1966-06-09

[Stage Direction]
First report of special joint committee on divorce-Mr. Cameron (High Park).
Third report of standing committee on national defence-Mr. Groos.
First report of standing committee on Indian affairs, human rights and citizenship and immigration-Mr. Klein.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West) presented the sixth report of the standing committee on transport and communications, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
[Note: Text of the foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order-I think this is the proper time to do it-with regard to an alteration which has been made in Hansard without the authority of the House of Commons. I refer to page 6140, the second column. Yesterday I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) a supplementary question which reads:
Does he not think he should place greater emphasis on the fighting efficiency of our armed services rather than on the building of a monument in stone to himself?
The Minister of National Defence replied in these words, which I heard and which were recorded by the Hansard reporter and reproduced on the blues: "Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the emphasis that I want". The minister has now, without the authority of the House of Commons, struck out the word "that" and put in a phrase which he does not understand and which he never used- "fighting efficiency".
My point of order is this. I would ask Your Honour to rule that revised Hansard should carry the original version of this statement, because we are not entitled to make changes in substance. I am quite aware that ministers of the crown in answer to questions may give no reply at all or may make stupid answers, but they are not entitled to make up for their intellectual deficiencies by changing the substance of Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will take the matter under advisement, although I assume that the hon. member would want to allow the Minister of National Defence an opportunity to express his views about the matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, as I understand it, an alteration in Hansard rests within the prerogative of Mr. Speaker, who protects our rights and privileges here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member wants to allow the Minister of National Defence to say whether this change, if there was a change, was made with his authority and in what circumstances, after which the Chair will be in a better position to make a ruling.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as reported in Votes and Proceedings, I gave notice of a bill relating to the resumption of the work of loading and unloading vessels at the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec. In view of the extremely urgent situation that exists and the necessity of taking action on this matter at the earliest possible moment, I wonder whether I could request the kindness of the house to grant unanimous consent in order that I might introduce the bill now, rather than tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The house can do just about anything by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous agreement to the proposal of the hon. member?

June 9. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, no one is more anxious to see this dispute settled than I-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt if it would be in order for the minister to make a statement at this time. I think debate at this particular point in our deliberations this afternoon would be out of order. The hon. member has requested unanimous consent. If there is not unanimous consent we shall go on with the next item of business.


Frank Howard: I thought I heard unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There are negative voices.


Frank Howard: From the government side.



CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-196, to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, this bill is necessitated at this time by reason of the government's slowness in instituting the position of ombudsman, also by its slowness in rewriting the expropriation laws. The purpose of this bill is to provide an amendment to the bill of rights which will specify that there shall be no discrimination by reason of belonging to a particular profession or trade, or by reason of education, in respect to the enjoyment of the basic rights and freedoms recognized in the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether the white paper on broadcasting is now before the government.
Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A draft of the white paper which was produced by a committee of the cabinet is now being considered by the cabinet.
	!


Mr. Diefenbaker:: As a supplementary question I would ask the Prime Minister, in view of the publication of a number of the terms of the white paper in today's press, which is a most unusual situation, whether the white paper, as stated in the press reports, contemplates bringing about a complete overhaul of the C.B.C., ousting President Ouimet, advocating the appointment of the president by the board of directors, and repudiating the concept of a central czar of broadcasting?
I ask this because it is most unusual that the press should speak about the meeting of the cabinet last night at which these matters were dealt with.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I see it there is nothing unusual in press speculation, and this is pure 

or impure-speculation.


John George Diefenbaker: Which is it, pure or impure?


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State a question having in mind the fact that the white paper on broadcasting policy now is before the cabinet in draft form. Could she indicate at what time, possibly this month, we may expect to have it tabled in the house?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: As I have said repeatedly, I hope it will be before the house by the end of this month. There are a number of things including the election expenses report which may create a log jam in the operations of the Queen's Printer, which is also my responsibility. It is still the hope of the government, however, that before Canada day the paper will be disclosed to the house.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: My question is for the Prime Minister, and it concerns the longshoremen's strike. Since all hon. members would like to see this strike settled on the basis of free collective bargaining, and since five weeks have elapsed with no immediate prospects of a solution, may I ask the Prime Minister, first, if he has now any substantial hope of an early settlement;
June 9, 1966	COMMONS
second, if he has not, will he give consideration either to advancing the bill of which the hon. member for Skeena has given notice or introducing a bill which would contain provision for a settlement without imposing compulsory arbitration?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Contrary to what the hon. member has suggested, and to what was suggested in the press release I have received from the New Democratic Party to the effect that there is no hope of an early breakthrough, there is hope of success in the negotiations.
We have not given up that hope. Judge Lippe is negotiating at this moment; we have been in touch with him during the last hour and we have not by any means given up hope that this serious issue will be settled very shortly by the processes of free collective bargaining and not by parliamentary direction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: In view of statements made last night in a national telecast regarding compulsory arbitration in this critical strike situation, what is the point at which the right hon. gentleman considers the national interest will take priority over the desire, now expressed in government policy, to refrain from interference with free collective bargaining?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a matter for the government of the day and the parliament of the day to decide. It is a very important and very difficult matter to decide. It will have to be left to the responsibility of government and of parliament in respect of any particular situation. Meanwhile, I can say our decision on this matter is not made easier by the kind of press release the New Democratic Party issued this morning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Is he in a position to tell us whether the statement made on television last night by his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Trudeau) according to which the federal government will 23033-3911
DEBATES	6173
Inquiries of the Ministry not agree to the request of the new premier of Quebec to return all direct taxes to Quebec constitutes the new policy of the federal government?



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is directed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister received a request from the Minister of Industry of the province of Alberta, Hon. A. R. Patrick, calling for a federal-provincial conference in respect to national parks policy? If so, what is his own view and that of the government with regard to this question?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: We have had some contact with Mr. Patrick on park affairs. I think I would prefer to take the question as notice and make a statement in full, probably tomorrow.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Did members of the Canadian Medical Association indicate to the hon. gentleman when discussing problems of medicare yesterday that Canada was facing an acute shortage of medical personnel, especially doctors. If so, what immediate plans does the government have to meet this situation?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this subject was raised in our discussions yesterday, and the immediate plan of the government in this field is on the order paper.


William Heward Grafftey: As a supplementary question, I won't debate with the minister but it is my view that these long term plans will not meet the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


William Heward Grafftey: May I pose my supplementary?
6174	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is not asking a supplementary question; he is now making a statement. If he wishes to ask a supplementary he will be allowed to do so.


William Heward Grafftey: Apart from long term plans on the order paper will the government consider an immediate increase in grants for medical research in order to keep doctors and medical personnel in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The second question seems to be of a very general nature.


William Heward Grafftey: A general nature?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lincoln.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Chair. I am reliably informed that the government was told yesterday by the medical association that Canada is faced with a serious shortage of doctors, which problem needs immediate solution. Will the government tell the house whether it has immediate plans now?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lincoln.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jim McNulty (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Could the minister inform the house when a mediator will be appointed in the present seaway dispute?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I take it this question refers to the St. Lawrence seaway workers dispute. A similar question was asked yesterday, and the Prime Minister stated in reply that we had decided on the man we would like to see take on this responsibility. I am now pleased to announce that he has accepted the appointment. Senator Norman A. MacKenzie will be the mediator on this important seaway matter.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.

DEBATES	June 9. 19B6
As the new or next Quebec government advocates in its program, a new alliance with the rest of the country and the drawing up of a new Canadian constitution, does the government propose to set up shortly a joint parliamentary committee on the Canadian constitution?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this is another question of a very general nature, one which has to do with general policy and which the hon. member could surely place on the order paper.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry, but this question is not of a general nature; on the contrary, it is very important, just as important as the matter of eastern or western grain. Since the beginning of the session various parties in the house, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and other hon. members have urged the institution of a parliamentary committee on the Canadian constitution, but the federal government has done nothing about it except show a lack of concern-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss the matter at ten o'clock.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, the urgency of this question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is based on the fact that the construction of the replica of the Grande Hermine is now under way. Has a firm of consultants been hired to study the feasibility of dismantling the ship after construction, in order to float it under several bridges to the Cartier Breboeuf park? If so, what estimates have they produced or at what stage are the studies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he place this question on the order paper.


James Russell Keays: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to do that but I think the question is urgent in view of the possibility that the government will have to change its mind about the ship's final destination.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Could the
June 9. 1966	COMMONS
Prime Minister inform the house whether he has received numerous petitions from public bodies on the lower St. Lawrence concerning the final destination of the Grande Hermine, and if so can the petitioners hope for a favourable reply?


Mr. Speaker:: May 1 suggest that this question be put with the other one for consideration.


James Russell Keays: I will raise it at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



ACTION TO BE TAKEN FOLLOWING ASSISTANCE REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the publicity which has been given to the alleged contents of the Dr. Ritchie Donald report, may I ask the minister whether he could give some assurance, particularly to the coal miners of Cape Breton, that it is not the government's intention to phase out the coal mines over the next 15 years, and that it is not the intention of the government to drop its proposed $25 million expenditure for the opening of the Lingan coal seam?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the government has not yet had an opportunity to study Dr. Donald's report, so these questions cannot be answered.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question. I should like to ask whether these two points are contained in the recommendations of Dr. Donald's report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, is the minister refusing to answer or is the question out of order?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should understand that the Chair has refused to accept the question.



PAN-AMERICAN GAMES-REQUEST FOR INCREASED SUPPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister, of which I have given him notice. In view of the widespread speculation in the Winnipeg press and the statement this week by Premier Roblin, can the
DEBATES	6175
Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister say whether the federal treasury is considering giving further financial assistance to the pan-American games.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the federal government already has given very considerable assistance to these games beyond that which originally was contemplated. We have had a further request for assistance. The matter has been brought to our attention by the premier and leader of the opposition of Manitoba, and is under urgent consideration at the moment.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, has the government had any communication with Premier Smallwood with regard to a contribution toward the construction of a highway from John C. Doyle's Javelin properties to the St. Lawrence; what is the division going to be as between the federal and provincial governments, and what is the present position of this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the question is of great urgency. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition may wish to state in what way the question is a matter of urgency and should not wait to be placed on the order paper.


John George Diefenbaker: With regard to placing matters on the order paper, we wait and wait for answers and waiting becomes almost a way of life.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Go and build yourself another $100 million building.
The reason for the urgency is that according to Premier Smallwood this matter should be proceeded with without delay. I want to find out the reasons, whether or not there is haste and whether or not the government of Canada should help Mr. Doyle again.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not convinced by Premier Smallwood's arguments.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: On a point of order, I should like to inform hon. members that the same question placed on the order paper earlier by the right hon. gentleman was answered the first following day on which written answers could be given.

June 9, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that it was not the same question. That was an effort to ascertain whether the announcement made last August by Mr. Doyle of the Javelin company was factually true.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the answer just given by the house leader for the government, could the Minister of Public Works see to it that questions placed on the order paper by other hon. members be answered with as much dispatch as for the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), so that we do not have to wait two months for an answer?



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the postponement of the federal-provincial conference on higher education I wonder whether the government is giving active consideration to meeting the critical need for capital assistance to universities, as outlined in a letter to the Prime Minister by the association of universities and colleges in Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are. The delay in holding the conference must not be allowed to prevent the federal government making the proposal to the provinces when we have completed that consideration.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister indicate how provincial governments might qualify for welfare schemes which they initiate now under the Canada Assistance Plan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is not in order.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege based on the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare when in Nova Scotia recently answered a query by the minister of public welfare of the province with regard to welfare programs which were of joint federal-provincial application by stating that the province of Nova Scotia could put these welfare schemes into effect and derive assistance from the federal government through the Canada Assistance Plan, which is not yet law in this country. That was the basis for my question. I feel the people of Nova Scotia are entitled to an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no question of privilege. I certainly did not indicate that no answer should be given to the question. I just meant to suggest that the question should be put in writing.



LOTTERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. I apologize for not giving him notice, but I have been frightfully busy this morning. In view of the continuing injustice arising from the different applications of the Criminal Code with regard to lotteries as between various regions of Canada and sometimes within a province itself, and in view of recent cases where good Canadian citizens who are members of the Legion have been given criminal records, is consideration being given to amending the Criminal Code to provide by regulation for justice to all people in Canada on this question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this is a question of general policy which should not be asked at this time.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the house whether the former minister of finance when he spoke in Kingston last night was expressing government policy when he said it should be made a criminal offence to collect donations from foreign subsidiaries?
June 9, 1966



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I should like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture. Due to the recent outbreak of rabies in southeastern Saskatchewan, has the government of Saskatchewan made application to the federal government to establish a joint provincial-federal program to provide compensation to farmers who lose their livestock because of this serious disease?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that he should place this question on the order paper.



CANADA COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENT OF ACT On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. In the light of the fact that the Canada Council recently received a $12 million bequest from the Dorothy J. Killam estate and that one of the terms in connection with that bequest was that the money should not be used to subsidize the arts as defined in the Canada Council Act, is it contemplated that an amendment to the Canada Council Act will be introduced in this house this year.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I must have read the same clipping, because the same question arose in my mind.



EFFECT ON EXPORT MOVEMENT OF LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. With the very serious situation developing in our wheat export trade as outlined by the chief commissioner of the wheat board the other day in the agriculture committee, is the minister now in a position to tell the house the number of ships and the amount of grain involved in the three ports struck by the longshoremen?


Mitchell William Sharp: I could get that information for the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, and I shall do so.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. There is a report that officials of the Canadian Wheat Board are going to Moscow and may be joined there by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is this visit in connection with reported delays in wheat shipments?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board is going to Moscow in connection with the renewal of the trade agreement, and while there hopes to make some new contracts for the sale of Canadian wheat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC-RECOGNITION OF HEAD OF GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Is he in a position today to tell us if he has received a letter from the former premier of Quebec since the last elections, and with whom he intends to deal in the future as premier of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is out of order.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
In view of the fact that section 17 of the Broadcasting Act prohibits the broadcasting in dramatic form of political programs, could the Secretary of State inquire forthwith at the C.B.C. concerning a breach of this act that might have been committed last night on the broadcast "Les affaires de l'Etat" by the member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey)?
Simultaneous translation did not enable the minister to grasp the question which is very important.


Mr. Speaker:: The question was declared out of order even before the minister could have heard the translation.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel that if the hon. member for

June 9, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry Lotbiniere has an accusation to make, he should make it and bring the matter before the committee on privileges and elections.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is out of order. Does the hon. member feel he has a question of privilege.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether my question was out of order to the point where it cannot be debated at ten o'clock? We have been given an hilarious spectacle-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kent (Onf)):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a question, if I may, to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the federal government turned down completely a request by the minister of agriculture for Ontario to share the cost of the $1,000 loans to farmers who suffered disastrous crop losses in Ontario last year?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for asking me this question, as there is in the gallery a group of lovely ladies from the township of McNab.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John James Greene: I might point out to the hon. member that the announcement of this payment was made by the province of Ontario prior to any consultation with myself. After having so announced it we were approached for a contribution. I might point out that we had made a contribution of $17 million in respect of drought relief last year in this province, which we felt was an adequate contribution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister, further, whether in the initial discussions with the province of Ontario any indication was given by this government that financial assistance might be shared in this venture?


John James Greene: We were not consulted with respect to these $1,000 loans. Whether this subject matter was entered into last year I do not know, because I was in a humbler post at that time.



RELEASE OF PAYMENTS IN PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Can he say whether an order in council was passed today releasing P.F.A.A. payments for several areas of Canada, which payments have been held up since last fall awaiting this order?


John James Greene: I am not too sure what the hon. member is referring to, Mr. Speaker. Is it P.F.A.A. payments?


Robert Simpson: Yes.


John James Greene: I have had no notice of that fact, but I will check into the matter and let the hon. member know.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Batten in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Income Tax Act and to provide among other things:
1.	That for the 1967 and subsequent taxation years the deduction from individual income tax equal to the lesser of 10 per cent of basic tax or $600, described in subsection (4) of section 33 of the said act, be replaced by a deduction equal to the lesser of 20 per cent of basic tax or $20, and that for the 1966 taxation year the deduction be equal to the aggregate of
(a)	4 per cent of basic tax or $240, whichever is the lesser, and
(b)	12 per cent of basic tax or $12, whichever is the lesser.
2.	That for the 1967 and subsequent taxation years,
(a)	a gift made to a charitable organization in Canada exempt from tax by paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section 62 or to a corporation or trust resident in Canada exempt from tax by paragraph (f) or (g) of that subsection may be deducted in computing taxable income for the year only if the donee is a registered Canadian charitable organization, and for this purpose a registered Canadian charitable organization shall mean
(i)	a charitable organization in Canada exempt from tax by paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section 62 or a corporation of trust resident in Canada exempt from tax by paragraph (f) or (g) of that subsection, or
(ii)	a branch, section, parish, congregation or other division or an organization. described in (i) that receives donations on its own behalf,
that has been registered in a prescribed manner with the Minister of National Revenue and has filed a return in prescribed form; and
(b)	the aggregate of gifts that a taxpayer may deduct in computing his taxable income for a taxation year by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 27 of the Act may include a gift made
June 9, 1966
[Stage Direction]
(i)	to the United Nations or any agency thereof,
(ii)	to a university outside Canada prescribed to be a university the student body of which ordinarily includes students from Canada, or
(iii)	to a charitable organization outside Canada to which Her Majesty in right of Canada has made a gift during the calendar year coinciding with or ending in the taxation year.
3.	That with respect to bonds or other obligations issued after April 15, 1966, interest on such bonds or other obligations
(a)	of or guaranteed by the government of Canada,
(b)	of the government of a province,
(c)	for an agent of a province, an educational institution or a hospital, where repayment of the principal amount thereof and payment of the interest thereon is guaranteed by the government of the province, or
(d)	of a municipal or local government established under provincial law,
be exempt from the 15% non-resident withholding tax.
4.	That with respect to taxation years ending after March 29, 1966, a corporation whose principal business during the year after that date was trading or dealing in bonds, shares or debentures will not be eligible to pay tax at the special 15 per cent rate of tax provided by section 70 of the said act.
5.	That with respect to dividends received after March 29, 1966, a non-resident-owned investment corporation may not deduct from its income in computing its taxable income a dividend received by it from another non-resident-owned investment corporation other than a dividend paid by a nonresident-owned investment corporation that had previous to the payment of the dividend, and at a time when it was taxable as a non-resident-owned investment corporation, paid dividends (other than dividends on which no tax was payable under the said act) the aggregate amount of which is not less than the corporation's surplus determined in the manner prescribed for purposes of subsection (la) of section 196 of the said act for taxation years for which it was not taxable as a non-resident-owned investment corporation.
6.	That for the 1966 and subsequent taxation years an employee may not deduct in computing his income an amount in respect of tuition fees paid on his behalf by his employer in excess of the amount included in his income in respect of the said fees.
7.	That with respect to a benefit received after March 29, 1966 by virtue of a plan under which a corporation agrees to sell or issue shares to its employees, the rules described in subsection (2) of section 85A of the said act that an employee may elect to use to calculate the amount of tax on the said benefit be amended so that the 20 per cent of the amount of the benefit referred to in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b) of the said subsection will not exceed $200, but that this amendment shall not apply if the right to acquire shares was given to the employee before 1965 and the benefit is received before January 1, 1967.
8.	That is be declared for greater certainty that the expression "in Canada" in the said act includes and has always included the sea bed and sub-soil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of Canada in respect of which grants are issued, by the government of Canada or of a province, of a
Income Tax Act
right, license or privilege to explore for, drill for or take any materials or substances.
9.	That with respect to operations that come into commercial production after March 29, 1966, the definition of a mine be amended so that all wells, the material that is extracted from sylvite deposits by means of which is sent to a single plant for processing, be deemed to be one mine, and that where an operation that would qualify as a mine by reason of an enactment based on this resolution came into commercial production within the 3 years preceding March 29, 1966, that part of the income of the operator, thereof that is attributable to commercial production therefrom in the part of the first 36 months of such operation that falls after March 29, 1966, shall be deemed to be income from the operation of a mine.
10.	That the date before which a new manufacturing or processing business must have commenced manufacturing or processing in reasonable commercial quantities in a designated area in order to qualify for an exemption from tax on its income from such operations for 36 months after the commencement of operations be changed from April 1, 1967 to April 1, 1968 in the case of a manufacturing or processing business where evidence satisfactory to the Minister of Industry is furnished to establish that
(a)	the facilities to be used in the said business were in the process of being constructed, installed or assembled on the site of the proposed business premises on March 29, 1966, and
(b)	the said business is unable to commence manufacturing or processing in reasonable commercial quantities before April 1, 1967, by reason of an event beyond the control of the said business.
11.	That the provisions of section 79C of the said act dealing with deferred profit sharing plans be revised and in particular that the said provisions
(a)	authorize the governor in council to make regulations to define the property in which funds of a trust governed by a plan may be invested.
(b)	require that property of a trust governed by a plan be vested in the employees who are beneficiaries under the plan, and
(c)	provide rules for taxing amounts reallocated when employees who are beneficiaries under a plan cease to be beneficiaries under the plan.
12.	That paragraph (u) of subsection (1) of section 11 be amended to provide that the deduction from income provided thereunder shall not apply with respect to amounts paid after March 29, 1966, to a trustee under a deferred profit sharing plan.
13.	That section 79A of the act, dealing with supplementary unemployment benefit plans, be amended to provide for the registration of such plans for the purposes of the said act and to authorize the making of regulations governing the qualifications required of such plans for registration.
14.	That with respect to each taxation year included in whole or in part in the period commencing May 1, 1966, and ending October 31, 1967, a special refundable tax at the rate of 5% shall be payable by all corporations that are not exempt from tax under the said act by virtue of section 62 thereof and by all trusts (other than trusts arising on death) calculated, in the case of a corporation, on a tax base (hereinafter called the corporate tax base) comprising the aggregate, of
(a) its taxable income or loss,
[Stage Direction]
June 9, 1966
Income Tax Act
(b)	amounts deducted under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 11 in computing its income,
(c)	amounts deducted under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 11 in computing its income,
(d)	business losses sustained in other years that are deducted in computing its taxable income,
(e)	the amount by which any amounts deducted under section 83A of the said act in computing its income exceed any expenses described in that -section actually incurred by it in the year,
(f)	dividends received from corporations described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of subsection (1) of section 28 of the said act that are deducted in computing its taxable income, and
(g)	income from the operation of a mine not included in computing its income by virtue of subsection (5) of section 83 of the said act, minus the aggregate of
(h)	$30,000, but where the corporation is associated with one or more other corporations in the year then 30/35ths of the amount allocated to it for the year under subsection (3) or (3a) of section 39 of the said act,
(i)	the aggregate of the payments made in the year by the corporation (not exceeding the aggregate of the amounts specified in sub-paragraphs (b) and (e)) each of which was a payment as or on account of principal made in retirement of a debt owed by the corporation or made into a sinking fund that under an agreement in writing entered into before March 30, 1966 was required to be established for the purpose of the retirement of a debt owed by the corporation, if
(i)	the original term for all repayment of the debt was three years or longer,
(ii)	the payment was required to be made in the year under an agreement in writing entered into before March 30, 1966, and
(iii)	the payment was made to a person with whom the corporation was dealing at arm's length,
(j)	payments made in the year by the corporation to redeem shares of its capital stock where such redemption was authorized by or on behalf of the corporation before March 30, 1966, or required by an agreement in writing entered into before that day, and
(k)	the following taxes payable by the corporation in respect of the year, namely
(i)	income tax payable to Her Majesty in right of Canada,
(ii)	income tax and logging tax payable to Her Majesty in right of a province, and
(iii)	income and profits taxes payable to the government of a country other than Canada,
and in the case of a trust, on a tax base (hereinafter called the trust tax base) comprising the aggregate of
(l)	its income or loss from all businesses carried on by it,
(m)	its rental income not included in computing the amount determined under subparagraph (1),
(n)	amounts deducted under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 11 in computing the amounts specified in subparagraphs (1) and (m), and
(o)	amounts deducted under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 11 in computing the amounts specified in subparagraphs (1) and (m), minus the aggregate of
(p)	$30,000,

(q)	the aggregate of the payments made in the year by the trust (not exceeding the amount specified in subparagraph (n)) each of which was a payment as or on account of principal made in retirement of a debt owed by the trust, if
(i)	the original term for full repayment of the debt was three years or longer,
(ii)	the payment was required to be made in the year under an agreement in writing entered into before March 30, 1966, and
(iii)	the payment was made to a person with whom the trust was dealing at arm's length, and
(r)	income and profits taxes payable in respect of the year to the government of a country other than Canada.
15.	That for the purposes of the special refundable tax, the corporate tax base and trust tax base for any taxation year part of which is before May 1, 1966 or after October 31, 1967, shall be that proportion of the said tax base that the number of days in the taxation year that are after April 30, 1966 or before November 1, 1967, as the case may be, is of the total number of days in the taxation year.
16.	That payment of the special refundable tax shall be made,
(a)	in the case of a corporation, in monthly installments on the last day of each month commencing with May 31,	1966, and ending with
October 31, 1967, with each installment calculated by reference to the corporate tax base for the same taxation year of the corporation as is used in computing or estimating the corporation tax payment that is due on the same day, and
(b)	in the case of a trust, in equal installments on June 30, September 30 and December 31, 1966, and in equal installments on March 31, June 30 and September 30, 1967, calculated by reference to the trust tax base for the preceding taxation year or the estimated trust tax base for the taxation year in which the installments are paid.
17.	That each installment of special refundable tax shall be,
(a)	in the case of a corporation, that proportion of the tax calculated or estimated to be payable for the taxation year, that one is of the number of installment payment dates in the taxation year that are after April 30, 1966 and before November 1, 1967, and
(b)	in the case of a trust, one third of the tax calculated or estimated to be payable for the taxation year,
and that
(c)	the final adjusting payment, if any, shall be due, in respect of each taxation year, three months after the end of the taxation year, and
(d)	a return in prescribed form shall be filed by a corporation within six months from the end of each taxation year and by a trust within ninety days from the end of each taxation year.
18.	That the special refundable tax shall be refunded together with interest at 5% per annum to taxpayers at such time or times as may be prescribed but not less than 18 months not more than 36 months after the later of
(a)	the day on which the payment of tax to be refunded was due; or
(b)	the day on which the payment of tax to be refunded was paid.
June 9, 1966
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, last evening I mentioned an example of gross and unjustifiable expenditure in the proposal to build a defence headquarters in Ottawa when in every part of this nation the construction industry is being asked to withhold and postpone construction. With the reduction in the number of men in the armed forces and as a consequence a pronounced drop in morale, this expenditure is one of those things that cannot in any way be justified. I am waiting to hear the explanation from the Minister of Public Works as to the estimate for the cost of Canada's Pentagon, for at the time the announcement was made the press all over this nation was under the impression that the expenditure would be over $100 million.
Whether it is $35 million, $50 million or $100 million, this is something that is not needed. Certainly provision will have to be made for better accommodation for those in the Department of National Defence than they have had over the years; but this is no time, when the Canadian taxpayer is being taxed as never before, to engage in measures that can only have as their purpose the adulation of the minister who presides over the department.
Having said that-
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question? Does he know that the plan is to build this national defence headquarters some time in the future and that the plans themselves will only be started in 1968? The construction of the building will proceed some time after that.


John George Diefenbaker: All I know is that the government has issued the information in bits and pieces. First they left the impression that construction would proceed immediately. This met with widespread criticism so they backed down, which is nothing unusual on the part of this government. The usual procedure for this government is to advance a proposal, lay out the plans and, when it is criticized, retreat. That has been their course of action and it has become almost a psychological disease of the present administration.
I wish to speak now on a matter upon which I am sure there will be general agreement, and I hope the minister will express himself in this regard. His predecessor was not in favour of the suggestion that was made on the part of the Conservative party, but there has been a separation. Mr. Gordon-and I use his name rather than his constituency
Income Tax Act
because I wish to identify him unmistakably-has moved to another seat but he still enunciates government policy. I ask the minister to let the house and the country know what are the differences, if any, between the uncouth and discarded philosophy of the former minister of finance and the more enlightened but similar philosophy of the present minister.
I know the minister is most anxious to place before house and the country an answer to the problem that is becoming the subject of widespread discussion. It is said that the present minister is ambitious. I do not criticize in any way the fact that he is ambitious. It is said he does not want to go too far in renouncing the views of the hon. member for Davenport because that gentleman enjoys a very wide measure of support. If this is not the occasion to ask the minister's view on this subject then I do not know what better occasion could be chosen to get a clear enunciation of the direction in which Canada's fiscal and economic policies are now being determined.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the right hon. gentleman another question? He has the floor now and since he has invited me to discuss certain differences that may exist in my party I wonder whether he would discuss the differences that exist in his party, particularly between himself and his followers.


John George Diefenbaker: My remarks have already registered on the minister. He is annoyed. He knows he cannot answer and he resorts to the subterfuge of an interruption which indicates the fear he has when asked and challenged to enunciate the differences between him and his predecessor to whom he has paid obeisance, high honour, almost subservience. What more can one do for one's predecessor?


Mr. Pugh:: Read his books.


John George Diefenbaker: I welcome the minister's interruption because it indicates that he too is feeling the heat of controversy. Only yesterday the hon. member for Davenport, in the course of the educational campaign which he now wages across the country, asked that a criminal offence be placed on the statute books of the nation in respect of contributions received from foreign corporations.
I recall the elections of 1962 and 1963. If he were here today, in view of his position as organizer and plenipotentiary extraordinary, mistaken as he was as to the outcome of the

June 9, 1966
Income Tax Act
election, he might be able to tell us whether the reason for his sudden dislike of United States assistance is based on considerations that were not in his mind in the elections of 1962 and 1963.
I would like the minister to let us know how things have been going in regard to the difference of opinion between himself and the former minister. Many have said there is a widespread division between them. I do not believe it. They are fighting with powderpuffs. The Minister of Finance says he does not agree with everything that the member for Davenport advances. He believes that in Canada we must maintain a strong spirit in support of Canadian investment by Canadians. On the other hand, the hon. member for Davenport says that the "friendly giant" has evil designs on us-I use his words-and he is afraid we are going to be smothered and swallowed up. This is very strange, Mr. Chairman, because it was that gentleman who, in July of 1963 and again in July of 1965, flew to Washington and signed agreements tying Canada's fiscal policies to the United States of America's balance of payments problem. It was he who, having bitterly protested against allowing United States banking concerns to obtain a foothold in Canada, acted contrary to his public declarations. We would therefore like to know what is the political philosophy followed by the present government with relation to United States investment.
I will not quote from the many press references that have been made but I do think I should refer to something that indicates the feeling of the people of the United States. It is set out in the issue of U.S. News & World Report of May 30 and reads as follows:
Once again, Canadians are getting in a mood to try to declare their economic independence from the United States.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Suddenly a period of uncertainty appears to lie ahead for U.S. investors in Canada and for U.S. companies with Canadian subsidiaries.
The article goes on to state that a book has been published by the hon. member for Davenport, "A Choice For Canada". If one may summarize, the book outlines certain steps that should be taken such as lower depreciation write-offs for foreign owned subsidiaries than for domestic companies. Does the minister accept the philosophy inherent in that statement. There is the suggestion of a withholding tax on management and professional

fees for non-residents. Does the minister, having inherited the garments of the hon. member for Davenport, accept that principle? The book says that there should be a tax on stock transfers of Canadian firms which become foreign owned. Does the Minister of Finance accept the tutelage of his predecessor? There is a suggestion of customs duties to prevent foreign subsidiaries from increasing their imports from foreign firms. Is that basic principle of the predecessor of the present minister now being considered? It is suggested there should be non-deductible interest charges for corporate tax purposes on new borrowings by foreign owned subsidiaries.
I ask these questions because Canadians are wondering what the attitude of the present government is. The Minister of Finance made a speech in Toronto in which he reviewed the ten steps to economic greatness. In these ten steps there are indications that several of the principles of the hon. member for Davenport have been accepted by the present government. All we would like to know is, what are the views of the present government on the subject of foreign investment? So far as we are concerned, we have always taken the stand that foreign investment is welcome and will not be interfered with but that investment in Canada shall act in the interests of Canada in the determination of policies.
This was called anti-Americanism. What are the views of the present government? I ask that because there have been some amazing changes. Let me refer to the Canada Development Corporation. At one time it was r.ot looked upon favourably by the Minister of Finance. Later there was lukewarm approval and now this infant, yet to be born, has received a degree of approval from the Minister of Finance which would indicate that the doctrine of the former minister has taken hold. Unless the minister gives the house a full and complete answer-not in some club in Toronto but in the House of Commons-I shall have something more to say.
The general attitude of the press across the country indicates that the battle between these two giants is not a sham fight. I think it is. However, the question asked across the country has been summarized well in the Vancouver Province. This newspaper says that the basic policy difference between the Minister of Finance and his predecessor, Walter Gordon, is now well understood. Both
June 9, 19CS

of them want their country to be independent. But then the article says:
Prime Minister Pearson's position between these two fundamentally opposed views is so fuzzy he should explain exactly where he stands.
Over and over again similar views have been expressed. Where does the Prime Minister stand between these two men and these two policies? Canadians want to know. We have had various answers given. On May 9 the Ottawa Citizen, which is unusually close to the government, reported as follows:
Finance Minister Sharp said Sunday he and his predecessor, the former Finance Minister Walter Gordon, have the same long-range views of economic nationalism for Canada but approach the problem with different plans.
There was a clarification that should be explained. They have the same objectives but the means are different. The article goes on to say:
Mr. Sharp said his differences with Mr. Gordon were only on means, not on objectives, and their differences did not represent a power Struggle-
Then he used these immortal words, "I think I am very much more optimistic than Mr. Gordon." I am not going to get into the psychological field but I think that expression needs interpretation. This, of course, was before the Quebec election and they were both optimistic then.
The article quotes the Minister of Finance as follows:
What concerns me just a little bit about this book-although it's a very useful contribution-is that it is, to my mind, rather pessimistic.
What is the meaning of this? The book is an excellent book, we are told. It is a road chart for Canada economically. According to the article, the minister went on to say:
I think we've got a great future in this country and we shouldn't be so worried. 1 think we should go about our policies feeling that we can play a very important role in the world and that we can provide the sort of life for our people that we'll be proud of . . .
Mr. Gordon and I have very similar objectives but we differ as many Liberals do on how to attain those objectives.
We want to find out what the answer is to this conundrum because both have the same objectives, although differing on the means. On the other hand, there are some who take strong objection to the doctrines being enunciated. The premier of Saskatchewan says that if these doctrines are accepted there will be a prairie write-off for a decade. We should like the minister to explain exactly what the situation is. Mr. Kierans expressed his views
Income Tax Act
in this regard. In general, according to editorial comment in the Montreal Star, Mr. Kierans is quite fed up with the amount of cant uttered by Canadians about the United States.
The Vancouver Sun, which is so close to the government that Mr. Keate got a comprehensive opportunity to look into the C.B.C. dispute without having any terms of reference, states that a curb on Gordon is essential. I doubt that because the Minister of Finance says that the hon. member for Davenport and he are looking through the same spectacles. They just differ as to terms.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Mr. Molgat, the Liberal leader in the province of Manitoba, is appalled by this division. He asks in effect: Whither is the Liberal party going? He thinks they will have to find out. The Vancouver Sun ends up with these words, and words of admonition from that newspaper are always heeded by the government:
If Mr. Pearson cannot discipline Mr. Gordon, then Mr. Gordon inevitably will destroy Mr. Pearson.
These are the views expressed by a party paper that gives idolatrous support to the present government. That is why it is so important, Mr. Chairman, that the minister let us know exactly what are his views, not by enunciation outside of the House of Commons but here where Hansard will perpetuate his words for all generations and so that all will understand.
The Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph of May 9 carries this heading: "Mr. Gordon, Liberal Party And Price Of Being Canadian". This newspaper too is not unfavourable to the government. In the article it has this to say about the government:
If it has not exactly been behaving like a chicken whose head has been cut off, the federal Liberal party has been showing signs of weariness at the top. Policies, instead of being thought out and applied sensibly, are manufactured ad hoc, leading on the one hand to an encouragement of what can only be called me-tooism and on the other to a total refusal to face reality.
Then the article describes Canada's domestic policy under this government in this way:
Canada's domestic policy is an improbable mixture of compromise, blundering good intentions, makeshift planning, wild flings and humiliating retreats.
I would ask the minister now what his considered views are on this matter. Let us have the consensus of views reflected in a decision of the government on the question of where it stands on foreign investment. Is the

June 9, 1966
Income Tax Act
United States justified in taking the view, which is being widely expressed in the United States press, that Canada under this government has closed the door to foreign investment to a very large extent?
There are various other questions I will ask in due course, Mr. Chairman, but in the meantime I wanted to give the minister the opportunity of explaining this very important matter because without this explanation the budget is a hollow sham. It is an ad hoc document. When the minister gives us the picture, as I know he will, let him tell us whether the hon. member for Davenport is but a voice in the wilderness or the voice of authority and direction for the Liberal party. That is what we want to know, and I am sure it will not take the minister very long to point out where the government of Canada stands and what its policy is in this regard.
I should refer to one other matter which has to do with the refunding provisions in the budget. I should like to ask the minister what the reaction of business corporations across Canada has been to this proposal, which is a novel plan for peacetime. To what degree have corporations that have been expanding and have great plans for further expansion reacted to the withholding principle?
I ask this question because various corporations at their annual meetings have made, through their directors, declarations as to the operation of this principle. If I may give an example, the Steel Company of Canada, at page 10 of the proceedings of its shareholders' meeting, made this statement:
Canadian producers have at times been unable to meet all the requirements of domestic customers.
That is in connection with steel.
Thus, while expansion has been rapid and extensive, it has not exceeded the need, and our studies and projections indicate considerable potential for future growth in the markets for steel in this country. Undoubtedly there will be periods of adjustment but, on the whole, we are confident that the trend will be favourable. On this premise, we are planning well ahead so as to anticipate the needs of our customers. Important new projects are under examination and, if considered practicable and economical, will entail a continuation of relatively high levels of capital spending.
Then it goes on to say:
The extent to which the new refundable tax imposed on cash flow, and other tax changes, will affect the company's position has not yet been definitely determined.
That was in April.
Obviously, the withdrawal of funds that would otherwise have been available for investment in

productive facilities must entail serious consideration of all projected spending.
Then these pertinent words follow:
We are therefore carefully reviewing our commitments and our plans in order to find, if we can, ways and means of conforming to the government's present policy without jeopardizing the company's future growth.
A similar attitude has been expressed by Dominion Foundries and Steel Company, whose expansion program involves the expenditure of $101 million. The president, Mr. F. H. Sherman, was asked this question: "Do you expect any relief?" Mr. Sherman's answer was: "I don't know." Previously he had said that the company had studied all its current commitments carefully to see whether any could be postponed as requested by Ottawa.
The general view of both these corporations, which have done so much on behalf of the industrial development of our country, was as expressed to their shareholders, that this portion of the budget could indeed have an adverse effect on export and on the assurance that Canadian industry will be able to meet in the days ahead the additional challenges in world trade which have become available and will increasingly be available. Therefore I would ask the minister to tell us what co-operation he has received and what consideration he has given to changes in order to assure that these great corporations which provide jobs and assist development shall not be denied the expansion which their initiative has made possible.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Then there is one final matter which relates to the average taxpayer. I am sure that the minister is in agreement that one of the most serious problems which the taxpayers of Canada experience today is the ever-increasing burden of taxation on realty. That burden falls with particular weight on the home owner. If we are going to encourage Canadians to be home owners, then action must be taken by way of incentive. I realize this presents a difficult problem but the stand which we took as a party, that home owners in Canada should be permitted an exemption up to a maximum of $500 paid in municipal taxation in determining the liability of the individual for income tax, we still think is correct. That was something that received widespread support across the country. Press support was quite generous. Today, more
June 9, 1966

than ever, that portion of our program deserves the most serious consideration and ought to be implemented.
I shall not repeat again what has been said about the tremendous increases in the cost of living. They are actually in full, upward flight. One just has to visit the market-I love to visit the market on a Saturday-to find that from week to week increases are taking place. These increases, of course, do not strike at those who have large incomes but they have a beggaring effect on those with low incomes. No action of any kind has been taken to stem the increase, nor is any attempt being made to do so.
My suggestion, therefore, on behalf of this party and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is that the government place before the house and country some measures for relief. If it cannot go the full way in allowing the $500 maximum, let the government divide that amount in half, and apply it in stages in the way in which the 11 per cent sales tax on production machinery is now being removed. Give relief to those who need relief. The average Canadian who desires to own a home is given no encouragement to do so.
In the United States provision is made for the deduction of municipal taxes, within limits, from taxable income. I think Canadians as a whole should be encouraged to become part of a home-owning democracy and would be so encouraged if action such as I have suggested were taken.
Other questions that might arise I will deal with later. I do want the minister to have the opportunity to tell the house and the country who is who and why, and who is right. Are the Gordon policies which proved so detrimental still in effect, even though by concealment?


Mr. Fawcett:: Mr. Chairman, I am going to confine my remarks entirely to the personal income tax and the exemptions in connection therewith. Other aspects of taxation have been dealt with and I do not want to take up the time of the house by being repetitious.
The first point I wish to draw to the minister's attention so far as exemptions are concerned is the fact that in this day and age everyone who is employed in an industry is required to travel a considerable distance to work and of necessity must either own an automobile or pay other people for transportation. This cost is not exempted in the computing of allowable deductions. I think this is
Income Tax Act
very discriminatory because there are situations where transportation facilities have to be used in the way I have mentioned.
May I speak personally about a situation in my riding. I know it applies in a good many ridings across the country. In our area we have an industry where residences are not permitted within 14 miles of the works, as a result of which people employed at those works must either own their own automobile or arrange to pay for transportation, which costs the worker from $2 to $4 per week. The amount is taken off take-home pay. I think it is only fair that a person having to pay such a charge should be permitted to claim the amount as an exemption for income tax purposes.
Having talked with numerous people I have also found that in many types of employment employees are required to buy and maintain certain tools and appliances and also all sorts of clothing at their own expense in order to continue their employment. These articles must be provided and therefore I think the cost of them should be exempted.
I realize that in trying to devise a plan to cover travelling expenses much is involved. I can see that some people might exploit and abuse the machinery set up. Could not some plan be evolved whereby minimum or maximum mileages would be a qualification in deciding whether a taxpayer would be permitted to deduct his travelling costs as an exemption?
There is also a problem in which I have been involved personally and about which I have heard several complaints regarding the exemption with respect to children who do not qualify for family allowances and for whom such allowances are not paid. I refer to students. Five hundred and fifty dollars is the maximum exemption allowed with respect to such students. Great stress is laid on our children obtaining a proper education. Some children may be educated at institutions where they do not have to leave home. Expenses with respect to such students are not comparable with the expenses of those who have to pay board and lodging in order to attend institutions away from home. I suggest that $550 does not even meet half the expenses incurred in this respect. This is another situation that ought to be rectified.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Another point I should like to raise applies particularly to railroad employees in the running trades through it also has application to

June 9, 1966
Income Tax Act
other kinds of employment in which employees are required to spend an important part of their time away from home, pay for their own meals and provide for their own lodging. I agree there is provision for this in the legislation and that operating railroad workers may submit claims in respect of expenses of this type. But the amount which is allowed seems to depend entirely on the humour of the official who considers the tax form. If he gets up on the right side of the bed he allows $1.50 a meal; if he does not he allows only $1. There seems to be a complete lack of uniformity and a great deal of discrimination. One man who has made as many trips as another may receive a great deal less under this concession.
I know there is a private bill on the order paper put forward by my hon. friend from Skeena dealing with travelling expenses and deductions in respect of appliances and tools which employees must provide at their own expense. I would certainly commend this bill to hon. members.
In conclusion I should like to state that in my opinion there is a need for a change in the basic structure of the personal income tax formula. I would refer hon. members to the speech made by my hon. friend from York South yesterday in which he indicated it was time we began to look at this subject from another aspect. We should consider it not on the basis of a basic personal exemption but on the basis of what it costs a family to live. I agree with my hon. friend from York South that there are many people paying income tax today who should not be paying tax at all. The cost of living should be taken into consideration. If a man's income is not sufficient to give him more than a decent allowance I do not think it is right to expect him to pay income tax.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, under the present resolution concerning the income tax, I feel it is appropriate to remind the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) about the change in administration which took place recently in "la belle province" of Quebec. I do not know whether the minister has had the opportunity to obtain and read the substantial political platform of the Union Na-tionale which will soon-in a few hours-be sanctioned, but I think it is time for him to get hold of it, seeing that it contains many planks relating to the income tax.
Among other things, and this is not a new fiscal policy, the National Union government

since its formation seeks 100 per cent of individual income tax, corporation tax and death duties. There is nothing revolutionary or reprehensible in this position, far from it, Mr. Chairman. It is basically constitutional, in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the Canadian constitution of 1867.
When this new Quebec government claims 100 per cent of direct taxes, including among others, the income tax, the tax on corporations and death duties, the claim is based on paragraph (2) of section 92 of the constitution, which allocates exclusively to the provinces, the direct taxes levied in such province for provincial purposes. Clearly, when the economy of the Canadian constitution is perused, it appears that section 91, paragraph (3) allows the central government to levy taxes in the country through taxation, but when direct taxes levied in a province for provincial purposes are involved, section 91 should be read along with section 92. It is clearly indicated that a province, any of the Canadian provinces, has exclusive rights in matters of direct taxation for provincial purposes.
An exclusive right is not one which another government can seize, or take over at leisure to remit later, bit by bit, in various circumstances. An exclusive right is one that belongs to a province in an absolute and sovereign manner, and which a province may, of its own free will, share with the central government or with any province.
Now, the government of the province of Quebec has clearly expressed, in its substantial platform, during the election campaign, its intention to take over, not to beg, as Mr. Daniel Johnson has just stated, in other words, simply to occupy the fields of taxation in the proportion 100, 100 and 100.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
This is not a revolutionary procedure. I would not want anyone to think in this house and in other provinces, that this is intended to sabotage the Canadian confederation, far from it. Besides, this is entirely within the spirit in which the Canadian confederation was founded, that is the principle of responsible government, which had been granted earlier in 1847, and which was embodied in the wording of the Canadian constitution, requires that any government administering a territory-be it national or provincial-is accountable to its constituents. To give accounts, it must be in a position to have its own taxation income, to collect for itself the taxes which are devolved onto it.
June 9, 1966

Many politicians in the house have asserted the principle that it is harmful and inadmissible that a government such as the central government, for example, should levy direct taxes, hand them over to the province as it pleases, and that another government should spend that money.
In view of this theory or responsible government, I believe the hon. Minister of Finance should look into the event which has just taken place in the province of Quebec before a conflict erupts and government pressures are applied.
That is why, since the beginning of the present session, many members on both sides of the house have stood up to request that the government establish a joint parliamentary committee on the Canadian constitution as a first step towards a national conference on the Canadian constitution.
I wonder why, in the face of so many proper requests and just pleas to serve the common good of the country, the present government still hesitates and displays inertia or indifference. There is a need not only for political, constitutional, cultural or other reforms, but also for a fiscal reform adapted to the economic and fiscal problems of 1966, and all this is absolutely urgent.
These last few years the province of Quebec has established within its legislature a parliamentary committee on the Canadian constitution, precisely in order to be more specific concerning these particular reforms. But in Ottawa, the country is administered haphazardly; as a matter of fact, the government is even preparing further encroachments in fields entirely under provincial jurisdiction, without having obtained beforehand the consent of the province or provinces concerned, or without having fully discussed the matter with them, although they object to it. This is very bad for the country, Mr. Chairman.
I am convinced that if Canadians across the country were to undertake this dialogue in good faith and not as we are now going about it, these problems would be settled, since they are primarily material problems, and this would help solve the psychological problem affecting all Canadians, from one ocean to the other.
I hope the Minister of Finance will use his influence within the cabinet, not only in the field of foreign investments in Canada, but also in the settlement of this important problem which has now become more urgent with
Income Tax Act
the recent change of government in the province of Quebec, in order to institute a joint parliamentary committee in Ottawa so that the legislators of the country, in the Senate and the House of Commons, may establish a dialogue.
A large number of studies and reports are made available to us, but we should first come to an understanding if we are to reach a final agreement with the other provinces at a national conference on the constitution.
When such things are said I am reminded of a scene in the Bible. In the three months I have been here, each time an hon. member raised that urgent, substantial and capital question, he looked to me a little like Saint John the Baptist preaching in the desert.
Frankly, the reactions of the present government are very disappointing. This government should not have any illusions on that point; it will not solve the country's fiscal and political problems by going on like that, in short by governing without any planning, any definite goals, and by taking over provincial fields of jurisdiction. Of course, once it has taken over a field, it intends to open a dialogue with the provinces; but it does so belatedly when it is already deeply involved on the administrative side.
Recently, we saw the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) postpone the conference on education. Of course, the federal government knows that the new government of the province of Quebec, that of the National Union, is exclusively provincial, free of direct or indirect ties with a great national party, dedicated to the prime interests of Quebec, fundamentally autonomist on fiscal matters. The Ottawa government knows very well that it will have to revise its position if it wants a constructive atmosphere to exist throughout the country, especially in the fiscal field.
Therefore, once again I ask the Minister of Finance to give that program a structure. It is important to say it and to take that matter seriously; that party is not called the Liberal party. I will remind the minister that in the province of Quebec there are many very intelligent Liberals who vote for the National Union. It is therefore important that it should study that program with regard to fiscal matters and revise and adapt its national fiscal programs to take into account the particular requirements of the province of Quebec which, as far as I know, is not trying in any way to pick a quarrel with the rest of the country but rather to meet the particular aspirations of its constituents.

June 9, 1966
Income Tax Act
There is also another thing in the program of the National Union government, namely the basic income tax exemption of $4,000 for married people and $2,000 for single people.
This new government promised to grant this tax exemption during its very first session. This provincial tax exemption will have consequences which will create pressures and tensions, if the federal government does not consider following the example of the Quebec government in that direction.
Not only the people of the province of Quebec want that, but all Canadians, the popular mass, the working class, the small businessman, the person who works in an office, the young woman, the married woman, the widow. The mass of the Canadian people find it difficult, due to the fiscal burden, to provide for their needs.
If it is not the only method, it is at least a first step to put up a good fight against poverty in our country.
There are in Sherbrooke especially many textile industries where workers are now on strike. I hope that the conflict will be settled as soon as possible. These workers earn about $60 a week and many of them have three, five, six or seven children. It is unthinkable, Mr. Chairman, to provide for all needs, considering such a heavy tax burden, even with this small cut of about six cents a week that the Minister of Finance has deigned to grant this category of taxpayers.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
In order to work with love, hope and warmth, it is therefore necessary that these Canadians, married or unmarried and earning less that $4,000 or $2,000 respectively, shall be exempt from income tax. That is what the Quebec government is going to do and that is why the Minister of Finance should give consideration to a similar adjustment and if he does so, I feel he will rate the admiration and friendship of millions of Canadians. When it is said, by him or by other ministers, in the house or elsewhere, that a campaign against poverty is being waged, then those millions of Canadians will say: The speeches are over, something is now being done.
I should also like to call the attention of the minister to other things. Various industries, businesses and trades may deduct from their income tax returns a certain amount for administrative expenses. It is an excellent thing to promote the development of trade and industry.

But there is a class of Canadians, and these are, for instance, the millions of workers who are required to buy, and pay out of their meager salary, their tool kits and $400 or $500 worth of tools, without which they could not keep their jobs. It is absolutely essential for them to have their tools to practise their special trade. The companies and the employers do not supply to their employees these numerous and very expensive tools.
Now, I think this point should be considered, that some percentage, to be determined by the experts in the minister's department, should be allowed as a deduction for such tools as the workers are required to purchase to practise their trade, to earn their living and that of their families.
Something else is occasionally brought to my attention; I do not know if the grievance is well founded. It seems that in some provinces government taxes are collected by merchants and businessmen. I am told this is the case in Quebec, where the government gives a certain commission to the merchants and businessmen who collect for it certain indirect taxes. Why, therefore, could the federal government not give some kind of a commission to Canadians who do its work, who after a fashion are its employees, its representatives?
Mr. Chairman, to bring these few remarks to a close I would like to say this: I wish the practice of preventing us from getting a reply to our questions during the question period, were put to an end in the house. We should not permit that no reply be allowed. Not that I question the authority of Mr. Speaker whom I greatly respect; but, on the other hand, he does not hold his authority from God but from members of the house, individually and jointly. I believe it is important, even urgent, that the tax problem take this into consideration. Now, how should we put it? In three languages, six languages? Should it be put calmly or in furious tones? When oh, when will the present government institute, during this session, a parliamentary committee to study the Canadian constitution, so that neither in this house nor in the other the trend of thought be allowed to go in opposite directions since it could easily be channeled into one direction if representatives had a chance to gather about a table, so that we, Canadians, who are brothers from sea to sea, might solve the problems of our country.
June 9, 1966

How much misunderstanding there is, because we let this persist and because we tolerate a kind of vacuum that prevents Canadians from sea to sea, nay, in this house and in the other place, from joining together. There are no problems in the House of Commons, when we are talking to representatives from Newfoundland, Nova Scotia or the west. On the other hand, there is a fundamental problem and that is the problem of the revision, the adjustment of the political, constitutional, fiscal, economic and cultural problems when the provinces-not only Quebec, but British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario-each in their own way, claim to have fiscal jurisdiction, some larger than others, and economic responsibilities. Yet the present government remains in such a constitutional and political disorder. Well, I believe the country is not being served by a refusal to form a parliament committee. I hope that very soon, the Minister of Finance, who seems to be a most charming man, will use his influence to bring the government around to this decision and then we will be given the opportunity to face the Quebec parliamentary committee on the Canadian constitution.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few comments on the resolution which is now before us. I would also like to make some suggestions concerning certain groups of people, more especially those who devote themselves to the public weal. And among them, I would point out mayors, aldermen as well as school trustees. Up to a few years ago, the post of mayor, alderman and school trustee was considered as an honorary title, but since then, their work and obligations have increased so much that it is now necessary to grant them a certain indemnity, so that they will not have to incur out-of-pocket expenses in the discharge of their duties.
However, as costs are constantly increasing, those people have to make out-of-pocket expenses, since their indemnity is entirely spent in the discharge of their duties.
I would therefore ask the minister to be kind enough to consider the fate of those who are devoting themselves to the public weal and take the necessary steps, so that the first thousand dollars paid in consideration of their work for the promotion of their respective community will be tax free.
In the second place, I would also ask the minister to be kind enough to increase personal exemptions for single persons to $2,000
Income Tax Act
and those for married persons to $3,000, as I requested during the election campaign. It seems to me that present requirements would thus be recognized, because exemptions granted a few years ago are now insufficient, and since the cost of living is constantly increasing, those exemptions would be in accordance with the present cost of living.
Another point to which I would like to call the minister's attention is that Canada is considered as an exporting country. We depend on our exports, since our population is not large enough to absorb the whole production of our various industries. Now, it is obvious that skilled labour is becoming scarcer. Therefore, we should take the necessary steps to make available our labour training programs to all those who want to learn a skill, so that we may have an adequate number of skilled workers.
Our technical training schools are adequate and can, given the necessary means, produce the required number of experts so that Canadian industries could increase their production and compete with foreign products.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I can only suggest, once again, the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building material and machinery, for that tax is placing our industries in a very unfavourable position.
In the various industrial centres of the province of Quebec particularly, there are some small industries which come up against all sorts of difficulties created by the 11 per cent sales tax.
The minister should also eliminate as much as posible what we call "tight money", for there are many indications that we are today in about the same position as we were in 1955-56, and this can only mean a recession is on the way. I hope something will be done about preventing a repetition of the 1956-57 recession.
When we were in power we did a lot to eliminate unemployment. It took us a few years to do it. We took the necessary steps. I wish to draw the attention of the minister and the government generally on the importance of preventing a recession which would be detrimental to the whole Canadian population.
Those are the few remarks I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up the time of the committee in

June 9, 1966
Income Tax Act
repeating arguments made by members of this group regarding our proposals in connection with the budget. First of all I want to say that the minister knows I respect him as a solid supporter of the free enterprise system, the profit-making system, and all it stands for. Even though it has brought war, poverty, disease and misery to mankind throughout the centuries with its achievements, the minister hopes, with his usual optimism, that as a result of Liberal policies we can achieve heaven on earth under their leadership.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Willingly.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I was wondering how much profit the hon. member makes out of his logging operations in the Kootenays.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is very easy to answer, Mr. Chairman. I have not made anything this year. I am sure the minister also respects me as an unrepentant, pragmatic socialist. Therefore we approach one another on equal terms. I might say that I have found the minister is not a woolly-minded thinker; he expresses his views clearly and does not hedge when he puts forth an argument in connection with his budget or some problem he is discussing. As a socialist I would point out that all we have been advocating to the minister is the application of certain poultices to the minister's budget in order to make it, shall I say, a little more humane and equitable in its relationship to the Canadian people as a whole.
I am not one who thinks we can rebuild the system without a very fundamental change in our philosophy of life, and this would be connected to our philosophy of taxation. So we know where we stand in this regard. I have received a great deal of correspondence in recent months in connection with a problem that I wish to place before the minister. I have been getting dozens and dozens of letters saying that this opinion is the right one, namely, that when dealing with taxation and presenting a budget we should divide society into the producers and the parasites. In the producers I would include small businessmen and any person making a contribution to our economy whether he be a farmer, miner, logger or employee in any field. Also among the producers would be managements of corporations who under this system are performing a very necessary function. It Is amazing how this idea has caught

on with a number of people with whom I have corresponded.


Mr. Monteiih:: In which category would members of parliament fall in the opinion of the hon. member?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would have to treat them on an individual basis. That question is rather argumentative. When dealing with the subject of taxation we realize that we need so much money in order to give effect to the policies designed by the federal government. We should approach this matter from that point of view and make certain that wherever we find groups in society who are living on human weakness and ignorance we do everything we can to make them pay for it. I think this is a good basis for philosophy in respect of taxation.
I think a previous speaker from this group said that what counts is not the tax we pay in relation to our income but what we have left. This is what counts with the average person. That is why I support wholeheartedly the pleas that have been made by members of this group for further consideration of the low income groups. Their need is obvious and under the present system of taxation they are not being treated fairly.
I support the hon. member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway in her plea for further consideration for married women, mothers, working women and women generally. The hon. member dealt with this subject at length, I thought quite effectively, and I support her arguments in general.
There is another matter I wish to bring to the attention of the committee because it is repeatedly brought to my attention. It was mentioned by another member of our group this afternoon. I refer to the need for consideration of a tax exemption in connection with travelling expenses of workers. In my district the cost of travelling to and from work amounts to a large sum of money each year. I know of men working in smelters and mines who travel 60 to 80 miles every day. We have the same situation with regard to men working in the woods. Some men working within 20 miles of my home travel 50 miles to work every morning and 50 miles back to their homes in the evening. They travel this great distance over rough, rocky, unpaved mountain roads. This means that not only do they spend a great deal of time travelling to and from work but they incur quite heavy expenses. I do urge that consideration be given to an exemption for travelling expenses where this can be done on a fair basis, where
June 9, 1966

it can be proven to the minister, shall I say, that there are exceptional expenses incurred in connection with travelling to and from employment.
I also wish to support what has been said with respect to the 11 per cent sales tax. Farmers and other persons have spoken to me about this problem and I have had correspondence and representations from small logging operators. These people object to the application of this sales tax in the purchase of machinery. I do urge, therefore, that further consideration be given to taking this tax off equipment that is going into production, whether it be in connection with a farm, a forest industry or some type of suitable and necessary construction.
I support those hon. members who have pleaded for the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on housing materials. This is a very serious matter at the present time. We all know the problems that exist in this regard. I am sure a great number of members of the house have received correspondence in this connection. This tax adds to the cost of housing and its removal would promote the construction of homes, especially in cases where a person is undecided whether he can afford to build a house of a certain type. I represent a type of people who do not sit back, ask for the price of a house and enter into a contract. Hundreds of men in my riding have built homes on $5,000. They will build the basement this year and put up the rest of the house next year. Hundreds of men in my constituency have built excellent modern homes suitable for their purposes for a total outlay of between $5,000 and $6,000, and when the homes are finished they are out of debt.
I am a bit conservative in regard to finance. Sometimes young people come to me and ask how much it will cost to build a home, what expenses are involved thereafter and so on. In a number of cases I have said that if I were in their financial position I would rather build a log cabin and pack my water out of the lake in a bucket than go into debt for 20 or 30 years. I ask the minister to encourage the type of person who is trying to build a home and do the best he can with a limited income, sometimes working late hours, week ends and so on to provide the home he requires.
The same argument applies to homes for senior citizens, which is a very necessary project in countless communities in this country. Removal of the 11 per cent sales tax would have a great effect on increasing the
Income Tax Act
building of these homes which are usually sponsored by the Rotary Clubs, Kiwanis Clubs and other groups in an area, particularly in smaller communities.
I now wish to bring to the attention of the minister what I think is an unusual situation with respect to the application of the 11 per cent sales tax to centennial projects. I have written to the minister on this question and I want to use this one instance because it is a rather typical one. In this connection I would say that I appreciate the minister's promptness in replying to correspondence, his courtesy and the fact that he does not hedge on things; he tells you exactly what he thinks and does not imply there may be abolition of this sales tax tomorrow. I received a letter from a constituent of mine who informed me of the situation in Rossland.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
This letter is from J. D. McDonald, chairman of the Rossland Canadian Confederation Centennial Committee. This is what he has to
say:
We are presently letting a contract for our $30,000 centennial museum building and we are concerned over the fact that sales tax is being levied on such projects.
Since the Canadian confederation centennial projects are being built at the request of the federal government and are being financed by donated funds, it seems illogical that the same government should detract from the total success of the projects by extracting sales tax. The Rossland centennial committee would appreciate it very much if you could look into this matter.
He then gives further details. On the basis of that letter I wrote the minister and the minister replied as follows:
Dear Mr. Herridge:
I have received your letter dated May 4 enclosing a copy of a letter and additional material from Mr. J. D. McDonald, chairman of the Rossland centennial project asking if exemption from federal sales tax could be provided for materials used in the construction of centennial projects.
Requests that a sales tax exemption be provided for materials used in all centennial projects have been carefully studied but it was decided that federal assistance in this form would be very unfair since the proportion of the total cost of projects attributable to sales tax would vary widely from project to project and thus from municipality to municipality. Moreover, since the federal sales tax is paid at the time manufacturers sell their products it would be very difficult to administer an exemption from this tax for goods purchased from wholesalers and retailers for use in thousands of centennial projects across Canada. It was decided that a better way for the federal government to make its contribution would be by grants for the assistance of commemorative community projects.
Yours sincerely,
Mitchell Sharp

June 9, 1966
Income Tax Act
I sent a copy of that letter to Mr. McDonald and he brought it to the attention of the Rossland Committee and various organizations. 1 might say that I am not presenting my argument as a socialist. As a matter of fact, this argument is being advanced by quite a number of organizations in the district I have the honour to represent who agree with the philosophy of the minister so far as our system is concerned. However, they think that in this case there is some inconsistency.
I sent the minister's letter to Mr. McDonald and I received a reply from him which I will read since I think the minister will be interested in his suggestions. He wrote:
Dear Sir:
Thank you lor your letter of May 18th enclosing Hon. Mitchell Sharp's reply to our request for sales tax exemption on centennial projects. His information was placed before the centennial committee at our May 25th meeting. The committee expressed disappointment that these projects are not sales tax exempt. As requested, we offer the following comments regarding Mr. Sharp's letter:
1.	Whereas Mr. Sharp suggests that the removal of sales tax would in effect constitute extra federal assistance to those communities whose projects include a building as opposed to projects that do not, we believe that just the opposite is true. We suggest that it is the imposition of the sales tax that creates the inequality. Our reasoning is as follows: federal centennial grants are allotted on an equal basis of $1 per capita regardless of the size of the project. Now a community whose project does not involve purchase of building materials is able to retain the full per capita dollar to be spent on the project. On the other hand, a community whose project requires purchase of building materials must turn part of that per capita dollar back to the federal government in the form of sales tax. This is where the true inequality lies. Removal of the sales tax would remove this inequality by allowing all communities to have the use of the full per capita dollar regardless of their choice of project.
2.	Mr. Sharp also suggests that it would be difficult to administer the sales tax exemption for centennial projects. We are informed that sales tax exemption is successfully adminstered for hospital construction and we cannot understand why it would be any more difficult in the case of a centennial project building.
3.	We would repeat our previous observation that to ensure the success of Canada's centennial year, the federal government has asked the municipalities to undertake these projects. Of necessity, the projects must be financed with donated funds and in the case of the Rossland project, the response has been gratifying. It does not make good sense that the government should jeodardize the ultimate success of these projects by funnelling off a portion of this donated money for sales tax.
Your very truly,
J. D. McDonald Chairman.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that I think Mr. McDonald, who is a well known figure in the district, has a very convincing argument, at least from my point of view. I wish to bring to the minister's attention again that this is the point of view of practically every committee that is undertaking a centennial project in my constituency.
In conclusion I wish to ask the minister to take another look at this matter to see if some way cannot be found to remove the inequality arising from the minister's decision and mentioned in Mr. McDonald's comments on the minister's reply.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, as I was not
in the house yesterday, having gone with the other members to visit Expo '67, I missed a good part of the debate; consequently, I may repeat what some other members have already said, for which I apologize ahead of time. I have a few remarks to make to the minister with regard to income tax.
In his amendment on income tax the minister first tries, as is the case with all other legislation anyway, to give a tidbit to the taxpayers. He tells us that, for the coming years, if the house so decides:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Income Tax Act and to provide among other things:
1. That for the 1967 and subsequent taxation years the deduction from individual income tax equal to the lesser of 10 per cent of basic tax or $600, described in subsection (4) of section 33 of the said act, be replaced by a deduction equal to the lesser of 20 per cent of basic tax or $20, and that for the 1966 taxation year the deduction be equal to the aggregate of
(a) 4 per cent of basic tax or $240, whichever is the lesser-
Etc., etc.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
"Whichever is the lesser". It is obvious that if one starts reading the Income Tax Act, one merely finds the nicest labyrinth in expressions, designed to confuse the taxpayer to the extent that he understands nothing. And all that for what?
That reminds me of last year's reduction when the minister came up with a 10 per cent reduction on income tax. The day after, all newspapers flashed headlines two inches wide: '10 per cent tax cut". In fact, that meant about nothing, just like what is brought forward today. What does it mean? In order to enlighten dazzled taxpayers a bit, what does it mean in terms of dollars?

June 9, 1966

Take a family man, with his wife and two children, who earns $3,000 per year. Before, with last year's reduction, he would have paid $22. Now, he will pay $20. He gets a $2 gift. Imagine. What a gift for a family man: $2 at the end of the year. Another, who earned $3,500, paid $58, compared to $53 this year, a saving of $5. That is the highest cut the government will grant with the amendment to the act.
To take so long to conceive such an aberration.
One who earns $4,000 previously paid $100; he will now pay $97 and thus save $3 this year. One who earns $7,000 paid last year $199, but he will now pay $205. This is the beginning, the government is gaining; after having given $2, $3 or $5, it is now collecting from others $6 more. One who earns $5,500 and who paid $519, will now pay $554, that is $35 more. When $1 is given to a taxpayer, $10 or $15 are deducted from another. This is a huge joke. It is exactly that joke, Mr. Chairman, which everyone finds sickening. We are told nowadays that we have separatists and rebels. What is the cause of that rebellion throughout the country. Such sordid measures as those introduced by the government.
People are convinced that administrators are working all day long to try to fool the taxpayer. And for whose benefit? For the benefit of capitalists and bankers.
I have drawn up the picture. Last year there was a $10 reduction for a taxpayer who paid $100 in income tax; this year, there will be a $2 or $3 reduction.
I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that if we consider the legislation from the taxpayer's point of view, it is rather poor. The legislation now in force will still encourage large companies, foreign capital, and Canadians will be invited to go and borrow abroad, even in Europe.
I read in the newspaper which I have here: Steps to facilitate loans in Europe
The municipal, provincial and federal authorities will be able to borrow abroad more easily-
You will notice that is the key word:
-following the abolition of the 15 per cent tax which non-residents in Canada must pay on interest on Canadian government bonds.
This exemption, which will come into effect on April 15, is to facilitate the sale of debentures and bonds to the United States and Europe and allow all three levels of government to obtain more easily the money necessary to cover the cost of public services.
Income Tax Act
This is what we do here in the House of Commons; we pass all sorts of laws to try to attract foreign capital for the development of Canada. Those among us who could invest some money in government securities do not have these advantages. These people are charged 100 per cent and every piece of legislation seeks to empty their pockets. Then they are told: Go ahead and invest. They are taxed to the last penny and then told: Invest; you do not invest, we have to seek foreign capital.
Mr. Chairman, if foreign capital is sought, it is because the government wants to bring these huge amounts into the country.
I am not against bringing in foreign capital. We are not against this influx, but we feel it is dangerous to offer these special conditions to foreign capital.
Already today we feel the Canadian economy is increasingly slipping under foreign control. We belong to foreigners in a proportion of 80 per cent and the more it goes on, the worse it gets. If we continue to encourage foreign capital to the detriment of Canadian investors, there is no doubt that we will have at a given time, to backtrack and pay more attention to Canadian capital, to those who would like to invest money and who are afraid to do so now. Indeed, if a Canadian wants today to invest his money in public or government undertakings, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) is watching so as to tax him. How do you want these people to invest Canadian capital in this country's undertakings? It is impossible.
As I said, as long as foreign capital is favoured like that, our economy will be shaky and will fall more and more every day into the hands of foreign owners. What we are asking the minister to do, if some legislation can be introduced to amend the Income Tax Act, is to improve the exemptions with regard to tools used by wage-earners. That is what I asked for in the house and forest workers are also asking for an exemption for the cost of their tools. An exemption is granted to the big companies for machinery; they are exempt from income tax. Why should we not exempt a worker who must today get a power-saw, buy modern equipment often worth $500, $600 or $700 to work in the bush. That worker should get an income tax exemption.
Then we will start working on a popular basis to help the taxpayer. Why not also exempt his transportation costs, his living expenses and even his vacation travelling
61S4

June 9, 1966
Income Tax Act
expenses. Why not? Why should a worker be treated differently than a businessman, an industrialist? I am a businessman and I have the right to deduct for income tax purposes all expenses related to my business. I am fully entitled to do so and why do we deny the worker that right? The Income Tax Act is truly unfair in that respect, especially if we really want to help the taxpayer. When he introduced his legislation, the Minister of Finance said that it was to help the small wage-earner. An exemption of $2 per year, then $5, will not help him very much. He will not go far with that. But if the minister had wanted to be sincere, above all serious, he would have increased the basic exemption to $2,000 for unmarried people and to $4,000 for married people.
You will have tomorrow or in the weeks to come the example of the province of Quebec which will finally adopt basic exemptions of $2,000 and $4,000; I hope the federal government will follow suit, that it will follow in the footsteps of the province of Quebec. They might be surer than those of the jokers we Lad before.
Now, we could suggest to the minister to consider also an exemption on family housing, an income tax exemption for the head of a family who has a property on which he must pay taxes. It is said quite rightly that property owners are getting fewer and fewer today. As a matter of fact, it is almost impossible to keep a property with the host of taxes which are levied on it: federal tax, provincial tax, municipal tax, elementary school tax, secondary school tax and university tax.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, how a home owner, the head of a family, will be able to afford the maintenance of his house under such a flood of taxes. It will be utterly impossible and we ask the Minister of Finance to do something for the family house-ing.
Another tax we have never accepted and have never swallowed it the 11 per cent tax on building materials. Here again, they started by disguising the tax. When the 11 per cent tax on building materials was proposed, it was said: A 5 per cent premium will be paid on winter-built houses. A paltry gift of $500 was offered in order to get $1,500 or $2,000 more on the building materials that go into a family dwelling. Well, Mr. Chairman, we want this tax to be removed because

today, strangely enough, the $500 gift has disappeared. It is hardly given anymore, but the well-known 11 per cent tax is still there. If the gift is to be taken away, at least the charge should be removed. The gift is taken away, but we still have the well-known 11 per cent tax to pay.
As far as charitable donations are concerned, more run around, more dilly-dallying. In the past, at every opportunity, we have asked that a standard of, for instance, 10 per cent of a worker's income, be established concerning deductions for charitable donations. Let us stop fooling around with charitable donations and forcing every parish priest to file reports and play detective in the field of charity. That is just a farce. I do not know whether it is inspired by anti-Christians or by people who would fain have Christianity lose its sway over Canada, but today, the legislation is being changed: our rectories are to be collection offices; every parish priest will have to be registered to be able to report and deduct charitable donations for the people who will go and get their receipts at the rectory.
Mr. Chairman, the man who conceived such an idea was probably an outstanding man, but he was surely not a Christian. Had he been a sincere Christian, he would not have done such a thing. I feel it is an indirect and disguised way of making light of religion, of Christianity in general. When I think about charity, religion comes to my mind. I noted that under the amendment proposed earlier, deductions were being allowed for charitable donations to the UN, to Japan, to Russia; however, I was surprised at not finding any provision for the deduction of charitable donations to the Communist party. If deductions of 10 or 15 per cent of the income had simply been allowed for charitable donations, all those endless inquiries and investigations in every rectory and within all Christian organizations would have been prevented.
As for us, French Canadians from Quebec, all we hope for and expect from the Minister of Finance with respect to income tax-I said so on many occasions and I say it again this evening- is that the federal government will hand over to the province of Quebec its three taxation fields, namely: personal income tax, corporate income tax and estate taxes. Afterwards, we shall be in a position to exchange views in a spirit of justice here in Ottawa.
June 9, 1966

I know that the present government has promised many times to hand over those three taxation fields; but nothing has been done yet. Everybody is amazed today to see what is going on in the province of Quebec. Lesage was quite a surprise for everyone. This is no surprise.
Quebec wants something and will demand it. As the new Quebec premier has put it: We are not going to beg or ask the federal government for charity, we will take what belongs to us.
Regardless of his political affiliation, that is a man after Quebec's heart. I am merely asking the Minister of Finance to work sincerely toward returning to Quebec the three fields of taxation, or all fields of direct taxation which rightfully belong to the provinces. Then, you can be sure that we and the whole of Quebec will be ready to work with all the others provinces for the development of Canada.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is consideration of paragraph 1 concluded?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I thought I might deal with some of the general observations that have been made on this resolution. I begin by referring to the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. I was flattered by the attention he has given to some of my recent utterances, and I am sure that the hon. member for Davenport is even more pleased.
The Leader of the Opposition has given several boosts to the circulation of the hon. member's book. It has now attained the best seller list, and I am sure that after the speech which the Leader of the Opposition has made today its sales will soar. Indeed, I sometimes wonder, in view of the successive boosts that the Leader of the Opposition has given this book, whether he may getting some sort of royalty which compensates him for the publicity he has been giving to the Liberal party as well as to the hon. member himself.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
It is a tradition in the Liberal party, Mr. Chairman-it may not be in the party of which my right hon. friend is the leader-to have open and free discussion. This is the tradition that we believe in. We pride ourselves on being tolerant, democratic and open-minded. We welcome discussion.
When the hon. member for Davenport, who is so well qualified by his experience, by his learning and by the many investigations he
Income Tax Act
has made into these matters, wishes to speak about financial and economic questions I think the whole country ought to welcome his intervention as a private member of parliament. After all, as the house knows, the hon. member for Davenport was the very distinguished chairman of a royal commission that investigated many of these questions about which he is now speaking and of which he had experience as minister of finance. I believe that as a private member of parliament he has every right, indeed, in view of his qualifications and experience, somewhat of a responsibility, to express his views on these very important issues and I hope he goes on doing so.
I hope that my right hon. friend will encourage the members of his party to be equally concerned about these major problems of the day in order that those who are only private members of parliament will feel free to discuss these matters so there can be an adequate national discussion. This is very healthy and useful.
The Liberal party, I think, is distinguished by not being a doctrinaire party.


An hon. Member:: What?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is pragmatic in its views and it is tolerant and open-minded. It is not socialistic in the sense of the New Democratic Party and does not have rigid doctrines that it adheres to regardless of circumstances. It is not reactionary in the sense that the Progressive Conservative party is and it does not have that peculiar tradition, which is perhaps associated with the Progressive Conservative party under the leadership of my right hon. friend, of always wanting to appear monolithic. Sometimes, despite valiant efforts to appear successful, my right hon. friend's party does not succeed in that.


Mr. Starr:: What is the Liberal party?


Mitchell William Sharp: My response at the present time is as a member of the government. When I speak I speak government policy, as would any other cabinet minister, unless I indicate that I am expressing my private views. In my recent utterances I have spoken what I considered to be government policy on these issues of financial and economic policy that have been referred to by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister, I have noticed, has been speaking likewise. I understand that he has been speaking government policy, and he and I find ourselves in general agreement. This is as one would expect.

June 9, 1966
Income Tax Act


Michael Starr: Where does that leave the hon. member for Davenport?


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. member for Davenport is a private member of this house. If I were a private member I should be expressing my private views. I am expressing my views as the Minister of Finance and therefore am speaking government policy.
Moreover, government policy is expressed not only in the utterances of ministers but, of course, in legislation. It is expressed in the budget that we are debating today. It is expressed in the bill to amend the Bank of Canada Act. It will be expressed in due course in the bill to amend the Bank Act and in any other legislation of economic and financial significance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Now let us get down to facts.


Mitchell William Sharp: When hon. members look at this legislation and listen to the speeches of the minister they know what government policy is. I do not think it is necessary for me, even in deference to the request of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, to do more than clarify my views. They have been expressed and are expressed in government policy. I really do not feel called upon today or at any other time to engage in private debate with a private member of parliament.
May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the reason for the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition at this particular juncture was not really to find out what my views are. I think they are quite clear. Certainly government policy has been expressed from time to time in legislation and in other utterances of other ministers. His purpose was to try to stir up divisons within the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: As I watched the Leader of the Opposition get up last night I wondered why he would intervene at this late stage in the budget debate involving these technical amendments. Today when he stood up, seeing the pleased expression on his face I realized that we were going to be entertained by one of his excursions into troublemaking. This was very transparent, in fact, much too transparent to succeed. May I suggest to the right hon. gentleman that the exercise of trying to stir up divisions within the Liberal party is not uncommon nor is it without precedent. Whenever the party of which my right hon. friend is the leader gets into difficulties itself with serious divisions within its ranks, it then engages in the nice little game of trying to

create trouble in other parties. If I may say so, Mr. Chairman, the right hon. gentleman was being very transparent today.


Michael Starr: Is that what happened in Quebec?


Mitchell William Sharp: Other efforts have been made outside this house, much more serious than those inside, to try to create disunity in the Liberal party by trying to undermine confidence in the Prime Minister.
Whatever may be the views of the members of the opposition about the Prime Minister, I can assure them that within the Liberal party there is greater confidence today in his leadership than there has ever been at any time since he took office. I for one, and I know I speak for all members on this side of the house, hope that the Prime Minister remains as leader of this party as long as he feels he has the strength and the patience to continue. There will never be any revolt in this party designed to unseat him.


Michael Starr: What is the Minister of National Defence doing?


Mitchell William Sharp: Having dealt with these interventions of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, I should like to get down to the important and serious matters that were discussed in the budget.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister was not important?


Mitchell William Sharp: The comments of the right hon. gentleman in trying to create divisions within the Liberal party were designed to give us a little entertainment. I enjoyed them very much. I feel, however, that no one will take them very seriously.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You did.


An hon. Member:: You should read the Vancouver Sun and the speeches of Premier Bennett.


Mitchell William Sharp: A number of comments were made about these resolutions. I should like to deal with them in some sort of order and I shall be as brief as possible.
First of all, with respect to the special refundable tax which was referred to by a number of speakers, including the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, this tax has been praised in many quarters quite enthusiastically, somewhat more enthusiastically than in this house, and it has also been criticized.
June 9, 1966

Income Tax Act
Quite frankly it is an experiment, as I mentioned yesterday when I put forward certain amendments that I hope will be proposed in due course.
Some problems had to be dealt with because we were not absolutely certain of the impact of this tax upon the taxpayers. I have proposed certain relieving provisions as a result of representations which have been made.
Undoubtedly the information I have-this is directly in response to the question asked by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition-is that the tax is having its intended effect. It seems to be cutting back moderately on some of the projects that had been planned.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The committee will realize that a great many of the smaller companies in this country will not be subject to the 5 per cent tax because of the floor of $30,000. The tax applies in the main to the larger companies. Some of them will find it both possible and necessary to continue with projects exactly as planned. This is not surprising. We expected it. Others will find it possible and desirable to reduce their projects to a moderate extent. It is not our intention to stop any projects. Our purpose is to cut them down.
As I said yesterday or the day before when I was talking about the excise tax, our objective is only a modest reduction in the scale of capital expenditure, $300 million or $400 million out of $10 billion. We do not want anything to be stopped; what we want are some reductions made in order to ease inflationary pressures. I have no doubt that we shall look back on this experiment, one which I hope will serve its purpose, and that on the basis of the experience gained we shall know better how to use similar devices in the future.
May I answer the suggestions made by members of the New Democratic Party that we were seeking here a device for a particular purpose rather than a device for general application. We did look at the Swedish example but it did not seem to suit the purpose we had in mind. However, it is a useful device and I am sure that in the future we shall be looking for flexible instruments of this kind for general use in connection with fiscal and monetary policy.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to a proposal made by his party during the election campaign for some sort of deduction in respect of municipal taxes to give relief to home owners. We have examined this proposal and we find it neither equitable nor
efficient for the purpose for which it is intended. That is why we have rejected it. I know that in the councils of our party during the election campaign we examined this proposal generally and we found that it was very inequitable as between home owners and the growing number of people who occupy rented accommodation. This is why we did not see fit to accept it at that time or include it in these budget proposals. It seemed to us that there were better ways of promoting home ownership.


John George Diefenbaker: What are those ways of encouraging home ownership?


Mitchell William Sharp: The most effective way is through housing policy, not through taxation policy. That is the short answer to the question. We have done far more to promote home ownership in this way than by any taxation policy-


Michael Starr: You mean by cutting off further money for the construction of homes?


Mitchell William Sharp: No. The Liberal government's efforts to promote housing have been more successful than the efforts of any other government. There has never been as much housing growth as during our term of office. At the present time, because of the tremendous prosperity of the country and because there are other claims on materials and men, housing is being cut back below the plans which had been made but not to a low level. Even the new level of housing in this country will, by the standards of any previous time, look very good indeed.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the minister this question? He says the plan would be inequitable and ineffective. It is in effect in the United States and my reading of the views of economists leads me to the sure conclusion that they have found it to be most effective and beneficial. Has an examination been made by the minister of the manner in which the plan has been operated in the United States and, if so, what are his conclusions?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by my officials that 60 per cent of their taxpayers do not claim this particular exemption. That is perhaps some measure of its effectiveness for the purpose. They use other deductions in lieu of a deduction for property tax.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes, those who can find other benefits.

June 9, 1966
Income Tax Act


Mitchell William Sharp: I turn now to the general proposals which were advanced by various speakers as ways oi giving relief to taxpayers with lower incomes. In the first place, hon. members will have noticed that in the proposals now before the committee the government has left with the lower income taxpayers more of last year's tax cuts than it has with anyone else. This is some indication of our understanding of this problem and of our desire to moderate the effects of taxation on the lower income group.
Again, it is our opinion that it would have been most inadvisable at this time to have made any major changes in the structure of taxation until there has been an opportunity to study the recommendations of the Carter commission which are expected at any time. I do not believe that our present income tax is either as equitable or as efficient as it ought to be and I am hopeful that the Carter commission will recommend some fundamental changes both in methods of imposing taxes and in the structure of the taxes themselves. But until we receive those recommendations I do not think we should act to patch up the existing structure any more than we have done in recent years.
It is my view that nothing harms the position of the less favoured portion of this country more than general inflationary conditions. It is therefore very much in the interests of those parts of the country which have not been growing as rapidly as others that general inflationary pressure should be mitigated. So this budget, which is aimed directly at reducing excessive demand, is very much in the interests of those portions of the country where growth has not been as rapid as we would have wished. Anyone who suggests that we should allow inflation to become rampant in order to help the slow growth areas is obviously speaking economic nonsense.
A word about regional problems. The government has, of course, continued its policy of providing special incentives in the Atlantic region, in designated areas and other areas of slow growth. It has done so through measures of special assistance such as the Atlantic Development Board, and by the provision that the proposals for reduced capital cost allowances contained in the budget should not apply to the designated areas. I believe that the policies contained in the budget are very much in the interests of those areas of the country which are growing relatively slowly in relation to the remainder of Canada and I do not believe it would be helpful to

those areas if we were to allow inflationary pressures to go unchecked.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Chairman, I should like to intercede once again on behalf of the taxpayers of this country, the responsible, hardworking men and women who are caught in the cross-fire of high prices and high taxes which is beginning to wear them thin. I rose on March 25, prior to the introduction of the minister's budget, to plead at that time for special consideration for the Canadian breadwinner, the oppressed taxpayer and wage earner of this land, and I must say I was disappointed with the policies introduced by the minister in his budget so far as taxation relief for the average Canadian wage earner is concerned. I speak for the responsible Canadian man or woman who is appalled and even to a certain extent frightened by the economic forces currently conspiring against him. I refer to overspending, waste and extravagance at the official level and the apparent insensitivity to the mood and climate of this country at the level of the man on the street.
When I spoke on March 25 I said that many thousands of Canadian families and householders are casualties of a taxation and food price juggernaut that has been building up and rolling over them for the last several years, and I said they were looking for help to get out from under this crushing burden. I suggested that this is the price we pay for glorious legislative programs that go too far too fast. I reiterate that point of view today.
I do not for one moment disparage or minimize the importance of responsible social welfare, but I believe that to a certain extent the economic chickens are coming home to roost in Canada and we are reaping the whirlwind that we sowed when we sowed the wind of social legislation beyond our economic capacity. There comes a breaking point, and I suggest the time has now arrived for all of us in the chamber to ask ourselves whether or not we are straining the average wage earner too severely.
The current situation of labour unrest in this country is a reflection of a situation that we have created for ourselves, for our national self, by pursuing a program of social legislation that has exceeded the bounds of our economic capacity and social responsibility.
June 9, 1966


Mr. Byrne:: Would the hon. member say in which area of social legislation we have gone beyond our ability to pay?


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I could cite several for the hon. member. I refer specifically to social legislation that is planned and envisioned and which creates an environment of spending and overspending that is generally conducive to an unhealthy economic situation.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That is hardly an answer.


Mr. Haidasz:: I would like to ask the hon. member if he is against an increase in the old age pension to $100 a month as advocated by his party?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member for Winnipeg South has the floor.


John George Diefenbaker: Where does the hon. member for Parkdale stand on that proposal?


Stanley Haidasz: I asked the hon. member for Winnipeg South a question.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: The labour unrest today arises from the unhappiness with the general high cost of living and has been generated by the tendency to which I have referred to travel too far too fast, to treat too lightly the importance of the wage earner's weekly salary packet, to take too much away from him, to put too much of a strain on his budget and in consequence on the national budget.
On every hand the government admonishes us to curtail expenditure, to curtail construction, to tighten our belts. Yet, as the leader of this party suggested earlier today, the government itself flouts its own instruction, while admonishing us to spend less, by devising, designing and proposing programs such as the massive monument to militarism envisaged for this city within the next few years.
At the time I spoke on March 25 I asked the minister if he would give consideration to the people who are caught in the price-tax squeeze by introducing three specific measures designed to relieve Canadians of these oppressive financial pressures. The three items I suggested as necessary were an outright and immediate repeal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, a measure which would make realty taxes deductible for income tax purposes up to a maximum of $500 on owner-occupied homes, and a raise in the basic income tax exemption level, especially for widows and pensioners.
Income Tax Act
I repeat that I was indeed disappointed in the results of the budget, in the fact that it contained no such relief and in the fact that it contained little consideration or awareness that profound problems exist in those areas. I believe all of us in this chamber should warn ourselves that pride goeth before a fall. It behooves all of us in this chamber, not just the members on the treasury benches who are in the government but all members of the house, to realize that the problem does exist, is becoming increasingly acute, and that we must address ourselves to it.
I do not view it necessarily as a partisan problem and I do not believe in partisan solutions. I do not believe that any party in this chamber has a monopoly on solutions and answers to the problem. I urge a collective, massive, all-party assault on the sea of respectable poverty that exists today amidst our comparative affluence and prosperity.
I have been on the receiving end of a tremendous stream of letters on this subject. I know all hon. members receive letters on it daily, but I have a brief one here which I would like to read into the record because it symbolizes and typifies the plight of these nameless, faceless Canadians who are writing to all of us on this problem. It reads:
uear oir:
Coud you give me a little advice on how we could manage on $75 a month as my husband is laid off from his job at 70 years and I'm 63 years this February coming. We have to pay medical and hospitalization out of the $75 a month, and living quarters . . . Maybe you could help me or give us some advice.
Yours truly.
I read that into the record merely as being symbolic of the flood of letters which I know is descending upon all members of this chamber during this session.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we do not want or need party doctrines or party manifestoes as we address ourselves to this problem. What we want is an awareness and realization of the fact that spending has gone too far, that the mood of profligacy at the economic level has gone too far and we need to start the country back to economic morality and respectability. Regardless of party consideration we shall all have to answer if we fail to grapple with the problem and fail to make an honest, sincere and responsible attempt to try to solve it.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In urging a decrease in government expenditures, would the hon. member advocate that we reduce the federal contribution to the Nelson River power development project?

June 9, 1966
Income Tax Act


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Most emphatically not, Mr. Chairman. This is part and parcel of the program of national development for which the hon. member's party ostensibly stands and to which in print it is committed, a policy of building up all parts of the nation to make the nation strong. This is a national responsibility and I suggest that the hon. member opposite subscribes to it as emphatically as I do.


Mr. Siewari:: Would the hon. gentleman permit another question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Are you looking for trouble?


John B. Stewart: The hon. gentleman has just said that he believes in additional expenditures for things that are important to the basic structure of the national economy. Which specific program of welfare would he wish to have cut back or dropped.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I prefer to tell you which programs I support and endorse, programs of regional development aimed at the national good, and the development of the Nelson River hydro project is foremost among those.


John B. Stewart: You do not give any specifics.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Paragraphs 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On paragraph 7:
Mitchell William Sharp: I would ask the Associate Minister of National Defence to move the amendment to paragraph 7 which appears at page 6157 of Hansard as follows:
That paragraph 7 of the Income Tax Act resolution be amended by deleting therefrom the words "but that this amendment shall not apply If the right to acquire shares was given to the employee before 1965 and the benefit is received before January 1, 1967."
and substituting therefor the words
"but that this amendment shall not apply if the right to acquire shares was given to the employee before March 30, 1966, and the benefit is received before January 1, 1968."


Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne):: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Paragraphs 8 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
On paragraph 14:
[Mr. Basford.l
Mitchell William Sharp: At page 6159 of Hansard there is an amendment to paragraph 14 which reads as follows:
That paragraph 14 of the Income Tax Act resolution be amended as follows:
(a)	by deleting therefrom all the words that precede subparagraph (a) thereof and by substituting therefor the following words:
"That with respect to each taxation year included in whole or in part in the period commencing May 1, 1966, and ending October 31, 1967, a special refundable tax at the rate of 5% shall be payable by all corporations that are not exempt from tax under the said act by virtue of section 62 thereof, other than
1.	investment companies described in section 69 thereof,
2.	non-resident-owned investment corporations described in section 70 thereof, and
3.	corporations more than 95% of the property of each of which throughout the taxation year was situated outside Canada or consisted of shares in or obligations of corporations or other persons not resident In Canada, the aggregate value of any shares In or obligations of corporations or other persons resident in Canada or carrying on business in Canada aquired by each of which in the taxation year did not exceed 5% of its income for the year, and all of the shares of each of which were throughout the taxation year owned by non-residents of Canada, and by all trusts (other than trusts arising on death and trusts described in paragraph (g) of subsection (1) of section 62 of the said act) calculated, in the case of a corporation, on a tax base (hereinafter called the corporate tax base) comprising the aggregate of"
(b)	by adding to subparagraph (b) thereof the following words:
"(other than amounts deducted in respect of property described in class 12 of Schedule B to the income tax regulations) not in excess of an amount equal to 50 per cent of its gross revenue for the taxation year,"
(c)	by deleting the word "and" at the end of paragraph (n) thereof and by adding thereto the following words:
"(other than amounts deducted in respect of property described in class 12 of Schedule B to the income tax regulations) not in excess of an amount equal to 50% of that part of its gross revenue included in computing the amounts specified in subparagraphs (1) and (m), and".


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I so move. Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Paragraphs 15 to 18 inclusive agreed to. Resolution reported and concurred in.


VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL TRAINING
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: the second
June 9, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	6201
reading of Bill No. C-186, respecting allowances to persons being trained under technical and vocational programs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.
Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I have very little to add to what I said when the resolution was introduced in the house. This is a very simple bill. It has only two purposes. First, to increase the allowances to the employees who will take training or re-training courses and, second, to amend certain provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act so that the employees who are or will be taking advantage of this plan will not lose the benefits to which they are entitled under the Unemployment Insurance Act. They will not be losing any benefits for the time they will be in training under plans approved by the federal government or by the various provincial governments.
Such, then, is the general purpose of the bill and I hardly believe I could add anything at this time. I know the house will wish to adopt this bill rather rapidly so that we may enter with the provinces into agreements that will be in force as of July 1, the date that has been decided upon.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, as I claim some interest in this legislation I should like to say a word on it. When the former minister, now Minister of National Health and Welfare, was in Vancouver last fall I arranged for him to meet with a number of vocational training students who were on unemployment insurance and were having a very difficult time under the existing program. The Minister of Labour met with these students in a small apartment in my riding. From that visit I think a good deal of the impetus in respect of this new program was developed.
Under this program, as the minister has explained, we will be paying 100 per cent of a $35 a week supplementary allowance and 90 per cent of an allowance of up to $55 a week to workers who are unemployed or to self-employed persons who were formerly in primary industry. This will mean a possible allowance of $90 a week to send these unemployed workers back to school for training or upgrading of their skills. I suggest, Mr. Vocational and Technical Training Chairman, that only one out of four or five of our young people will ever go to university. I think many of our politicians get carried away with the idea that we need more assistance to higher education and forget the great need which exists to look after the four out of five of our young people who never will see university.
Although I commend the government very much for bringing in this program, it does not make any provision for those young people who already are employed and who have some skill or semiskill but want to return to school either to re-train for another profession, another skill or another job or wish to upgrade their existing training. In this parliament some time ago we introduced the university loans program which I think proved to be overwhelmingly successful. In fact, there is a resolution on the order paper to increase the amounts under the university loans program. If we are going to look after those who wish to go back to vocational schools adequately many of whom are married and have dependant small children, it seems to me we should give serious thought to the establishment of a program for vocational training similar to the university loans program.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I do not think it would be difficult to establish a program under which young people who want to go back to vocational school to upgrade their training or receive new training could obtain a loan in the amount of $250 or $300 a month for a period of up to a year to enable them to enter into a comprehensive and complete retraining or vocational training program. The program we are considering now is a breakthrough with regard to the training of unemployed or underemployed persons, but I suggest there are many young people, married persons with family responsibilities, who are unable to go back to school and are unable to give up their jobs in order to retrain or upgrade themselves. I suggest that we need a loan program to assist people of this sort who will not be assisted by this program.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I have been brought to my feet by the remarks of the hon. member who preceded me, who said that this program is being enacted today. For clarification purposes I would point out that the hon. member evidently is not aware of the facts and is not up to date in this regard or he is using this vehicle for purposes of political propaganda, because this program
June 9, 1966

Vocational and Technical Training has been in effect for quite a few years in conjunction with the provinces It was activated in 1960 based on the program of building facilities wherein this training could take place. As the hon. member should know, an act was passed in 1960 providing for participation by the federal government in the capital cost of constructing schools and buildings in which this training could be carried on.
The only thing this bill does is increase the allowance for those who undergo training under the program. It provides an incentive. This is a good thing, but the bill only provides an additional incentive under a program that has been in effect for many years.
I do not want to blow my own horn but while I was minister of labour this program was activated and impetus was given to it through the construction of facilities in which training could be undertaken. Prior to that time there was not a great deal of opportunity for such training because of a lack of facilities.
It has always been my regret that the Canadian labour movement did not get behind this program. In other words, they never approved nor disapproved it. As a matter of fact, there were times when leaders of the Canadian labour movement ridiculed, without foundation the program and the type of training provided. This is the sort of program which the organized labour movement should get behind now, because if we look back-and I think the minister of manpower will agree with me-we will realize that jobs available for unskilled labour in Canada are becoming fewer and fewer because of automation and technological changes.
In 1960 I was told that only 30 per cent of all jobs in Canada required unskilled labour. With the advancement of technological changes this percentage will grow smaller. I think it is up to us to give leadership and help, in co-operation with the provinces, in providing facilities and incentives for many of those people who, as the previous speaker mentioned, will not receive university education but have the talent and desire to secure training in order to enter the labour force with those skills and trades that are so necessary in this age of advancing industrial development.
I should like to ask the minister a question on this point. Will the same procedure be followed whereby a person who is receiving
selecting his own trade or skill, or will the national employment service officer direct him to the particular skill that he feels is required in the area so that after training the person will have a job immediately?


Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 2
carry?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would answer that question.


Jean Marchand: These allowances will be given not only to those persons who receive unemployment insurance benefits. They may also be given to unemployed who do not receive any benefits. So far as the courses to be attended are concerned, as the hon. member knows we have at the moment a manpower service-it might be given another name later-which will provide counselling to these people. It is useless for a man to undertake a course and learn a skill that he will not use afterwards because there is no job available which calls for that skill. I do not believe we should compel him to learn a particular skill; we should counsel him. This is the whole philosophy of the department in this field and I think it is the same philosophy that has been followed in the past.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Is there an age limit set on whether or not an unemployed may benefit from the legislation to take a preparatory course?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, there is no age limit. All we can do under this act or under the professional training act is to enter into agreements with the provinces. Will they require that an age limit be included in the agreements? So far, they have not required it. If, at a certain age, for instance, a man aged 80, were to ask us to learn a new trade, we would probably try by every means to convince him to do something else. Possibly at that time, he could enter politics?
But there is no specific age limit in the agreement and we do not intend putting one in.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, is the legislation which had been passed to encourage the employment of people over 45 years of age still in force or has it been discarded?


Jean Marchand: If you mean the bonuses or amounts of money given employers to favour the employment of older people, that policy, for all practical purposes, has been abanor is eligible to receive unemployment insurance or is in the process of applying for another job will have the opportunity of doned. 
June 9, 1966


Maurice Rinfret: Order. In order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business it is my duty to leave the chair.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion at this time? It would seem to me that there may be only one or two members who wish to speak on this subject. In view of this perhaps we could carry on without your seeing the clock in order to pass this legislation. As the minister pointed out, it is necessary to pass this bill so that the program may be in force by July 1. If we could carry on without your seeing the clock I think we would be able to pass this legislation shortly. Then I may have another suggestion to put to the committee.


Maurice Rinfret: Does the committee agree to the suggestion made by the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Sallsman:: Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief question to ask the minister with regard to the kind of schools that will be eligible to accept candidates for retraining. In the past there has been some difficulty in this regard. Has the minister been looking into this problem to see that the greatest flexibility, in terms of providing educational facilities will be exercised? We think this is a good measure and we certainly welcome it, but I should like to hear the minister's comments in this regard. I am thinking in terms of schools that m the past were not always eligible under this program because of a nine months arrangement whereas in some areas schools have to be open all year round.


Jean Marchand: As hon. members know, we have to enter into agreements with the provinces on this program. The schools that are covered by the program are, of course, those with regard to which the provinces reach agreement with us.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
We are not interested, of course, in entering into certain fields which are within the provincial jurisdiction. We are much more interested in what I might call adult education. However, there is some sort of restriction here although I cannot tell the hon. member what it is exactly. As I have said, we have to enter into negotiations on this matter with the provinces and come to some agreement with them.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
While I am on my feet may I speak on a related matter. The hon. member for York-Humber mentioned the Quo Vadis nursing school. Of course this school will not be entitled to these allowances because it is a private school. So far as I know the province of Ontario has not yet decided on its eligibility. However, if they do so we will grant them the allowances. I am afraid I cannot be more precise than I have been. If the provinces are in agreement with us, we will assist them to the fullest extent, but we will not enter into the field of education which is the sole responsibility of the provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: When shall the said bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Jean Marchand: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


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 the time of adjournment tonight are as follows:	The hon. member for
Megantic (Mr. Langlois): Winter works-Work carried out at Notre-Dame-de-la-Guadeloupe-the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr! Mather): Fight against lung cancer; the hon. member for Saint John-Albert): Defence Production-Destroyer escort program.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the first item of business scheduled for the time between now and seven o'clock is notices of motions (papers) and the first one stands in my name, might I suggest that the house adjourn at this time and resume its sitting at seven o'clock?

6204

June 9, 1966
National Arts Centre


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it
agreed by hon. members that the house suspend its sitting until seven o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 6.05 p.m. the sitting was suspended.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 7 p.m.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: the second reading of Bill No. C-194, to establish a corporation for the administration of the National Arts Centre.
She said: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-194 provides for the management of the great building which will very soon grace the centre of our national capital. It constitutes an affirmation that we Canadians, like other mature and civilized people, are giving full recognition to the proper value of the performing arts in our society, not only here in Ottawa, our national capital, but throughout Canada.
Recently there was a Rockefeller panel report on the performing arts, and I should like to quote something that was stated therein:
The arts are a source of simple enjoyment and delight, hence of refreshment and renewal. They are also educating and civilizing, can provide a sense of grace, power, enchantment and beauty of which the creative impulse is capable. And, at their greatest, the arts are exalting, with some of religion's moral and mystical power.
There is no doubt in my mind about the prime importance that Canadians attach to the performing arts today. If there were, the collective experience of hon. members in this chamber, and particularly those who represent constituencies in our larger cities, would rapidly dispel it. The evidence is overwhelming and it comes from all parts of the country.
During the last 20 years, there have been steady progress in the development of the performing arts in Canada and it has assumed a sensible, and I think, logical pattern. First things have come first. Since the creation of the Canada Council in 1957, priority has been given to the development of strong professional companies with high artistic standards in their several fields. More recently, this movement has been accelerated by a growing volume of provincial and municipal support. In the last two or three years, we have entered a new phase, which has been

stimulated by the preparations for our centennial, but which I think would have developed naturally over the next few years in any event. There has been a gathering movement across the country, which has been felt very strongly of course in our larger cities where some facilities exist, to provide housing that will be worthy of the high standard of excellence of our leading artistic companies.
One of the happiest features of this development has been the passionate involvement of our young people. I have not myself seen it, but I have heard reports of the National Ballet School in Toronto, with its increasing numbers of young people dedicating their lives to the arts. I propose to visit this summer the summer camp of Les Jeunesses Musicales at lake Orford, in the eastern townships of Quebec, which many members have already taken the advantage of visiting. Experiences such as these are all that are needed to prove that the best of our young people are as talented and sound as ever, as ready as ever to accept the necessary discipline in achieving the mastery of beauty, just as this discipline is necessary to achieve anything which is worth having.
This measure before the chamber, then, Mr. Speaker, provides for the establishment of a corporation which will have three principal functions, first, to operate and maintain the centre; second, to develop the performing arts in the national capital region and, third, to assist the Canada Council in the development of the performing arts elsewhere in Canada. I shall come back to this in a moment, but it is important to keep in mind that there are three objects when we consider the structure which is proposed for the corporation.
The bill proposes a chairman, a vice chairman, five ex officio members and nine appointed members. The whole board will be concerned with the development and implementation of policy designed to achieve all three objects; but there is provision in clause 2 for the establishment of standing committees of the board to which duties may be delegated. In this way it will be possible to establish an executive committee which can give closer attention to the management and operations of the centre itself than could the full board.
The second object of the corporation, Mr. Speaker, is to develop in our national capital the performing arts. I am sure that many members, who over the years have regretted
June 9, 1966

June 9, 1966
National Arts Centre
are too small. I should like to stress the point that, in relation to the centre, we should not regard a subsidy as a means of meeting a deficit on operations. We do not regard the National Gallery or the National Museum as having a deficit on their operations. They are regarded as necessary amenities to the cultural life of Canada, and parliament votes money for their support. Exactly the same considerations should apply to the centre, which is not intended to be a commercial operation and cannot be expected to be selfsupporting from its revenues. Parliament will therefore be asked to provide funds for the objects of the corporation through the normal procedures for appropriations.
Finally, the bill provides that the corporation shall not be an agent of Her Majesty. In formulating and implementing its artistic policy, the board will have to make many difficult decisions, and will necessarily have to rely to a very large extent on the artistic judgment and taste of the director and its other advisers. As Emerson said, "Art is a jealous mistress", and it would be too much to expect unanimity of opinion about her qualities and virtue. We have to face the fact that the centre will not please everybody all the time. A lively artistic policy will be, in its very essence, controversial. The only policy that would not be controversial is the pursuit of mediocrity, and it would not be controversial only because it would be universally condemned.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the minister a question?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have only about two sentences more.


Gordon Minto Churchill: All right.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The bill therefore seeks to give the trustees the freest possible hand in this regard, while preserving the unquestionable right of parliament to express its judgment of their total performance in achieving the objects for which they are incorporated.
As all hon. members know, this centre was conceived as the major federal building for centennial year. It is not expected, however, the building itself will be ready for centennial year, but somewhat later. Now is the time when the corporation must be erected, the individuals appointed and the work commenced so that when the building is completed and the necessary tests have been conducted in it, it will be open for business. We hope that, for performers and audience alike,

this facility will be a showcase all around the world.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask this question now?
I understood the minister to say that the centre might be the subject of controversy with regard to programs and so on, which would create interest, or words to that effect. Does it necessarily follow that you have to have a controversial attitude in connection with artistic performances? Would the minister say that the 14 years of success of the Shakespearean Festival at Stratford is based on the fact there is controversy and disagreement with regard to the plays which are produced? What philosophy is this that suggests that, in order that interest may be created in something that is artistic, there has to be a realm of controversy?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Well, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. gentleman, I am sure that he has often attended Stratford and knows that, from time to time, considerable controversy has erupted over the choice of plays in a particular season, over casting, over treatment of the plays and so on. I remind him that on opening night they presented Henry V in a very different way than it was presented almost ten years ago. There has been considerable controversy in the press over the attitude which was taken. The next night's presentation was a play which was made up of three different plays squeezed together, with some left out and some put in. There is always controversy over what a director does in any artistic endeavour. I would hope that this performing centre would not restrict itself, at the outset, to something like the Shakespeare plays. We already have them. I hope that the same thing would apply to Shaw, because there is already a Shaw Festival established at Niagara-on-the-Lake.
I hope that the centre would be using modern plays which are developed both here and abroad. Let me mention one play in particular. There is a play on Broadway called "Marat Sade", which has created a violent controversy. If this play were put on in Ottawa it may very well be that some people would say it was too brutal, too bloody to be performed here. My hon. friend may have heard of the play which called into question the Pope's attitude toward naziism during the war, which has created great controversy when it has been performed in different parts of the world. Plays carry ideas. There will always be some people who
June 9, 1966

believe in these ideas and some who disbelieve in them. I think that the very nature of artistic endeavour will always cause some controversy.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thank the minister; in part she has answered my question. The fact that controversy develops in some artistic productions does not necessarily make for the success of the exercise. That is what I am getting at. I think, from her earlier remarks, she was suggesting that items that might be considered controversial by the public would be introduced in the course of activities of this institution. I suggest that that does not necessarily make for the success of an enterprise.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker,the other night when the resolution on this bill was presented, I was absent, with the other cultural types. I am afraid some of us missed the opportunity to comment on the National Arts Centre.
My own view is that we welcome the development of this centre. I know there are misgivings by some hon. members concerning the cost. However, I suggest that these thoughts should be expressed when the estimates of the Department of Public Works are before the house. In any case, I am not going to make a very great complaint about the cost of the centre. This country has waited for a long time for a centre of this type. Even at the inflated prices of today, I think the final result will be well worth while.
Last year in reply to a question I put on the order paper I found that since 1949 this country has spent something like $24 billion on defence. We may spend $100 million for some towers in the western part of Ottawa. It does not bother me that the government will spend the amount of money contemplated for the National Arts Centre. I think we have to do things of this sort.
It is disappointing that the centre will not be ready for the centennial year. We should not worry. If stretching out the construction period will save some cost, then not having it ready for the centennial year is not too serious. I am anxious to see that the job is well done, and if we have to wait until 1968 or 1969, I think it will be worth it. The centre will be with us for a very long time. I think of the famous opera houses in the major cities of Europe which have been in existence for 100 years, and are still being used at the
National Arts Centre
present time. Many of them are in very good condition because they were very fine structures initially.
In recent years there have been constructed in Canada a great many new auditoria, as well as theatres. I think of the Queen Elizabeth Theatre in Vancouver, the auditoria erected in Calgary and Edmonton, the Place des Arts in Montreal, the O'Keefe Centre in Toronto, the Confederation Memorial Theatre in Charlottetown, and the theatre at Stratford. All these have been built in the last ten years. There may be others of which I am not aware.
I suggest that these new buildings have resulted in a better environment for both the performing artists and for the audiences. For too long we have had symphony orchestras playing in motion picture theatres which were not designed for that purpose. We have had ballet and opera companies performing on stages which were just about half as big as they should have been. We have had various dramatic and theatrical groups playing on inadequate stages at high schools. These new buildings in Canada in recent years have provided much better physical facilities than we had before for the performing arts.
Not only have these new buildings improved conditions for the performers, but they have created a much better environment for the audience. I think of the change which took place in Vancouver when the Queen Elizabeth Theatre was opened. Before that time the various amateur dramatic and professional groups performed in old movie houses and in other halls. The type of audience they got was the hard core audience-the people who were going to keep supporting them so that the organizations would not collapse. I noticed that after the new theatre came into existence the audiences grew in size. The better lighting, better acoustics, more comfortable seating arrangement, the pleasant foyers where people could walk between acts all created a much more pleasant environment. Consequently the support for the various types of concerts and dramatic productions increased in the city. I imagine that the same thing happened in Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto and Montreal.
This situation of lack of facilities, Mr. Speaker, has been particularly prevalent in Ottawa. This city, which is quite close to Montreal and to Toronto, should get many of the travelling groups that go to those cities, but that do not stop here because of lack of facilities. I can recall on one occasion going

June 9, 1966
National Arts Centre
to see one company from New York which had to appear in a high school. Our whole evening was spoiled because a rock 'n roll dance was going on in the same building, and the dance music drowned out almost the whole act. This city has been badly served in the past with places in which theatrical groups could perform.
The buildings which I have mentioned, built in the other cities of Canada, in most cases are multi-purpose buildings. They were designed for operas, symphony concerts, theatrical productions and musical comedies. They had to be multi-purpose buildings because the people putting up the buildings did not have the money to provide more than one building at a time for the performing arts. This will not be so with the National Arts Centre. There are to be three buildings. The large hall is to seat 2,300 people, and is to be built for the presentations of ballet productions and can be used for symphonies. The other one will seat 970 people, and the smaller studio will seat 300. This is only possible, perhaps, where we have the federal government coming into the financial picture.
I am very pleased that we do not have to have a multi-purpose building-because it will be here for a long time-and it is much better to have the three buildings which are each adapted to a particular type of performance.
Some tribute ought to be paid, Mr. Speaker, to the group in Ottawa which did a great deal of the organizational work for the centre. I believe it is called the National Capital Council Arts Alliance, and is made up of 65 organizations. A great deal of consultation and planning went into the art centre, in order for it now to have reached this stage.
The site which has been selected I think is unfortunate. Two other sites were contemplated at the time, one on Sussex Street, and one on Albert Street. I felt that the one on Albert Street was the better of the two, but the former mayor of Ottawa vetoed that. If the centre represents a heavy cost, as related to the cost of excavating for parking areas, it is too late to put boulders back into the ground and move the site to another place. I think we should have had a great deal less cost at one of the other locations. As I recall, the planning director of the city at one time recommended against the present location, but it is too late to do anything now. The work has to go ahead.
I shall have something more to say, Mr. Speaker, when we come to the clauses of the bill. Now I should like to make a comment

about the composition of the board, the director, and the people who will advise the director.
I imagine that the board of trustees, as it is called, will be broadly representative geographically of the country, and I expect its members will be English and French speaking. I sometimes have my doubts about these boards of directors of national organizations. In many cases they are well intentioned prominent citizens, but unfortunately they do not know very much about the subject they are involved in, so that they have to do very much as the professionals suggest. In this case I suggest that there should be a board which is a mixture of people who may be quite prominent in the various fields of the arts, and other prominent citizens.
The centre has to be a business centre, too. There will be leases entered into, and there will be concessions. The board will probably need business advice. The key person, Mr. Speaker, will be the director. The type of person who has the artistic background combined with the ability to manage a business of this size is very hard to get.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
I would suggest this: If we can get a Canadian, well and good. But the type of person who is capable of doing this job is extremely rare, and if no Canadian is qualified we should look to Britain, France or the United States. Remember, this would be a key appointment in the operation. I understand that whoever is chosen will be appointed for five years-and it is the first five years which is the crucial time.
I would also suggest that the members of the advisory committees set up to assist the director in making plans for the operation of the centre will have a more important function than the board itself; they will be people who know the entertainment business and their advice will be extremely useful. The minister mentioned that it is planned to establish a permanent repertory company in the capital. I would refer to this later. It is hoped also that the symphony orchestra will be revived. It would be too much to expect that a city of this size would, even with assistance, be able to support an opera company. I am not sure whether the centre will be used for what might be called ordinary commercial purposes. Perhaps the minister would tell us.
Would a famous musical, say, from the United States or from Britain, be booked into the centre, or would this be left for Canadian
June 9, 1966

dramatic companies? I have several other questions to ask but I shall defer them to the committee stage when the bill is considered clause by clause.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, just a word to tell the house that we are very pleased with Bill C-194, an act to establish a corporation for the administration of the National Arts Centre. We are pleased all the more because we can already see the work in progress in the capital of Canada.
It was time for Canada to have its arts centre. It cannot be said that, in this field, it has set the example for the provinces, for several of them have already preceded it. It may be slightly embarrassing for the residents of the Canadian capital, and for the citizens of Canada, that the capital should lag in this regard.
That is why we are particularly happy about it; at long last we can boast, like other countries, of having our arts centre, and give the arts the place they deserve.
I am convinced that no political party, no member of this house, will oppose the present project. As for us, we have always wanted our Canadian capital to have such a centre. We regret one thing only, that it will not be ready for the centennial, for it is part o fthe group of centennial buildings across the country.
I personally have the pleasure of having centennial buildings in my own city, in the Roberval constituency.
Our group is happy indeed, today, to support the work of parliament in giving the capital of Canada the National Arts Centre.


Robert Norman Thompson: Rising to make a few comments on Bill C-194 I would simply assure the minister that she has the support of our party in bringing in this legislation establishing a corporation to administer the National Arts Centre, to which we have previously given our approval. I would also commend the hon. lady on the beautiful brochure Opera Canada, which reached our hands yesterday describing this new venture in the performing arts. After our cultural attempt at a baseball game last evening, I enjoyed very much reading it later in the evening.
One thing which disturbs me with regard to this National Arts Centre is the tremendous escalation in the cost. I think the minister should give us some explanation of this as
National Arts Centre
the debate proceeds. I remember that the first time we talked about this subject several years ago we were talking in terms of $9 million. Later, the cost was to be $18 million. It has increased now to $32 million, or nearly so. The increase seems to me to be an unreasonable one, and with the present trend in the cost of construction and in the general costs of everthing we buy, the final cost may well be even higher-possibly much higher-than the cost indicated, as based on the recent tenders which have been submitted. The wise spending of tax dollars is of course extremely important, but we do not wish to detract from what we believe to be a necessity as Canada matures-the presence of such a centre in the nation's capital.
Again, the provinces have shown leadership to the federal government in this regard. It is now 11 years since the two auditoria in my home province were constructed. I believe the value of those auditoria to the province is one which will be readily acknowledged by all its citizens. So it is high time we proceeded with the development, here in the nation's capital, of a project which could give leadership and direction in the whole field of the performing arts.
The minister mentioned briefly that we can expect controversy in relation to the programs carried out by the corporation responsible for the national centre. I hope that as we deal with this legislation and establish the role of management in this centre we shall be able to avoid the kind of controversy in which we have been involved in relation to those responsible for programming and for management, respectively, within the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I agree in general with the program outlined in this legislation concerning the future role of the centre. I think this project will certainly give incentive to the re-establishment of a symphony orchestra here in Ottawa. I also believe it will give tremendous incentive to the Little Theatre.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
No doubt the plan to provide three different auditoria within the institution is a very wise one, in that it can cope with all the various aspects of the performing arts. This centre can provide a useful role in cultural development, something of which we have been neglectful, having concerned ourselves more with material things, and it can also play a vital role in providing incentive and a pattern for developing character among our

June 9, 1966
National Arts Centre
own people. The environment of culture, as it relates to the performing arts, has a very profound effect on the general outlook and pattern of character among a people of a nation.
Nothing has yet been said about the details of the programming planned for the centre, but I think it is important that recording facilities be provided, not only for radio but also for television, in the three auditoria.
Those of us who watched last night's Festival program, which was recorded in Toronto, were tremendously impressed with it. As we were watching it at home, someone remarked that such a program would not be available on television in the United States. It is only through the facilities of the C.B.C. that we can provide our people with that type of program. I think this is true. This is one of the great areas in which the C.B.C. can provide service, and I hope that the design for the centre incorporates ample facilities for radio and television broadcasts, because both these are a comparatively recent factor as applied to the theatre.
These are just a few random thoughts concerning the tremendous potential of the National Arts Centre, and we shall speak further as we examine the legislation clause by clause. Again I commend this project to the good lady who is now responsible for it in her ministerial capacity. As I heard her speak a few moments ago, I could not help but think how quickly she has transformed herself in her thinking from the Department of National Health and Welfare into being the leader of cultural development in our country. I know she is going to do a better job in this portfolio than some of us may think she did in her former department, and I assure her these remarks are made with all kindness. We appreciate the leadership she is trying to give, even though we may not agree to the spending of $6 million on a particular painting at this time.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, first I want to say a word to the minister, and I imagine my English speaking colleagues will realize in what bad position we are sometimes placed by the French language when we want to speak of such a charming lady and we have to refer to her as "Monsieur le ministre." You will understand that this is a sort of heresy that is distasteful to us, but to comply with the prescriptions of the French grammar, we must

refer to this charming person as "Monsieur le ministre".
At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I am one of those who are happily impressed by the constructive influence of the present minister who is called the Secretary of State, but who plays the role of minister of culture in Canada.
For the short time she has been in office, we have seen for instance what happy results her influence had with regard to the National Gallery of Canada. I would simply want, at the beginning of my remarks, to express the hon. members' satisfaction for her constructive measures which enlightened us. The bill she has moved today proves that Canada has just reached maturity, since we can allow ourselves to forget prosaic preoccupations, such as roads or national defence, and awake to artistic values. Some thought had been given to it before, because the Canada Council has been established. That was a beginning, but now we are going to have a monument, a temple of the arts in Canada that we will be proud to show to those who will come here and realize that Canada, after a few centuries of existence, has just reached this maturity where it is intensively and successfully interested in things intellectual and artistic.
On the whole, Mr. Speaker, I find this bill particularly acceptable. All the same, I have a few remarks to make on a specific point, but before doing so, I wish to advise the house that I am making those remarks with all possible broad-mindedness, because I would not want to be accused of pettiness. But the fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that if a bill dealing with artistic and cultural matters in Canada is being introduced, it should be kept in mind that there are two main ethnic groups, two cultures working side by side to promote Canada's prosperity and, at the risk of seeming somewhat touchy, I wish to point out that I cannot find in this bill an adequate guarantee that my culture and that of a number of other members, as well as of a few million Canadians, will be administered, if I may use such a term, by people of my own language and culture.
If a few members find that to mention this on every occasion is to split hairs and to make a fanatic of oneself, I want to call their attention to one thing: we are too often reminded in our country that there are still some people-not only in the province of Quebec-who are fanatics and who tell us, as I read not later than this afternoon in the
June 9, 1966

report of a radio commentary, it is time French Canadians realized their language is unwelcome here in Canada. We are also told that Canada is a country with an English speaking majority and that French Canadians should realize they should adopt the language of the majority. This is only one step removed from telling us that we shall have to adopt the culture of the majority.
Indeed, I think that some members of the house object, for instance, to a French speaking radio station in Toronto-to which English speaking people are not compelled to listen. Now those are the things that prompt us to be vigilant. Anyhow, even if artistic and cultural matters have universal resemblances, even if art should not really be divided into compartments according to races-there is no French art, no English art, no Spanish art, no Italian art-nevertheless, there is in every nationality contingencies and characteristics which distinguish the culture and the art of each people.
I will not say any more about this, because I do not have the proficiency to do so; anyhow, members here understand as well as I do. But, Mr. Speaker, I think a minor amendment should be made to this bill.
Considering that directors having a diversified competence and who understand artistic matters will have to be appointed, we should make sure that they are also administrators.
Section 3 of the bill reads as follows:
*-and nine other members to be appointed as provided in section 4.
I have no objection at all to the foregoing constitution:
A corporation is hereby established to be known as the National Arts Centre Corporation consisting of a board of trustees composed of a chairman, a vice-chairman, the persons from time to time holding office as
(a)	the mayor of the corporation of the city of Ottawa,
(b)	the mayor of the city of Hull,
(c)	the director of the Canada Council,
(d)	the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and
(e)	the government film commissioner.
But as far as the nine other members to be appointed as provided in section 4 are concerned, I think a paragraph should be added, taking into consideration that the province of Quebec now has a Department of Culture, to specify, for instance, that a minimum of members on the board of trustees will be of 23033-394
National Arts Centre
French culture, and that, perhaps, the Department of Culture of the province of Quebec could appoint some of them. Then, we would be sure that the French-Canadian element which must exist in our dual culture would be represented.
Mind you, I have no objections to some directors being Ukrainian, Chinese or Jewish, as long as they are Canadian. I would like it to be recognized that these matters of education, language and culture are part of our soul as a people, that we are very keen on them and that we will always be very vigilant to be certain that, in all federal legislations, provisions are included to guarantee these sacred rights of ours.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
And to those who think that I do so through narrow-mindedness, I would like to say that, on the contrary, I am one of those who believe in a united Canada and who try to maintain unity among all Canadians, especially among the representatives of the two ethnic groups.
Now, I believe that the best way to put a stop to those outbursts of separatism to stifle feelings of revolt against Ottawa and to avoid providing arguments to unreasonable persons who want to destroy Canadian unity, is to avert the danger by satisfying the rightful claims of the French-Canadian group.
This is not to ask for a privilege. The citizens of Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary belong on the whole to the socalled Anglo-Saxon group. Some new Canadians have joined that group and have adopted to a certain extent their culture, while keeping some ethnic characteristics but they will no doubt be fairly and generally represented, and to that I have no objection. As for the ethnic group which I represent, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see enacted and guaranteed in some legislation that sacred and innermost right, the soul of our race, so that in ten or twenty years from now, if some petty minds in the Ottawa government forget the broadness of mind of the present government, they would be compelled to comply with the provisions of the law.
Mr. Speaker, I tried to weigh my words so as not to add fuel to the fire or give the impression that I am a fanatic and that I want to perpetuate these racial divisions. On the contrary, I am among those who would fight if necessary to ensure Canadian unity. However, I think the best way to ensure it is

June 9, 1966
National Arts Centre
to see that nothing in our statutes is objectionable to French Canadians. I do not want this criticism to be taken amiss.
I congratulate the minister again and I am sure that, with her broadmindedness and understanding of Canada, she will have understood these remarks which are more important than certain circles would believe.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I think there will be general support in the house for this particular bill, although the details may be examined when we reach the committee stage. I notice there have been some remarks of regret that the building to house the performing arts will not be ready for the centennial year. I do not share those regrets at all. I am beginning to worry about what Canada is going to do in 1968 and 1969. I do not think everything has to come to an end in 1967; in any case so far as the performing arts are concerned it will take time for these to become established and they scarcely will be ready by the time the building is completed.
I think this is a move in the right direction. There is a feeling in Canada with regard to the development of the performing arts, which are defined as the arts of the theatre and the concert hall, including the creating, staging and performing of drama, music and the dance. There may have been a time when the government or parliament as a whole need not have entered into this particular field, but with the advance of civilization we see that it is one of the essential factors of life to have some support for the performing arts, particularly in a country which has gone through such a long period of pioneering as has this country.
I speak with some feeling concerning this particular problem, because I have lived half my life in cities and half in the country and smaller towns. I know the difficulty which faces people living in the smaller areas of Canada who wish to receive adequate assistance and attention in the field of the performing arts. As a high school principal in a smaller town in Manitoba for a number of years, I had experience in this field. In the period of the depression, among other things we became ardent supporters of the excellent programs of the little theatre, which were sponsored by the then Governor General, Lord Bessborough, and we stimulated the theatrical interests in that smaller town.

I can think of high schools across this country which will look with interest on this particular development, because they will hope in the course of time to receive assistance as set out in the objects and powers of the corporation as contained in clause 9 which reads:
The objects of the Corporation are to operate and maintain the centre, to develop the performing arts in the national capital region and to assist the Canada Council in the development of the performing arts elsewhere in Canada.
It goes on to say they will arrange for and encourage some of these activities elsewhere than just in the capital city. There are hundreds of people across our country in scattered localities who look to the performing arts for guidance and assistance. In my own experience as a high school principal, I recall putting on seven one-act plays every year, plus an operetta, for a periood of about ten years. The difficulty in finding suitable one-act plays and operettas which could be adapted to high school students presented some problems. Because of the stimulus which will be afforded by this, in the long run all areas of Canada will benefit. It is not something which will happen overnight. But as the years go by we will develop in Canada an appreciation for the performing arts and for the people who are competent to participate in them. It can start at various levels throughout the country.
The time has long gone by when the people of Canada should have the advantage of performing arts only in major cities. We require travelling artists in this country in the field of music, in dance, and in theatrical performances to carry some of this excellent material which is available in the world to smaller localities. This has been one of the great weaknesses in our country over the years.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
I asked the minister a question when she completed her remarks and I should like to revert to that just for a moment. As I understood what the minister said, criticism and controversy might develop over some of the activities that might be carried on in the arts centre. Unless I misunderstood her, she considered that this might be advantageous. I want to present the point of view that in the field of the arts there should be a very limited attempt at stirring up controversy and criticism.
The example was given of the first performance at the Stratford Festival this year,
June 9, 1966

which aroused some adverse comment. This is inevitable. It depends I suppose on the producers of plays and festivals, who sometimes try to do things which are not readily acceptable to an audience. I have seen Shakespearean plays in Canada and in London, England, because I am an ardent theatregoer. I have seen Shakespearean plays presented in London in modern dress because somebody thought this was the way it should be done. I enjoy a Shakespearean play in the costumes of the Elizabethan period much more than I did the one I saw in modern dress; but the producer thought that he would bring things up to date.
However, in the field of the lasting good things in the performing arts there is no real controversy. Shakespeare's plays have endured for three centuries. The works of Gilbert and Sullivan are still enjoying great popularity and it does not require major change to make those operettas acceptable. The great play "Oklahoma" did not arouse controversy; it was not needed, because there was the interest in "Oklahoma" right from the start. "My Fair Lady" has run for years in the live theatre and on television. Interest and appreciation are there, but no stimulus of controversy.
In the field of the opera, some of the operas have a long history behind them and are performed year after year to the great enjoyment of audiences. In the field of ballet there is no controversy aroused. It is an examination of the excellence of the production that interests an audience. In the field of music, which fortunately crosses all barriers of language, again it is the question of excellence and appreciation that people are considering. So I hope that in this project, in which there will be a great deal of interest we will not, certainly in the early stages-I do not suppose it can be avoided altogether-attempt to stir up public interest by putting on performances in the arts centre that are a little out of the ordinary or are calculated to make people think.
We have been subjected to enough of that type of thing on radio and television to last us for the rest of our lifetime, and for two or three more lifetimes, by people who get the idea that the general populace is not thinking enough about some problem that is stirring around in the mind of some writer, play producer or interviewer. The theatre, ballet, the philharmonic orchestra-I have always gone to these performances for relaxation and enjoyment and the higher the standard
National Arts Centre
of performance, the better I like it. I do not rule out the comedy by any means. I like to have a good laugh. But I do not go to these performances in order to be made to think about some major problem that is affecting the world. I just express my earnest hope that we will be saved from that type of experiment in the performing arts centre. Life has enough problems without having additional ones forced upon us by the theatre or television.
Let us get some reasonable enjoyment out of our relaxation. If the development of talent is emphasized, then we do not need to worry about controversial aspects. If standard of excellence is the object, then I think the populace generally will be satisfied.
May I just say that we have a great opportunity here to develop Canadian culture. Perhaps I should not have used that term. We have a great opportunity to develop in Canada a populace that will appreciate culture. "Culture" is a badly misused word and I am using it in the context of the bill before us. We have here a great opportunity to develop an appreciation of the theatre, of the dance, of music. As I head one adjudicator say at a music festival, the object of the festival is to pace each other on the road to excellence. Everything does not have to be highbrow; you can stand only so much of that. But there are degrees of taste in the arts, and the centre must accommodate itself to them.
For those who like classical music, that should be provided For those who have less appreciation of classical music, some of the other types of music would have to be provided. Similarly with theatrical productions; there will be, I hope, an adequate variety for the various tastes in our country. But the opportunity is here now to develop across this country an appreciation of some of the finer things of life. There is a tremendous heritage in these three fields. We are so fortunate in having in our country representatives of almost every known racial group in the world whose appreciation, knowledge of and talent in the performing arts is very widespread. It is not restricted to any one racial group; it is virtually spread right across all racial groups.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
No country other than the United States has the wealth of talent available to it that Canada has, because of the millions of people in Canada from so many different cultural

June 9, 1966
National Arts Centre
backgrounds who have brought over to this country from Europe an interest in music and the arts, which has been of great assistance to us. The opportunity is really tremendous. I think that through this arts centre we can shake ourselves free from too great a dependence upon radio and television programs that come from the United States. I do not for a minute think that we can develop our own culture from within our own ranks, but we will be able to develop talented people in this country and retain them here, instead of losing them to the United States. Perhaps in time we will be able to attract talented people from the United States and other countries of the world to live here in Canada and play their parts in developing the performing arts in our country. With careful attention given to the objectives of the corporation that is proposed, and with reasonable attention given to the amount of money that is invested in this corporation, I think we will have an opportunity to develop something very useful in Canada.
I think we should be a little careful about the expenditure of money because if we go too far too fast it can be a wasteful process. I would like to see the corporation develop a program which will bear fruit in several years time and will rest on a sound foundation, without becoming extravagant.
Finally, may I revert to what I said at the beginning. I do hope that the smaller areas of Canada will receive attention and benefit from the corporation for the performing arts. I think that people who live and work in the smaller areas of Canada deserve greater attention in this particular field than they have received in the past. I trust that not only the major cities of Canada will receive the attention of this corporation, but that it will keep in mind the smaller locations throughout the country.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I will speak for just a few moments. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) inspired me to rise and speak as I listened with interest to his quite nonpartisan and artistic approach to this bill. I wish to congratulate the minister because I think she was really the basis of the inspiration for the speech made by the member for Winnipeg South Centre.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not claim to be one of the cultured members of this house. Everybody knows my humble background and what I have had to go through. However, I do wish to express my

support for the spirit and purpose of this bill and I wish the minister every success in all she undertakes in promoting the object of this bill in our country as a whole and in so doing working toward developing in this country a Canadian culture less and less influenced by United States television and films, and moving pictures generally. I think we will all be spiritually and mentally healthier as a result of that.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest we would be well advised to leave any discussion with respect to the cost of the Ottawa building and the expenditure incurred to date until the time of the debate of the estimates of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith). I am sure he will be quite anxious to give us complete information as to what is happening to the estimated cost.
I do want to say that I think we are very late in starting this type of work in this country. You know, Mr. Speaker, I know towns and villages in British Columbia that were tremendous pioneers in this respect years ago. The people in these communities would not be called cultured people by some of the snobby intelligentsia of today but they have done a great deal of work in this respect. I wish to pay a tribute to those people who have laid a foundation for this sort of work. I also want to point out that they have done this work at their own expense and without any government subsidy. You will meet all kinds of people who will have their hands out if they see a subsidy coming, but this is not true of the people I have mentioned. As my hon. friend says, I am sure it is not true of Quebec nor is it true of British Columbia and many of the prairie districts. They have done it at their own expense, for their own enjoyment, on an amateur basis.
I cannot help bringing to the attention of the house the little village that is within a few miles of where I live where in 1906 these uncultured people who have not had the opportunities that you people have here today formed an orchestra. Their bandmaster had been the former leader of one of the best orchestras in Holland. They also formed a band, and the bandmaster was the former bandmaster of the Devon regiment. These people also formed a dramatic society and their stage manager was formerly Sir John Martin Harvey's stage manager, the man who produced a play called "When Knights Were Bold". They also formed an opera society which produced Gilbert and Sullivan and other operas, with which they toured the whole district. They also produced musical
June 9, 1966

comedies. They had an excellent chorus, a good church choir and they formed an art group. Even today there is an art group in the Kootenays which meets two or three times a year. Their leader is a very well known artist from Great Britain. They formed a literary society, most of whose members were ladies. They read plays and poetry and things of that sort This went on continuously since as far back as 1906. I know because I participated in all of these groups and so did my parents.
This was part of the life of the community and it did a great deal for these pioneer districts. It is a great credit to these communities that they were able and willing to provide their own entertainment and their own recreation as a result of their own enterprise, without any subsidy from anybody. 1 hope this will be continued in the smaller communities today. The same thing has happened in Trail and in Nelson as well as in several other villages in the riding which I have the honour to represent. These organizations are functioning even today and producing excellent plays and operas throughout the year. Our district was the first to organize band concerts. Those bands came from all over the area in the southeastern part of British Columbia and played at contests for cups and prizes.
I should also like to mention the Doukho-bors in my district. They have an excellent choir and I trust the minister, whom under this bill presumably I can address as the marshall of culture in Canada, will get in touch with the Doukhobors and make certain that their choir is recorded and that they will be given the opportunity to sing in various places throughout this country. I hope their choir will be brought to the attention of other people because they have magnificent voices. I do not know what causes it, but the Slavic people have a special talent for developing bass voices, and others have also noticed this fact. There must be other groups in Canada which have come from Europe and who have a contribution to make. I hope it is exploited.
I think we have to give leadership to these organizations both in the larger centres and in the smaller communities
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
But we must not develop this type of movement on the basis that people are going to be subsidized for everything they do. We have to promote the idea that, after this thing is initially started, people will provide their own entertainment, recreation and enjoyment
National Arts Centre
at their own expense. I believe there is a limit to the use of any subsidy for this purpose. Those who are really interested will take an active part.
As I have said, when I was a boy 60 years ago, the country was full of talented people, and these are some of the things they did. I wish the minister every success in her endeavours in connection with reviving the performing arts in Canada, not only in the capital and in the larger centres, but in the smaller communities as well, to the advantage of this and future generations of Canadians.


Mr. Mongrain:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, on a point of order.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Yes, Mr. Speaker. At the end of my remarks a while ago, I noticed the minister trying to rise to be recognized by you. I assume she wanted to give her response to my suggestion, to my request. Would there be any objection to my asking the minister to give us her response on that?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: She will close the debate, if she speaks.


Mr. Bechard:: If she speaks now, she will close the debate.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, if that will close the debate, of course, I do not insist.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) for giving me an opportunity to say a few words on this bill to establish a corporation for the administration of a National Arts Centre, in Ottawa.
I listened with much interest and attention to the speeches delivered by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) and by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge)
I was glad to note that a great number of members were interested in the arts to the point of giving opinions and precise suggestions with regard to the artistic and cultural fields.
In order to develop that field of all social life, of all public life, I am of the opinion that the establishment of such a corporation cannot be encouraged too much and like those who spoke before me I would like to ask

June 9, 1966
National Arts Centre
the minister to establish a similar corporation not only in Ottawa and in large centres but also in almost every Canadian centre through subsidies.
Take for instance the Saguenay-Lake St. John area. Very interesting artistic activities are going on there. Artists in the field of classical music or singing, the theatre, came out of that area. An orchestra, choirs and singing groups were formed there and they did well.
I think that we should help to establish elsewhere corporations hke that one here in Ottawa, so that in our regions as well as in large centres there will be a group which will promote, encourage and help the development of the arts in Canada.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre put it so well a while ago, there are in our country mature artists who have achieved some recognition. There would be even more if they had the opportunity to perform more.
There are many artists in our country but unfortunately for them they do not get enough opportunities to perform. Therefore, corporations such as the one which is established in Ottawa should be created throughout Canada, in every region, and then from all parts of the country will come good artists.
Of course, there will be better opportunities in large centres but whether they come from Montreal, Toronto, the Gaspe or Saguenay-Lake St. John regions, people are entitled to such artistic and cultural events, they have the right to see artists of value rise among them and get the occasion to perform.
That is why I feel that similar corporations should be established in every region of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, as I said a little earlier, I support the establishment of such a corporation in Ottawa, hoping that it will be the first of many similar corporations throughout our country, especially in remote areas, so that Canadians everywhere can benefit. The corporation established in Ottawa is an experiment; it will enable us to find out, if we take the trouble to, whether or not it is possible to develop artists in our country, to give them an opportunity to perform in public, in short to show the public how much they can get from the classical arts, namely music, the theatre, the ballet, symphonies, etc.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) to see in the step taken today a beginning which will have repercussions throughout the country
[Mr. Gregoire.I
and to make sure that the people in every area will get something out of it as well as the people of Ottawa.
[DOT] (8.30 p.m.)


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a few remarks about this bill. Needless to say that, like most of my colleagues, I support its principle which is to stimulate the development of the arts in Canada.
However, I would like to recall the remarks made a little earlier by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres about the representation of French Canadians on that government agency. Once again we are faced with the establishment of a crown corporation, another ramification, another arm of centralization in a field which, in my opinion, should respect the provincial authority more.
If I am not mistaken, culture falls to a large extent under provincial jurisdiction and, more particularly, under the responsibility of regional and municipal governments. Instead of establishing a corporation such as this one and, as I said, without being against the principle of this bill, I feel that a coordinating agency should have been created whose function would have been precisely to give the essential services to the various regions of Canada and particularly to take greater interest in the population of small municipal centres, urban or rural, who are not fortunate enough to travel to the large centres to take part in artistic events.
And, Mr. Speaker, that is the defect of the proposed corporation. If I refer to the bill, it seems very obvious that the coporation's main objective is to create in the city of Ottawa an arts centre which will, in fact, fill a gap the city of Ottawa itself has not remedied.
In Montreal we created the Place des Arts which gives wonderful opportunities to artists; but the Place des Arts was created and financed with money from the municipal and provincial governments. As far as I know, the federal authorities did not contribute anything to the development of that cultural centre.
And I am wondering why today-and, as I said before, I am not criticizing the objective-the federal government should make a giit to a city which did not fulfill its obligations in that field? Apparently that is all there is to it.
It is obvious-and the minister should admit it-that people will not travel from Toronto,
June 9. 1966

Montreal or even more remote areas to attend an artistic event in Ottawa. What we need to develop culture and the arts in Canada is to give the small municipalities the regions remote from large centres, the facilities and means to develop the arts locally.
Think of the artists who brought fame to our country through their talent and you will often find that the most promising artists come precisely from regions remote from the large centers.
How can we efficiently help those artists who live in communities not too remote from great centres to develop if we do not give them the proper facilities to do so, without incurring extraordinary if not impossible expenses. That is somewhat the meaning of my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat that we should specify in the bill the representation that French Canadians will have and on which they may count. This bill, as all bills of this nature, is very vague and I think the minister should take a position more clearly on this and tell us that she intends to respect essential standards so as to ensure adequate French Canadian representation on the board of trustees of the corporation.
The minister should also tell us whether the government has already approached people for the position of director of this centre, and if so, I believe it would be in the interest of the corporation to know who those people are.
Mr. Speaker, parliament should have a say in the selection of the staff of crown corporations because it happens unfortunately too often that governments introduce legislation and set up standards for a corporation, when we know very well, by tradition, that certain persons have been approached beforehand. It would be unfortunate if political favouritism were to play in the case of a legislative measure such as this one. I do not want to make a charge but it would be unfortunate if that happened-it does sometimes-because the board of trustees of the arts centre should be free of all political partisanship.
I think the minister should, considering the interest created by this bill, tell us what representation and participation, minimum or statutory, if one prefers, will be provided for French Canadians on the board of this corporation. I think also that it should be stipulated in the bill that a preference must be given to Canadian artists, which it does not now.
National Arts Centre
Naturally, art knows no borders but it Canadians are called upon to spend tremendous funds for the development of arts in Canada, I think it is natural for us to insist even more on Canadian artists having a preference in the distribution of expenses which will be made to set up this centre.
1 also believe, Mr. Speaker, that we should have foreseen the foundation of opera companies made up of Canadian artists. A Canadian opera company is lacking in Canada. Yet, we have plenty of home talent. Everyone interested in the arts complains that we are still without a Canadian opera company. We have local companies which often have to balance their budgets with contributions from their members and I believe the Canadian government should do more to help such companies integrate with larger organizations.
For some time there has been talk of creating an opera company in Montreal. Unfortunately, the authorities have recently advised us that such an undertaking would not be a paying proposition because expenses would be too great.
To my mind, if this bill provided instead for the establishment of a co-ordinating body for the arts, in Canada, it would be much more helpful and could assist all those organizations, groups, companies, and artists. Such a project would be more helpful to assess the needs of those people and help them to increase their contribution to Canadian culture.
I hope that the minister will keep these remarks in mind. I want her to know that even if in principle I approve the purpose of the bill, once again I deplore that this body should be contrary to my understanding of a definition of the British North America Act, a responsibility that comes under provincial jurisdiction. The central government exists to assist the provinces in areas where they are unable to meet the needs on their own. I think that here again, there is an infringement-possibly indirect, into the field of education, but I believe the minister would have been better advised to establish a coordinating body which would have worked hand in hand with the provincial governments and the latter could then have cooperated with the municipal authorities in areas far removed from the large centres for the advancement of the arts in Canada and to give us better representation in the artistic field.

June 9. 1966
National Arts Centre


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments on the bill, the purpose of which is to my mind most praiseworthy, namely to have a National Arts Centre. I must also point out, however, that this federal initiative goes squarely against the spirit and the letter of the Canadian constitution.
I would like the hon. Secretary of State to tell us on the strength of what section of the Canadian constitution, which as far as 1 know still applies, the federal government is allowed to enter the field of national arts centres without having previously discussed the matter with the provinces, obtained their agreement, their co-operation and consensus.
In 1867, the Canadian constitution, in section 93, stipulated that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction in relation to education the word "exclusively" being used in the constitution. It is needless to give the definition of the word "exclusive" to the house. Later on various interpretations were given, for example that of Justice Duff of the Superior Court who decided in one case that the word "education" in section 93 was to be interpreted in its widest sense, meaning primary, secondary and university education, and also in the field of culture, and this, in spite of the beating around the bush of the Massey-Levesque Commission on culture.
Even so, the resolutions of the 1864 Quebec Conference, on which are based the 147 sections of the Canadian constitution, did not separate the fields of university and culture from the "field of education". And now the central government continues to take initiatives on its own, without consulting the provinces, reaching an agreement with them, or co-operating with them.
I understand that nine Canadian provinces have probably no objection to the interference of the central government in various fields and agree that the central government should establish standards in the financial and economic fields as well as in connection with arts.
The province of Quebec firmly objects to that procedure, because it is useless to repeat the well-known argument to the effect that Quebec is the stronghold of the French Canadian nation and has a special conception of arts. Now, the province of Quebec wants to establish its standards according to its cultural, educational and artistic conception.
For that purpose there is a Department of Cultural Affairs. Why then, has the Secretary

of State (Miss LaMarsh) considered the establishment of a National Arts Centre without previously reaching an agreement with the representatives of the province of Quebec, in order to associate the provincial Department of Cultural Affairs with the creation of that organization?
Well, I repeat, as I have said since the beginning of the session, that it is because everything is done backwards. This creates tensions, problems and misunderstanding among Canadians from Halifax to Vancouver. This is why it is urgent, Mr. Speaker, in that field like in many others, it is advisable to determine the constitutional, political, economic, financial, cultural and artistic responsibilities between the central and provincial governments. This cannot be done at the present time under the procedure followed by a central government which is always unilaterally acting to invade completey a field and then, having determined the standards and received its full share of the tax revenue, spends the funds in fields which, under the constitution, fall within the provincial jurisdiction.
Well, the only way, Mr. Speaker, would be to authorize parliament, the House of Commons, to institute a joint parliamentary committee-we often bring up the subject and will continue to do so until this government finally accepts to determine responsibilities as is reasonable in this important matter. This is the only way to eliminate tensions and lack of understanding between Canadians in all provinces, between different cultures and different ethnic groups; that is why I reject the principle of this bill which is similar to other bills introduced by this government.
A few weeks ago the government introduced a bill concerning the National Science Council. There again, the consent of the provinces was not first obtained nor was there any previous agreement. Well, Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate that this federal government continues to act in this way, which is the best way to maintain the existing chaos, tensions and lack of understanding between Canadians.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
This criticism is not addressed personally to the hon. Secretary of State, a very nice and charming person, but to the attitude and policy of this government which we have seen in action from the beginning of the session and which is aware of the existing tensions, as pointed out in the first report of
June 9, 1966

National Arts Centre
the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. We wish to stress the fact that this first report, in spite of press criticism in certain provinces, indicated that tensions and a serious crisis in the country do exist, originating in the province of Quebec. Why? Because the province of Quebec has different views on those subjects, as on many others, and this, not for the sake of being different from other provinces, but because it is respectful of the Canadian constitution.
When Quebec representatives raise such points we are proud of it, not because we feel we are giving rise to unruliness throughout the country, but because we build upon a confederative pact entered into in 1867, While we apply ourselves in several circumstances to violate its main provisions, as well as its spirit.
I hope, therefore, that the bill will be referred to a committee which will be able, in the course of its discussions, to agree on the establishment of a parliamentary committee on the Canadian constitution.
This evening, we are dealing with a National Arts Centre. In two weeks, it will be another unilateral piece of legislation. This is not the way to settle the differences and the problems in our country. It would be so easy to solve them by asking responsible people, the representatives of the people in this house, to meet around a table in a parliamentary committee in order to exchange views, to define and determine responsibilities, and then to discuss matters with other provinces, such as the province of Quebec which precisely set up a parliamentary committee on the Canadian constitution two years ago that will probably submit its report within a few months.
Mr. Speaker, I hope these remarks have been well received and will produce some results.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I should like to say a few words. I have heard much discussion in the house tonight, and I believe it can be said that many Canadians of many origins are very proud that there should be a centre for the performing arts in the national capital.
A great many people feel that the present minister is as good a person as can be put in the charge of such a project. Many feel that she is not making culture into a thin sort of thing, for only a fringe of people who are apt to turn up their noses at what a great many
other people classify as culture. I believe that large sections of the people want to be included in the benefits arising out of this centre.
I do not think it should be necessary to go into a whole lot of constitutional questions when speaking about this project. It will be good to have the arts centre established in this capital city as a result of a government measure. What does concern me is how the greatest use may be made of the centre. In my view it should be shared by the citizens of this country from coast to coast. In Ottawa there is a tendency to make a show window of all the beautiful things we have, forgetting that there are many people across the country who, even with the best means of transportation, will never see or use any of our facilities.
We ought to consider ways and means of sharing this National Arts Centre as broadly as we can among the people. It is important that the resources of this centre should be used to build regional centres, and regional arts across Canada. That should be part of its function. However, I do not think we should delay the building of this National Arts Centre until every little spot in Canada has a regional centre. In other words, I think we ought to find ways and means of making the benefits of the National Arts Centre available to the Canadian people.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
A few years ago the treasurer of the art gallery began sending travelling exhibitions of paintings across this country. These reached a good many of the smaller centres in this country, and I know the people living in these places much appreciated the opportunity to see these works of art. In years gone by some of our big stores would obtain a single painting and make it a centre of attraction to be seen, over a period of weeks, by very large numbers of people. With modern methods of transport and communication-I am thinking particularly of television -I am sure a great deal more coud be done in this field.
It is significant that the minister, who has been made a Jill-of-all-Trades and given a wide variety of tasks, should be responsible for radio and television as well as for the performing arts. I should like to see our best artists, regardless of their racial origin, whether it is French, Ukrainian or Chinese, called upon to give the best possible performances, these performances to be televised to people in the remoter parts of this country.

June 9, 1966
National Arts Centre
I do not live in one of the most remote parts of Canada. In Vancouver, where I live, the people appreciate many of the fine television performances which the C.B.C. has made available. But even in Vancouver there are thousands of people who feel they will never have a chance to visit centres of the arts, and these people do appreciate good television performances. I would recommend that right from the start arrangements be made to carry these performances, by television, to the four corners of this country. Let us make generally available the best that is done in the performing arts centre.
There is bound to be a great deal of criticism about the amount spent on this centre. I believe this criticism would be justified only if the centre is shut away, to be enjoyed by relatively few people. But there will be no justification for this criticism if we use the radio, television and travelling companies to make available to Canadians right across this country the benefits which arise from the founding of such a centre as this. This would be the best way of countering the hostile criticisms we have heard tonight about guaranteeing cultural rights. It would be the best way to effect Canadian unity.
I believe this centre could become a unifying factor without any such elaborate guarantees, provided the best of the performances given, regardless of the national origin of the performers, were made available to be televised right across Canada. I urge the minister to pursue a vigorous policy of sharing the benefits of this centre among all Canadians.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment for a minute on the theories put forward by my good friend the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard).
I listened to his speech very attentively; I find his constitutional theories archaic, for the good reason that he makes the basic mistake of believing that, whenever the French language or culture is concerned, the government must keep from exercising its jurisdiction as much as possible.
The very opposite is true. I am sure-and I think the hon. member for Sherbrooke will agree with me-that all the new political theories which have appeared in Quebec, all the extremist ideas, separatism or what have you, come from the fact that the federal government has always been very apprehensive concerning the promotion of the French language.
[Mrs. Maclnnls.l
This bill in itself is excellent and will surely tend to promote French culture.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke will recall that the Massey-Levesque Commission had established a distinction between education and culture. I think he is showing a rather too drastic attitude when he says that the whole field of culture is exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. If that is the case, then we had better close down the C.B.C. and keep its programs out of our homes, because it has certain influence in the fields of culture and education, and this necessarily affects provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, the right solution here does not only reside in the fact that the federal government can introduce the kind of bills we are now considering but in going further still to create a cultural affairs division which could be under the Department of the Secretary of State and have the special task of promoting French culture outside Quebec, because if French culture is restricted to the province of Quebec, I do not see how separatism will not one day make greater strides than at the present time. It is evident that if French is spoken and the French culture found only in the province of Quebec, then it is unavoidable that the younger generation in Quebec will believe that nothing else can be done with Canada.
I entirely agree with the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) when she introduces such bills, because in my opinion, the federal government must undertake to spread French culture outside Quebec. This is the only way to achieve a truly Canadian culture and tongue.


Gilles Grégoire: Would the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) allow me a question?


Auguste Choquette: Yes, with pleasure.


Gilles Grégoire: The hon. member for Lotbiniere speaks of this corporation as if it were intended to spread French culture outside Quebec. Is the member for Lotbiniere telling us that the purpose of the corporation established through Bill C-194 will be to spread French culture outside the province of Quebec?


Auguste Choquette: Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking an interesting question, to which I answer this: it is obvious the corporation will be responsible for disseminating art and culture according to a Canadian concept.
June 9, 1966

I claim that, even now, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is promoting true Canadianism, that which rightly proclaims the equality of the two languages, of the two cultures.
So, to answer the question: as this bill is sponsored by the government of which the right hon. gentlemen is Prime Minister, I am convinced it will lead to true Canadianism.
The only way to strengthen our Canadian identity is to recognize cultural equality. And the federal government must endeavour, as much as possible, to promote French culture. That is still the best guarantee of our survival, the survival of Confederation.
That is why I refute the theories of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) when he says: Ah. the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction. It is always the same argument.
Perhaps if there had not been narrowmindedness, as was known in the past, perhaps then-and I say this sincerely, I am not politicking-if there had not been narrowmindedness every time the federal government wanted to help the universities, our institutions, French culture might be more widespread today. I claim the federal government is acting as a government which truly respects Canadianism in endeavouring to promote French culture.


Gilles Grégoire: Since the hon. member still speaks of promoting, and that its purpose will be to promote French culture, is telling us the corporation for the administration of the National Arts Centre is intended to promote French culture outside Quebec? Is that what the hon. member is telling us?


Auguste Choquette: If you read subsection (e) of Section 9, for instance:
At the request of the Government of Canada or the Canada Council, arrange for performances elsewhere in Canada by performing arts companies, whether resident or non-resident in Canada, and arrange for performances outside Canada by performing arts companies resident in Canada.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Then that implies that something will be done about French culture. That necessarily implies that we could commission arts companies, that arts companies would be chosen in Quebec to be sent outside Quebec, throughout Canada and thus promote French culture. That is the only means to assert the Canadian identity, to proclaim cultural equality in Canada; that is true Canadianism. To promote true Canadianism, the government has
National Arts Centre
a responsibility to exercise its jurisdiction, and it is an archaic and obsolete theory to say that provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over a field which concerns the government of Canada.
Therefore, I repeat the proposal I advanced at the beginning to the effect that we should have a department of cultural affairs, whose responsibility would be the promotion of French culture outside this country, and I also hope that we have a bilingual television network. I understand that this will be difficult to apply, but if the federal government assumes its responsibility to establish a bilingual television network, that will still be the best way to annihilate separatism and make sure that narrow-minded persons will stop saying that Quebec is a French Quebec and that French must be exclusive to Quebec.
I say that if you want a true Canada, an authentically Canadian country, both cultures must thrive outside Quebec.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the procedures, would the hon. member for Lotbiniere allow me a question?


Auguste Choquette: Surely.


Maurice Allard: I am not at liberty to answer him fully at this stage. Is the hon. member for Lotbiniere aware that all persons-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member resume his seat?
I remind the hon. member for Sherbrooke that he may speak only once on the motion for second reading of the bill. He can speak a second time only if he wishes to put a question and if the hon. member is prepared to answer. This is how he can now speak.


Maurice Allard: I actually intend to ask a question, Mr. Speaker.
Is the member for Lotbiniere aware of the fact that all the people who supported his theory have been branded as centralists who are working against Quebec's aspirations?


Auguste Choquette: I do not think that is quite correct, as there is a slight difference between the theory I have stated and the one of the so-called centralists.
For instance, I recall that every time the Conservative government of the opposition leader (Mr. Diefenbaker) voted university subsidies, the member for Sherbrooke, who

June 9, 1966
National Arts Centre
was then sitting on the government side, supported his government, thus violating his principles and his convictions.


Mr, Allard:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I am not allowed to reply to the arguments of the hon. member, I shall do so on another occasion; that will be easy, but I do not think the hon. member is allowed to open another debate. Let him give us an answer if he is not too much in a hurry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Sherbrooke will admit that he asked the question.
Is the house ready for the question? [English]
Is the house ready for the question? [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put another question to the hon. member, if he allows?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has now resumed his seat. I suggest to the house that this exchange of questions and answers could proceed much faster in committee.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wished to put a question to the hon. member after he resumed his seat, I could not do so while he was speaking. I waited until he resumed his seat to ask his permission-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the hon. member put his question when the house is in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Paragraph (c) reads:
"Corporation" means the National Arts Centre Corporation-
Does the use of those words mean that the government considers that Canada is one nation?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I understand it is a matter of semantics, Mr. Chairman. It depends really on the context you are using it in, whether it is "nation" as pronounced in French, or "nation" in English. Undeniably this is the Canadian national centre.
IMr. Choquette.l


Robert William Prittie: Paragraph (e) defines performing arts. Is it contemplated that the halls will be available for rental? If some spectacular musical comes to Ottawa could an impresario rent the place for that purpose, or would it be just for the performances put on by the corporation itself?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am afraid I might not have made this clear. The corporation itself is not going to run things. It is not going to start a theatre school, and take in young talent and operate as such. It is going to run the centre and rent it out for different purposes such as that mentioned by the hon. member.
I understand that over the past few months there has been much conversation with established companies in both the Canadian theatres of French expression and English expression, and it is hoped that at least two, one representing each national language, will make their permanent home there. It is intended that all three theatres will be utilized as much as possible for almost every kind of production. We hope it will be a living centre all the time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Corporation established.
Mr. Hales:: This clause refers, among others, to the mayor of the city of Ottawa and the Director of the Canada Council. Should the phrase "or their substitutes" not be included? I can imagine cases arising where they might not be able to be present but could send their substitutes.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: For continuity's sake it is hoped they will come themselves. The gift of the site from Ottawa was conditional upon the mayor's being a member, and the mayor of Hull would be invited, it being in the national capital area. The other officials are there for a particular reason, because of their responsibilities. It is the director of the Canada Council, and not the president of the board, the director being the senior full-time official. The president of the C.B.C. would be the individual who we expect, will be able to tie in broadcasts with the facilities.
One hon. member asked whether there would be radio and television facilities provided, and I am informed that there is provision in the plans for such facilities in each of the three auditoria. That is the reason for asking the president of the C.B.C. to be on the board, and also the Government Film, Commissioner.
June 9, 1966



[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order because you go on to section 4 when I was up to request leave to speak on section 3. At the end of this section, it is stated that members of the corporation are to be appointed in such and such a way. I have no objection and, I repeat what I said a while ago, I agree to the bill in general.
I would like to replace the last two lines of section 3 by this or, at least, add the following sentence:
And nine other members to be appointed as provided in section 4, but three of whom at least will be Canadians of French culture and language.
I move this amendment seconded by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) who spoke before me.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, at this point may I say something with regard to this matter. The hon. member had asked me a question which I could not answer during the second reading stage. He made two representations during that stage of the bill. I should like to say to the hon. member that if he will notice who the present incumbents are he will find the mayor of the city of Hull, the director of the Canada Council, the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the immediate past government film director. When you consider who these persons are you will see there is a preponderance which will not continue to obtain, because I hope these offices will be open to Canadians of any expression and that they will be chosen by merit and not primarily because of the group they come from in Canada.
As a woman I have noticed that every time in an organization where there are men and women, and the constitution is so drawn that it provides for a certain number of seats for women on the board, this operates as a structure; it becomes the most common denominator. Once you have made provision for two women on a board, that is all you get. If the hon. member would have this kind of an arrangement, I think over a period of years it would operate as a strait-jacket and would mean that members of the French persuasion never would have more than three members.


Gilles Grégoire: We do not have now.
National Arts Centre


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Obviously you do not.
There are no members on the board of any persuasion.


Gilles Grégoire: Look at the crown corporations.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have checked, and in the crown corporations under my responsibility there is an even balance of French and English. When you add it up it is rather higher when you consider the proportion of French speaking people in Canada.
Indeed, in the cultural field I have noticed that this is not the kind of thing which occurs to people who are interested in things like the Canada Council or the performing arts centre. They are Canadians first, and are interested in an expression of the art of Canada and the art of the world. Narrowness in any regard is just not one of their qualities. I do not think there is the slightest doubt that when appointments are made to the board, not only at the beginning but every time there are re-appointments, every effort will be made to be sure that, first, the people are representative of the very best in Canadian art regardless of their ethnic background; second, that they promote Canadian culture, French speaking and English speaking equally all across the country and outside the country; and third, that there be absolutely no political bias with regard to any of them.
Since in Canada there has been really a greater development of the culture of the French expression, I should think it might be more in line for some of the Ottawa or western members to move that at least three must be English speaking. I would suggest to my hon. friend that this kind of board, as with the Canada Council and others, should be left flexible so that the best people of both language groups may serve on it.
[DOT] (9.20 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I am very surprised and disappointed that the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) moved this amendment for I fully share the viewpoint expressed by the Secretary of State; such an amendment implies a maximum forever concerning the representation of people of French culture, origin and language.
Everyone knows that when a maximum number is specified for the constitution of an administrative body, that figure becomes a

June 9, 1966
National Arts Centre
fictitious number. Now it would be interesting tonight to see the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) who is now in his seat and the hon. members for the ridings of York who have just written to thousands of people who are not French speaking, to unite to protect their cultural rights in our country. Are we going to have a third force in this country, due to some pressure groups? I am not criticizing the motives advanced by the hon. member, but I am going to tell him something. Coming from another part of the country, where French-speaking Canadians are a small minority, I believe that such an amendment will be very harmful to us. So we are expecting good will and a genuine desire on the part of the government, whatever party may be in power; this is a national cultural centre, in the midst of our national capital. If we set such conditions, in regard to culture for today and tomorrow, are we going to sweep away forever one third of our population who are unable to retrace their origins, either on the English, British or French side?
I understand the motives of the hon. member, but I sincerely regret the procedure he adopted to this end, for I can tell him that it is going to be forever harmful to us in western Canada.
Therefore, I cannot support his amendment.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, the remarks of the member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) surprise me somewhat, but I understand them, because, of course, we do not share the same views and, unfortunately, I cannot admit his.
I am most annoyed to disagree with the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), because attentiveness to the ladies is one of the attributes to our French culture. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a matter very near not only to my heart, but also to that of all the people of my province.
I wish to say again, for the information of those who were not here, that my stand is not to be considered as fanaticism or partisanship, because I will fight just as vigorously tomorrow to try and preserve Canadian unity and see to it that everybody is treated fairly.
But my colleagues seem to overlook some slight differences. First of all, I say three members at least. So, it is not a maximum, but rather a minimum. Second, what prompts us to move an amendment is that there are still some cases where in spite of all the good will of the government-and I stress those words-patronage is being dispensed.

In principle, I do not feel there will be unfair discrimination against French Canadian art or artists, but I was taught in British law, that nothing is as strong as precedents. And precedents must be included in legislation, because in 10, 15 or 20 years from now, when we shall perhaps have disappeared, how can we be sure that some people will not be more narrow-minded, more petty than we are?
After listening to the member for Edmonton West I am wondering what harm such a request could do.
Frankly, I have no intention of hurting the French Canadians in the other provinces. 1 simply want to get legislation to guarantee the things which we hold sacred.
It is as sacred for us to keep watch over what is called our culture, as it is sacred to keep watch over our language, our religion, and similar things that are part of our being. It is something fundamental.
I would be the first to blame myself for forbidding anyone for instance to pray God in a different way from mine or to speak a language different from mine. I think that the same consideration must be shown me and those in my province, that the necessary provisions should be made to protect that thing which is called culture and which is essentially ours.
I repeat what I said a little earlier. It is the only way to prevent in Quebec the spread of those ideologies which are called separatism or something else and which try to divide Canada.
I am a Canadian. I say that if you give Quebec what it is entitled to, if you give it legislation, not only the good will of the people who are here, who mean well but who might not be here tomorrow, in short if you guarantee us those essential things, you will refute the arguments of those who try to divide Canada.
But if for all kinds of reasons, valid or not, you remain adamant, this would deprive us of what would enable us to prosper.
Besides, Mr. Chairman, I see every day on federal agencies, which are not necessarily concerned with art, lists of impressive names where there is not a minimum proportion of French Canadians.
I am told over and over again: "If you have competent people, send them to us and we will hire them". That does not satisfy me because all kinds of reasons are given to explain why their services are not required. In
June 9, 1966

the field of art, the minister said a little earlier that she was not worried because she knew that we had competent people. Therefore, if finding that minimum is not cause for worry, the legislation should provide that there will be at least those three. If they want to put five or six, that will be a matter for the people who will appoint them.
But I insist that this minimum be included in the legislation, Mr. Chairman.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it gives me pleasure to second the motion of the member for Trois-Rivieres.
As he has just mentioned, in reply to the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) and to the member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), this is not a maximum, but a minimum of three. I think this must be clearly understood.
Now, why is this being asked, Mr. Chairman? Because, generally speaking, the example of other crown corporations is striking. I recall that such an amendment has been introduced when a corporation to manage the station in Ottawa was being established. There was some discussion at the time and I remember quite well that certain ministers were of one mind while others held a different view. I also remember the minister of manpower (Mr. Marchand) telling me that to ensure recognition of our rights, other means than writing them into the legislation were available. He told me that if other means were ineffective, he would march in a picket line to have the disproportion recognized within the crown corporations.
Well, a few days later the annual reports of several crown corporations started to come in and, among others, we noted that Air Canada had not a single French Canadian among the seven or eight directors there. At the Canadian National, two out of 17; at the Bank of Canada, one out of 16 or 17, I think; at the Polymer, not one among all the executive directors.
Now, even if the Secretary of State says that she will see to it that as many as possible are appointed, she will admit that we are justified in wanting to be protected at least by the wording of the legislation, because in the past, leaving all this to the pleasure, to the good will of the government, whatever the government, the right proportion was never respected. In fact, that happened under the two governments, under all the other governments.
Whether it is in connection with the Ottawa station, or the corporation of the National Arts
National Arts Centre
Centre in Ottawa, I believe that the amendment moved by the member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) is reasonable and fair. It does not mean that there should be only three French speaking Canadians on the board of trustees, but there should at least be three. I do not see why they should be limited to three. This would compel the government to appoint at least three.
Experience in other crown corporations has shown that never more than a third have been appointed, always less and often none at all.
This is why I think it is advisable to support that amendment. If the minister maintains that there will be more than three, I do not see why she would reject this. She has stated that many French Canadians are connected with the artistic field and that there will be more than three in the corporation. I do not see why the Secretary of State would refuse to mention in the legislation that there should be at least three.
In fact, it could happen some day that a secretary of state would be less favourably disposed than the present Secretary of State and would not recognize that fair percentage; perhaps another secretary of state will be less favourably disposed and will take some steps so that no French Canadian would join the corporation.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Incredible.


Gilles Grégoire: Therefore, this would protect the accomplishments of the Secretary of State, who wants to do justice to the French speaking citizens.
We want a clearly and precisely worded act, so that she may have no fear of being replaced by a secretary of state less anxious to recognize the fact that there are some proportions that need be maintained in Canada.
In the circumstances I cannot see why the Secretary of State would object to such an amendment, because it is an entirely reasonable request.
A while ago the hon. member for Lotbi-niere (Mr. Choquette) said that was the government's goal. Let it be recorded in the text of the act, to make sure that the goal will be reached and will be maintained in the future.
I cannot understand why the Secretary of State would have objections to this, and the more so since the arguments she put forward a while ago tend rather to confirm the need to include this amendment in the act. The very arguments placed before us confirm

June 9, 1966
National Arts Centre
this need and they even add some weight to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres.
I therefore call upon the Secretary of State. We know that she is open-minded and we think that she ought to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Mr. Mackasey:: I think perhaps it is time we heard from a Quebecker who, for a change, happens to be of English culture.
Mr. Chairman, I represent a riding 60 per cent of which consists of French Canadians and I find myself duty bound to say a few words on why I will vote against the amendment. First of all I think the amendment is an insult to French Canadians. It seems inconceivable, in a country such as ours and in the year 1966 during which we have discussed bilingualism and biculturalism day in and day out, that we should have to legislate the membership of French Canadians in what is essentially a crown corporation or very close to it. I remember very well two years ago the same problem arose in the meetings of the transport committee. At that time I took the same stand as I am taking now and I had no trouble in explaining it to the French speaking people in my city. They applauded my stand.
It seems to me that culture is one field in which narrowmindedness and intolerance should not enter. I do not think the day will ever come when tolerance and understanding will have to be legislated. If a time comes when members of the House of Commons will not appreciate the cultural contributions of French speaking Canadians to this country, then legislation is futile. I will repeat, Mr. Chairman, that it is an insult to French Canada.
I should also like to say, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps some hon. members are interpreting the word "culture" in a very narrow sense. The only contribution I have ever made to the field of culture was to march down St. Catherine street on March 17 as grand marshal of the Irishmen's parade. But I think the culture of this nation was not only born in French and English Canada. It is a combination of the culture of Ukrainians, Jews, the Scots, the Irish, the Lithuanians and all the rest of us who make up this country. I think that in our preoccupation with the problems of French Canada and English Canada we forget there are a lot of

other Canadians who have not originally come from France or the British Isles, and who are just as Canadian as the rest of us.
I represent a constituency in which there are over 50,000 French speaking Canadians but I think that when the time comes to vote on the amendment I will have no trouble in explaining to my constituents the reason why I voted against it. I consider it to be an insult to French Canadians.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) and seconded by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) embodies an argument which we, French speaking Canadians, would be inclined to accept.
On the other hand, I learned a long time ago that there is a world of difference between the letter and the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is the important thing, not the letter.
I do not propose to defend the French speaking element of Canada, but I do say that I do not approve of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres and seconded by the hon. member for Lapointe, as I have often heard from the latter much stronger arguments than those he put forward tonight.
Mr. Chairman, as I said a few moments ago, I do not think that the spirit behind that amendment is enough to make us, French speaking citizens, accept it wholeheartedly. I fail to see also how four or two French speaking representatives or representatives of French origin would give more power to this legislation, especially if those representatives lack the French culture they should have.


Gilles Grégoire: Is that an argument?


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Chairman, of course there are in Canada citizens of French origin who are qualified to speak on behalf of French speaking Canadians and others who are not as qualified, just as there are English speaking citizens who are not very qualified to speak on behalf of French speaking citizens.
It is the spirit that is most important with regard to those who will administer this legislation. In my opinion that is what counts. The present government as well as the Secretary of State, have shown in the past, that they are broad-minded. That is what matters. We must not give our administrators too narrow
June 9, 1966

a scope to express our culture. We must expand our horizons and that is how we will succeed in giving to that legislation all the scope we want it to have.


Mr. Guay:: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres would agree to withdraw his amendment after consulting with me, and I will introduce an amendment myself immediately after him.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I should like the house to understand that I, who moved the amendment, and my seconder, the member for Lapointe, are willing to accept a subamendment, but not because we were impressed by what has been said until now.
If the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mack-asey), a colleague whom I admire and whose very presence here is a proof of the broadmindedness of French Canadians, since these are the people who elected him, said my suggestion was an insult to French Canadians, it means he did not understand something. I allow myself to disagree with him.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I say in no uncertain terms that I am ready to compromise to the greatest extent to maintain good will with all elements of the country, but not at the cost of abdicating such sacred things to me as my language, my religion and my culture. It is that clear. When the hon. member for Verdun mentioned a while ago that if we demanded that, the same thing would have to be claimed for Ukrainians, Jews, Chinese and others, it became evident that the hon. member for Verdun fails to grasp certain things.
Anyway, there is a well admitted principle here that there are two main ethnic groups; the newcomers are respected and are given all possible rights. By coming to set up here, they implicitly admitted that they wanted to become part and parcel of one or the other of the two main streams of cultures or ethnic groups.
But, Mr. Chairman, for the sake of good will, in order not to drag on the debate, because I admire the legislation brought in by the minister, I would be ready to withdraw my amendment, with the consent of the seconder, after hearing the subamendment of the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay). Nevertheless I reserve the right to hear it before taking a definite decision.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres for his kindness,
National Arts Centre
and I shall be very short, because I was not opposed to his amendment altogether, but I did not believe so much in the matter of the minimum or the maximum for I always fear that that minimum would remain both a minimum and a maximum.
The amendment would then read as follows:
That the board of trustees be composed so as to reflect the cultural duality of this country.
Mr. Chairman, I move this subamendment, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette).


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Then, Mr. Chairman, in order to show clearly to the house that we are not fanatics, that we simply wish to sanction a principle, I am willing to withdraw my amendment with the consent of the seconder, if the house allows me to withdraw it in favour of this subamendment.


The Chairman:: It will be necessary for the committee to give its unanimous consent for the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres to withdraw his amendment. Does the committees give unanimous consent?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if I understood correctly, it is not the amendment moved by the member for Trois-Rivieres, and which I seconded, that is being withdrawn, but the member for Levis (Mr. Guay) is moving an amendment to our amendment. I must say, Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The hon. member for Levis has not introduced any amendment, neither has it been accepted by the Chair. It is the Chair's information that he suggested he would move another amendment if the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres were to withdraw his.
[Translation\


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I want this to be well understood. I want the subamendment to be moved first, and if the house accepts it, I am willing to withdraw my amendment. I refuse to withdraw my amendment unconditionally, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres has moved an

June 9, 1966
National Arts Centre
amendment. If he wishes to withdraw his amendment he will have to ask for the unanimous consent of the committee. If, however, the hon. member for Levis wishes to move a subamendment, that is entirely up to him.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if I understood correctly, and the hon. member for Levis could throw some light in this regard, but I think I understood correctly, he introduced an amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres. He was simply substituting figures to those contained in the amendment, so that the number of directors would reflect the two Canadian cultures.
By his subamendment he was deleting the figure put forward by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, that is the minimum of three, and replacing it by the subamendment, and that is when we agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The subamendment which has been suggested by the hon. member for Levis, if it were passed, would not be consistent with the amendment itself. The topic of this subamendment, as now moved, would not be consistent with the amendment. The Chair, therefore, is not able to accept the subamendment in this form.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if I am not
mistaken, you have just made a ruling without asking any advice from the floor on whether the subamendment was in order. Furthermore, you have quoted no authority to state that the subamendment was not in order.


Herman Maxwell Batten: May I refer the committee to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 203?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. If I heard correctly, a moment ago you made a ruling and I think we should abide by it. I believe the question should be put on the amendment.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I agree with the hon. member for Ontario, with the exception of one point. I made a ruling without giving a citation in support of it. The hon. member for Lapointe asked for the citation to support my ruling and I intend to give it. Citation 203 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, page 171, reads as follows:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the
[The Chairman.]
amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
It is the opinion of the Chair that if the subamendment were accepted by this committee, it would not be consistent with the amendment as moved by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres. I repeat, therefore, my former ruling that the subamendment is out of order.
Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Mongrain) negatived: Yeas 8; nays, 68.
9 (9:50 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 3 carry?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Chairman, in order that the amendment be clearer this time, I suggest to add at the end of line 2 of section 3:
That the bilingual character be recognized by the corporation in such appointments.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The amendment moved by the hon. member for Levis is considered to be in order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before you give your decision, may I be allowed to say a word-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The Chair has already given its decision that the amendment is in order.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words with respect to this amendment. As I understand it, if this amendment passes, the members of the board would be composed of people who represent the two cultures of Canada. Bilingualism has that connotation at this time. That is my understanding. I think that this would be the worst type of discrimination which could be entered on the statute books of this country. After all, there are some six million Canadians who have ethnic backgrounds other than French or English, who are proud to be Canadians, who want to participate in the cultural life of this country, and who have a great deal to offer, both in culture and in tradition, by way of stimulating our country now and for the future.
June 9, 1966

National Arts Centre
By this amendment I feel that these people would be discriminated against. If they had the ability, and it was recognized that they would make good members of the board and would have something to add, this amendment would entirely eliminate them from consideration. This would be a crying shame, and any action of this sort by this parliament would tend only to divide the country more.
I have been listening to debates in this house for a number of years now and particularly during the past year or so we have been engaging here, by actions of this nature, in practices which are disuniting the country more than ever before. What we should be doing, irrespective of whether we are of French origin, English origin or any other origin, is working together as Canadians, all for the benefit and good of this country.
I am not suggesting that we must have representation on certain boards of certain ethnic groups. What I am suggesting is that we are all Canadians, and that we have the ability, the knowledge and the willingness to go forward and build up the country, whether culturally or any other way. We should all be recognized and no distinction should be made in this manner.
I must vote against this amendment, Mr. Chairman, because I do not think it gives a fair opportunity to every Canadian who wants to be Canadian, has proved himself to be a Canadian, and who wants to work for the Canadian way of life.


Mr. Ryan:: Would the hon. member permit a question. I am very much in sympathy with what the hon. member has said but I am wondering whether he would favour the amendment if a subamendment were moved providing that the bilingual and multicultural character of the country be recognized by the corporation in its appointments?


Michael Starr: If I may answer the question, no, I would not. I think the clause should be left as it is now so that all Canadians regardless of origin are eligible for appointment if, in the wisdom of those who make the appointments, they are considered suitable.


Mr. Roxburgh:: Mr. Chairman, I have not entered into this debate so far but I have been listening keenly. I was brought up in a small village 90 per cent of the population of which were French Canadians. I have a lot of good French Canadian friends. Last Monday I attended at home a citizenship court before which 42 people became Canadians, not
one of whom was a Frenchman or an Englishman. These people were Hungarians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians. In my area 50 per cent of the voters are new Canadians from Europe. None of them were French and none of them were formerly English speaking Canadians at all. But they are the finest Canadians in Canada.
I think we are going too far on this matter. Let me say to my French Canadian friends- and I hope I have French Canadian friends -that if this sort of thing is perpetuated they will drive in a wedge which will separate us forever. I have taken all I can. I have gone my limit on this business. I applaud the remarks of the hon. member for Ontario and I just had to get up and say something now.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Who are your friends on the other side?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we might-


Gilles Grégoire: Ten o'clock.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the committee might agree to stand this particular clause and see whether some other progress might be made before ten o'clock.


Michael Starr: Let us vote on it now.


Mr. Bigg:: Question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 3 carry?


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being ten o'clock, shall I rise, report progress-


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, for the sake of progressing with the business of this house I wonder whether we could agree to vote now and carry on and complete this bill. I do not think there are any other controversial aspects to the bill.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I would not agree to vote at this time. The hon. member for Ontario has had his say; others also want to speak.


Michael Starr: On a point of order, I think the hon. member has had two or three says on this bill.


Robert William Prittie: Not on this point.


Michael Starr: But on this bill.


Robert William Prittie: But I want to speak on this point.
June 9, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being ten o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will start with the legislation dealing with the Company of Young Canadians. Then we will turn to this measure, and to the resolution setting up a film development corporation. After that we shall proceed to estimates, in the order I indicated last night.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: I rise at this time, Mr. Speaker, to discuss a question I put to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a few days ago. Mr. Speaker did not permit my question to be answered at that time. Since then I have inquired whether the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration asked for an inquiry to be conducted into the winter works program undertaken by certain municipalities, notably, Notre Dame de la Guadeloupe, St. Ephrem de Beauce, and St. Methode de Frontenac.
Winter works projects go back to 1961. Although the minister has written to me that the inquiry would be undertaken, I should like to know when it is to take place. Is it to take place under federal or provincial jurisdiction, and will the federal or provincial authorities make the investigations. I shall await patiently for the outcome of such an inquiry.
It might be wise if the minister would ask the members of the unemployment insurance office in St. Georges de Beauce about a man known as Mr. Donalcourt, who made an inquiry last year respecting the proceedings in the municipality of St. Ephrem de Beauce. This inquiry was quite lengthy, and contains revealing facts about which the minister
[Mr. Prittie.l
would be interested. I might point out that the Unemployment Insurance office in St. Georges de Beauce found it necessary to make its own inquiry into the questions I have raised.
The minister would also find it useful to look at the correspondence between the Minister of Finance last year, the former member for Beauce, and the minister of labour of that time, respecting certain allegations to do with the municipality of St. Ephrem de Beauce. The allegations are similar to those having to do with the municipalities of Notre Dame de la Guadeloupe and St. Methode de Frontenac.
May I point out that the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) could benefit from such an inquiry. They ought to contain their remarks until the results of the investigation have been made known. I know that the hon. member for Beauce would favour obtaining up to date facts about the municipalities in question. He is still mayor of St. Honore de Shenesey which is six miles away from some of these municipalities and he might be able to explain some of the proceedings which have been going on.
I do not wish to press the matter further. I just wanted to make these few observations and ask the minister whether he does not wish to take account of this inquiry which has been made at the employment office about Mr. Donalcourt. I would point out that tomorrow, I believe, we shall be dealing with motions for the production of papers, asking for papers connected with that inquiry. There is a further motion calling for the production of correspondence between the former member for Beauce and two ministers, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson). Apparently the events of these municipalities have had repercussions in the ministry of National Revenue in connection with the TD4 forms given out by the federal government to those who worked on these winter projects.
I suggest it would be wise to inquire whether there were any irregularities in this respect which would interest the Department of National Revenue. An attempt might be made to ascertain whether those on the books of the municipalities who received these forms actually carried out this work. These are the representations I have to make and I
June 9, 1966

hope the minister will give them serious consideration.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member. I could not help but notice there were an awful lot of inferences and allegations made in the course of his observations. I hope some of them have a little more substance than his statement a few weeks ago about voters in that area committing suicide.
I would point out to the hon. member, who obviously did not exhaust himself while he was on his feet, because he is making more sound now that he is sitting down, that there is a very simple way for him to turn allegations against the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) into something more substantial. He could accuse them directly and have the matter referred to the committee on privileges and elections.


Raymond Langlois: On a question of privilege. I did not accuse either the hon. member for Lotbiniere or the hon. member for Beauce. I told them to contain themselves and wait for the inquiry to produce results. Then they would find out what the facts are.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. The hon. member has risen on a question of privilege. I do not believe there is a question of privilege. Under standing orders, at this hour of the night, a member who wishes to put a question to a department represented by a minister or a parliamentary secretary may have seven minutes to do so. The hon. member was allowed seven minutes to present his views and I now recognize the hon. parliamentary secretary.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: There are no points of order after ten o'clock.


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a point of order. If the members of the Liberal party will be quiet, I shall make myself heard on a point of order. It has to do with the question of privilege raised by the member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois). The member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) said the member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois)-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I said earlier that there was no basis to the question of privilege raised by the member for Megantic. He presented his point of view and it is now up to the parliamentary secretary to answer the question put to him by the hon. member for Megantic.


Gilles Grégoire: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to mention directly the question of privilege concerned.
Each member has the right to see that his words are interpreted properly and to correct wrong interpretations. That is set forth in the rules of the house.
I should like to deal precisely with this question of privilege and express the opinion that the member for Verdun misinterpreted the words of the member for Megantic. I ask him to correct the faulty interpretation he gave to the words of the member for Megantic.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
[English)


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois), even to the extent of thinking he can fight his own battles a little more adequately than the argument put forward by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) which, to be charitable, was pathetic. I would suggest to the hon. member for Megantic that in the spirit of co-operation in which I know he has brought forward these allegations, it would help the house and circumvent the necessity of a lot of correspondence to and from the department in Quebec and Riviere du Loup if he would get up and, in plain language, tell us precisely about these irregularities of which he seems to have first hand knowledge. This would help the situation.
If he does not want to do that, then I am afraid there is no other course but to wait until all correspondence between the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Mar-chand) and the proper department in the province of Quebec is finalized, and I can only repeat what the minister has said to the hon. member on several occasions. The matter is being investigated and there is no effort on our part to hide irregularities, if there are
June 3, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion any. In these circumstances there is no alternative but for the hon. member to restrain his enthusiasm until the facts are available.


Raymond Langlois: I agree.



HEALTH AND WELFARE-SMOKING-REQUEST FOR CONTROL MEASURES

Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, on orders of the day on May 31 I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he was aware of the fact that the government of B.C. declared that day to be non-smoking day in B.C., in line with his campaign to combat lung cancer, heart disease, and other kindred problems. The Speaker ruled my question out of order, and in consequence I asked that I be allowed to bring it up again on this occasion.
My reason in asking the question was to draw the attention, not only of the minister and of the House of Commons but of the entire country to the continuing toll taken in human life by the consumption of cigarettes, and to draw attention to the need for the federal government and all people at the federal level to do more than has been done so far to reduce this toll.
Along with several other hon. members, I am active in trying to promote measures to improve traffic safety and safety features in automobiles. That is a worthwhile endeavour, but I think there is a greater need for us to concern ourselves with the toll and slaughter taken by the consumption of cigarettes in Canada. In that regard, in my opinion I can do no better that quote briefly from some of the statements made by the health department of the government of B.C. on the cigarette disease toll:
Throughout Canada in 30 years deaths from lung cancer have multiplied by 1,500 per cent to a record level of over 2,000 deaths per year.
The Canadian Medical Association shows that cancer and smoking have been linked together for the past 100 years . . .
This year in Canada more than 2,750 people will die from lung cancer, almost twice the combined deaths from all the infective and parasitic diseases, including tuberculosis.
Dr. Michael B. Shimkin, a cancer specialist with the United States national institute of health, referring to the rising tide of evidence showing the menace of cigarette smoking said:
Were we speaking of spinach, the selling of spinach would now be a capital offence.

He went on to say:
Cigarettes should be regarded as a major environmental poison.
Mr. Speaker, with the permission of hon. members and the Chair I could quote at great length on this subject, but this is not the time to do so. I wish to point out just one other fact. People who smoke cigarettes regularly and in high number have a 50 per cent greater chance of dying from heart problems then those who do not smoke. I should like to conclude the quotation from the declaration of the health department of British Columbia with the statement that what is needed and needed very desperately is federal action toward guidance and support at the national level to combat the incidence of disease from cigarette smoking.
In conclusion I should like to pose the following question: Does the government of Canada, through its Department of National Health and Welfare, really believe it is doing enough to combat this disease which is related to cigarette smoking and which has been found to exist not only by the British Columbia health department, but also our own Department of National Health and Welfare, the United States health department, the British health department, the Scandinavian health department and the Russian health department? I think we should do a great deal more than we have done. I sincerely urge the government to examine the situation and try to step up their campaign against cigarette smoking by employing different means. Will the government do this?


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Health and Welfare is aware of the action taken by the province of British Columbia in declaring a non-smoking day. Similar action has been taken by many cities and states in the United States. We are pleased with any action which focuses attention on the evils of cigarette smoking.
Hon. members are aware of the considerable activity which has been carried on in this area in this department, particularly the attention which was focused on smoking by the former minister of national health and welfare, the present Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh). I am pleased to inform hon. members that the present minister has almost given up smoking.
June 9, 1966

The idea of non-smoking-days is a good one, and what action should be taken on a national basis is being considered at this time by the department.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION-INQUIRY AS TO DESTROYER ESCORT PROGRAM

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow the parliamentary secretary, who is an adjoining neighbour of mine in New Brunswick. As of now I imagine the parliamentary secretary will be taking over part of the constituency which I represent. I should not like my friends in New Brunswick to misunderstand me if I were to say we were the only two in this house, but there are not many more.
The matter to which I should like to refer tonight has reference to a question I asked last Tuesday, June 7. I mentioned the lay-off of 600 men in the Saint John shipbuilding industry, and I asked the Minister of National Defence whether he had any up to date information on the present position in respect of the naval program; that is, the program for four new destroyers and two supply ships which he mentioned some months ago. It is quite true that I should have referred this matter, perhaps, to the Minister of Industry whose department, the Department of Defence Production, has the final responsibility for the construction of vessels of this nature. However, I have had very poor luck lately with the Department of Industry. We cannot get Saint John moving into the incentive program. We lost the Bonaventure through misadventure or some other circumstance, and we are being hard hit in the maritimes, particularly in Saint John, by the Department of Industry.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I noticed in the paper that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) has a great deal of money to spend, hundreds of millions of dollars, and felt I might appeal to him and ask whether, with regard to the four vessels which are to be constructed, there might be a chance that on some basis this work could be distributed around the shipyards on the east coast, which would include Saint John.
I suggest that this is a matter of serious concern to our community because 600 men will be lost to the industry forever. They are skilled and have been in the trade for some time. They will go elsewhere in this transformation period, when construction work is scarce in our shipping industry. Surely we are entitled to know where we fit into the plans that are being put into being.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I recall that in 1962 announcements were made that there were to be built a number of new destroyer escorts, or general purpose frigates, and this program has been postponed for various reasons up to this time. I call on the government to give us this information. Let us know what we can expect; whether these men should stick around in the hope that something might be forthcoming.
I am very critical of the Department of National Defence. They have virtually wiped out our poor old navy, and I make this appeal: Don't do the same to the shipbuilding industry, which is so important to a community such as ours in Saint John. I see the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) in his place. I thank him very much for staying here at this late hour. I hope he will be able to give us some encouragement that this program is now finally moving ahead, and that we can expect a tender call with some sort of allocation very soon.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I deplore as much as the member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) the difficulties that the shipyards in the city of Saint John are having at the present time. The information the hon. member was seeking was of course, to be obtained, as he said, from the Department of Defence Production. I have here information and dates concerning the two classes of ships he has mentioned.
First, as regards auxiliary ships, called "operation support-ships" tenders were called on March 1, 1966 and they must be in by July 6 of this year, at the latest. We believe the contracts concerning the building of these two ships will be awarded in December of this year.
As far as destroyer D.E. are concerned, tenders will have to be called during the first quarter of 1967, at the latest. The shipbuilding program provides that one of the ships, the first one, shall be built between August 1967 and October 1970; the second, between August 1968 and May 1971; the third, between August 1968 and September 1971; the fourth, between August 1968 and May 1972.
According to the information I have obtained, shipbuilding companies across the country, qualified to undertake this type of work, will be asked to submit tenders. In
June 9, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion this connection, required qualifications were mentioned in the answer to question No. 455, given last February 3, and I quote:

Management proposals will be invited on a national basis from those shipyards interested in participating in this program. Those proposals will be evaluated and the yards surveyed to determine those shipyards qualified for lead and/or follow yards. Evaluation will be based on criteria which will include management capability, physical facilities.
experience and past performance on projects of comparable complexity.

Such then is the information I could obtain, and I hope it will be satisfactory to the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
It being twenty nine minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 10, 1366