1966-03-22

FINANCE


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: On Friday last the hon. member for Middlesex West asked whether I would table copies of the letters which I had addressed to financial institutions in connection with the purchase of off-shore securities. I have pleasure now, with the consent of the house, in tabling copies in English and in French.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister have leave to table the documents in question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Douglas:: Would it be possible to have this material printed either as an appendix to Hansard or in Votes and Proceedings?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that the document in question be published as an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of document referred to above, see appendix.]



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. Waldo Monieith (Perth):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister in a position to tell the house the date of the budget?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will be presenting the budget on Tuesday, March 29, at 8 p.m.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Secretary of State
for External Affairs this morning met a delegation from the Voice of Women. I want to ask the minister if he is able to accede to their request and make a forthright and forcible appeal for a cessation of the bombing of Viet Nam.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I outlined to the delegation which came to see me this morning what Canada was seeking to do by way of developing a further role for the International Control Commission. I also mentioned the efforts which were being undertaken by representatives of Canada in discussions with the government of North Viet Nam and the government of South Viet Nam. I pointed out that I felt, in view of these operations, that they would not expect me to comment specifically on some of the questions they put, including the one to which my hon. friend directs my attention. They seemed to accept the suggestion I made as the wise course in the circumstances.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister, is he prepared to give the house any statement with reference to the request that Canada take steps to prevent the export of equipment which can be used by either side in the war, particularly with reference to helicopter parts, Caribou planes and any other material which could be used for military purposes?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there was any particular comment on that question. The fact is that there are no direct military exports from Canada to Viet Nam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a further supplementary question, may I simply ask the minister whether his attention has been drawn to page 2 of the brief presented to him this morning.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It would not be necessary to draw it to my attention, Mr. Speaker, because I read it with great care.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, would the minister say whether the interpretation that some of them gave to his answer to the request that Canada should recognize communist China, was well founded?

March 22, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, it is most interesting and unusual that I am able to bail out the Prime Minister, but I want to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. While we know the government has the most peaceful intentions and wishes to do the right thing in respect to the war in Viet Nam, did the minister inform these ladies that basically the government of Canada supports the policies of the United States in this war?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to these ladies what we were doing, and they appreciated this. In fact in their brief they commended the government for the efforts it is making to bring about negotiations to end the conflict in Viet Nam.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Would the hon. lady inform us whether the remarks made yesterday by the Minister of Transport, to the effect that there was no need for a broadcasting czar, mean that the government is intending to bypass the Fowler report?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am not only not sure what my colleague means; I am also not sure what he is reported as having said, and I have not had an opportunity to ascertain from him what he actually did say.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Is the minister investigating the causes of the crash of several CF-104 Canadian aircraft, some of them in Germany, recently?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Each accident is individually investigated to determine the causes, so far as they can be determined.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: As a
supplementary question, would the minister say whether this is not the 36th or 38th of these Starfighters that have had trouble of this sort, and whether this individual case will be investigated in the light of the long series of accidents.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Each case is investigated, Mr. Speaker. This is a single engine airplane and when there is a flame-out, when the engine fails for any reason, it is almost always a write-off because of the very high wing loading. This is one of the problems you have with aircraft of that design.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinie):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister tell us whether some of the inquiries into accidents in which the CF-104 was involved are now completed?
Could the minister tell us also if he has received the reports of such inquiries? [English]


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Oh, yes. In almost every case a report has been received and the causes are numerous, but in most cases the problem has been due to having only one engine on which to rely, with no auxiliary source of power when anything goes wrong affecting the engine.



MAINLAND CHINA-CONSTRUCTION OF STEEL MILL BY WEST GERMANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the Canadian government share the concern of the United States government, as expressed by Secretary of State Rusk, regarding the building of a $150 million steel mill in mainland China by West Germany?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question. In reply I may say there is no internationally accepted prohibition on the sale of a steel mill to communist China. I think the question primarily is one for the countries which are involved.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs now answer the simple question, does the Canadian government intend to recognize the government of mainland China?
March 22, 1966



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Postmaster General a question concerning the envelope containing 58 $1,000 bills which was found in the Montreal post office.
Has the Postmaster General any indications on where the envelope came from?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: None, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot see how this matter can be considered of such urgency that it should be asked at this time. I suggest the hon. member place it on the order paper.


Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Postmaster General.
Could he inform the house whether the 58 $1,000 notes received at the Montreal post office are counterfeit or genuine?


Mr. Coie (Longueuil):: They are genuine, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to that of the hon. member for Levis.
Since I have often received letters addressed "To whom it may concern", does the Postmaster General consider the possibility of forwarding to me the letter sent to the Montreal post office recently?



DAYLIGHT SAVING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Yesterday being the first day of spring, many of our provincial governments now will be thinking of establishing daylight saving time. In order to establish uniform timetables for the railroads, bus companies, air lines, and radio and television networks, has the Prime Minister given any thought to establishing nation-wide daylight saving time by setting specific dates for the changeover from standard to daylight saving time and back again?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker. I confess I have not given this any thought, but naturally I will now.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



RHODESIA-STATEMENT AS TO EXTENT OF EMBARGO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps at this time I could deal with a question asked yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition concerning the effectiveness of oil sanctions against Rhodesia. To supplement what I said yesterday, I would confirm that while there have been a number of press reports about shipments of oil into Rhodesia, some referring to shipments from South Africa and others to shipments from the Portuguese territory of Mozambique, these reports refer, in addition to gasoline, to other petroleum products such as kerosene.
While there have been many reports of this kind, it appears that some of them are exaggerated. For obvious reasons it is difficult to arrive at an exact estimate of the quantities of gasoline now entering Rhodesia, but the reports the government has received indicate that the quantity reaching Rhodesia from outside is only part of the daily consumption, even under the stringent rationing now in effect. Despite the shipments of gasoline into Rhodesia the stocks of gasoline in that country, I am informed, are diminishing.
The hon. gentleman also asked about the amount of oil delivered to Zambia by the R.C.A.F. Up to March 21 the amount has been 3,475 tons of oil.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the question I have in mind will be regarded by the Prime Minister as improper; however, the question simply is this. On the basis of the latest information what are the expectations now in respect of the breakdown of the Smith administration by reason of the imposition of sanctions, particularly in connection with oil?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is a
commonwealth committee in London which is following the application of the sanctions. I believe it is to meet very shortly, and we will get a report on the effectiveness of the sanctions as we have been able to determine that effectiveness. All I would like to say at this moment is that the sanctions are being effective, but their full effect is perhaps going to take longer to see than we had thought to be the case when we met in Nigeria a couple of months ago.

March 22, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Paul Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could the minister tell the house if security measures have been taken to prevent floods along the St. Lawrence river?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, every step that is appropriate for the Department of Transport to take is being taken in this matter.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport.
Has a request been made directly by the government of the province of Quebec to that effect?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not to my knowledge, sir.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Will he in the course of checking on the Truscott case take a look at correspondence between the Department of Justice and the Truscott family, and take steps to ensure that no pressure is applied to persuade Steven Truscott to admit to the commission of a crime of which he has consistently claimed to be innocent?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to my instructions the book in question is being carefully studied by the department, as well as the transcript of the evidence taken in the case which amounts to 2,284 pages. All the records of the department are being looked at, and certain correspondence which has been referred to by the hon. member will also be studied. I shall not be in a position to make any statement until that study has been completed.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister take a 
particular look at the letter from the executive assistant to the Minister of Justice dated November 12, 1965?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I have made note of the hon. member's question, and I shall do so.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Solicitor General. Is he aware that the commissioner of penitentiaries has prevented any more members of parliament from visiting Steven Truscott, and does he concur in this decision to prevent such visits?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, it has been traditional to permit members of parliament to visit penitentiaries and meet with inmates. I am advised, however, that the commissioner of penitentiaries discussed the matter of further visits with the father of Steven Truscott, who agreed that at this time it would probably be better not to allow any further visits except by the immediate family and a solicitor.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Could the minister tell us when he will announce the new policy on the price of milk and if he expects to increase the minimum price of milk to $4.00 per hundredweight in the near future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that this question was asked in identical terms yesterday, at which time the minister answered.



PORK-REPORTED LARGE IMPORTATIONS BY PROCESSORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to answer the question I posed yesterday.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question raised yesterday by the hon. member and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, the situation is as follows. Imports of pork into Canada from January 1 to March 8 were 7,548,043 pounds. Exports of pork out of
March 22, 1966

Canada from January 1 to March 12 were 9,134,730 pounds. I think this is consonant with the normal pattern, as this is a North American market and imports and exports are normally fairly well balanced. From 1960 to 1965 imports into Canada totalled 44 million pounds annually and exports were 45.7 million pounds.
I might point out to the hon. member that the average price for grade A hogs at Toronto for February was 43.19 cents per pound, which was the highest on record. For the week ending March 19 it was 34.46 cents per pound. This drop occurred mainly for two reasons: first, hog marketings have increased from an average weekly total of 129,700 in February to 144,300 in the week ending March 19. There has been a parallel marketing situation in the United States.
It should be noted that the above price declines were from record high levels, and that present prices are still well above those of a year ago. On March 20, 1965 the price of grade A hogs at Toronto was 28 cents per pound, compared to 34.46 cents for the week ending March 19 this year. The national cumulative weighted average price for grade A hogs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is deemed to have been answered.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, because you did not allow the completion of the answer by the Minister of Agriculture, I should like to give notice that at ten o'clock tonight I am going to debate this matter with the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, on March 4 on the orders of the day, in answer to a question from me the Prime Minister said that before any further consideration could be given to resuming negotiations on the matter of an amending formula for the constitution he felt it would be only proper to ask the government of Quebec to indicate the nature of the changes that it now thinks should be made. I asked whether the Prime Minister would make that inquiry and he said he would be glad to do so. May I ask

Inquiries of the Ministry the right hon. gentleman whether he has made the inquiry yet, and if so what answer he has received, if any?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have made the inquiry. I would prefer, if my hon. friend would agree-and I apologize for not having replied before-to make sure that I have the exact information as it came from Quebec city.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Has the cabinet reached a decision respecting a royal commission to inquire into organized crime and did the Prime Minister get in touch with the provinces so as to obtain their consent?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything to what I have already said on this matter. I hope to be in a position to make a statement about it shortly.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the hon. member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Rinfret) was speaking on behalf of the government when he said, according to a release published in Le Devoir of March 22:
-that the cabinet is now considering the funds to be appropriated for the building and will set the date shortly for the start of-
-the C.B.C. building in Montreal.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to look into the exact report in question and discuss it with my colleagues. Perhaps I shall be able to make a statement on this important matter very shortly.

March 22, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right honourable Prime Minister.
Is the Prime Minister aware of the recent entry into Canada of a certain Ronald P. Ramsey and could he tell the house whether this person is a security risk for the country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question could be put on the order paper.



EMERGENCY MEASURES ORGANIZATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry. Can the minister advise the house whether the director general of the Emergency Measures Organization has yet reported to him on the substance of his flood cost talks in Winnipeg last week with the Premier of Manitoba?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the director general of the Emergency Measures Organization was out in Winnipeg, Manitoba, to discuss what might be done in respect of possible future floods. I would not describe them as flood cost talks. It was with a view to the Emergency Measures Organization providing assistance that might be useful and necessary. He has not yet reported to me on the outcome of these talks.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a question yesterday by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, who asked whether the government was aware of Dosco's intention to remove production equipment from their wire and nail mill at the Sydney steel plant, and if so had the government received a request for aid or did it intend to give aid to this area.

The government has not received any request for aid, nor is it likely that one will be received in respect of this. I understand that the question involves the movement of two production machines, both controlled by one man, from Sydney to Etobicoke. The effect of this move will be to increase the sales of drawn wire by Dosco, resulting in a greater output of steel at Sydney and a net increase in employment of from nine to 12 man years.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I should like to ask the Minister of Industry if he has any knowledge of a reported request by Premier Stanfield for an investigation into the steel operations at Sydney.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, I have no knowledge of a reported request for an investigation by Premier Stanfield.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he has hopes that the various nations in arrears in their contributions to the United Nations will agree on a certain formula to alleviate the unnatural strain which is now on that organization. I understand there have been United Press reports to the effect that as the result of a meeting an agreement will be made, especially with France and the U.S.S.R., to pay these arrears.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend knows, Canada is a member of a committee that is engaged in the examination of the financial operations of the United Nations. As the result of a meeting that took place a few days ago a suggestion has arisen that one might expect substantial payments to be made by certain defaulting countries. I sincerely hope that this will be the case.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I have a question for the minister of northern affairs arising from a reference on C.B.C. radio
March 22, 1966

news this morning to the Indian lands commission which will deal with claims arising from the Indian lands question in British Columbia. Has the minister appointed such a commission or does he intend to appoint such a commission apart from any commission or court that might be set up under the Indian claims legislation to which reference has been made in the house?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: In reply to the hon. member I might say I had a visit some time ago from Mr. Guy Williams, who is president of the native brotherhood. He asked that we delay the introduction of the legislation on Indian claims until a meeting was held with the native people of British Columbia on the so-called British Columbia lands question.
As my hon. friend knows, they are claiming that the aboriginal rights in British Columbia were never extinguished. They wanted to discuss it on that basis. I told him I would wait for some time until such a meeting was held. According to the press that meeting was held yesterday, and Mr. Williams has been in communication with my office today. He has informed us he intends to come to Ottawa next week. I have nothing to say beyond that.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether he has received a request from the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that a conference be held almost immediately to consider further amendments to the seal hunting regulations. Will the hon. gentleman consider convening such a meeting?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: I wish to refer the hon. member to the statement I made in this house a few days ago, in which he will find a full answer.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Halifax):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State if she might
Inquiries of the Ministry now be in a position to answer a question directed to her parliamentary secretary on Friday last with regard to the centennial youth parliament.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On Friday the hon. member for Saskatoon asked, in my absence, whether I had received any proposals for a centennial youth parliament other than those submitted by Mr. William Fair. The answer is yes, additional proposals in regard to this project have been put forward also by the staff of the centennial commission itself.
As for the member's suggestion that a parliamentary committee be set up to assist in consideration of this project, I think all I can tell the house at this stage is that the government is now considering how best to proceed with this matter.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I should like to answer a question which was directed to me on Friday by the hon. member for Edmonton West with regard to the appearance on the C.B.C. of Mr. Ronald B. Ramsey. I have checked into this matter with the officers of the corporation and am informed that Mr. Ramsey was in Toronto last week to record an interview for use on the well known program "This Hour Has Seven Days". As is customary in such cases, the C.B.C. paid Mr. Ramsey's travel expenses plus the normal honorarium of $150. The interview in question is to be shown at a later date as part of a program segment on Viet Nam which will include other points of view than those expressed by Mr. Ramsey.



REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked me a further question in regard to the work of the committee studying possible introduction of national co-operative legislation. I wish to inform the hon. member that the committee already has received a number of briefs and

March 22. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry informal representations from interested parties, and use has been made of these in the preliminary work to which I referred in my previous answer.
The committee feels, however, that its work has not yet progressed to the stage where it would be advisable or profitable to hold conferences or discussions with co-operative organizations. I can assure the hon. member that his representations in this regard will be kept in mind and that the government, for its part, will not introduce legislation without having given all interested parties adequate opportunity to put forward their views.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Is Canada now negotiating with the United States to instal anti-missile bases on Canadian territory either at North Bay or at La Macaza?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker.



NATO-POSSIBLE TRANSFER OF CANADIAN FORCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Latulippe (Compton-Fron-tenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Does the minister intend to withdraw our armed forces from France? If so, is it his intention to bring them back to Canada or elsewhere in the western hemisphere?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs has told the house, this whole question is under consideration by the government at the present time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask the minister if there is a possibility of the New Democratic party's program being fulfilled in this respect?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would think not. I am not sure what that program is, but I would think the answer is no.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he is now able to reply to the question I raised last Thursday concerning further financial assistance to the Canadian student means survey.


Mitchell William Sharp: regret that I am not yet in a position to answer the question. I am having inquiries made.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but before I ask the question I may say that a short answer of yes or no will be sufficient. Under the present government dairy policy, are all producers who ship cream entitled to a subsidy, or is there a gallonage figure set below which producers are not entitled to payments?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may get a yes or no answer on the order paper.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that foreign affiliated companies will have to make an all out endeavour if we are to hold our external payments gap to manageable proportions, will the minister inform the house what steps he proposes to take to achieve that desirable end?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that this is the type of question which cannot be asked at this time.
March 22, 1366
I Translation]



QUEBEC-PURCHASE OF TELEPHONE COMPANY BY U.S. INTERESTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Can the minister tell the house whether the purchase of the Quebec Telephone Company by American interests is in violation of the guidelines laid down by the American Treasury Department?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is a question that would have to be directed to the United States government. It does not constitute an offence in Canada.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance.
Could the Minister inquire from his American counterpart whether this is in violation of the guidelines issued recently?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on March 15 the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) asked me if the department intended to correct the situation which existed in our Hong Kong immigration office because of a shortage of personnel. I checked and found that a Canadian agent had been added to the Hong Kong office as well as a native agent. At present it does not take any longer to accept or refuse applications at the Hong Kong office than at any European immigration office.
Last year 2,664 applications were examined at Hong Kong, compared with 4,352 this year. Therefore, there is no shortage of personnel there.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to 23033-189
Inquiries of the Ministry the Prime Minister. My question arises from a report in this week's Financial Post to the effect that a royal commission has been appointed by the government of Newfoundland to investigate food and drug prices in that province.
My question is this. Has this matter been drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister? Also, since the rise in the cost of living is a problem facing all Canadians, has the government offered to assist the province of Newfoundland in its investigation? If so, what assistance is the government prepared to offer?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should have to look into this question. Perhaps if my hon. friend would put it on the order paper he could get a more complete and exhaustive reply.



EXPO '67 AVAILABILITY OF RECORDING FACILITIES FOR R.C.M.P. BAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I should like to ask the minister if his department would approach Expo '67 officials to make recording facilities available to the R.C.M.P. band at Expo '67 so that records may be made available to the Canadian public as a cultural contribution to Canada's centennial year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member asked this question yesterday. I understand it was answered last night. This is substantially the same question, and it cannot be asked now.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: But with respect, Mr. Speaker, this question was not answered properly last night.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Could it be debated at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the



March 22, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Transport or of the Minister without Portfolio, who I understand is interested in these matters. Has a date been set for a hearing of the petitioners in their appeal respecting the judgment of the Board of Transport Commissioners having to do with the Canadian Pacific train the Dominion?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir. One of the reasons no date has been set is that one of the parties to the appeal has not yet submitted the brief that that party undertook to submit. It was felt that all the briefs should be received before hearing the appeal. Perhaps the hon. gentleman could do something to facilitate the provision of the brief in question.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question, Mr Speaker. I understand that a meeting will be held tomorrow morning with some of the mayors from western Canada. Will the cancellation of the Dominion be the specific subject matter of that meeting, or will other things be involved?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understood, sir, both from the correspondence with the mayor of Moose Jaw and the confirmation given by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Pascoe) in their talks with the government, the mayors were going to talk about passenger service generally, and not specifically about the Dominion.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour in his capacity as minister of housing. I have given him notice of this question.
In view of continuing fears being expressed by officials of the housing industry in Canada that the shortage of mortgage money is creating the danger of a critical stoppage in construction, has the government reached a decision with regard to re-entering the direct lending field for speculative housing? If so, what is the nature-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Reid Scott: -of such decision?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question was asked by the hon. member precisely in the same terms, and it was ruled out of order.



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
Has the minister communicated over the week-end with Quebec officials of the Department of Mines to examine closely the situation facing the gold mines of Northwestern Quebec?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I shall be making this telephone call in a few seconds, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Prime Minister, not because 1 anticipate any holiday at Easter but in view of the fact that if there is to be a holiday, hon. members from western Canada must have many days' notice in order to get transportation. I would ask the Prime Minister what is in mind for Easter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think my hon. friend's interest will be shared by other hon. members of the house. His is quite a reasonable request. We ought to let the house know as quickly as possible what plans there are for what is often considered to be an Easter holiday.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I must ask a supplementary question. What has been said does not answer the problems of members from western Canada. Could we have information very shortly with reference to the holiday, so we can make our reservations?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Perhaps I could help the hon. member by telling him that I think he would be quite safe in making his reservation for the Wednesday night immediately preceding Good Friday.


Harold Edward Winch: And returning when?


George James McIlraith: I cannot give any information at the moment about that, but I hope to be able to do so soon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
March 22, 1966



The house resumed, from Monday, March 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Douglas.



THE INCREASED COST OF LIVING

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last night I was asking the question which literally millions of Canadians are asking more and more urgently every day. I asked, what is the government going to do about the rising cost of living? Everyone wants to know, and everyone needs to know. We must have action to bring the cost of living into line with the incomes of the people in this country.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The government may not like the idea of a prices review board as suggested by the leader of this party. Very well, let members opposite suggest and implement their own machinery for keeping prices within the range of Canadian family incomes. This is what must be done. What worries me, as it does a great many others in this house, is that so far there seems to be no realization on the other side of the house that inflation is now a major problem. It has been brushed aside. But this cannot be done any longer without there being serious consequences for Canada.
I touched last night at some length on the grave consequences to family health, wellbeing and human dignity across this country. But there are other consequences we must take into account. If the government persists in pretending that measures concerned with trade and other aspects of the economy will of themselves suffice to deal with the cost of living, hon. gentlemen opposite are in for a rude shock.
If this process of inflation is allowed to go on much longer, this steady rise in the cost of living month by month, and if the cost of food in particular continues to increase, every organized group in this country, including professional organizations, trade unions, and even pensioner groups to the extent that they can do so, will be bound to engage in an ever fiercer struggle to protect their living standards. This is inevitable. What will happen will be that the stronger ones will get their incomes increased while the weaker will be pushed down still further into insecurity and misery.
Increased, Cost of Living
As surely as the sun will rise tomorrow, we in parliament will have to find more and more money to boost pensions and allowances for those whose purchasing power has been driven down and who have no effective means of raising their own incomes. I think this process is a stupid thing and vicious thing. There is no end to it. The time has come when the government should face the fact that incomes in this country must bear a sensible relation to the cost of living.
We say that the problem of holding the cost of living steady, or at least the cost of household essentials, is one which must be faced. We have suggested one way in which a start could be made. There are other ways in which action could be taken. But the important thing is action. We are deluding ourselves if we believe that steps taken to deal with big industries in this country will lead eventually to benefits trickling down to those in low income groups. This has nothing to do with reality.
I urge the government now, before it is too late, to deal as a matter of urgency with the cost of living as it relates to the incomes of ordinary Canadian families. It is one of the most important problems that we face this session.


Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed with my remarks this afternoon I should like to express agreement with much of what the hon. lady has just said. It has always been my contention and the contention of members of this party that most Canadians do want to better their lot in freedom in the economic sense. Many of the hon. lady's remarks reminded me of the fact that we cannot talk about political freedom unless at the same time we concern ourselves with economic freedom.
In years gone by, though perhaps we never admitted it, inflation during relatively good times was something we learned to live with. It might be remembered that in past years most modern governments in the western world considered inflation as something which was inevitable, something which confronted most governments, especially, as I say, in good times. However, I suggest that today modern governments fully realize that the question of inflation, the question of an excessive rise in the cost of living, is one which must be dealt with. Otherwise, serious difficulties arise at home and the prestige of our country is seriously handicapped abroad.

March 22, 1966
Increased Cost of Living
If confidence is lost in the nation's money, if confidence is lost in the Canadian dollar, much harm is done at home and our prestige abroad is greatly impaired. I am sure the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and the government of the day will agree with this proposition.
At the outset of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, let me frankly admit that a solution to the problem of rising costs or excessive inflation in a Canadian context is not easy. In many ways we have no real precedents, no historical tools to serve us. Yet this is no excuse for a government to do nothing. A solution to the problem of inflation, a solution to the problem of rising costs, will need imagination, determination and a firm hand.
For this reason I, together with most members of the house, I feel sure, was appalled by the speech which the Minister of Finance made yesterday. What were we told of the government's plan to face a situation which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) himself described in Toronto as a serious one? The speech of the minister and the speeches of his supporters up to now have convinced me that the government of the day has no real plans to face the problem of rising costs.
Yesterday afternoon, after my leader had spoken, the minister was apparently satisfied to indulge in some unseemly partisan bickering. He gave us a historical survey of the sins of a past administration. Never for a moment did he doff his partisan blinkers. I ask the house, did the minister speak of one concrete plan which the government is adopting to fight inflation and rising costs? Did he talk about one single achievement which the government has to its credit since it came to power a few years ago in terms of facing this problem? All our members who heard the minister yesterday and all who have heard from supporters of the government since must answer, no. I would say that while the minister may have great administrative skills, while he may have been a technocrat of merit suitable to a bygone era in the '50's, both he and his government lack the drive and the imagination needed to face this problem in the '60's.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I do not intend to waste the time of the house with a long historial survey or a long historical treatise. But in 1957 when our party came to power-and I am not laying blame on the government or on this side of
[Mr. Grafftey.J
the house-we had to deal with a very serious problem, namely, the problem of unemployment. And in a partisan way I am not going to suggest for one single moment that we completely and entirely solved the problem It was a difficult problem to solve, but I do say that the imaginative government of that day at least addressed itself to the problem of unemployment.
I well remember that when I came into this house in 1958 members of the opposition front bench, including the now Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and the now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), legitimately day after day berated the government of that time on the questions of unemployment and employment. We addressed ourselves to that problem and I say to the members of the government, you must address yourselves to the problem of rising costs and inflation. Partisan surveys like the one given yesterday by the Minister of Finance will not be an answer to this problem and will neither be satisfactory to the members of this house nor to the people of Canada.
How did we address ourselves to the problem of unemployment in 1957 and 1958? Our approach in part included winter works, improvement of our national placement service office facilities, increased export sales abroad, the building of technical and vocational schools, and winter "Do It Now" campaigns. These are just a few of the things we initiated which I believe helped in part, but not entirely, to solve the problem of the day. Instead of engaging in partisan attacks on my leader and on our past record I say to the minister and his government, do not wait for the budget, a budget encompassing tax plans. I hope that before the vote is taken this evening a member of the government or one of the government supporters will stand up and tell us at least one concrete plan they have developed in order to face up to this situation, because up to now we have heard nothing.
I say again to the government that we had to face up to the problem of unemployment and I tell the members of the government that they must face up to the problem of rising costs and inflation.


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


William Heward Grafftey: Yes.


Mitchell William Sharp: Could he give us the figures to indicate the success of the efforts made by his government to combat unemployment?
March 22, 1966


William Heward Grafftey: I do not seriously believe the minister wants me to give him statistical information of this nature while I am in full flight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. gentleman.


William Heward Grafftey: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) made some positive suggestions on how we might tackle the problem of rising costs and inflation. I intend, sir, in my brief remarks this afternoon to make some more. When the Leader of the Opposition criticized the government for spending-I think I am paraphrasing his remarks correctly-I do not think he was necessarily criticizing the quantity of the government's expenditures. What he was criticizing primarily was waste, duplication and lack of co-ordination in its spending and the lack of planning priorities with the provinces.
I think we all agree in this house that modern governments must and should spend money if the public sector of the economy is going to keep up with the private sector. We who are responsible for the public sector of the economy must play our part. We must spend more on research. We must spend more on hospitals, on education, urban development and redevelopment, housing and rehousing plans, parks, playgrounds, vocational schools, etc.
Again I say the Leader of the Opposition was not criticizing expenditures for legitimate and logical welfare measures, for education and the like. What we are criticizing is waste, duplication, lack of co-ordination and the lack of planning priorities with provincial authorities.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and my hon. colleague, the member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), have most ably established already the fact that in 1965 inflation and the rising cost of living constituted a serious problem and continue to be a serious problem today. If we base the index on 1949 as 100, we can see that the average yearly rise amounted to about two points, but between January, 1965 and December, 1965 the index went from 136.9 to 140.8, almost double the average. Who then could contend that inflation is not a serious problem, that rising costs are not a serious problem, and who could contend that we in this house are expecting too much when we ask the government,
Increased Cost of Living before the vote is taken this evening, to tell us at least one or two of its concrete plans in this regard?
I say that this government lacks the determination, the will, the direction and the imagination to deal with this problem in the '60's. The government front bench is filled with experienced technocrats who were perhaps able to conduct the nation's affairs in the '50's, but again I say they lack the imagination to grapple realistically with this problem in the '60's. Sir, unless something drastic happens between now and this evening we can but say and believe that the government has no plans in this regard.
Who in Canada, and I join hands with many members of the N.D.P. who have already spoken in this regard, are primarily affected by a rising cost of living? The answer is simple-the poor, the deprived and the destitute. The hon. lady from Vancouver-Kingsway and my colleague from Edmonton West ably pointed out the fact that when rising costs strike, when inflation strikes, foodstuffs, clothing and housing are affected, and it is the poor, the destitute and the deprived who get it in the neck every time.
Can we sit by, indulging in idle partisan talk and bickering while this situation faces us? I say no, Mr. Speaker. Good times rarely affect the poor, the deprived and the destitute. Prosperity and good times rarely affect them, but I submit that bad times and the remedies usually brought forward to correct them invariably do affect the poor, the destitute and the deprived.
Take as an example, sir, the old classical way of combating inflation and rising prices, a method I do not advocate in its entirety for future application. What happened in the past when governments occasionally moved in the classical sense to combat rising prices and inflation? It was said that government spending had to be cut, and interest rates rose in order to freeze credit. Who got it in the neck every time? It was the poor, the destitute and the deprived. They are watching this parliament, they are looking to this parliament for action and concrete plans and measures. They are not looking to this parliament for partisan historical surveys and bickering.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
We want this government to face up to its responsibilities as we tried to face up to our responsibilities, not always successfully, in respect of unemployment. It is these people living on fixed or shrinking incomes who are largely affected by the problem of inflation

March 22, 1966
Increased Cost of Living and rising costs; it is the old people oi the nation who are so affected. That is the reason my leader and my party have suggested time and time again that instead of talking, discussing and having commission after commission we should raise the old age pension immediately right across the board as we have suggested, because if we wait for a commission to report and on its findings the people who deserve to have a fair share of our national income will be dead before the government acts.
What about poverty in this country? These things have been put on the record before, sir, but I suggest they should be put on the record again because it is the people in conditions of poverty who are affected. Mass poverty is one thing in the African and Asian countries; it is yet another thing in Canada where we have the second highest standard of economic living in the world. Far too many Canadians are not truly sharing in our nation's prosperity today.
Right here at home we have done a poor job in pushing back the frontiers of poverty and want. I submit that individual and national excellence will be a meaningless concept if millions of Canadians continue to subsist on barely minimal standards and conditions. We shall have to put an end to poverty amidst plenty at home, or what will our answer be to communism abroad? The leader of the New Democratic Party and many members of my party have continually put the following statistics on the record of parliament. The Ontario Federation of Labour tells us that in Canada today we can consider that families of four people with net annual incomes of under $2,000 are living in destitution. Who would not admit that? Further, families of four with net annual incomes of under $3,000 are living in poverty. Who would not admit that? Also, families of four people with net annual incomes of under $4,000 a year are living in deprivation.
With these statistics in mind I submit that over 30 per cent of the population of Canada is living in either poverty, deprivation or destitution, and these are the people primarily affected by inflation and rising costs. I think I have shared the experience of many members. Many of the people who daily come into my office in my constituency are the silent, voiceless poor. These are the people who never come under the aegis of private or public welfare help, and it is to the problems of these people that we must direct ourselves in this debate. Invariably these people never

have been in an unemployment insurance office. They would not know what an unemployment insurance book or an unemployment insurance stamp looks like.
What does a prosperous Canada mean to so many people living in poverty? As I said before, let us not have the effrontery in this House of Commons to quote statistics to them. The hon. lady last night well said what effrontery it is to people who are living in poverty amongst plenty to have Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures continually quoted to them. These people are individuals. In fact, very often an ever-increasing gross national product locks more people into grinding poverty.
Today our rising gross national product means that many Canadians are becoming richer while more than 4 million are becoming poorer. Four fifths of us earn salaries or have incomes tied to rising production while the other one-fifth pays for the higher prices with shrinking incomes. I think that this in part is the crux of our debate of yesterday and today; in other words, as a free country we are going to have to put a halt to the type of poverty we have at home if we are going to have a meaningful image in the face of communism abroad.
We have already stated that probably we are not going to solve this problem with the old negative, classical approach to rising prices and inflation. I am not saying we should not to a certain extent consider government spending programs and interest rates when we are approaching the problem of rising prices and inflation, but I should like to discuss some positive measures which I think the government should entertain immediately.
If any government, no matter of what political stripe, is really going to tackle the problem of inflation and rising prices it must encourage the notion of what I consider to be individual and national excellence. Admittedly this very often involves increasing expenditures. First of all, I believe we are going to have to increase our expenditures on basic research in Canada. For every dollar which the Canadian government up to the present time has given per scientist in Canada the United Kingdom has given five and the United States government ten to fifteen.
I should like to hark back to some remarks made in this house the other evening by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I think, sir, that with specialization and selectivity we
March 22, 1966

must emphasize the quality of our ventures rather than the bigness of our enterprises. This is a very difficult subject to discuss, but living next to a country which has the highest standard of economic living in the world we are very often working in areas of activity in which we have no business to be.
I think the dictates of reality in the modern world mean that living next to the United States we must enter into various areas of economic activity, but still I wish to emphasize the fact that in the past we have entered into areas in which we have no business to be. As a parliament I think we should keynote the fact that we should encourage individual and national excellence and should underline specialization and selectivity and the quality of our ventures.
We must encourage people to emigrate to our shores and join with us in nation building.
The government must do more than it has up until now to sell more of our products abroad.
We must encourage the idea of an ownership democracy. What do we mean by an ownership democracy? It simply means that by a system of self-liquidating government guaranteed loans we help people to help themselves. This will mean more good farmers on good farms; it will mean more independent businessmen owning their own businesses; it will mean more Canadian families owning their own homes. This is the reason we advocate a tax rebate for home building and construction, and this is the reason we advocate the abolition of the 11 per cent tax on building and production machinery.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
It means more than that. It means that as a nation we must encourage foreign capital to come to Canada to help us in the process of nation building. At the same time, we must encourage more Canadians to participate in investment in Canadian enterprises. We as Conservatives believe that democracy is well served when as many people as possible have an ownership stake in their country.
What about the problem of excessive interest rates? We in this party, as well as every member of this house who has stayed close to his constituents, recognize that it is very often the poor, destitute and deprived who are not only affected by rising costs and inflation but are the people who are gored by excessive interest rates. That is why in confronting
Increased Cost of Living this problem our party has discussed and put forward the idea of a consumers loan act.
We recognize that many home owners must make legitimate and valid expenditures for household goods and effects. I believe, as do many of the members of my party, that we must do something for these people because they should be able to obtain government guaranteed loans for these legitimate expenses. As other members have said, we must put real teeth into our monopoly and pricefixing legislation.
What about our farmers, Mr. Speaker? While we find poverty in the decaying centres of our large cities and metropolitan areas, where do we find poverty in our rural areas? We find it spread indiscriminately throughout the countryside and in our rural villages and towns. At the present time we have 500,000 rural Canadian families with a net annual income of under $2,000. The farmer is the man who gets it in the neck when governments do not deal with inflation and rising costs. The farmer is caught today, while the government does nothing, in an intolerable cost-price squeeze. Today he pays much more for his grain and machinery than he did ten years ago but he gets approximately the same amount for his produce.
What is the government doing about this problem? Are they going to say a single thing about it before the debate terminates this evening? Time and time again we have put forward a positive program for the farmers. Amongst other things we feel there should be a program of crop insurance for all farmers in both the east and the west. Farmers must receive a realistic average price of $4 per hundred pounds for milk. The government must make a much greater effort to sell our agricultural products abroad, and we must establish as soon as possible an eastern feed grain agency so the farmer can pay less and have a more realistic price for his grain and feed. We must spur on ARDA legislation if the farmer is not going to be caught continually in a cost-price squeeze. This situation indicates the typical failure of the present administration in its ability to put good legislation into effect and into practice.
The present Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) and future minister of forestry and rural affairs, I assume, has constantly refused to consult the people who are meant to be affected by the ARDA legislation. I condemn the minister in simple terms because he believes that pure public planning will provide all the answers. The Minister of Forestry

March 22, 1966
Increased Cost of Living in his failure to get the ARDA legislation off the ground lacks the support of what I call the third group in modern society, those non-public and non-private bodies or associations whose support is needed in order to translate legislation into meaningful results.
My last general topic is the following. I think most of us sitting in all sections of the house realize today that we make no progress in a federal or national sense, in an economic, social or political way, unless the government does everything possible to strengthen confederation and strengthen federal-provincial relations. It has already been stated that a government that cannot strengthen federal-provincial relations cannot deal with various problems such as inflation and the cost of living because time and time again members who have addressed themselves to this debate yesterday and today have recognized that only a high degree of federal-provincial cooperation will even begin to tackle the problems of inflation and rising costs.
We realize this, Mr. Speaker, because the provinces have a large part to play in controlling prices. What has happened since this government has come to power? Why have they been unable to get co-operation from the provinces and face the problems of inflation and rising costs? What happened to the program put forward by the first minister of finance of this government? His whole domestic and economic program failed and foundered on the rocks simply because this government consistently refused to consult the provincial authorities, especially in conjoining jurisdictions. What is the situation now, a few years and a few months later? Nobody in the government and on the treasury benches at this time will define or lead the federal cause. The pendulum has swung to the other extreme while a rudderless federal government drifts and flounders.
What must be done immediately? Let us not wait for more commissions and more hearings and that kind of activity on the part of the government. We are in a minority situation and we are here to co-operate. Just because some good ideas emanate from our side of the house, do not shoot them down automatically ipso facto. Let us put our nation first and make this minority parliament work.
As has been suggested time and time again on both sides of the house and by provincial premiers in a bipartisan spirit putting the country before party, if we are going to [Mr. Grafftey.l
strengthen federal-provincial relations and really meet problems such as inflation and rising costs we are going to have to plan spending priorities in the economic and social fields with the provinces. Our leader mentioned this yesterday. When is the government going to take the proper initiative in this regard?
Second, the government is going to have to provide leadership in improving permanent consultative machinery between Ottawa and the provinces. The type of machinery we have in the Privy Council office of the Prime Minister is a beginning but it is not good enough. Permanent consultative machinery must be improved as between Ottawa and the provinces.
What is my third suggestion? Our party believes that we must have a great conference with the provinces in order to give Canada a modern constitution suited to modern times. I do not know whether I am speaking for my party in this regard but as an individual member I personally believe that the B.N.A. Act as it now stands cannot confront present problems, be they inflationary or associated with high costs of living, between Ottawa and the provinces. We must have a modern constitution suited to modern times and I suggest that an all-party parliamentary constitutional committee should be established as soon as possible to meet with similar bodies of all provinces. Following that we should have a great national conference with the provinces in order to devise a constitution suited to modern times.
I do not think I am being a dreamer when I say we must be realistic and should not expect miracles overnight. Some feel the B.N.A. Act is flexible enough for current needs while others feel it needs greater or lesser amendments. Still others feel that we need an entirely new constitution. The point is, sir, that these various points of view should be brought to the conference table as soon as possible because every day we delay, every day we wait, is a lost day.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Together with many members of all parties in the house I suggest that we should celebrate our centennial with agreement on a modern constitution suited to modern times. Only when this is done in a modern nation like Canada can all levels of government truly tackle problems such as inflation and the rising cost of living. But this government's record in the field of federal-provincial relations is appalling; it is terrible. Any
March 22, 19GS	COMMONS
time my leader has made a suggestion for strengthening this country and bringing groups together, has the government once answered those suggestions with concrete counter-proposals? No. They say he is anti-Quebec and that is the only answer they have ever thrown at us. I suggest to hon. members opposite that we should pump the partisanship out of this discussion and get down to the business of concrete discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Heward Grafftey: Canadians in every section of this country, be they French speaking or English speaking, do not want to see partisanship injected into this debate. I know that one of the great problems facing Canada and this parliament is something that we find very difficult to deal with. Sometimes it is dangerous to talk about it. The government receives a great percentage of its support from the province of Quebec. The major party in opposition receives a great deal of its support from western Canada. What is going on in Canada right now? While Quebec is going through a type of quiet revolution, people in the western part of our country who are largely represented by this party speak with a new, outlooking, dynamic point of view relating to Canadianism. To my mind the strength and the glory of Canada are what we see in Quebec and out west. Instead of bickering and arguing, let us join hands across the floor of this house and all over Canada. Let us not plunge this debate into a partisan discussion. I would suggest that if we all made this resolution our nation would be a better place in which to live.
What has happened since this debate took place, since the right hon. Leader of the Opposition proposed the amendment to the supply motion? We in the opposition have shown the serious situation relating to rising prices and inflation. We and members of other parties have told the house which Canadians are largely affected and hurt by this situation. These are the poor, the destitute and the deprived. We have, in our opinion, listed a few positive measures which we feel must be enacted in order to confront the problem of inflation and rising prices. We have contended that the government has done nothing and during this debate has not put forward a single concrete, positive measure in order to combat the serious situation. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I now call for the support of all hon. members in every corner 23033-190
DEBATES	2999
Increased Cost of Living of this house in voting for the amendment put forward yesterday by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening patiently for two days to hon. members opposite and waiting for suggestions to come forward to deal with the problem of the cost of living. I have not heard a single suggestion from the other side of the house to deal with this immediate problem except that put forward by the New Democratic Party. Of course the government is concerned with the cost of living. People are naturally concerned with the cost of living. Living costs have been moving up faster than they did during the term of office of the former government. As a matter of fact, the cost of living index has never moved up very fast during periods when Conservative governments were in power because inevitably these have been periods of high unemployment in Canada. A great percentage of the labour force was not employed and the cost of living did not go up.
I will deal with the figures of unemployment later.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That was because you did nothing up to 1956.


Edgar John Benson: In order to put this matter in perspective we must recognize the fact that the cost of living increases in Canada over the years since this government came into office have been the second lowest of any western industrialized nation. The only country which has had slightly lower increases in the cost of living is the United States of America. France, Britain, Sweden, Spain and Italy have all had greater increases in the cost of living than we in this country.
My primary reason for entering this debate was to deal briefly with some propositions put forward by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in his speech yesterday when he introduced the motion now before the house, a speech which to my mind was amazing in that it was directly contradictory in what it said and was not very factual. First of all, of course, I missed in this sort of financial debate the humour of the late George Nowlan in the kind of speech which he would have made. Second, when I left the house last evening I felt there was something else missing and after thinking a while I decided that the right hon. gentleman's speech really lacked the perception of the former member of the right hon. gentleman's cabinet who is popularly known as the

March 22, 1966
Increased Cost of Living Senator from Bay Street. Indeed, it did not even have the perception which one would expect from the member representing St. James Street.
I wondered where the hon. Senator was and found that he had gone fishing. I think the big difficulty with the speech of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition yesterday was that he and the Senator did not arrange their fishing trips at the same time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: This is constructive isn't it?


Edgar John Benson: What did the right hon. Leader of the Opposition say in his speech? He started off by saying that he would like to move a motion to change the terms of reference with which Mr. Justice Spencer-


Some hon. Members:: Mr. Justice Spencer?


Edgar John Benson: -has to comply but that it was too late to do so now.


Clément Vincent: It is Mr. Justice Spence.


Edgar John Benson: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition had that opportunity last Monday, a week ago, when we asked him to introduce such a motion and he refused to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not so.


Edgar John Benson: Instead he used up the whole day in debate.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not so.


Edgar John Benson: It is so. Next, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition went on to quote from a very eminent source, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) who had made a speech in Toronto. In that speech the minister said:
-the government must be selective in its spending program and resolute in resisting pressures to spend beyond its means.
Those are fine words and I agree with them wholeheartedly. But then the Leader of the Opposition said:
These are some of the things that we have been saying.
I have been in the house since this government was formed and I tried last night to think of one occasion when hon. gentlemen opposite said that we should reduce expenditures. We have only recently finished discussing the estimates for 1965-66, and the only thing they suggested reducing was the salary of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin), knowing full well it could not be reduced no matter what kind of motion they put forward.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Who said that? It was not us. It did not come from us; it came from your friends the Socialists.


Clément Vincent: He is all mixed up. He spoke about Mr. Justice Spencer.


Edgar John Benson: I should like to know what expenditures the right hon. gentleman suggests we should reduce. I have been waiting for suggestions in this regard. He said that the solution of the problem, and this was the only solution he put forward, was to reduce government expenditures. Therefore I have been wondering what expenditures we should reduce. We are waiting for suggestions from that side of the house as to the type of expenditures that should be reduced. I shall point out a few errors in the figures used by the right hon. gentleman.
Last night I looked at the estimates for the year 1966-67, estimates which I had the honour of tabling in this house, which amount in total to $7,950,459,478, not $9,318 million as stated by the right hon. gentleman at page 2943 of Hansard. I looked at the main expenditures included in these estimates and one of the highest, of course, is national defence. What has happened to national defence expenditures since this government took office? They have been almost frozen. If you take a look at national defence expenditures over the period that this government has been in office, you will find that they have not increased; we have the same level of expenditures except for the increased cost of the same goods and materials included.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The next item at which I looked was national health and welfare. The right hon. gentleman opposite said during the course of his speech that we should increase the old age pension to $100 per month. Does he think that we should cut down the family allowance payments or the payments to the blind and disabled? Does he think we should cut down our hospital grants? Does he think, for example, we should take the $3 million out of the final supplementary estimates which we put in for additional medical research? I should like the other side to offer concrete suggestions where the government can cut down on its expenditures.
Another point the hon. gentleman made was that there was going to be a very high balance of payments deficit this year. I agree that there is going to be a high balance of payments deficit on current account. However, I think the statement should be placed
March 22, 1966	COMMONS
in perspective. I am referring to the current account. In 1957 the deficit was $1,455 million; in 1958, $1,131 million; in 1959, $1,504 million; in 1960, $1,243 million and in 1961, $982 million. Those high years were when there was high unemployment in Canada. Then, in 1962 the deficit was $874 million; in 1963, $557 million and in 1964, $453 million.
Why is the balance of payments deficit going up this year? One of the reasons is that Canada is engaged in the largest industrial expansion in its history. In order to carry out this expansion a great deal of machinery is being imported into this country. I think if hon. gentlemen opposite will take the time to analyse the increased deficit in current account trade with the United States this year, they will find a very large portion of it is made up of the cost of machinery imported into this country. These imports are creating factories and jobs for the people of Canada.
I should like to point out one or two other slight errors in the speech made by the hon. gentleman. Yesterday he said that Canadians were the most highly taxed persons in the world. Perhaps he would like me to quote his exact words. He said, "If we are not the most highly taxed people, I know of no other nation which approaches us". Well, I should like to refer him to page 443 of Hansard for April 26, 1965 where he will find a comparison of income tax rates in Canada with those of the United States.
He will find that the total taxes for single persons with an income of up to $50,000 are lower in Canada at all levels than they are in the State of New York in the United States. For married couples with two children with an income of up to $15,000 the taxes in Canada are lower than they are in the United States. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman to prove the statement he made.
Yesterday the right hon. gentleman spoke of the automotive trade pact, at which time he made another slight error. He said that this monument of $50 million per year resulted from the removal of the excise tax. I should like to inform the right hon. gentleman that the excise tax was not involved at all; it was customs duties.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Oh, what an argument.


Edgar John Benson: I should like to point out that I believe the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) indicated in this house that the reduction in automobile prices last year was more than the amount of the tax involved. The whole argument put forward by the right hon.
DEBATES	3001
Increased Cost of Living gentleman yesterday was that we should curtail government spending and at the same time we could cut taxes. In particular, he suggested the elimination of the 11 per cent sales tax.
He suggested at the same time that we should increase the old age pension and pour more money into the economy. He said the economy was operating at a high level. Thanks to the efforts made by this government, it is operating at a high level. However, he wants to pour more money into the economy in order to get rid of inflation.


John George Diefenbaker: Is this a preview of the budget?


Edgar John Benson: This is not a preview of the budget. I was going to mention that the proper time to deal with the matter of inflation and with other economic matters is during the speech by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) next Tuesday night during the presentation of the budget.
What is the economic situation in Canada at the present time? Unemployment at 3.9 per cent in 1965, was at the lowest level since 1957. I was very interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) about the effort that was put forward by his government in order to decrease unemployment. I should like to point out what the results of that effort were. In 1958 unemployment was 7 per cent, in 1959, 6 per cent, in 1960, 7 per cent, in 1961, 7.1 per cent and in 1962, 5.9 per cent. Then we come to the terrible Liberal years about which hon. members have been complaining. In 1963 it was 5.5 per cent, in 1964, 4.7 per cent and in 1965, 3.9 per cent.


Mr. Coates:: I should like to ask the minister where he gets the figure for the unemployment rate as 3.9 per cent of the labour force? The statistics I have indicate that the unemployment figure for all Canada as of February 19 stands at 4 per cent, with 65,000 of those unemployed located in the Atlantic region.


Edgar John Benson: I am using a weighted average throughout the years in all the figures I have given, including the years in which the right hon. gentleman opposite was in charge of the government.
What has happened to the gross national product in Canada over the past several years? In 1958 it increased 3.1 per cent, in 1959, 6.1 per cent, in 1960, 3.9 per cent, in 1961, 3.3 per cent, in 1962, 8.2 per cent, in
March 22, 1966

Increased Cost of Living 1963, 6.5 per cent, in 1964, 8.9 per cent, and the estimate for 1965 is 9.5 per cent.
How many people are employed in this country? In 1958 there were 5,706,000 people employed while in 1965 there were 6,862,000 people employed, an improvement of 1,156,000 during that time. Comparing 1962 with 1965 we find that there were 637,000 additional jobs created in those three years. All of us recall the wonderful years when the gentlemen opposite were in power, the years when our deficits ran from $609.3 million in 1958-59-


John George Diefenbaker: Have you got information for us on the United States?


Edgar John Benson: -to $513.1 million in 1959-60.


John George Diefenbaker: Are you responsible for the improvement in the United States too?
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: We are only responsible for Canadian figures. In 1959-60 there was a $513 million deficit. In 1960-61 it was $340 million, in 1961-62 it was $691.6 million and in 196263 it was $791 million. In the first full year when this government was in power the deficit was $38 million. The Minister of Finance has stated that the deficit will be low in the current fiscal year as well.


William Heward Grafftey: What has all this to do with inflation?


Edgar John Benson: When this government came into power unemployment was high in Canada. The aims of the government, and I think these would have been the aims of any government, were, first and foremost, full employment in this country.


William Heward Grafftey: Hear, hear.


Edgar John Benson: Second, we wanted a rapid rate of economic growth. Third, we wanted reasonable stability of prices. Fourth, we wanted a viable balance of payments and, finally, an equitable distribution of rising income. These are aims that are accepted in a modern state. The trick is not to accomplish any one of these aims alone but to achieve all of them at the same time and to do it consistently.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edgar John Benson: This government has made every effort to do just that. I could go into the means employed in order to achieve the economic aims but hon. members have heard them all before. I might mention a few such as the policies taken by the previous minister 
of finance by way of special depreciation allowances in order to encourage capital expenditures, the special inducements in designated areas, the establishment of the municipal development and loan fund, the establishment of the Atlantic development fund; the $500 house building bonus, the provisions for assistance in the fields of vocational and technical training, the provision of guaranteed loans to students, and so on.
I think that the economic accomplishments that have occurred in Canada since 1963 have been creditable.


John George Diefenbaker: Other than the cost of living.


Edgar John Benson: The cost of living has increased by the second smallest amount of any western civilized nation.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, oh.


Edgar John Benson: I should like now to deal briefly with the proposition put forward by the New Democratic party to set up what they call a prices review board. I do not think that in this country people would accept a prices review board unless along with this went a wages review board. I for one would not want to see a wages review board in Canada and I do not think the members of the New Democractic party would either.
You cannot control prices in a country unles you control wages. If you want to go to the ultimate control of prices and wages, then you have to do the sort of thing that was done in wartime when there were wage and price controls in Canada. I do not think this is acceptable to the Canadian people and it certainly is not acceptable to this government. Furthermore, I do not think it would be acceptable to hon. members opposite. Instead, we must use economic means and the financial proposals in our budget to try to contain all aspects of the economy so that we can move forward with high employment and a real increase in our gross national product with relative price stability.
What has this government done in the field of prices? Reference has been made to the Economic Council of Canada which, incidentally, was created by this government for the purpose of finding the best means to carry out the objectives in the long run which I have put to you as the economic objectives of the government. The reference to the Economic Council was that it was to study factors affecting price determination and the interrelationship of movements in prices,
March 22, 1966

costs, levels of productivity and income and, second, to report on the representations respecting sustained economic growth and the achievement of high levels of employment, trade, and rising standards of living and, third, to review the policies and experiences of other countries in this field and their relevance to Canada.
In a speech delivered on March 21 Dr. John J. Deutsch, chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, had this to say when making reference to the particular aspects I have mentioned:
The government has asked the Economic Council to undertake a comprehensive study of the basic relationships between prices, costs, incomes and stable economic growth. The government has also asked the council to review the policies and experiences of other countries, and their relevance for Canada. The council now has under way a major research program to assist us in our study of these important matters. The fact that a basic study of this nature has not previously been undertaken in this country poses serious problems both as to the availability of information and a body of analysis. The serious lack of information makes it impossible to get quick results which could serve any useful purpose. These problems are likely to be with us for a long time and therefore it is important that the council's conclusions and advice should be soundly based. We hope to be able to report on these issues later this year.
Before this matter was ever brought up in the House of Commons, other than by way of questions, the government took this step to have the relationship between costs, prices and wages looked into by the Economic Council of Canada. We are presently awaiting the report of the Economic Council. Indeed, as I recall it, the Minister of Finance was worrying about price increases before the chairman of the Economic Council actually made a statement on this very problem after submitting his second report.
I believe that the record of this government in the economic field has been good. I do not think that the rise in prices to date has been as serious as it might have been if the economy had not moved forward evenly pricewise and wagewise.
I am the first to admit that prices are too high. Prices are always too high for people. Increases in prices bear hard on people on fixed incomes. However, I do not think that there is any easy or fast solution to this problem. I think that we must take steps as a government, through budgets which are presented by the Minister of Finance of this government, to combat undue increases in prices while at the same time making sure that this country moves forward with full
Increased Cost of Living employment and with increasing productivity and a better standard of living for all Canadians.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue made the kind of contribution to this debate that one has come to expect of him. He heads a department that comes closer to producing the dictatorial bureaucracy all Canadians fear and which all Canadians find is becoming more predominant in government today. This is the same minister who could not get out of the house fast enough to lable the Conservative party as being anti-Quebec last week but who was not willing to make the same kind of statement in this house when the irresponsible statements of the Minister of Justice were being debated. The minister put a great number of statements on record.


Edgar John Benson: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? I did not hear him when he said something about some minister labelling the Conservative party as anti-Quebec. Was he by any chance referring to me? If he was, that is just not a fact, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Carman Coates: The minister's statements
about the leader of my party are certainly not factual. In that I will agree with him. Otherwise I will not comment further.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The minister took time to put a great number of facts on the record about what a great and wonderful job the government has done since assuming office, which has been instrumental in producing a buoyancy in the economic welfare of this nation second to none that it has ever experienced. One would think that when they took office on April 8, 1963, unemployment was at a desperate level, the economy was at a desperate level and Canada was in the throes of a recession. In actual fact Canada had been in a boom period ever since 1961 and everyone knew it. Every economist referred to it. Members opposite talk about the cost of living showing the second lowest increase in the free world. I will put some facts on record to indicate that when we were in office the increase in cost of living was not the second lowest in the free world but the lowest.
No government ever assumed office in better times than did the present one. The recession which plagued our government ever since we assumed office following the St. Laurent administration had been conquered and the economy was showing the progress

March 22, 1966
Increased Cost of Living which took us into the boom period in 1961. Employment was on the rise. Half a million more people were at work in 1962 than in 1957. Labour income was up by 25 per cent, farm cash income by 19.3 per cent, exports by 30.8 per cent, social justice payments by 79 per cent and payments to provinces by 124 per cent.
What of the cost of living during that period? Canada was the world leader in price stability. No less an authority than the late President Kennedy praised our efforts in the following statement on January 22, 1963:
With the single exception of Canada, the United States last year had the best record of price stability in all the industrialized world.
In September, 1962, the magazine, Canadian Business, stated:
A 12-nation comparison of retail price increases over the 12 months shows that Canada has been the most successful in keeping down the cost of living. The Canadian increase was just under 1 per cent. The United States was only a shade more. Biggest increases were in France, Holland and the United Kingdom where the cost of living rose by over 5 per cent. In Germany and Sweden it rose by 4 per cent.
What of economic growth? The Minister of National Revenue tries to tell us there was none in Canada between 1957 and 1963. This is the story they tried to tell the Canadian people in 1962 and 1963 and again in 1965. What was enonomic growth like in Canada? When this government assumed office, the Economist said-the minister can dispute what the Enonomist says if he likes-that Canada had outstripped every nation in the world in the rate of economic growth in 1962 with an increase of 8 per cent. While we increased social justice payments by an unprecedented 79 percent we maintained the cost of living in our nation as no other free nation of the world.
This is what we should be getting today from the government, and if we had a government today that is what we would be getting. But we are left without a government; we are left with a rudderless mess. When we assumed office in 1957 we in Canada were buying $713 million more than we were selling, but these deficits were eliminated and replaced by surpluses in 1961 and 1962. Where are we going today? There is no doubt that with the unprecedented increases in the cost of living from month to month we shall soon price ourselves out of the export market, placing ourselves as a result in another Liberal recession, the same situation as in 1957 when we took office.

No government could have anticipated a greater legacy from a defeated administration than that headed by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). They knew the facts in the election campaigns of 1962 and 1963 but chose to dupe the electorate with Madison Avenue techniques to overshadow and undermine the successes of the administration of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). There is no doubt about this today in the minds of the electorate. No government came to office with more fanfare. None has ever remained in the state of constant chaos which has been our misfortune since April 8, 1963. Canadians have now come to realize the inbred ineptitude that plagues the present administration. But even with its stumbling and stupidity there are areas of this nation which continue to prosper. There is no direction, no goal, unless it be to survive from one crisis to the next with an absolute absence of leadership.
We were criticized during our years in office for the establishment of royal commissions to secure background and recommendations on such matters of national importance as banking, taxation, health and transportation. Today the royal commission has been replaced by the inquiry and the subjects of these inquiries leave much to be desired in the minds of most Canadians. What of the royal commission reports now available to the government from those commissions which we established? They sit gathering dust because this government's ineptitude is so complete it cannot guide the ordinary business of this country to its natural conclusion, legislative action.
Today we find the taxpayer being plunged ever deeper in debt. The government is preventing private enterprise from expanding in a desired manner because of its wish to spend and spend and spend in a time of boom, or near boom when it should be withdrawing from the economy to the benefit of private enterprise. The Minister of National Revenue asked the Leader of the Opposition to state what items should be cut from the list of those upon which the government intends to spend money. Well, it is about time this administration started to do some governing itself and ceased to call on the Leader of the Opposition to give direction.
I say it would be much better for everybody in Canada if the Leader of the Opposition were sitting where the Prime Minister is now so that we could be getting the direction we need in order to go forward in a
March 22, 1966

healthy way. Take my area of Canada, the Atlantic region, where 20 per cent of the unemployment in this nation is found. The Minister of National Revenue would almost lead us to believe that these people are not in existence. I say to him that there are 365,000 people in Canada who are unemployed today. That figure is not from the Martin bureau of statistics; it is from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. No responsible minister in a responsible government would stand up in the House of Commons and brag about the fact that 365,000 people are unemployed. Yet the minister endeavoured to do so by his failure to mention how many people are unemployed in Canada today. Instead, he gave us statistics, and unreliable statistics at that. He said that 3.9 per cent of the labour force were unemployed. Yet the February issue of The Labour Force says that 5 per cent are unemployed. I do not know what to believe.


An hon. Member:: I do.


Robert Carman Coates: I think we will rely on the Dominion Bureau of Statistics rather than on the Minister of National Revenue, though he is a chartered accountant and all the rest of it. Out of those 365,000 I might point out that
65,000	are located in the Atlantic provinces where the unemployment rate is not 3.9 per cent but well over 10 per cent. What is the government doing to reduce this rate or even bring it close to the national average?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Waiting for suggestions.


Robert Carman Coates: Well, it would not make much difference if we made them. Today in the House of Commons when we are debating matters of national importance affecting all Canadians we find only two cabinet ministers present out of a total of 26 or 27. I am not sure how many there are because they have so many new departments and are shifting around all the time. But only one thirteenth of the cabinet is present to listen to the suggestions that are being put forward. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) does not even find it possible to come here when we are debating a subject for which he is responsible.
The 65,000 unemployed in the Atlantic provinces are told that we cannot progress at a faster rate because tight money is in the nation's best interests. The Minister of Finance is unwilling or unable to cope with the special problems of our region. We are the first to feel the effects of a recession and the
Increased Cost of Living last to overcome those effects; yet we are told to sit back and whittle on a block of wood until the rest of the nation overcomes the dangers of the boom period it is now enjoying.
I say to the Minister of Finance that we see no indications of boom in our part of Canada. We see no danger of over-expansion. We see only misery and suffering if special attention is not forthcoming to recognize our special needs in so far as tight money is concerned.
Where is the special attention, so evident during the Diefenbaker years, to our special problems? We are not interested in being grateful to anyone, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) feels we should be, for we do not look upon Ottawa as if we were a beggar but as an area of Canada determined to progress on the basis of sound economic planning that demands recognition from the central authority of our legitimate grievances. Certainly the present rate of unemployment and the tight money policy are not compatible in our area and immediate action should be forthcoming to assist in eliminating both.
What of the cost of living? We earn less and work longer for what we earn in the Atlantic provinces. We have a larger number of pensioners per capita than any other area of Canada. Nowhere is the spiralling cost of living, so evident in our nation today, more crippling than in the Atlantic area. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters), a fellow Nova Scotian, has stated that the government would have liked to increase old age security payments but could not find the revenue. My, that is really touching. It can find $100 million for the C.B.C. every year but it cannot find $100 million to increase old age pensions. What a joke is this statement by the minister. What a miserable joke to perpetrate on those who in many instances are not able to subsist on their present pension cheques. What an irresponsible joke for a government that stands by and watches the cost of living index spiral upwards and by its inaction is taking food out of the mouths of those who need it most.
This is the government we have in Canada today. It is a government so involved with its own inability to govern that it has no time for the problems facing the people. If more ministers would sit in the house when debates are going on they would know more about what is happening in the nation. If they sit in their ivory towers they will never know what is happening to the people of
300G	COMMONS
Increased Cost of Living Canada; yet that is what we see each and every day in this house.
Government ministers are so divided within their ranks that it is impossible to produce a consensus on any given subject. This is what we are told we must live with because the electorate cannot face the thought of another election. Surely, sir, the time will soon arrive when the government will have proven beyond the shadow of any doubt that it is incapable of providing the leadership this nation, approaching its 100th birthday, must have if we are to move forward with national policies that will produce the kind of nation we are capable of being on this North American continent.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the motion and the amendments we are now discussing clearly indicate that the cost of living is rising constantly in Canada.
This state of affairs did not come about in the last few days, or the last two or three weeks. In fact, the cost of living has been rising constantly since the end of the war in 1945. Now, the amendment moved by the Conservatives states: In view of the fact that the cost of living index for the month of February, 1966, reached an all-time high, namely, 142.1 points, this house regrets that the government has failed to act effectively to hold down the cost of living and 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, those on fixed incomes, and all low-income groups.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The situtation was the same, Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives were in power and they did nothing either in this regard to alter the situation which existed from 1957 to 1962. Why? Surely not because some Conservative ministers did not sincerely want to change the situation. And today, if nothing is being done, it is not that the ministers are not willing to halt inflation and the rise in the cost of living. The ministers today cannot, like those of yesterday could not, I think, halt inflation and hold down the cost of living.
As long as our financial system remains the same, a system which prevails in the public administration of Canadian affairs on the federal, provincial, municipal and school levels, we shall never halt inflation or hold down the cost of living. The system itself produces inflation. Money created by a private system
[Mr. Coates.3
DEBATES	March 22, 1966
commands that money or credit shall end up larger than when created. Such a system involves the germs and the factors of inflation and rise in the cost of living.
The Conservatives, as well as the Liberals, do not want to realize that it is so. Yes, they realize it, but they do not want to say so in the face of the public. The only organization in Canada which is presently prosperous is the financial organization. The financial sharks and leaches benefit from the situation the year round and constantly. The people pay the piper. The people must pay the bills presented by the financiers.
The other organization enjoying some prosperity is the Canadian parliament, because it has the means to practise vandalism, to rob workers, farmers, all the social classes, professionals, manufacturers and small businessmen. It increases taxes or levies new taxes. In fact, Mr. Speaker, since the end of the war, have we not seen fantastic increases in taxes and new taxes in Canada: federal taxes, increase in the income tax, provincial taxes, taxes here and there, school taxes which were increased recently, municipal taxes, all sorts of new taxes, which promote inflation and prevent holding down the cost of living.
Recently, in the Hull area, was there not a strike by teachers? They were striking against the school board, against themselves in fact. They got an increase in salary but the next day, the school tax was increased by 50 cents per $100. When will this increase in taxes end? Taxes contribute to inflation and to the rise in the cost of living.
The amendment moved by the New Democratic party says this:

and this House further regrets that the Government has not established a Prices Review Board to determine the extent to which price increases are unjustified and to take appropriate steps to reduce such prices accordingly.

That means, in plain French, that members of the New Democratic party are in favour of the establishment of a price control commission, such as we had during the war in 1942, 1943 and 1944.
Mr. Speaker, price control means control of wages and production, control of consumption and of the individual. That is why when the vote is taken tonight, we shall vote against the inconsistencies of the New Democratic or Canadian socialist party.
March 22, 1966

Mr. Speaker, they certainly advocate an incentive to the black market. When the C.C.F. or N.D.P. says that during the war, we benefited from the price control board I say -and I know it personally-that there was a black market in Canada at that time. One could get goods with the small coupons of the government that did not take into consideration the needs of the human being and the population in general. Moreover, thanks to those buying stamps, those small coupons, we could get on the black market, provided we paid more, any kind of goods we wished. That is the policy the members of the New Democratic party would like to introduce at present in Canada. Mr. Speaker, that does not work with the Canadian people and the members of the New Democratic party know it.


An hon. Member:: The old C.C.F. party is looking for it.


Harold Edward Winch: Not in Quebec.


David Réal Caouette: No, not in Quebec, nor in any other place. They have changed their program about 15 times in 10 years. They do not know where they are going.


Mr. Boulanger:: They have changed their program.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, as long as our present system will be respected, adulated and even idolized by some people, it will be impossible to hold down the cost of living and to check inflation. When salaries are increased, the higher salaries raise the cost price of goods. I am in the automobile business and I have mechanics working for me. If I pay them $2.25 an hour and charge a customer $4.00 an hour for labour, in short, if I must raise the salary of my employees by 50 cents an hour, naturally, I shall have to charge 50 or perhaps 75 cents an hour more to the customer or consumer who requires the services of my establishment. This is quite understandable.
A business or anything else is run that way. Salaries are included in the cost price of goods. When salaries are increased by 25 to 50 cents an hour and if the retail price of an item goes up by 60 or 65 cents, then the people do not have more purchasing power, but there is inflation, indeed.
What is the cause of this inflation? The system which always requires the industrialist, the businessman, the employer to make
Increased Cost of Living decisions or raise salaries and, by the same token, increase his production costs.
Mr. Speaker, it is exactly like a cat running after its tail. It runs in circles all the time. A price increase results in a salary increase, and so on. We have been going around in circles like this for almost 25 years, since the end of the war.
Mr. Speaker, I was listening a while ago to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) saying that the Conservatives had made no suggestions, and that is a fact. It is all very well to say: cut the expenses. Why did they not cut the expenses when they were in power? And the present government offers no suggestions either. They attack each other, one claiming the other did no better when in power and the other saying: When we were in power, we tried to do better than you. Finally neither one does any better than the other. They are both in the same bag.
The New Democratic party suggests price control. This will still change nothing. It is a poultice on a wooden leg. That is their solution.
The Creditistes, on the other hand, propose to increase the workers' and the Canadian people's incomes without letting this increase be absorbed into the cost of products, without increasing the salaries included in the operating costs.
The Creditistes propose an increase in purchasing power that would not be absorbed into the cost of the goods. Then we have a true increase in purchasing power. By what means? We are suggesting a new way of doing it: compensated consumer discount, so that the consumer can secure an increased purchasing power through a discount at the store where he buys his goods.
The second method, or second proposition: the distribution of a national dividend to every Canadian citizen. Not a dividend based on the moon, no. Not a dividend based on nothing, as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) was pleased to claim on television, no. But a dividend based on the actual production in Canada.
Everyone admits that this year the gross national production will be worth over $50 billion and everyone knows, at the same time, that our national income, for the same period, will reach approximately $37 billion. There is a discrepancy between the total production made by Canadians and the income earned by Canadians. There is a discrepancy of $13 billion. Thirteen billion dollars to enable

March 22, 1966
Increased Cost of Living Canadian citizens to buy the existing products, and that amount does not exist. I see that my hon. friend from Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay) is shaking his head. All the same, it is true that there is a discrepancy of $13 billion between the production and the purchasing power, the people's income.
If you take into account the speed with which money changes hands, supposing that it stands at 2.4 per cent, then you can say that with $6.5 billion you could balance the purchasing power with the real production in Canada.
But it must be done and no action is taken. Instead of cutting into the system, they are trying to cut into the individuals, the contractors, the industrialists, everywhere, all the social classes, instead of cutting into the financial circles which are responsible for the present situation in Canada. They cut into the citizens, the people who are building Canada instead of those who are destroying it.
When the Creditistes talk about a national dividend, they are shocked. A national dividend distributed by the provinces, Great Britain, Jamaica, in short everywhere in the world, that is all right. But the distribution of a national dividend to the Canadian people, who are building Canada, that cannot be done.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Bigg:: Sheer nonsense.


David Réal Caouette: Like my hon. friend at the other end on this side, he looks just like nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, what are the solutions advocated by the Conservatives, and particularly by the hon. member who just said that is nonsense? Make concrete proposals and we will support them wholeheartedly. We are not narrow-minded like you. Our minds are open to new ideas, but come to us with something new, not always with the same old stories, the same old excuses: there is no money, nothing can be done because no credit is available. Canadians are asked not to invest in the United States because the United States no longer wants to invest in Canada.
The discount rate of the Bank of Canada is increased. How? Do you think that increasing the discount rate of the Bank of Canada will fight inflation in the country, when people have to pay more in interest? Do you believe 
that we are going to fight, slow down or halt the rising cost of living with the increase in the discount rate of the Bank of Canada? The Creditistes suggest the immediate establishment of a national credit commission, made up of experts-I would not even see any objection to the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane being appointed to a position on that commision-study the facts, the true data on the Canadian economy and prepare something which could balance the economy of our nation.
Mr. Speaker, we suggest the creation of a national credit commission which shall make sure, at all times, that the Canadian people will have a purchasing power large enough to buy the Canadian production, that such production will serve the consumers.
Here you will say to me: What about our imports and exports? This changes nothing in the problem, for we are seeking, through all possible means, to export as much as we import-which is quite natural-so that we can have, as much as possible, favourable balances of payments.
Now, this changes absolutely nothing to the solution advocated by the Creditistes, which is that the Canadian public should always have enough purchasing power to buy the products made by the Canadian people, including products exchanged with other countries of the world. Everything is included in that national production.
Mr. Speaker, although the dividend solution is not accepted, nothing keeps the Creditistes from continuing to explain the logic of that solution to the nation as a whole.
Some day members of parliament who will not look at the true solutions to the present economic problems will be replaced by others who will consider such in depth. There is no other way, because at this time, we are getting deeper and deeper into taxes and unpayable debts.
The other day, my colleague from Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) said that the federal government could never pay off its national debt. And that is true. Our municipalities will never be able to pay off their debts. Neither will the provinces, except Alberta and British Columbia; but the other provinces do not follow their example. School boards and individuals are in the same situation.
This system is basically wrong. Take for example the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which assists in the construction of houses. As you know, there is at present
March 22, 1966

an 11 per cent tax on building materials, which further raises the price of houses.
I shall take my own case as an example.
In 1963, as we sit all year long, I buy a little house in Hull, not through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation but through the Mutual Life Insurance Company. The contract stipulates monthly payments of $88. That is in 1963. When municipal and school taxes are added, my monthly bill is $114 instead of $88. That is for the monthly payment on the house plus the taxes. After three years, my monthly payments are now $132. According to the statement of account for the past year which I received last week, I paid $1,534 to the Mutural Life Insurance Company, including $810 in interest, $510 in taxes and $200 and some odd dollars on the capital. That was for last year.


Prosper Boulanger: Would the caisse populaire not have done better?


David Réal Caouette: My hon. friend from Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) asks me whether the caisse populaire would not have done better. Mr. Speaker, a member of Parliament may perhaps cope with such increases, but think of the ordinary labourer, the Hull or Ottawa carpenter, the Noranda miner who buys a little house through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, having read newspaper advertisements which proclaim: Buy a lovely little house, own your home for just $85 a month.
Mr. Speaker, a worker, a miner, a labourer buys a house, using all the savings accumulated during 15 or 20 years of work, and becomes a property owner, but four or five years later, he finds himself in trouble because the monthly payment goes up following an increase in the school and municipal taxes, and instead of $85 a month, he has to pay back $125 or $130, and then he is forced to put his house up for sale. That is why we see today in many cities in Canada, and particularly in the province of Quebec, workers fighting a system which makes them lose the savings they accumulated during 15, 20 or 25 years of work.
Mr. Speaker, that system cannot go on much longer; it cannot continue with impunity to exploit the masses, the farmers and all social classes.
That is why I urge the Liberal government, the ministers concerned, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) or the Minister of National Revenue to give Canada a financial system
Increased Cost of Living which will reflect the real growth of Canada in the economic, political and social fields and will make it possible to see in our monetary system the real things the Canadian people are asking for.
If the evil lies in the financial system, it should be corrected. And that is where the evil lies when a school which costs $200,000 must be paid back at the rate of $300,000 or $325,000.
Mr. Speaker, it is pure and simple inflation when a little house worth $13,000 costs $28,000, $29,000 or $30,000 when it is finally paid for. Therefore, let us correct what must be corrected, namely the financial system. Let us break the financial shackles which bind the people. Let us not be afraid to throw light on those who exploit the people, who prevent the production and the consumer goods from reaching the consumers in order to set up in our country neither inflation, nor price control, nor something which does not make sense, but a balance between the production of Canadians and their purchasing power.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we would be able to say that we have in Canada a system of economic, political and social freedom and a sound economic system to serve the private individual.
We do not need a government to control us, but to serve the private individual. Let the government be at the service of the human being and then Canada will grow, not only from an economic standpoint, but from a cultural point of view, in national unity and mutual respect between the various elements of our population.
Then we shall be able to say: Canada is a prosperous country and it is inhabited and developed by prosperous Canadians.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we listened last night with interest to the address of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) concluding with a motion to the effect that the government has failed to act effectively to hold down the cost of living. As I read his address, and I have read it several times, it appears to me to be a great exercise in inconsistency, with on the one hand a recommendation for increased spending in certain sectors, and on the other a very violent criticism of the policy of this government for spending, spending and more
March 22, 1966

Increased Cost of Living spending. The right hon. gentleman toward the end of his speech said:
The government goes on with its other programs and spends and spends.
I have heard it said that the right hon. gentleman can be compared to the shopkeeper who sells a dozen oranges for 34 cents when he is out of stock but at 74 cents when he has them for sale.
During the course of this debate we have been waiting anxiously for precise recommendations as to the course that hon. members of the opposition would like to see pursued.


Clément Vincent: This is the speech of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson).


John Ross Matheson: No, this is my own speech. I think it can be pointed out that the primary responsibility for direct control of price movements in normal circumstances, that is in conditions outside of war or extraordinary emergencies, belongs to the governments of the provinces and not to the federal authority. There are certain things, of course, that the federal authority can do which are helpful. I point out only by way of example the current policy for improving the technical training and mobility of workers in industry, which helps to relieve labour bottlenecks. In fact, I think this has gone further with our scientific approach to immigration. Second is the policy assistance in easing the expansion of demand by stretching out the federal construction program and helping the provincial governments to postpone work on some shared-cost programs. This, of course, can be successful only to the extent that it meets with the support of the provincial authorities.
The problems that have been raised by hon. gentlemen in the opposition are of course not peculiar to Canada. Today's Globe and Mail carries an article entitled "Higher Pay, Slow Growth Threaten Inflation, Europe Told". This Associated Press article datelined Geneva says:
Soaring wages and a relatively slow growth rate are threatening western Europe with inflation-
The writer points out:
-hourly industrial earnings in western Europe increased during 1965 by 7.5 to 11 per cent. This compared with a rise of 3 per cent in the United States.
The increase in the consumer price index over the past few months is not unexpected. Hon. members are aware of the supply shortage of meats, for example, which is due to a

variety of causes. One is the increased demand for meat by Canadians and Americans. In the area in which I reside is located the largest cattle export point in Canada and I am aware of some of the factors that have caused an increase in cattle prices.
In addition, the introduction of the Canada and Quebec pension plans have undoubtedly led to a modest increase in costs and prices. I do not wish to go into this matter in detail but anybody who studies the effect of these two plans appreciates that initially they will result in certain modest increases. When the adjustments accompanying the introduction of the pension plans have been completed, they will no longer serve to stimulate higher costs and prices.
I am compelled, by some of the comments made by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates), who was making comparisons with respect to the performance of this government and the former government, to refer to some of our Canadian economists with respect to conditions prevailing now and those which prevailed a short while ago. I think nearly all hon. members are familiar with the work of Harry G. Johnson, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago, who in 1963 in a book entitled "The Canadian Quandary" said:
-I believe that the outstanding problem of the past five years has been mass unemployment. Second, I believe that the problem of mass unemployment has been seriously aggravated by perverse economic policies ineptly pursued by the Canadian economic policy makers.
When we study his chapter on economic growth and economic policy we see .that Dr. Johnson indicates emphatically that "the past five years have witnessed the development of serious concern about the laggardness of economic growth in the three English-speaking countries of the North Atlantic region-the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada." Then he says:
In the United States and Canada, slow growth has been associated with other phenomena of economic stagnation-higher average unemployment than was previously considered normal, excess industrial capacity, and weak recoveries from recessions-
He makes a comparison with what prevailed in the United Kingdom until the previous year, which would be 1962-63, and other countries in western Europe. Then he says:
The slow rates of growth realized in these three countries-
March 22. 1966

The United Kingdom, the United States and Canada.
-have been in sharp contrast with the rapid economic growth of Europe in the post-war period, and, for Canada and the United States, with the relatively high growth rates realized in the immediate post-war period.
So now we observe another situation wherein Europe is from a competitive point of view running into some of the burdens of higher costs and particularly higher labour costs. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that an appreciably rising price level is predominantly a symptom of an economic problem rather than its cause. Those who are concerned with this phenomenon which in loose terms is described as "inflation" should be concerned with moderating and not increasing the rate of growth in demand for goods and services. I seriously ask the question whether the Leader of the Opposition has made any contribution whatsoever to this important economic problem.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The objective of monetary policy is to promote growth of the economy. Continued strong expansion of demand in the economy is our objective. In each of the past two years total spending on goods and services has risen by almost 10 per cent. Canada has experienced a major wave of capital expenditures by private business and by governments. Such expenditures have risen by more than 15 per cent in each of the last two years. Unemployment has been reduced to historically low levels and operating rates in most industries are now close to capacity.
I want to refer later in my comments to some rather classical comments by Von Ha-berler which were used in 1933 to describe some of the problems of the upswing. These indicate that economists at that time had a clear understanding that the economy in upswing may operate close to its effective capacity and that pressure of demand is likely to overload productive capacity. I think this is the burden of the warning of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp1). Monetary policy has always had to take account of the fact that we must borrow very substantial amounts of capital from financial institutions and markets in the United States if we are to pay for the balance of payments deficit of the size we are currently running. This is not a new phenomenon in Canada. We are well familiar with this pattern of trade. Interest rates in the Unites States have risen sharply in recent months. This puts a special burden on borrowers and presents Canada with a
Increased Cost of Living new, a special problem. It is more difficult for borrowers to find the money that they require and they have to pay higher interest rates. We have essentially a new problem of credit.
When I mention that the total of bank loans outstanding has increased by 16 per cent over the year ended February, 1966, I think we can appreciate this serious problem of our economy undergoing a rapid period of growth. Clarence L. Barber of the University of Manitoba is an economist for whom I have had a lot of respect over the years. He speaks of austerity in 1962 and says:
The source of our current difficulties goes back to the year the Conservatives first came back into power. Although Ottawa completely failed to understand it, Canada in 1957 was just entering a period that called for skilful monetary and fiscal management. The problem was there for any government. Well handled, Canada could have come through the period with flying colours. In fact, after five years of slow growth and a record level of unemployment, we have blundered our way into the present mess.
I think everybody on this side of the house likes to feel that if a Liberal government is capable of doing things it is capable of doing them particularly well in the area of finance. We think back to people like Dunning, Ilsley, Abbott, Harris, Gordon and we think that the name of Sharp is in this tradition. I feel that C. D. Howe made a contribution to our growth that was perhaps exemplary.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: All these people were white?


John Ross Matheson: I am sure I do not understand the hon. member's comment. I continue the quotation:
In 1957 Canada was enjoying-
These are the words of Professor Barber:
-a capital spending boom of record size. The Trans-Canada pipe line was being built. The. St. Lawrence Seaway was under way. Uranium mines and smelters were being rushed to completion. And with the shortages created by Suez there was a great burst of oil and gas exploration on the prairies.
Despite a fall in the volume of capital spending the inflow of capital funds continued at an exceptionally high level. Over the five years, 1957 to 1961, it amounted to $6.3 billion. Both Canadian exporters and manufacturers for the domestic market were hampered by the premium on the Canadian dollar. Our unemployment problem was needlessly aggravated. I do not want to go into the details of what has been described in many other debates as a major financial
March 22, 1966

Increased Cost of Living blunder of the previous administration with respect to the reconversion loan. However, it seems to me, just as the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) indicated a few minutes ago, that there were a variety of objectives, all of which had to be considered together and in concert we now have to assess our targets in Canada in the collective sense. In the United States years ago there was a conviction that a boom could not continue for any considerable period of time. I remember that back in the thirties it was felt in the schools of economics that the upswings and downswings were largely inevitable, that we were simply the victims of this economic phenomenon.
In 1946 there was a difference of attitude, and I think of the very well known John Maynard Keynes of England. An example of a man who has been following along in the tradition of the new Keynsian thinking is Walter W. Heller, who has provided important leadership in the United States. The largest problem facing the new economists is the boom that threatens to get out of hand. We believe that the difference between what the economy could produce with full employment, considered achieved when unemployment is 4 per cent, and what it is actually producing is the growth gap. When there is a growth gap it is our purpose to solve this discrepancy by dramatic and effective means. The goal of the new economics is to close the growth gap and the key weapon is the budget.
I ask hon. gentlemen to listen with patience until we hear from one of the most able men who has ever served a Canadian government, the Minister of Finance, who will present his budget in a few days. The budget has already received an exhaustive consideration by some of the best brains in Canada. In my judgment the Department of Finance is still one of the finest departments existing in any modern country in the world. The new economics means that the government's budget can be in the red, no matter for how long or at what stage of business expansion, so long as the economy's actual production is below what could be produced with full employment. In short, the new economists calculate the country's economic potential and tailor spending and money policies to achieve that potential.
Now, of course, we are all concerned that there is an increase in the cost of goods. This is something that inevitably we must have expected. We could not have had this quality of progress in the past several years without this kind of increase. We find, for example,
[Mr. Matheson.l
that in tobacco and alcohol there has been a modest increase of 1.3 per cent. Food, a basic commodity, had increased in February, 1966, over February, 1965, by 7.1 per cent. We can see that in all commodities there has been an increase of 3.5 per cent. The increase in the cost of services has been 3.3 per cent. There are special items such as car insurance which have affected the picture recently. We find also that such matters as work clothes for men have increased in cost as a result of a very substantial increase in demand. This is not the kind of demand that was indicated a few years ago when the right hon. gentleman was heading the government. The recreation and reading subindex to the cost of living index has moved up by a modest 0.6 per cent.
I remind hon. gentlemen of language which may now sound somewhat classical, but the following was written by Von Ha-berler:
Professor Spiethoff describes the mechanism of the cumulative and self-sustaining process of expansion, which begins to work, after the dead point of the depression has been overcome...
The revival of investment activity generates income and purchasing power. Demand rises, first for capital goods and investment materials (iron, steel, cement, lumber, bricks) and later also for consumption goods. Prices rise, mainly prices of capital goods and investment materials. This stimulates further investment. Profits are made which swell the funds available for investment and provide an important psychological stimulus for further expansion. Thus, like a snowball, prosperity increases rapidly as it proceeds.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The real question, my hon. friends, is, is it possible that we can continue with the enlightened techniques of modern economics, indefinitely into the upswing, as more and more factors of production are drawn into production and people become more and more enthusiastic, without a smaller increase in output and a large rise in costs. What we have seen in Canada with respect to the steady increases in prices is what one must normally expect for an expanding, growing and developing economy. At the beginning of the expansion part of the increase in capital certainly would have been absorbed by a rise in output and by a turnover of goods and a smaller part by increasing prices. But when full employment is gradually approached this necessarily changes. What is required now is the most thoughtful study and consideration of these problems, and I hope that before this vote is taken there will be some serious contribution to this debate by members of the opposition.
March 22, 1966

Of course we are interested in price movements. I suggest that the main reason we are interested in price movements is that these form the substance of the market economy. I could not quite understand the Conservative party's point of view on this matter. Do the members of that party believe in a market economy or do they not? Do they believe, for instance, that the economy is badly adjusted? Do they believe that there is low growth rate, high unemployment, and a balance of payments deficit? We have some of those problems, it is true. But are the members of that party dissatisfied with the current level of growth? If they are not dissatisfied, are they not prepared to accept what every economist regards-


An hon. Member:: You have not brought the cost of living down.


John Ross Matheson: This is, of course, one of the burdens of growth. Goods and even labour become scarcer, and prices have to accommodate to this and tend to rise.


An hon. Member:: I cannot understand that.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. gentlemen for their courtesy and patience. It seems to me that the address of the Minister of Finance admirably summed this up where in his concluding sentences he said, as found on page 2950 of Hansard of March 21, 1966:
Our problem Is not to put a brake on the economy;-
I am sure none of us wants to disagree with that.


An hon. Member:: Put the brake on the cost of living.


John Ross Matheson: I continue:
-I suggest-


An hon. Member:: Put the brake on the cost of living.


John Ross Matheson: I continue:
-the problem is to see that we do not press too hard on the accelerator and throw the car off the road. Our problem in the future is going to be to keep the expansion going without inflation-
And that is the objective of us all.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to quite a philosophical dissertation by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. There was one matter that I did not get quite clear from his speech. Did he mean that the past years in Canada, to which he referred, have been that bad? I
Increased Cost of Living am not sure. I presume I shall have to wait until I see Hansard to get his real meaning.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) apologized to me a few moments ago because he thought he would not be here to hear me speak. Perhaps he will not miss very much except that what I have to say concerns something he said a short while ago.
It seems to me that one of the most important things he said was simply that the reduction in excise tax referred to by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition yesterday did not have to do with excise tax but customs duties. This to me is just nonsensical. The minister went on this vein in his speech. I do not think statements such as this bear the merit of rebuttal.
The minister quoted many figures in an attempt to show that the government of which I had the honour to be a member had done nothing toward the economic well-being of this country. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) quoted statistics which certainly refuted any claims the Minister of National Revenue may have made.
The minister stated that the price rise to date is not too serious. I would suggest that he ask all those on a fixed income such as pensioners or retired people as well as farmers caught in the cost-price squeeze and other individuals in this category whether they feel that the rise in prices is not too serious. I am sure that the answer would be very emphatic that the price rise is certainly the most serious in many years in this country's history.
I should like to deal briefly with the contents of the New Democratic party's subamendment which reads as follows:
and this House further regrets that the Government has not established a prices review board to determine the extent to which price increases are unjustified and to take appropriate steps to reduce such prices accordingly.
The subamendment is really in two parts and it is the last part with which I quarrel. It reads:
-to take appropriate steps to reduce such prices accordingly.
To me, sir, this is nonsense. I would also point out that this would be unconstitutional.
The Leader of the Opposition yesterday suggested a meeting between the provinces and the federal government in an effort to bring together representatives of the provinces so that together with the government

March 22, 1966
Increased Cost of Living they could make a concerted attack on inflation. I think this is the only thing that can be done. I do not believe that the suggestion made by the New Democratic party can carry any weight. It is, as I said, unconstitutional. Anything that we could do would only have an effect on businesses under federal control.
I agree with the earlier remarks of the Minister of National Revenue when he said that the subamendment would automatically have the effect of bringing about some sort of wage control. I like the argument of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) but I am afraid that the meat of the subamendment does not live up to that argument.
In passing I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) on the excellent speech she made demonstrating her doctrinaire socialism. I wonder how her colleagues, the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge), would view the last part of the subamendment.
Yesterday the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) spoke at great length and very highly with regard to the automobile agreement. He went on to recommend freer trade in many areas. I wonder just what this means? I should like to refer to some answers given to questions which are found on pages 796 and 798 of Hansard for this session. These answers were given as a result of requests for information concerning the export of automobiles and automobile parts. The Leader of the Opposition also put a question concerning imports and the answer is to be found on page 798 of Hansard.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I think it would be well to point out that in 1963 there was an adverse balance of trade in automobiles and automobile parts. There were actually imports amounting to $577,-
633,000	and exports of $36,997,000. This leaves an adverse balance of trade in automobiles and in automobile parts of $540,636,000. In 1964 the adverse balance of trade was increased by $45,182,000 to $585,818,000. The picture the government tried to put on the record in response to a question by the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray) attempted to show only the increase in exports. But the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) insisted on an answer to his question concerning imports, and the increase in exports I have mentioned certainly does not look so

favorable. In 1964 exports of automobiles and automobile parts amounted to $94,257,000. Imports had jumped from $577 millions to about $680 million leaving a net imbalance in trade of $585,818,000, an increase of $45,182,000.
The answers in Hansard to these questions only cover part of 1965. They were given for nine months so far as exports are concerned and for eight months so far as imports are concerned. In consequence I have to admit I have estimated the exports for the full year simply by developing the figure for three-quarters of the year already given and arriving at the total for the full year on an estimated basis. Since the imports were given on an eight month basis I have done the same with respect to them and simply raised the figures by one half. The estimated figure for exports comes to $160 million. Which is a big increase all along the line, but imports increased to $832 millions. This leaves an adverse balance of trade amounting to $672,-
527,000	on automobiles and automobile parts for 1965 on an estimated basis.
This represents an increase of $86,790,000 over the adverse balance for 1964. So we have a general picture of an increase in the adverse balance of trade in automobiles and parts despite the impression which the answers to the questions on exports attempted to leave.
I will not go into the details but there is another interesting question answered on page 2764 of Hansard. Since the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) yesterday mentioned the achievements, presumably, of the new Department of Industry, I think it should be pointed out that despite what was said back in the debate when the Department of Industry was set up there have been huge increases in the numbers of employees in the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and Defence Production. I clearly recall that when we on this side questioned the feasibility of setting up this department we were told that the intention was merely to take part of the Department of Defence Production and some employees from the Department of Trade and Commerce in order to set up this new department.
I am afraid the figures emphasize our warning at that time when we said this was simply another departmental bureaucracy building up, one which would not achieve the results for which it was created. So far as I can see, the result so far is an increasing deficit in the balance of payments. I do not
March 22, 1966

see that anything favorable has been achieved.
The Minister of Finance spoke yesterday in this debate. He said that everything the previous government had done was bad and he indicated that the present government were financial wizards. I think this must make everyone at least snicker a little if not laugh out loud. I ask the minister where he stands on the matter of responsibility. Does he stand with his colleagues along the front benches-I am looking at the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) at the moment-


Mr. Knowles:: He is the only one there.


Jay Waldo Monteith: What has been his position since he voted in favour of debt free money? If ever there was an irresponsible action by a would-be government it was at that time when members opposite supported a motion from down the line in favour of debt free money. The Minister of Finance stands among those hon. gentlemen today and therefore I can only assume that he too would have voted for debt free money as did his predecessor in office. To me this was a completely irresponsible action.
In his remarks yesterday the minister did not indicate that any assistance would be provided for recipients of old age security benefits. What does the government intend to do for these people? The cost of living is spiralling. I know that members of the house and the citizens of Canada appreciate that we on this side did attempt to do something for these individuals, but the present government refused. The minister did not indicate that any help would be forthcoming for farmers caught in the cost-price squeeze.
Others have mentioned this problem. In most areas farm incomes are lower today than they were in 1951, and we all know how costs have skyrocketed. I know the difficulties which these farmers face. If something is not done to help them meet these inflationary prices the situation will soon be out of hand. I can only say that something has to be done.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The minister did not tell us yesterday what he intends to do about tight money. What about the situation of the small businessman or the small operator right now? I have in mind one case which came to my attention about ten days ago. Application was made to a bank manager for a loan. It was well secured and an excellent risk. The applicant asked for a loan additional to an amount he
Increased Cost of Living already had. The branch manager recommended it wholeheartedly. As I say, it was well secured. However, the word the manager got back was no, that the loan could not be increased under any circumstances, and this gentleman had to go elsewhere. He got his loan and, as I mentioned, it was well secured. He had excellent credit, but he had to pay a higher rate of interest than he would have paid to the bank. This can only be as the result of a tight money policy. It is something which is happening all across the country and the government has failed to act.
The Minister of Finance did not say anything to encourage consumers. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition pointed out that the price of dressed carcasses of pork during the past few weeks had dropped from 45 cents a pound to 32 cents a pound and yet consumer prices continue to rise. There has been no relief for the consumer in that particular instance. The minister did not say anything about relief from the 11 per cent sales tax on machinery, equipment, building supplies and materials. On August 2, 1963, the minister spoke in favour of this tax. Apparently he is still in favour of it. Apparently we are going to get no relief from it although its elimination could put a halt to the spiralling cost of living.
Several hon. members have quoted statistics during this debate. I am not going to give any more than I have already mentioned in connection with the increased imbalance in trade in automobiles and automobile parts, but I think the 11 per cent sales tax is probably the most important factor in our increasing cost of living. Because building supplies and materials are affected it means that the cost of slight or major repair jobs is tremendously increased. Because machinery and equipment are affected the cost of everything that is produced in factories, including food products, is affected. If one wants to buy a new piece of machinery to produce articles more economically the 11 per cent sales tax has to be paid on the machinery and this increases the cost of the articles. This tax is affecting the cost of everything we export from Canada.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance said that the Leader of the Opposition had exaggerated everything during the course of his speech. I suggest there were many exaggerations by the Minister of Finance. Harking back to 1962, the Minister of Finance said that the Prime Minister had not criticized devaluation of the dollar but the manner in which

March 22, 1966
Increased Cost of Living devaluation had been carried out. I say that the Prime Minister did criticize devaluation all through the election campaign that followed and also in this house. Liberal spokesmen talked about how everything we purchase would cost more. I recall seeing advertisements during that election campaign reading, "Here is what you are paying now; here is what you will have to pay with devaluation."
But the Liberals have done nothing about it since they took office. They accepted that it was the best thing to do. I claim that the upturn swing in the business cycle of this country commenced in 1961.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Members of the Liberal party would have us believe that it started in June, 1963. What utter nonsense. There is much well-founded proof to support us in this matter. I suggest to the minister that he look at the record of the Liberal government prior to 1957, which was a do-nothing, standpat government. When we took over it took some time to get this country out of the doldrums in which they left it.
In this connection I should like to quote one statement by the governor of the Bank of Canada from his last annual report:
As the economy moved toward the completion of its fifth year of expansion-
As the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) suggests, I will even do the arithmetic for the minister. Five from 66 is 61. It was in 1961 that the upturn started.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I read now from the Commercial Letter of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce for May-June 1964:
The expansion phase of the current business cycle had lasted three years by the end of the first quarter of 1964.
Three from 64 is 61. It was 1961 when it started.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I quote another excerpt:
Most of the primary stimulus during the current expansion has been provided by the external sector, especially since mid-1961 when the efforts to bring about exchange rate devaluation commenced.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is evident that the things done by the previous Conservative government to stimulate the economy began to take

effect in 1961 and I am sure the most important was the devaluation of the dollar at 92J cents. The Liberals discredited that step, but what have they done? They have maintained it.
The Minister of Finance admits that his problems are serious. As he said, he wants to keep the expansion going and not put on the brake but rather ease up on acceleration. But he did not put forth one positive proposal to help these people for whom we are attempting to get something done. I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the questions to be debated at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler): Agriculture-Reported large importations of pork products by processors; the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman): The Canadian economy-Newfoundland-Inquiry into food and drug prices.
Pursuant to special order made Monday, March 21, 1966, this sitting stands suspended until eight o'clock. Accordingly, I do now leave the chair.

At six o'clock the sitting was suspended.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Die-fenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Douglas.
THE INCREASED COST OF LIVING Mr. Monteith: Mr. Speaker, at the time the six o'clock recess was called I had been pointing out that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) this afternoon claimed that the government of which I have the
March 22, 1966
[Stage Direction]
honour to be a member, the previous government, had done nothing. I would like to reiterate what I had said before the dinner recess. I would suggest that the minister look back over the actual happenings in respect of what took place in that period.
When we came into power in 1957, we took over from a government which had done nothing, which had been a do-nothing government.
Eric Alfred Winkler: And still will not.


Jay Waldo Monteith: This is what we inherited, and it took us some time actually to get the wheels of this country moving and to get the economy moving. I think I quoted at that time from the Bank of Canada report, and as a consequence the statement of the governor of the Bank of Canada, to the effect that-
-as the economy moved toward the completion of its fifth year of expansion-
And so on. This is the 1965 report of the Bank of Canada.
I also had quoted from the commercial letter of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce for the period May-June 1964, which pointed out that this period of economic progress had commenced at least three years prior to the first quarter of 1964, which naturally brings us back to 1961. In 1962 the London Economist-and if I recall correctly even President Kennedy-gave us credit for the best domestic economic management of any country in the free world.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go into the detail of what the previous government did to bring about this resurgence in the economy which had been so flat prior to 1957 but which eventually began to take hold in 1960 and 1961 as a result of our policies. Yesterday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) admitted the problem was serious. He said he wanted to keep the expansion going; he did not want to put on the brake, but simply to ease up on the acceleration. He did not suggest actually one specific proposal that was going to meet the needs of the people of Canada today. He intimated he would enlarge on his views at the time of the budget speech. I trust so.
Many many months have passed since this question has become crucial and important to the people of Canada, and he has let this slide without doing anything toward the betterment of those people. Yesterday I thought a very pertinent question was raised by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Increased Cost of Living Crouse). If I have the details correct, I think the minister earlier had suggested that the Bank of Canada had suggested caution because of the risk of overloading the economy;
I think those are his own words. The Economic Council in turn-and again I think I am quoting the minister's own words-said that the economy as at present is underdeveloped.
The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), Mr. Speaker-I do not see him in his seat at the moment and that is quite understandable-said that other countries are experiencing inflation. Of course; but what we are concerned with is Canada. What in the world is this government going to do for Canada in this period of spiraling inflation and the upsurge that we have experienced in the cost of living; what are we going to do here? I ask the question, what is the Minister of Finance going to do? Whose advice is he going to take? One says one thing and another says another thing. Which way is he going to go?
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is the key to Canada's future, and that we have a right to ask this question of him.
Earlier I dealt with the amendment to the amendment by the New Democratic Party. I pointed out constitutional and other reasons in respect of why we could not accept it. I further repeat that it is simply socialistic doctrine.
Now Mr. Speaker, I come to our own amendment. I would like to point out that it reads this way:
This House regrets that the government has failed to act effectively to hold down the cost of living and to halt inflation.
Now, undoubtedly nobody can deny it has neglected to do this. Our amendment goes on to point out that this lack of action on behalf of the government-
-is having a serious effect on the economy generally and particularly on all people in receipt of social security payments, on war pensioners, old age pensioners, retired civil servants, those on fixed incomes, and all low income groups.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
It is my claim that the government has failed to act, to the detriment of not only those people referred to in our amendment, but to all Canadians. The government by its inaction has let down the people mentioned in our amendment, who are our chief concern, and all other Canadians.
Most authorities agree that there will be a slight increase in the cost of living each year and that such an increase is acceptable. The

March 22, 1966
Increased Cost of Living authors of the report of the Economic Council, and other economists, have agreed that a slight increase is acceptable. They do not agree however that the cost of living should double in such a short period of time. This government has allowed the inflation situation to run away from it and get out of hand. They cannot control it now because they are acting too late. The Minister of Finance has suggested he is going to propose certain things at the time he presents his budget, but the government should have acted long ago when the situation first became obvious.
I note that my time is becoming limited, so I shall conclude my remarks as quickly as possible. Several members on the other side of this house, including the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) and the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), have asked for suggestions as to the kind of action which should be taken. In reply I should like to repeat what the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) has said. We should hold a conference of provincial leaders and the federal government to establish priorities. That is desperately required at this time.
An editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal this evening prompts me to ask the government what it has done about the Glassco report. The report of that commission suggests many ways in which the government could save money and thereby reduce its budget. I suggest it could reduce the budget it intends to bring down next Tuesday night by adopting certain of the recommendations of that commission, but it has not done so.
The Minister of National Revenue has given us many excuses for failure on the part of the government to adopt certain of the recommendations contained in the Glassco report, but I suggest that the government's inaction is nothing less than dilatory. This commission was instituted by the previous government. Its report was received a couple of years ago, yet nothing has been done by the present government to institute some of its recommendations.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are on your feet and before I sit down I should like to say that there are a number of other suggestions I wanted to make, but which I will defer until a later date.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being 8.15 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 4(d) of 
standing order 56 to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on any amendment now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost. The question now is on the amendment to the main motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Groos:: I was paired with the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Skoreyko). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion.
INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY IN THE MARITIMES Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):
My grievance this evening concerns the lack of action-I might even say the lack of interest-on the part of this government in respect to the economic problems facing the maritime provinces and the Cape Breton industrial area particularly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps before the hon. member continues we might have order in the chamber.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: My
grievance, as I have said, has special reference to the industrial area of Cape Breton. In this area Dosco is the major employer both in steel and coal, and in each of these fields we are today looking to this government for action.
During the election campaign in Nova Scotia the people in that area, and possibly people throughout the country were subjected to a slogan-I imagine the Minister of National Health and welfare (Mr. MacEachen) will well recall it-"A Liberal government cares, acts and makes things happen". We might follow up that slogan by asking: "For whom, how, and when?"
Over the week end the minister apparently made an announcement to the effect that he, together with the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys will be going to Nova Scotia shortly to speak to the interested parties about the government's intention with respect to the opening of a new mine in Lingan and the provision of $15 million to mechanize existing mines in the area. I might call the minister's attention to the fact that though last week he expressed the intention of meeting with the interested parties, including the union and the provincial government, I find on checking this matter that neither the Minister of National Health and Welfare nor the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Pepin) had made any approach whatsoever to the union or to the company with respect to this get-together meeting in Halifax.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare who will not accept responsibility in this house for questions concerning coal, nevertheless preached on this subject throughout the province and throughout the maritimes during the election campaign. He has sat silent in the house since his return, hiding behind a rule which says he can deal only with matters affecting his own department. Yet at the same time he combines with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) in giving out press releases concerning matters which do not affect his department. It is time we had some answers from this minister who went along with another minister of the Crown to imply in Nova Scotia that his government had provided $25 million-I repeat, "had provided"-to the coal industry to mechanize existing mines and open a new
March 22, 1966

mine at Lingan. This was referred to as an accomplished fact. But since his return to Ottawa the minister has sat silent. We want action on this.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
We do have a heavy water plant in the Cape Breton area. I cannot give any credit to the Cape Breton members sitting about a council table for the fact that this came about in Cape Breton. I notice that the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) is looking on with a smirk on his face. I would remind him he does not know what is going on. This same Minister of Industry, faced with a question when his estimates were going through the house with respect to heavy water, said this matter was transferred to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. Yet it was in his estimates when they were going through the house. The minister does not know what is going on.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should point out to the hon. gentleman that while in the printed estimates items are apparently allocated to a particular department, under the authority of the Financial Administration Act transfers of responsibilities, including the amounts appropriated, are possible by order in council. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that such an order in council in respect to responsibility for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited was passed prior to the date of the discussion of the estimates, transferring it to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.


Donald MacInnis: I would remind the minister that when an estimate is going through the house he is responsible to answer for that particular estimate at the time it is going through.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should point out to the hon. member for Cape Breton South that at this particular part of our procedure he is permitted to raise one grievance and he must remain with that grievance. I understood the hon. member's grievance had to do with the amount of money to be expended in connection with coal mining in Nova Scotia. If that is the hon. member's grievance then of course he would not be permitted to move on to any other grievance at this time.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to you, my grievance is concerned with the operations of Dosco in the Cape Breton area, and this
Industrial Activity in Maritimes takes in coal and steel. The interjection by the Minister of Industry only brought me to reply that he was responsible at the time, and did not know what was going on. This again deals directly with the economy of the Cape Breton area.
I would refer the minister to a question I asked him in the house yesterday. As reported at page 2934 of Hansard I put this question:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and ask him whether the government is aware of DOSCO's intention to remove production equipment from their wire and nail mill at the Sydney steel plant. If so has the government received a request for aid, or does it intend to give aid to that area?
The minister's answer to that question was:
I was not aware of this intention, Mr. Speaker, but I shall make Inquiries.
With respect to my grievance, Mr. Speaker, I refer to the lack of action, or possibly the lack of interest on the part of the government. I would emphasize the lack of interest because there is no doubt the government was made aware of this move, even though the minister who should be in a position to know apparently did not know that the matter was brought to the attention of his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), who represents Nova Scotia.
A wire was sent to the Minister of National Health and Welfare with respect to the move being made by Dosco to curtail its operations in that plant. I would tell the Minister of Industry that the Minister of National Health and Welfare received a wire from James C. Nicholson, district director of the United Steelworkers of America, suggesting that immediate consultations be held with the heads of Dosco to end the stripping of the Sydney steel mill plant.
The wire went on to say:
Press reports indicate the committee of Atlantic Development Board has been studying the Nova Scotia steel industry for the past year. Possibly this is the avenue for solution to this problem now that Dosco has made known its intentions of further curtailing operation here.
We have the government professing no knowledge of this, even though one of the ministers received a wire from the union. There was an answer from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) putting forward only the company's side of the story. We members from Nova Scotia, and I make particular mention of the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir) and myself.
3022	COMMONS
Industrial Activity in Maritimes are in a bit of a dilemma because the only way we can assist the miners and the steel workers in our area is to seek assistance for Dosco in order that the benefits would be handed down to the workers; and so we find ourselves on both sides of the argument.
I think that the incentive programs, which the government has so much to say about, should be applied in such a way that they would benefit an area like Sydney. What is the enticement to move any portion of the Sydney plant to other parts of the country? I say the government should step in to see that what we have in Sydney, and the Cape Breton area in general, remains with us, rather than let the government sit back. That the government is sitting back has been very evident since the change of governments.
During the administration of the Conservative government many conferences were held with interested parties in the area, including mayors, clergy, and councillors, to deal with the problems facing the area. But since this government came into office not one such conference has been held. I ask that the minister from Nova Scotia set up such a conference so that the people from Cape Breton can present their views before the government, rather than doing it through correspondence which does not, when checked out, compare favourably with something else said by another minister on another occasion.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has on many occasions spoken of $25 million as an accomplished fact. Now we see where he made an announcement over the week end that he intends to go down to Nova Scotia very shortly to meet with the interested parties. I ask, has the government been in touch with the union and in touch with the company to see that they will be present when the minister goes, or is this intended to be, as it was before, a get acquainted trip for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys?
I could go further, Mr. Speaker, in respect to the employment situation in Cape Breton. For instance, I could remind the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) that on March 2 I had correspondence from his office in reference to a lay-off at the Sydney airport terminal, a matter which he said he was going to look into and advise me on very shortly. However, I have yet to hear further from the Minister of Transport. But people are laid off in Cape Breton by this government which says it acts and makes good things happen.
I cannot even get the minister's nose out of his notes over there, to draw his attention to

DEBATES	March 22, 1966
the fact that I do have a letter from his office, dated March 2, which he has not yet followed up. This is just another indication of the government's lack of interest in matters concerning Nova Scotia and Cape Breton in particular. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, when he goes to Cape Breton, takes credit for everything, but I can tell the Minister of Industry he does not know what is going on with respect to heavy water.
All he has to do to verify that fact is look up his own speeches in Hansard and he will find he contradicted the former minister of labour, now the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and on occasion he contradicted himself, and it is down in the record.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I wonder if the hon. gentleman, because I am interested in these contradictions, would quote me these occasions. I have been unable to find them.


Donald MacInnis: Well, if the minister is looking for contradictions, he does not have to look very hard. I would ask the Minister of Industry this question: What are the requirements in Canada for heavy water today? If he could give the answer to that question I would go further and-
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, if that question is addressed to me, as a I pointed out when the same question was asked by the same hon. member some two weeks ago, the responsibility for this particular function now, as it has for some time, resides with the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Pepin). So far as possible I endeavour not to mix in other people's business.


An hon. Member:: At that time you were responsible.


Donald MacInnis: Cannot the minister recall a few short weeks ago when he was responsible, and does he mean to tell me now he did not know what were the requirements for heavy water in Canada? Off the top of your head, what is the figure for the requirement in respect of heavy water in Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Would the hon. member like to know the answers to these questions? If so, he has only to ask.


Donald MacInnis: Would the minister just throw out the figure.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, these figures are well known by Atomic Energy of Canada
March 22, 1966

Limited. It is quite difficult for Atomic Energy of Canada to state these figures very clearly, because for one thing they depend on contracts which they enter into with other countries of the world. It is quite difficult to know when these contracts will materialize. Second, it depends on production in Canada. It is quite difficult for Atomic Energy of Canada to know whether the contracts entered into by Canadian production companies will be concluded.


Donald MacInnis: I have one simple question. Originally the figure was 400 tons and then they got to 600 tons. I ask the minister now, what is the actual figure they are working toward? They are supposed to be dealing right at this moment with the Canadian General Electric Company. I asked the question yesterday and the minister then gave what I would consider a rather ridiculous answer. I asked him whether Canadian General Electric had come up with an approved process for the manufacturing of heavy water, and he has made the answer: We do business with General Electric, and it stands to reason they must have an approved process for manufacturing heavy water. This is most ridiculous. This government dealt with British American Oil Company in the development of heavy water, and it turned out that they did not have a process at all; yet, you were willing to deal with them on the basis that if at all possible you would have taken the heavy water plant away from Nova Scotia and Glace Bay, but you could not do it because the lower bid was in. That is why the contract went to Nova Scotia.
Now, they have said they need 400 tons. They are involved in the 400-ton deal with General Electric and they cannot even answer whether or not General Electric is capable of producing heavy water. What is the figure; is it 400, 600 or 800?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the minister wishes to answer the questions posed by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, he can do so by replying to the hon. member; but I should point out to the house that this is not a question and answer period.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I was only giving the government front bench the opportunity to show their ignorance in the matter. It is nothing less than ignorance. The Minister of Transport, still with his nose in his notes, has no concern whatsoever for the fact that, under his jurisdiction, Cape Bretoners have been laid off 23033-191
Industrial Activity in Maritimes and unemployed. Of course he does not give any consideration to us. I am quite sure my hon. friend from Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir) will have something to say about his side of the harbour. The minister had no concern when they closed out the base. He said that they started the coastguard college.
What is the relation between this coastguard college and the fact that we have had such lay-offs at the naval base. Yet, this same Minister of Transport came to Cape Breton during the campaign and made the statement that our shipyards were never so busy. They are busy in places other than Cape Breton, because they have taken a lot of the work away from the Cape Bretoners. The minister is still buried in that book; I do not know whether it is fiction.


An hon. Member:: He wrote it.


Donald MacInnis: The
minister ignored the fact that there have been lay-offs under his jurisdiction, and ignored it despite the fact that he has the letters received in his office on March 2. He has yet to provide any answers to the problem concerning these people who have been unemployed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the activity of Dosco as the largest employer in the Cape Breton area, affects the welfare of every man, woman and child in Cape Breton and the province of Nova Scotia. The Liberal government cares. How much did they care? Again, when I refer to the economic problems and their relation to Cape Bretoners I speak for the youngest child and the oldest pensioner. They care enough that one of their first actions here was to deny an amendment from this side of the house to increase the old age pension to $100.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Surely the hon. member is drifting far afield now from the grievance with which he began.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, with all due deference, I do not see how you can say I am going astray. I am speaking about the economic problems of Cape Bretoners. As I say, what Dosco does has an influence on how the pensioner lives, because practically every pensioner in Cape Breton is subsidized by a steel worker or miner, and this affects his living.
The member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) has said they never voted against old age pensions, but I can quote from the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. March 22, 1966

Industrial Activity in Maritimes Winters) in Toronto when he said that it was not easy for members on their side of the house to vote against the resolution introduced by the opposition to increase the old age pension to $100 a month. How much does the Liberal government care; how have they acted, what have they done, and for whom and where have they done it? The Minister of Transport says that the shipyards never have been so busy. Naturally they will get busier in other places when they take everything we had. Upwards of 600 men were employed, and then in the last six months many of them were unemployed.
Why does not the Minister of National Health and Welfare stand up now and support the statements he made about assistance to the Nova Scotia coal industry? Where is that $25 million he referred to as an accomplished fact? When are you going to meet and whom are you going to meet with?
So far as the Donald report is concerned, it is the most ridiculous thing to hide behind. I do not know whether Dr. Donald went near a mine. He spoke to mining officials and other officials who met with him in the hotel at Sydney, a long way from the face-and when I say "face" I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare knows I am talking about the face in the mine. What has Dr. Donald done to find out about what is needed in the Cape Breton coal industry. Is he going to do anything more than summarize for the government the findings of the British coal board officials who visited here a short while ago?
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Why does the government hide behind the Donald report in its short-range program? I notice it always refers to the Donald report as an indication of how it will approach the long-range program for the Cape Breton coal industry. The Donald report has some merit where it deals with improved mechanism of existing eolleries, but it has nothing whatever to do with the opening of a new mine at Lingan, and should not be considered in any way, shape or form in that regard. Where is the $10 million of the $25 million that was supposed to be directed toward the opening of this new mine? What method is the government going to adopt to obtain some return on its money in this regard?
All these questions bring again to my mind the argument presented by the leader of the New Democratic party of Cape Breton during the last election campaign, who made reference to an article by Mr. Meyers in the Financial Post. At that time the former min-

ister of labour, the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) used a great amount of time and a great many words in denying the suggestions made by the leader of the New Democratic party, that the whole question revolved around what was contained in fine print in the government's promises.
The minister of labour at that time, the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond, said there was not any fine print as far as the promises were concerned, but toward the end of the campaign Cape Bretoners began to ask whether there was any large print. They began to doubt whether this government intended to come through with its promises. They are now waiting for this government to make good what the minister of labour of that day, and the minister of mines referred to as an accomplished fact.
Let us have some concern for the people of Cape Breton. The government should take some action in this regard. I make an appeal once again to the Minister of National Health and Welfare-although I know it is useless because he will not take his nose out of his paper,-to do something about the situation and make good some of the government's promises. I direct this appeal to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) as well, in spite of the fact that, although he represents a riding in that area he is not from the maritimes.
I could quote chapter and verse of the promises made by these ministers just prior to the last election, but I will only appeal to them to make available at least 10 per cent of what they promised, which would do a great deal to help the situation in the maritimes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria whether he intends to speak on the same grievance referred to by the hon. member for Cape Breton South?


Robert Muir: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will deal with the economic problems of Cape Breton. The former speaker, my colleague from Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) did mention that his grievance was related to the economic conditions of the maritime provinces in general and Cape Breton island in particular. I was a little afraid that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) was going to rise before I had an opportunity to say a few words. However, in the spirit of a good Cape Breton islander, he
March 22. 1966	COMMONS
has yielded the floor so that I may criticize him and his government a little bit more.
Within recent days we have been greatly discouraged by statements made in the Nova Scotia legislature regarding the steel industry in Nova Scotia, located particularly in Cape Breton. These statements have been made by the former minister of trade and industry in the province of Nova Scotia, Mr. E. A. Man-son. I have before me the Chronicle-Herald, Friday, March 18 which carries the headline "Immediate Cure for Steel or Sydney may Die-Manson". For the benefit of the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I should like to read extracts from this article because, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South, I feel that the Minister of Industry does not seem to realize what is going on outside of Montreal and the immediate surrounding area. Apparently there is no liaison between the Minister of Industry and his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Had there been some liaison he would have known that there is worry and concern in Cape Breton and throughout Nova Scotia regarding the future of the steel industry there. They would also be aware that telegrams have been sent out about this matter expressing grave concern.
The Minister of Industry is showing extreme interest at this time and I hope that he and his colleague will listen carefully to this quotation from the issue of that newspaper to which I referred. Mr. Manson is reported as having said:
Steel city Sydney could "whither and die" in the next 20 years if there was not an immediate cure found for a sick steel industry, the legislature was warned yesterday.
The article then continues as follows:
Cape Breton South MLA, E. A. Manson, a former minister of trade and industry, and mines, took a swipe at the huge Dosco empire, and predicted that the Sydney steel works would have nothing more to do than fill orders at busy periods or when there was a short supply from the huge Quebec province steel complex, if the downhill trend was not rapidly reversed.
He was speaking in the opening day of debate on the first report of the Voluntary Planning Board. He outlined recommendations to save the Sydney steel mills.
I hope that the temporary government we have here will listen intently to what Mr. Manson suggested should be done, and then come forward with their own ideas and suggestions as to what can be done to assist Dosco and thereby assist the steel workers in the province of Nova Scotia.
23033-19 u
DEBATES	3025
Industrial Activity in Maritimes
As reported in this newspaper, Mr. Manson made the following recommendations:
Appoint a steel economist to co-ordinate efforts of organizations working to better the economy and that industry;
Make a thorough study of transportation to central Canada, with the idea of subsidies from the Atlantic Development Board;
Establish a plate mill to take up the slack and offer new steel products;
Ask the VEP board to establish whether or not it is too late to move a sheet and strip metal mill to the Sydney site;
Concentrate more production on small and medium structural steel;
Call on Dosco to take on its responsibilities as a citizen of this province.
On this latter point Mr. Manson said it was difficult to sit down and work out a program with a company owned and operated by people outside the province. "We are mystified where we are going," he said.
He said he was not making a direct attack on Dosco.
"But they should be called to account!"
Later on in this same article the following is reported, and I wish to bring this particularly to the attention of the Minister of Industry:
Mr. Manson told the House that the labour force in the Sydney mill had dropped 2,000 in the last 20 years-to a total employment figure of 3,160 in 1964, at full plant capacity.
This cutback, he said was due to the increased use of oxygen in the open hearth, and technical advances. And, he predicted that in another 20 years, 2,000 more could be lopped off the steel plant payroll.
"There is a danger we are getting ourselves in a complacent attitude about steel, saying steel's all right," he said.
The Monday, March 21, edition of the Chronicle-Herald reported that telegrams had been sent to Premier Stanfield and the Minister of National Health and Welfare regarding this very serious situation. The headline is "Sydney Steel Union Seeks Intervention" with a subheading "Stripping of Mill Opposed". I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare will listen and take note of this article, and advise us when he replies what action he intends to take to provide some relief for the steel workers in Sydney. The article states:
James C. Nicholson, district director for the United Steelworkers of America has sent telegrams to Premier Stanfield and National Health and Welfare Minister Allan MacEachen urging the immediate consultation be held with heads of Dosco, to end the "stripping" of the Sydney plant's wire mill.
e (9:30 p.m.)
In the telegrams, Mr. Nicholson said the general manager of the Sydney works of Dosco has informed the Sydney steelworkers that the management will shortly order the dismantling of two
March 22, 1966

Industrial Activity in Maritimes
"wire drawing" machines, now operating in the Sydney wire mill. These machines are to be transferred to the Etobicoke works, the Dosco subsidiary in Ontario.
The hon. member lor Cape Breton South posed a question yesterday to which in my opinion the minister gave a rather fluffy answer today, to the effect that this would not be a serious problem, that nothing was really going to happen, that we were going to employ many more people, and that sort of thing.
I notice the minister seems very interested in replying to me. I hope he will get up and say something is really going to be done for this Sydney steel industry and possibly within four or five months we will expand it and employ another 400 or 500 people.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question I should like to put to the hon. gentleman. I should like to ask whether he heard the answer to which he has referred, and did he understand that I made it clear that this excitement which the hon. member is trying to build up about a prospective disaster is actually going to lead to an increase in steel production in the Sydney mill, and to an increase in employment? Is the hon. gentleman complaining about this?


Robert Muir: I am complaining about the fact that you, along with your colleagues, most of the time sit on what brains you have and do not make any effort to try and do something for the industry. What is this great progress you were suggesting in your answer today? Is this the type of progress that has taken place in the past few years in the Sydney steel plant, where we once employed close to 5,000 people, I believe, but which number has gone down to slightly over 3,000?
Is this the progress the minister is speaking about? I do not agree with that type of progress. In my opinion progress is made when you are employing more people. I hope the minister has more background and knowledge of the industry than he has expressed tonight. Surely he must know something more about it than he has expressed, because of his relationships with Dosco. I am sure he is close enough to Dosco to know what is happening in that organization. We want to know what has happened with Dosco and what chance this company has, if any, to receive assistance from the Minister of Industry.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Industry that we direct proposals, criticisms, questions and representations to him and we would like a little assistance from him. We do not want the minister to suggest that we are trying to stir up trouble. Is the minister suggesting that Mr. Manson, a very highly regarded former minister of trade and industry in the province of Nova Scotia, is trying to stir up controversy, or is the minister suggesting that what Mr. Manson says is perhaps wrong, that he is a prevaricator or something like that? Is the minister suggesting that the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, which is a completely independent newspaper-I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) would agree with that-is wrong? I think particularly the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) would agree with me in this respect because he is very often quoted from this newspaper.


Mr. Stewart:: I would not want to agree with that.


Robert Muir: I would not want to get in a scrap with the hon. member because he might throw his hand up to me. But is he suggesting that the Halifax Chronicle-Herald is stirring up this worry and fear and there is no basis for it? Is he suggesting that James Nicholson, district director for the United Steelworkers, is in the same category; that we are all people with wild and weird dreams and are causing this trouble and a little inconvenience to the government without any basis in fact? I hesitate to get up in this house every once in a while and criticize the minister and other members of the cabinet, but we are forced to do so. Since this government came into office, through the aegis of the brilliant, scholarly member for Bonavista-Twillingate, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and the efforts of the government, 550 jobs will be lost at North Sydney in connection with the terminal for the shipment of goods to Newfoundland. We have to find alternative jobs for these people.
What has the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) done since he came to power? He closed down the Point Edward naval base. Here again 600 jobs have disappeared.


An hon. Member:: They have made a mess of things.


Robert Muir: He made a mess of everything-not
March 22, 1966
only the minister, but his government, and the prime minister. I cannot understand the reaction of the Minister of Industry to this situation. Let us look at an article which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of March 19. This article is entitled "Gloomy View". We are called doomsters and gloom-sters by the minister but I do not mind being put into this category. Premier Stanfield is worried and upset about this situation and I am sure is willing to do everything he can to assist. I think this government should be prepared to do the same thing and should not do nothing but make crazy statements. For instance, while the hon. member for Cape Breton South was speaking he mentioned that there was a lack of interest on the part of ministers of this government, and the Minister of Industry mumbled in his beard and said something to the effect that there was a lack of interest in the hon. member for Cape Breton South.
We find this attitude being adopted so many times by this government. These people, who do not have any intestinal fortitude, refuse to get on their feet, and instead make interjections from their seats. This is because they are afraid to stand up and make statements. This is their problem and we wish they would admit it. Perhaps the minister has heard about Peter Nicholson-although he may not have heard of him because he does not go far out of Quebec. Peter Nicholson is the leader of the Liberal party in the Nova Scotia house. He said, according to a press statement yesterday, I believe it was, "that there should be a good, hard look at the steel question and it is a deep problem." Surely the minister would not say he could be wrong.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Of course not.


Robert Muir: You are mumbling again.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: "Of course not".


Robert Muir: Of course he is not wrong. Let me read this editorial that appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald:
The "whither and die" speech on the Sydney steel industry, delivered in the legislature on Thursday by the Hon. E. A. Manson.. . was the most startling and effective contribution to debate in the house so far this session, and well merited the congratulatory handshakes offered by fellow MLAs afterwards.
Industrial Activity in Maritimes
Obviously, Mr. Manson had done a great deal of homework, and had given considerable thought to the subject. This apparent fact only served to underline the gravity of his remarks. In effect, he claimed that, unless measures were taken by Dosco and government agencies, 2,000 members of the Sydney steel plant's work force of approximately 3,700 would be unemployed by 1972; in 20 years, the plant might be closed.
This gloomy prediction, coupled with the knowledge that the proposed 25 million rationalization of the Cape Breton coal industry by the federal government will reduce mine employment while it increases mine efficiency, can only serve to focus provincial attention on Nova Scotia's most serious economic problem-the very real threat of social and economic disruption in Cape Breton.
Hopefully, Mr. Manson's speech, following so closely the warning of Harry J. Waisglass, research director of the United Steelworkers of America (Canada), that the Voluntary Planning Board's prediction of marginal growth in steel production in the next decade was "wishful thinking,'' will prompt the board's steel committee to greater efforts than it has apparently made in the past.
The committee, formed a year ago, is composed of representatives of the board, the Atlantic Development Board, the federal Department of Industry, and Dosco itself.
The minister probably does not even know he is represented on that board. This editorial continues:
During its year of existence, it has been unable to produce a detailed report on the prospects of the industry in this province. In the face of fears such as those expressed so eloquently by Mr. Man-son, it should press on with greater energy.
The reason is obvious. As Mr. Manson said, the Dosco steel plant alone accounts for 17 per cent of the province's manufactures. Understandably, the Voluntary Planning Board recently pointed out that "realistic economic planning in Nova Scotia would require detailed information regarding the future of the steel industry in Nova Scotia" No "detailed information" has yet been developed, however.
The steel committee, particularly its Dosco members, faces a serious public duty. It is obvious that the industry stands in need of further investment and product diversification. Can Dosco be induced to take these steps?
I have just received the Halifax Chronicle-Herald for this evening, March 22. For the information of the Minister of Industry I would point out that it has a very pretty picture of the minister on the front page. The headline on the front page of this newspaper is "Nicholson Requests Debate To Clarify Dosco Situation". So now he must feel it is of vital importance; he must believe it is something to worry about. After all, he is the Liberal house leader in the Nova Scotia Legislature.
[DOT] (9:40 p,m.)
I do not mind being placed in the same category as Mr. Nicholson, if the Minister of Industry feels that what Mr. Nicholson says is

March 22, 1968

Industrial Activity in Maritimes right. A few moments ago the minister seemed to feel that what I said was wrong, and intimated that what others said, including the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, was wrong. Now, he is changing his point of view. This is Grit strategy. If a Grit says that black is white or white is black, that is it; it does not matter.
Now, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if the government will show some leadership and undertake an immediate investigation of steel operations so that we can find out if something can be done to assist the industry. There appears to be something wrong somewhere. This is a very bad situation. I recall the Minister of National Health and Welfare appearing on television during the last campaign with a beautiful backdrop of the hills of Cape Breton and the Bras d'Or Lakes. Then, with the countenance of a smiling Buddha, the minister would appear saying that the Liberal government cares; acts and makes good things happen. I heard some strong Liberal people say if the minister appeared on television once more he was going to drive them all up the wall.
Is the minister going to care? Is he going to act? Is he going to make good things happen? Is the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) going to do anything? Is this government going to do anything? We have some time left and I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare will explain to us what is going to be done by the government with regard to this apparently serious problem.
There is another thing I should like to mention before I resume my seat. I wonder if the Minister of Industry is familiar with the unemployment situation in the Atlantic provinces? Does he know that the regional figures are twice those of the national average? I suppose the minister will say the situation was worse a few years ago. This is not an answer. I hope the government will, and I press upon the government to give serious consideration to the problem. I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but more particularly the Minister of Industry since his department is directly concerned, will show some leadership in connection with this problem. I am sure if the minister gets the facts, he will find there is something drastically wrong in the steel industry in Nova Scotia. I ask him and the Minister of National Health and Welfare to show some

leadership in this problem, and to work in close co-operation with the provincial government.
I noticed that, according to yesterday's newspaper, the Minister of National Health and Welfare said he was working in close co-operation with the provincial government and they, in turn, were working in close co-operation with him. He felt no one should try to claim credit for anything that might happen, either the federal government alone or the provincial government alone. I realize that this is a change in attitude. He did not feel that way during the last election campaign. I am glad to note that the minister has been converted to the proper way of thinking. At that time he took credit for everything under the sun. Last year in Nova Scotia we had a tremendously good summer, and he took credit for that. A very close clerical friend of mine said that if the minister continued with this attitude he would be claiming credit for the visit of His Holiness the Pope to the United Nations.
I trust that I have made one or two points this evening for the benefit of the ministers and the government. Once again I ask that some leadership be given by the Minister of Industry. He says there is nothing to this allegation. I am sure no one will be happier than the members of the Steelworkers Union, and the members of parliament from Cape Breton, including the Minister of National Health and Welfare, if that is true.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; the Chair would not wish to pre-judge the situation, but I suppose the hon. member for Pictou was rising to speak on exactly the same situation.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Indeed, I am, although the hour is quite late.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member for Pictou permit me to ask him a question?


Howard Russell MacEwan: I have not much time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a very brief question. Will the hon. member define his grievance succinctly?


Howard Russell MacEwan: I will attempt to do that. I am glad to see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has finally awakened. It is good to have him with us because he is a minister from the Atlantic provinces. It is always good to have Jack around.
I should like to endorse, and I will do this most succinctly, the remarks made by the
March 22, 1966

hon. members for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir) and Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis). I should like to deal mainly with this question of the removal of the equipment from the wire and nail mill at the Sydney steel plant. The reason I mention this situation is that something along this line took place in the constituency which I represent some time ago. I am referring to the time when the nut and bolt department was removed from the Trenton plant to Montreal. This caused a lot of unemployment in the area. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to guess what party formed the government at that time? Naturally it was the Liberal party. This nut and bolt department was moved. There were a lot of promises made and I believe an inquiry was conducted, but the department was still moved to Montreal.
May I point out that during the time our party formed the government of this country, from 1957 to 1963, there was a move made from Montreal to Nova Scotia. I refer to the closing of the Canada Car plant which did make rolling stock in Montreal. This plant was closed in Montreal and the equipment moved to our area. This just illustrates the difference between what was done by our party and what is done by another party. This move meant a great deal of work for the people of our area. I believe at least 100 people were employed. I recall that at the time there was a great deal of pressure on the government to return the Canada Car plant, but we did not succumb to that pressure. As I say, it has done a lot for our area.
I should like to refer also to the $25 million. I do not know whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) has it, or the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Pepin). However, I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare recalls that story about the great Cape Breton magistrate, A. B. McGillivary who had a Cape Breton coal miner before him charged with intoxication. I do not know how that would ever happen in Cape Breton. However, the magistrate fined him $10 and costs. The fellow put his hand in his back pocket and said, "Well, A.B., I have the $10 in my back pocket." The magistrate said, "Ten days in the Cape Breton county jail; have you got that in your back pocket?" I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare, where is that $25 million?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In his back pocket.
Industrial Activity in Maritimes
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Howard Russell MacEwan: If he has it, he has not done very much with it. I think perhaps the Minister of Transport has taken some of it to Newfoundland with the able assistance of the Premier of that province. I might say that we want to see a little bit of this cash and we want to see it soon. I just want to endorse what was said by my two hon. friends; I think definitely that there should be a movement in this direction.
I think the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys is very anxious to get to Nova Scotia to meet with the various groups and, barring another crisis, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare said, surely they will be down there soon so that a decision will be made at a very early time.
I now want to say something that I have said in this house before. I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will be able to hold his own in the cabinet. In former cabinets we know that our Nova Scotian minister, the late Mr. Nowlan, the former hon. member for Digby-Annapo-lis-Kings often told me that he and the Minister of Finance were often held to the true course. He had difficulty in matters affecting our province, but he seemed to be able to come through. I would hope, with the other members here, that our sentiment in this regard will be made plain by the Minister of National Health and Welfare or by the Minister of Industry.
What should be borne in mind are the exact effects of the movement of the equipment from Sydney to Etobicoke, and also the details of the $25 million grant, which was a commitment during the last election campaign by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I think it is about time we had the facts on these matters. Questions in this house have been asked many times with regard to them, and I hope that something may be done in that regard.
Finally, sir, there is one thing which many of us who have shipbuilding yards in our areas are wondering about. As I understand it, very little ship refitting and naval refitting is coming to the two yards in Cape Breton. I know in my own area there has not been a sizeable naval refit for a long time.


J. Michael Forrestall: Nor in Halifax.


Howard Russell MacEwan: The junior member for Halifax says, nor in Halifax. That is so.
3030	COMMONS
Industrial Activity in Maritimes
We are worried about this. We have brought this forward to the attention of the house. I think the final straw was when H.M.C.S. Bonaventure went to Montreal. She went up the river and will be there for one year, as we understand. Mr. Speaker, we have been asking questions in this regard. I have put them on the order paper. I have asked orally of the minister what the story is. Of course the Minister of Industry, following the announcement of policy made I think in July, 1965, pointed out that all this naval refitting work must be done by way of tender.
I recall a question I put to the minister. It was respecting a ship bearing a Cape Breton name, H.M.C.S. New Waterford, which, during the winter of 1964-65 was due for a sizable refit that would mean much to a small yard such as would be found in my own constituency. At that time we were told, after putting in a new drydock, after doing the building necessary to handle a ship of this size, that we could not do it. We had gone to considerable expenditure; but the Minister of Industry apparently said that tenders would be called. Coming back to what I was speaking of, I am not sure whether the Halifax shipyards and officials concerned were given an opportunity of bidding on H.M.C.S. Bonaventure. On speaking to the former general manager of the yard that would have done the work, I understood that they were not given an opportunity to tender.
There are other questions we could put to the minister, which would succinctly bring out what we have in mind. I see that the Minister of Transport did not wait for me to finish. He has gone, as well as the money from the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Tomorrow, sir, I intend to put a private member's resolution on the order paper asking for a return to the original shipbuilding subsidy program instituted by the former Conservative government and which has been cut down by the present government. The resolution is to the effect that there should be a return to the original program.
In his original announcement the Minister of Transport seemed to think that the cutback to 25 per cent, and so on, which is to go on in succeeding years is sufficiently large enough to provide for our Canadian shipyards. Well, sir, the original plan was brought forward by the government of the present Leader of the Opposition to enable our
[Mr. MacEwan.l
DEBATES	March 22, 1966
Canadian shipyards to compete effectively with foreign shipyards. As a result, after a few years in this country we were able to do this, especially in the construction of fishing trawlers. The Minister of Transport has now said that no doubt these fishing trawler subsidies will continue, but on the commercial end of it they are not sure just what will happen. This is the kind of thing-


Mr. Howard:: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit a question?


Howard Russell MacEwan: Yes, certainly.


Frank Howard: I wonder if the hon. gentleman, realizing that it is only two or three minutes to ten, would perhaps desist in his remarks. I do not say that he should do that because of the importance of his question or otherwise, but I suggest he ought to wait for a moment or two, because it is almost ten o'clock, and because it seems to me that some minister on the other side is waiting for the hon. gentleman to sit down so that he can rise and make a declaration of policy.


An hon. Member:: They have not risen yet.


Frank Howard: I know they have not risen yet. I have watched them attentively. I wonder if the hon. member for Pictou would give them at least one last opportunity to say something.


Robert Muir: Make a statement, you mean?


Winona Grace MacInnis: The interjection of the hon. gentleman who did not rise in his seat, to the effect that the hon. member for Pictou did not want to give the minister an opportunity to speak, is unwarranted. I would draw to the attention of members of this house, including the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the hon. member for Pictou in making his remarks offered an opportunity for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to say something on this matter, and the minister declined.


An hon. Member:: He refused to get up.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short reply to the comments which have been made, It is true that I did invite the hon. member for Pictou, because I thought he ought to have the opportunity to participate in what is becoming known to the House of Commons as a-
March 22, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	3031
Estimates Entered for Consideration


Winona Grace MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Mr. Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of Speaker-	order. The minister so far has not said anything. I call it ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Closure, closure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton South on a point of Mr. Muir (Cape Breton South and Vic-order.	toria): What about steel?


Winona Grace MacInnis: This point of order was brought on by an interjection. I am now asking the Minister of National Health and Welfare if the hon. member for Pictou did not give him an opportunity to speak at twenty minutes to ten.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pictou of course was ready to yield the floor. I did not accept the offer because I thought he might conclude very soon; and if he did not, I thought the house might allow me to make a very brief reply to some of the comments which have been made.
If I have unanimous consent, I should like to make a few brief comments.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Has the Minister of National Health and Welfare the unanimous consent of the house to continue.


Mr. Starr:: He can say what he needs to say in three minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent?


Michael Starr: What he has to say will only take three minutes. He can say it in three minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to miss an opportunity of sharing in the billing of the Cape Breton hit parade that has been hitting the House of Commons regularly since this session began.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Let us get on.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am glad to share even in a modest and minor way in this. The stars have already appeared in the show before this evening. To me, it sounded like a re-run. It was a re-run.


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You know all about those things.


An hon. Member:: You are past masters at closure.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, it is my duty pursuant to Section (4) of standing order 56 to interrupt forthwith these proceedings and put forward any question before the house. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Michael Starr: On division.
Motion (Mr. Sharp) agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:


[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $4,899,800.
[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, $6,664,500.
[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including the Canadian Agricultural Services Co-ordinating Committee, contributions to the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux and a special contribution not exceeding $20,000 to the Agricultural Economics Research Council, subject to approval by the Treasury Board, $4,750,800.

[Stage Direction]
1. Administration, operation and maintenance including payment of remuneration, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council and notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, in connection with the assignment by the Canadian government of Canadians to the staffs of the international organizations detailed in the estimates, and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amounts of the shares of those organizations of such expenses, and authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salaries of commissioners (International Commissions for Supervision and Control in IndoChina), secretaries and staff by
March 22, 1966
3032	COMMONS DEBATES
Estimates Entered for Consideration
the governor in council; assistance and repatriation of distressed Canadian citizens and persons of Canadian domicile abroad, including their dependents; payment to the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission for the purposes and subject to the provisions of the act respecting the commission established to administer the Roosevelt Campobello International Park; a cultural relations and academic exchange program with the French community; payment to the Gut Dam International Arbitral Tribunal, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $15,403,400.
DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE 1. Departmental administration including a grant of $100,000 to the Fathers of Confederation Memorial Trust, Charlottetown, P.E.I., $743,600.
[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants to military associations, institutes and other organizations as detailed in the Estimates and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the Treasury Board, for total commitments of $2,632,006,370 for the purposes of votes 1, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 45 of this department regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,106,752, 370 will come due for payment in future years) and authority to make recoverable advances under any of the said votes and, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year from the sale to military personnel of clothing and kit items and revenue received in respect of assistance rendered to the United Nations, any party of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or any provincial or municipal government, $5,640,000.
[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $1,552,000.
[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including recoverable expenditures on behalf of the Canada Pension Plan, $2,495,800.
[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including the administration of the Explosives Act, Canada's fee for membership in the Pan-American Institute of Geography and History and a grant of $10,000 to the Mining Association of British Columbia, $3,217,400.
[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the Estimates, $2,196,100.
Proceedings reported.
Michael Starr: I wish to ask the leader ol the house what the program will be tor Friday.


George James McIlraith: Before I answer that question I should like to complete a small matter in connection with these estimates, that is, referring them to the appropriate committees.
It will be recalled that pursuant to Order No. 14 of the last session, which order was continued in operation during this session of parliament, the detailed examination of the estimates would be undertaken by standing committees. That is an order of the house.
So that there may be no doubt about it I propose, pursuant to standing Order No. 57, which provides that a motion referring estimates can be made without debate and without notice on the routine proceedings of any day, to ask unanimous consent to make this motion now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house
give unanimous consent for the minister to move a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: I move:
That, saving always the powers of the Committee of Supply in relation to the voting of public moneys, the items listed in the main estimates for 1966-67 relating to the departments of: Agriculture, External Affairs, Fisheries, National Defence, Health and Welfare, Mines and Technical Surveys, Northern Affairs and National Resources, Secretary of State, Transport, and Trade and Commerce, entered for consideration this day, be withdrawn from the Committee of Supply and referred to the Standing Committees of the House as follows:
Department of Agriculture to Standing Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development.
Department of External Affairs to Standing Committee on External Affairs.
Department of Fisheries to Standing Committee on Fisheries.
Department of National Defence to Standing Committee on National Defence.
Department of National Health and Welfare to Standing Committee on Health and Welfare.
Department of Mines and Technical Surveys to Standing Committee on Industry, Research and Energy Development.
Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, to Standing Committee on Northern Affairs and National Resources.
(a) Indian Affairs to Standing Committee on Indian Affairs, Human Rights and Citizenship and Immigration.
March 22, 1966	COMMONS
Secretary of State, and all other Agencies for which the Minister is answerable in the House, except the Chief Electoral Officer to Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
(a) Office of the Chief Electoral Officer to Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Department of Transport to Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Department of Trade and Commerce to Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
I should indicate that in this list, where there is reference to the estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State, the office of the Chief Electoral Officer should, I believe, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections rather than to the other standing committee.


Michael Starr: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Mcllraith) agreed to.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question asked by the hon. house leader for the official opposition, on Friday we propose to call interim supply and the final supplementary estimates for the current fiscal year; not necessarily in that order.


Michael Starr: For what period of time is the interim supply being called?


George James McIlraith: For three months; it is usually for three months at the start of the year-April, May and June. I believe that is the custom according to precedents.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Bernard Pilon (Chambly-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, may I have permission to revert to motions?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


J.-E. Bernard Pilon: I move:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses to inquire into and report upon divorce in Canada, and that the members to serve on the said committee, on the part of this house, will be as follows:	Messrs.	Aiken, Baldwin, Brewin,
Cameron (High Park), Cantin, Choquette, Chretien, Fairweather, Forest, Goyer, Honey, Laflamme, Langlois (Megantic), MacEwan, Mandziuk, Mc-Cleave, McQuald, Otto, Peters, Ryan, Stanbury, Trudeau, Wahn and Woolliams.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
23033-192J
DEBATES	3033
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion

J.-E. Bernard Pilon: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses to consider the state of penitentiaries under the control of the government of Canada, and that the members to serve on the said committee, on the part of this house, will be as follows: Messrs. Aiken, Allmand, Dionne, Fulton, Lachance, Macdonald (Rosedale), Matheson, McQuaid, Prud-'homme, Ricard, Stafford, Tolmie, Watson (Chateau-guay-Huntingdon-Laprairie), Winch and Woolliams.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

J.-E. Bernard Pilon: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses to inquire into and to report upon the problems of consumer credit, and that the members to serve on the said committee, on the part of this house, will be as follows: Messrs. Allmand, Andras, Basford, Bell (Saint John-Albert), Cashin, Clancy, Coates, Crossman, Deachman, Duquet, Hales, Lachance, Lefebvre, Macdonald (Rosedale), Mandziuk, Matte, McCutcheon, Nasserden, Olson, Otto, Ryan, Saltsman, Scott and Vincent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, it is very uncommon that I remain in the house after ten o'clock but this evening the question I wish to raise is of such grave importance to the hog producers of the country that I felt I should continue to raise the question which I placed before the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon, because it may be that in his lengthy answer he missed the point completely.
I must explain that the question arises from petitions made by members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, specifically so far as I am concerned by members of that organization representing the province of Ontario. It would seem that there was an irregularity in the marketing of the carcasses of hogs last week. This afternoon when the minister gave his answer with respect to
March 22, 1966
3034	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion figures of imports he specifically mentioned the dates from March 1 to March 8, and gave the number of pounds of imports that came into this country.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Further, Mr. Speaker, he made quite sure that his figures and remarks were directed to the North American market; in other words, the import that he was referring to was from the United States. The entire basis of the interest, so far as this industry is concerned, is that for about the fifth or sixth continuous week farmers had received exceptionally high prices for the carcasses of hogs they were taking to market, and the minister was very fair in giving these prices at the high of February, and then mentioning the drop which occurred last week. The significant factor is that he mentioned nothing about imports last week. I was informed there were imports by a processor from a European country either close to or exceeding two million pounds of the product, and that this directly is the reason there was such a drop in the market.
It is easy to understand how a situation could arise where processors could band together and import a product of this kind for a given number of days, because it is a continuing type of market and the prices would decline because Canadian producers would be suffering from the amount of the imported product which would be used in the packing plants, and there would be no demand for their own product.
As background for the question in respect of the importation, I would like to state that it is granted that the price of carcasses dropped on the United States as well as the Canadian markets, but there is a differential of almost 100 per cent. Therefore it follows that it may be that the statement of this official is factual. In my question to the ministry I made it very clear that I had no argument if the parliamentary secretary would give me the answer.
To be absolutely fair to the house and to the parliamentary secretary, I think I should put into the record the note which I forwarded to the minister's office following the question period this afternoon. It is addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters). I informed him this afternoon that I had a question for him on the adjournment debate. I stated that the question involved imports of pork or pork products from Europe in the period from March 7 to March 18,

and asked that if there were such imports, to what companies were they made and did they have an import licence accordingly.
When I asked the Minister of Agriculture today, he answered me by referring only to the North American market. In this regard, my question to him is in respect of the claim by the Federation of Agriculture that the import in the time referred to was basically the cause of the tremendous drop in the return to farmers in this particular industry which occurred last week. I would say that the drop which occurred was very sharp. If markets in this regard can be manipulated to this extent, I believe the government should take action. I will appreciate the answer to my question.


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pork and pork products are not included in the import control list. Therefore, no licence is required in order to import those products from Europe.
Finally, for the period in question, the department does not yet have the information regarding the importation of those products.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-NEWFOUNDLAND- INVESTIGATION INTO FOOD AND DRUG PRICES

Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I directed a question to the Prime Minister in reference to a news item which appeared in the Financial Post of March 19. The item is reported from St. John's, Newfoundland, and indicates that a royal commission has been appointed by the provincial government to investigate food and drug prices in Newfoundland.
I think the action of the Newfoundland government in establishing this royal commission to look into food and drug prices is of the utmost importance, especially in the light of the debate that is taking place in this house regarding the high cost of living in Canada. This is an enormous and bold step forward which is much needed.
When I directed my question to the Prime Minister I asked him whether he and his government intended to support the royal commission set up in the province of Newfoundland, and what assistance he might render in their behalf. Unfortunately the Prime Minister did not feel that he could answer my question, and suggested that it be placed on the order paper.
March 22, 1966

I think in the light of the special pertinence and the overriding importance of this whole question to consumer cost of living in Canada, it is essential that this matter be debated and drawn to the attention of the government. I think we should find out what proposals and actions the federal government intends to take in this important matter. It may be that the federal government does not at the present time have the power to regulate prices when abuses are found, and I am not certain whether it is absolutely necessary or desirable that the government possess this power.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), the leader of our party, suggested that the government should set up a prices review board. In outlining its functions he stated that it would look into increased prices regarding any commodity, with power to examine the books, profit and loss statements, cost accounting material and other things of material interest, to find out whether or not increased wage costs, costs of raw materials and overhead warranted such an increase being imposed. We have listened for a number of days to comments as to why this cannot be done. Newfoundland, the newest province of Canada, has been able to do this, and this is one of our supposedly underdeveloped areas. The authorities in that province have felt that this is a worth-while and far-sighted step. They are not saying that this cannot be done or that the government does not have jurisdiction.
I should like to quote the suggested terms of reference of that board as reported in the Financial Post of March 19, as follows:
The commission will have a free hand to conduct a thorough and independent investigation of prices and profits at both wholesale and retail levels, and all factors and elements entering into prices, including freight rates, trucking, labour rates, overhead, profit received both wholesale and retail.
We have heard in this house almost every day during this session about the need for federal leadership, yet time and time again it has been the provinces that have acted and the federal government which has said there is nothing that can be done about a situation. If we are going to have leadership in this country the federal government must admit that the provinces are ready and that the federal government is willing.
The kind of answers we have received from the government regarding this whole matter of the rising cost of living are completely unsatisfactory. Why is the government
DEBATES	3035
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion afraid to establish a prices review board such as we have suggested? Does it feel that knowledge of our economy is too heady a wine for themselves and for the people of this country? The premier of the province of Newfoundland does not think so, and neither do the people of that province. The federal government often seems to be pursuing a policy of keeping information from the province. Even in the small way of ensuring that manufacturers indicate the contents of their products, this government has been reluctant to act.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I do not think the government can put forward the excuse that they do not possess the power to act in this situation. We are not even asking for the power of enforcement. We ask for the power of publicity. It is interesting to note that this whole probe in Newfoundland came about because a housewife got mad and decided to picket a supermarket. I say to the government of Canada, "You don't need any regulations. All you need to do is give the housewives of this country the information and they will take care of the rest."
I think it is important that the housewives know who is to blame and whose fault it is that the cost of living is going up. I have all the faith in the world that the Canadian housewife, militant in the defence of her home and family, will watch, read the publicity, do something about the situation and save the government a great deal of trouble. It is a very small thing that we ask.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted for his speech has now expired.
Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman), not only because I am now speaking as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare but because I, too, am a housewife.
The hon. member's question related to a report in this week's Financial Post to the effect that a royal commission has been appointed by the government of Newfoundland to investigate food and drug prices in that province. In relation to that question I should
March 22, 1S66

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion like to say that the matter has not been drawn to the attention of the federal government or the officials of the Food and Drug Directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Therefore this government has not offered to assist the province of Newfoundland in its investigation, and has not been asked to do so by the province.
However, may I say at this time that the machinery to set up the House of Commons special committee on food and drug prices is now under way and we expect that meetings will be held very shortly.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
March 22, 1966



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
Minister of Finance
Ottawa 4, March 18, 1966.
Dear Mr	
I am writing to you and to the heads of many other Canadian financial institutions and firms to ask for your cooperation in connection with the request I made on behalf of the Government in my statement in the House of Commons on March 16, 1966, a copy of which is enclosed.
To help ensure that Canadian savings are available to meet the present large demands for capital in Canada the Government is asking all Canadian investors, including financial institutions such as the banks, life insurance companies, and trust and loan companies, as well as other corporations, pension
funds and individuals, not to acquire securities, denominated in Canadian or U.S. dollars, which are issued by U.S. corporations or their non-Canadian subsidiaries and which are subject to the U.S. Interest Equalization Tax if purchased by U.S. residents. Investments in such securities made by Canadian financial institutions and pension funds to cover foreign currency liabilities to non-residents of Canada and the United States are exempt from this request.
I feel confident that Canadian investors will in the national interest cooperate fully with this request.
Yours sincerely, Mitchell Sharp.
Ends.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 23, 1966