannot answer for each one of them, unless you define them individually.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. As part of the agreement being worked out, is it the thought of the government that these labourers will be returned to Jamaica after their employment?


Jean Marchand: It is a condition.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State. Before asking it I would commend the good lady for her concern for the taxpayers' stake in the C.B.C. My question, of which I have sent her notice, is this. Is it true that one C.B.C. producer named Wilson Southam spent up to ten times what was approved, having been previously warned about overspending on other programs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question should be placed on the order paper.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to my favourite Minister of Agriculture. In view of the increasing number of livestock being hauled by motor truck, and the representations made by the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies as well as other organizations for legislation to meet these changing transportation practices, has the minister given any consideration to amending the cruelty section of the Criminal Code to bring the provisions of section 389 in line with modern transportation requirements?


John James Greene: I should like to thank my favourite and venerable member for Kootenay West for giving me notice of his question. In reply I may say departmental officials are looking into this in conjunction with officials of the
DEBATES	4105
Inquiries of the Ministry Department of Justice. Many representations have been received with regard to this very important question, and if remedial action is deemed necessary the amendment to the Criminal Code will be announced in the normal manner.


Mr. W. B. Nesbiit (Oxford):: I should like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact most members of this house have received many representations concerning cruelty to animals in its various aspects, I was wondering if the Prime Minister would recommend to his colleagues that this whole subject be referred to an appropriate committee of parliament for general consideration and recommendation.
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
I will be glad to look into that matter, Mr. Speaker.



OTTAWA VALLEY-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IN SPEEDING UP LOANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and is one which I feel is of the utmost urgency in view of the fact that many farmers in the Ottawa valley and the surrounding area, due to severe crop loss from the drought last year, are unable to procure seed and other supplies for this year's crop unless loans are made available immediately. Has the government received a request from the Ontario government for co-operative assistance to provide these loans and, if so, what action is being taken?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as of this date I have received no request in this regard, although I am given to understand from a news release from Toronto that such a request is to be made.



SASKATCHEWAN-PETITION RESPECTING BROKENSHELL COMMUNITY PASTURES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has he received a petition from the patrons of Brokenshell community pastures Nos. 1 and 2 protesting the use of "A.I."?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question should be on the order paper.

April 21. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberi C. Coates (Cumberland):: should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General, of which I have given notice. Will the minister confirm the arrest in Nova Scotia today of an officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and advise the house of the circumstances leading to the arrest as well as what charges, if any, are being laid?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt very much if the question, without more explanation, can be accepted at this time. Even if the hon. member gave notice of the question I do not think that makes it necessarily acceptable to the Chair. I suggest the hon. member place it on the order paper.


Robert Carman Coates: This is a serious matter, and I believe the Solicitor General is prepared to answer it. I think it would be helpful if he did answer it.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course I can only judge by what is in the question itself. The hon. member says it is very urgent, and I will accept his word for it and allow the minister to reply.


Lawrence T. Pennell: thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I can only say that an investigation is proceeding. At the time I came into the chamber I was informed no charges had been laid. Perhaps I ought not to go beyond that statement at this point.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piclou):: May I
ask a supplementary question. Can the minister advise whether this arrest is related to the three bank holdups in the county of Pictou within the last nine months?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that it is firmly established now that a Canadian organization formed to aid civilians in Viet Nam is directing its aid entirely to North Viet

Nam, what is the government attitude toward this organization and its efforts?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not believe I can add anything to what I said in answer to a somewhat similar question posed the other day by the Leader of the Opposition.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. In view of the fact that the premier of Alberta has now indicated, either in a resolution or by a public announcement, that he will refund to the people of Alberta 75 per cent of the estate tax, is there any agreement between this government and the Alberta government to refund the other 25 per cent, or is a deal being worked out in that regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. When can I expect an answer to starred question No. 726 which has to do with penitentiary security and has remained on the order paper unanswered since February 18?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I will give the hon. member's inquiry immediate attention.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has had the opportunity to review the speech made last evening by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to the Ottawa Board of Trade and, if so, whether the statements and threats therein contained represent government policy.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Greenwood.


Richard Albert Bell: Would the Prime Minister answer the question?
April 21, 1966


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that he cannot insist on an answer.


Erik Nielsen: He is afraid to answer.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Prime Minister has the right to say he will not answer a question, but he has not even had that courtesy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I beg to disagree with the hon. member. Obviously if a minister does not stand in his place it is because he does not intend to reply. I suggest he does not have to get up and say that he does not want to answer.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence but in his absence perhaps the Associate Minister would reply. May I ask whether the recent increase in pay to pilots in the Royal Canadian Air Force will become part of the permanent salary structure of the service?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I understand that it will, Mr. Speaker.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melfort-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture with reference to the price of farm implements. Is he aware of the fact that since November last, shortly before he was appointed minister, small combines have gone up in price $250 a unit, big combines $600 a unit, and that in the same period the price of hogs came down 10 cents per pound?



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can the minister tell the house when we may anticipate the long awaited, often promised white paper on immigration?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do right now is to adopt some new regulations concerning non-immigrants in Canada. We are working hard and I hope that we will produce some results soon so that some of the shortcomings in the present regulations can be corrected. I think that if we succeed in doing so hon. members will not complain too much about the time we are taking to review the whole philosophy of immigration.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question. I hope the minister, in referring to the question of visitors and non-immigrants and the urgent need for the government to announce its policy in this regard, can assure the house that this does not mean that the general promise of a white paper to review the whole subject of immigration is being overlooked.


Jean Marchand: It does not mean that, Mr. Speaker.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the thousands of immigrants in Canada who have arrived here on visitors' visas and have since made application for permanent residence status, some of whom now have orders of deportation against them, has the government changed its attitude respecting those persons with deportation orders against them? Is the government still going to deport them or is it reviewing these cases? If so, has the government held up the deportation of these people until such review is completed?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I hope that within the next few weeks I will be in a position to make a statement concerning non-immigrants in Canada. We have endeavoured to make certain regulations which, I think, will be agreeable to most hon. members. However, some deportations may still have to be made; I am thinking of those who, in any case, cannot be accepted in Canada under the act and who will be deported immediately. This can be done under present regulations. As for the others, applications are held in abeyance and no deportation will be made.

April 21, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the government house leader. In view of the fact that the rules provide for a six day budget debate, which would mean that the present debate would carry on until next Monday evening, we are prepared to forgo Monday and end the debate on Friday if that is agreeable to the government.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this suggestion would be very agreeable to the government. I would propose, in the light of what has been said, a meeting with the other house leaders immediately to see whether we can reach some arrangement to provide for the termination of the budget debate on Friday, consistent with protecting hon. members' opportunities to speak.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Norih):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the house leader. Could the house leader tell us when the government proposes to go ahead with the debate on the redistribution petitions?


George James McIlraith: I am glad to welcome back the house leader for the official opposition, and I hope he had a very good Easter. Our plans, which have not been confirmed, were to begin that debate on Wednesday of next week but, as I say, that is not a firm decision.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the redistribution debate?


George James McIlraith: Yes.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Cenlre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's statement the day before the Easter recess that he hoped medicare would be on the order paper when we got back, and in view of the fact that it is not on the order paper, can he now say when we may expect this legislation?
[Mr. Marchand.l


Lester Bowles Pearson: I still hope to have it on the order paper before long, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But hope springs eternal.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton Norih and Vicloria):: My question is for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the right hon. gentleman what other steps are being taken by the government to assist the 850 workers who will lose their employment at Bell Island, apart from providing them with one way tickets out of their native province?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Every possible step is being taken that can be taken.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the very serious trucking strike that is causing so much difficulty and trouble in our country. Is a settlement imminent? Also, will the Prime Minister say whether representations have been made to the government that if the 40 hour work week provision in the federal labour code were carried into effect the strike could be settled at once?
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can only say, in addition to what has been said by the minister, that the chief conciliation officer of the government is meeting with the representatives of the parties at this moment. I hope there will be a good result from that meeting.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister say whether representations were made to the government of Canada that if it would insist on the carrying out of the legislation passed by parliament for a 40 hour week, rather than achieving the 40 hour week over a period of three years, the strike could be settled at once?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, representations have been received on both sides of that particular issue.
April 21, 1966



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Does the minister expect shortly to make a report on the general problems of pollution other than the joint report he is expecting from the Ontario government?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, a lot of work is being done in this field at this moment in view of the very important international conference on pollution which is to be held in Montreal in October and November next. Most departments of the federal government, the Departments of Agriculture and of National Health and Welfare for example, at this moment are preparing for this event.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the order of business of the house and I therefore direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the serious situation developing between the Postal Employees' Union, the Civil Service Association and the Civil Service Federation, is the government planning to give top priority to legislation that would provide for collective bargaining in the civil service?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That legislation is being given top priority and I hope it will be before the house shortly.



EXPO '67 USE BY EDMONTON OF &quot;KLONDIKE&quot; THEME

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has he received any communication from the government of the Yukon asking for his intervention with the government of the province of Alberta respecting the use of the Klondike theme?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have.
The Budget-Mr. F. E. Leblanc


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the house what action he or his government intends to take in this regard?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I listened to the hon. member deal with this matter. I think that the somewhat tropical language he used might be as effective as anything I can do in drawing it to public attention. I do not know whether it would be proper for me to remonstrate with the city of Edmonton or with the Edmonton exhibition board. However, we shall be having some discussions on this subject.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, April 20, consideration of the motion of Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Monteith.
Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday at five o'clock you called me to order because the house had to interrupt the budget debate to proceed with consideration of private members' business.
However, I saw this morning a newspaper comment on the second part of my speech, dealing with the Belanger Commission, which I was to deliver this afternoon. Obviously, there is a misunderstanding which I hasten to correct immediately.
Before getting on with the second half of my speech, I must finish expounding my philosophy concerning private enterprise in its relations with the state.
As I was saying, when I was interrupted, you will admit that the intervention of the state is unavoidable at the present time, but that it must necessarily be restricted to areas and methods of operation where private enterprise is less efficient and weaker, or uneconomical.
Not so long ago government controls applied mainly to a particular class of undertakings. After two wars and the recession of the thirties, the difference between public and private enterprise has lost its meaning on several scores. Joint enterprises where businessmen and governments are partners have come about and I think that is a gratifying development.
April 21. 1966

The Budget-Mr. F. E. Leblanc
The government's intervention remains at a high level to the extent that some measures which were to be temporary have assumed a permament nature. On the other hand, and that is to the credit of our governments, the most recent interventions are part of a general plan.
Besides, private enterprise must be dynamic and give leadership, as it has always done since the beginning of our young country. Every businessman should not only take an interest in politics but also try to ascertain the needs, the objectives and the problems of his fellow citizens. Businessmen should not be reluctant to express their views about politics, and they should do it through the numerous bodies which serve them. Harsh or bitter criticism or words of praise should be expressed for the welfare of the whole population, particularly if the state or groups suggest measures detrimental to the competitive system.
Businessmen should keep on increasing productivity, and they must in return get a fair yield on their investments. I feel that the profit motive is of vital importance: it is precisely that motive which leads private individuals to produce in spite of the risks involved in the undertakings. Profit is the yardstick which determines the value and usefulness of our efforts. The word profit is not to be banished from our vocabulary. Did not Winston Churchill himself say that we should never complain about people who make profits but rather about people who suffer losses? The more industry will affirm its strength and its interest in the welfare of the people, the less need there will be for the government to restrict and control industry. Businessmen should realize that the more they insist on piling up new responsibilities on the state, the more the latter will be obliged to increase its authority. Private enterprise should have the foresight and the initiative to seize new opportunities as well as the vision to scrap obsolete methods which are no longer competitive. Free enterprise should wish to participate in the economic development of the country and, in return, profit by it-which, to my mind, is perfectly legitimate.
Now that I have tried to establish my own position on the relationship between the state and industry, I should like to deal with the recommendation of the Belanger commission concerning the taxation system in Quebec to the effect that the government should tax capital gains. The Belanger commission
[Mr. Leblanc (Laurier) .1
points out, and with good reason, that this tax should be applied in Canada as a whole, that is in all the provinces.
At the present time, in Canada and in Quebec, a citizen who has invested his savings in movables or immovables, the value of which goes up during a certain period, pays no tax on this increased value when he winds up his assests. The tax would bear on this capital increase.
It strikes me as illogical to propose such a tax, because Canada is not ready to accept that type of measure. It would be nonsensical to tax directly those who wish to invest in Canadian enterprise when our country is still in the first stages of its economic development. I fail to see how capital could be attracted if a tax were levied on capital gain.
A country cannot develop its natural resources without considerable outlays which, of necessity, entail great risks. As a consequence, the government must not tax the successful outcome of those risks; on the contrary, it should encourage investment of risk capital and broaden the Income Tax Act in this regard.
It must be remembered that Canada, especially at the present time, is short of investment capital and that such a measure could drive away the capital required to develop our resources. It is difficult to understand how levying a tax on capital gain could be accepted in a country in such great and pressing need of capital. If capital, Canadian or foreign, is to be restricted, if the amazing development of our economy is to be stopped or brought to a standstill, then let us tax capital gain. In other countries, that tax exists and can exist where the economy is sufficiently mature and productive to bear the burden of such a tax. But Canada is not ready to bear that burden so long as it cannot do without the massive importation of the foreign capital it needs to finance its expansion and to create new jobs.
On the contrary, capital gain should be encouraged and not penalized. In any event, that measure is absolutely inconsistent with the exemptions of 20 per cent and 9 per cent on dividends granted by Canada and Quebec respectively. If we seek to increase Canadian capital, it should not be taxed, because it will then become necessary to appeal further on to United States capital which would thus gain further control of our economy. Obviously, this country needs income to pursue its aims, but I feel this income should be sought in an area less damaging to industrial development.
April 21. 1966	COMMONS
In the present circumstances, it is impossible to anticipate all the consequences of this tax, immediate as well as long term. I dare hope the Carter commission whose report cannot be long delayed, will not present such a recommendation to the federal government. For the time being, the financial world is awaiting this report with some apprehension and fondly hopes that fiscal reforms will not be carried out in this direction. Furthermore, it must be kept in mind that if capital gains are taxed, capital losses will have to be eligible for deductions. What would be the final yield of this tax, and is it worth implementing?
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote a few lines from President Johnson's economic report for 1965. I believe they could also apply to this country.
We must strive to make our society not only prosperous but progressive; not only affluent, but humane; providing not only higher incomes but greater opportunities; with its members enjoying not only full employment but fuller lives.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) on his appointment to the important post he now holds, and to say how fortunate he was that the Conservatives had the red carpet rolled out for him before he took office.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
One of the most disturbing statements we hear today is with regard to our dangerously high mounting deficit, combined with high taxation and the high cost of living, all this occurring in a boom era of prosperity. For the record it is probably good to go back and examine the situation which existed in 1956 because it had certain characteristics akin to the present.
In 1956, the last year of the St. Laurent government, we had a trade deficit of $728 million. This meant that in the markets of the world we were buying $728 million more in goods than we were able to sell. We also owed just under $700 million in interest on our debt and in dividends, all of which we were paying out, which gave us a total deficit of $1,330 million.
In 1962, which was the first year in nine years that we were able to sell more in the markets of the world than we bought, we sold $127 million more in goods than we imported. This trend continued, and that is why I say
DEBATES	4111
The Budget-Mr. Rynard the government is very fortunate that the Conservatives rolled out the red carpet for it.
I see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is smiling and I know why he smiles. The following year we were able to sell $500 million more in goods than we brought into the country. Compare that with the present. It is a disturbing fact that in 1965 our surplus balance of trade had dwindled to just over $100 million. In spite of the fact that we sold $1 billion worth of wheat we were only able to sell a little over $100 million more in goods than we bought. It bothers me, not in a political sense but for the sake of the welfare of Canada, that despite all the boom selling of wheat we had a trade surplus of just a little over $100 million. I am sure this must be of concern to all parties in the house.
But what is more frightening still is that our over-all deficit, including interest, dividends, etc., climbed to $1,237,000,000. I say it is all the more frightening because the United States is putting a limit on American funds available for foreign investment and wants more of its subsidiary investments to return home.
It is also frightening to note that we increased our imports by 12 per cent but increased our exports by only 5 per cent. Where would we have been if it had not been for that $1 billion worth of wheat represented by the sales to Communist China and other Communist countries pioneered by the Conservative minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) in the midst of Liberal criticism?
Most of the goods we export today are raw materials or semi-processed goods which require just a small labour content. The raw product we export provides work for one man whereas the finished product would require the work of three skilled people. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, in many cases we export the raw product and import the finished product back to Canada. Most of our import bill is still made up of purchases in the United States of goods of a class or kind which we manufacture in Canada or could manufacture in Canada.
The point I want to make is that the flow of American capital is being cut down. What has the minister done about this? Does he think that increasing taxes will solve the problem? I do not think so. I think the minister will agree with me that taxes in Canada must be lower, both on productivity and on income, than they are in the United States in order for us to meet the competition
April 21, 1966

The Budget-Mr. Rynard of the United States. Let us be frank about it. We are competing with the United States, one of the most powerful nations of the world with vast reservoirs of brains, skill and capital. Our country borders it for 4,000 miles, and to compete with the United States greater incentives must be offered to industry in Canada. This is the opinion of many experts.


Mitchell William Sharp: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Is he advocating a larger budgetary deficit than we have this year? Is that the purport of his remarks?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Well, Mr. Speaker, I know the minister may need a little advice on this matter and I shall be very glad to give it to him. I can give it to him by telephone or I will even go to his office. I want to point out to him, and I think he will agree-if he does not let him stand up and say so-that we cannot compete with the United States and at the same time increase taxation on productivity and brains. If he believes that is possible, I want him to stand up and say so right now. I am sure Mr. Firestone and many other economists would like to know.


Mr. Ricard:: The minister declines.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I do not for a minute suggest that the road is easy. It is not. We cannot increase income tax and taxation on productivity if we are to compete. Either we are going to be hewers of wood and drawers of water or we are going to be drawn into the network and become part and parcel of the United States.
This present year will be known as the year when the taxpayer was squeezed harder than ever before in the history of our country. Federal taxes are up; provincial taxes are up; municipal taxes are up; the cost of living is up. Where does it all end? Today we have a 10 per cent increase in the amount of credit outstanding for consumer goods. Small loans show an increase of 13 per cent, and instalment credit is up 24 per cent. The consumer is paying almost 10 per cent more for his food than he did last year. The increase has been 40 per cent over the last 10 years, but the farmer today gets very little more than he got in 1956.1 ask, what has the government done about this?
Why was there no relief for the municipal taxpayer in the Budget? Municipal taxation is levied on property assessment. It is not related to income. Increased municipal taxation can be devastating when combined with the increased cost of food and services. It is 
cruel to the old age pensioner, to those on fixed incomes and to those with low incomes.
I suggest that since the government is going to introduce medicare in 1967 it should take over health and welfare services in all of the municipalities across Canada and in conjunction with the provinces also take over education, leaving the municipalities with their police, fire protection, water, hydro and other services. The lower income group, old age pensioners and people on fixed incomes just cannot carry the burden of municipal taxation together with all other forms of taxation.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I also wish to bring to the attention of the minister the matter of research. This is not easy because we are embarking on new fields. I should like to say to him that the United States spends 3 per cent of its gross national product on research and Canada spends 1 per cent. I should also like to remind him of the fact that in the period from 1956 to 1961 when we were in power 12.5 per cent of Canadian science graduates went south of the border and 48 per cent of engineering graduates. That is bad enough, but let us look at recent figures. In the year ending June, 1963 over 4,000 professional and technically trained people crossed the border into the United States. I wish to remind the minister, Mr. Speaker, that these are Canadian born people. It cost us an average of $25,000 a year each to educate them. I am sure the minister is listening and I can tell him where this money goes.
We spent $25,000 a year on each of 4,000 people who went south of the border in 1963;
4,000	times $25,000 is $100 million. This is the gift that we gave away in this country in that year. I should like to go further and say to the minister that those 4,000 trained people have a working potential of a quarter of a million dollars. The minister is good with figures; I know he is. That figure increases to $1 billion over their lifetime and that is repeated year after year. I have the figures since his government came into power; here they are. We had something like 100,000 professional people who crossed over to the United States in the period 1963-65. The Blue Book or the Canada Year Book will give you these figures. They are greater than they were in any two year period of the previous Tory government.
I should like to say to the minister that we had unemployment, and the government has done a lot of talking about it, but in the
April 21, 1966	COMMONS
period 1963-65 over 100,000 people crossed the border. Among them were 850 physicians and surgeons. The minister can check these figures. We will be building new schools this fall and enlarging our present medical schools to take in 400 to 500 new medical students who are needed because of the new plans the government has in respect of medicare and so on. Yet we exported 850 physicians and surgeons in that period.
I am not blaming the minister but I would say to him, for goodness sake close this loophole, because we cannot go on giving to the most powerful nation in the world this amount of wealth and brains every year. He knows how it can be done. This can be done in the field of research so that the people who are trained and who wish to go into research will have an opportunity to do this work. It is not good enough to contribute to only 50 per cent of research projects which have been tried and passed by the board as research projects and leave out the other 50 per cent. The people who otherwise would be carrying on those projects go south of the border and find projects there.
If our young men and women who are coming out of our universities do not find the incentive in this country, they are going to go south of the border. They can simply walk across and pick up a salary one-third higher. I am sure the minister knows this just as well as I do. Therefore I am disappointed that something has not been done about it. Yes, the brain drain has been worse under this government than at any other time in history. From June, 1963 to June, 1965, as I said before, 100,000 Canadians crossed the border into the United States. Included among them were 1,765 engineers. I am sure the minister feels just as badly about this as I do. There were 1,187 technicians, 163 industrial designers, 258 university professors, 850 physicians and surgeons, 725 accountants and auditors, 2,040 trained nurses-and we are building schools to train them-and 2,610 managerial officials and proprietors. This is fatal in an underpopulated country such as Canada and we simply cannot afford it. We cannot prevent these young people going south of the border, but we certainly can do something to provide them with more incentive to remain here. We can improve their situation by making appropriate changes in the personal income tax.
What have you done, Mr. Minister, to see that more of these young people remain in Canada? I am worried about this exportation
DEBATES	4113
The Budget-Mr. Rynard of brains and people. We are short of capital and, Mr. Speaker, I only have to remind the minister of the words of Mr. Rasminsky, governor of the Bank of Canada, when he said:
Any situation in which Canada needs to import a great deal of capital from a country which is trying to restrict the export of capital is inherently unsatisfactory.
Those are the words of the head of the Bank of Canada. This, Mr. Minister, is the position in which the government finds itself-short of money and exporting brains and people to a country where already 45 per cent of the labour force has four years of high school compared with 24 per cent in this country, where 11 per cent of their labour force has completed university compared with 5 per cent in our case. We become poorer by the minute because of the way we are handling our affairs.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish for a moment to deal with the matter of medical research. I am disappointed that nothing has been said or done about this. More medical research would improve medical care and in turn improve national productivity. Related fields -biochemistry, genetics, chemical control of viruses-all would have a tremendous impact on the veterinary field and on agriculture in general.
I should like to turn for a moment to the 11 per cent sales tax on drugs. It has been said over and over again that this is going to be looked into. Surely to goodness it does not need any looking into to remove the sales tax on drugs which are used by sick people. It is a great disappointment to me that the government has not seen fit to remove the 11 per cent sales tax on drugs and therapeutic items. Over the years in this house I have urged the repeal of this iniquitous tax, a tax on sickness, and a tax on people at a time when they are least able to carry it. I wonder whether the minister knows just how much is involved in this tax on drugs. I am going to tell him. He taxes the sick people in this country almost $12 million on drugs.
The minister knows that a great deal of the sickness is suffered by the people in the older age group, many of whom are on the old age pension. I know the minister knows as well as I do that 70 per cent of all the women in Canada over age 70 have nothing but the old age pension to live on. This is iniquitous and is not good enough. I cannot understand it. I know the Minister of Finance is a very nice person, but I cannot understand why in the
April 21, 1966

The Budget-Mr. Rynard world he does not repeal this tax. Why in the world did he say that we have to wait until the Food and Drug committee brings in this recommendation? Why this shilly-shallying on a thing like this?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
If the minister wants a precedent he has one in what the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) did. The Prime Minister did not wait for the report of the B and B commission on the French-English situation. He announced in the house that the fellow who knows French and English is 10 per cent better, or some Such figure, than the Frenchman who does not know English or the Englishman who does not know French, no matter how well educated they are. He did not wait for the report of that commission which has cost us over $4 million to date, one of the most costly commissions in the history of this country. I ask the minister to take another look at this matter. As I say, the Prime Minister did not wait for the B. and B. commission to bring in a report with which some French and some English will not agree or some other Canadians may not agree.
We are all in agreement that this is a tax on the people who are least able to pay. How in the world, in all conscience, can this government bring in medicare in 1967 when they are going to tax the very people they are trying to help? If this is not hypocrisy at its worst, I have never seen it.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? I find myself in sympathy with a good deal of what he is saying on this occasion. I ask why these considerations did not weigh more heavily on the Conservative administration when it was in office? My main purpose in making the statement which I made was to be sure that the maximum benefit would be available to the people when this tax is removed.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The only thing I can say is that the Conservatives had the red carpet rolled out for the present government. Things were on the move but it is natural that there may have been flaws in that red carpet. After all is said and done, the taxes were not as high then. You have increased them. I am not saying that the Conservatives should not have repealed it. If the minister will read my speeches, he will find that I advocated this procedure when the Conservatives were in power. The Liberals have been in power for over three years. What have you done?

We have been through two elections in which you said you were going to help these people. You are introducing medicare. We were not introducing medicare at that time, but the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) says you are introducing it. However, you are keeping the 11 per cent sales tax on drugs and you are taxing the very people you are trying to help. I do ask the minister to introduce an amendment to change this. I know that at heart he is a sympathetic fellow. It would be one of the most pleasing things we could do in this house so far as both sides are concerned, Liberals and Conservatives. I have many friends on the other side of the house. I see one smiling now, and he is in perfect agreement. The minister would make friends with all of us if he did this. Why does the cabinet shuffle around, as it does, on a point like this instead of removing the tax forthwith?
I cannot see for the life of me, Mr. Speaker, why a smart man like the Minister of Finance would impose a 5 per cent tax on industry and at the same time give incentives to industries in depressed areas of the country. He imposes a 5 per cent tax, the proceeds of which he is going to withhold for 18 or 24 months. The only reason I can see for this procedure is that the minister is really a fairly sharp businessman. He knows he is going to get this money from industry for nothing. He knows that with the present rate of erosion the money he pays back will be worth only 92 cents on the dollar. I am wondering whether this procedure is going to hold back industry. How can they change plans which are made for years ahead? It does not make any sense to me.
I should like to see more done in Canada to attract research scientists. Above all, this would keep our young Canadians whom we have educated in our universities in research jobs in Canada. It would give them an income and give them an incentive to work. They will be driving continually to put Canada in the front line. People will be coming here for post-graduate work, and we will be attracting scientists from other places. The skills of these young people will bring about new products, new drugs, to make this country wealthy. Let us not keep sliding into the arms of the United States, good neighbours as they are. Let us quit drifting. We cannot afford it any longer.
I ask the minister to take a look at these things. I hope I have not made it too difficult for him, but I do feel very keenly about these
April 21, 1S66

things. I know how difficult it is to do some of these things but for goodness sake, let us stop the drift. As I said before, when the Liberals took over we were selling $123 million more in goods than we were buying. Last year, Mr. Minister, this figure went down to just over $100 million in spite of over $1 billion in wheat sales pioneered by the previous Tory government. I am telling you, I want to see Canada prosper just as you do but you are not going to let it grow and prosper unless you make these changes to keep our young people here, to make industry competitive and make this country great. You had better start right now. It is a lot later than you think.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who just resumed his seat said he hoped he was not too difficult with the minister. I may appear to be critical of the minister and his department, but I want to tell him I am not. After all, if this is a debate I should like to put forward some ideas that I know he will want to consider. Believe me, he does not need me to tell him that the Budget was good or bad. The Budget was well received by the public and by the business sector and he can be satisfied that it is a good Budget.
In every established nation, especially an agrarian one, a Budget is primarily a remedial measure, that is, it is meant to remedy certain inequities and certain things that happened the year before. Only a small portion of the Budget initiates new ideas. I am sure the minister will agree that this has been the history of Budgets up to now. By and large, I have no complaint with the measure the minister introduced to rectify the abuses in corporate pension plans. As all hon. gentlemen realize, these plans were a way of taking profits out of the company by purporting to endow employees with pensions in which they never got a vested interest. It is an important remedial measure.
I was pleased to see the other measures relating to personal income taxes, the renewal of the sales tax on production machinery and so on. These things are good. The minister will agree that by and large they are remedial and necessary. However, I put it to the minister that within a short period of time he will have to discuss with his departmental officials whether or not a Budget shall be remedial only or should introduce new ideas, new measures to set a completely new climate for finance and for business.
The Budget-Mr. Otto [DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Let us consider for a moment, Mr. Speaker, the 5 per cent withholding tax, which is something along the lines of the wartime compulsory savings plan. It could be a new idea but it depends on the emphasis the minister puts upon it. For instance, if the minister says that in the future the government will have a strong voice in either a short-term or a long-term disposition of profits or a portion of profits, then this is a new idea which will have a serious and strong effect on business. But if as far as the minister is concerned he only means to allay inflation, then I put it to the minister that this a remedial measure and probably may not have-I do not say will not have but may not have-much effect on inflation.
I also put it to the minister that today inflation or recession does not depend heavily upon the supply or scarcity of money. I put it to the minister that business today is influenced by other factors which are psychological. For example, if business thinks it can make and sell a product then it will do so; and if it has not sufficient money to finance it, it will borrow it at any cost and add the cost to the price of the goods.
I also put it to the minister that he should examine whether or not supply and demand today are really controlled by the same forces in that supply is controlled by the producer who in turn, by promotion, advertising and consumer credit, has a very heavy hand on the control of demand for goods. Consequently these two are lumped together.
I also put it to the minister that I think the expression he used in his speech about too much money chasing too few goods resulting in inflation is partly true but not always true. I would ask the minister to consider whether, if you have inflation, it necessarily means that there is too much money chasing too few goods. I seem to recall that for the past five years there has been a scarcity of money and a surplus of goods. Money has been scarce. It is never plentiful enough to fulfil the ambitions and plans which companies have instituted for themselves. At the same time we have an inflationary pressure which will reach 5.6 per cent from January to December in 1966 and which will effectively remove any interest earned on the money of people with fixed incomes.
Therefore I put it to the minister that the principle which he and everyone follows, that too much money chasing too few goods equals inflation, may not necessarily be the case, and

April 21, 1966
The Budget-Mr. Otto I suggest that it is up to the minister and his department to look very carefully into this precept.
While I am on this idea of pricking sacred cows, or sacred principles, one matter which comes to mind is the second report of the Economic Council. You will agree with me, sir, that the second report seemed to indicate that Canada and Canadians are greatly concerned about our efficiency of production. By and large this concerns all of us and the report does outline some educational problems. But the emphasis is always on production.
I have my doubts that this is the most important consideration. In fact, I think that the most important problem in Canada today is distribution rather than production. In other words, I am not worried about being as efficient as we can be, but I am worried that somehow the people who produce the goods do not earn enough money to buy them unless they use consumer credit.
According to the statistics which were given the committee on consumer credit, it seems that by the end of this year each family using consumer credit will be in hock to the tune of about $3,200. According to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures the disposable income of the average family in Canada is around $500, and I calculate that interest alone on the consumer debt comes to about $600. In other words, 75 per cent of families in Canada using consumer credit have a disposable income which is insufficient to cover the interest on the principal borrowed and have absolutely no purchasing power at all unless they borrow further money. The minister will agree that in that case inflation is a welcome thing for them. This question of mortgaging one's income disturbs me much more than efficiency of production, though this is of some concern.
Let me explain to you, Mr. Speaker, why it is urgent for the minister to start his department thinking along brand new lines. The Department of Finance will have to lead the nation and set the standards and rules under which the nation can blossom. Since the war and with the advent of television and the promotion of travel Canadians have become very aware of things which have always existed but of which they were unaware before. Canadians have seen with their own eyes mountains of raw material. They have seen electric power unused when other nations have remained short of power. We have a seaway reaching to mid-continent which

people in other nations would give their eye teeth for. We have fresh water in lakes uncounted and unseen for which other nations are thirsty. We have atomic energy and uranium. Possibly we have a world monopoly on energy. We have manpower and food enough to feed the world. These are now acknowledged facts of which everyone in Canada is aware.
Having seen all these resources and having seen what other nations have done with one-tenth of the resources and manpower in Canada, Canadians want and will be satisfied with nothing less than greatness, not greatness in the old sense but greatness in the sense of an entirely new society. Therefore the minister and his department must set the climate which will acknowledge the desires of Canadians. This will be no easy task because no matter what new ideas the minister puts forward he still has somehow to dovetail them with the economic theories expressed in other nations. As I say, it is not going to be easy; it will be difficult. But we must make a start on the matter.
I have spoken before about the problem of distribution. It is difficult enough to cope with the profit problem which results in wage earners making far less than what is demanded for the goods they produce and profits tending to congeal in one spot instead of being widely distributed. The problem is more difficult when these profits leave the country. In order to stop profits being passed out of the country by subsidiary companies it becomes essential for Canadians to buy the shares of these subsidiaries.
I suggest that there are three approaches which bear consideration. First of all, I do not think there is any argument that we must centralize and clean up the stock markets. In other words, we can no longer afford to have 60 per cent of the invested money go for promotion and for speculation. Second, we shall have to simplify corporate procedures so that it is not as costly to get a broad basis of investment or participation as it is now. It now is a costly matter. That will have to be done. And most important in that regard is the Canada Development Corporation.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In 13 years in business and law I have come to the conclusion that Canadians are very hesitant investors. Nothing short of a government guarantee will make them gamble or part with their very hard earned money. What is so wrong with the Canada Development Corporation following the same
April 21, 1966

lines as C.M.H.C. where you have guaranteed mortgages? In other words, with C.M.H.C. we try to entice people to put money in bricks and mortar. Why could the Canada Development Corporation not be introduced along the same lines? Why could there not be provided a comprehensive scheme whereby the purchase price of the shares-approved shares and not just any shares-would be insured?
Nothing short of a guarantee will satisfy Canadians. If a guarantee is provided I can assure the minister that money will come out of the woodwork. In fact, it will come out of almost anywhere because there is money here. In that way we shall be able to buy back the shares presently owned by people in the United States. I want to make clear that I am not concerned with control. Control is not the real concern. The real concern is the ownership of the shares or where the dividends go. Dividends are those moneys most easily invested again. It is easy-come, easy-go money. On the other hand, money that you have to work hard for, that you have to scrape together and save, is not easy money. If the money from dividends goes to the United States, then there is a vicious circle, the easy money being re-invested from the United States and the hard earned Canadian money not being invested. An insurance scheme by the government would make it feasible for many people to invest. That way we should be able to buy these shares back from the foreign people who now own them.
What do Canadians want? Here the minister is going to be involved in proposing a new sort of fiscal thinking. Canadians want and expect a guaranteed minimum income, not only for the aged but for everyone who cannot make a living in this very complex society. I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that the time has now come when Canadians are no longer under the impression that the social cripples should run the same race as the fleet and healthy. I think all Canadians will agree that in this complex society people who cannot make the grade really are social cripples and that we want to help them. We shall have to do it. We cannot tell people that we cannot afford it, because everyone knows that this country is fabulously rich. Therefore a system will have to be devised by the minister and his department that will make it possible for this country to follow along these lines.
We shall have to deal with automation. The minister will have to ensure by his tax and
The Budget-Mr. Otto fiscal measures that the people who are disrupted by automation will be the ones to have a temporary and possibly a permanent benefit from automation.
With regard to unemployment insurance, I think we must revise the whole scheme to make it realistic. At present our thinking on this matter is scattered. We shall have to have a comprehensive scheme by which a person who becomes unemployed or unemployable for any reason may go to one central agency where, under a realistic insurance plan, he would receive somewhere in the neighbourhood of 75 per cent of his previous earnings. Thirty dollars is of no value to an unemployed man. This whole concept of unemployment insurance must be taken out of the political plane. There is no use in our saying we cannot afford it. We know we can afford it.
Housing is another problem that will have to be faced. I think the minister will acknowledge before very few years have passed that housing will have to become a public utility because it is out of reach now for even the middle income group. It is even more out of reach for the low income group. When I suggest new ideas I mean this, that we have on the one hand an inventory of building materials, labour and electrical equipment in one place and, on the other hand, land in another place. Surely under a completely new scheme we ought to be able to bring these together to create usable inventory instead of, as we now do, putting great pressure on money and even greater pressure on land.
In urban centres land has become fantastically high in price not because there is a useable demand for it but because people are beginning to hedge against inflation with it. That is why the price has gone up. People do not want gold; they do not want insurance premiums; they do not want pensions. They want something real that will appreciate, and land is the only thing that they think will meet that requirement. Therefore there is not that useable demand for land but an inflationary or speculative demand which is pushing land prices to fantastically high figures. When there is a useable demand for land that is when people want to build houses, but they are having a very hard time acquiring it. I do not think this trend will be reversed. It has gone too far. But I suggest that we shall have to put a stop to it somehow and I suggest that the minister might give consideration to escalating the value of government bonds or securities with this in mind, somewhat in the

April 21, 1966
The Budget-Mr. Otto same manner as is done with our pension plan, because people are worried about inflation. So long as people are worried, they will continue to buy land they do not want because to them it is better security than gold.
May I say to the minister that in order to obtain what is requisite for the new society, while still maintaining freedom and free enterprise, between now and the time of his next budget he might look at the problems I have raised. He might look at the question of corporate taxation and, in fact, all taxation in fields where we want people to invest money. In other words, can we not provide some exemption where profits are invested to buy back United States shares or shares in new industries? It seems to me, sir, that what is being done is that we are taking the cash value in taxes and leaving the taxpayer without the money to invest. If we want the Canadian taxpayer to invest in industry or in shares issued in Canada, surely an incentive ought to be provided for him to do so.
I also wish to mention the question of capital gains. In this country we have capital gains and we have taxable profits. I have my doubts that there is really much distinction between them or that capital gains induce speculative investment. I think that the minister could well look into this whole question to decide whether all profits should be taxable or whether consumed profits should be taxable regardless of whether those profits were made with the intention to profit. There are many arguments in law respecting this that now might no longer be applicable.
May I also say that it is time to look into the question of expense account living.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Steven Otto: I cannot really say, sir, from my experience that expense account living has added to efficiency. Surely when you come right down to it there is no substitute for hard work in producing a good product. There is turmoil and confusion as to what is and what is not deductible and what is and what is not spent for business. I think that we should have a clean sweep across the board in this respect.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I do not think we can give Canadians everything they want and everything they should have under the old fiscal arrangements or under the ideas now held by those agreeing with John Maynard Keynes or economists who think as he does. I think something new will have to be worked out. I

think the department will have to seek out new avenues. In fact, the minister will have to take the lead in setting the course toward what all Canadians want-greatness in a new society.


Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal in recent days about Canada's problems in respect of productivity. We have been told that our productivity has nearly reached its upper limit and that because of this we must expect a continued swift increase in the cost of living. Some aspects of our productivity problems have been covered by the second annual review of the Economic Council of Canada, but one quite interesting factor has been generally ignored.
It is customary to deplore the loss to our economy through strike action, and we find that in 1963, 917,140 man-days were lost to our economy. In the same year, 100 million man-days of labour were lost because of illness, over 100 times as great a a loss. This loss represented 3.8 per cent of the gross national product of that year or over one and a half billion dollars. If we assume a continued 3.8 per cent loss, the figure for 1965 comes to at least $2 billion. We must also consider the loss through those who continue to work while their productivity is lowered because of illness.
It is obvious that not all of this illness is preventable but I think it is safe to say that at least 10 per cent of it could be avoided with increased availability of medical care. Such a reduction would represent a gain to the economy of at least $200 million. It is also obvious that the institution of government-sponsored health care would have a very salutary effect upon our productivity. It is also the necessary first step in our war on poverty, sadly neglected in this budget.
It is frequently and vociferously stated that adequate medical care is available to every Canadian, and while this may possibly be true in theory it is simply not so in practice. It can readily be shown that the poor are also the sick and that they do not get the same medical care as our more prosperous citizens. To quote Dr. George James of the New York City Department of Health:
The poor cannot pay for adequate medical care; consequently, they are more likely to be 111, and unable to work, at least at top efficiency; consequently, they make less money and become less able to pay for medical care. As a result, they are more likely to be sick and therefore they get poorer.
April 21, 1966

This vicious circle can carry on for generations, and the link of illness must be broken before financial status can improve. These people not only fail to contribute to productivity but in many cases must be supported by welfare arrangements.
A study prepared by the Department of National Health and Welfare in 1950 and 1951 showed that families with annual incomes under $1,500 spent $47 per family per year on medical care, while families with incomes over $5,000 spent $158 per family, over three times as much. It is ludicrous to suppose that poor families are three times as healthy as richer families, so we are left with the conclusion that poor families get only one-third of the care they need. Needless to say, these 1951 dollar figures are no longer valid, but 1959 studies indicate that the medical spending gap is growing. I regret that the government has not kept such studies up to date.
We should perhaps examine why low income Canadians do not get adequate medical care. First, quite obviously, is the financial barrier. The poor are unwilling to incur medical expenses and simply fail to seek medical attention. Even if a low income patient wants to seek free help, it means losing valuable wages waiting interminable hours in hospital outpatient departments or special clinics.
If an illness is severe, he may seek attention at a time when the disease is much harder to control or cure. The 1951 study cited earlier shows that the poor spent much more time in hospital than the better-off. If they are not hospitalized, prescription drug treatment is often ignored because of the cost. Alternatively, the doctor must prescribe a second-best treatment that his patient can afford.
Several recent studies indicate the extent of this failure to obtain health services. A 1965 study prepared by the social planning council of Hamilton and district showed that 37 per cent of Hamilton's senior citizens found their incomes inadequate for necessary medical expenses. If this is extrapolated to the rest of Canada, we find some 352,000 senior citizens without adequate medical resources.
The recently published Report of the Senate Committee on Aging includes the following statement:
We heard a great deal also in the course of our inquiry about the concern of old people out in the community regarding doctor and drug bills, which they can ill afford to meet on their meagre incomes. Indeed, we were told that many of them

The Budget-Mr. W. D. Howe
out of pride and feelings of independence neglect their health rather than seek help on the basis of "charity" or "welfare".
We in this party regret particularly the failure of the government to remove the 11 per cent sales tax on drugs, and although I shall in part be repeating the statement made by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) I should like to say that when considering the cost of prescriptions we must bear in mind that more than 20 per cent is represented by taxes. The reason is that the 11 per cent is added to the cost at the wholesale or manufacturing level. The various profits are added subsequently, so the gross amount of taxation actually represents more than 20 per cent of the price. The result is that more than a dollar out of every five dollars paid for a prescription goes in tax or double the 11 per cent which shows up in our present system. Bearing in mind the fact that many people cannot afford to buy necessary medications, it seems ludicrous that this area should have been chosen by the government as one from which to raise taxes, particularly since the Hall Commission recommended that it should be a part of the medicare program.
Again I may seem to be repeating a point which the hon. member for Simcoe East has made, but I should like to remind hon. members that earlier this month I asked whether the government had received representations from the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association and, if so, what had been the reply. The answer I received quoted a section of the Budget speech which I had already heard, saying that if the considerations of the special committee of the house on food and drugs led it to recommend that drugs should be exempt from sales tax as part of a comprehensive and effective program to reduce the prices of drugs, then the government would be prepared to recommend such action by means of a special stature covering all the measures required to give effect to such a program.
There is supposed to have been a special committee on food and drugs. This parliament has been in session for over three months, since January 18. By virtue of a question I asked in the house on February a meeting of this special committee was called. However, approximately half an hour before the organization meeting was due to begin it was cancelled. That is more than a month ago and nothing has been said about the matter since. So it looks as though we are not even to have a meeting of the Committee on Food
April 21, 1966

The Budget-Mr. W. D. Howe and Drugs, let alone get the 11 per cent tax removed.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It is to be hoped by mentioning this now that at some time in the fairly near future we can get down to a study of the cost of drugs because I know as a medical practitioner, that the cost of drugs is one of the most expensive, prohibitive costs patients have to put up with. In the over-all cost when a patient has an illness the primary cost is not the doctor but the drugs. Something not only has to be done about bringing in drugs as a program within a medicare scheme but for the present at least there should be some way we can get rid of the 20 per cent or more in taxation on drugs that the patient has to pay and possibly get the cost of drugs down to a more reasonable level, with a more normal and natural return for the drug companies rather than the very large profits they are now making.
It is interesting to note that in the United States the average annual expenditure of the elderly for drugs is more than double that of the average of the entire population. It is safe to assume that the same holds true in Canada. I regret the necessity of using U.S. figures but Canada is sadly retarded in the accumulation of such statistics, a fact noted also in the Senate committee report. I do not think any fault lies with the Dominion Bureau of Statistics but rather with the government in not directing the use of the facilities available, because it is well known that D.B.S. has some of the finest facilities in the world for the collection and projection of such statistics.
In the study on urban poverty prepared by the Canadian Welfare Council last November we read the following:
In general, it may be said that health problems constitute the immediate cause of inadequate income for a great many of these families. Health problems are present in over 50 per cent of the households, with 43 per cent having chronic physical problems in the family. Many of the families reported that they did not get dental or medical care they needed, because of the cost.
It was found that an average of 49 per cent of families in the four cities studied expressed "emotional barriers" to seeking medical help because of their financial status. The report went on to say that of those who sought medical treatment several expressed the feeling that they were given inferior


treatment, which is certainly so. It is therefore entirely a myth that all Canadians receive adequate medical care regardless of income.
Let us look at the results of this disparity in health care. Once again we must resort to United States figures but there is no reason to dou'ot that they represent the situation in Canada. A study was carried out by the New York city department of health on specific death rates in Flushing, a middle class section of New York, and Bedford, a poor section of Brooklyn. The causes of death chosen for the study are those where death rates tend to vary less between comfortable and poor areas than most other conditions.
It was found that the death rates for the five conditions chosen were significantly higher in the poor area. Deaths from diabetes and pneumonia-influenza were more than twice as high in the poor area. It was calculated that if the standard of care available in Flushing could be maintained across the city 13,000 lives could be saved each year. It should be remembered that Flushing is not the wealthiest area but a middle class one.
Dr. James of the health department summarized the study this way, referring to the
13,000	unnecessary deaths:
In the light of present medical knowledge, these are preventable deaths. If we measure them against the list of the most important conditions that kill our citizens each year, these 13,000 deaths rank third on the list. Consequently, in this great city, whose health record on the whole is very good, poverty is the third leading cause of death.
It is impossible to estimate the degree of disease and disability suffered by the poor compared with their wealthier neighbours but it must be staggering.
We have in Canada, therefore, a situation in which the poor are ill and the ill are poor in a self-perpetuating cycle. Their own productivity is low or non-existent and their cost to the country's economy, represented by $2 billion in lost production, must be added to the welfare costs from which they cannot escape. The poor, while contributing in part to our overstretched productivity, are also the ones who will suffer most acutely from our present economic situation.
Our low wage earners, those on pensions or welfare, and those living on savings are the forgotten ones in our great boom. Their resources were long ago stretched to the limit and they will be unable to bear any further increases in the cost of living. We grant that the Canada Assistance Plan may provide a
April 21, 1966	COMMONS
measure of relief but we doubt that it will be soon enough. It becomes obvious, therefore, that if we wish to conquer poverty and to increase productivity we must strike first at illness.
We in this group have listened to the government's promises of a comprehensive, universal health scheme by July, 1967, but we have grown rather anxious about the absence of any apparent action to this end. We heard about it right up to last November 8, which I believe was election day, and there has been a very deep silence since that time. However, we would like to urge the government to move as swiftly as possible in this field because we feel it is essential for the welfare both of our people and our economy.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with all those who have congratulated the Minister of Finance on his Budget speech. Before going any further, I just want to say two things on this subject.
I was particularly pleased to see that the small wage earners are to be exempt from the new tax which will be imposed shortly on the Canadian people as a whole. I was also happy to see that the concept of a compulsory reserve was introduced to exercise some control over investments. I think that formula deserves to be studied, amplified and developed.
But, most of all, this afternoon, I would like to talk about the financial aspect of a commission which has been very much discussed in Canada so far and about its immediate and future objectives. I am talking about the royal commission on bilingualism and bi-culturalism.
Many times in this house and in the newspapers there has been talk about the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, not so much to discuss the objectives it is seeking, but mostly to try to discredit it a little by pointing out how much it costs, the money it is spending and the time it is taking to do its work.
Following a question asked here, it was said that the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism had cost $4.5 million up to March 31, 1966. It was said that it was the most expensive commission in the history of confederation.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
If we add to the amounts already spent those which will eventually be spent, since
DEBATES	4121
The Budget-Mr. Marchand the commission has not finished its work, it is possible that this figure will reach between $4 and $7 million.
There is no need to be scandalized by such heavy expenditures. Figures are always relative. Compared with billions of dollars, $5 million is relative. That might not be enough if the work to do is more important than the money allocated for it. The contrary may also be true. It might be too much if the commission spends that money without any control or needlessly.
I think that it is from that standpoint that we must evaluate the commission's work and the huge amount of money which figures in the books of the Canadian government. Was that money spent usefully?
Is our purpose, the purpose of the government in instituting this commission, worthwhile and worth the amount of money we are investing in that great venture?
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, there is malice, if not meanness, in insinuating that this commission is costing more because the commissioners may be more greedy or unwise in the spending of public funds. I feel such a gratuitous statement is unfair to those who are struggling with a task of fundamental importance to the future of Canada.
It is a fact that the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism is costing more than the other commissions. It is the first commission to have ten commissioners; usually royal commissions have one, two or three commissioners. That is a first explanation.
The second reason is the way in which the commission decided to carry out its mandate; it leads to considerable expense. How does it lead to such expense? First, through the series of regional meetings held right across Canada and then, through its vast research program.
At the time when I was a member of that commission, most of the funds, that is almost three quarters and very often 90 per cent of the money allotted the commission went into research or the secretariat. Last year, according to our figures, the salaries paid the commissioners represented no more than 5 per cent of the funds allowed the commission to perform its work. All in all, when the work is done, I do not think the commissioners' salaries will exceed 10 per cent of the funds granted the commission.
Those facts have to be taken into account when considering the amounts paid to the commission. The real question is whether the commission was justified in calling regional
April 21. 1966

The Budget-Mr. Marchand meetings and in undertaking this research program which is very expensive. In order to get a satisfactory answer to this question, the intentions which lead to setting up the royal commission should be kept in mind.
I should now like to quote a few paragraphs from the statement made on December 17, 1962 by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) when he was leader of the opposition.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On
a point of order, I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but I wonder whether he intends to use the time at his disposal to deal with the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, since we are now dealing with measures designed to levy funds for the government. I wonder what connection there is between the two subjects.
Will the Laurendeau-Dunton commission find the means to levy the funds required to meet the expenses anticipated? Of course, a few references can be made to the commission, but not a whole speech.


Auguste Choquette: A general discussion is held during the Budget debate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am asking the question. The Speaker, on Tuesday afternoon, said that to discuss the C.B.C. was out of order because an amendment and a subamendment was before the house. We are now on the amendment and only the amendment can be discussed.


An hon. Member:: Who moved the amendment?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, obviously I mentioned the commission in relation to the expenses it has incurred.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: These are not expenses.


Jean Marchand: Yes, these are expenses. I thought that at this point on the Budget debate, I could discuss such a subject without being limited by the rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I thank the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for having reminded the Chair and the hon. members that the minister could have strayed from the question now before us.
I think the minister simply wished to emphasize that, in some quarters, it was being mentioned that the inquiry of the commission had been rather costly. This is a budget matter. I think the minister may pro-


ceed with his remarks, within the limits of the expenditures provided for in the budget.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, to make quite clear the extent to which these expenses were justified, I think I should indicate to the house what prompted the setting up of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, especially the idea that inspired its establishment.
To this end, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a few paragraphs from a speech delivered in this house on December 17, 1962 by the right hon. Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition. The text can be found on page 2725 of the official report. Here is what he said, and subsequently, as Prime Minister, he presided over the cabinet which established the royal commission. I quote:
This means, I believe, that we have now reached a stage when we should seriously and collectively in this country review the bicultural and bilingual situation in our country; our experiences in the teaching of English and French, and in the relations existing generally between our two founding racial groups. In this review there should also be in my view, every opportunity and every encouragement for Canadians, individually or in their associations, and organizations, to express their ideas on this situation. If they find it unsatisfactory they should suggest concrete measures to meet it and to reach a better, more balanced participation of our two founding groups in our national affairs.
Are we ready, for instance, to give to all young Canadians a real opportunity to become truly bilingual? If the answer is yes, as I am sure it would be, what concrete steps should be taken at the different levels of our educational system to bring about this opportunity, having regard to the fact that constitutional responsibility for education is, and must remain, exclusively provincial? What further contribution to this end have we the right to expect from radio, from television and from films in both languages? How can we encourage more frequent contacts between young Canadians?
Then, there is the question which has already been mentioned in this debate, one of specific and inescapable federal responsibility. What are the reasons why there are relatively so few Frenchspeaking Canadians in the professional and administrative jobs of the federal civil service, including crown corporations and federal agencies? How can that situation be improved as it must be improved? Would it be desirable, for instance, to have a bilingual school of public administration operated by the federal government in Ottawa?
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I think I have made it abundantly clear that those who, at that time, created the B and B Commission were not looking for transitory measures to solve an extremely difficult problem, but intended to
April 21, 1966

get at the root of the matter and offer solutions acceptable to Canada as a whole.
That was their aim and to prove it, let me say that the government did mention on many occasions it would not wait for the commission's report before passing badly needed legislation.
On June 25, 1963 the Secretary of State- at that time the hon. member for Outremont-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lamontagne)-said in the house, as reported on page 1548 of Hansard:
As far as the federal administration is concerned, as I said before, we do not want to wait for the commission's recommendations, before taking action. We want to achieve as soon as possible perfect equality for the two official languages, not only with regard to verbal or written communications with the public, but within every department.
He more or less repeated his statement in a speech delivered on June 12, 1963.
Therefore, the aim of the commission was 

and I think that is how the commissioners interpreted their terms of reference-to seek out the deep-rooted causes of uneasiness in Canada. That is why the commission embarked on a vast research program. That is why the work of the commission is taking such a long time and why its recommendations will probably not be forthcoming before some months yet.
As the commission travelled across Canada, it became quite clear, from public hearings, that, generally speaking, Canadians did not know their country; they know their own region, their own province, but not the country as a whole. Each part of Canada developed towards the other parts prejudices which are now deeply-rooted, because people do not know what is going on and ordinary media of information do not usually fill in this gap.
Public meetings have proved that in this vast country which extends over 3,000 miles, people need to know one another better, to know what is going on in the western provinces, in British Columbia, in the Prairies, in Ontario, in Quebec and in the Maritimes. Our country is not only vast but it is divided by all sorts of barriers: geographical barriers -those who have crossed the Rockies know how much they constitute a barrier; distance barriers-those who have crossed the Prairies know how much these vast stretches of land constitute a barrier. There are also linguistic, ethnic and religious barriers.
Here is a vast country which does not know itself in depth, which often knows itself only through prejudices. Hence, it is important that the commission be allowed to investigate all these aspects of Canadian life,
The Budget-Mr. Nasserden that it report on what it has heard and also on the results of its own reasearch, because to investigate on bilingualism and bicultural-ism, Mr. Speaker, is not easy. Some people may think-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: Order. I regret to interrupt the minister, but I think that his remarks do not exactly relate to the subject before the house. He referred to budgetary expenditures at the begining of his remarks, but I think he now deals with the principles which governed the initiatives of the royal commission on bilingualism and bi-culturalism.
I think the minister is departing from the subject under consideration, because tonight we have to vote on a very definite amendment. I think the minister should confine his remarks to the financial considerations concerning the Budget.


Jean Marchand: In all deference, Mr. Speaker, I know that the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism has been very costly. Members of the house and the general public have complained about that. I simply wanted to tell the house why this commission had been so costly, to give the reasons and to emphasize the importance of the work of this commission in terms of the money voted. I simply wanted to prove to the house and the public that if only a few millions are needed to settle this problem of relations between ethnic and linguistic groups, I would not consider it costly and that this should not have significant repercussions on the budget as a whole.
1English]


Edward Nasserden: In rising to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I should first of all like to make a comment or two with regard to the statement we have just had from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand). What he has said was that this has been one of the most costly commissions in the history of Canada. He has tried to justify the action of the government, action taken in the face of opposition put forward during the period when this matter was first under consideration. I say to you, sir, that this commission has ignored the hopes and aspirations of more than one-third of the population of Canada, those of ethnic origin other than French or English, the two founding races of our nation.
We on the opposition side of the House of Commons believe that rather than emphasize
4124	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Nasserden the differences that exist between Canadians in one part of this country and those in another part, the primary objective of a government that is striving for unity should be to bring Canadians together on those things that they have in common. We believe that the place to do that is at the conference table with positive suggestions rather than negative ones and a questioning of the differences that exist between one part of our nation and the other.
However, we are dealing with the Budget on this occasion and particularly with the amendment which reads as follows:
-the policies of this government have failed to deal constructively and effectively with major national problems facing Canada which require action now to provide policies for adequate incentives to increase productivity, stimulate export trade, to meet the serious and increasing imbalance of international payments, to maintain price stability, and to promote orderly and equitable development and expansion in all areas in the nation.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I can understand that the members on the treasury benches do not want to talk about these things. All they have to do is look at the record of the last three years. If one looks at the Budget presented this session, one will realize that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) has had to back-track on almost every action taken by the former minister of finance.
On this occasion, on the eve of our centennial year, the Budget debate is of more than passing significance. The Throne Speech outlines a government's good intentions; the Budget measures its sincerity and its purpose. The debate on the Budget is a crucial one under our system of government. Our predecessors in parliamentary practice attached votes of confidence so that the Budget debate would not be an idle exercise. These votes have never been looked upon as an obstruction to orderly government. Indeed, the allocation of time for this purpose enshrined within our rules has compelled a more than passing consideration of the Budget.
This debate should therefore be one of the decisive instruments of our democratic system of government. One need not examine the Budget presented by the Minister of Finance for very long to establish that it lacks any positive purpose. Therefore, sir, it lacks the greatest quality required to make it an instrument to build this nation.
There is another quality regarding Budgets and the debate associated with them and that is that parliament must be ready to stake its

DEBATES	April 21. 1966
life on the various votes which are taken in relation thereto. I can think back and remember the Budget which introduced the 11 per cent sales tax about three years ago. I need not remind this house or the country now the leader of the N.D.P. and the members of his group failed on that occasion to face that decision. Their failure to vote then allowed the 11 per cent sales tax to take effect and has resulted in the factors which have led to the inflation which exists today in our country.
Three years later I am wondering about that decision which has had the effect of providing anxiety and privation for those on fixed incomes and those on low incomes in this country. I thought then, sir, and I think today that that was an act of cowardice on the part of a political party in this parliament. I know that the leader of the N.D.P. and his followers say that they remained in their seats reluctantly. But they nevertheless allowed the 11 per cent sales tax to take effect and allowed this tax to become one of the factors which have destroyed the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar. We in the official opposition took a stand then which we still take today, namely, that a government so lacking in foresight and vision was unworthy of continuing in office.
We have since had further budget debates. We have had an election. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) so loved the prospect of a majority that he ignored the accumulated backlog of business before parliament and put the country to the expense of an election. It is interesting to realize that that was one of the times when the Liberals did not have the answers.
We in this parliament must now face the decision which should have been taken three years ago. The Minister of Finance and his colleagues, who have the answers, would not listen to reason during the last three years. The result has been the crises of 1966-tight money, inflation, the highest cost of living in the entire history of our nation-


Mitchell William Sharp: And the lowest unemployment.


Edward Nasserden: -the deterioration of our balance of payments position, the highest consumer debt in Canadian history, costs spiralling day after day, and the tacit confession from the Minister of Finance that things will continue to spiral. Parliament faces the decision already delayed three years but now compelling in light of the events and conditions within the country. This nation must be
April 21, 1966	COMMONS
restored as a bastion of freedom and the bulward of opportunity for the humblest and the poorest of our people. The arrogance which is embodied in the attitude "You never had it better" must be relegated from the administration of the affairs of this country. Prior to 1957 this country was subjected to that type of arrogance, an arrogance marked by conceit and by a cavalier attitude toward the problems which confronted our people in their daily lives.
The minister referred to unemployment. Canadians of that day did not enjoy the prospect of unemployment. Worse than that, they did not enjoy the prospect of facing the problems associated with unemployment and automation without the training which should have been given in the period when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power for 22 years. The government of that day failed, and failed dismally, to meet that problem, but when we came into office one of the actions taken under the direction of our minister of labour, the present hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), was to provide a program for building trade schools throughout the country. I believe over 287 trade schools were built in Canada.
That is the evidence, Mr. Speaker, of the neglect of the former administration, a legacy which was handed to us in 1957 and 1958 and which we met by doing something constructive in the years we were in office. I recall those days so well, particularly the response of the people in the great grain growing area from which I have been sent here. The people in my area did not like the prospect of the privation associated with empty pocketbooks and unpaid bills with at the same time overflowing grain bins. They did not like the attitude of the department of which the present Minister of Finance was then deputy minister. In short, they did not like the attitude "If you want our grain, then come and get it".
In the sessions which followed in 1957 and 1958 the foundations were laid for the expansion and development which began in 1961, and I am most happy, sir, to congratulate the Minister of Finance on his assertion that this expansion has continued and still persists despite the mistakes that have been perpetrated during the past three years.
The Minister of Finance is such a modest man. In 1962 his modesty was most remarkable. At that time he believed he had the answers. I have before me one of the answers he gave to the people of Canada. In fact, the
DEBATES	4125
The Budget-Mr. Nasserden Liberals inserted it in one of their pamphlets during the 1962 election campaign entitled "What Is Happening Now?" It reads as follows:
There has been some economic recovery since the spring of 1961. Liberal spokesmen predicted it early in 1961. We expect it to continue through most of 1962. It is a normal movement in the business cycle; and as such, it is a welcome change. With this government's policies, however, it has a predictable end in another slow-down.
We have had this sort of recovery before. In 1959 Canada made better progress than in other years of Tory government. Our production then increased by 3 per cent. That was better than the 1 per cent of 1958. Unemployment was less severe. But it was still serious. And in 1960 it became much worse again.
Then in red letters to emphasize the position of the minister, who was then one of the chief critics of the government of the day, the following statement was made:
This year is like 1959. It provides some improvement, but nowhere near enough. And there are many indications that the improvement will not continue long. It is only a small offset to the economic slow-down of the Tory years.


Mitchell William Sharp: Then there was a change of government.


Edward Nasserden: In the minister's Budget and in almost every publication from the Bank of Canada the confession has been made that this expansion which was begun in 1961 has increased and carried forward to an extent unknown in the history of our nation.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: As a result of government policies.


Edward Nasserden: As a result of the foundations that were laid in 1957 and 1958.


Mitchell William Sharp: Why not go back to 1914?


Edward Nasserden: It is very interesting, sir, to realize that the slow-down of those years was such that it has taken all these three years for a minister of the Crown in this the greatest land of opportunity, the land of raw materials and great resources, this land of limited population, to plead with business to slow down and to cut back on construction, all in the name of the inflation that was caused by the 11 per cent sales tax put into effect by this government. You know, sir, the minister was one of the architects of the fraud perpetrated in 1962 by the then opposition of that day. I need not remind anyone here nor in the country how well the hon.
4126	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Nasserden gentlemen opposite demonstrated their illegitimate claim to the responsibilities of government. They still retain the old arrogance. The Minister of Finance is a living embodiment of that arrogance. Instead of coming clean with the Canadian people and with parliament the minister hedges, hoping a fractured gesture will serve a wholesome purpose.
I would ask you, sir, if the situation is of the magnitude that the minister has outlined on more than one occasion, and as indicated by every factor in the field of business today, why does he not remove the sales tax entirely? I cannot help but feel that the budget, therefore, is another monument to carelessness. It is an arrogant denial of responsibility. This debate can serve some useful purpose if it puts an end to the careless, divided administration opposite. It would then give Canadians a purpose and restore a new respect for the institutions that we have here in Canada.
I remember vividly how the Minister of Finance was in the vanguard of those who bore the banners of shame and degradation during the devaluation crisis. Day after day he was one of those who brought into question the integrity of Canada. I remember those repeated false claims fraudulently, arrogantly, carelessly and deliberately uttered by the front bench opposite. They were not content to destroy-


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker-


Edward Nasserden: confidence in Canada, but they took their purpose to the other nations of the world as well, in the international field.


Mitchell William Sharp: Can I ask the hon. member a question? Since these are very serious charges that he is making, can I ask if he would document these charges against me in this respect?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please.


Edward Nasserden: I wonder whether the minister could wait until I have completed my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The hon. member wishes to ask that any questions be put when he has terminated his speech.


Edward Nasserden: I remember that period. I remember that election campaign. I remember how members opposite gave birth to that
fMr. Nasserden.]
DEBATES	April 21, 1966
illegitimate foundling, the truth squad. During the debate the minister has said that they never questioned the necessity for devaluation.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is right.


Edward Nasserden: Why did you use the term "Diefendollars"? The minister ought to know that history has a way of catching up. At this particular time it has certainly caught up with this government. The Minister of Finance, the Minister of Transport, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister all cast doubts on Canada's future. Every one of them said that with the devaluing of the dollar Canada did not have a future. Today, without generosity, without any apparent twinge of conscience, they would have us believe that they had something to do with the expansion and development that took place in this country from 1961 to 1965.


Mitchell William Sharp: Government policy since 1963.


Edward Nasserden: I say to you, sir, that that expansion was well on the way before this government ever took office. I need not call witnesses in this regard. Indeed, I say to you without fear of contradiction that the expansion has taken place despite the impediments that have been the issue of this unhappy government opposite.


Mitchell William Sharp: We have done very well.


Edward Nasserden: The minister has exhibited some pride in the health of our economy today. I say to him that it is a false pride without substantial foundation.


Mitchell William Sharp: Who is running down the country now?


Edward Nasserden: referred to by a member opposite, the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto), is at an all-time high in Canada. Municipal taxes have become an increasing burden in almost every part of Canada. This problem has become so acute that some provincial governments have put in motion legislation to refund a part of the municipal tax burden.
Interest rates have gone up. We have had a return of tight money such as this country has not seen since hon. gentlemen opposite were in office prior to 1957. Farm machinery and production machinery have reached alltime record prices. All of these things add to the responsibilities of those who carry a dinner pail and work for a living, not to mention those who have to rely on fixed incomes.
I submit, sir, that these things have not happened accidentally. The government opposite, having destroyed the confidence of Canadians in the former government, set out deliberately and systematically upon the course it has followed to bring about the high cost economy that we have in Canada today.
Hon. members opposite are the ones who have boosted interest rates of National Housing Act mortgages, adding to the cost of owning a home. I submit that this deliberate action results, even if payments are amortized over a longer period of time, even if down payments are lowered, in adding to the cost of living. That action takes away something from the man who carries a dinner pail. Hon. gentlemen opposite have also raised interest rates on some of the loans to farmers. That could not have been done other than deliberately and knowing that it would increase the cost of production. I believe that the record bears out the belief that higher interest rates have been part of the government's policy which it embarked on deliberately three years ago.
During the election campaign, sir, we heard about this man who cares. I ask you, sir, where is this man who cares? Where is this man who was talked about throughout the election campaign? The only time that we see him in the house is during the question period or when he comes in to applaud some particular piece of business in which he outlines-
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: To whom is the hon. member referring?


Edward Nasserden: I am referring to the Prime Minister of this country.
23033-26U
The Budget-Mr. Nasserden


Mitchell William Sharp: Then those are scandalous remarks and you should be ashamed of yourself.


Edward Nasserden: I say to the Minister of Finance that that kind of arrogance-


Mitchell William Sharp: It is you who are arrogant.


Edward Nasserden: The government might have been able to get away with it if they had been able to deliver the goods as far as legislation is concerned-


Mr. Chretien:: He is not going to spend his time listening to you.


Mr. Mackasey:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, earlier you called the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to order because he had departed from discussing the amendment. I should like to ask Your Honour what this personal attack on the Prime Minister has to do with the amendment now before us. What is the purpose, under the guise of a discussion on the Budget, of this attack on the Prime Minister who is not present in the house at the moment, and this attempt to reintroduce the type of atmosphere which has existed here for far too long?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Edward Nasserden: We are used to hearing these things from the hon. member for Verdun. But if he does not realize that the Prime Minister has failed to deal effectively with problems involving the daily lives of our people then he has not been doing the job for which he was sent to this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: If that is all you can talk about you should sit down.


Edward Nasserden: In any consideration of the Budget one cannot help but think of the leadership given to a nation. I well recall how in former debates when the Budget was under consideration in this house the decisiveness of the then prime minister and the leadership given to this country were questioned by those who now sit on the front benches opposite. I ask you, sir, to look at the record and consider whether we have had the type of decisive leadership during the last three years of this administration to which the country is entitled.
I notice that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) is not here. I wish he were because he is one of those who, above all
4128	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Nasserden others in the House of Commons, talked during that period about decisiveness and the need for leadership in this country. He is charged with the responsibility for transportation in Canada. He has had the MacPherson report before him for three years. Today that report is ancient history; yet there is no legislation before us to deal with the important problems raised therein. Where is the decisiveness of hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to a problem which affects every phase of our economy in every part of this nation? For three years nothing has been done to deal with this most important matter, one upon which the future development of our nation depends. The minister, once so vocal, so decisive, is now the very symbol and monument of indecision and delay.
We have a new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene)-a missionary in the forest of high machinery prices. He uses the right phrases. He says the right things. The Minister of Finance and some of his colleagues think he is a "nut", someone to be put up with but not really to be listened to with attention. The Prime Minister himself tipped his hand in this regard when he appointed to the Senate those who had been disowned by the electorate, Hon. Harry Hays and the former member for Assiniboia, Hazen Argue, to advise the government on agricultural matters concerning western Canada. Together with them the Minister of Finance pays lip service to grain marketing.
A few days ago I asked the Minister of Agriculture to give some indication to the farmers of western Canada of what they should produce in the coming year. One of the ministers got up to say, rather smartly, that the farmers could decide very well what they wanted to produce. There was a time in this country when we had a minister of agriculture who went out to the farmers of western Canada and told them to produce one billion bushels of grain for the next three years. The Liberal answer during that period was that a final payment would be made which would amount to a bribe to the electors of western Canada who produced grain. That is an indication of the attitude of members opposite. The Minister of Finance used to take delight in hearing stories of cheques being brushed aside from the doorsteps of farmers in western Canada. That story was told in almost every other part of Canada by Liberal members and spokesmen laying a foundation for the false impression among

DEBATES	April 21, 1966
people in many parts of this nation that the final payments came out of the treasury.
There is one matter I wish to deal with before I conclude. It concerns grain handling. We are all aware of the hesitation shown by the government with regard to the terminal at Prince Rupert. That hesitation produced hesitation in turn on the part of the grain companies with regard to the terminal at Vancouver. I believe the government would be well advised to consider a subsidization program for the construction of terminal facilities at the west coast. In the long run it might prove economic for the government to take this course; it might put this project on a much sounder economic basis not only for the grain trade but for the farmers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, March 29, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) on behalf of the government, tabled in the house the details of the national budget for the fiscal year 196667.
That document represents for the country an important event because it must bring to light the most urgent problems and suggest appropriate remedies.
A budget is the equivalent of detailed soul searching which, in addition to analysing with perception and priority the various problems which face the country, breaks down the coming expenditures and tries to find the revenue needed.
Since a budget exists to promote the welfare of the people and the economic life of the country, it must not be concerned only with mathematics and material considerations. A healthy budget must include, in addition to an economic direction, a social, family and humanitarian philosophy, according to the needs of the day.
Moreover, a dynamic budget can also afford some originality and does not have to fall systematically for worn and redundant economic theories already exploited and debatable.
In fact, economists disagree on so many things and the economic theories already in force have produced such unexpected results at times that one should not persist in going through the same gestures and refuse to take new and bold steps.
April 21, 1966

One must see that economic theories too often prove to be rational and that they grade problems too synthetically. They often remain too rigid and the results obtained often lead to a questioning of their standards.
Thus, when one says that to fight inflation it is necessary to reduce demand, restrict credit, take money out of circulation, restrain production and cut expenditures, and when, on the other hand, one suggests that to allay unemployment it is necessary to cut taxes and increase expenditures, the two problems are solved with more complexity than is used to state them, because several economic factors are little related and bring about conflicting results.
A realistic budget comes much more from the practical mind of a businessman than from theories held by academicians. To use an expression found in some provisions of the Civil Code of the province of Quebec, an able Minister of Finance must act as "un bon pere de famille".
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
There are major problems in Canada and they must be faced squarely as soon as possible. Our main concerns are as follows: to provide work for all, welfare and security for everyone and to make the budget and the economy serve the individual. To this end, strong and immediate steps must be taken to increase our production capacity, improve our manpower, increase exports, develop our resources, fight poverty radically and ensure real economic balance.
In my opinion, the present budget of government is a collection of diverse, scattered and incoherent theories, it lacks dynamism and originality, it is a step backwards in the development of our country and, above all, it sacrifices to a doubtful economic balance the social, family and humanitarian needs of the Canadian people.
Inability to stimulate an increase in production and exports, indifference toward limiting our trade deficit, delay in establishing a strong manpower policy in co-operation with the provinces, too evident concern over keeping money concentrated in the hands of the little Canadian and foreign tzars, absence of an intelligent policy concerning the balance of payments, obstinate and shameful refusal to increase old-age pensions and family allowances, waste and maintenance of too heavy expenditures in national defence, neglect to establish a parliamentary committee and a national conference on constitutional and financial reform, increased taxes on the
The Budget-Mr. Allard income of the majority of people, all these grievances make this budget dull, apathetic, mediocre and disappointing.
The national budget of the hon. Minister of Finance for 1966-67 is a reflection of the inertia of a government which shows itself to be increasingly unable to deal with legislation in order of importance and to solve the administrative problems of the country.
During the Easter recess I talked with a great number of my constituents, and it is, unfortunately, a sad message that I bring back to the Minister of Finance, a message with which I fully agree.
In spite of the seriousness of the situation and the general disillusionment, if we want to inject a humorous note it would be appropriate, as is usually done in Ottawa, to draw inspiration from the United States and parody this budget by borrowing the tune from the Gillette Company, a U.S. firm:
To be sharp, to feel sharp, to look sharp;
Now, in Canada, we may add: to live sharp, to die sharp.
During the few minutes at my disposal I shall be unable to dwell on each of the decisions taken by the Minister of Finance. Therefore, I shall only deal with some highlights.
After all, the minister's stand is based on the following assumptions:	the Canadian
economy is operating at full capacity; due to inflation and to production having reached its peak, we must slow down the increase in demand, reduce public and private investments, contain production and restrict the money supply.
But should the minister be wrong in his assumptions, a good portion of his theory would collapse automatically.
I am not convinced that our economy is operating at its peak capacity. This opinion is shared also by the Economic Council of Canada. In December 1965, the said Council pointed out a gap of 3 per cent between present and potential capacity. Today, this gap would be 2 per cent. Therefore, there is a substantial margin which would force us to stimulate our economy and justify another expansionist budget.
It is easy to see that many industries are operating at moderate capacity-the minister should visit my bailiwick, the county of Sherbrooke, and the surrounding constituencies to see that this is true-and that a good number of workers could increase their efficiency.

April 21. 1966
The Budget-Mr. Allard Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Six o'clock.


Maurice Allard: Unemployment still exceeds 2.7 per cent. Putting these unemployed to work would bring our economy to its full capacity. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: It is my
duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: The hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. La-prise) :	Television-Chibougamau- Chapaissuggested use of services of the Northern Quebec Telephone Company Limited; the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Howe): Unidentified flying objects-request for investigation; the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski): Agriculture-Cream-request for acknowledgement of subsidy applications. At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Monteith.
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned at six o'clock, I was saying that in spite of the optimism of the Minister of Finance I was not convinced that our economy had reached its maximum efficiency since there is still a 2 per cent gap between its present and its potential capacity.
Our rate of unemployment still exceeds 2.7 per cent, the level usually maintained by an economy operating at full capacity.

According to the statistics for the week ending March 19, 1966, the national rate of unemployment reached 4.8 per cent, while it went up to 6.5 per cent in the province of Quebec and to 10 per cent in the Maritimes. Only Ontario, with a rate of 2.9 per cent, comes close to the ideal rate of 2.7 per cent. Must it be inferred that the minister tailored his budget to fit the situation in Ontario, rather than the situation throughout the country, instead of taking into account uneasiness and stagnation prevailing in several other provinces?
That is why when the minister claims that our economy is operating at full capacity I say he is shortsighted, that he sees only his own province and is being hoodwinked by a dangerous misconception.
Consequently, the measures he has announced will have effects damaging to our whole economy, and disastrous to the economy of several provinces and regions. If in addition, as a consequence of the restrictions he is laying down, a recession were to occur within six months, the situation would be serious.
Even if the claims of the minister were to be recognized the question arises whether the means he is using to achieve his objectives are the best. Mr. Claude Ryan, in a well-informed commentary published in the editorial of the newspaper Le Devoir on March 31, 1966, rightly pointed it out.
If a reduction of expenditures is required, such reduction should be made simultaneously in several areas. Tackling the excessive and wasteful expenditures in the Department of National Defence, to my mind, would have been indicative of wise management.
Applying his theories the minister has only reduced federal expenditures on construction work by 10 per cent, or $35 million out of total expenditures of $9 billion, a rather meek gesture.
Furthermore, the 5 per cent redeemable tax on private enterprise's gross profits and the partial and gradual exemption of the 11 per cent tax on some capital equipment do not take into account the diversity of industrial development from one area to another and the variety of equipment problems.
If the minister had to raise personal income tax, nothing prevented him from introducing changes and taking into account the family responsibilities and the education expenses of the taxpayer instead of following
April 21, 1966

tradition by providing for standard raises based solely on nominal categories.
The present budget lacks dynamic incentives to boost productivity and encourage skilled labour in order to meet international competition.
Another well-informed columnist, Mr. Peter Newman, said, and rightly so, in an article published in La Presse on March 30, 1966, and I quote:
1.	Almost no provision has been made for those parts of Canada where unemployment rather than inflation is the real problem, particularly as manpower in Canada will increase by 220,000 new workers this year, many of whom will not have the advantage of being where work is available.
2.	Only a weak effort has been made to deal with the serious problem of the Canadian balance of payments, which has increased considerably. By asserting that Canada intends to maintain the stability of its currency, Mr. Sharp gave the financial community-at home as well as abroad-the reassurance it wanted.
Mr. Speaker, a list of the highlights of the present budget would read as follows:
Small tax cut for the small wage earners.
Higher taxes for average and top bracket wage earners, from 10 to 14 per cent.
Status quo with regard to the basic exemptions.
No basic increase in old age benefits or in family allowances.
Reduction of the tax on industrial machinery but in a year only, and repeal in two years.
Decrease of 10 per cent in building expenditures and deferment of non urgent works.
It is obvious that the minister has sacrificed to his economic views, which I do not share at all, the social, family, humanitarian and regional needs of the Canadian people.
And yet, in the last year governments, institutions and several Canadians have declared war on poverty.
The tax cut for small wage earners is equivalent to a huge reduction of 6 cents a week, that is the price of a package of chewing gum. Is the minister trying to make people forget poverty by just advising small wage earners to chew gum?
The failure to increase the basic income tax exemption in a social, family and humanitarian concept and the refusal to increase old age pensions and family allowances show a total disregard of urgent and widespread needs.
The minister is too quick to close his eyes to the canker of poverty which must always be the government's main concern, as stated
The Budget-Mr. Allard so aptly recently by the Quebec Minister of Family and Social Welfare, Hon. Rene Levesque.
I do not find any originality or initiative in the field of personal income tax. The present budget remains too orthodox and cold.
For instance, what does the minister think of the theory of negative taxation which is now being studied in the United States? Is he ready to set up a committee to study that matter, within his department or elsewhere, instead of waiting calmly for other countries to lead the way in that direction?
Negative taxation is based on the principle of distributive justice. Each citizen, throughout his life, must get a minimum income to live.
That negative tax is set according to a line of poverty. In the United States there was talk of setting the line at $3,000 per family. In Canada it could be set at $2,500 or $2,000.
Thus, taking $3,000 as the basic line, an individual who would earn only $2,200 would get the difference from the state, that is $800. An individual earning $4,000 would be taxed on the excess, that is on $1,000.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
A personal income tax would continue to apply to those with incomes higher than the amount set as the poverty line. Anyone earning less than the amount set as the poverty line would be paid by the government the difference between his earned income and the amount set as the poverty line. The individual who would earn nothing because he would be unemployed, would get the full amount set as the poverty line.
This would result in the removal of all social allowances, including unemployment insurance, except payments for education, hospital insurance and medicare.
It would be appropriate to maintain certain real estate and indirect taxes.
That is a new and imaginative system. It is under consideration by the Johnson administration but its possible application has been delayed in the United States by the extension of the war in Viet Nam.
What does the Canadian government do during that time? It is blissfully asleep on the same old cliches. It struts pompously along in stagnation. It immunizes itself against any new idea. Nothing can be done and everything seems stupid, unless it has been tried previously. The earth, the sun and the moon came about because there were precedents. What a mentality!
No wonder Canadian politics lack vitality and renovation.

April 21, 1966
The Budget-Mr. Allard
Therefore, I would ask the Minister of Finance to have doubts about his forecasts and his advisers. He should pay as much attention to men of great experience and exceptional qualities like Dr. O. J. Firestone, vice-dean of the faculty of social science at the University of Ottawa and former economic adviser at the Department of Trade and Commerce, who advocates a tax reduction, and Mr. Robert Beck, president of DuPont of Canada, who recommends an increase in our production potential.
Before I conclude my remarks I particularly want to call the attention of the minister to the Canadian textile industry and the many problems it is facing.
This industry contributes a great deal to the Quebec economy. As a matter of fact, it has about 417 mills in the province employing 35,879 workers; it is the fourth most important Quebec manufacturing industry. Most of the mills are found in about 20 of Quebec's larger cities. In my constituency of Sherbrooke there are 12 spinning factories: Austin, Bruck Mill, Carnegie, Dom-il, Dominion Textiles, Fil National, Glenhill, Kayser, Morgan, Paton, Sheer Silk, Tricotex.
The textile industry is very important to Quebec, and to more than 20 cities. It has stood the test of time and is now lying at the mercy of increasing foreign imports; yet, in his budget speech, the minister never so much as hinted that he would intervene or consider means of reducing foreign imports.
There is great concern in the Quebec textile industry at the present time. More than 5,000 textile workers are unemployed and some factories have no alternative but to pay their employees the lowest salaries in the whole of Quebec industries and to have them work in inhuman conditions to achieve a certain level of production; employees are working relentlessly from morning till night, taking only five or ten minutes out for lunch.
The textile sector of our economy is perhaps the most Canadian of all our industries; 80 per cent of its capital is made up of Canadian investments. I think the minister and the government should make an effort to preserve our industries. I have received many complaints from labour and industrial organizations.
In 1963, particularly, imports from Japan increased by 37.5 per cent; those from Hong Kong rose by 36 per cent. We sell wheat to Communist China. I would not mind if we sold it to all the countries in the world.
In return, we accept textile products. I would ask the government to diversify imports and to suggest to foreign countries to diversify their exports to Canada instead of always sending textiles.
The hon. minister has the figures. He knows that Communist China buys wheat from us and other things which it needs and in return sends us 75 per cent and more of textile products, which we do not need since Canadian industry can meet our domestic demand.
I would like to ask the hon. minister to consider the fate of the textile industry in view of the present acute crisis which is shaking this country, for thousands of citizens are affected by it in the province of Quebec. I would like to ask him to study means of putting a stop to these imports. The best way to do so would be to bring their prices in line with those of Canadian products, by setting their value for customs duty purposes.
As an alternative quotas should be maintained and, if need be, improved. The scope of quotas should be broadened to include additional products and each category should be clearly defined. In fact, the only solution to the problem of low priced imports would be to set all inclusive quotas.
Quotas should be applied to all items of clothing, products and textiles; there should even be sub-quotas to prevent over-saturation through concentration as it is now possible.
These are suggestions which should be studied by the hon. Minister jointly with his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters), and the government should also take an active part in the study. We do not know what the government's policy is with regard to the textile industry. I hope it is not the one expressed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickers-gill) who, in 1959-I do not have the reference, but if it is requested, I could give it-who said that the textile industry was not sustained by Canadian raw products and gave the impression, throughout his long speech, that it was one which should be allowed to go to ruin. I trust that is not the present government's policy and that it will soon adopt vigorous measures with regard to that important industry.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the Minister of Citizenship and

April 21, 1966

Immigration (Mr. Marchand) sought to smuggle into the Budget debate his opinions on the royal commission on bilingualism and bicul-turalism and the new government policy on bilingualism in the civil service. The minister has achieved an almost uncanny knack of choosing the wrong time and the wrong forum to express his opinions. At the proper time during this session, which assuredly is not during the Budget debate, I will deal fully and explicitly with the views which he expressed and with what I consider to be the disservice which he and his colleagues are doing to Canada's public service.
Tonight I wish only to remind the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that he is very much a political neophyte and would do well to absorb some of the wisdom and the statescraft of the great leaders of his own people, Cartier, Langevin, Laurier, Lemieux, Lapointe, Arthur Cardin, and St. Laurent, before he discards the heritage and tradition which they impressed upon Canada and before he seeks to pontificate upon problems which he does not yet understand. It is a great thing to get at least half dry behind the ears before seeking to solve overnight, problems which have engaged generations of the best political minds of the nation.
What of this Budget, sir? I say that not since the days of the "miller of Valleyfield" has Canada experienced a Budget so prosaic and unimaginative as that delivered by the hon. gentleman from Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) on March 29. But one would have to search even farther back in history to find a Budget which so studiously avoided the major issues of the day.
The Minister of Finance sought, or appeared to seek, to find some justification for the insipid and vapid fiscal policies he espoused in the imminence of the report of the Carter Royal Commission on Taxation. Certainly after that Commission has taken more than three years to study our taxation system the house and the country has the right to expect profound and practical recommendations to update our taxation system. Without doubt the federal "Topsy-built" tax structure has become regressive, stifling enterprise in many regions and discriminating against many taxpayers. A major overhaul is undoubtedly imperative.
There can never be, of course, such a thing as a tax millenium but perhaps we may see in the Carter report a peep of light over the dread tax horizon.
The Budget-Mr. R. A. Bell
I think it is only fair that the house say to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) that we expect prompt and decisive action in dealing with the report of the Carter Commission. Officials of the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue, including the new tax analysis unit, have already seen, and in my view, improperly seen, sections of the Carter report. The two ministers cannot have the slightest excuse for emulating the stalling and temporizing with which the government has dealt with all other royal commission reports.
If a second budget is needed in 1966 to bring our tax structure up to date, and if a proper overhaul is recommended, then I say that the minister should not have the slightest hesitation in bringing down a second budget.
What I want to assert to the minister tonight as vigorously as possible is that the imminence of the Carter report is no excuse whatever for the colourless, lack-lustre, pallid approach of the Budget to the major fiscal issues of 1966. Rising costs and inflationary pressures are stealing much of the real gains in our economy, and what is tragic, they are stealing them from the very people who need them the most. Compare, if you will, as I have done, the advertisements of the supermarkets three years ago and those of today, and one cannot but be shocked and alarmed by the advance in the cost of staple items of living.
Let us take another basis, Mr. Speaker. Compare if you will, the prices listed for the basic items of living in Washington, District of Columbia, with the prices advertised for the identical commodities in Canada's national capital. Then compare the salary levels of Washington and Ottawa, and one can only be astonished at the handicaps suffered by the salaried workers in this community.
I suggest that the timorous and inadequate proposals of the Minister of Finance to deal with inflation are largely self-defeating and will intensify rather than contain the problem. In particular, I would submit to him that the 5 per cent refundable tax on corporate income will significantly increase the pressures and thereby defeat the very objective of the tax.
The pressure in business will be to maintain a consistent level of retained earnings and of dividend pay-outs, and with the 5 per cent refundable tax this can only be achieved
4134
April 21, 1966

The Budget-Mr. R. A. Bell by percentage increases in product prices considerably in excess of 5 per cent. I predict to the Minister of Finance that a year from now he will be most unhappily aware that his panacea, his cure-all, in fact will have spread the disease.
Equally, Mr. Speaker, I think it is difficult to understand the failure of the minister to make any attempt to balance the budget. Deliberately in boom times he plans a budget deficit of $150 million, and at the very time when the policies of the government have made money tighter than at any time since 1957 he plans to go into the market for a cash requirement of $500 million in 1966-67, as opposed to only $187 million in the last year. Clearly what he is doing is trying to pull himself up by his bootstraps. I suggest that he will succeed only in confounding his own problems.


Mitchell William Sharp: Could I ask the hon. member a question?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has been very good at getting up and asking questions, and bootlegging questions at that. I will answer his question at the end of my speech.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You are afraid.


Thomas Miller Bell: I intend to make a full presentation and I will answer the minister's question at the end of my speech. But I would ask him not to bootleg questions as he has done constantly, sitting in close proximity to Hansard and putting so many comments on the record.


Mitchell William Sharp: I thought my hon. friend would be flattered to know I was listening to his speech. I am just trying to be helpful.


Thomas Miller Bell: I put it to the house and to the country that if our national budget cannot be brought into balance at a time which the Minister of Finance alleges to be our greatest boom, then when can it be? Surely it is monstrous to suggest that we can go on and on in years of prosperity, ever increasing the national debt, ever living beyond our means, without anticipating a day of fiscal reckoning. If there is any validity at all in cyclical budgeting, and I believe there is, then how can anyone doubt what stage of the cycle we have achieved in 1966? Once again the Minister of Finance has allowed himself merely to be the prisoner of events, instead of attempting to act as captain of the nation's fiscal fate.
What I have said here, Mr. Speaker, must apply equally in connection with the spreading crisis in our balance of payments position. All the minister does is to view it with alarm, to suggest that we must develop a long-term balance of payments policy, and then he retreats without even suggesting a palliative.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
One of the aspects of the minister's speech which fascinated me was his pinpointing at one stage of his speech of the year 1962-and at another stage he said "five years ago"-as the period when the upturn in our economy gained momentum. What a difference there is between this confession and what the minister and his colleagues are prone to assert on the hustings. But now at least we have his acknowledgement that it was the policies of the former government which sparked the upturn. The real fact is that our present state of economic well-being is firmly grounded in the devaluation of the dollar, a policy once scorned, sneered at and vilified by most hon. gentlemen opposite. They are now the inheritors of the benefits of the very policies that they pilloried. The genuine basis of our economic well-being is in the policies introduced by the former hon. member for Eglinton, Hon. Donald M. Fleming, who I believe, sir, will be established in history as one of the most intelligent, courageous, and far-sighted ministers of finance of all time.
Sir, in my view the Budget is much more significant with respect to the matters with which it does not deal than with respect to the evasive pronouncements over the limited range with which it does deal. It is much more significant in its omissions than in its inclusions or its proposals. I want to deal with three matters virtually ignored in the budget, agriculture, education and federal-provincial relations.
Can you imagine, sir, a budget of Canada with only two parts of a sentence-I repeat -with only two parts of a sentence mentioning the farm industry? In mentioning that fact, sir, I am aware that you come from Stormont, and that you know the picture in eastern Ontario. In one part of the sentence the minister states that "the prospects for wheat sales are good" and in another he announces the deferment of commencement of construction of buildings on the satellite experimental farm. There is not another mention of agriculture in the whole speech. There is not even a forecast in the review of economic conditions.

April 21, 1966

Sir, what an illustration this is of the urban orientation of this government, and what an illustration this is of the total disregard and neglect of the basic industry in this country. It troubles me beyond description that any minister of finance can put together a Canadian budget without a single moment's thought to the agricultural community. And this occurs at a period when much of Canadian agriculture is in a condition of explosive change, and in a critical cost-price squeeze. The Minister of Finance has done less than justice to himself and to his colleagues by his contemptuous disregard of the Canadian farmer.
I assert to him that his proposed deferment of the building on the satellite experimental farm is the very reverse of what he should be doing. He should be expediting those buildings and stepping up the program of research into animal and plant diseases, soil nutrition, animal and plant breeding to increase productivity, and to reduce costs. A pause in the experimental farm work will be self defeating. It is penny wise and pound foolish, ill advised and inappropriate, and a wholly invalid technique for attempting to deal with the spiralling costs of building.
My political neighbour, the hon. member for Renfrew South, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) must know the essentiality of proceeding with every possible dispatch with this satellite experimental farm. I appeal to him directly to insist that the Minister of Finance end this arbitrary and capricious deferment of the satellite experimental farm.
I found astonishing the Budget's silence on the subject of the federal role in education. At one stage in his speech the minister paid lip service to the need for manpower training and for improving the skills of the labour force. But that was all. True, the Speech from the Throne contained some pious ejaculations about the role of the federal government in education. The Prime Minister has announced some interim plans for increasing university grants; but the house had the right to expect, sir, from the Minister of Finance some discussion of the financial provisions proposed to be made, and also discussion of the future plans of the federal government in this vital field of education.
Let me state my view very definitely. The federal government must take the necessary responsibility for the financing of education, and for the developing of the intellectual
The Budget-Mr. R. A. Bell resources of the nation. The present piecemeal approach of student loans, bursaries, etc., I say is inadequate. The need for federal participation in the field of education, and particularly in higher education, has become a fact of Canadian life which cannot be gainsaid.
The position is very clearly set forth in a few sentences of Professor Frank H. Underhill, delivered during the Massey lectures of 1963. At page 65 this is what he says:
In an environment that changes every decade with the revolutionary advances of science and technology, our future depends on our flexibility, our adaptability to changing conditions. And this depends upon the quality of the education that we make available to our young people. This is a national interest that we all have in common; in the conditions of the second half of the twentieth century, our rigid division of powers in which we insist that education is a function belonging entirely to the provinces is self-defeating. In a world economy in which all groups are becoming daily more interdependent for their economic health and prosperity, we need a strong, well-equipped national government to direct and supervise the growth of our economy as a whole in its relations with the world as a whole.
I am sure it will astonish Professor Underhill that one of his students who never agreed with him when he was a student now agrees with him completely.
In my view, the time has come to establish a national office of education-a national education secretariat, call it what you will -reporting to parliament through the Secretary of State and responsible for planning and co-ordinating all the national efforts in the field of education. The time to do it is now.
I suggest that special support is needed in the field of the humanities. The revolutionary advances in science and technology have tended to obscure the importance of the humanities. In particular, in my view, a greatly expanded program of research in the fields of political science and economics is urgently needed. Special federal help to the two universities in the national capital regions, Carleton University and Ottawa University, ought to be given in these particular fields for which the location of these two universities gives them a unique advantage. These two universities ought to be predominant in the fields I have mentioned, but they have had little opportunity adequately to equip themselves for the special role which I believe they should play in the fields of political science, economics, and probably history.
4136	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. R. A. Bell
Then, sir, the Minister of Finance made but passing reference to the field of federal-provincial relations. His presentation, in my view, was most inadequate and gave no indication of future government policy. For the past two and a half years, sir, there has been a process of emasculation of the power and authority of the parliament and government of Canada. This process appears to be accelerating. The time to call a halt is now, in this year, 1966.
Again, I adopt views expressed by Professor Underhill in the Massey lectures, and I quote from page 65, to which I have already referred:
As things are, however, our national government in recent years has approached the ten lusty provincial governments, and especially that ol Quebec, in an attitude of timorous politeness, as if apologizing for the fact of its own existence. And the Canadian people as a whole cannot apparently reach any agreement to entrust their fortunes to any one political party with a majority support. They watch apathetically while our unprotected federal quarterback, looking in vain for a pass receiver, is overrun by the big husky linemen of the provincial defensive team and thrown for another loss.
Then at page 66 Professor Underhill says:
Yet it is at this time, confronted as we are by opportunities and dangers so momentous, that our ambitious provincial governments are doing their best to erode the basis of national authority and to add to their own importance and prestige. The assignment of greater responsibilities and greater financial resources to the provincial governments is, of course, in the interest of the provincial politicians and bureaucrats. I can see no evidence that it is necessarily in the interest of the people of the provinces who are also citizens and taxpayers of the Canadian national state.
Sir, I believe that there is the gravest danger that already the federal government has parted with adequate budgetary flexibility to such an extent that it may no longer be able to influence the national economy effectively, or to protect the nation against recession or depression. Believe me, sir, we must have one national economic policy. We cannot have ten regional economic policies and hope to survive as a nation. Parliament, and the government responsible to it must have and retain the broad economic powers properly vested in this national authority. I say that only in this way can there be balanced and equitable development of all regions of Canada.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The existing tax sharing agreements are due to expire and already it is clear that the forthcoming federal-provincial conference will be another raid on Ottawa. I put it to the
fMr. Bell (Carleton).]
DEBATES	April 21. 1966
Minister of Finance here and now that he has a positive and unequivocal duty to call a full halt to the erosions of such encroachments upon federal authority. And I put it to the right hon. gentleman from Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) that he was not sworn as Prime Minister of Canada in order to preside over the liquidation of the national authority.
I use the words of one of his predecessors:
A strong and dominant national feeling is not a luxury in Canada, it is a necessity. Without it, this country could not exist. A divided Canada can be of little help to any country, and least of all to itself.
Those are the words of Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King as they appear in Hansard of March 30, 1939.
Let me illustrate the need to call halt to the erosions into federal authority. Mr. Eric Kierans, Minister of Health in Quebec, the man who seeks to out-Levesque Levesque, argues that the federal departments of agriculture, of fisheries, of national resources and of industry are now superfluous because the provinces, and Quebec in particular, have the same ministries which, according to him, are perfectly competent in their respective domains. "Canada", he has said, "will never again know a strongly centralized economy because Quebec knows better then Ottawa what its problems are; because Quebec now has the means to solve them."
Add these strange constitutional heresies of a former president of the Montreal Stock Exchange and former Professor of Commerce at McGill University-who should know better-to the weird pleas of those public men who want Ottawa to share with the provinces control over monetary policy, credit and banking, over Eskimos and Indians, and what do you have? A totally emasculated and impotent central government and a powerless parliament of Canada.
Already, we are perilously close to just that. Further federal retreat and we are over the precipice. I say deliberately that those who seek to chisel away bit by bit the power and authority historically and constitutionally vested in our central government are much greater danger to Canada than any lunatic fringe of separatists. It is boring from within in order to destroy.
I proclaim it tonight as an article of political faith that the basic problem in Canada today is not that the central government is too strong, but that it is too weak.
The provinces have emerged into a position of strength never before matched in
April 21, 1966

Canadian history and never contemplated by the Fathers of Confederation or by any of our federal or provincial statesmen in almost 100 years.
A famous philosopher once said: "A nation which forgets its past condemns its future". Our past is one Canadian nation-not ten associated states. It is not the right, and certainly not the duty, of public men in the Parliament of Canada or in the provinces to repeal 100 years of constitutional history; it is not their duty to believe that the ultimate in statescraft is to emasculate the national government in favour of ten provincial administrations.
I am speaking strongly and deliberately and after much meditation. Nineteen sixty six must be the year which restores and revivifies Confederation, not the year which stultifies and harpoons all Canadian objectives and purposes. For, believe me, with a weak, emaciated federal authority, all semblance of nationhood will disappear.
Today, effective decisions on economic, constitutional and political issues of the gravest national importance are being assumed by federal-provincial conferences, and the Parliament of Canada is being by-passed. Delegation of decision making to federal-provincial conferences makes debate in this parliament little more than shadow-boxing. Undoubtedly there is an important role for meetings of federal and provincial officials, but that role is not the assumption, the usurpation, of effective political power in Canada.
The pretension of provincial premiers to national authority are false historically, unsound constitutionally and suicidal economically.
If members of this parliament of Canada, irrespective of party affiliation, will stand firm againt erosions of and encroachments upon federal authority, I believe all Canadians will respond. I believe the people of all Canada, Quebec as well as Ontario, Nova Scotia equally with Manitoba, will refuse to see confederation compromised out of existence. But the time to speak up is now-next year may be too late.
One of the constitutional devices, of which I am not proud, is the opting out formula. At the time it was devised it appeared to be a brilliant solution of a constitutional impasse over university grants. I take full responsibility personally for having supported it. Had it ever occurred to me that it might have established a pattern whereby opting out has
The Budget-Mr. R. A. Bell become the rule and remaining in the exception, I would have opposed the institution of the formula with all the vehemence at my command. That I did not have the foresight to do so, is one of my major political regrets.
Far better that the Quebec universities should have suffered additional but eventually only temporary hardships, than that a new constitutional formula should have been devised which may well succeed in undermining the national authority of the parliament and government of Canada to influence, direct and where necessary regulate the national economy.
Two of everything does not contribute to nationhood, and heaven forbid the day should come when we have three or ten of everything. In my view, two pension plans are an abomination. Ten medicare plans will be worse. And this is happening at the very time when ordinary Canadian people seek unity and nationhood with an ardor never before experienced. Provincial politicians in British Columbia may seek to badger the essential unity of the nation, but the people of British Columbia do not.
Provincial politicians in Quebec may vie with one another in drawing blood from Ottawa, in inventing new terms and new theories emphasizing the state of Quebec-not the province, mark you-as a means of downgrading Ottawa. But I have travelled enough in all parts of Quebec and know enough of the real pulsing heart of that province to be certain-as morally certain as I have ever been of anything in my life-that the people of Quebec will respond equally with the people of Ontario to policies of genuine Canadianism, or if I may use the expression of one of my old chiefs, the late, delightful Dr. Bob Manion, to a red-blooded policy of Canada first. The citizen of Quebec is basically no different from the citizen of Ontario or Manitoba. First, he is a Canadian and second, he is a Quebecker. It is time that the political pygmies stopped trying to reverse that fact of life.
Mr. Speaker, only 254 days remain before this wonderful nation, this magnificent homeland of us all, enters the centennial year of her confederation. We must stop drifting; we must stop believing that necessarily all will be well in the end.
The next century for this most favoured land depends upon the adoption of positive, decisive, enlightened policies of national development. We in this twenty seventh Parliament must be as adventuresome but as
4138	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Caron realistic as the great fathers of our country. Can this twenty seventh parliament rise to what is the greatest challenge of the whole of the first century of Confederation? My prayers, sir, are that each one of us may be guided to be worthy of the nation which has given to us the privilege of serving her in her highest and noblest institution.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with pleasure to the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), and I even found it very objective. I was not surprised to note that most responsible Canadian papers endorsed it readily. The opposition objects to it and it does not surprise me. Its role is to object. What surprises me most about the opposition is that their objections could not prove useful to them if ever they returned to power, because when the Leader of the Opposition and most of his chief lieutenants will disappear, the Conservative party might return to power and then, how will they be able to support the policy they are advocating today?
The member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) referred very earnestly to important problems. He exaggerated the situation in Quebec. True, there are separatists in Quebec, but most of the people are not. They wish to preserve confederation, but they ask that our rights, so dear to us, be respected; the member for Carleton is aware of this and is willing to respect our rights.
In his budget, the minister attempts to remove the threat of inflation in Canada. This threat actually exists. Besides, the opposition, in a non-confidence motion some time ago, criticized the government for ignoring this threat of inflation, as the minister remembers. Now, the minister is taking action to fend off the threat of inflation. I commend him for it and I hope he will continue.
The Creditistes, and I understand them, claim that the Bank of Canada could lend without interest to school boards and municipalities. I listened to the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). I did not hear the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) because I was not in the house. I suppose he spoke along the same lines.


David Réal Caouette: It was better.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I do not doubt it, because the hon. member is a talented man. In my opinion, those who say that the Bank of Canada could lend without interest to school boards and municipalities are mistaken. The

DEBATES	April 21, 1966
Bank of Canada can certainly lend, but it must obtain its money somewhere. If the Bank of Canada-


David Réal Caouette: A short question. The member for Hull, Mr. Speaker, says that the Bank of Canada must take its money somewhere. Can the hon. member tell us where the Bank of Canada takes its money to lend it to foreign countries, like Jamaica, the Congo and others, without interest. Where does it take its money?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Out of Canadian citizens' incomes. The Bank of Canada derives its income from Canadian citizens.


David Réal Caouette: Where?


Alexis Pierre Caron: They granted loans without interest; it may be a mistake. They wanted to help these countries having difficulties, to prevent them from going communist. I believe the country did the right thing and I fully approve.
I maintain that it is impossible to lend to all municipalities and school boards, because we could not find the necessary incomes to do so. If it were possible, I would be delighted. But I cannot, because I cannot understand the way Creditistes work out their calculations concerning incomes. They ask the Bank of Canada to lend money. It cannot make money.
The other opposition parties, namely the New Democratic party, can propose special measures. They can propose a reduction in taxation and an increase in exemptions. That is normal. They know they will never be in office; that is why they can say it so easily.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order. When we moved an amendment in the house concerning the creation of debt-free money and without interest, the member for Hull voted in favour.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I admit that I voted in favour of debt-free money without interest. It was then a non-confidence motion but we could not oppose it. We voted in favour because it was necessary. We might not do it today, because we are not in opposition. If you were on this side of the house, you would see what kind of difficulties one can come up against. There is nothing like sitting on the side of the government to become prudent. One must foresee the future. Members of the
April 21, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	4139
opposition can object, they do not have to foresee. The people are not obliged to follow them. We have seen that the people so far did not follow them.
They are not concerned as to where the money comes from. They are not concerned about the inflationary situation which would result and they take pleasure in making such a proposal which they know is unacceptable. Let them have this pleasure and, as has been done by some responsible newspapers, let us say that Canada was right, that the minister was right in introducing measures to check inflation in Canada.
This budget is realistic and timely. The deficit will be larger or smaller, I do not know, it will all depend on the economic situation in Canada. If our economic situation is good, the deficit will be small; if it is bad, it might be larger. The present minister wants to protect Canada against a larger deficit.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) for the courage he has shown in establishing bilingualism within the Civil Service. I understand that the hon. member can laugh because automobiles are his only concern and bilingualism does not interest him very much.
In my opinion, the policy advocated by the Prime Minister on bilingualism required courage. He has established it with courage and I congratulate him. I do not pretend it is perfect, but I think that we could have probably better-


David Réal Caouette: It is much better than what the Tories have ever given us.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Exactly. It is far much better than what the Conservatives have given us. I share the opinion of the hon. member in this respect, because the Tories have never given us a thing, and there has been nothing more.
We are going to introduce a certain amount of bilingualism in the framework of the Civil Service. This may take a certain time, even until 1975.


David Réal Caouette: Not only in Hull.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would remind the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) of the amendment which is now before the house, and I would ask him to confine his remarks to that amendment.
The Budget-Mr. Caron [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are now discussing the budget. I understand we have before us an amendment and that a subamendment has been moved by the New Democratic party.
On the other hand, I feel adequate leeway has been given all members, whatever their party, to say what was on their minds. It seems to me, in the cricumstances, that the member for Hull should be given adequate leeway to say what he has to say at this time, while we are discussing the national budget.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair feels it is necessary to remind the house that there is an amendment which is now being debated, and the remarks made by hon. members must be confined to that amendment.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Sir, I have to differ in opinion with you. It is a fact that on the Budget speech anyone may speak on any subject; it has been that way since the beginning of confederation. I do not believe I should be deterred and required to speak only on the amendment. I think I should be allowed to go ahead with my speech in the way I have started; I do not believe I should be stopped.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister was right-he did not give us all that we expected-but he was right in giving us something new, something practical.
I know that, since 1918, we have always been saying that those who are bilingual would receive additional salary. It was never given. Today, it can be hoped that, within a year or two, those who are bilingual will be getting it. I claim that outstanding courage was called for, on the part of the Prime Minister, to act as he did.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate him on behalf of Canadians, not only the French Canadians, but all bilingual Canadians who live in this area.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Prime Minister. I am pleased to see a greater interest in bilingualism, now that extra pay has been mentioned. Bilingualism will not easily come about, it will be difficult, and most people do not seem to realize the situation.
Some mentioned Italians, Germans, Polish and others, but those people came to Canada
April 21, 1966

The Budget-Mr. M. Asselin as immigrants and knew they would have to speak either English or French, and they learned one or both languages. But we, French Canadians, have been here since the early days of colonization. We were the first settlers of the country, then we were defeated by the English on the Plains of Abraham and had to live side by side with them. Regular meetings between English and French have made us realize that we had to learn both languages.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the Chair did not allow the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) to go on with a speech along those lines. Tonight, you interrupted the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) and suggested that he confine his remarks to the nonconfidence motion now before the house. However, the hon. member for Hull did not comply with your instructions and, in my opinion, he should not be allowed to go on, just as you did not allow the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to continue his speech this afternoon because he was not dealing with the amendment.


Alexis Pierre Caron: On the point of order, the narrow-mindedness just shown by the hon. member is amazing. In the past, no proposed amendment to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne or to the Budget speech ever prevented a member from referring to anything whatsoever. I admit it is not in the standing orders, but it has been the tradition since confederation and I do not believe I may rightly be prevented from doing so.
Besides, the hon. member for Carleton referred to this and I may speak about it myself, for I have a right to speak on any subject during the Budget debate and I intend to continue, Mr. Speaker.
tEnglish1


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must still remind the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) of the amendment which is now before the house. I would hope he would make every effort to confine his remarks within the limits of that amendment.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker-


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We saw a while ago the hon. member for Carleton spit on the province of Quebec as probably no other Conservative can

do and the Chair tolerated it. For the last four years-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am on a point of order at the present time.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am on a point of order at the present time and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot should resume his seat.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There can be only one point of order at a time.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I was in the house when the hon. member for Carleton made his speech and I do not remember him saying what the hon. member for Villeneuve says he did. I think the member for Carleton spoke with all due respect, even if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) did not like his remarks. There is no reason to say that he spat on the province of Quebec, for he made a fine and dignified speech-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of privilege.
lEnglisM


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) does not have a point of privilege: he is refuting an argument.
The hon. member for Villeneuve.
[Translation^


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot was off the track as he always is anyway.
As to the question of privilege, I maintain that the hon. member for Carleton was allowed to say anything, not only with regard to the amendment before us, but any nonsense as we know the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot is able to say. But now they object to the hon. member for Hull expressing what he has to say with regard to the Budget speech.
I have been here for four years, since 1962, and I have had the opportunity to hear people from all parties express what they had to say
April 21, 1966

during the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne or on the Budget speech introduced by any Minister of Finance including the present minister who is the sharpest of all those we have known during the last four years.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the Chair should recognize those facts and grant the member for Hull the necessary leeway, letting him express his views just as was done in the case of the hon. member for Carleton who said all he had to say against the province of Quebec.
1English1


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would refer hon. members to a statement made a day or so ago by Mr. Speaker. He referred to the question of urgency of debate. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) drew attention to the fact that the immediate business of this house was the continuation of the Budget debate and that there should be no discussion of this matter in the next four or five days. At this time Mr. Speaker went on to say:
I agree with the hon. member to this extent. This matter cannot be discussed while there is a motion of non-confidence before the house, and while there are before us an amendment and a subamendment, both dealing with financial matters.
I would refer that statement of Mr. Speaker to the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) and to the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette).
The hon. member for Hull.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I will try to abide by your ruling, although I find it very hard because in the past-and I have been here since 1953

I never heard anyone interfere with a speech on the Budget or a speech in the Debate in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I am surprised that I am forced at this time to speak only on the amendment which is before the house, because I have been speaking on the main matter of the Budget itself and have been following the practice established by others. I do not see why I should be stopped on this.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker, the immigrants who came to Canada knew they had to learn either English or French, while we, who have been here from the beginning of the settlement, who were defeated on the Plains of Abraham and have lived near the English for centuries, have understood the necessity of knowing those two essential languages.
The Budget-Mr. Caron
That is why I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister for the work he has accomplished in order to give us the opportunity of speaking both languages in Canada. I know it is difficult, that it will take years; but I know that since 1918 there has been talk of additional pay for those who are bilingual but nothing ever came of it.
The Prime Minister told us last week that we would probably have that within a year. I have faith in him as the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) has faith in the minister, Mr. Sharp, who is the sharpest of all the ministers we have had. I am confident that we will have bilingual people in the civil service. That is why I congratulate him-


David Réal Caouette: The Postmaster General
(Mr. Cote) is the worst.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The Postmaster General is a good guy; I have nothing to say against him. I admit that he does his work well and I wrote him again today; I hope he will reply.


David Réal Caouette: He is a unilingual who does not believe in bilingualism.


Alexis Pierre Caron: He will get used to it just the same. You know, it sometimes happens that a new minister does not accept federal principles, but in the end he falls into the federal mold and accepts everything. That is what he will accept in the end.
Two races must live side by side in our country. That is why those who come from all over the world to settle in Canada-


David Réal Caouette: Once more.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must remind the hon. member that his remarks are now outside the amendment before the house.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept that ruling. What we do-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the hon. member resume his seat, please? I should like to refer again to a statement made by Mr. Speaker with reference to this matter a day or so ago. He said that any attempt to discuss this subject matter on the motion now before the house would be out of order because of irrelevancy. I point out to the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) that the remarks which he is now making are not relevant to the amendment now before the house.

April 21, 1966
The Budget-Mr. Caron


Alexis Pierre Caron: I do not accept this ruling. You are looking at it in a narrow way. It has always been the practice in this house for hon. members to speak on any subject they wanted during the Throne Speech debate and the Budget debate. This is what I am doing now. I do not think you have the right to do what you are doing at present. I cannot accept this ruling.
I think we have the right to refer to what has been said in this house, and I intend to go on with it.

If both languages are official in this country, we have a right to speak either one anywhere. This is the reason why I state, sir, that I am entitled to act in such a way.
May I say a few words on the National Capital Commission. This body considers kindly the Quebec side for access to the beautiful Gatineau park through the city of Hull. But otherwise, nothing doing.
I recently requested the National Capital Commission for a park development in the national capital region. The MacLaren Company donated a lot measuring 1,000 by 500 feet for a park. I was told experts would be sent to give advice, but no money.
On the Ontario side, however, thousands and millions of dollars are spent; but, for the Quebec side, they are cautious, they are afraid to spend.
I submit that the National Capital Commission should spend as much in Quebec as in Ontario. Those things, which we need, must be maintained. That is why I say that the National Capital Commission is remiss in its duty at present by supplying experts without the necessary funds to renovate and develop the parks we are interested in.
We are proud of our province of Quebec and our city of Hull, just like the town of Lucerne and the neighbouring towns, which are Quebec towns deserving the attention of the National Capital Commission.
We did not get what we wanted. But on the other hand, we saw trucks carrying earth and cement on the Ontario side, because in Ontario, millions mean little. But when it is for the Quebec side, everything is doublechecked.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to accept this. I claim that the National Capital Commission has an obligation to spend on the Quebec side as much as it spends on the Ontario side. We, in the province of Quebec, must get what we are entitled to. That is why I am

asking today that the National Capital Commission should think of us and give us whal we are entitled to.
Today, everything has developed, everything has changed. The National Capital Commission should also have changed in ordei to keep pace with progress. Only the mer. change within the N.C.C., but the principles remain unchanged. The men have changed, but the principles remain the same. Expenditures are made in Ontario but not in Quebec.
I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the N.C.C. must assume its responsibilities in the province of Quebec as well as in Ontario. That is why I am asking those whose duty it is to speak to the members of the N.C.C. to go ahead and tell them: Look toward Quebec, you are needed there and you must carry out your obligations.
Mr. Speaker, if we are given advice, Ottawa gives money. That is the main difference. But I believe we are entitled to a small share of this difference. The population is not as large, I admit it, on the Quebec side; we may get a bit less than Ottawa, but we must get some. That is why I ask that this be attended to with special care. The cities of Hull, Gatineau Point, Lucerne and others could benefit from what the National Capital Commission is doing. I would suggest to these gentlemen that they find out the facts before asking for some change or other.
Recently, I heard the member for Outre-mont-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lamontagne) speak in Quebec of a national capital that would encompass the Ottawa-Hull area. It was reported yesterday in the press that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) had said the same thing yesterday, but I was told a while ago that he had not said it, that he had simply answered the press that it was a point of view. I accept his point of view.
But I submit that the former minister, the member for Outremont-Saint-Jean had no right to go to Quebec to speak of a national capital, because it is neither within his responsibilities nor his duties.
The national capital could be a fact, if we knew we would be accepted within the whole of such a national capital. But we do not know. We are not respected. That is why I say that we cannot accept it.
The national capital would be fine if the National Capital Commission were like the commission on bilingualism. But only a few of its people speak French, while the great
April 21, 1986

majority does not know a single word of French.
I suggest that until we change the way of doing things in the capital, we will be unable to accept it. Moreover, if we asked the people of Ottawa to accept the national capital, they would say no, they cannot accept it because they do not believe in it.
In Quebec, we believe in it even less. The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the former Secretary of State, now member for Outremont-Saint-Jean, who are important men in the party, should not overwhelm or impress the other members and ministers by insisting on this national system-
1English]
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Does the house give unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald).


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker-


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I admit that some of my time has been taken up by other hon. members and yourself, but I should have had that time to finish my speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must advise the hon. member for Hull that the time taken by the occupant of the chair and some other members of the house was credited to him, and he has been given sufficient time.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to speak on the budget, and in so doing I simply want to turn my attention and the attention of the house to two items which have been particularly noteworthy, at least to those of us in Prince Edward Island, in the past few weeks. Perhaps these items in themselves say something much more significant about the way in which this budget was constructed and the kind of communication which took place not only within cabinet ranks but perhaps between governments.
The Budget-Mr. D. MacDonald
First and foremost I want to mention what has become now a most notorious item, that of the construction of the Prince Edward Island causeway. It is a strange thing in a way that a project which was in fact described by my own predecessor for the constituency of Prince as a non-political project, as a project that is in fact above politics, has become so political. While it was looked on as perhaps having certain influences in the most recent federal election, there are still some who may be willing to see certain influences on the future provincial election which is being held in the coming months.
I want to look at the project not so much from the political value point of view but from the point of view of its significance to the people of Prince Edward Island, and the way it has received such sorry treatment, particularly at the hands of the present government.
I have here a postcard which tells something about the causeway. On the back of the postcard there is a little poem which I should like to read:
At the Capes in the winter you stand on the shore, New Brunswick behind, P.E. Island before,
And you long to get over, but how can you cross? You are stopped by the wind, and the lolly and frost.
But this is to tell you a way has been planned By which you can pass to the opposite strand,
So don't be discouraged, despondent or blue-
Hold this to the light and you'll see your way through.
Then by holding it up to the light, Mr. Speaker, you can see the causeway on one side and the shores of the two provinces on the other. It is an interesting postcard. The most interesting thing about it is that it was mailed in 1908. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said at one point that the Liberal government which had started this project would complete it, I was wondering whether he was thinking of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, because surely this was in his time.
Let me say again that this is not a project that can be the prerogative of any particular party or group. It is a project which is so important that unless every faction in society is in support of it, in full understanding of the dimensions of the project and its significance to the region, it will have in many ways a tragic effect, either in the actual construction of the project or upon its realization.
I was immensely disturbed, as I am sure were many members of this house, not just those from the maritime region and Prince
April 21, 1966

The Budget-Mr. MacDonald Edward Island but those from across Canada, at the cavalier fashion in which the Minister of Finance during the course of his budget presentation said that there would be a-
-readjustment of the timetable for the next phase of the Northumberland causeway project in order to minimize the pressures on the peak summertime employment market and maximize winter employment opportunities.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, that statement was the beginning of many editorials, headlines and letters. Eventually a unanimous resolution was passed by the provincial legislature requesting the federal government to reinstate at full flight the construction of this causeway. A strange thing about this business is that it was during the course of the last election campaign that our very dear friend the Minister fo Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), while visiting on Prince Edward Island, said at last there would be no further holdup, that the work would be going ahead, and that the causeway was not a gift to Prince Edward Island. He said it was not an election bribe, perish the thought, but a sound economic investment for all of Canada.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am glad to see he still supports that view.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I certainly do.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Then the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), who I am also pleased to see here this evening, on October 26 in O'Leary, Prince Edward Island, said that one reason for getting it started at once was that this project would do more to stimulate the economic growth of Prince Edward Island than anything since confederation.
These were great and noble statements, yet somehow or other they seem to be in conflict with the things which the Minister of Finance was saying on the night he delivered his budget speech. I would have liked to have been in the corridor and witnessed the first confrontation of the Minister of Transport with the Minister of Finance following delivery of that speech, for I am sure that if he still registered the same enthusiasm as he does at this moment across the floor of the house, then there must have been an animated conversation between them.
What, Mr. Speaker, is the exact situation with regard to the construction of the causeway? When it was introduced we were told by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. 
Mcllraith) that one of the significant things about the constructing of this causeway would be that much of the work would have to take place in the four summer months, for these were the only months in which, from the standpoint of weather alone, such a project could be undertaken.
Hon. members may remember that on February 14 the Minister of Public Works, answering a question of mine which asked what was the expected date of completion of the Prince Edward Island causeway, replied, as reported at page 1148 of Hansard:
It is impossible at this early date to forecast accurately when a project of this magnitude and complexity will be completed. However, with maximum progress this project could be completed in late 1970.
It seems that we are being treated to a spectacle wherein one department, for certain economic reasons which do not really apply anyway to Prince Edward Island or the maritime region, is making certain cut-backs, when the minister responsible for this project must realize that a cut-back cannot in fact take place if the project is to be completed on time. So we have been treated to this sorry mess of statement after statement, some in contradiction of the others.
In this connection I want to read what I thought was an excellent editorial in the Friday, April 1 edition of the Charlottetown Guardian entitled "Back to Blunderland":
Orbited into the realm of Alice in Wonderland is the "next phase" of our causeway project as it gets casually kicked around at the Mad Hatter's party at Ottawa. It couldn't get underway this winter because-as the Mock Turtle was at pains to point out-it's the kind of job that must be tackled in the spring. The soil, you know; Island clay. It freezes in the winter and that's not good. But in the spring, tra! la! there'll be a burgeoning of all kinds of things, and our sods will just yearn to be lifted.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Comes the spring; but with it the dispiriting news from the White Rabbit that winter is when this work should really be done. Winter's over now and there'll have to be "a readjustment of the timetable". It would never do to start in the spring, or the summer either for that matter. That would be disastrous because there's an employment boom somewhere and if it hits us down here we could all go bust. Next winter, perhaps . . .
"Have some wine," said the March Hare in an encouraging tone to Alice as she sat aghast at this news. Alice looked around the table, but there was nothing on it but tea. "I don't see any wine," she remarked. "There isn't any," said the March Hare primly.
Then Tweedledee butted in to explain why there was really nothing to worry about. It might look that way, but, then again it might not. "Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it is, it ain't."
April 21, 1966

Still Alice couldn't understand, and the Queen came to her assistance. "Around here, you see," she explained, "it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast."
"Curiouser and curiouser!" thought Alice. She wondered whether they were trying to fool her or whether they were all as cracked as they sounded.
"The rule," said the Queen in a last effort to clear up the matter-"the rule is, jam tomorrow and jam yesterday, but never jam today." When Alice objected that it must come sometimes to "jam today" there was a chorus of protestations. "No! no!" was the shocked reply. "It can't! It's jam every other day. Today isn't any other day, you know."
At this stage the Dormouse, who had taken no part in the discussion and seemed to be falling asleep, gave a snort and cried out: "Oh my fur and whiskers!" That broke up the party, leaving Alice as mystified as ever and wondering-and hoping-if it hadn't all been a bad dream.
I think in the minds of many this would be an accurate description of what is taking place in the terms of the construction of the causeway. I think one of the things we should care about, and one of the things that has never been made clear by anybody is why the causeway is being built at all. That is a fundamental question. It strikes me that there are three answers to this. First of all, under the very terms of confederation itself, there was the realization that the federal authority would have the obligation to establish a permanent link with this province. It is in the construction of the causeway that such realization will be fulfilled.
When we look at the amount of money, $148 million, to be spent on one province which has little over 100,000 people, it seems to be a gift. That is really the point: It is not a gift.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It is economic good business. If anyone will look at the amount of money it has cost throughout the years to operate the present Canadian National Northumberland ferries they will realize that the construction of the causeway is good business, and I am glad to see that the Minister of Transport agrees with me. This has been said far too little. Even if things are left as they are, in order to provide a service to Prince Edward Island the federal authority will spend that much money on us. The fact of the matter is that supporting the ferries is supporting a very uneconomic system. Therefore, the construction of this causeway itself is good business, and will be good business when it is completed.
The Budget-Mr. MacDonald
Further to the construction of this causeway, there is the knowledge, to those of us who are interested in certain kinds of industrial development in Prince Edward Island, that this will make available low cost power, which is something that at this time we do not have available for even minor kinds of processing. I hope for this reason that there will be no delay, no hesitation, no slow down in the means necessary for completion of this important link.
I might mention another matter which relates to the present ferry system, and it is strange how interrelated these two subjects are at this point. I learned by private letter that there was to be an increase in the cost of the fares now being charged to travel on the Canadian National ferries. I learned later through a public announcement, which came through some other leak, that this would be the case. I think it is interesting to note that as it appears, technically there is no increase. What happens, and I have a copy of the fare schedule here, is that the old fare schedules listed the fares both ways. They gave fares one way, and the return fares. If you will look at this one you will not find return fares any more. In fact, the new rates mean an increase in cost of some 25 per cent for a car and driver using the ferry. That is an increase from $3.90 return, to $5.
In itself this may not be particularly serious perhaps to persons who use the ferry casually, or who may only drive over it once in a while to visit relatives. But what it does mean to people who are involved in businesses in which they use this system, is a substantial extra cost. In this regard, one trucker informed me that it would mean $40 per week to him alone. Another told me that it would mean $2,000 a year on his trucking operation. When we are talking about products that must be moved off the island to the mainland, when we come to extra costs to the consumer as well as to the producer, how can we look with equanimity at this planned increase at a time when there is a well known increase in the cost of living.
One man in particular mentioned to me that the bulk of the bread now comes to Prince Edward Island from New Brunswick. He could see that it would be all too necessary for the people bringing this bread into the province to increase the cost. It may be only one cent, but one cent means a great deal to a family with a very low standard of living. I think this is shocking, because this ferry system is not a luxury. We do not have
4146	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. MacDonald the option in Prince Edward Island of using other means of transportation; therefore we must use the ferry system as someone else must use a road when it is the only road into his own community.
The fact that this increase was brought about without any forewarning, without any notice being given by the Department of Transport, or the C.N.R., and without notice being given to Prince Edward Island government suggests to me some disinterest, or some lack of concern about the many problems facing the people in Prince Edward Island today.
There is a unanimous resolution in the legislature of Prince Edward Island asking the Minister of Transport if this is not a situation that could be considered in some kind of inquiry, possibly by the Board of Transport Commissioners.
This coming Sunday, May 1, I am told this new system will come into effect. Many things about it frankly amaze me. One of them is this: Now, in the summer, when a tourist is making his pilgrimage to the island, and perhaps hauling his trailer, instead of paying the usual fare he would pay for his car and trailer under the old fare system, a vehicle checker will now run around measuring the lengths of the trailers. According to the length the tourist will pay a certain fee. I do not know whether the Deople who have set the scale realize how many trailers are hauled back and forth on the ferry system. I am sure that the vehicle checker will have to have a pair of running shoes, and will have to have assistance if he is to carry out this kind of scheme.
Then, the purser himself told me that it takes all the time they have available on a normal crossing to sell all the tickets to people who want to go to the island, or who want to go to the other side. In many cases these are return tickets which have to be issued only once, and not twice. What is going to happen is that everybody will buy a ticket on every trip. There will have to be more staff to handle the greater work load, more pursers and more vehicle checkers, takes all the time they have available on a which, in turn, will mean extra cost. But they are already paying that extra cost. It will put us right back where we are. And causing great inconvenience to the staff of the Canadian National, and to the people of Prince Edward Island.

DEBATES	April 21. 1966
Frankly, these are things I do not understand, and I do not know whether this government has really kept in touch with what is happening beyond the borders of Quebec. I would suggest, from my few remarks, that we reappraise some of the stands being taken, because what I have to say is of interest not only to the central part of the country, but to the whole of this nation.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, along with other hon. members I want to extend my congratulations to the Minister of Finance for his well prepared and well presented budget. We all appreciate that taxation has never been a popular institution, and that the implementation of tax measures often requires courage and leadership. In presenting this budget the minister has demonstrated both of these qualities.
In his speech the minister has clearly indicated our economic problem, inflation; and he has indicated the means required to combat this problem. He forecasts an economy in which demand is outstripping supply and in which available productive capacity is overtaxed. His remedies are special taxation, curtailed spending and economic incentives. Unfortunately, economic, fiscal and monetary policy is not simple and is not simply explained.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Many citizens still find it difficult to understand how the introduction of a tax may actually lead to a lower cost of living, or why a government would want to tax if it did not want immediately to spend. As a result it is easy for the political demagogue to fool the ordinary citizen for political advantage, to isolate budgetary measures such as taxes and to describe his opponents as heartless and unconcerned. The opposition in this debate have unfortunately been guilty of this misrepresentation and this demagoguery. Instead of responsible criticism they have engaged in personal attacks, as the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) did this afternoon, and introduced other topics and side issues. While they agree there are inflationary pressures, they would still add fuel to the fire by urging tax reductions and increased expenditures. Though these measures would certainly be desirable in a static or a decreasing economy, they are not advisable in the present situation when we have severe inflationary pressures.
April 21, 1966

If we are to have continued economic growth in this country which has so much potential growth, there must be direction and control by government. It is recognized that some of the controls and restrictions will be opposed in certain quarters but, Mr. Speaker, I think it is time that our Canadian citizens should have a greater and broader concern than their own personal, corporate, and regional interests; that they begin to realize that economic measures introduced by the government, although often burdensome in the short-run, are necessary for the long-term balanced growth of all Canada.
Mr. Speaker, if I have any criticism of our government's economic policy it is that we are not doing enough in the area of external aid. In saying this I recognize that this government has made great progress in this area during the last three years. But, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is still not enough. Many other countries give a greater percentage of their national production to other countries than we do and many of these have a lower standard of living. Five years ago the United Nations suggested that we increase external aid to 1 per cent of gross national production and I would urge that this is an acceptable goal to strive for. I suggest it would be a great historical tragedy if in this day when we of the western world have the technical means of providing food, clothing and shelter for the whole world, we should fail to do so.
It would be a tragedy if we were to continue to use the great productive processes at our disposal for more and more luxury, pleasure and amusement while two-thirds of the world is hungry and undernourished. If it were possible to convert all the waste in Canada-wasted food, wasted liquor, unused clothing, half-smoked cigarettes and so forth -into external assistance it would amount to a considerable contribution. Although this may seem idealistic, I suggest it might be worth while to consider imposing taxes or penalties on waste or prodigality.
In this respect I should like to congratulate those groups and associations which have supported the Canadian Hunger Foundation which has done so much in this vital area.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 9.45 p.m. it is my duty pursuant to Section 5 of standing order 58 to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on any amendment before the house.
Division


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) and I were squared off with each other this evening.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the questions and answers in relation to the business of the house earlier today, the house leaders had a meeting to discuss the matters which were raised, and as a result came to an understanding that we would request the suspension of private members' hour and terminate the budget debate tomorrow.
Then on Monday and Tuesday we will proceed with legislation, and on Wednesday with redistribution.

I would accordingly ask unanimous consent of the house that the following be made an order of the house:
That, notwithstanding the provisions of any standing orders, this house orders that on Friday, April 22, 1966, the hour for private members business shall be suspended and at 5.45 o'clock p.m., unless the debate be previously concluded, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question on the main motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" for the house to resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means (Budget), and, if it be decided in the affirmative, the house shall forthwith resolve itself in Committee of Ways and Means.
I might say that there have been certain other understandings about certain speakers. In answer to the inquiry of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition about the business of the house, I should like to bring forward a more precise list tomorrow which would be in better form.
On one of the days we would take the resolution preceding the collective bargaining bill, and on the other day we would take the order respecting the construction of the Canadian National branch line, because they want to get ahead with the actual work on that.


Michael Starr: What about the Ottawa terminal?


George James McIlraith: We should also deal with the measure to provide for the Science Council of Canada, and with the Research Council Act amendment. Then there is that hardy annual Combines Investigation Act. Then, the house would be in committee to provide for the development of commercial fisheries in Canada.


Michael Starr: List everything.


George James McIlraith: We might also look at the first resolution on government orders of the day for today, which was the resolution to amend the Farm Credit Act, to increase the capital. I think that is one that commends itself particularly to farmers.


Michael Starr: What about the Ottawa terminal bill?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the proposal put by the hon. Minister of Public Works that there be suspension of private members' hour tomorrow afternoon and also that the question now before the house be put at 5.45 p.m. Is this an order of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 21, 1366



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

William Dean Howe: Mr. Speaker, shortly before the Easter recess, I raised the question of investigation into the recent sightings of unidentified flying objects in Canada.
Unidentified flying objects have been reported for centuries, from every part of the world, but only after the second war was serious investigation begun. The United States Air Force has conducted such investigations since 1947, with an attitude ranging from objective, careful study to desperate efforts to prove that U.F.O's do not exist.
A great many objects have been reported to the U.S. group. Several can be put down to crackpots or hoaxes, and most have been explained as aircraft, balloons, clouds and lights on clouds, stars and planets, and other naturally occurring phenomena. However, as of this month, 646 sightings remain unidentified. This is a relatively small percentage of the total reports, but still too many to be ignored. It should be remembered that the vast resources of United States government and military agencies have been brought to bear in trying to solve these cases.
A great many of the U.S. reports have come from military and civilian pilots, airport control tower personnel, radar operators, meteorologists and astronomers, all thoroughly trained to watch the sky and to know what they see there.
In several cases, an object has been observed simultaneously by radar operators, ground observers, and jet interceptor pilots. Unless we want to assume that each one of them was having the same hallucination at the same time, these sightings must remain unexplained in terms of natural phenomena.
There have been reports of U.F.O.'s in Canada for years, as there have been in every country. It has been, and still is, customary to subject the reporters of these objects to every sort of ridicule and humiliation. However, I believe that it is long past the point when we can safely assume that every one of these people is drunk, neurotic, or just lying. Most reports come from people of good reputation, whose testimony would be
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion accepted without question under any other circumstances.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I wish to make clear that I do not support either side of the U.F.O issue. There is not enough evidence to conclude that flying saucers exist, but there is too much unexplained evidence to ignore. It is my contention that the Canadian government should direct an appropriate department to conduct a continuing investigation into all reports. I believe a climate should be created in which Canadians can report what they see without fear of ridicule. The conclusions of these investigations should be published regularly. Most sightings can be shown to be naturally caused, but I suspect that even proof of visits from outer space would be more reassuring to the public than Canada's present attitude of ignoring them in hopes that they will go away.
I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, what investigations Canada is now conducting, and what the government's intentions are.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I cannot answer directly the question which was posed at the end of the hon. member's short speech. I do not personally think there is a co-ordinated effort being made now, but I believe several departments of government are interested in the subject matter referred to by the hon. member.
Speaking for the Department of National Defence, I am sure that our Defence Research Board will be interested in his remarks. It seems to me the National Research Council will also be interested and, to a lesser degree, the Department of Transport. I will do my utmost to have initiated the inquiry requested by the hon. member, and proper consultation developed between the departments concerned. I appreciate the suggestion that regular reporting on these sightings should be made. I will make it a point, at least as far as the Defence Research Board is concerned, to initiate an investigation and I trust this will have the results for which the hon. member is hoping.



AGRICULTURE-CREAM-REQUEST FOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SUBSIDY APPLICATIONS

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I notice that neither the minister nor his parliamentary secretary is present; I would have expected that one or the other would be here to reply to the questions I intend to raise.
April 21. 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Indeed I do not see much point in continuing in their absence. I had thought that the government would at least extend a certain degree of courtesy to a private member who does not have many occasions to raise questions in the house, because of restrictions under the rules.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: There is not a minister present at the moment.


Stanley James Korchinski: It is obviously the policy of the government to ignore private members. That is perfectly all right with me. I can raise this question at another time. However this is another example of the arrogance of the government. Not having answered the two questions I raised a couple of days ago I would have thought the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) would have taken advantage of this opportunity to clear the air and indicate to many farmers what is the situation with regard to the supplementary payments which farmers thought they were going to receive.
It is now almost a year since it was suggested that supplementary payments would be made. The government advertised this in different media. According to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics apparently 450,000 farmers were circularized, and both television and radio carried advertising indicating such payments would be made. All farm organizations, co-operatives and 4-H clubs were also so advised. In addition Farm Letter No. 6 was sent out dealing with this matter, a further letter on June 4, and a third one on August 24.
Many farmers have made application for these supplementary payments. Possibly the officials in the Department of Agriculture may have been swamped with applications but, whatever the reason, they did not even acknowledge receipt of applications. Naturally farmers are concerned about what has happened to their applications. Many have written to me, and during the Easter recess a lot of people asked me what was going on in the department. Surely the minister owes it to the farmers to clear the air and I specifically ask, even though the department might be swamped, that it at least acknowledge receipt of applications.
If the department cannot do that then it should indicate the possible final date when farmers may expect payments. I have one case of a farmer who submitted an application on July 24 last year. He wrote again on

November 14 but got no reply. He wrote a third time on January 6 of this year, then a fourth time on January 31, and finally he wrote to me.
These people want to know what is happening. They do not have secretaries to write for them. They think the department should have sufficient staff to carry out its obligations. They ask how is it that when it comes to income tax time there is always sufficient staff to deal with forms when the government is collecting money, but when it comes to the question of money being paid to farmers there does not seem to be sufficient staff?
There is no use in the minister's telling us that 130,000 farmers have been paid. There are many more who have not been paid and they want to know if the department has received their applications. They want to know whether they should submit other applications, and how long they should wait. They do not know whether there will be another payment in a few months time. They do not know whether there has been a first or second payment, and I ask the minister for an explanation on this problem.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee that originally set up this system of raising questions on the adjournment motion, I feel in duty bound to rise on a point of order. It is absolutely useless for an hon. member to raise a question at this time when there is neither a minister nor a parliamentary secretary present on the government side to answer the question. At one time this evening there was not one minister or parliamentary secretary in the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I see one minister has now returned to the house but I could not let this situation go by without commenting on it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should advise the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) to read the conditions of provisional standing order 39A, particularly that section at the top of page 38 of the provisional standing orders.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have read it.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.32 p.m.

Friday, April 22, 1966