1966-11-21

[Stage Direction]
TABLING OF THIRD ANNUAL REVIEW Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies, in English and French, of the third annual review of the Economic Council of Canada, on prices, productivity and employment.

[Stage Direction]
PROSECUTION UNDER OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, I beg to advise the house that as a result of the investigation which I referred to on November 1 last, an employee of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources was charged on Saturday with two offences under the Official Secrets Act. The investigation has not implicated any other employee of the government, nor are any other charges contemplated against any other individual in relation to this matter.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, on
November 16 last, as reported at page 9953 of Hansard, the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State answered in the following way:
Notice of motion No. 175 is acceptable to the government subject to the reservations respecting all correspondence marked personal and confidential.
The hon. member for York South, who is the author of the motion, had agreed with me that the request should be limited to "a second pipe line project", and to "the Great Lakes project". I should like that to be recorded in Hansard if the hon. member for York South agrees.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I have no objection, Mr. Speaker. It is understood that it is not necessarily limited to the Great Lakes project, but any other second line which may have been discussed in such correspondence.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Agreed.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-246, to create a Department of Consumer Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the intention of this bill is to create a department of consumer affairs for the protection of consumers throughout Canada, and to bring all such matters within the jurisdiction of one minister. Its purpose also is to abolish certain nefarious selling practices such as trading stamps, "cents off", gimmicks in packages, size designations such as "jumbo", "giant" and "family", and other practices detrimental to the interests of the consumer.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
COMMONS DEBATES	November 21, 1966
Questions QUESTIONS
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



SAINT JOHN RIVER FEDERAL PROJECT

Mr. Flemming: 1.	Is the $13,500,000 federal government grant, recently announced for improvement of the Saint John river in the light of the changes to the river basin and level or water north of Mactaquac caused by the construction of the Mactaquac dam, to be available for the full length of the river, north of Mactaquac, wherever it may seem essential?
2.	Specifically, is any portion of such grant available for the town of Woodstock as assistance in its work of relocating facilities essential to the tourist industry and other public facilities which will be flooded and rendered useless by the Mactaquac dam?
3.	Is the government of New Brunswick in complete charge of the work undertaken under this grant, or will the federal government accept recommendations from municipalities, boards of trade, town councils, etc., who are vitally affected or damaged by the Mactaquac flooding?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Energy and Rural Development):: 1. The $13,500,000 federal government commitment for the Mactaquac Special Rural Development Area of the province of New Brunswick is not for the improvement of the Saint John river but is directed toward the improvement of the standard of living and job opportunities for those living in the area.
2.	There will be no capital expenditure as a result of this agreement in the town of Woodstock nor will there be expenditures made as a result of the flooding but to families relocated in Woodstock as a result of the program outlined in the agreement, counselling and other similar services will be provided.
3.	The government of New Brunswick is in charge of the implementation of the plan including all aspects of administration. The federal government will maintain a concern over program formulation and progress and federal officers will, therefore, work with the province in this respect.



BONUS FOR BILINGUAL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. Bell (Caileton): 1.	Has any action yet been taken by the government to provide a bonus or pay incentive to those employees who are said to be bilingual?
2.	If so, what is the nature of the action and how many employees are now affected?
3.	What is the dollar value of the bonus or pay incentive in each category of employee?

4.	What tests or other techniques are used to determine whether or not an employee is in fact bilingual, specifying the nature of such tests or other techniques in detail?


Mr. John R. Mafheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. Yes.
2. and 3. On the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission, the Treasury Board has established a differential of 7 per cent of the actual rate of pay (rounded to the nearest dollar) received by employees in secretarial, stenographic and typing positions, in which adequate performance of duties and effective service to the public requires the use of both official languages, and has approved payment of the differential to incumbents of such positions who are required to use and are actually using a second official language at least 10 per cent of their time in the performance of their duties and are qualified by the Civil Service Commission as meeting an appropriate standard of competence in the two official languages.
Payment of the differential may be made with effect from a date not earlier than October 1, 1966, provided the deputy head applies to the Civil Service Commission for a test of competence, and the employee is qualified by the commission before February 1, 1967.
In future, any candidate for appointment in this group claiming competence in both official languages or any employee already in the group who believes that he has acquired the necessary proficiency may be tested in both languages for the purposes of meeting this particular condition for payment of the language differential. In these cases, the differential would be payable with effect from the date of the appointment if the other conditions are met.
Until officials of departments and the Civil Service Commission have had an opportunity to apply the established criteria, it is not possible to estimate the number of employees to whom the differential will be paid. The total number of employees in the secretarial, stenographic and typing group is approximately 16,000.
4.	The Civil Service Commission reports that tests will be given as follows to employees wishing to qualify for the language pay differential: (a) Typists will submit to a standard typing test during which they will copy a given text of approximately 300 words. The standard of competence that must be met is a minimum of 35 words per minute with a high degree of accuracy. Persons already appointed by the commission to typist
November 21, 1966

positions and who are regarded by their supervisors as performing satisfactorily in one official language, need submit themselves to a test in the other official language only. Persons already qualified by the commission as bilingual typists do not need to reappear for testing, (b) Stenographers concerned will submit to tests of proficiency as stenographers in both official languages. Dictation will be given at the rate of 80 words per minute and the standard to be obtained is a mark of 80 per cent of attainable marks on a basis of accuracy and speed. The text used will be about 300 words in length. Those who have previously qualified as bilingual stenographers do not need to be retested, (c) Secretaries concerned would qualify both as stenographers and as typists.



RANKIN INLET, N.W.T., HANDICRAFTS PROJECT

Mr. Orange: Does the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development operate a handicrafts project at Rankin Inlet, Northwest Territories and, if so (a) what are the principal items produced (b) what were the expenditures by the department in 1964-65, 1965-66 and from April 1, 1966 to September 1, 1966, in connection with these handicrafts (c) what are the arrangements for marketing these products (d) are ceramics produced as part of the project (e) how many ceramic items have been produced since the start of this particular aspect of the program (f) what has been the cost, approximately, for materials and supplies, labour, instruction and maintenance of buildings (g) how many of the ceramics have been sold on the general market or to any other source (h) if there have been sales, how many and what revenues have been received to date (i) are there any plans to release the ceramics to the general market and, if so, when and by what means?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (a) Yes: the principal handicrafts items produced at Rankin Inlet are: Needlework: Duffle parkas, duffle footwear, duffle mitts, Eskimo tapestry made from various fabric materials and miniature handicrafts items made from fur such as kamiks and fur toys. Crafts: Traditional domestic objects, weapons and a variety of fishing and hunting implements of ancient Eskimo origin which are unusually produced in scale models. These are made from locally obtained materials such as antler, bone, stone or ivory. Carvings: Figures in the round and relief work produced in soapstone, antler and ivory. Ceramics: Primarily of an experimental nature. Some of the prototype or samples which have been produced as a result of the
Questions
experimentation are terra cotta figurines, clay sculptured forms and clay vessels most of which are fired and glazed.
(b) Expenditures by the department on the Rankin Inlet arts and crafts program are as follows:
Expenditures April 1964
to March 1965 April 1965
to March 1966
Material and Labour

Instruction

April 1966
to Sept. 1966	38,263.60	7,040
(e) Marketing: All products except the ceramics are marketed by the department through Canadian Arctic producers. Approximately 10 per cent of the handicraft items produced are sold locally at Rankin Inlet.
(d) Ceramics: Ceramics produced at Rankin Inlet to date have been on an experimental basis. Clay sculpture and pottery is unfamiliar to present day Eskimo artists and it has been necessary to give them time to develop distinctive techniques and designs and to learn the technical side of pottery making.
(e)	Because ceramic production has been mainly experimental with a great deal of trial and error on the part of the Eskimo artists, it is not possible to state exactly how many pieces have been produced. A rough estimate would be a total of 2,000 pieces, some of which were cracked or flawed particularly those produced during the early phase of the program. Of these about 200 have been selected for the initial public presentation.
(f)	From April 1964 to September 1966 the costs have been as follows: Materials and supplies, $15,000; Labour, $60,000; Instruction, $16,000; Maintenance of buildings, $1,500; Total, $92,500.
(g) Ceramics have not yet been placed on the market.
(h)	Arts and crafts-revenue and inventory: Revenue, 1965-66, $15,655.19; 1966-67, (7 months-to October 31, 1966) $12,258.93. Inventory to October 31, 1966, $29,858.10. These figures do not include ceramics. As the Eskimo art committee has not yet established any price structure for the ceramics, it is not possible to give a value to the inventory.
(i)	Plans to introduce Rankin Inlet ceramics to the public for exhibition and sale are

November 21, 196$
Questions
going forward now. The Eskimo art committee has yet to pass final judgment on the projects but this will take place very soon. A large number of sample pieces were shipped to Ottawa recently for this purpose. At present an exhibition sponsor is being sought with the possibility of the exhibition being held in the Toronto area in February 1967.



ONTARIO-GRANTS TO MUNICIPAL AIRPORTS

Mr. Smith: 1.	How many grants to municipal airports in Ontario have been made or approved since January 1, 1965?
2.	In what amounts and to what airports have these grants been made?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Four.
2. $374,000 to the Waterloo-Wellington Airport Commission. $515,000 to the city of Peterborough. $30,650 to the city of Sarnia. $41,985 to the Niagara District Airport Commission.



CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES IN NAVAL SERVICE

Mr. Forrestall: How many civilian employees are presently working at (a) H.M.C.S. Stadacona (b) H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax (c) H.M.C.S. Shearwater (d) R.C.A.F. Greenwood (e) H.M.C.S. Cornwallis (f) R.C.A.F. Gorsebrook (g) Eastern Air Command (h) R.C.A.F. Summerside (i) C.F.B. Camp Gagetown (j) R.C.A.F. Chatham (k) military radio stations in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: As of 31 August, 1966: (a) 246; (b) 3,151; (c) 575; (d) 477; (e) 386; (f) 5; (g) Eastern Air Command was a wartime designation and no longer exists; (h) 327; (i) 552; (j) 295; (k) 35.



PAY AND ALLOWANCES TO CIVILIANS IN NAVAL SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,062
Mr. Forrestall:: What is the total of civilian pay and allowances paid out during the last fiscal year 1965-66 at each of the following bases (a) H.M.C.S. Stadacona (b) H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax (c) H.M.C.S. Shearwater (d) R.C.A.F. Greenwood (e) H.M.C.S. Cornwallis (f) R.C.A.F. Gorsebrook (g) Eastern Air Command (h) R.C.A.F. Summerside (i) C.F.B. Camp Gagetown (j) R.C.A.F. Chatham (k) military radio stations in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Information is not now available to provide an accurate answer to

this question and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary information.



MILITIA SERVICES STRENGTH IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,064
J. Michael Forrestall: 1.	What is the present strength of militia services by force in (a) Nova Scotia (b) New Brunswick (c) Prince Edward Island?
2.	By province and force, what was the total of pay and allowances to these men and women during the fiscal year 1965-66?
3.	By province and force, what was the amount of all other militia expenditures during the fiscal year 1965-66?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. As of 30 September, 1966, the reserve force strengths were:
(a)
R.C.N. (reserve) 140 C.A. (militia)	2,101



R.C.A.F.

[Stage Direction]
(auxiliary)	-
2.	(a)
R.C.N. (reserve) $ 86,000 C.A. (militia)	657,000

[Stage Direction]
(auxiliary)	-
(b)	(c)
61 - 1,659	375
(b)	(c)
$ 28,000	-
504,000	$126,000
3. Since official records are not kept by province, information is not available to provide an accurate answer to this question.

Mr. Forrestall: By fiscal years 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, what is the Department of National Defence expenditure by province in the Atlantic provinces for (a) civilian salaries and wages (b) military pay and allowances (c) capital expenditures (d) other expenditures?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Information is not now
available to provide an accurate answer to this question and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary information.



COMPARATIVE EMPLOYMENT FIGURES FOR CANADA AND ATLANTIC PROVINCES

Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the present population of (a) Canada (b) the Atlantic provinces?
November 21, 19S6

2.	How large is the present labour force in (a) Canada (b) the Atlantic provinces?
3.	How many persons are now employed in national defence and supporting services and industries in (a) Canada (b) the Atlantic provinces?
4.	How many members of the armed forces are there now in (a) Canada (b) the Atlantic provinces?
5.	How many civilian employees are now employed in national defence and supporting services and industries in (a) Canada (b) the Atlantic provinces?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Departments of Trade and Commerce and National Defence as follows: 1. Estimated population at June 1, 1966 was:	(a) Canada, 19,919,000;	(b) Atlantic
provinces, 2,001,000.
2. Number of persons in the labour force in the week ended September 17, 1966 was: (a) Canada, 7,516,000; (b) Atlantic provinces, 642,000.
*3. (a) 136,440; (b) 32,056.
*4. (a) 89,750; (b) 21,888.
*5 (a) 46,690; (b) 10,168.
* These figures are the number of civilian and service personnel employed by the Department of National Defence in (a) Canada and (b) the Atlantic provinces as of 30 September, 1966. There is no way of determining the number of personnel who may be employed in supporting services and industries.



INSCRIPTION ON STATUE TO JAMES WOLFE

Mr. Crouse: 1.	What words were placed by the government at the base of the statue to James Wolfe when it was rebuilt recently on the Plains of Abraham?
2.	In what way does this wording differ from the inscription on the original monument, which was destroyed some years ago by persons unknown?
3.	On whose authority was the change authorized?


Arthur Laing: The
answer to the three parts of the above question will be found in Hansard May 11, 1966 when question No. 1,014 by Mr. Dinsdale, was answered.



SASKATOON, SASK.-DISPOSAL OF AIRCRAFT

Mr. Brand: 1.	What are the present plans of the Department of National Defence with regard to the aircraft still remaining on the grounds of the now closed air force base in Saskatoon?
2.	Will they be sold through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation or moved to a more active air force base?
Questions


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1 and 2. The majority of aircraft at the air force base at Saskatoon have been declared surplus to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and are awaiting removal. A decision has not yet been made as to whether the remaining aircraft will remain in storage in Saskatoon or be moved to another storage site.



ULTRA HIGH FREQUENCY BAND ON TELEVISION UNITS

Mr. Prittie: 1.	Does the federal government, the Board of Broadcast Governors, or any other federal agency, have the power to require manufacturers of television receiving sets in Canada to include an ultra high frequency band on each unit?
2.	If so, has any statute been passed, or any regulation issued, to this effect?
3.	If there is no federal authority in this regard, has the federal government, the Board of Broadcast Governors or any other federal agency, encouraged the manufacturers to include UHF bands on all television receiving sets manufactured in Canada?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. No.
2.	N/A.
3.	There have been some informal discussions among officers of the Department of Transport, manufacturers, and Department of Industry.



&quot;STUDENT SAFARI TO EXPO '67&quot;

Mr. Smith: Is it the intention of the Centennial Commission to give any notice or publicity to "Student Safari to Expo '67" which are non-profit, non-subsidized tours being aranged to Expo '67 by Elmvale Expeditions Limited, a non-profit organization?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Centennial Commission as follows: Yes.



INGONISH, N.S., POST OFFICE BUILDING

Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	What progress is being made on the selection of a site for the Post Office Building at Ingonish, Victoria county, Nova Scotia?
2.	How soon will construction begin?
3.	What sites are under consideration and what is the reason for the delay in commencing this building?
Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public
Works): 1. The suitability of a proposed site is being examined.

November 21. 1966
Questions
2.	The precise date cannot be specified.
3.	The proposed site is located on the Syd-nev-Dingwall highway and comprises a vacant parcel of land owned by Mr. J. Nolan of Ingonish, Nova Scotia. There has been no delajr.
PUBLIC SERVICE piLINGUAL QUALIFICATIONS

Question No. 2,148-Mr. Irvine:
1.	What is the basis in the federal Civil Service upon which a person is declared to be bilingual?
2.	How fluent must they be in French?
3.	How fluent must they be in English?


John Ross Matheson: 1. Persons in the Civil Service are considered bilingual only in relation to positions in which adequate performance of duties and effective service to the public requires the use of both official languages and in relation to their demonstrated capacity to use a second official language in the performance of their duties.
2. and 3. The degree of fluency in each of the English and French languages varies according to the nature of the duties being performed.



DEFENCE EXPENDITURES, 1965

Mr. Mather: What was the dally cost of defence expenditures
for 1965?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The average daily rate of expenditure for the fiscal year 1965-66 was $4,242,320.



AMHERST, N.S., FEDERAL BUILDING

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,154
Mr. Coates:: 1.	Have architects been appointed for the designing of a new federal building for the town of Amherst, Nova Scotia and, if so, on what date and what is the name of the firm appointed?
2.	Have all arrangements for the procurement of a site for the new federal building been completed and, if so, what are the names of the individuals from whom the property was purchased and what are the amounts paid to each individual for the property?
3.	On what date does the government intend to start construction on the new federal building in
Amherst?
Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public
Works): 1. Yes, the firm of C. A. Fowler, Bauld, Mitchell, Architects, Halifax, N.S. were appointed in December, 1965.

2.	Arrangements for the acquisition of a federal building site in Amherst are nearing completion. Four properties are being purchased from the under-noted owners and agreements have been reached in the following compensations: Mrs. Annie A. Tingley, $15,000; Mrs. Annie P. Smith, $8,000; Mrs. Bessie Swetsky, $15,000; Trinity St. Stephens United Church, $10,000.
In addition, a property owned by Mr. Lloyd Brenton was expropriated to make up the assembled site. Settlement is now being negotiated.
3.	The fall of 1967.



PUGWASH HARBOUR, N.S., DREDGING PROGRAM

Mr. Coates: 1.	Have studies been carried out regarding a dredging program for Pugwash harbour and, if so, on what date were the studies initiated and has a report been received as yet with recommendations?
2.	If a report has been received, what action does the government contemplate taking to improve harbour facilities at Pugwash?
Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public
Works): 1 and 2. The dredging requirement at Pugwash is studied every year as the channel leading to the harbour and the harbour itself are continuously shoaling. A sounding survey carried out in July, 1966, indicates that some 50,000 cubic yards of material will have to be removed in 1967 in order to re-establish the 15 feet dredging grade depth.



APPOINTMENT OF ADVISORY COUNCIL OF CONSUMERS

Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver- Kings way): 1.	When was the Advisory Council of Consumers appointed by the government?
2.	Was the matter of consumer prices included among its terms of reference and, if not (a) for what reason (b) in view of recent price increases, will the government consider enlarging the terms of reference of this council to include consumer prices?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The Advisory Council of Consumers was established by a cabinet decision on November 14, 1963.
2. No. (a) The Advisory Council of Consumers was established to advise the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Food and Drug Directorate of this department on matters involving consumer interest relating to the administration of the Food and Drugs Act and the Proprietary or Patent Medicine
November 21, 1966

Acts. Since these acts do not provide any legislative control over economic matters, consumer prices were not included in the terms of reference of this Council. In view of the fact that the Advisory Council of Consumers was selected to advise on consumer aspects of this legislation, the government does not consider that this would be an appropriate group to advise on consumer prices, (b) See (a) above.



PARRSBORO, N.S., HARBOUR FACILITIES

Mr. Coates: Is it the intention of the government to carry out improvements to harbour facilities at Parrsboro, Nova Scotia, and if so, of what will the improvements consist, and when will they be carried out?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: Not at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



FINANCE


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) to move the adjournment of the house under standing order No. 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the financial difficulties of the Prudential Finance Corporation Limited, as revealed by the freezing of creditors' claims and the placing of its affairs in the hands of a caretaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member address the Chair on the question of urgency of debate?


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, on the question of
urgency-


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may raise a point of order concerning the proceedings?


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Public Works on a point of order.


George James McIlraith: It is my understanding that this corporation does not come under the administrative jurisdiction of the federal parliament, but is under the jurisdiction of the
Finance
provincial legislature. I raise this as a point of order, because if I am right in that contention, there is nothing that can be properly placed before the Chair and the question of urgency does not arise.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that this is exactly the point of my motion. At the present moment we are discussing in the finance, trade and economic affairs committee the possibility of bringing such institutions under federal control, and I would suggest that it is a matter of urgent public importance because this is the third case which we have had in the last few months of a crisis, if not a collapse, of financial institutions which are not under the supervision and control of the parliament and the government.
I think it has become quite plain in the course of the hearings before the finance, trade and economic affairs committee that these institutions are becoming such a large part of our financial structure that the federal government cannot ignore them much longer. I would suggest that this latest collapse will have an extremely damaging effect on public confidence in the financial institutions of this country, not only domestically but also internationally. I submit that we cannot afford to have any more of these collapses which are due, I am sure, to the lack of proper supervision and regulation by the federal government of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the government must move with great urgency in this matter, if only to the point of announcing quite firmly that they intend to explore the legislative possibilities of bringing such institutions under federal control.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the matter is of great importance, but, as has been pointed out by the Minister of Public Works, it does not appear to come under the administrative responsibility of the federal government. Even if the company in question was in fact incorporated under federal law by a special act of this house, I still question with the exception of federal regulations, whether, its activities would be the administrative responsibility of the government. The point I am trying to make is that it seems to me any matter sought to be discussed under the provisions of standing order 26 must in fact involve the direct administrative responsibility of the government, and in particular one or more of the ministers of the cabinet.


Mr. Knowles:: Or for the general good of Canada.

November 21, 1966
Finance


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Perhaps for the general good of Canada; but citation 100 (1) specifically states that the matter must involve the direct administrative responsibility of the government.
But that is not the only point, Mr. Speaker. Another point which Your Honour should consider is that citation 100 (3), which deals with the question of urgency of debate, states that the urgency of debate arises only when the ordinary opportunity provided by the rules of the house does not permit the subject to be brought on early enough, and that the public interest demands that a discussion take place immediately. I suggest to Your Honour, in keeping with the announcement of the house leader last Friday, that very shortly we will be commencing a debate on a supply motion which will in fact allow for a discussion of this particular matter, if hon. members choose to debate it.
We realize that no determination of what should be done in this regard can be made by way of motion. Even if Your Honour were to allow the regular business of the house to be adjourned so that we could have such debate, no determination, as I say, could be made of the matter; it would simply be a discussion or a debate of the question. Therefore it seems to me that exactly the same end result could be achieved by discussing the question on the supply motion which will very shortly be before this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I make one brief comment, and I confine my comment to the point raised by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) and the member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), both of whom relied on certain language in citation 100 of Beauchesne to the effect that a matter has to involve the administrative responsibility of the government before it can be raised under standing order 26.
May I remind Your Honour that on October 23, 1964, Mr. Speaker Macnaughton ruled that this wording was too narrow to have meaning with respect to our practice. If I may quote his exact words, he said that standing order 26 could apply to any public matter within the power of the federal parliament. I submit that the whole question of banking and finance is a matter within the power of the federal parliament. What my colleague is seeking to bring before the house is the necessity of discussing the taking of action which would thus bring the matter in question within the power of parliament.

My point is that it is incorrect to say that the matter has to come within the narrow confines of the administrative responsibility of the government. Rather I rely upon what was said by Mr. Speaker Macnaughton on October 23, 1964, and again on March 3, 1965; and there is also a ruling not unrelated to this question by Your Honour on May 26, 1966. It was recognized in these cases that if the matter comes under the general power of the federal parliament it is one that can be raised, provided there are no other obstacles in the way.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations on this question. I do not suppose there is any more important or far reaching subject than the control by the federal government and parliament over the financial and banking system of Canada, control which is necessary to ensure federal direction of fiscal and monetary policy.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Also I am sure all hon. members agree that the failure of this finance company named Prudential-though it should be noted that it has no relation to the insurance company or the trust company of similar name-must cause a great deal of concern. Under ordinary circumstances, in my view it would be essential for the parliament of Canada to discuss the failure even though the house had to be adjourned to do so.
What I am trying to say is that there is no more important or timely matter for us to discuss, and I should support the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) unreservedly, were it not for the supply motion coming up this afternoon, and for the fact that this matter can be discussed there and can and ought to be discussed before the finance, trade and economic affairs committee which is now sitting.
I make this intervention because I wish I could support the hon. member in his motion for adjournment. I support him fully on the importance of the matters he raises, and the essential requirement for this parliament to solve them, and solve them early. I only wish I could support him on the matter of urgency of debate now, in this house, but I am afraid I cannot.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to supplement the discussion with one or two sentences. The additional ground which brings this matter within the responsibility of parliament is the exclusive
November 21, 1966

responsibility of parliament in respect of bankruptcy and insolvency. Section 91 of the British North America Act exclusively commits this responsibility to parliament.
From the preliminary reports, this matter seems clearly one of insolvency. In my submission that lends weight to the arguments already advanced to Your Honour, and that is why, notwithstanding the words of the Minister of Public Works, this matter falls within the jurisdiction of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their comments about the motion proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. I draw hon. members' attention to citation 100 (1) in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition which says:
The definite matter of urgent public importance for the discussion of which a member may ask leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 must involve the administrative responsibility of the Government.
I doubt whether this matter comes directly under the administrative responsibility of the government. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands says that if it does not, it should. I believe this too is the argument proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). I do not think the suggestions bring the matter within the administrative responsibility of the government. I am impressed by the argument of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), who reminds us that a supply motion is before us today.
Because of all this I feel I should not accept the motion at this time.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, recognizing that the charges against Bower Featherstone are not a matter to be discussed in parliament, I restrict myself to two questions arising out of the announcement made by the Solicitor General. Will he tell the house whether the country to which and on whose behalf the alleged wrongdoing was committed was the U.S.S.R.? What has been done by the government in directing the removal from this country of those who participated in the alleged wrongdoing? Also is the espionage that allegedly could take place along the Atlantic coast that espionage referred to by Admiral Landymore
Inquiries of the Ministry in his statement, and expurgated before delivery by him to the committee on defence?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Soliciior General):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can best answer the right hon. gentleman's question by reading the information which is public, since the person in question has now been charged. I now am reading from the information, which states as follows:
In the province of Ontario did, between the 13th day of February, 1966, and the 25th day of October, 1966, at said city, for a purpose prejudicial to the safety of the state, obtain documents, to wit: two copies of a chart classified as confidential relating to maritime defences and prepared for use in ships of the Royal Canadian Navy which chart might be directly or indirectly useful to a foreign power, namely the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, thereby committing an offence contrary to paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Official Secrets Act.
I do not think I ought to enlarge upon my answer.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, surely we are entitled to know-and this in no way infringes the proposition that now is before the court-what happened to those connected with the U.S.S.R. embassy or otherwise, or what has been done in respect of them. Have they been ordered out of the country or are they still here, free to operate?


Lawrence T. Pennell: In view of the wording of the charge, the matter raised by the right hon. gentleman no doubt may be before the court. Again with great reluctance I must take the position that I ought not to enlarge upon my answer.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour regarding the strike by local 514 of the Longshoremen's Union which has tied up shipping on the west coast. May I ask what steps are being taken by the minister or by his department to promote a settlement. I should like also to ask him whether he has made any representation to the B.C. Maritime Employers Association, asking them to accept the men's offer that they are prepared to go back to work if the employers will agree to negotiate.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad this question has been asked, because some explanation is
November 21, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry called lor. Unfortunately, however, I am not in a position to answer it. The matter is now sub judice; it is before the courts in British Columbia. This morning the matter was argued before a local judge of the Supreme Court. A decision on the matters referred to is expected about 5.30 our time this afternoon.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the matter which is before the court has to do with an injunction, may I ask the minister whether he or his department have requested the B.C. Maritime Employers Association to agree to negotiate, in view of the fact that the employees have indicated their willingness to go back to work without an agreement.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the matter has been dealt with in correspondence and by telephone with representatives of the employers association as well as with the representatives of the union, which allegedly is not a member of the I.L.W.A., but in fact seems to be. All I can say is there is a very important legal question, which the employers say is an involved one, and a decision on this legal point is involved in the very application upon which a decision is expected later this afternoon.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: May I
ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In connection with the reference the minister just made to a matter which is before the court, I should like to ask him whether he is correctly reported as having labelled this strike illegal and, in view of the fact that so often we are told in the house that ministers of the crown cannot give legal opinions here, whether the minister in fact did give a legal opinion outside the house on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I understand it the hon. member really is asking the minister to confirm or deny a press report. My understanding of the rules is that this is not in order.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I
should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the very serious impact the shipping tie-up on the west coast is having on our export trade. In view of the fact the Minister of

Labour is occupied with the technical and legal aspects of this question, will the minister take it upon himself to urge the B.C. Maritime Employers Association to do the sensible and practical thing so that our export trade will start to move again, instead of playing around with such things as court injunctions?



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the previous question. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has any information to report in respect to the Air Canada strike, and whether he can tell us at this time what steps if any the government is taking in an effort to bring it to an expeditious conclusion.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, as I had hoped, the parties came together over the week end of their own accord, rather than as a result of government intervention. This is the way the government -rather this is the shape that the government-hoped the negotiations would take. The parties now are actually negotiating in Montreal.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, 11 days ago I asked the Solicitor General if he could give us some information with regard to
the possibility of extradition proceedings being taken against Hal Banks. The minister replied that his officials were in consultation with officials of the attorney general's department of Ontario and that he hoped it might not be too long before a decision was reached. Has the minister anything further to report on that matter?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I think this matter perhaps ought to be directed to the Minister of Justice; but with his permission may I say a decision will be made later this week, following one further consultation with the officials of the province of Ontario.
November 21, 1966



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and ask him whether the request by the Federal Power Commission in the United States for additional information respecting Trans-Canada's application for the Great Lakes Pipe Line has now been satisfied. I think last Friday he said that a few hours time would prove his information was more accurate than that given in the press.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have no reason to believe that the information I had on Friday was not right.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As a supplementary question, I would like to ask the minister very directly whether the additional information requested by the commission has been supplied to it by Trans-Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was informed that when the copies of correspondence are tabled according to the wishes of this house, copies will be made available to the Federal Power Commission.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then may I ask the minister when he intends to file the documents which were called for by the house in the motion that was passed last
week?


Jean-Luc Pepin: We are doing the collecting of the documents at this moment, Mr. Speaker.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the recent meeting or meetings which the Secretary of State may have had with the President of the C.B.C., is she now in a position to advise the house of any progress which has been made in relation to C.B.C. television service for northern Manitoba?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I am wondering if the hon. member would not consider that this question should be placed on the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSE OF COMMONS



ACTIVITIES OF MEMBERS FOLLOWING QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as house leader. In view of the fact that many members of the house leave at the conclusion of the question period to attend committees and for other duties, and in view of the fact that the reason few members remain in the house is frequently misunderstood by visitors in the gallery, would it be possible in this instance to follow a practice of the United States Senate by including in the literature handed to visitors an explanation of this exodus of members of parliament to attend other duties?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. My understanding is that this question is one that might be more properly directed to the Chair, and I am sure the suggestion made by the hon. member will by taken into consideration.



STUDY OF STATUS BY ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, and ask if he is prepared to grant the reasonable request made by the delegation from the Committee for the Equality of Women which recently came to Ottawa, seeking the establishment of a royal commission on the status of women, which request has been wholeheartedly supported by the Secretary of State.
I may say that they claim they were not given a proper hearing by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) and by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) and I ask whether the Prime Minister will accede to their request?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State is very actively pursuing this matter in the cabinet at the present time.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: As a supplementary question; the Secretary of State may be very much in favour of such a royal commission, but is not the Prime Minister fully aware that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) is against it?

November 21, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry VETERANS AFFAIRS



AMENDMENT RESPECTING WITHDRAWAL OF 365-DAY PROVISION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): Mr. Speaker, several days ago I directed a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs which was taken as notice by the acting minister for that department. I wonder if the acting minister now has an answer to the question respecting the 365 day clause to which I was referring?
Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minister I will take this further question as notice.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. Is it a fact that his department has made arrangements with the penitentiaries branch for the manufacturing or making of mail bags with "Royal Mail" deleted therefrom, and with "C.P." or "P.C." in its place?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this. I will take the question as notice, but I must say that the words "Royal Mail" have never been used on mail bags.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes? You had better take a look at them.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the tragic, fatal accident at a level crossing at Port Hope over the week end, and in view of the fact that this was the second fatal accident at this crossing within a few months, will the minister investigate this case and, in particular, will he report on why a request from Port Hope that something be done with regard to this crossing had not been met?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I anticipated the hon. gentleman's question, although of course I

could not be sure who would ask it, and I have already asked the Board of Transport Commissioners if they would be good enough to give me a report as quickly as possible.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he is able to inform the house at this time of the date he is going to bring in his baby budget? In view of the imminence of Christmas and the financial consequences thereof, I would think it would be appropriate for him to tell us now.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would be in a little better position if I could be a little clearer on when the house will be dealing with the pension legislation because, as I said before, this budget will be related in part to the cost of the pensions themselves.


John George Diefenbaker: It will not be a Santa Claus budget.



CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the suggestion contained in the third annual review of the Economic Council of Canada, which I was able to glance at very hastily, that we have now moved out of an inflationary situation and the time has come for further progress, can the minister tell us whether the government agrees with this suggestion and is preparing to relax its antiinflationary measures?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether this is an adequate interpretation of the report of the Economic Council, but I can assure the hon. gentleman and other members of the house that all the considerations that are relevant will be taken into account.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver East.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Speaker, my question has been asked.
November 21, 1966



LSD-ADVERTISEMENTS RESPECTING IMPORTATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of his statement to the house on May 16 concerning the drug LSD and his suggestion that his department was in consultation with the R.C.M.P. regarding special measures which would permit more effective control of that drug, can the minister tell us whether his department has had any discussions with the R.C.M.P., considering the large advertisements placed in newspapers across Canada dealing with the importation of a recording by the leading exponent of that drug, Dr. Timothy Leary?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not too sure whether this question should be ruled out of order at this time, in view of the fact that previous questions have been asked on the same subject. The hon. member may feel that the question as asked may not be too urgent, and he may want to place it on the order paper.


Howard Earl Johnston: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the minister in charge of Indian affairs. In view of the tragic death of five children on the Indian reserve at Gleichen would the minister look into the whole matter of the fire fighting equipment available and the organization for fire fighting on this and other reserves?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, one of the early things I did as minister of Indian affairs was draw to the attention of all Indian bands in Canada the very regrettable tragedies that can be caused by fire. We circulated a request earlier this year to all bands and councils to take this matter into consideration. The fire marshal for Canada also made suggestions along this line.
This was a very tragic accident which caused the loss of five children. Let me draw
Inquiries of the Ministry to the hon. member's attention that this is the first of the kind that has happened for some time. If the hon. member checks the records I am sure he will discover that there were many more last year than there have been so far this year. I think we are doing something to better these conditions.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a supplementary question. Have any steps been taken by the department to supply fire fighting equipment to these reservations in the form of portable pumps and other articles?


Arthur Laing: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and that was partly the result of the move we made earlier this year. Indeed, today most of these reserves have fire fighting equipment, and we are endeavouring to have certain persons on the reserves responsible for and competent to operate such equipment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: have a supplementary question. In view of the question asked by the hon. member for Calgary North, will the minister also look into housing conditions on this reserve, because apparently there were 14 persons living in a four-room shack. This seems to be a fairly common thing on this reserve.


Arthur Laing: I will look into that situation, Mr. Speaker, because one of the contributing factors to this terrible tragedy was the fact that although there were two doors, only one was operative.



QUOTA FOR NO. 1 WHEAT-STATEMENT RESPECTING MARKETING AND STORAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce is now in a position to answer the question I asked on Friday last respecting quotas, and particularly with regard to No. 1 wheat?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes I am, Mr. Speaker. Producer marketings of grain during the first three months of the current crop year are well ahead of the comparable period in 1965-66, and the annual average for the past five years. Shipments from country elevators have pretty well kept pace with producers deliveries and considerable space is still available in them.
There are, however, some areas in which the elevators are congested mainly because of the predominance of stocks of No. 1 northern

November 21, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry and No. 2 northern wheat. At the present time only a limited quantity of these grades is being shipped from country elevators. Currently, wheat moving to ocean ports for export is required to fill sales contracts negotiated some time ago, and involves essentially the lower grades of wheat which were in heavy supply in the previous crop year.
The board will make every effort to merchandise the higher grades available from this year's crop, and they expect that in the near future they will be in a position to commence moving in greater volume these particular grades of wheat.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister indicate present plans regarding No. 1 wheat, and will he see that the unused space in the terminal elevators at Saskatoon and Moose Jaw will be used to the fullest extent? When the minister says that it is expected shortly there will be a further demand for No. 1 and No. 2 northern, does he mean that new orders have been obtained in some parts of the world for these grades of wheat?


Robert Henry Winters: The whole matter involves the advantage that can be taken of the flexibility of contracts. When this question was asked last Friday during consideration of my estimates I said I would obtain more specific information, and I am seeking that information now.



MOVEMENT OF TOUGH GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, let me also answer a question which was asked on November 16 by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) having to do with wet or tough grain. Fortunately, the quantities of high moisture grain are not as large this year, being confined primarily to the Peace River area.
At the moment the Canadian Wheat Board is giving shipping priority to the grains and grades of grain that are required to meet immediate sales commitments. Very shortly, however, the Wheat Board will authorize over-quota delivery privileges to assist producers who may be holding stocks of high moisture grain, which is liable to go out of condition unless delivery is made before the warm weather. The board is confident that the problem is manageable, and will do everything necessary to ensure that this grain is not allowed to go out of condition.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priifie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the government house leader. Is the minister carrying on discussions with other party house leaders in reference to the broadcasting committee and the white paper on broadcasting? I believe the Secretary of State said last week there was some difficulty as to an agreement to send this white paper to a committee without very much debate.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the motion is debatable and I have asked whether there might be a possibility of referring the white paper on broadcasting to the committee without debate.


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



OLD AGE SECURITY-IMMEDIATE INCREASE IN PENSION WITHOUT MEANS TEST

Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, in opening the debate on the final supply motion I believe it is necessary to deal with some of the aspects of this administration before moving the motion I intend to place before the house. At this time we are all cognizant of some matters that have been poorly handled by certain departments of government.
Let me refer first of all to the Department of Agriculture. The minister has brought about an increase in the returns to producers of manufacturing milk. He did not fulfil some of the things he promised, but I believe his approach has been a fair one. For the first time he has obtained the co-operation of the provinces in this respect. The provinces came to his aid and took the minister off the hook so that producers in this field could obtain a further return for their efforts.
Let me also refer to the importation of pork products from foreign countries, which occurred early this year. This importation depressed the economy of agricultural producers and they have not recovered from that depressed position as yet. I note with interest that information was put before the consumer credit committee indicating that the price of pork and other products had remained high in
November 21, 1966

relation to the price paid on the open market at the time, and the comparatively small return to the primary producer. At that time I questioned the minister about the quantities of the product that were imported, and I also questioned him about the effect it would have on the market. I asked who was responsible for the importation of this product. I was given figures in regard to quantities imported, but never did find out on behalf of those interested, the producers of this country, who were responsible and from whence the authority came for its importation.
Later in the year we found the minister parading around the supermarkets with some of his staff, insulting the housewives of this country by telling them they were spending too much money in this respect and that their cause was not particularly justified. We know that in many cases this is right, and would not complain about it if the primary producers were obtaining the proper return. But that was not the case at that time and is not the case today. The fact is that the return to the primary producers has dropped considerably since then.
In this connection I would refer to the expenditures of the government in several fields. I think of the debate on interim supply that concluded very recently. I think of the amount of tax the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) is taking from the treasury. The minister has put forward arguments about sophistication in the field in which he and his department function and has referred to the equipment that has been purchased.
Nevertheless we are aware, as has been stated many times, that the numbers in the forces are diminishing and that costs are in fact increasing substantially. This is a matter of concern to the Canadian taxpayer, and justifiably so.
These things all add to the inflationary trend with which we are faced these days; they add to the cost of living, which makes life rather difficult for those people at the bottom of the income ladder. I could also bring into this argument the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) and the expenditures of his department in respect of Expo. I place these matters before the house because I believe they are important to the consideration of the motion I shall move. The cost to the taxpayer of all phases of that exposition has added to the inflationary spiral and the high cost of living in this country. Taxation by the government has increased this inflationary spiral.
Old Age Security
I could deal with these matters at great length. As has been mentioned before, the fact that we are soon to have another budget indicates that the government is considering a further increase in taxes. This will require the very close scrutiny of all those sitting on the opposition side of the house. We know that representations are being made to the government to the effect that some restrictions have gone too far. I believe this applies particularly today in the field of housing and building. There must be some rectification in this, area.
In essence, Mr. Speaker, the spending program of the government has been contrary to some of the principles they have been endeavouring to apply this session. I know the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) has been responsible for the setting up of a royal commission to inquire into the cost of farm machinery. This indicates that the minister has finally come to the conclusion that there is justification for such an inquiry, because not too many weeks ago he stated he would not allow increases to occur in this field.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And while the investigation has been going on, those prices have gone up 9 per cent.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I am told that the price of farm machinery has gone up 9 per cent during the course of the investigation. Be that as it may when one brings all these matters together and considers their effect on certain segments of our economy, I believe we are justified in some of the positions we have taken during the session.
Mr. Speaker, I move therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp):
That all the words after "that" he struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"Consideration be given to granting an immediate increase to all those in receipt of old age pensions without the imposition of a means test, or a needs test, or requiring any disclosure of income or financial resources."
Although, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before allowing the hon. member to proceed, perhaps the Chair should be given an opportunity to consider the amendment proposed by him. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member immediately; he might continue his speech at least for the time being while the Chair has an opportunity of considering this matter.

November 21, 1966
Old Age Security


Eric Alfred Winkler: I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that you will consider the admissibility of the motion. I think you will find that it in no way contravenes the rules of the house if one considers what has happened in the past in this respect. I base this argument on a very firm premise, that in 1950 when we had a joint committee of this and the other house it was agreed unanimously that the old age security pension should be paid to all those over 70 years of age, without any kind of qualification with respect to the pensioner. This was agreed by all parties, which is a further argument for allowing the motion to come before the house.
That thinking was carried forward in the committee, and I will read from the final report of the special committee of the Senate on aging where the following is stated in clause 3 subclause (a) on page 18: "That the only condition for eligibility under the Income Guarantee Program be age".
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I think we have to recall all the representations that have been placed before the government, not the least of which are the ones I placed before them, of which I have evidence beside me. I have made over 53 representations in the course of this session, and I have done this not, as the minister suggested at a previous time, for my own benefit in the sense of issuing my own propaganda, as he did. The representations that I made to the house were in regard to an article that appeared in the Toronto Star which was, beyond the shadow of a doubt, an official leak from the minister's office.
I further support the views which were expressed in a statement made a few evenings ago by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), which he based on a question he had placed on the order paper and to which he received an answer.
He said that a tremendous amount of money had been transferred out of the Old Age Security Fund, and we believe that this necessitates some scrutiny by the house. We also believe that this transfer would certainly enable the government to comply with the request placed before the house in my motion.
Mr. Speaker, we have made it abundantly clear in the course of this session that the senior citizens of this country require the type of support for which we are asking. Without dealing with the specifics with which I have been involved in my previous questions or speeches, I will revert to the questions which I placed before the Secretary of State for

External Affairs (Mr. Martin). At that time, I made reference to the amount of money which the Canadian government anticipates spending in external aid programs to underdeveloped countries and to others. This is a very substantial sum of money, and will continue to grow for the next ten years or more. When we think of the money which is currently in the Old Age Security Fund, gathered I might say on the basis of the principle established in 1950 by the committee to which I referred, we can say with assurance that this money was collected for the people for whom I am asking consideration.
This consideration can be given today, without any further cost to the government or taxation which, it had been hinted, might be imposed. As a matter of fact, if the present situation were to continue the government would be guilty of over-taxation, as I believe they currently are and as I believe they also are in regard to the Canada Pension Plan Fund. I therefore ask you to accept my motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been considering the situation for a few minutes and I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler). I wonder whether hon. members, who have also had a few minutes to look into the procedural aspect of the motion made by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, may have comments which might be useful to the Chair. Hon. members know very well that there are a number of considerations which are very relevant and which they might keep in mind in making comments for the guidance of the Chair. Of course the basic one is that we cannot have a debate on a matter which has already been resolved by the house. I am sure the hon. member for Grey-Bruce remembers that the Leader of the Opposition made a motion on January 20 which, at least in my limited understanding, is related to some extent to the matter which we now have before us in the motion of the hon. member for Grey-Bruce.
In any event, I would certainly be very pleased to hear comments or suggestions from hon. members for the guidance of the Chair.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this question was very fully considered before the amendment was brought before the house, and on the basis of that examination I believe there can be no question whatsoever that this amendment is in order. You have referred to the fact that the house is not permitted to deal
November 21, 1966

Old Age Security
with a matter which has already been resolved, and that, of course, is correct. Then you mentioned the amendment that was moved by me last January 20. That amendment is to be found on page 58 of Hansard and reads as follows:
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) that the following words be added to the address:
We respectfully regret that Your Excellency's advisers have omitted to provide for an immediate increase from $65 per month to $100 per month for all recipients under the Old Age Security Act.
That was a very definite and specific amendment setting forth the amount of the increase, with no additional terms included therein.
Today, we move that consideration be given to granting an immediate increase to all those in receipt of old age pensions without the imposition of a means test, or a needs test, or requiring any disclosure of income or financial resources. If the restrictive rule is applied that nothing which has been dealt with even indirectly would ever be referred to again, then the house would be hamstrung by its own rules. However, I have never known the rules to be so applied. To do so would be a denial of the right of the opposition to place before the government by amendment a matter of importance to the people of this nation as a whole. Nothing has received more general support than the need of action in this regard.
Of course, Your Honour did not refer to a resolution that is on the order paper, but the amendment that we have moved in no way contravenes, invades or impedes the resolution moved by the government.
It reads as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act, effective with respect to months beginning with January, 1967, to provide for the payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and for the charging to the Old Age Security Fund under that Act of a monthly amount, to be known as the guaranteed income supplement, to certain pensioners thereunder up to a maximum of 40 per cent of the amount of the pension payable under that Act; to provide for the determination of the income of a pensioner for the purposes of such supplement and for appeals by pensioners against decisions or determinations made under that Act; and to provide for other related and consequential matters.
This is a very lengthy resolution. It is obvious that it has been prepared with unusual care so as to reveal nothing and conceal everything that is in the government's mind.
23033-641J
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in so far as that resolution is concerned, there can be no question that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce can in any way be ruled out of order because of an existing resolution moved by the government.
My submission, Mr. Speaker, is very short. Personally, I do not often argue a case with the same certainty that I argue this one. I cannot believe that this amendment as moved can be construed in any way as a contravention of the general rule to which you have referred. We are asking that the government give consideration to something which is demanded in all parts of the country, and it will be no answer to say that it could have been given consideration had the matter only been received by Mr. Speaker.
We are asking the government that consideration be given to granting an immediate increase in the pension-amount is in no way referred to-without the imposition of a means test or a needs test or requiring any disclosure of income or financial resources. I can think of no amendment which could be moved that would more completely fall within the rules, however embarrassing it may be to the government. This amendment represents a desire on the part of Her Majesty's opposition to bring parliament face to face with a matter that has not been dealt with before, and which is generally supported in all parts of this country.
The question which is asked over and over again is: Why do you in the opposition not ascertain the view of the House of Commons on this matter? Why is no action taken? The excuse that the government will raise, that it contravenes the rules, is one that I say without fear of contradiction can be advanced only because of the trepidation felt among those in the government ranks about facing up to a situation that is unjust and unfair to the old age pensioners of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it strikes me that the hon. member for Grey-Bruce has worded his amendment with particular care. I congratulate him on his wording, for it seems to me that he has looked at what has already taken place in the course of this session, that he has looked at the rules, and that he has tried to draft an amendment on this subject that will be in order.


Mr. McCleave:: He wants to take care of the old folk; that is what he wants to do.

November 21, 1966
Old Age Security


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope we succeed. Mr. Speaker, in your tentative suggestions as to the points that we might consider you reminded us of the amendment and the subamendment which were moved to the address in reply to the speech from the throne last January. At least, Your Honour referred to the amendment; I may say that there was also a subamendment. I remember them quite well, but I have read them again and the Leader of the Opposition also referred to them.
The amendment that was moved in January dealt with the amount of the pension. The subamendment that was moved by my leader dealt with the eligible age of the recipients of the pension. The amendment now proposed by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce makes no reference to amount or to eligible age. His amendment deals with another aspect altogether, namely whether or not there should be reimposed a means test, a needs test or a requirement to disclose income.
I would ask Your Honour to consider squarely that there are these three aspects of the old age pension question, and each should stand on its own feet. There is the question of the amount; there is the question of the eligible age; and there is the question whether or not there should be a means test.
Your Honour is quite right in saying that during the course of this session the house has taken a decision on the question of the amount. It did so when it voted down the amendment which was proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. Your Honour is also quite right in saying that this house took a decision on the question of the eligible age. It did so when it turned down the amendment moved by my leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. But this house has not taken a decision during the course of this session on the question whether or not there should be a means test in the application of the pension, a higher pension, an increased portion of the pension, or in any other way. Much has been said during the course of this session about the means test, but there has been no decision whatever made upon the question in any way whatsoever.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think the clear rule that we in the house have to observe, that one cannot put forward a matter upon which the house has taken a decision, is not offended in any way by the carefully drawn amendment that has been presented by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

Despite the argument of the Leader of the Opposition that the motion standing on the order paper under the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare does not stand in the way of this motion, I can imagine that the Minister of National Health and Welfare may try to argue the other way. He may try to argue that his motion is already on the order paper, and therefore we cannot now introduce the subject in this way.
I would remind Your Honour that the rule with respect to this point is to be found in citation 234 (1), and I should like to read the relevant part of it:
The ancient doctrine that the redress of grievances should be considered before the grant of supplies is maintained in the House of Commons of Canada-
Then we get down to some provisos, and we find:
-provided that the discussion shall not relate to any decision of the House during the current session-
It may be argued that there is on the order paper a motion that deals with the question of a needs test, or a means test, or a requirement to disclose financial resources, and that what my hon. friend for Grey-Bruce is seeking is something other than this. But, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the minister's motion is on the order paper, even the fact that it has been transferred from government notices of motions to government orders, does not mean that the house has taken a decision with respect to the matter. In fact, it has not taken any decision on its substance at all.
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, I did not know that this matter was coming up, and therefore I am not briefed in terms of having documents in front of me. But I do have memories in this regard, and one case in particular is in my mind. In the session of 1957-58 I had on the order paper a bill to provide for annual vacations with pay, which I proposed as part of a labour code. During the course of that session the Conservative government of that day introduced a bill providing something in the same field, an annual vacation with pay. A point of order was raised to the effect that my bill was like the government's bill and could therefore not be proceeded with, yet Mr. Speaker Michener ruled that no decision had been taken on the government bill. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, that bill had received first reading but had not yet been called for second reading.
November 21, 1966

[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker Michener therefore ruled that since the house had not taken any decision on the principle of that bill, it was in order for my bill to be debated on second reading. It was so debated, and as a matter of fact it came back two or three times. Debate was in order until the point where a decision had been taken on the government bill.
I stress the point that citation 234, subparagraph (1), is very clear, the only prohibition in this area being against a member from this side of the house moving something in a field on which a decision has already been taken.
I come back to my starting point. The house in this session may have taken a decision on the amount of the pension. It may have taken a decision on the eligible age, and there may in fact be on the order paper a motion that we impose some kind of financial test. But no decision has been taken on that motion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. No decision in any way, shape or form has been taken on the means test.
I may say that when we first heard the hon. member for Grey-Bruce read his amendment-and I am disclosing a caucus secret here-some of my colleagues said, "Do you not think that you should move an amendment to that, and bring in the amount the pension should be, or something?" My immediate reply was, "No, let us not do anything to put the amendment out of order". In other words, I felt right away that my hon. friend's amendment was clearly in order.
This amendment is in order because it pinpoints a question not decided by the house in this session. Not only is it in order procedurally, it is in order morally and socially because it pinpoints the burning issue that surrounds the raising of the amount of the old age pension. I agree with what the hon. member for Grey-Bruce said. I agree with the position taken by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. We must take a stand against the means test.
A pension increase is something that is needed in Canada at the present time. We all know that something will soon be done about the amount of the pension. We know that in the course of time something will be done about the eligible age, but on this issue, about any kind of means test, parliament should take a stand in opposition to it, and we should take that stand now.
I draw your attention further, Mr. Speaker, to the sort of amendment this is. It asks that
Old Age Security
consideration be given. In other words, it asks that consideration be given by the government. The only time the house can ask the government to consider staying away from a means test is before the government brings in legislation and gets a decision about the means test.
I again congratulate the hon. member for raising the matter on this occasion, because after the minister's motion has been proceeded with and has had, in the form of legislation, first and second reading, we could not move this amendment.
Because of other moral, political and social importance of this issue, I think it should be debated in the house today. Procedurally, the motion is well drawn. It avoids the pitfalls into which it could easily have fallen. We have made no decision during this session about the means test, and the house should have the right to debate this issue and make a decision about it today or tomorrow. I hope the decision of the house will be against the means test in any form.


Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with discussion on the point of order could the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, for the guidance of the Chair, identify more precisely the decision of Mr. Speaker Michener, to which reference was made a moment ago?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be able to do so if I
can get to my office or to the library. I am relying on my memory, but I am sure of this: The decision was made in the course of the 1957-58 session, and it was on a motion for the second reading of a bill in my name, probably called the Canada annual vacations with pay act. The decision was made about that time, and it was Mr. Speaker Michener who was in the chair.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition have argued that this motion does not repeat the motion dealt with in this house in January. I will not argue that point because I know Your Honour is cognizant of it, and is looking into it. The house ought to consider whether this motion can be allowed, in accordance with the rules. Also, as has been stated a number of times, we ought to consider the general good of the people affected by this motion. Both these things are more important than any procedural matter.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to citation 234 of Beau-chesne's fourth edition. I know he wants to be

November 21, 1966
Old Age Security
fair, but in reading what he read from citation 234 he quoted only half a sentence in that part pointing out that motions such as this are in order:
-provided that the discussion shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session-
That is another matter, of course. I continue:
-nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution-
The hon. member was talking about decisions taken by the house. I point out that the balance of the sentence reads as follows:
-nor to any resolution to be proposed to the Committee of Ways and Means, nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.
That, Mr. Speaker, presents a somewhat different picture. Item 111 on the order paper does in fact refer to the same matter as that contained in the motion of the hon. member. This item deals with amendments to the Old Age Security Act.
Debating the hon. member's motion violates the rule which says that such a debate is only in order when it has no reference to anticipated legislation. Such a motion is also out of order when one considers citation 234, especially that part of the citation reading:
-nor to any matter . . . whereof notice has been given in the order paper.
Included in the citation is anything to be proposed to the committee of ways and means.
It seems to me anything respecting a needs test, means test, income test, and so on, coming under the amendments to the Old Age Security Act, can be dealt with by hon. members of this house when item 111 is called. I do not think it is a good argument to say that the subject matter of the motion deals with a certain detail, and that somehow the subject matter of the motion is not in the resolution calling for the amendment to the Old Age Security Act.
I suggest that the hon. members for Grey-Bruce, for Winnipeg North Centre and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition will have full opportunity to discuss all aspects of amendments to the Old Age Security Act when that legislation is called.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That will be too late.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It will not be too late. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows very well that any member of the opposition,

by using the impediments available to the opposition during the discussion of money bills, will have just as good a chance of moving amendments to the legislation to be introduced, as now.


Michael Starr: That is a false argument.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member for Ontario knows what I say is correct.
I will not repeat the arguments which have been made before Your Honour, because the motion deals with a matter that has already been decided by this house. More important than that, Your Honour ought to consider that this motion anticipates legislation already on the order paper.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I suggested to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition really were sincere in wanting to do something which would increase the old age pension to the senior citizens of this country, they would not introduce long debates on matters which will be dealt with later. I suggest that the most responsible way to see that the senior citizens of this country receive an increase in their pension is to move the other business out of the way quickly so that this legislation can be introduced. There is no other way than to have a resolution brought in by a member of the cabinet who is qualified to move such a resolution. Therefore, I suggest that, as usual, there is a certain kind of political football being played with the old age pensioners. If they really were sincere in their desire to do something about this, we would go on with the resolutions which are now on the order paper. There will be nothing to prevent the right hon. Leader of the Opposition moving a motion which in effect would remove the means test, if he so wished, when we got to this stage. He is, however, prevented by the rules from moving a motion which in effect is a direct charge on the public treasury-


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Certainly.


John George Diefenbaker: Is my recollection correct that you voted against the amendments moved on January 20 last which provided for an increase in the old age pension and an increase in the age of qualification. When you did that, if you did, was it for the benefit of the old age pensioners?
November 21. 1966


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to do so, I should be very happy to answer this question. First, there never has been a motion before the house that was moved in such a way that the passage of it would have had the effect of increasing the old age pension. The right hon. gentleman knows this. Since we have never had a proper motion moved, we never have voted against an increase in the old age pension.


An hon. Member:: You did so.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: What we voted against, Mr. Speaker, was a motion of this house last year-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At this point, I wonder whether we might concern ourselves with the very limited point of procedure which is before the house.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to make the point that if the right hon. gentleman had the right to ask the question I should have the right to reply.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if there is any further answer that the hon, gentleman should like to make or any alibi he wishes to make, I am sure the house will grant him the opportunity.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I offer no alibi. In fact, I offer no apology to anyone in this house or in Canada for assuming the responsibility of carrying out responsible government. I would consider it a very irresponsible act, within the first ten days of sitting to dissolve a parliament which just had been elected by the people of Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in compliance with your request, I should like to return to the point of order. We have on the order paper, and it has been there for two days, a resolution properly introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare who has the constitutional and procedural authority to move such a motion.
When this resolution comes before this parliament, if there are any conditions or provisions contained therein upon which the members of the opposition wish to move amendments, they will have the opportunity at that time to do so. The most effective way, and the most immediate way to put an increase into the hands of the old age pensioners in this country is to deal with the legislation which is sponsored by the government, because that is the only kind of legislation which in fact can be a charge on the public treasury.
Old Age Security


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to deal with the point made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat that when the motion which will follow item No. Ill on the order paper comes before this house the opposition will have the right to move such amendments as may give effect to the latter part of the amendment now moved by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce. Any motion along that line undoubtedly would have the effect of disturbing the balance of ways and means. Any attempt to do so at that time almost certainly would be met with the argument that the opposition, by so doing, would be disturbing the balance of ways and means.
At a later date the Minister of Finance proposes to bring in a budget based on this legislation. The kind of budget he will bring in will be determined of course, by the government bill which finally passes this house. Consequently, it would be inevitable that the amount of money which he would be requesting would be changed as a result of the acceptance of an amendment of the kind which is now proposed if it were moved during the consideration of the legislation. I submit that Your Honour would be bound to reject it. The only opportunity we have is the course which has been taken by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat also made the point that the method and means by which this increase would be made is a matter of detail. I suggest it is far more than that. According to your admonition, sir, I am addressing myself to the narrow issue of order which you will decide. It is far more than a detail; this is the pith and substance of the whole amendment. If it were a matter of debate in this house, whether or not there should be an old age pension, I doubt that there would be any debate at all.
It is the method by which this is to be achieved, and the extent to which a means test or a needs test will be involved, that is the substance of this particular amendment moved by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce. What we have by the adoption of the words is a suggestion that there should be an immediate increase to all the recipients of old age security. Surely, Your Honour can take almost judicial notice of the fact that there will be exchanges back and forth across this house not as to whether or not there should be an increase in old age pensions, but as to whether or not those increases should be accompanied by a means test or a needs test. This is what the debate is about. This is what the hon.

November 21, 1966
Old Age Security
member for Grey-Bruce has attempted to do by introducing this amendment. This would give the opposition an opportunity to put the matter before the house, and obtain the views of the members.
The government very carefully and very ambiguously framed item No. Ill on the order paper so that it would be quite silent in this regard. This being the case, surely we are entitled to resolve that ambiguity by moving an amendment at this time so that this very precise question will be the subject of debate. I suggest that, in any event, I believe you can rely upon the particular rule to which Speakers from time to time have had recourse when there was any doubt.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I ask a question?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: Certainly.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member has just referred to the moving of an amendment for taking care of the deficiency in item 111. Is he suggesting that the house should take action now on an amendment to item 111?


Gerald William Baldwin: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. All I am saying is that the house has an opportunity, and should exercise that opportunity, to give its opinion on whether or not a bill of this kind should be without provision for a means test, something we cannot do when the bill itself is before us.
I was about to conclude with the observation that past distinguished members of the house who have occupied the position that Your Honour does, came to the conclusion that when there was a doubt, and I submit as strongly as 1 can that in this case there is a very reasonable doubt, the Chair should always exercise that doubt in favour of the legality of the amendment. This is particularly true in this case because, if this amendment is accepted, the debate will be on this issue as to whether or not a means test should be the condition precedent to the granting of these old age pensions.
This is what we will be debating, not an increase in old age pensions but the method by which individual recipients will become entitled to the increase.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe I have been able to obtain the citation to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred, and perhaps now he might be able to confirm it for my guidance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like now to give Your Honour the citation to which I referred from memory. The incident took place on Tuesday, October 29, 1957, and the ruling is to be found on pages 63 and 64 of the Journals for that session.
It is indicated there that I moved a bill having to do with annual vacations for employees. During the course of the debate Mr. Fleming raised a point of order, to the effect that it was not in order to proceed with the bill in view of the fact that a government bill with substantially the same provision was on the order paper. The Speaker's ruling occupied about half a page. He rejected Mr. Fleming's point of order, and indicated that since a decision of the house had not been taken on the one, it was in order to proceed with the other. I merely wish to confirm what I had given to Your Honour before from memory.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the amendment moved on the address in reply by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is in substance identical with the amendment that is now being moved. Undoubtedly there are some variations in the wording of the amendments but the substance is identical. It has frequently been held by former Speakers that once a subject matter has been dealt with by the house it cannot be revived again. This is obviously to avoid repetitive debate and to avoid reaching contrary and contradictory decisions.
If the argument advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a valid argument, namely, that the amendment moved on the address in reply mentioned the figure $100 and this amendment mentions only an increase, then it would be in order for successive amendments to be moved on successive supply motions mentioning amounts other than the amounts mentioned in the previous amendments. That certainly is not in accordance with the spirit of the rule.
I recall Mr. Speaker Michene-r being confronted with an unemployment amendment on supply and holding that while the amendment was different in detail, the subject matter of unemployment had previously been dealt with and could not be dealt with again on an amendment to the motion for supply. But, Mr. Speaker, whatever debate may revolve around that particular point, the conclusion seems to be inescapable to me on another argument.
November 21, 1966

Citation 234, which has been already mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre reads:
Whenever an order of the day has been read for the house to resolve itself into the committee of supply-
And so on. It goes on to cite the subject matters that may be included in an amendment, and then stipulates those that cannot be included. The citation further on reads:
-provided that the discussion shall not relate to any decision ox the house during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and means, nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.
Surely, this amendment relates directly to a matter already on the order paper. Indeed, its inspiration is drawn from a matter placed on the order paper and for which notice has already been given. I do not think anything could be clearer than that.
I should also like to refer briefly to citation 131 in Beauchesne's fourth edition, which is drawn from May at page 399, and in Beau-chesne reads as follows:
In determining whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, regard shall be had by Mr. Speaker, to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the house within a reasonable time.
The anticipation rule, which forbids discussion of a matter standing on the order paper being forestalled, is dependent on the same principle as that which forbids the same question being twice raised in the same session. In applying the anticipation rule, preference is given to the discussions which lead to the most effective result, and this has established a descending scale of values for discussions- bills, motions, amendments, etc. Thus a bill must not be anticipated by . . . discussion of a motion, amendment, or subject raised on another motion. Any substantive motion standing on the paper blocks the discussion of an amendment-
Surely, that is the governing consideration, that there is a substantive motion standing on the order paper dealing with the very subject matter of this particular amendment, and every point that can be raised with respect to this amendment can be resolved when the house deals

and it will within a reasonable time-with the order on the notice paper. On this point, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the guidance given by the authorities is clear, and that the amendment does anticipate a subject matter already listed for consideration by the house and which will be considered within a reasonable time.


Eric Alfred Winkler: If I may make a few comments, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the amendment was drawn in such a way that it
Old Age Security
would not deal with specifics, because I felt that was one of the grounds on which Your Honour might rule it out. We are dealing with a principle, the principle of the application of the means test. The establishment of the principle of pensions by right was given effect to in 1950 by a joint committee. It was established by the unanimous agreement of that committee and by the consent of all parties in the house. Now, there is a danger, and we have received warnings of it from many hon. members including some members of the government, that this principle is to be abrogated. We think a determination on this point of principle is necessary before we deal with the question any further.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I am grateful to hon. members for the learned advice they have given the Chair and for their comments. I may say, however, that I am perhaps a little more confused now than I was 45 minutes ago when the discussion started.
When the points were raised originally I was under the impression that there was a more important obstacle or objection to the motion moved by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) because there had been a disposition of at least one aspect of this matter during the course of the current session.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) disposed of this objection, at least to some extent by pointing out that we had dealt with eligibility in respect of age and quantum of pensions and that this particular amendment would deal with the application of some kind of test. This is a valid argument which I might be prepared to accept. In any event, I feel I should not rule on this point because it is, in my opinion, easier to rule on the second point.
I wish I were as sure of the opinion I am going to express now as the right hon. Leader of the Opposition was when he argued in support of this amendment. The objection I have in mind is the one brought to my attention by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) regarding the rule of anticipation which is referred to in citation 234(1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition. This has been referred to and quoted by hon. members, so I will not read it again. It is as well known to hon. members as it is to me.

November 21, 19B6
Old Age Security
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre presented a very interesting argument when he claimed that perhaps this rule of anticipation is limited in its application and does not apply unless a certain stage has been reached in respect of a particular case. For my guidance he quoted a decision in which he had been involved in his capacity as member of parliament. This was a ruling of the then Speaker of the house.
It seems there is a distinction in this regard because that ruling dealt with the case of two bills. The essence of the ruling of the then Speaker was to the effect that there is nothing in the rules which would prevent two or more similar bills being on the order paper at the same time and only one of them being discussed. In other words, one cannot raise the objection that a bill cannot be discussed because there is a similar bill on the order paper. The purport of the decision of Mr. Speaker Michener was that if no decision had been taken on one bill, it was open to the house to discuss the other which happened to be before the house at the time. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will agree that there is a distinction between the two situations.
The reference to citation 131 by the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare is very important. It is my belief that citation 234 should be read along with citation 131 and I will bring it again to the attention of hon. members. Citation 131 reads in part as follows:
In applying the anticipation rule, preference is given to the discussions which lead to the most effective result, and this has established a descending scale of values for discussions-bills, motions, amendments, etc. Thus a bill must not be anticipated by . . . discussion of a motion, amendment, or subject raised an another motion.
There is a precedent which I suggest to hon. members is analogous or close to the situation we have at hand. I refer to a ruling of a Speaker as reported in the Journals of the House of Commons for 1955 at page 120. The Speaker reminded the house of the rule of anticipation and said:
In applying the anticipation rule preference is given to the discussion which leads to the most effective result, and this has established a descending scale of values for discussions-bills, motions, amendments, etc.
In other words, in my view there is a motion on the order paper proposed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Hon. members have argued, and perhaps there is some merit to this argument, that there is

some distinction between the two. However, in my mind it is basically the same subject matter and the same proposal.
What the hon. member for Grey-Bruce is now proposing is that we should decide by way of an amendment what might be decided later when the house enters a discussion of a motion of the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has been suggested thay by refusing this amendment we would preclude any possibility for discussing the proposal advanced by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce. I suppose, with some ingenuity, an amendment could be moved on second reading of the bill which will follow the motion introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that an invitation?


Mr. Speaker:: I have not made that decision. I used cautious words. I said that perhaps with ingenuity this could be done, and members have shown a great deal of ingenuity and imagination in recent months in proposing amendments. It has been almost impossible to rule on these ingenious amendments.
I say by way of parenthesis that there will be other opportunities to discuss, consider and decide the very point raised by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce in his amendment. I realize how important this matter is to that hon. member who has been an advocate of the proposal outlined in his amendment. I know how anxious hon. members are to consider this problem, but unless there is unanimous agreement in the house to go ahead with that discussion I think it is not open to the Chair to accept this amendment. Because of the procedural obstacles which I see to the amendment, I regret very much that the Chair cannot accept it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask for the unanimous consent of the house to proceed with a consideration of this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has heard negative replies. I regret again that I cannot accept the amendment.



INCREASED COST OF LIVING

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since Your Honour was not prepared to accept the motion moved by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler), I understand it is now open to the house to deal with some other matters. A supply motion
November 21, 1966

always presents members with an opportunity of bringing grievances to the attention of the government and referring to matters which are of vital importance to the people of Canada.
I can think of no question which is of greater interest to all Canadians than the steadily rising cost of living and the spiralling of consumer prices. This is something which has been going on at an accelerated rate for the past three years. Rising costs of living affect every person in Canada. This rise in consumer prices has drained the pocketbooks of every Canadian. This has a most adverse effect upon those who live on fixed incomes, old age pensioners, superannuates, veterans pensioners, people who live from rent on small properties and people who are not able, in a competitive market, to demand a larger income to compensate for the higher cost of living.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Various reasons have been for this phenomenon which is commonly called inflation. We in this party do not believe that inflation is the real cause of the present unfortunate situation. Inflation in usually defined in economic terms as being too much money chasing too few goods. Inflation indicates that the economy is no longer able to increase its productivity in relation to the increased money supply. That is just not true in Canada today. In this country we could increase our productivity. The Economic Council of Canada has pointed out that from 1957 to 1965 the wastage in Canada by our failure to use our full potential production cost the Canadian people $21 billion. That is an amount of $1,200 for every man, woman and child. That is $6,000 for a husband, wife and three children, an average family.
This is what we lost by not making full use of our productive capacity. It is the price we paid for having human wastage in terms of unemployment and failure to use our full industrial capacity. The Economic Council of Canada points out that even now we are falling $2.4 billion short of our productive capacity. That is $120 per capita, or an average of $600 per family that we are losing because we are not utilizing to the full the productive capacity of this nation. Therefore, to suggest that we are in a state of inflation because we can no longer increase our productivity to meet the money supply is begging the question entirely.
We in the New Democratic Party contend that the rising cost of living is due to two factors; first, to the inequitable distribution of
Increased Cost of Living the national income and, second, to a misallo-cation of our human, material and financial resources. A great many attempts have been made to find a scapegoat for the rising cost of living. It has become popular for some newspapers and some politicians to lay the entire blame on the fact that wages have increased; that trade unions have put pressure on the employers and have received increases in wages for their members. The argument goes this way; that increased wages push up the cost of living, the increased cost of living means that workers want more wages, and, therefore, we are in a vicious circle.
All the facts that can be adduced prove this contention is not true. I do not say that wages have not risen; but in a modern society wages can rise without increasing prices, if the wages do not rise more rapidly than productivity. Let me give the house a simple illustration. If a man working in a factory produces one article per hour and receives $2 per hour, the labour cost of that article is $2. If by virtue of technological changes he is now able to produce two articles per hour and his wages are raised to $3 per hour, the labour cost of that article is $1.50. It is true that his wages have been raised; but it is equally true that the labour cost, even with the increased wages, has been reduced by 25 per cent. This has been happening throughout the Canadian industry, and the industries of other countries of the western world.
The standard case with which the house is familiar, of course, is the steel industry. In April 1965, the steel companies of Canada increased the price of steel, the argument being that in the previous five years wages in that industry had gone up 264 Per cent, which was true. What was not told to the people of Canada was that in that period of time the labour cost per ton of steel had dropped from $27.52 to $22.16, a decline of $5.36 per ton. What was also not mentioned was that in this period the profits of the steel industry had gone up by 106 per cent.
The Economic Council of Canada points out in its review that the basic labour cost per unit of output in manufacturing in Canada fell by 11.3 per cent between 1960 and 1963. It is difficult for anyone to argue that increased wages pushed up the cost of living, when in that three-year period the labour cost per unit of output in this country dropped on the average by 11.3 per cent.
If one takes the trouble to look at the figures over the past two or three years, one finds, for instance, that in 1965 the percentage
November 21, 1966

Increased Cost of Living increase for wages and salaries was 11.1 per cent over 1964. I would point out that I said "wages and salaries". The figures which have been produced show that salaries have gone up 27 per cent higher than the wage increase. If one takes out the salaries, the increase in 1965 over 1964 for wages alone was only 5.2 per cent; but when we lump them together, wages and salaries in 1965 went up 11.1 per cent over 1964. However, in that year corporation profits went up by 13J per cent. If one goes back a year further, one finds that in
1964	wages and salaries combined went up by 8.7 per cent over 1963, but that corporation profits in 1964 went up by 14.6 per cent over 1963.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Some very useful figures have come to hand from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics setting forth the relative increase as between prices, incomes, wages and profits. I should like to quote from an article in the Vancouver Sun of September 13 this year, written by Mr. Ken Smith from Toronto for the Canadian press:
Canada's recovery from the recession of the late 1950's has followed the classical economic pattern, with corporate profits, wages and salaries and productivity climbing much faster than the cost of living-at least, until recently.
The biggest gains since 1961, when the current boom started, have been recorded by corporate profits but now wages and salaries and living costs appear to be accelerating more rapidly while the increase in rate of profit seems to be slowing.
The article goes on to point out that if we take 1961 as the base year for all these indices at 100, placing productivity, wages and salaries, and profits for the year 1961 each at 100, this is what we find by the time we arrive at December 31, 1965. At the end of 1965 productivity had reached 136.8 and wages and salaries-I combine them-had reached 135.3. I pause there to point out that it will be noticed that wages increased but at the end of
1965	they were still 1.5 per cent below productivity. Therefore, wages could not possibly have pushed up the cost of living since they had not even kept pace with increased productivity. But at the end of 1965 profits had reached the figure of 152.9, or 16 per cent above productivity.
One has only to look at these figures to see what has been causing the increase in the cost of living. Productivity had increased to 136.8, increased wages were still below the productivity, but profits were 16 per cent above productivity. To be perfectly fair, I should give the figures that are also available for the

first three months of this year because whenever we have a period of economic boom, profits start to accelerate, wages are slow and tend to catch up gradually, and the cost of living by that time usually gets completely out of hand. In the first three months of this year-still using 1961 as 100-productivity had reached 145.57, wages had gone up to 145.6, almost tied with productivity, but profits had increased over 1965 and had reached the figure of 157.6, a further increase of some 5 percentage points over last year.
There can be no doubt in my mind that these official figures demonstrate beyond any argument that the main culprit responsible for the spiralling cost of living has been excessive profiteering and unconscionable greed.


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: May I ask
the hon. member a question? I certainly agree with many of the points made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam but I should like to ask him whether the profit figure-I forget what the percentage was, I believe he said it was 15.6-is before or after distribution of dividends?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The figure was after payment of taxes, it was 157.6.
As I was saying, it seems to me these figures demonstrate beyond any argument that increased wages have not so far been responsible for the spiralling cost of living. If wages increase faster than productivity they will be responsible, but so far they have been lagging behind and now are just about on a par with productivity. From 1961 to the present, constantly accelerated corporation profits and dividends have resulted in profits far exceeding productivity, and have been the main culprit causing the cost of living to go to the very high figure which it has reached. The result has been that in the past 12 months the cost of living has gone up some 4.3 per cent and, what is even more serious, the cost of food has gone up nearly 8 per cent.
There have been some attempts to blame the farmers for this increase in the cost of food, but what is significant is that although the prices of many of the food items have risen, the return to the farmers has actually gone down. In the 12 month period when bread went up 2 cents a loaf, the price of wheat dropped 17 cents a bushel. During the past summer when Canada Packers employees were on strike with the resulting glut on the hog market and the price of hogs on the
November 21, 1966
Toronto market dropped by anywhere from $2 to $3 a hundred, the price of bacon in the store went up by 15 cents a pound.
The special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on consumer credit, in its fourth report dated Tuesday, October 4, 1966, records the evidence of Mr. S. B. Williams, assistant deputy minister of the Department of Agriculture. At page 160 he makes a comment which I think is worthy of note. He said:
Over the past 15 years the Dominion Bureau of Statistics index of goods and services bought by farmers has risen nearly 60 per cent. During that period the estimated gain in agricultural productivity was over 60 per cent. In the same period the index of prices received by farmers increased by only about 7 per cent.
Those are startling figures given by a very reputable individual, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, to the Senate and House of Commons committee demonstrating that the farmers, by dint of hard work and technological innovations, have increased their productivity by 60 per cent. However, the cost [DOT]of the products they have to buy has increased by more than 60 per cent, so that their gains in productivity have been taken away from them by increased costs and the index on commodities which the farmer has to sell has increased by only 7 per cent. Mr. Speaker, the whole story of agriculture, of the toil, blood, sweat and tears of the farmers of this country is contained in that simple statement by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In the second report of the consumer credit committee hearings, in the evidence given by Mr. Bryce, Deputy Minister of Finance, there is an interesting table which shows the various shares of the gross national income and how those shares are allocated to the various economic groups in our society. It makes fascinating reading. There are two very good tables on pages 94 and 95, and from them we find that the share of the national income which has gone to the wage and salary earners has improved only a little between 1949 and 1965. In that period of time, the share of our national income which has gone to the wage and salary earners increased by 7.7 per cent. In the same period, 1949 to 1965, the share of our national income which has gone to the farming population-I am speaking of their net income after having met their expenses-rose by only 1.7 per cent.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, in the same period of time the share that went to
Increased Cost of Living those who live off corporation profits increased by 6.6 per cent. The share that went to those who live off rent and interest on investment went up 10.7 per cent. So, if we put these two latter groups together we find that the share of our national income which goes to people who live off investment, whether it be in equity, in bonds, in mortgages or in rents, went up by 17.3 per cent.
This table, which was placed before the committee by the deputy minister of finance, is surely a revealing one. In a period of 16 years the share of the national income of Canada which went to the farmers increased by only 1.7 per cent. The share that went to the workers, whether they be white collar workers, blue collar workers, executives or manual workers, increased only 7.7 per cent. But the share of the national income which has gone to those who live off investment and by clipping coupons increased by 17.3 per cent.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a matter that this parliament has to face. This obsessive greed for more profits, which pushes up the prices to consumers and which in turn stimulates the average person to demand higher wages, is responsible for a vicious circle which is bringing this country to a very serious state of affairs, particularly for those who five off fixed incomes. The place where this trend must be stopped is where it started, namely with the group who live off investment, who depend upon corporation profits and who have taken an exorbitantly large share of the increased national productivity. This group should be required to bring their demands within reasonable limits. These people have treated society as though it were an economic jungle. They have said that he who has the biggest hand and the greediest heart will take the biggest share, and this is having disastrous results.
I noticed an address delivered by Mr. Walter Reuther, the president of the United Automobile Workers union in the United States, and I was impressed by what he had to say about the increased price of cars for 1967. Mr. Reuther says:
The auto industry will give the U.S. economy a painful, perilous and entirely unjustifiable push up the threatening spiral of inflation if the price increases which have now been announced by all the big three are put into effect.
The increases come at a time when inflation threatens the integrity of every family's income and doubly works a hardship on people living in retirement and others on fixed income.
It imperils the continued economic expansion on which our national prosperity depends, including the prosperity of the auto industry.



November 21, 1966
Increased Cost of Living
These unconscionable price Increases by the country's most profitable industry are economically irresponsible and morally indefensible. They seriously threaten the nation's welfare and the stability of our economy.
I ask the members of the house to pay particular attention to this part of Mr. Reuther's statement:
Instead of a price increase, the auto industry could well afford a substantial price cut on its 1967 models. In spite of a slight decline since 1965, auto industry after-tax profits in the first half of 1966 represented a phenomenal annual rate of return on stockholders investment of 20.9 per cent-the highest of any U.S. manufacturing industry, and one-and-a-half times as much as the average for all manufacturers.
I call attention particularly to this statement:
If the industry had been satisfied with the average manufacturing rate of return, it could have cut the price of every car produced by $251 at wholesale, equivalent to a reduction of about $350 on the consumer price.
That statement, Mr. Speaker, is made by a man who is intimately connected with the auto industry. He is a man whose union offered last year to forgo a request for an increase in wages if the company would undertake to reduce the price of every car by $100. According to Mr. Reuther, in the first half of this year the big three auto companies had an after-tax profit of almost 21 per cent on their shareholders' investment. Had they been willing to take the average profit received by manufacturers generally in the United States and Canada, they could have pared $251 off every car at wholesale, which would have entailed a reduction of $350 on every car sold to the consuming public. This points up, Mr. Speaker, the necessity for the government of this country to take the necessary steps to work out a proper relationship between wages, salaries, consumer prices and profits.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
No one argues that we can always keep this relationship in fixed terms. Undoubtedly, if costs go up the manufacturer must increase his prices. In an economy with annually increasing productivity we need imperative guidelines to assure the people of Canada that our increased wealth will be distributed with some degree of equity between the various economic segments of our society.
I was interested, as I am sure all hon. members were, in a speech made by Mr. Louis Rasminsky, the governor of the Bank of Canada, in Rome about a week or ten days ago. Mr. Rasminsky said what we, in this

party, have been trying to impress on the Minister of Finance for the past two years. Mr. Rasminsky pointed out that fiscal and monetary controls are no longer adequate to maintain stability in our economy and to provide a fair distribution of national income. He pointed out that the time has come for supplementary programs and policies, and that there must be guidelines, imperative guidelines, to establish a fair and proper relationship between wages, prices and profits.
The people of Canada will not stand by forever and see that part of our population living from investments, equity stocks, bonds, mortgages and things like that, getting an ever bigger slice of the national pie while the farmer gets a constantly smaller share and while the salaried and wage worker gets a slightly smaller share also. There has to be better distribution of the national income in Canada, on humanitarian and economic grounds. In Canada, leaving out non-farm families, 18 per cent of our families have incomes of less than $2,000; 29 per cent of non-farm families have incomes of less than $3,000. This indicates that we have a great reservoir of people living in poverty, unable to buy the products of industry, the produce of the farmers or of the fishermen. When we realize that from 1961 to the present time, the top 20 per cent of our people received 42 J per cent of the national income and the bottom 20 per cent of our people received only 4-1 per cent, we begin to realize how inequitable is this distribution of income. Our party believes that the government of the day has been grossly negligent in ignoring this maldistribution of income and that they have been derelict in their duty in not establishing imperative guidelines to bring about some fairly equitable relationship between the share of the national income going to the various groups which help to produce this nation's wealth.
Because we feel that something must be done, because we feel that the government has shown no indication that it is interested or intends to act, and to act promptly to deal with the problems I have mentioned, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis):
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and that the following words be substituted therefor:
"since the income of wage and salary earners has remained approximately the same and farm income has fallen as a proportion of the total national income over a period of years, this House regrets the failure of the government to introduce policies designed to produce an equitable distribution of rising productivity and national income
November 21, 1966	COMMONS
among all groups in Canada, particularly in view of the rising cost of living."
We move this amendment, Mr. Speaker, because we believe the time is long overdue when this government should be shocked into realizing that it has been derelict in its duty. The house should express its opinion that the government ought to lay down a program ensuring a fair and proper distribution of the national income, having particular regard to the farmers, wage earners and those on fixed incomes who, as can be distinctly seen, have been ignored in our dividing of the national pie. We believe that only a re-examination of the distribution of national income, having regard to the needs of all sections of our population, will satisfy the people of the country, stop runaway inflation, and establish a measure of economic stability in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps some hon. members would wish to express an opinion about the validity of the amendment just moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.
Hon, G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I beg to reserve the right to look at the amendment and to retain the right to raise a point of order a little later, after I have had a chance to read the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could you not put the motion, Mr. Speaker, with that reservation, so that the debate could proceed.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


David Lewis: Question.


James Edgar Walker: Does the hon. member have a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; With regard to the motion now before the house, I may say that I have read the motion of March 21, 1966.
I have compared both motions and, unless there is any serious objection from some quarter of the house, I am prepared to accept the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I take it you desire that the point of order be raised now. I would have liked to have had an opportunity to look at the amendment. I draw your attention, however, to the fact that the March 21 amendment concludes with a reference to all low income groups. Perhaps I should read the
Increased Cost of Living whole amendment which was offered on that date. The amendment reads as follows:
That all the words after "that" to the end of the motion be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
In view of the fact that the cost of living index for the month of February, 1966, reached an alltime high, namely 142.1 points, this house regrets that the government has failed to act effectively to hold down the cost of living and to halt inflation, which is having a serious effect on the economy generally and particularly on all people in receipt of social security payments, on war pensioners, old age pensioners, retired civil servants, those on fixed incomes, and all low income groups.
The amendment offered today, admittedly, is in a different form, but it does conclude with a reference to the rising cost of living. For the sake of clarity, perhaps I should read it:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and that the following words be substituted therefor:
Since the income of wage and salary earners has remained approximately the same and farm income has fallen as a proportion of the total national income over a period of years, this house regrets the failure of the government to introduce policies designed to produce an equitable distribution of rising productivity and national income among all groups in Canada, particularly in view of the rising cost of living.
I admit quite frankly that it is not readily apparent that the two are identical or that the second one entrenches the earlier one. As I indicated, I would have liked to have had an opportunity to look at it more thoroughly. I do point out, however, that both motions deal with the rising cost of living, although that is tagged on at the end of the present motion. Just why it is added, I do not know, because the main part of the motion does not seem to relate directly to the rising cost of living and possibly it was unnecessary. In addition, both seem to have been made by the sponsor, although it was not necessary for him to do so, in order to deal directly with the rising cost of living. The one deals with all low income groups and the other, after asserting as a fact that the farmers are a low income group, deals with the farm income group only. This is the only point I wish to raise by way of objection. It is a matter of draftsmanship of the motion. I do admit that the present motion could have been drafted in a form which would not trench upon the motion of March 21.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Minister of Public Works in fact has made the case for the amendment by his submission that he finds it difficult to argue against it. Even so, let us look at the operative words in
November 21, 1966

Increased Cost of Living the two amendments. The minister has spent considerable time quoting words which are on the periphery, but the words of the two amendments are as follows-I shall give one first and then the other. In the case of the amendment of March 21, 1966, found at page 2947 of Hansard, the operative words are:
-the government has failed to act effectively to hold down the cost of living and to halt inflation-
With regard to the amendment now proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, the operative words are:

this house regrets the failure of the government to introduce policies designed to produce an equitable distribution of rising productivity and national income-
I submit, Mr. Speaker, both to you and to the Minister of Public Works, that these are quite different concepts. In the case of the March amendment, we were concerned about the government's failure to hold down the cost of living. The present amendment regrets the government's failure to produce an equitable distribution of rising productivity. I think your initial judgment, Mr. Speaker, that there was a very real difference between the March 21 amendment and this one is correct. I suspect that the Minister of Public Works agrees with me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; perhaps in comparing the motion of March 21 and the motion of today one might note that the motion of March 21 actually dealt with the rising cost of living. I suggest to the house that the last line of this particular amendment rather relegates the cost of living to the position of something needless to the motion. That is one reason I think the two motions are a little different. Again, the motion presented to the house today deals with the distribution of rising productivity and national income. I believe these two motions are sufficiently different that the motion of today is not in serious conflict with the one moved on March 21. I, therefore, declare the motion to be in order.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party has moved an extremely important amendment and one which I hope the house will spend some time debating rather than just passing it as the New Democratic Party has now requested.


e (5:20 p.m.)
In effect, the amendment is calling for an incomes policy for Canada, and it would be deplorable if such a policy were adopted or rejected without proper discussion in the house. I hoped I might be able to speak to the amendment with a great deal more preparation than I have been allowed in these circumstances.
The amendment reads:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and that the following words be substituted therefor:
"since the income of wage and salary earners has remained approximately the same and farm income has fallen as a proportion of the total national income over a period of years, this house regrets the failure of the government to introduce policies designed to produce an equitable distribution of rising productivity and national income among all groups in Canada, particularly in view of the rising cost of living."
I did not hear all the speech of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) because I was in my office. But I did hear the last part of his remarks in which he suggested that the rising costs which we have experienced of late have been due primarily to the increasing rate of profits. I heard him discuss car prices and allege that those high prices were due solely to the rate of profit being obtained by the car manufacturers.
I, for one, am getting a little fed up with the sort of discussion we have heard in Canada over the last six or eight months, with one group saying that rising costs and inflationary pressures are all due to rising profits and greedy capitalists, and another group saying that rising costs and increased prices are all due to increased wage demands. I do not think the answer is quite as simple as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam alleges it to be. I recall the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) saying in an earlier debate on this subject, "A plague on both your houses," and I am inclined to agree with him.
What we should be concerned with is not blaming one group or another group, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and his party try to do, but with seeking answers to what has caused and contributed to the rise in the consumer price index and to increasing costs over the last 12 months, and more particularly over the last few months.
As the house knows, in his financial statement on September 8 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) announced that the government was very concerned about the increases in the consumer price index that we were then witnessing, and as a matter of fact still are.
November 21, 1966

The minister went on to say that the house would be asked to instruct a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to inquire into inflationary pressures and increases in the cost of living.
On September 9 the house approved a motion as follows:
That the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons appointed by this house on March 15, 1966, to inquire into and report upon the problems of consumer credit, be instructed to also inquire into and report upon the trends in the cost of living in Canada and factors which may have contributed to changes in the cost of living in Canada in recent months-
I have the honour to be co-chairman of that committee, and I suggest with respect to the house that it has been working rather diligently, sometimes holding five meetings a week and hearing people we feel could make a contribution toward our discussion of causes of increases in the cost of living.
The party led by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is represented on that committee, and in all frankness I say that I, as co-chairman, of it am very much indebted for the contributions that that party's members have been making. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), who lately replaced the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman), who is presently out of the country, on that committee, is making a useful contribution to its deliberations. The very fact that she is making that sort of useful contribution indicates the value that the N.D.P. places on the work of the committee. Yet, while the committee is meeting, and hearing witnesses, and has promised a report on the whole question before Christmas, the N.D.P. suggest that something else should be done.
The fact that N.D.P. members are participating so ably and energetically in the work of the committee indicates a vote of confidence by them in its work, yet the leader of that party comes into this house and, in effect, moves a motion of non-confidence in the committee's work. The amendment he has moved calls for an examination of a redistribution of income. It says in part that "the income of wage and salary earners has remained approximately the same and farm income has fallen as a proportion of the total national income over a period of years..."
The first witness to be heard by the joint committee on consumer credit was Mr. Bob Bryce, the deputy minister of finance, who
Increased, Cost oj Living gave a long and thorough statement on economic conditions in Canada, and in effect educated the members of the committee to the economic facts of life. I think that the figures which have come to the attention of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam were contained in a table filed by the deputy minister of finance, showing the percentage compositions of gross national product.
Item 1 in that table shows wages, salaries and supplementary labour income for the years 1949 through to the first half of 1966, as a percentage of the gross national product. In 1949 the percentage was 49 per cent, and it remained almost the same throughout those years. In 1950 it went down to 47.9 per cent.
For the sake of the record, Mr. Speaker, I may as well give a list of the percentages for various years to show how they fluctuated. They run as follows: 48.7 per cent; 50.3 per cent; 50.7 per cent; 49.9 per cent; 49.6 per cent; 49.4 per cent; 50.1 per cent; 49.9 per cent; and the figure for the first half of 1966 was 50.6 per cent. All of these figures would indicate, as Mr. Bryce explained, that the component of the gross national product going to wages and wage earners has remained, for all practical purposes, 50 per cent of the G.N.P. from 1949 through to 1966.
I take it from the remarks made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that he thinks profits went up to great levels during the same period, and that they caused the increase in the cost of living.
Item 3 in the same table indicated corporation profits before taxes amounted to 11.5 per cent of the G.N.P. in 1949. In 1950 this figure rose to 14 per cent. In fact, there has been a good deal of fluctuation in the figure for the various years, but for the last five years the figure was: 9.1 per cent in 1961; 9.4 per cent in 1962; 9.6 per cent in 1963; 10.2 per cent in 1964; 10 per cent in 1965; and 9.4 per cent in the first half of 1966. o (5:30 p.m.)
This table would indicate that, in so far as the composition of the gross national product is concerned, in 1949 49 per cent of it went to wages, salaries and supplementary labour income and that in the first half of 1966 50.6 per cent went to wages, salaries and supplementary labour income representing an increase of 1.6 per cent.
Over the same period corporation profits before taxes amounted in 1949 to 11.5 per cent of the gross national product and in the first half of 1966 they amounted to 9.4 per cent, representing a decrease of almost 2 per cent.

November 21, 1966
Increased Cost of Living For this reason, I think probably this table indicates that the increase in the consumer price index over that period has not been due to the fact that the composition of the gross national product in relation to profits has been going up.
I am not one to say, and I have no intention of doing so, that in some sectors of our economy profits have not been excessive. We heard some evidence in the committee the other day indicating what I thought were excessive profits in the food business. Ii am sure hon. members noted this evidence recorded in the press. These profits were made in respect of the breakfast food industry.
In 1959 a royal commission found that the profits or returns on investment income and the amount allowed for promotional or advertising expenses were inordinately high. A number of members of the committee including myself asked the representative of the breakfast food company whether the situation had in fact changed between 1959 and 1966. The answer to those questions was that the high level of profits in the breakfast food industry still continued. If one considered them inordinately high in 1959, he must consider that they are still inordinately high in 1966. This is one concrete example of what I think most hon. members would regard as inordinately high rates of profit in one selected industry connected with the food business.
The motion before us calls for an examination of the redistribution of income, and criticizes the government for its failure to do anything about the situation or, as has been suggested, its total lack of concern. The hon. leader of the N.D.P. indulged in his usual flowery language to accuse the government of gross negligence or dereliction of duty. We are all quite used to that sort of statement from the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. Because he is in the habit of using such colourful language, not too many people pay attention to what he says.
Some of the considerations that came before the special committee on food prices have been referred to briefly. I think the very appointment of that committee has had some effect on price levels. The fact that members of the N.D.P. have been working as hard as they have in making valuable contributions is a vote of confidence in respect of the work and purposes of that committee by the N.D.P.
I am a little startled that a member of that party would now move an amendment which amounts to a vote of non-confidence.
There was tabled in the house today the third annual review of the economic council

of Canada entitled "Prices, Productivity and Employment". Members of the N.D.P. constantly make speeches in this house and around the country calling for better planning in our economy. Before the economic council of Canada was established, members of that party suggested that we needed an economic council which would study the economic forces operating in Canada and make public recommendations in order that the government and the people of Canada could determine the economic policies the government should adopt.
This council was established under the chairmanship of Dr. Deutsch. The report filed today was its third review, and at the special request of the government part of that report dealt with prices and productivity. I doubt that any member of the house has had a chance to read this report thoroughly since it was only tabled today, but the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, who is constantly calling for more planning in our economy, suggested that we needed a high-class group of economic advisers who would tell us what we should do. That hon. gentleman then got up in this house and advocated a course of action diametrically opposite to that recommended in this report.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the hon. member indicate where in the economic council report there is something diametrically opposite to what I suggested?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I will come to that in a moment. As I listened to the hon. member I heard him urge guidelines for Canada. Perhaps I heard him incorrectly, but I assumed that was what he was urging. I have had a very hurried glance at the recommendations set out in this report by the economic council. They have recommended against guidelines or income policies. I was a little surprised by that recommendation from the council because my thinking has been that some form of guidelines or income policies should be established for Canada.
We are all aware of the United States guidelines policy enunciated by President Johnson or the council of economic advisers to the president. This guidelines policy was adopted in an attempt to restrain profits, prices and wages within certain limits. There are individuals in Canada who have said that the guidelines policy in the United States has not been good and has not worked successfully.
Professor Neufeld from Toronto made a very useful contribution to the committee in
November 21, 1966

respect of prices. He urged very strongly the establishment of a guidelines policy in Canada. He suggested that while one could point to specific instances in the United States where the guidelines policy has been violated and not followed, he was of the firm conviction-I have not had time to find his exact words-that the establishment and enunciation of a guidelines policy in Canada on wages, prices and profits would be very useful. He urged that some prestige organization should be established to study and enunciate an annual set of guidelines in Canada.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I asked whether he thought the Economic Council of Canada was the sort of body that should enunciate such a guide-lines policy, and whether in fact it had the personnel, staff and expertise to do this. Professor Neufeld felt that it was. It was my own personal view, and in the light of the economic council's report I should like to give further consideration to it, that it would be helpful to Canada if we could have enunciated annually by the economic council a guidelines policy on wages, profits and prices.
I take it that my view is also the view of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, namely, that this would be very desirable and useful for Canada. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has urged that we need a planned economy and should have people making recommendations, but when one is made that we not have a guidelines policy he rises in the house only three hours later and proposes a motion which goes contrary to the recommendation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is this an advisory or a mandatory council?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I should like to quote some parts of the third annual review of the Economic Council of Canada. I read first from the section found at page 159 entitled "Incomes Policy in a Canadian Setting: An Appraisal of Possibilities":
Foreign experience generally suggests that incomes policy may in certain circumstances have some beneficial effect, if only a temporary one, on the reconciliation of price and employment goals. However, its institution on a reasonably comprehensive basis-and considerations of equity and public acceptability soon argue for a fair degree of comprehensiveness-involves a number of serious problems.
They go on to say that the Canadian context is not one amenable to a guidelines policy:
It will be seen that by these criteria Canada is very far indeed from being a favourable environment for incomes policy. Not only is its economy
Increased Cost of Living marked by strong regional differences; there are also divisions of jurisdiction between the federal government and the provinces in key legislative areas relating to incomes policy-e.g., in the field of labour relations:
"Industrial-relations public policy in Canada is controlled by both the dominion and provincial governments. Each jurisdiction has, however, its own sphere of operations derived from the British North America Act and court interpretations of that basic constitutional document. These interpretations have assigned the major role in labour relations to the provinces, leaving to the dominion government a limited, although troublesome, segment."
None of us has had the opportunity to study the report of the economic council as we would have wished before speaking on an incomes policy this afternoon. As I read the press summaries of the review and a few pertinent chapters from it, it is quite clear that the economic council feels an incomes policy or a guidelines policy for Canada would not be appropriate for a number of reasons. This is partly because we do not have in one central government the power to translate an incomes or a guidelines policy into effective policy, in that many of the areas that a guidelines policy would cover are within provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, the federal government could enunciate any policy that it wanted, but that policy could very quickly and easily be countered by individual provincial governments operating within their fields of jurisdiction. Therefore, an incomes policy or a guidelines policy would not have any effect.
The other very troublesome matter that must be considered when dealing with an incomes policy for Canada-this is brought to light in the annual review of the economic council-concerns the regional economic differences that exist in this country. When we have an inflationary situation in operation, when we see the business cycle heating up, we see this happening in Montreal and Toronto and then spreading generally west. But at the same time, the Atlantic provinces are not feeling the effects of inflation, are not seeing the business cycle heating up. Therefore, we find in one part of the country inflationary pressures, demand pressures and rising costs, and in other parts of the country there are not these same influences at all.
The economic council wonders how you can establish an incomes policy for Canada when you have these very different economic situations existing at the same time in different regions. My quick reading of parts of the review of the economic council indicates that they would favour much more being done than is the case at the present time in the area of regional economic or development policies. I refer to policies which would be used to

November 21, 1966
Increased Cost of Living create more favourable economic conditions in those regions which are suffering, and at the same time could be used to combat on a regional basis inflationary influences that exist in those regions of Canada which are experiencing a business cycle that has heated up too much.
The amendment also provides for a redistribution of wealth. The hon. member, when speaking for his party, said the government is unconcerned about this problem and has done nothing to solve it. I wonder where the hon. member has been for the last three years, because I think this parliament has done a good deal in the way of enacting measures which are designed for no other purpose than the redistribution of wealth and the spreading out of our productive capacity.
I do not know where the hon. member was when we passed the Canada Pension Plan, which surely was designed to contribute to the redistribution of wealth, or when we increased family allowances and made them payable to young people who stayed in school between 17 and 18 years of age. Not many months ago we passed an act to provide allowances to students and unemployed people who went to vocational school and undertook further training or retraining. The federal government raised the money for this program mainly by increasing the taxes of those who could afford to pay. In this way there was a redistribution of income to those who were unemployed, and they are going to vocational school with this allowance. Surely, all the amendments to the housing act allowing for a greater contribution by the federal government to low rental housing, urban redevelopment and slum clearance, are designed to redistribute wealth. Therefore, I do not think this government or parliament have been unconscious of the problems that exist in Canada which the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam raised.
Some time ago the government enunciated a policy which has been commonly known as the war on poverty and established in the Privy Council office the secretariat for this program. This is a program dealing with labour mobility, housing, training and assistance-all designed to alleviate poverty in Canada. Surely this program was designed for no other purpose than the equitable redistribution of wealth in Canada and to give to those people living at the bottom of the income scale an opportunity to improve their economic life.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
For the hon. member to say that we have been totally unconscious of the situation is I 
think totally incorrect. It is an irresponsible statement coming, as it does, from the leader of the New Democratic Party.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker; I do not think the hon. member will find in the record that I said at any time the government was unconscious of this problem. I think they are only too conscious of it, but I said they were negligent and derelict in their duty in dealing with it. I think they were fully conscious of it. I would be prepared to excuse them were they not conscious, but the fact they were conscious is where the fault lies.


Stanley Ronald Basford: We, on this side of the house, are very conscious of our duties and have always fulfilled them when we saw them. Therefore, to suggest that we are derelict in our duty, as the hon. member has done, can only mean to me that we have been unconscious of it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not accept the premise of the hon. member's remark.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In June, we passed in this house the Canada Assistance Plan which was described by hon. members opposite as the most comprehensive measure that has ever been passed in Canada. It was designed for the sole purpose of using federally raised taxes to support and assist people at the bottom of our economic scale.
The last part of the amendment reads: "Particularly in view of the rising cost of living." I should like to put this phrase into perspective for the record, but not as a justification of the fact we should all be happy with the increase in the cost of living which we have experienced. Every member in this house is concerned about the increase in the cost of living in Canada, but I think it should be put into perspective. I do so particularly in view of the fact that we had a witness before the consumer credit committee, Professor Kragh from Sweden. He is head of the National Institute of Economic Research in Sweden which is designed to serve the same function as the Economic Council of Canada. He spoke to us about the increasing consumer price index or cost of living in Sweden, and we spent a very useful afternoon with this foreign observer.
I would like to put on the record some statistics published by the International Monetary Fund, international financial statistics for August of this year, which show the change in the cost of living in 27 countries,
November 21, 1966

most of which are western industrialized nations. In the table showing the change between May 1958 and May 1966, the country with the least increase in the cost of living among these 27 countries was the United States, with a 12 per cent increase. The next one on the list was Canada with 15 per cent. I will not read the whole list but next to Canada was South Africa with 17 per cent; Australia with 18 per cent; Greece with 19 per cent; New Zealand with 21 per cent; Belgium and Luxembourg with 21 per cent; Germany with 22 per cent; and it goes right down to countries which have experienced a far worse situation than we have in Canada. For example Denmark shows an increase of 41 per cent in that period; Japan, 50 per cent; India, 50 per cent; Israel, 58 per cent; Spain 62 per cent; Turkey, 77 per cent; and Yugoslavia with an amazing 163 per cent. Sweden, the country from which Professor Kragh comes, was included in a group of Scandinavian countries showing Norway with a 28 per cent increase; Italy with 32 per cent; Sweden with 33 per cent; France with 36 per cent; and Finland with 39 per cent.
If we look at the table showing the change in the last 12 months we will see countries like the United States and Canada which respectively have shown an increase of 3 and 4 per cent in the cost of living while countries such as Greece have shown an increase of 5 per cent; Belgium an increase of 5 per cent; Pakistan of 9 per cent-although I do not think Pakistan is comparable to Canada- Denmark, 6 per cent; Japan, 5 per cent; India, 9 per cent; Israel, 8 per cent; Spain, 7 per cent. In either case, whether we consider the percentage change between May 1958 and May 1966 or the percentage change in the last 12 months, Canada has done a good deal better than most of the western industrialized nations of the world.


Mr. Scoff (Danforih):: Will the hon. member permit a question? Much as I deplore this careful selection of statistics from a committee's evidence, does the hon. member not think he ought to be fair and point out to the house that the professor indicated to us very clearly that the reason the Scandinavian countries could bear these large increases in the cost of living is that they did not have balance of payments problems and any increase approaching the one we have in Canada would have a disastrous effect?
I wish to protest against this careful selection of material from a committee which has not even reported to the house.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Stanley Ronald Basford: Of course the hon. member asked his question before I was allowed to finish what I had to say. Certainly, the professor made a great many qualifications, but if the hon. member thinks I am not quoting the professor correctly let me remind the hon. member that he was present at a meeting when the professor remarked that Canada and the United States, in the period which I mentioned, experienced a remarkably stable increase in prices. He also said, both in committee and in a private discussion which I had with him, that he was very envious of the experience in North America. He was speaking as an observer from Sweden, and he said that he was envious of our record in Canada, but that we must be aware there are many people in our country who are suffering real hardship as a result of the increases we have experienced in the last few months of this year. Of course, it is almost trite to say that those are mostly people on low and fixed incomes.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: It is my
duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), Fisheries-British Columbia-request for amendment of wharfage regulations; the hon. member for Okana-gan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston), Drugs-LSD -advertisements respecting importation.
The hon. member for Rosthern.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) would not prefer to make his speech at eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: I wonder whether that remark is to be interpreted as a request by the hon. member opposite that the house suspend its sitting from now until eight o'clock? If it is, we, on this side of the house, are quite agreeable to this proposition.
Mr. Speaker, before you suspend the sitting I should like to ask that you call Item No. 98
November 21, 1966

Administration of Justice on today's order paper. It is the motion referring the report of the Hon. Mr. Justice Rand concerning Mr. Justice Landreville to a joint committee. I would ask that that motion be called. I understand there is unanimous consent to dispose of it now without debate.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the house unanimously agree to accept the request made by the Minister of Public Works?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice) moved:: That a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to enquire into and report on the expediency of presenting an address to His Excellency praying for the removal of Mr. Justice Leo Landreville from the Supreme Court of Ontario, in view of the facts, considerations and conclusions contained in the report of Honourable Ivan C. Rand concerning the said Mr. Justice Leo Landre-ville, dated the 11th day of August, 1966 and tabled in the House of Commons on the 29th day of August, 1966;
That 12 members of the House of Commons, to be designated later, be members of the joint committee on the part of this house;
That the committee have power to appoint, from among its members, such sub-committees as may be deemed advisable or necessary; to call for persons, papers and records and to engage counsel; to sit while the house is sitting and to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee for its use and for the use of Parliament; and that Standing Order 66 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose and to select, If the Senate deems advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it
agreed by hon. members that this sitting stands suspended until eight o'clock this evening?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Consequently, I do now leave the chair.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Douglas.

Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate on supply for the final quarter of the government's spending for the current year I cannot help but think of the economic report brought forward today and some of the conclusions reached in that report. Unlike the hon. member opposite me, I cannot share the rosy view he takes. I do not see the bloom that he tried to show. The report says:
Unemployment has risen slightly. Productivity growth has slowed, Demand for goods and services was sharply checked in April, May and June this year. Prices and costs have increased rapidly in several categories.
There is concern about maintaining strength in the balance of payments.
Those conclusions reflect the uneasiness in the minds of those charged with the responsibility of studying the economic conditions of this country.
When we look at the statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) today, in which he tried to ignore the rising costs which have contributed so much to the diminishing value of the dollar in the hands of the consumer, we cannot help but wonder whether he was serious in what he said. It is all well and good for him-


Stanley Ronald Basford: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has completely misinterpreted my remarks, which were not at all as the hon. member has represented them. If I were not concerned about rising costs, would I be spending most of my time as co-chairman of the committee concerned with that sole question?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will not stand seriously on his question of privilege.


Edward Nasserden: That is just another indication of the type of double-talk we have had on inflation in this country during the last several months. It will be recalled that when this matter was first raised by the opposition several months ago hon. members opposite said inflation was no threat in this country. They labelled opposition actions as obstructionist, but the warnings given at that time have proven factual and timely. Failure to heed them has shown the negligence and arrogance
November 21, 1966

of hon. gentlemen opposite who have forgotten some of the problems affecting Canadians in their daily lives.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) referred to the actions of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) and his tour through shopping centres. We are waiting for the minister's almanac and shopping guide. But nobody in this house need tell the women of this country that food prices have risen drastically. It will not be good enough to have a committee of the house bring in a report blaming all these increased costs on the packaging and processing of commodities with the hope that this country's consumers will accept that explanation as a solution to their problems.
I was interested in the amendment of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam which reads in part as follows:
-this House regrets the failure of the government to introduce policies designed to produce an equitable distribution of rising productivity and national income among all groups in Canada, particularly in view of the rising cost of living.
The rising cost of living has concerned the opposition over the years, particularly during the last couple of years. With respect to the wording of the hon. member's motion the opposition also contends that this government by its actions has tended to create false opportunities for prosperity in certain parts of the country to the detriment of other parts, the areas detrimentally affected being the mari-times and the province of Quebec. In the agricultural sector of our economy the mari-times and Quebec have suffered as a result of actions taken or not taken by the government. I need not bring to your attention, sir, that the rising cost of living, the highest interest rates in Canadian history, and the lack of action to provide an over-all program for prosperity for Canadians in every part of Canada have worked a hardship on people with fixed incomes, on old age pensioners, on those with farm incomes and on certain other categories of people in various parts of the country, and I think particularly of the Gaspe peninsula and maritime provinces.
Without going into details, I want to deal tonight with the situation affecting certain producers in western Canada. Before doing so I wish to draw attention to a matter affecting the welfare of all Canadians and having to do with the government's defence expenditures. You will recall, sir, that toward the end of 1963 the Minister of National Defence made certain proposals before the house and he earned this headline in The Western Producer
Increased Cost of Living of December 12, 1963: "Report From Ottawa. Defence Spending Slashed". The article went on to say:
Here are some of the major cut-backs announced last week: Cancellation of the Canadian-built Bobcat armored troop carrier, in which some $8,000,000 has already been invested.
* (8:10 p.m.)
There are a number of other items regarding cutbacks in men and materials for the armed services. I should like to ask the house to consider for a moment the decision taken with regard to the Bobcat at that time. I should like the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) to tell us how effective the weapon purchased in its stead has been in so far as the Canadian defence program is concerned. I wish to read from an article in The Western Producer of December 12, 1963. If I may I will read just a few lines:
Possibly the biggest blow to Canada's pride in last week's announcement was the cancellation of the Bobcat program. It's the final chapter in a long, sad story.
Development work on the armored troop carrier was started back in 1954. And at the time, no other nation had anything like it on the drawing boards.
Yet we went ahead and purchased a vehicle from the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member for a moment, if he will allow me. I must remind him that we now are considering a specific grievance in respect of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam which deals with the distribution of rising productivity and national income. I do not see the relationship between this and the purchase of the Bobcat to which the hon. member has referred. Perhaps there is a link. If so, he should indicate it to the Chair and to his colleagues in the house.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, anything
which takes 27 per cent of Canadian tax dollars affects the cost of living in this country. I do not think anyone has to make an apology for drawing attention to the ineffectiveness of the government's policy in respect of defence and purchases in that regard. I have no desire, however, to labour that point at this time, because there are other fish to fry.
I have here some indication of what has happened during the year 1966. Consider this headline in The Western Producer of March 3, 1966: "Wheat payment drops to a disappointing level." Everyone is western Canada knows something about that situation. I find that the article points out that the Minister of

November 21, 1986
Increased Cost of Living Agriculture said that he would like to see the Canadian Wheat Board made part of the Department of Agriculture instead of part of the Department of Trade and Commerce. We are not going to quarrel with him in that regard. He also said:
*-the best we can do for the farmer is to give assurances of a continuity of large volumes in sales -we also want to get as good prices as possible.
Try to relate those words to the headline: "Wheat payment drops to a disappointing level." Then take a look at what the government has failed to do in respect of agriculture generally, not only in respect of those engaged in wheat production in western Canada. One might take a look at those who produce cream. One can then realize something of the mismanagement of the resources of this nation in the agricultural sphere by those sitting opposite during the last two and a half or three years.
You might ask me how these things tie in with the motion we now have before us. I should like to turn now to the report of the Economic Council of Canada released today. At page 168 under the heading "Supply And Other Complementary Policies" it states:
Fiscal and monetary policies are by and large instruments for influencing aggregate demand. The need for additional, complementary policies is in part a need for policies that will work on the side of supply. Important as demand is, it can be said that there has up to now been a relative neglect of policies to increase supply, both in general and in areas of particular pressure.
What I am trying to say is that when the government opposite set up the Economic Council and destroyed the productivity council which had been brought into being by the preceding administration they removed the emphasis on productivity which is the very basis for improving the social state of our nation and the very basis upon which we can give the people of this nation more for the dollars they earn and spend as consumers. This is one of the quarrels that we in the opposition have with hon. gentlemen opposite. Farther on in the report we find these words:
There is some evidence of a growing appreciation of the need for better productivity performance if Canadians are to reach their economic and social goals. A number of new or expanded policies and programs which can lead to productivity improvement have been initiated in both the public and private sectors of the economy: increasing investment in human resources to improve knowledge and skills and the higher priority being given effective manpower policies are outstanding examples.
That has reference to the policy introduced by those who sit in opposition today when they were the government and initiated the greatest vocational training program in the
tMr. Nasserden.]
entire history not only of this country but of the world as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Nasserden: Hon. members opposite do not applaud that because they have not done anything about it in the years since. That is one of the reasons that in the three years in which they have been the government of this country little or nothing has been done in that regard except the creation of the Department of Manpower which so far has failed to come to grips with this important problem.
I come now to the summary of conclusions in the report of the Economic Council of Canada. The second conclusion is:
A first and indispensable part of an effective program to meet the problem is a well co-ordinated and otherwise appropriate use of the broader instruments of economic policy, including fiscal and monetary policy, exchange rate policy, and commercial policy.
Then the third is:
To achieve a more satisfactory reconciliation of economic goals, the main policy ''levers" must be complemented by policies whose primary focus is the supply rather than the demand side of the economy.
That is one more example of the short comings of the administration opposite. They have failed to provide the incentive necessary to keep the economy rolling in all parts of the country. That is one of the reasons that the maritimes, parts of the province of Quebec and other segregated areas of the country today enjoy a measure of prosperity much less than that enjoyed by many people in other parts of the nation. I say that agriculture generally across the country has been the neglected partner in our economy under those who sit in the government opposite at the present time.
There is also the problem of periodic strains, excess demand, and strong price and cost pressures in the construction sector. The Economic Council say that this calls for special treatment. I have a report here which was placed on the record some time ago in respect of the government's war on poverty. These are some of the things that were said at that time, as reported in The Western Producer of Thursday, February 24, 1966:
Enrolment in vocational and technical training schools has been "depressingly low".
This is in 1966, three years after the gov

ernment opposite came into office, three years after they had an opportunity to initiate a policy which would have provided for a widespread effort to assist those in Canadian industry who were suffering.
November 21. 1966	COMMONS DEBATES
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
When interest rates have been rising it is interesting to hear one of the government's favourites say to the Canadian people:
Millions of dollars set aside for public housing are lying dormant, evidently because of local ignorance or lack of initiative.
Whose fault is that, sir, if it is not the fault of hon. gentlemen opposite who have failed to give the Canadian people the full story in regard to the opportunities available to them under government programs during the last year and a half? Instead we have seen headlines like this one in the Globe and Mail of Wednesday, July 6, 1966: "Sharp Wants More Competition," "Sharp Plans To Remove Bank Interest Ceiling." You know the reception that got among the business community of Canada.
The Globe and Mail of Friday, July 8, carried a report headed "Bank Debate Foolish." It read in part as follows:
Mr. Chretien's thesis-
He is parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance.
-was that there is little or no competition between the various chartered banks-
Mr. Chretien's assertion that there is little or no competition between the chartered banks is just plain nonsense. Whether he was inspired by ignorance to make such a charge, or by knowledge that such a charge would please backbenchers, is of little consequence. His contribution to the debate, in either case, was detrimental to the national interest.
That is the kind of thing we have heard from hon. gentlemen opposite over the last two years. They got rid of one minister of finance but now they have another who is following the same general pattern, a pattern that ignores the diagnoses which stand out on the economic horizon from time to time. The article adds:
The facts about regional banking are quite the opposite.
This was in reference to something said at the banking and commerce committee indicating that there was more money placed on deposit in western Canada than there were loans made.
More money has been lent by the banks, east and west, than has been obtained by deposits, and often on less security.
I am not going to quarrel with that except to say that there is little semblance between the parliamentary secretary's contribution and the facts as outlined in that news report.
I now want to refer to remarks made by the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool to the pool's annual meeting held in Regina a few days ago. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool
10143
Increased Cost of Living is one of the great farm organizations in this country, owned and operated by producers in the prairie region. It commissioned a research study under the direction of Walton J. Anderson into questions relating to Canadian wheat production. Dr. Anderson reported as follows:
At the present time (that is 1964) the technological possibilities of expanding production of existing acreage likely could increase output by nearly one-third at a fairly low marginal cost.
In a day and age when food is so badly needed throughout the world the Canadian government should be giving some attention to this problem instead of ignoring the demands of those in agriculture for a fair share of the gross national product. Dr. Anderson went on to say:
In my view the probabilities of these possibilities occurring would increase if farmers were given proper incentives in the form of price and markets- something that has been largely absent in the past.
He was referring to other things that can be done to increase the food supply.
The president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Charles W. Gibbings, has this to say:
I must say at this juncture in history, however, we are somewhat less than enthusiastic about the trend of events. We reluctantly supported the Canadian government's position in 1965 when it agreed to extension without any change of the existing wheat agreement. We also went along with a further one year extension of the agreement until July 31, 1967.
But we're not likely to be so agreeable if there is any suggestion that the agreement be extended again without changing its terms. The situation is quite different now than when the present agreement was written in 1962 and as one of the prime exporting countries we do not believe further extension without change is justified.
He went on to say:
Our position on the international wheat agreement may be stated simply as follows: we believe a new agreement should be negotiated to include all exporters and importers, that price ranges should be adjusted sharply upwards to take realistic account of today's situation and that there are other matters which could also usefully be considered for inclusion in a new agreement. I'm not going to discuss this matter further except to say just this: we believe it paramount for Canadian grain producers and for the world's wheat trade that there be a new international wheat agreement.
What has been the government's attitude to the international wheat agreement? We have seen minister after minister renege on his duties in this regard, hoping that somehow the other nations of the world would come forward with something better than we have had in years gone by. Time and again we in the opposition have impressed upon the government the serious consequences of its lack of attention to this important problem in relation
10144	COMMONS
Increased Cost of Living to our economic life, because wheat has been one of the great contributors to the trade patterns of our nation.
The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool made some recommendations. One of them was that an effort should be made to try to bring about a greater stability in price. It also recommended that the Wheat Board's functions be extended to cover the marketing of rapeseed, flaxseed and rye. But there has been no encouragement from the government in that regard. It also recommended some form of labour-management court to reduce the number of costly work stoppages in Canada. The report of the Economic Council of Canada issued today indicates that the government has some responsibility in that regard. I cannot find the exact reference at the moment, but it seems to me that the report agrees with us in the opposition that the government's action on wage settlements has set a pattern which has led to continued labour unrest.
The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool also wanted an assurance that the statutory Crowsnest Pass grain rates will be retained for the west and that seaway tolls will not be increased. It further requested the government to take action to curb inflation, which brings us to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam regretting the failure of the government to introduce policies designed to produce an equitable distribution of rising productivity among all groups in this nation.
During the recent election campaign some things were said in this regard. Some things were mentioned that governments could do to attack this problem. There are those who say that promises made during an election campaign are solely election promises to be forgotten once the election is over. I would like to place on record two suggestions made during an election by members of the government then in the opposition and which were repeated during a subsequent session of parliament.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
One suggestion was to allow municipal tax assessments as a deductible item for income tax purposes. Another suggestion was a consumers loan act to give urban dwellers the same assistance farmers receive under the Farm Loan Act. I remember also the derision with which members opposite greeted the suggestion from this side of the house that some teeth be put into the law to make sure that the automobile manufacturers receiving the benefit of $50 million per year would pass that benefit on to the purchasers of automobiles in this country.

DEBATES	November 21, 196G
Everyone who has preceded me in this debate, almost without exception, has referred to the lack of opportunity which exists in the maritime provinces and in certain parts of the province of Quebec. Everyone including the Minister of Agriculture, has acknowledged the fact that agriculture is lagging behind other sectors of our economy. This government has been in office now for a period of almost three years. I remember when they said that they had plans pigeonholed to meet emergencies such as the one which faces this nation at this time, but what have they done?
Let me remind hon. members that we are experiencing what has been described as the greatest period of expansion in the history of this nation. I remember well that hon. gentleman now on the government side of the house suggested when on this side that the government should budget for a surplus and not a deficit in order to look after the deficits which occur during leaner times. Those same gentlemen now on that side of the house have failed to provide this surplus during this period of expansion in spite of the proud boasts of their front and backbenchers. Have they forgotten their words of those days when they were in opposition? Have they forgotten the methods they suggested they would employ? Everything was simple according to them, but we are now faced with this difficult situation created by the highest cost of living in the history of this nation and the highest interest rates which have ever existed. We are faced with a tight money policy and a dearth of money for the construction of homes.
The government has not only failed to provide an opportunity for our young people but has sold out their future before they have even left our universities. We now have before us an amendment which states that this house regrets the failure of the government to introduce policies designed to produce an equitable distribution of rising productivity and national income among all groups in Canada. Who in Canada could not agree completely with the words of this amendment?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the leader of the New Democratic Party is very interesting. The hon. member who has just taken his seat asked the question, who in this country could not agree with an amendment that is in favour of everything good and against everything bad? I ask, who would not be in favour of all those things which relate to a solution of the problem now facing us? The amendment does not say anything about a solution to
November 21, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES
these problems but refers only to the fact that the government has failed to introduce policies to produce an equitable distribution of rising productivity.
It is a little surprising to find the house presented with this kind of an amendment by the New Democratic Party because only this afternoon, shortly after our proceedings commenced, hon. members of that party thought there was another matter of sufficient importance to set aside all other business of the house including this debate. They wanted to discuss the apparent failure of the Prudential Finance Company. When they are given an opportunity to refer to matters they allege are important we never hear a word from them about those matters. Instead they propose this platitudinous type of amendment which really does not mean very much.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I am sure the hon. gentleman would be against anything members of the other opposition parties favoured.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Having listened to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce this afternoon in support of his amendment, I do not think many hon. members are going to place very much credence in the argument he now advances.


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


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will permit a question as soon as I progress far enough into my remarks to make it perfectly clear what I am referring to. In order to explain my position I will have to quote parts of the amendment placed before us this afternoon. In part it states:
-since the income of wage and salary earners has remained approximately the same and farm income has fallen as a proportion of the total national income over a period of years, this house regrets the failure of the government to introduce policies designed to produce an equitable distribution of rising productivity-
Several weeks ago the house saw fit to recognize the problem relating to the rising cost of living in Canada by referring the whole matter to a joint committee of this house and the other place. It seems that the members of the New Democratic Party are about seven weeks late in recognizing what other members of the house recognized at that time.
There is an element of truth in the literal definition of the words used in the amendment. If that were not so the committee of which I am proud to be a member would not have spent a great deal of time, sometimes as
23033-642J
Increased Cost of Living many as four, five or six meetings a week, studying this problem. I have before me some of the evidence presented to that committee. Apparently the members of the New Democratic Party have not yet found time to give consideration to the very important evidence which was presented.
Many hon. members of this house including members of the N.D.P., the Conservative party and the government party, as well as members of the party to which I belong, have been seized with this matter and are proceeding with all convenient speed to get to the bottom of it and to recommend a solution to this house.
Table 5 in some evidence presented to the committee by the Department of Finance gives a clear statistical breakdown of our gross national product by income shares in current dollars. Item 6 of that table is headed "Accrued Net Income Of Farm Operators From Farm Production". I refer to this table because farm income has fallen in proportion to total national income. We knew back in September that this was true and this fact was presented very forcibly to the committee by the Department of Finance.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Let me refer to this item and the income percentages during the period from 1949 to 1965. It is apparent that farm income has gone up by only 1.7 per cent, whereas the gross national product by income shares for another item, wages, salaries and supplementary labour income, has gone up by 7.7 per cent. In making this comparison I am not suggesting that labour is getting too much, because there are some other items that are even higher. I am trying to show that there is no disagreement that farm income over this period of years has not kept pace with the increase in other sectors of the economy, the cost of production and so on.
We find that corporation profits before taxes during that 16-year period have gone up 6.6 per cent. Item No. 5 of this table, headed, "Rent, Interest And Miscellaneous Investment Income", has gone up 10.7 per cent. This is by far the largest increase of any item except the one that falls under the category of "Military Pay And Allowances". As you go through the other pages of the evidence you find the recurring position of investment income leading the list in the amount of increase that has been enjoyed percentagewise over this 16-year period.
I think the committee is doing an excellent job. After it has reported to the house it will
10146	COMMONS
Increased Cost of Living be up to the government to take some positive action to see whether this investment income, which includes rent, interest and miscellaneous income, cannot somehow be used to create an increase in relation to labour income and particularly in relation to net farm income.
Table No. 6 deals with the composition of the gross national product. The table is headed "Per Cent Composition Of Gross National Product" and shows that in 1949 the accrued net income of the farm operator from farm production was 7.6 per cent of the gross national product. By 1966 this figure had fallen to 3.8 per cent. The source of the table is statistics compiled by the Department of Finance and presented to the committee on September 28, I believe, although I am subject to correction as to the exact date.
There is no argument that net farm income so far as farm operators are concerned has gone down not only in absolute terms but in relation to most of the other factors included in the gross national product. Labour is not the culprit because we find under item 1 that in 1949 the percentage composition of the gross national product for wages, salaries and supplementary labour income was 49 per cent. By 1966 this had risen to only 50.6 per cent, which I suggest is a very small increase and is almost minimal. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is easy to find statistics to substantiate the literal definition of the amendment which has been placed before us.
I believe there is one other point that is rather important when endeavouring to make this kind of comparison. I refer to the indices that relate to the costs per unit of output. When we look at table 7 of the same document we find that the accrued net income of farm operators from farm production has not increased at all from 1949 to 1965; in fact, it has gone down 2.8 per cent. The fact is that the cost per unit of output so far as farm workers are concerned has gone down substantially since 1949.
There are a great many more statistics involved in this matter. I only want to point out to hon. gentlemen in the New Democratic Party that most members of the house recognize that this has been a problem for a long time. Steps have been taken by way of motion in this house to delve into the details, find the cause of the problem and make the kind of recommendation that may perhaps lead to a correction of some of the inequities as far as government action can do so. There is one


November 21, 1966
part of the amendment with which I do not agree. In part it reads as follows;
-this house regrets the failure of the government to introduce policies designed to produce an equitable distribution-
I do not mean to be unkind to the New Democratic Party, but I believe that in this country there is still a place-in fact in my opinion this is of paramount importance so far as our whole economy is concerned-for a direct relationship between effort and reward. If this amendment is designed to encourage the government to set up the kind of policies that will achieve by government order some kind of equitable distribution of our productivity, I am not in favour of it. We can look around the world today and see countries where it has been shown that ignoring the direct relationship between effort and reward in their economies has not been successful.
I have visited some of these countries which they have been unable to meet the basic requirements of life, namely, adequate food, clothing and shelter. They are introducing a new system and are abandoning the system that has been in effect for the last 30 or 40 years. They are introducing a system of incentives and bonuses because they realize they will never reach the standard of living that we have in this country, or indeed on the North American continent, until they introduce the concept of receiving reward directly in relation to effort. Some of the collective farms that I visited for the first time in 1965 are keeping an accurate account of the production of dairymaids, grain farmers, hog producers, etc. The information I received from them was that after they have compiled all these records they strike an average and anyone who produces above the average receives a bonus. This is the kind of incentive they need at this time to meet the production required in order to feed their people.
To my knowledge, in any country which has done away with the incentives involved in the whole concept about which I am talking, the production of output in relation to hours of input, production has gone down. I am proud of the output of the Canadian people, particularly those in the farming industry, in relation to the number of hours of input per man. I am familiar with the operation of some farms where output per man in this country is three to five times as high, in terms of volume, as it is in some countries where they have done away with rewarding people in direct relation to their effort. I do not like that part of the amendment; you can be sure of that.
November 21, 1988	COMMONS
I will not go on much longer except to say that this matter is now under study by resolution of this house. I hope that before long the committee will make an interim report to the house dealing, in the first instance, with the price of food. Perhaps the committee will be able to establish whether there is anyone along the line from the producer to the consumer who is taking an unconscionable profit, and if they do find this I hope they will make recommendations which the government will accept. We must not interfere with the direct relationship between effort and reward, but we must also recognize the monopoly of an enterprise which may have developed in Canada in the field of food distribution. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) knows very well that all parties in this house agree that there is a need for political action to be taken against economic monopolies. This in no way violates the principle I have enunciated respecting the relationship between effort and reward.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
May I say in closing that it seems to me we are wasting our time talking about a matter which has already been referred to a committee for examination. There are many important pieces of legislation on the order paper and in my opinion the government is remiss in giving priority to particular legislation. To spend two days in discussing a matter on which there is no disagreement regarding the literal definition of the words and on which no conclusion can be reached as a result of the debate seems to be a waste of time. I hope the New Democratic Party will spend a little time reading the evidence which has been placed before the committee dealing with this matter and will take cognizance of the fact that this house has already dealt with this matter in the best way it could, namely, by referring it to a joint committee of the two houses.
Perhaps the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands can answer a question, because I noticed he attempted to get the floor just before me. How is it that the matter of the Prudential Finance Company was not so important at five o'clock although at 2.30 p.m. it was important enough to warrant setting aside all the other business of the country? I cannot understand this kind of reasoning unless the hon. member's party wanted to make political hay out of some of the platitudes contained in this amendment. Perhaps he knew perfectly well that the motion under standing order 26 was going to be set aside. This is what is called "shotgun politics"; with
Increased Cost of Living one shot at several targets you get a few of them at the same time.
I am very pleased to say that the house, and that includes all parties, has already dealt with this matter and I think it is time that the New Democratic party read some of the evidence.


Mr. Schreyer:: May I be permitted to direct a question to the hon. member for Medicine Hat? He chides us for making reference to the high cost of living because, as he states, this matter is now being considered by a committee of this house. I would ask him whether he considers the problem of those people who are on fixed incomes and those who live on Canadian farms in relation to the rising cost of living to be a matter of platitudes?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The word "platitude" in the context in which I used it, and I think the definition of that word will bear me out, is something that is repeated over and over again. Everyone is concerned about the problem, and genuinely so, but I am saying that something positive has already been done by the house to try to get to the bottom of the problem and to make recommendations toward solving it. To make a motion of this kind, after what has already been done, fits the literal definition of the word "platitude".


Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments on the remarks made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) this afternoon when he introduced his amendment. He criticized the government severely, as the amendment states, for failing "to introduce polic:es designed to produce an equitable distribution of rising productivity and national income." Furthermore, he criticized the government for failing to maintain stable prices and he said that prices in Canada are beyond all control.
I w sh to take issue with these statements of the leader of the New Democratic Party, and in doing so I will refer to a table which was filed with the joint committee studying consumer prices, the committee to which the hon. member for Medicine Hat referred. This table can be found at page 556 of the reports of that committee. According to the table, in the period from 1958 to May, 1966 Canada had the second best record for price stability. In this period the consumer price index in Canada went up only 15 per cent while the United States had the best record with 12 per cent. However, if we look at other countries listed in the table we see, for example, that in
10148	COMMONS
Increased Cost of Living Germany the consumer price index went up 22 per cent, in Switzerland, 24 per cent, in the United Kingdom, 26 per cent, in Sweden, 33 per cent, in France, 36 per cent and so on.


Edward Nasserden: Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Warren Allmand: Not now; I will answer questions at the end. Although we are always dissatisfied with increases in prices we must admit that there has been good management in Canada if we could maintain, on a comparative basis, the second lowest increase in prices in the western world. In commenting on this table before the committee, Professor Neufeld of the University of Toronto made the following comments which appear at page 112 of the proceedings of the committee:
I think two rather interesting points emerge from the comparisons outlined in that table. First, the increase in the cost of living in Canada from 1958 to May, 1966, which amounted to about 15 per cent, was smaller than in any other country shown except for the United States, in which the cost of living rose by 12 per cent. If you go down the list you can see that there is a wide range in the distribution of the percentage increases in prices. All the European industrial countries, which for some purposes might be appropriate comparisons, have experienced price increases well in excess of the price increases in Canada.
As found on page 118 he said: "By international standards Canadian prices have been remarkably stable, but they have risen more than United States prices."
At page 129 he said:
The policy of the Bank of Canada over the last five years, in my view, has an excellent record. Fiscal policy has revealed, for the first time perhaps, a degree of imagination, in the budget, that had been absent for so many years.
He was referring there to the budget which was presented to the house last spring by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp).
The last witness who appeared before the consumer prices committee was Professor Kragh, a Swedish economist who heads a council in Sweden somewhat similar to the Economic Counc l of Canada. In his testimony to the committee Professor Kragh said that Canada had a remarkable record in price stability over the last few years. He said that in his country prices had risen by quite a high degree despite many efforts by the government to keep them in line.
a (9:00 p.m.)
I noticed this afternoon that the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) criticized my
[Mr. Ailmand.1
DEBATES	November 21, 1966
colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) for referring to statistics from the committee report, saying that they were quoted out of context. Earlier the leader of the New Democratic Party also quoted statistics from the committee reports, and in my opinion he quoted them out of context. He made certain references to the decrease in farm incomes and he made comparisons between incomes received by way of salaries and wages and income from profits and rents. I will comment on these in a moment. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam tried to show that there was a great inequity in this regard.
I should also like to refer to a statement made by Mr. Rasminsky, governor of the Bank of Canada, when he appeared as a witness before the committee. At page 335 of the report of the proceedings he is recorded as follows:
I would like to begin by reviewing, briefly, some of the highlights of the present economic expansion. This expansion has now lasted for 5i years, and it is by far the longest expansion in our peacetime history. It has brought us some very substantial benefits. When the final results for 1966 are in. I expect that our gross national product will be over 50 per cent higher than it was in 1961 in dollar terms. I take 1961 because that is the year in which the expansion began. I say it will be 50 per cent higher in dollar terms and about 35 per cent higher in real or in physical terms.
That is what was said by Mr. Rasminsky, governor of the Bank of Canada.
In introducing his amendment the leader of the N.D.P. made reference to a table which was presented to the committee by Mr. Bryce of the Department of Finance. This table appears at page 94 of the committee report and is entitled "Gross National Product By Income Shares". It refers to the percentage of income which was credited to wages, salaries and labour. The table shows that during the period from 1949 to 1965 wages, salaries and labour income increased by 7.7 per cent.
The hon. member then compared this with the increase in corporate profits before taxes, which increased in the same period by 6.6 per cent. He then referred to the increase in revenue from rent, interest and miscellaneous investment income, which had increased by 10.7 per cent, the largest increase of the three. Then he added together these latter two items and impl'ed that the total increase of approximately 17 per cent should be compared with the 7.7 per cent credited to wages, salaries and labour income. He then suggested that the group which was receiving income from rent, interest and investment income was clipping
November 21, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES
coupons and more or less belonged to the capitalist class.
May I refer to some of the cross-examination which deals with this table because a lot of matters were clarified. As reported at page 47 of the evidence, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) asked Mr. Bryce this question:


Colin Cameron: I notice, Mr. Bryce, the item you decided did not call for comment seems to be one that does call for comment. I refer to No. 5. I notice in the period between 1949 to 1965 wages and salaries have increased about 31 times; corporation profits have increased somewhat less, only about three times, but rent, interest and miscellaneous investment income have increased over five times. Would that not suggest that this is one of the points we should look at for inflationary practices?


Mr. Bryce:: Let me try to find some of them.
In other words, he is breaking down the items included in the table. He continues:
May I pick out some of the major items? First we have the net rents received by individuals-
These are rents received by individuals, not by corporations, because the income received by corporations is included under the corporate profits section of the table. The second item is investment income of life insurance companies, including pension funds. Then there is bond interest, interest on bank deposits, trust and savings deposits, credit union deposits, mortgage holdings by individuals- not by corporations-government annuities, dividends from abroad, profits on mutual nonlife insurance companies, royalties, etc.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, many of these items are not the type of income-producing item which it can be said accrues to the large corporation or big businessman. Much of it is income which is received through pension plans, credit union interest and so forth and has been received by the little man. So in this respect I think it was misleading for the leader of the N.D.P. to try to imply that there was an increase of 17 per cent among the members of the upper economic echelon of our society, whereas labour and wages income increased by only 7.7 per cent.
With regard to farm incomes the table which appears at page 95 of the report shows an increase of 1.7 per cent during the period from 1949 to 1965, which is a very low percentage. According to the following table, table 6, farm income is only 3.8 per cent of the gross national product, which again is a rather low percentage. The hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam seemed to be implying that there was some inequity here, but an examination of the evidence given under crossexamination of the witness demonstrates that
Increased Cost of Living the situation is not what the hon. member would have us believe. On the subject of farm income the hon. member for Medicine Hat asked Mr. Bryce from the Department of Finance some questions. The hon. member for Medicine Hat asked about some years when there had been a significant decline. He said:
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Does that account for why we come up with an average of 1.7 per cent?
Mr. Bryce said:
The reason for the 1.7 per cent growth is that agriculture is a diminishing part of the economy as a whole. A great deal of manpower has left agriculture and has gone into other fields. The increase in productivity in agriculture has been quite high. This income of 1965 is distributed amongst a far smaller number of farmers than the income of 1949 was.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: But that would not affect the 1.7 factor as an average over the whole period, would it?


William Scottie Bryce: The reason the figure is so low is because agriculture has not been growing in aggregate in the way in which, let us say, manufacturing or mining has been growing through the period. The number of farmers has been diminishing, and not growing.
The report goes on to point out that though the total amount of farm incomes has been going down, in fact farm productivity and the income of individual farmers have risen, though not at the rate of those working in other sectors of the economy.
The hon. member, in introducing his amendment this afternoon and trying to find the causes for the high cost of living, completely excused wage increases, blaming the increase in profits for the increase in the cost of living. In all the evidence put before us by the companies in the food business we have seen that labour rates in food industries have increased more quickly than profits. Referring to a few tables, we see on page 549 that the salaries and wages for one of the supermarket chains increased 11,2 per cent from 1960 to 1966 and fringe benefits increased by 9.2 per cent, making a total increase of approximately 20.4 per cent, whereas their profits in the same period increased by 8.7 per cent. I am not excusing the food companies, but I think we have to be fair. We must agree that the matter is not as simple as pretended by the leader of the N.D.P. Different sectors of the economy have been responsible for the increased cost of living at different times. We must recognize this to be fair.
In the amendment the hon. member criticizes the government for not having done anything to produce a more equitable distribution of productivity and national income. As
10150	COMMONS
Increased Cost of Living has been pointed out by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, the amendment makes little sense if we look at the record. Since this session, which opened in January, the government has introduced much legislation to help the lower income groups in our economy such as the Canada Assistance Plan which gives assistance to the sick, the blind, the crippled and the aged, the new amendments to the National Housing Act which will help people with lower incomes to purchase houses, the medicare program, and the Company of Young Canadians to help those in dire circumstances in Canada. The government has also set up the committee studying the cost of living. It is my opinion that the very working of the committee has had a corrective effect on the price structure up to now.
I think the fact that such a committee is sitting, calling witnesses and making companies reveal their records is having a corrective effect because it makes the people who set prices in the industry think twice before taking an undue profit at the expense of Canadian consumers. Statistics released at the end of October show that consumer food prices have decreased. I will not pretend that the immediate cause of the decrease has been the work of the committee, but I am fairly certain that the committee work has been one of the causes bringing about decreased food prices.
Contrary to what the amendment implies, if we compare the record of the government of this country with the records of other governments in other countries we shall see that we have been extremely effective in providing price stability and maintaining income. Despite this record the government is still not satisfied but wants to do even more.


Edward Nasserden: May I ask the hon. member a question? In 1962 the President of the United States admitted that the record of price stability in the United States was second to that of Canada. If the table that has been referred to is correct, why is Canada's record now second to that of the United States?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the tables I quoted from are taken from Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures and other official figures. It may be that the United States has a better record than we have, but compared with the other 25 countries on the table we stand second.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise without hesitation to take part in this
[Mr. Allmand.)
DEBATES	November 21, 1966
debate and speak in support of the amendment which says in part that:
[DOT]-this House regrets the failure of the government to introduce policies designed to produce an equitable distribution of rising productivity and national income among all groups in Canada, particularly in view of the rising cost of living.
The rising cost of living has alarmed many members of the house and many people across the country. The hon. member who just spoke compared the record of this country with .that of other countries. He quoted the governor of the Bank of Canada to show that the present boom began in 1961 but he did not have to go to the governor of the Bank of Canada to say that. He could have gone to the Minister of Finance, to the former minister of finance, to the Minister of Transport or to any one of a number of ministers in the present cabinet who would have admitted readily that the boom Canada is now enjoying began in 1961. I want to make that absolutely clear.
Let us look at what happened in 1962. We all remember what John F. Kennedy said in 1962. He admired Canada because Canada led the world in maintaining a rapid growth in gross national product. We led the world in maintaining price stability in regard to the cost of living. Where is Canada today in that regard? The hon. member said we were second in line among 25 countries. In 1962 we were on top. We were the world leaders in maintaining stability in the cost of living. Now one need only look at any paper published anywhere in Canada within the last year to see where this country stands.


William Warren Allmand: May I ask a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We are at the very top in promoting an increase in the cost of living. That is where we stand.


William Warren Allmand: May I ask a question? May I ask the hon. member where we stood on unemployment in 1961?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will get to unemployment in good time. Let us look at inflation. The hon. member admits that the cost of living in Canada has reached an all-time high. It has accelerated at a rate comparable with that of any country in the world. It is all very well for Canadians to realize that the cost of living has gone up but we as legislators should ask ourselves why this has happened. Why did we lead the world in 1962 in maintaining stability in the cost of living and yet lead the world in 1965 and 1966 in bringing about a situation where the cost of living is rising at a
November 21, 196G

rate comparable with that of any country in the world? This is a question which we as legislators should ask ourselves.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
It is all very well for the hon. member to refer us to the committee on consumer credit of which I am a member, although I have found it difficult to find the time to attend because of my work on other committees. It is all very well to refer members to the findings of that committee. I could deal with them at length and I could state what I think they should bring in as a recommendation. But let us look at the root of the problem.
This government took office in 1963 as a minority government. It wanted to be returned with a majority. How best could it acquire that degree of acceptance across the country? It thought it could best acquire it by printing money. My Social Credit friends to my left will say "surely not; they don't believe in that." But that is exactly what they did. If you doubt my word, look at the last monthly statement of the Bank of Canada. One has only to compare the last monthly statement with the last monthly statement when the Conservative government was in power.
This government came in as a minority government and wanted to go to the people as quickly as possible and get a majority. How best should they do it? They created an artificial position so that Canadians all across Canada would accept them. I should like to quote a brief paragraph from a statement by Mr. Louis Rasminsky, the governor of the Bank of Canada, when he spoke in Rome. This is what he said in respect of inflation:
Inflation in its early stages is popular, it creates a feeling of ebullience and well-being which does not tempt the community to ask too many questions about the future.
That is what the governor of the Bank of Canada said in his speech in Rome as reported in the Ottawa Journal of November 10, 1966. He said that inflation creates a popular feeling and tempts the community to ask not too many questions about the future. This is the very condition this government tried to create, because they were elected with a minority in 1963 and wanted to go back to the people as soon as they could and get a majority. They wanted to create a popular feeling.
I am pleased to see the minister in the house because I wish to quote from a letter dated August 5, 1966, which was written to people who are close to me.
This present government has been In business fostering this economy in a financial sense since 23033-S43

Increased Cost of Living 1963. We made a deliberate decision to increase the money supply and we have increased it by over 50 per cent since that time.
The minister who wrote that letter is sitting on the front benches now. In August, 1966, he said that they had made a deliberate decision to increase the money supply. Bear those remarks in mind and compare them with what the governor of the Bank of Canada said in Rome. Bear that in mind in conjunction with the fact that the Liberals were elected in 1963 as a minority government. What did they do? We in Alberta have contended with the funny money policy for years. The premier of Alberta said that he would go federal any day if he could get away from the tag "funny money". Yet we in this house sit opposite members who have applied social credit to the country. They have printed money far in excess of the gross national product and the growth in population in Canada.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: First, would he dissociate himself from us and, second, would he mind explaining how it is that there seems to be such an acute shortage of capital when he is arguing that the money supply is too large in Canada?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will come to the question of the acute shortage of credit very quickly. First I should like to indicate where we began and where we are now. We began with a boom in 1961 with which the present government was not satisfied in 1963. They wanted to create a false economic position so they could return with a big majority in 1965. They did not deceive the governor of the Bank of Canada. He said that inflation in its early stages is popular and creates a feeling of ebullience and well-being which does not tempt the community to ask too many questions about the future. We know where we began. We know what they had in mind because of their minority position. What did they do? I quote again from the letter:
We made a deliberate decision to increase the money supply and we have increased it by over 50 per cent since that time.
Let us get to the result of this action. We realize what has happened. I have sat in on meetings of the committee on consumer credit. I wonder why they really do not know what has caused all this. The governor of the Bank of Canada knows the reason. Here is a quotation I picked out of the Manitoba
November 21, 1966

Increased Cost of Living Co-Operator of October 20, 1966. There is a reference to Mr. Sinclair, the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, a very astute businessman:
Mr. Sinclair pointed to several factors that could adversely affect the economy if immediate action is not taken. He said it has become increasingly clear that it would be difficult for the economy to sustain upward momentum in 1967. Sluggishness has developed in several major sectors, and the state of financial markets discourages confidence in the near-term outlook.
What position did we find ourselves in in 1961? We devaluated the dollar which gave Canadians an opportunity to sell their manufactured goods abroad and an opportunity to get into foreign markets. This is what gave Canada the impetus, the opportunity, to find employment for its people. But then along came the greedy, selfish political party which took over control of Canada in 1963. They were not concerned about anything except creating a popular image so they would get back in with a large majority. They made a deliberate decision to print money to bolster the economy. What has happened? Why have we had tight money for nearly a year in this country? It is because they made the deliberate decision to create a false economy. They had their election in 1965 but all to no avail. [DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
They then realized that the economy was running rampant. All across Canada, from Calgary to Ottawa, from Vancouver to Halifax, housewives formed protest groups, possibly for the first time in the history of Canada, and tried to fight rising inflation. What was the cause of it? It was hon. members opposite who printed the money. No economist will deny that the money supply must increase when our gross national product and population increase, but when the money supply increases faster than the gross national product or the population, this causes inflation. That is what the government has done.
I have a letter in my possession from a minister who sits on the front benches saying that they made the deliberate decision to increase the money supply. This created a false economy, and after the last election the government found that the economy was running wild with inflation. Now we have had tight money for the longest period in Canadian history. Never have the reins been tightened for so long.
How can we cure inflation? Some 80 per cent of our population derive their living from the export market, whether directly or indirectly, be it exports of automobile parts,
(Mr. Horner (Acadia).]
other manufactured goods or grain. We must export to survive and in order to export our costs must compare favourably with those of nations with which we trade. We have now got into a difficult situation by deliberately increasing our money supply some 50 per cent since 1963. This is something that government supporters boast about but it is a shallow boast.
What has the government done since to control the economy, to bring about some stability and to maintain our competitive position in world trade? At the beginning of this year it forced the Canada Pension Plan upon the economy, which resulted in an immediate spiralling of the cost of living index. After that it introduced the Pearson formula for wages. It gave the longshoremen a 36 per cent wage increase. I would like to see farmers in southeastern Alberta get a 36 per cent increase, but the Minister of Finance has reduced the price of their wheat by 22 cents a bushel.
Next the St. Lawrence Seaway workers were given a 33 per cent increase, which also had an inflationary effect on top of the inflated supply of money. I do not blame unions for demanding a 36 per cent wage increase under those circumstances. As a spokesman for western farmers I would like to see them get a 36 per cent increase in the price of their beef, wheat and milk.
The railroad workers were next on the scene and were given an 18 per cent wage increase with the possibility of something more, depending on further negotiations. Then the armed forces were given a 14 per cent wage increase, which brings up the question of unification. Possibly the government thought it could buy acceptance of unification from the armed services by giving them a 14 per cent wage increase.
All this has increased the cost of living and added to the cost of production. A decision has been taken in the Bank Act amendments to raise interest rate ceilings. The Toronto Star of June 21, 1966, in an article headed, "Arguments For Bank Rate Boost Unconvincing," said:
-a more general effect would probably be higher interest rates in most categories of loans, raising production costs and consumer prices. The other institutions could raise their rates along with the banks and still expect to hold their share of the business.
Higher interest rates will be added to the cost which consumers pay, creating another rise in the cost of living index.
November 21, 1S6G

The Minister of Finance has promised us a mini-budget or baby budget, and recently an Ottawa newspaper forecast a taxation increase of 10 per cent and referred to farm machinery prices increasing by 9 per cent. Where does this leave the primary producer who depends solely on export markets? He has to pay the high domestic prices for goods but must sell in competition with other nations. He sees machinery prices going up by 9 per cent and income tax going up by 10 per cent. He sees inflation spiralling. He sees the price of everything he buys going up and up, and all this leaves him in a desperate position. It also leaves the person who buys his products in a desperate position.
Only a very small percentage of the population has received wage increases of 33 per cent or 36 per cent. This is called the Pearson wage formula and labour leaders across the country are seeking to have it applied to everyone. I do not blame labour leaders. I think they are justified in asking for such an amount because the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) adopted this formula which he thinks is justified for workers in certain categories. It may well tie in with the 50 per cent increase in the money supply for which the government is responsible but it creates a false economy for Canada.
Only recently, as I have said, speaking in Rome the governor of the Bank of Canada said such an increase in the money supply creates a popular feeling and tends to tempt people not to ask too many questions about the future. But where does this leave John Joe or John Doe, the average taxpayer? An article in the Globe and Mail of September 6, 1966, summed it up this way: "Next 4 Months' Pay Goes For Taxes." That will apply to everybody in Canada.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Does that make the government of the day happy? They have increased taxes and the Minister of Finance tells us that they are now going to go up by another 10 per cent. As this article suggests, the work done by the average Canadian during the next four months will be done to pay the 1966 tax bill. No wonder people across the country are convinced as never before that we have gone far enough and that taxes are as high as they should be. Perhaps we should look for a middle of the road approach.
Recently the premier of Ontario said that Ontario should look for ways to cut back taxes rather than increase them. That is sure-
Increased Cost of Living ly not the attitude of the federal government in power today. According to the members of that party we must increase taxes. Unless we show some degree of sanity in respect of wage increases and unless we show some degree of sanity in taxation, as the president of the C.P.R. has suggested, we will price ourselves out of world markets.
We all know that no government, even the Social Credit government in Alberta, the premier of which now believes in what I say, can go out and print money to bring about a false economy. To conclude my remarks let me quote once again from this letter dated August 5, 1966:
We made a deliberate decision to increase the money supply and we have increased it by over 50 per cent since that time.
That is exactly what has happened. Let every housewife in Canada know what the governor of the Bank of Canada has said to the effect that inflation in its early stages is popular and that one does not attempt to ask too many questions about the future when inflationary pressures are created by the government. Problems do exist in Canada and that is why we have a joint committee studying food prices. That is why the whole country is concerned about the cost of living. That is why every farmer in the country is concerned about the failure of the government to introduce policies allowing the producer to export his product. That is basically what the farmer wants.
I could go on and mention the 11 per cent sales tax which has not been removed. This is another inflationary pressure. The government has done nothing to bring about stability. Let me conclude my remarks with what I said at the beginning. We in this party were world leaders in maintaining price stability, as referred to by President Kennedy in 1962. During that same period of time we had a tremendous increase in our gross national product. We have witnessed a direct reversal of this situation since because of deliberate policies introduced by the present government.


Mr. Richard Cashin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the previous speaker for the unprecedented tone of seriousness in his address this evening. He showed a rare ability in discussing almost simultaneously several conflicting economic theories. Perhaps this was his bid for leadership.
Let me say in reference to the amendment before us that I was somewhat surprised to
November 21, 1966

Increased Cost of Living find that it was drafted by the leader of the New Democratic Party. When I read the amendment my first reaction was, surely the author has not seen or is unwilling to see what has in fact occurred in Canada within the past few years; otherwise this must be an amendment introduced by some creature from outer space from such an advanced and developed society that it regards the development taking place here in this country as rather unimportant.
It seems to me that the little band of malcontents in the far corner of the house, who confuse complaint with reform have made a very serious and unfortunate error in introducing an amendment of this kind because they are seriously affecting their own credibility. It seems they are deluded by their own record and by the recent and perhaps fleeting fluctuations in the Gallup poll. Surely any Canadian who reads this amendment will believe that this little band of not always happy warriors who sit in the far corner of the house are completely divorced from reality.
Surely I can speak with some first-hand knowledge about what they refer to as the government's failure to produce an equitable distribution of rising productivity and national income. It is my suggestion that the government has done nothing less than that which makes it the most impressive government this country has ever seen. Anyone who believes otherwise is ignoring the facts. If hon. gentlemen opposite suggest that notwithstanding the progress that has been made with exceptional results in the past three years there is still much to be done, I would concur. If we are to have a meaningful institution with meaningful debate, it is within that context that we must conduct our debate.
The writing off in one fell swoop of much of the legislation passed in this House of Commons, supported by hon. gentlemen down in that corner, is an example of malignant myopia, to say the least. Let me take a fleeting look at some of the accomplishments in this field over the past three years. I could quote statistics of employment in the Atlantic region. In 1960 7.7 per cent or 44,000 Canadians in those four provinces were unemployed and 530,000 were working. Today there are 610,000 people employed in those provinces which represents a ga.n of 80,000 jobs.


Mr. Webb:: What about 1957?


Richard Joseph Cashin: The hon. member, like most New Democratic members, if that was a New Democratic voice-

[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: It was not a New
Democrat.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I thought it was a New Democrat who interjected but I am told it was a Tory. I apologize for my mistake. I sometimes find it very easy to confuse the two parties. The more traditional element of the Tory party, such as is represented by the hon. member who has just interjected, seems to have something in common with the more dichotomic section of the New Democratic Party. That party is not successful now and will be less successful in time to come. They appear sometimes to be looking forward but do not really go anywhere, whereas hon. gentlemen opposite in the Tory party do not go anywhere at any time.
In the last few years 80,000 new jobs have been created in the Atlantic region. There are still 28,000 people unemployed. This figure is too high. I suggest that we will improve this situation by continuing to support the imaginative policies which this government has introduced in the last three years and will continue to introduce. The alleged saviours of mankind, the little band down in the corner, have not even heard of the existence of the Atlantic Development Board; at least, this is the impression I get from what they say.
The Atlantic Development Board was conceived originally in a very narrow concept by the previous administration and strengthened immensely by the present administration. We gave it the tools with which to do the job. Already it has not only distributed $100 million in the Atlantic region for worth-while projects and improved the economic infrastructure of the area, but at the same time it is developing a competent group of civil servants who are working closely with the various provincial governments within the area in an attempt to win the battle against poverty, increase productivity and ensure a greater distribution of the wealth of this country amongst its people.
The Atlantic Development Board is only one thing that has been done to improve conditions in my area. There have been many others. These are examples of good, imaginative, reform policies entered into by this administration. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there have been so many of them that the thunder of the New Democratic Party has been stolen; they now have no new policies to put forward. In fact, if they do have the occasional good policy I say to them: By all means bring it forward and it will be a Liberal government that
November 21, 1966	COMMONS
will take it up, refine it, perfect it, introduce it and make it effective for the people of Canada.
We hear a great deal these days about parliament and our political institutions. I suggest that one of the reasons that there is an alleged discredit of parliament in the public mind has to do with the fact that people in Canada, including politicians, do not often understand the full value and function of parliament in a democratic society. We must debate issues. Every viewpoint is worth while. It is unfortunate that in this atmosphere the ruc-tious little group in the corner can use generalization, overstatement and misinformation to give people in this country the impression that things are different from what they are. When we look across the world and consider the problems of all the countries and compare them with the problems we have in Canada, we can see that we have a lot to be thankful for, not the least of which is the fact-


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Richard Joseph Cashin: I would be very glad to answer a question put by my hon. friend, the honourable socialist, in the corner.


Colin Cameron: Has the hon. member yet had a chance to look at the third annual review of the Economic Council of Canada and see the average annual income in his province compared with the rest of Canada? If he has looked at this review, does he still say that these great things have been done in the Atlantic provinces?


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of question I would expect from the hon. member. As a matter of fact I have had an opportunity to look at this document. I have the third annual review of the Economic Council of Canada here. I would say to the hon. gentleman, if he is unhappy that the average income in Newfoundland is still as low as it is, that he should be cognizant of the fact that without Liberal leadership in the federal and provincial fields the average income in Newfoundland would be much lower than it is today. I can assure the hon. member that the improvement has been achieved because of continuing efforts in the federal and provincial fields. If he wants to introduce provincial politics into this matter, I suggest to him that the Economic Council last year laid great emphasis on education, and I would ask the hon.
Increased Cost of Living member to name any other province in Canada that can take a place ahead of Newfoundland in introducing imaginative programs aimed at providing greater opportunities in education to the young people of that province.
No other provincial government so quickly grasped the significance of the last report of the Economic Council of Canada, and no provincial government will so quickly grasp the significance of its reports in the future as the government of Newfoundland. We in the province of Newfoundland are a pragmatic people. We purged ourselves of any false emotional nationalism in 1949. Since then we have been interested in performance, and the people of Newfoundland have supported the Liberal party federally and provincially because it has been the party that has performed.
There are a great many other areas, particularly in the field of social welfare, in which this Liberal government under its Prime Minister has taken the leadership. This has not only been the greatest government in the history of Canada, but it has a record that is unmatched in the democracies of the world in introducing social welfare legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Listen to the moans, Mr. Speaker. These are the moans of sour grapes. They know these facts are true, although my hon. and misguided friends in the corner may find them difficult to accept. I think it is a great pity for Canadian politics that a man of the intellectual ability and calibre of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, a man for whom I have the greatest respect, should waste his talents in the little band of not-so-happy warriors in the corner of this chamber. I think it is a tragedy because we could benefit a great deal from the contribution he could make within our caucus in making this a greater Liberal party. Certainly for my part I extend to the hon. member an invitation to join us.
In the field of social welfare the Canada Pension Plan is the best plan of its kind that has been introduced anywhere in the world. This plan was introduced by our administration. The youth allowances program was introduced by this administration. So far as education is concerned, we have instituted a program that makes available loans to university students. Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?
10156	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) in replying to the question I raise will use the eloquence and fervour demonstrated by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin). The minister will recall that I previously raised with him the matter of the wharfage regulations which are under the jurisdiction of his department. For some reason or other Hansard keeps listing wharfage under the title of fisheries. However, I am sure the minister recognizes this is not a matter that he can fob oil on his colleague from New Brunswick. Doubtless his colleague has reason enough to be concerned.
First of all I would like to remind the minister that when I last raised this matter on November 18 he said he was looking into it and he expected to continue looking into it for some time as it was in his view a very tangled situation. I am certainly not catching him unaware with this question and, indeed, on September 17, 1964 he had something to say on this matter in reply to some remarks which were addressed to him on that date. He said he had a good deal of sympathy with some of the matters that I raised at that time. I might remind him that he said the following, as recorded on page 8160 of Hansard:
It was perhaps not the most auspicious part of my beginning as Minister of Transport, that just before I began there was a complete overhaul of these wharfage charges. This did create the impression in my own constituency that my first act as Minister of Transport was to charge more for the use of wharves, which, perhaps if I had control of the timing, might have been done a little differently. However, I think the hon. gentleman can be pretty sure that on this subject I will tend to be on the side of the users of the wharves, just as far as one can and still have some regard for the public interest.
At any rate, the regulations with regard to wharves are not in my view, as the laws of the Medes and Persians, but are subject to change almost without notice if I can think of any good reason for changing them.
The other day I received a note from the minister's office which referred me to the fact that the wharfage regulations brought in by order in council P.C. 1964-104, to which the minister referred at that time, are still the

DEBATES	November 21, 1966
wharfage regulations with which we have to deal now. In my view the minister, if his sympathies lie on the side of the wharfage users, has had a lot of time to think things over and to investigate the situation. I want to make it clear that the time is long pass when we should have had a more satisfactory situation.
I know that I cannot repeat the speech I made to the minister in 1964. I will immediately proceed to mention one or two letters which I have received from my constituents, particularly in reference to the situation at Comox at the present time, which I think illustrate the sad state of affairs. One of my constituents wrote the following:
I am one of a handful of fishermen at Comox being sued in Exchequer Court for non-payment of wharfage charges.
I object strongly to paying anything until all government floats in B.C. and on the Atlantic and inland waters are doing likewise.
Comox floats are below the standard of many others. Lights only on one float; one water outlet for the two floats; no electric outlets; the Pjhng and plank breakwater leaves much to be desired. Many boats are damaged throughout the winter. There is no supervision. Little putter boats are scattered along both floats. You can't tie alongside them and they are so spaced that you cannot get a berth between them. Children run around at will day and night. The charges for my boat, a 34 foot gillnetter at 2 cents a foot per day runs to over $20 a month. I have just received a bill for October. Fifteen days for $10.20. It could just as well have been 30 days, as I am day fishing out of Comox and was tied up there every night that month. These charges are far out of line for the services provided. There are many government floats in this area. Why is it that the one next to us, the one next to it, the one next to it and the one next to it have no charges? My tax dollars helped pay for all these floats. Why is it that I have to put my hand in my other pocket to pay wharfage charges at Comox? There are many boat owners at Comox that have never been billed.
If this act cannot be administered fairly it is a bad piece of legislation and should be done away with. For in this great land of ours, where all are to be treated equal, a mess like this leaves me a bit befuddled.
Apparently, Mr. Speaker, from what the minister said the other day he is a bit befuddled. Nevertheless, I think that is an honest, truthful letter and the kind which deserves serious consideration. I have before me another letter which says:
It is with the utmost concern as a commercial trailer fishing out of Comox that I regard recent government action concerning wharfage bills issued to me, and I feel it most necessary that you as our member of parliament should be fully aware of the intolerable situation here.
These bills have been issued to a few, charging us outrageous rates, when we, for such, are offered nothing adequate to our needs.
November 21, 196G

The present situation is that we as commercial boats coming in to berth for the night have little likelihood of ever actually being able to tie to a float. Pleasure and sport craft are allowed to tie singly, anywhere at will, thus spoiling what inadequate tie-up space is here, while the commercial boats are forced to tie three and four abreast. These tourist and local pleasure craft receive no wharfage bills, but we who earn our living fishing and pay taxes here are charged.
Bills are issued in a most haphazard way, with never a date to say when you tied at the wharf. It is most disconcerting to receive such bills for a period when you have not been in the port at all, or when the two boats tied inside of you next to the float received no bill at all. Is this not discrimination?
The float at which we tie is in very poor state of repair with neither fresh water nor electricity for our use. To bring anything down to our craft, we must walk and carry these things from the head of the wharf, as the sportsmen, tourists, and naval personnel cars line the wharf, but we are not provided with any supervised loading area.
It is very often we return to find costly gear has been stolen and our craft damaged by vandals, but no provision is made whatever to provide us with a watchman or have supervision on the wharf.
Then he asks for my attention to these matters. The minister will be aware that the reference he made about the time he assumed office to the wharfage-


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, there are aspects of my responsibilities that I feel are being discharged more competently than the particular one to which the hon. gentlemen has reference. I admit that right away. When I said the other day in answer to a question in the house that this was a very tangled and difficult matter indeed, I meant just what I said. I am not seeking to blame the officials in my department who are trying to carry out the law as it is. I do not think that the law as it is is intended or is designed to create the kind of situation that the hon. gentleman's constituent portrayed in his letter about the state of affairs at Comox. I have recently told the officials of my department that I want a full and thorough investigation of all the facts connected with this matter.
Why the matter is difficult, I gather, is that these floats, as they are called, are not used exclusively by commercial fishermen, as are most of the fishing wharves in other parts of Canada. Everyone who has been to the Pacific coast knows that there is no part of Canada where there are so many pleasure craft of one
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion sort or another. It is our feeling, and I think it is probably the feeling of most people who themselves have pleasure craft, that the people who own these craft are perfectly well able to pay for berthing facilities for their craft. I do not think there is any question that they would be quite willing to do so if the situation were properly organized.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
It is difficult apparently to make a charge for services of this kind if you are going to impose a different kind of charge for the same facilities used by commercial fishermen. We shall have to look at the matter quite radically to see if some equitable solution cannot be found so that commercial fishermen will be assured of facilities to tie up their boats and to earn their living without it being necessary at the same time to impose a charge on the taxpayers to provide berthing for pleasure craft.
This problem is not easy of solution. I shall do my best to do something. Perhaps I have been negligent in feeling that there are other problems in my department which may be more urgent and which have demanded more of my time, but I shall make an honest effort to see if something cannot be done to meet the problem.



DRUGS-LSD-ADVERTISEMENTS RESPECTING IMPORTATION

Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, this morning I looked up a statement in Hansard made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on May 16 about the control of the drug LSD in this country. I noted one paragraph particularly where he stated:
I can assure hon. members that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who are concerned with this problem, are doing their best to eliminate illicit supplies and we have under consideration, in consultation with that force, special measures which will permit more effective control of LSD than is possible under existing legislation.
I looked up that statement because of two coinciding items in newspapers which came to my attention this morning. One is an advertisement in a campus newspaper, The Sheaf at the University of Saskatchewan. It advertises a series of long playing records made by Dr. Timothy Leary who has been something of a high priest to the cult built round the use of LSD. It says:
Send $3 per record check or money orders only. We pay postage.
10158	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Correspondence is to be addressed to Pixie Records, Inc., and an address in New York is given. I would gather that a student at the university could make application and receive records that would in effect advertise the use of a drug that the health department tells us it is endeavouring to restrict.
At the same time there is an article in today's Globe and Mail featuring an individual who appeared last evening on the program "Sunday". The headline says, "Ginsberg Asks LSD For All". The individual mentioned has come to Canada and has been given a tremendous amount of free publicity. I suspect he was paid for his services to the C.B.C. last evening.
I have two points of query. First, if it is the intention actively to prevent the entry of this drug, why allow unscrupulous operators to build up a demand for the drug? I referred to the University of Saskatchewan, but I know that the advertisement in question also appeared in the University of British Columbia paper in Vancouver. I expect it has appeared clear across the country. I want to know whether these records are actually allowed into the country, whether any effort is made to keep them out and what sort of check is kept on this traffic. I want to know also whether the record does not provide an avenue for the drug itself to come in later.
The other point of query is, why should the C.B.C. subvert the efforts of the health department? If Mr. Ginsberg comes to Canada it should be at his own expense and not at the invitation of a body supported by the Canadian taxpayer. The entire program on
DEBATES	November 21, 1966
which he appeared last evening has been built round the concept of psychedelic experience. I would ask why, in the name of art, public affairs or anything else should we be engaged in the subsidizing of the spread of a drug that the health department has admitted is a menace to the country.
Finally, should anyone suggest there is any political advantage in my raising the subject I should like to direct his attention to a very interesting article by Peter Gzowski in the Toronto Star of November 16 entitled "Why Pot Threatens Canada's New Left". I would suggest it might be time something threatened Canada's new left but I do not think we need the threat of LSD even there. I feel it is time that we ceased sitting around with folded hands waiting for this menace to grow to a proportion where we cannot stop it. Over and over again in the articles I have mentioned and in other articles the assumption is that the battle already is won. I feel that as the parliament of Canada it is our duty to make every effort to prevent the spread of this menace in our country.


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I must re-emphasize the minister's statement that the Department of National Health and Welfare has had consultations with the R.C.M.P. and with the Department of Justice. Appropriate action is now under consideration. We are also looking into the importation of the record made by Dr. Timothy Leary.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Tuesday, November 22, 196G