1966-03-01

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair made reference yesterday to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) some time ago, and indicated I would make a statement today, hoping both hon. members would be in their places. Today we have the opposite situation to that which obtained yesterday in that the hon. member for Yukon is in the house and the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Berger) is not, but in view of the fact that notice was given by the Chair yesterday I propose to deliver an opinion about the matter at this time.
On February 21 last the hon. member for Yukon rose in the house on a matter of privilege as to the right of the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet to have sat in the house and to have voted on three occasions, the dates of which were subsequent to the date on which the return of his election expenses should have been filed. The hon. member continued his presentation by stating that he simply wanted to draw my attention and that of hon. members to the possible breach of privilege that exists, and ended by seeking the Speaker's guidance in this connection.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) intervened to make the point that section 63 of the Canada Elections Act provides that if members fail to carry out the provisions of the act, there is a remedy provided in the courts, and that therefore this would be a matter for the courts to consider.
I have already brought to the attention of the house the terms of the judgment delivered on February 24 last by Chief Justice Dorion, and perhaps I should not repeat that at this time. I have looked into the matter raised by the hon. member for Yukon and, with a view to being of some assistance to the house, may I be permitted to submit the following comments.
In referring to page 60 of May's seventeenth edition it will be seen that one of the privileges of parliament is for each house to be the sole judge of the lawfulness, or the legality, of its own proceedings, and that:
-this holds even where the procedure of a house or the right of its members or officers to take part in its proceedings is dependent on statute.
As will also be seen at page 61 of the same edition, Mr. Justice Stephen, in his judgment in the Bradlaugh case, defined the relation between the jurisdiction of the courts and that of the House of Commons, and is reported as follows:
-I think that the House of Commons is not subject to the control of Her Majesty's court in its administration of that part of the statute-law which has relation to its own internal proceedings . . . It seems to follow that the House of Commons has the exclusive power of interpreting the statute, so far as the regulation of its own proceedings within its own walls is concerned;
And further on we read:
-for the purpose of determining on a right to be exercised within the house itself, and in particular the right of sitting and voting, the house, and the house alone could interpret the statute but ... as regarded rights to be exercised out of and independently of the house, such as the right of suing for a penalty for having sat and voted, the statute must be interpreted by this court independently of the house.
Bourinot's fourth edition, at page 390, reads as follows:
If it should be decided that a member has no right to sit or vote in the house, the votes he may have given during the period of his disqualification will be struck off the Journals.
Dawson in his book "Procedure in the Canadian House" under the heading "The disallowance of votes" says at page 186:
Occasionally it is necessary to strike out the vote of a member who has participated in a division. The rules surrounding this practice are not clear.
Later on, at pages 190 and 191, he again refers to the matter and says:
A formal challenge of a vote by another member of the house must be done by a substantive motion that the vote be struck off the division list. This procedure was established in Canada in 1900 when the votes of three members were challenged. At that time the Speaker ruled that he himself had no authority to alter the division lists and that the only remedy was in the hands of the house; any member could make a motion to disallow a vote, the accused member should be heard, and the house could make its decision.
1S40

March 1, 1966
Question of Privilege
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Perhaps at this point I should make passing reference to a precedent reported at page 260 of the Debates of the House of Commons for the 22nd of May, 1875, when the Speaker called attention to the fact that a member had taken his seat and voted without having subscribed to the role and taken the oath. The matter was subsequently referred to the committee on privileges and elections and as a result of the committee's report the member's vote was removed from the division list and Journals of the house.
From the references and precedents just quoted it would appear to me:
(a)	That, even if there is a penalty provision in section 63 of the Canada Elections Act and whatever may be the terms of the order made by the judge pursuant to the said section in allowing an authorized excuse, the house is still the sole judge of its own proceedings, and for the purpose of determining on a right to be exercised within the house itself which, in this particular case, is the right of one hon. member to sit and to vote, the house alone can interpret the relevant statute.
(b)	That the procedure followed in 1875 with regard to the precedent above referred to, which bears resemblance to the case before us, seems to me to indicate that the question was dealt with at the time as being of the nature of a prima facie case of a breach of privilege.
(c)	That it is not within the competence of the Speaker to decide as to the question of substance or as to the disallowance of a vote, and that such decisions are to be made by the house itself.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I thank you for the ruling which you have given on the matter of privilege, and say that I would like to study it in more detail before deciding whether any further procedure should be taken.



COPPER-CHANGES IN CONTROL OF ORE AND CONCENTRATE EXPORTS

Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on January 31 I advised the house that in the interests of orderly marketing and domestic supply it had become necessary to make certain changes in export controls affecting copper scrap, copper alloy scrap and copper bearing scrap. For the

same reasons I wish to announce changes in the control of exports of copper ores and concentrates.
The production of copper in Canada depends largely on supply of mine concentrates purchased from or processed for a large number of independent mines. If this supply should be interrupted or diverted elsewhere to any considerable extent it would affect the supply of copper available for use in Canada.
On November 22, when export controls were put on various forms of copper as a precautionary measure, a general export permit was issued for ores and concentrates moving to off-shore destinations. This general export permit is now being revoked and effective March 21 individual permits will be required for shipments to off-shore destinations. The advance notice will provide an opportunity for exporters to apply for permits where required under existing contracts.
It is not the purpose of this move to interfere with supplies moving to smelters abroad under contracts now existing. However, the individual permit requirement will enable the government to prevent diversion to off-shore destinations of ores and concentrates now under contract to Canadian smelters.
This action is also taken under the authority of the Export and Import Permits Act.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for providing us with his statement in advance. I think the house should have further information. This statement is rather general in form. The second last paragraph states that the individual permit requirement will enable the government to prevent diversion to off-shore destinations of ores and concentrates now under contract to Canadian smelters.
I think there should be an explanation in this regard. What companies actually are affected by this? What is being done that has made necessary these changes? Second, I would like to point out one fact; that once you establish the principle of individual permits being required, the great danger is that unless administratively carried out in fairness and equity the door is open to discrimination.
I would like the minister to give the house and the country some further information in this regard. Certainly the course being taken is of an extraordinary character in the light of recent circumstances; therefore, I think an explanation in greater detail should be given.
March 1. 1966


Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the minister for this announcement, and will reserve any statement as to our final position until we see what this really means. I should like to bring to the attention of the minister and the government the fact that we feel more attention should be paid to an attempt to develop the processing side of the metal mining industry in Canada. It is very easy to understand, and you do not have to study too deeply to know, that in the metal mining industry the vast majority of jobs are in the processing rather than in the extraction of these minerals. I think the policy has existed far too long whereby, while extraction of our natural resources is done here, the great majority of jobs are available in the processing field in foreign countries. The government must realize and take the necessary steps to see that more of our resources are processed here in this country rather than elsewhere.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened closely to the statement just made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) with regard to the control of copper exports.
I fully agree with the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) who said that the government should define more clearly its export policy in general, but, in this case, on copper.
I represent a copper producing area myself and we are all anxious to see the government take the responsibility of establishing secondary industries in our area, in order to process on the spot, here in Canada, metals such as copper.
Now, I believe that the statement of the minister is not very clear in the circumstances. Something is abolished, something else is added; other restructions are applied, while others no longer apply, and so on and so forth.
This is a hodgepodge the majority of Canadians will not understand. Consequently, the minister should be clearer and more precise in his statement and let us know what the government intends to do not only concerning the copper producers but also processing in this country, so that we can sell finished products outside Canada, because such exports would be profitable.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, speaking very briefly on the announcement by the Minister of Trade and
Business of the House
Commerce, let me say that we assume the situation that has necessitated these decisions regarding the export of copper relates to our own needs and the fact that copper is becoming less plentiful on the foreign markets than it has been.
I want to support the statement made by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin). The needs of the Canadian market and the Canadian people will never be met adequately until a greater degree of our natural resources, copper in this instance, are not only extracted but also processed and finished within this country.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to make a short statement concerning the business of the house, which I believe will be of interest to hon. members and will give them information about the procedure we propose to follow when government orders are called today.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
It will be recalled that on February 9 last the Prime Minister announced the meeting of the joint United States-Canadian ministerial committee on trade and economic affairs in Washington on March 4 and 5. That meeting necessitates the absence of five ministers from the house on Thursday and Friday, if they are to keep their commitments at that meeting. The ministers are the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
It will be apparent to many hon. members that there might not be adequate time before Thursday to discuss the estimates of these departments, and in order that there should be an opportunity to deal with them before then the government proposes that when the house resolves itself into committee of supply today the estimates of these departments be called one after the other, not necessarily in the order I have indicated. We would postpone consideration of the estimates of the Department of Justice until the estimates of these five departments are completed, and would then immediately resume the estimates of the Department of Justice.
[Stage Direction]
March 1, 1966
Business of the House
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, could the Mr. Speaker: Shall it be an order of the minister give us a general idea of the order house that private members' hours for today in which these estimates will be called? and tomorrow be postponed?
What will be the first department and the	,
second one?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: If this is agreeable, Mr. Speaker, we would call finance, trade and commerce, industry, agriculture and then mines and technical surveys. I suggest that we forgo the private members' hour today and tomorrow in view of the fact that we have referred some 20 private members' bills to committees and have indicated that we will make government time available for private members' bills on capital punishment. If this arrangement is agreeable, Mr. Speaker, we would ask to have it made an order of the house now.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: That is agreeable to us, Mr. Speaker. The only undertaking we would like to have is that the forgoing of private members' hours will not mean that this time is lost entirely to private members but will be made available at some future date.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker; my
suggestion was that it merely be postponed.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to agree to the suggestions the government house leader has made. I should like to say that very clearly, because I thought from what I heard earlier there was something else in his mind, but he did not put that something else on the record so I do not have to be concerned about it. We are prepared to agree to the suspending of consideration of the estimates of the Department of Justice and to our taking up the estimates of the five departments the minister named. We are prepared to agree that the private members' hours of today and tomorrow be postponed until a later time; and we are prepared to try to get the estimates of these five departments through by tomorrow evening.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: We agree, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues has suggested that I add the words "provided the ministers co-operate".


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to co-operate in the program as outlined by the minister.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct these questions to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the statement he made today. I would ask him to answer the two questions I raised during the course of my earlier remarks, and in addition these questions. Were the restrictions on copper exports, following upon similar restrictions imposed in the United States, undertaken at the request of the United States? To what countries and what regions has Canadian copper been diverted, and are any of the countries to which the diversion has taken place or is expected to take place behind the iron curtain or within the communist sphere of influence?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the action was not taken at the request of the United States. It was based on domestic policy in an endeavour to assure a supply of copper to the greatest extent possible for domestic use. There have been no diversions of concentrates or ores. This is just an attempt to get our house in order so that any contracts that might be on the verge of being terminated between the suppliers of concentrates and smelters will come before us for consideration before they are renewed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question with respect to the granting of individual permits. Will those permits be granted on the basis of equality and without any suggestion of discrimination as between applicants?


Robert Henry Winters: To the best of my ability that will be done, sir.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. As I understand it, scrap copper is not included in this order. My question is, why did the minister not include the export of scrap copper to the United States?
March 1, 1966


Robert Henry Winters: Controls were imposed on the export of scrap several weeks ago, but we still maintain the principle of open border between the United States and Canada which has prevailed for some time. To the best of my knowledge there is very little scrap moving back and forth across the border.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: In view of some of the remarks which were made on the minister's statement, which would indicate that the statement dealt with the export of copper, I would like a clarification. Am I correct in assuming that this is in regard to the export of concentrates and ores, and not finished copper?


Robert Henry Winters: That is exactly right. The whole object is to preserve the supply of copper in Canada for secondary producers of copper products.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the concern which has been expressed on both sides of the house with reference to the case of Victor G. Spencer, I want to ask the Prime Minister if he would give consideration, between now and when the Justice estimates come back before the committee of supply, to reconsider his former decision and agree to an in camera hearing for Spencer before a properly constituted inquiry.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice set forth the position of the government in this matter yesterday, and I am glad to be able to confirm that position.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Transport?
The minister is no doubt aware of the new C.N.R. station in Edmonton, Alberta, but is he also aware of the fact that all the posters

Inquiries of the Ministry inside this huge railway station are unilingual and that they do not contain one word of French? Would the minister be prepared to see to it that bilingualism is respected in Alberta just as it is in the province of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's representations have been placed before the minister, and as his question is not that urgent, I would suggest to the hon. member to place it on the order paper.



INVESTIGATION INTO LOSS OF RESIDENCE OF QUEBEC LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Prime Minister?
It has to do with the fire which destroyed the Quebec Lieutenant Governor's residence and is based on a reply the Prime Minister gave to the house last Tuesday when he said he had talked with the Quebec Premier about the details of the fire. He added that the Premier of Quebec was going to report to him in greater detail. Can the Prime Minister tell us if he has received a preliminary report on the causes of the fire and, if so, whether he intends to table that report?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the provincial government concerned made an inquiry into the origin of the fire. That report has already been made public. I should be glad to send a copy to my hon. friend. The report shows that in all probability the fire was due to a fault in the electric wiring.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question which also concerns the events that took place last week?
Could the Prime Minister tell us if the appointment of the Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Quebec was made on the recommendation of the premier of that province?



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the
March 1, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Transport. Whereas Mr. Charles H. Millard, of the board of trustees of the Maritime Transportation Union, has deplored the cynical and irresponsible actions of men like Paul Hall and Hal C. Banks, would the minister inform the house if in view of the recent statements by Paul Hall, this man is in a position to interfere with the operation of Canadian ships.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and it becomes urgent in view of the fact that his estimates have been held up. Will the minister assure us that the files of the five companies, the names of which I placed on Hansard yesterday and the day before, have not been and will not be removed from official custody, and that proper measures are being taken to safeguard their continued existence intact?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has charges to make against that company or any company, against me, or against the government let him do so immediately and stop fooling around.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: We heard that last year.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the minister is a little sensitive. He obviously did not hear my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: My question was, will the minister assure us that the files of the five companies, the names of which I placed on record yesterday and the day before have not been and will not be removed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister, as I gather, has replied. Order, please.


Michael Starr: It was a stupid answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member who asked the question may not be satisfied with the reply, but he knows that according to the rules he cannot insist on a reply at all, and when he does get a reply, even if he does not think it is adequate he has to accept it.


Erik Nielsen: May I sir, ask the minister another question. Will the minister assure us
[Mr. HerridgeJ
that the files respecting the five companies that I have already mentioned have not been removed from official records, and that they will not be removed but will be maintained intact?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, it does not seem to me that I have to give the hon. member assurance for something that is normally done in the Department of Justice.


Erik Nielsen: Whose responsibility is it,
then?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the financial crisis that faces the country of Ghana and the threat of famine which has been announced by the new head of state in that country, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us whether he has responded to the request for food aid which has been publicized today.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no formal request to Canada for such aid.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. May I ask him, in view of the cost to Canada of approximately $50,000 a day for the oil lift into Zambia, and reports coming in again today that Rhodesia is getting rather large quantities of oil, whether the government is looking into these reports to find out whether these expenditures on behalf of the Canadian government are ineffective and useless.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have looked into this matter again since my hon. friend asked a question somewhat along these lines the other day. The government is of the opinion, as are other participating governments, that this is a desirable and necessary form of assistance at this time to bring about a realization of the objectives of sanctions.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like the Secretary of State for External Affairs to inform the house whether or not the government is attempting to ascertain if Rhodesia is
March 1, 1966

obtaining 75,000 gallons of gasoline per day from Portugal as well as other places such as South Africa so that we can find out whether the expense Canada is incurring is justified.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that some supplies have come from one or two countries. However, there has been some exaggeration in respect of the amount of the supplies which are reported to have come clandestinely from these particular nations. The commonwealth sanctions committee is reviewing this whole problem. The matter is under constant study and I am sure the actions taken, including that taken by the United States the day before yesterday, will have useful results for the program of sanctions.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether there is any foundation whatever for the allegations in the press, that are again repeated, that the United States government on direction of the Pentagon has sent out groups of professors for the purpose of looking into danger spots in various parts in the world, including Cuba, Yemen, the Congo and Canada. Did the government make any protest in regard thereto, because the statement goes into a great deal of detail and repeats what was said very recently.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is a starred question on the order paper, I think by the hon. member for Kamloops, asking for information on this particular point. A reply to that question is being prepared and will be given tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: I revert to the question I asked a while ago, to which the Prime Minister replied that the hon. member for Kamloops had placed a similar question on the order paper. I take it he was referring to question No. 689, which reads:
Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs or any official of the department had any communication with any official of the government of the United States concerning any proposed activities to be carried out in Canada by, or under the direction of, the special operations research office of American university-
And so on. That is not the question I asked at all. The question I asked had to do with an investigation by the Pentagon into alleged
Inquiries of the Ministry danger spots including Canada, a most unusual course for any foreign nation to take. When the Prime Minister's office was asked about this yesterday the answer was "We never heard of it". That is what the press reports.
I now ask the Prime Minister to given an answer to the question I asked, which is quite different from that asked by the hon. member for Kamloops.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There was another question on the order paper, question No. 590, on this specific point. I admit that question No. 689 might not have been exactly on the point raised by the right hon. gentleman. However, I do not mind answering a starred question at this time. We might be able to add something to the reply tomorrow, the answer is not finally prepared.
The answer is: There has been no communication with any official of the government of the United States about any proposed activities to be carried out in Canada by or under the direction of the special operations research office of American University, and inquiries I have made indicate that no official of my department has at any time received any proposal concerning such activities by American University from any official of the government of the United States. That is in answer to starred question No. 689.
Question No. 590 asks:
1.	During the last few years, have socio-psychological investigations been conducted by or on behalf of the American military authorities in Canada?
The answer to that is, no. The question continues:
2.	If such is the case, has the Canadian government been consulted or informed about them, or has it participated in these investigations?
The answer to that is "Answered by 1 above".


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. I now ask the question directly; did the Pentagon at any time, or anyone on behalf of the Pentagon, or did Mr. McNamara, the United States Secretary of Defence, have any communication with the government of Canada regarding an investigation being conducted into certain parts of Canada designated by that investigation as danger spots?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No. To my knowledge no such communication has been sent or received, but that is exactly what we are looking into to make sure that no official or no member of the administration has received any such
March 1, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry request. I have no knowledge of it. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has received nothing. To the best of our knowledge no such request has been received.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Will the right hon. gentleman inform the house whether he is aware that such an investigation as was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition has been made by some Americans? Has the government investigated who has been making these inquiries and for what purpose?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not know what Americans have investigated what. I am talking about official communications between the two governments.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the hon. member was making a statement rather than asking a question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Prime Minister whether there have been any communications on this matter from the government of Canada to Washington, regardless of whether or not communications have been received?


Lester Bowles Pearson: To my knowledge, no; but if there is anything we can discover between now and tomorrow to add to what I have said, I will let hon. members know. We have no information about any such request or about any exchange of information between the two governments or between the Canadian government and the American University.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is Canada supporting the initiative of Mrs. Myrdal, the spokesman for Sweden at the 17-nation disarmament conference, in which she called on the nuclear powers to remove the major obstacle to a non-dissemination treaty, namely the proposals for nuclear sharing in NATO?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for giving me notice of his question. As he knows, Canada has been considering the proposed non-proliferation agreement and we have supported the position taken by the western powers with regard to a non-proliferation treaty.

I have seen a report of the remarks attributed to Mrs. Myrdal, the representative of Sweden, and I am advised that the report is not an accurate one, that she did not say that the nuclear sharing arrangements of NATO necessarily stood in the way of such an agreement. My own view, in so far as any proposals for nuclear sharing in NATO are concerned, is that they do not in my judgment warrant the view that they prejudice the realization of a non-proliferation agreement.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him what report he can now make of progress respecting the dispute of truckers in Ontario.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: It is not a very encouraging one, Mr. Speaker. As a result of some developments over the week end, negotiations which seemed to have been proceeding reasonably satisfactorily last week appear to have broken down. I am awaiting a further report which I have requested.


Michael Starr: In view of this unsatisfactory progress, as the minister now admits, will he not lend his good offices to an endeavour to bring the disputing parties together and effect a settlement? I say that because of the fact that this strike has been so prolonged now, and strife is evident in many instances.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this is a legal strike. It comes within the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. When I receive the report, then I will consider it. It is my responsibility under the act, and I still do not feel that it is appropriate to take action at this time.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State in her capacity as minister reporting for broadcasting in Canada. I see she is out of the house just now; perhaps her parliamentary secretary could take this as notice. Bearing in mind the reported two week strike
March 1. 1966

deadline set by C.B.C. writers and performers, could the minister make a full statement with reference to this situation?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the question as notice.



MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED AT CANADA-U.S. MINISTERIAL MEETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: I should like to direct two questions to the Minister of Finance. Both deal with the agenda for the discussions in Washington on March 4 and 5 between representatives of Canada and the United States. The first has to do with the securities exchange commission. Is the question of the establishment of a national securities commission in Canada to be discussed with the United States in the light of the recommendations of the Porter commission? Second, does the agenda contemplate a discussion of the relationship between the national energy board and the federal power commission in the light of the obligation to move gas from western Canada to eastern Canada through the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I point out to the hon. member that the estimates of the Department of Finance will be considered later this afternoon and that the points raised in this question might be discussed at that time.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Having in mind the imminent danger of a staff shortage of radio operators would the minister impress on his colleague responsible for the Civil Service Commission the necessity for changing the structure of the class of the civil service commonly known as radio operators, this step having been delayed now for three years?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this question could be placed on the order paper.

Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



SEALS-INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENT OF REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition addressed a question to the Prime Minister, asking whether there has been any effective change in the regulations so that Canadians may be assured that cruel and inhumane practices may end in the sealing industry.
As I have indicated in the house on previous occasions, there have been gross exaggerations in press articles referring to the inhumane killing of seals. With the advent of an air operation a few years ago, many persons who were inexperienced and new to the operation entered it and I have no doubt this could have resulted in some inhumane or improper practices. No experienced sealer would undertake to skin a live seal nor could it benefit him in any way to do so.
In this regard I have received in recent months a number of letters from S.P.C.A. officials, representatives of humane societies and others who have made a point of seeing for themselves the sealing operations in the gulf of St. Lawrence. All, almost without exception, have agreed that the Department of Fisheries has introduced effective changes in the regulations with a view to preventing any cruel and inhumane killing during the seal operation. It is also recognized that adequate measures have been introduced to preserve the seal herds for future profitable operations.
Only a few days ago I received a letter sent by the three major companies operating ships in the sealing industry in the Gulf area stating that a widely publicized film of sealing operations shows completely false scenes designed to create the impression that the sealing industry uses cruel and inhumane killing methods. Among the regulation amendments last year was a specific prohibition against skinning live seals. This regulation is, of course, continuing in effect during this year's operations. There are this year specific regulations designed to control killing methods.
In 1965 we had a specially selected team of fishery officers supervising the operation. Such a team will again be operating this year. Each sealing vessel will have an officer on board during the entire operation. Aircraft operations will be supervised by officers at land bases and on aircraft patrol. Representatives of conservation and humane societies
March 1, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry will visit the site of sealing operations in the gulf of St. Lawrence, with the assistance of our patrol officers.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in commending the Minister of Fisheries for his very full report I suggest that he might look at the March 5 issue of Maclean's magazine, which carries an article dealing with the skinning of live seals. I would ask him to look at that; possibly he would then have further information in this connection.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I shall certainly do this, Mr. Speaker. Furthermore, I wish to inform the house that it is my intention on opening day, March 7, to be on the ice myself and see personally what is going on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and I regret I failed to get it in as a supplementary. What precautions are being taken to see that helicopters and planes do not fly over the seals while they are giving birth to their young?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, because of my deep concern for the welfare of the Minister of Fisheries, would he advise the house whether he intends to land on the iceflows and how long he intends to stay there?



ACTIVITIES OF PATROL BOAT IN BAY OF FUNDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries before he heads for the sealing grounds. I should like to have some information on a problem closer to his home and mine. In view of his recent announcement that a patrol boat is to be built at Meteghan for patrol duties in the waters of the Bay of Fundy, I would like to ask him whether the patrol boat is to keep New Brunswick fishermen away from Nova Scotia waters or to continue to keep Nova Scotia fishermen away from the New Brunswick shore?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, all four Atlantic provinces are part of Canada.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he now in a position to give me an answer to the question I asked yesterday with regard to the report of the International Joint Commission respecting development of the Pembina river project in Manitoba and North Dakota?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the International Joint Commission, through its chairman, has informed me the matter will be discussed at their meeting in Washington at the end of this month. At that time the commission expects to receive additional information to supplement the earlier report of the international Pembina river engineering board.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Because of the growing pressure on our park resources, and particularly in the light of the current representations from the government of Alberta, would the minister use his good offices to encourage the government of Canada to implement the recreational park program that has been under consideration for the past four years?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the receipt of a brief from the province of Alberta in respect of the national parks in that province. It is too large a brief for me to make a detailed response today. I shall later, but I thought it was an unusual brief because I find that with respect to the total park space in the provinces, combined federal and provincial parks, the province of Alberta is in third position because it has not provided provincial parks to any degree whatsoever.
The matter that the hon. member raises will certainly be viewed in the light of the representations made by the province of Alberta.
March 1. 1966



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Particularly in view of the fact that consideration of his estimates has been adjourned, would he and the government be prepared to accept the suggestion of the minister of justice of the province of Quebec that the only way to find out the real leaders of crime in Canada is to set up a royal commission to investigate crime?


Mr. Pickersgill:: What about Nielsen?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a question which seems to be of a very general nature and not the type that should be allowed at this time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Perhaps I can make it very specific. Is the minister prepared to set up a royal commission to investigate crime in this country?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, of course, knows that last autumn there was a federal-provincial conference of the attorneys general at which we discussed the whole question of crime. That conference is to resume later this year. But it may be significant to note that the attorney general of the province of Quebec did not mention anything about a royal commission at the meeting last autumn, and so far I have given no consideration to that suggestion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice.
Is the minister willing to consider the Quebec Justice Minister's suggestion concerning the establishment of a Canadian Interpol?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Soliciior General):: Mr. Speaker, a committee was agreed upon at the federal-provincial conference to consider the question of Interpol and it is still meeting regularly.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Transport. Can he do today what he said yesterday he would try to do today? Can he tell us where the Thompson report is?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Most of it has been completed and is being translated. I am informed the concluding sections are still being prepared but it is expected they will be ready very shortly and as soon as the document has been completely translated and printed it will be presented to the government. It is felt this is the wisest course to take because it is assumed there will be some general interest in the report. I might commend to other commissions the practice of having their documents translated as they go along.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, will it be tabled as soon as it has been presented to the government?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course the commission is to report to the Governor in Council and I would think the Governor in Council should be allowed to exercise a certain measure of judgment and discretion in this matter. But in view of the avid interest of a great many people I would imagine it would be hard not to satisfy that interest.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister following his meeting with the Premier of New Brunswick in Toronto over the weekend. Could he tell the house whether he has promised to support New Brunswick's fight against poverty and to increase family allowances in the near future?



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. On February 15 I asked him what steps he was taking to have refunds made to employers who oversubscribed in their contributions to the Canada Pension Plan. Has the minister anything further to say in this regard? My question arises again because of the great
March 1, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry number of representations received and in view of the fact that there is about $5 million involved.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, a method of making such refunds has not yet been found by my department. I think this does not indicate any laxity on our part, because in the United States they have been looking for 20 years for a method of making such refunds.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman) put a question to me concerning lay-offs in Windsor.
I wish to inform him that two representatives of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Department of Industry are in Windsor at present. They were to meet both parties today; as a matter of fact, I believe they were to meet the officers of the company this morning and those of the union this afternoon. Those two representatives will submit a report without delay.


Mr. Max Salfsman (Waterloo Soulh):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his reply to the question I asked yesterday but I would ask him whether he can assure the house that no lay-offs will take place while negotiations are proceeding.
[Translation1


Jean Marchand: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker.
I am not in a position to give such an assurance to the house, because I have no authority to do so.



SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the right hon. the Prime Minister arising out of his tabling the other day of a letter which he wrote to the Premier of British Columbia concerning the shipbuilding subsidies on vessels constructed for the province's ferry services. In view of a reported suggestion of the Premier of British Columbia that


his reply to the Prime Minister's letter should be tabled in the house, will the Prime Minister agree to do this and if he has written a reply to the reply would he also table that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to do that.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Transport relating to the intended meeting regarding safety measures on the St. Lawrence river. Could I ask the minister whether arrangements definitely have been made for such a meeting, and whether the minister is going to attend?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, what is proposed is a series of meetings on various topics. The minister's attendance will depend on all the circumstances involved. Consultations are now going on with all interested parties, I am informed, in respect of the matter.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Am I to understand that the minister has not decided not to attend and that it is still an open question so far as he is concerned?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, it is an open question. I doubt that the minister would be likely to attend all meetings.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Can the minister tell the house whether the Canadian postal services are accepting mail bearing the stamps of the provisional or de facto government in Rhodesia?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, they are not.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
March 1, 1966

Minister of Agriculture concerning the new dairy policy. As the new dairy year is starting in a few days, is the minister in a position to tell us where we stand in the count-down before the launching or the placing into orbit of the new dairy policy which is intended to guarantee Canadian milk producers a minimum price of $4 per hundredweight for industrial milk.



FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs presented to the house on Tuesday, February 22, 1966, be now concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest to the house that this report be dealt with in a way that would make it apply only to today's sitting of the committee.


Gilles Grégoire: That would be agreeable, Mr. Speaker.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It is for the purpose of hearing witnesses who have come from some distance.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the hon. member shall have leave to amend the motion to apply to one day's sitting only?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion as amended?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Administration-
1. Departmental administration including administration of the Guaranteed Loans Acts, the salaries and expenses of the inspector general of banks' office, and grants as detailed in the estimates. $3,862,800.
Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to make any statement of substance at this time, but I thought as a means of expediting the work of the committee I should point out
Supply-Finance
what is well known, I think, to most members and that is that I am the minister responsible for the Department of Finance and also the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. I suggest to the committee, in order to proceed in an orderly fashion, that perhaps we could deal with the items in the Department of Finance and then proceed with say the statutory item related to the temporary wheat reserves and there discuss the administration of the Canadian Wheat Board.


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Chairman. I think we should proceed as we always do on these estimates, that is, take the first item and then proceed consecutively until we complete the department.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. member did not understand that under the finance estimates there is nothing dealing with the Canadian Wheat Board and I am suggesting I am quite ready, after dealing with tfye finance estimates, to proceed with some item which would enable us to discuss the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. In the 1966-67 estimates there will be transferred to my administration certain statutory items which appear now under the Department of Trade and Commerce. I thought this might be an orderly way of dealing with the discussion. This was my only suggestion.


Mr. Nasserden:: I think it would be desirable if we were allowed to discuss the Canadian Wheat Board on the first item of the Department of Finance as well because this is the minister who is responsible.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the difficulty is that this item is included in another department. This suggestion was made to the committee in an attempt to overcome this difficulty.


Edward Nasserden: I suggest there is no use quibbling about it because we are going to discuss that aspect in any event. The responsible minister is here in the house so surely we should be given the opportunity to discuss the wheat board under the first item.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I made the suggestion only to be helpful to the hon. member for Rosthern, because the item before the committee does not relate to the subject at all. My suggestion would provide a formula which would give hon. members an opportunity to discuss the wheat board in this committee. That is what was being suggested.


The Chairman:: Shall vote No. 1 carry?

March 1, 1966
Supply-Finance


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I should be glad to start with the Canadian Wheat Board as I know there is going to be discussion of this subject. I am quite happy to take part in that discussion and I have no objection to dealing with the Canadian Wheat Board at this time. If that is what we are going to do I should first like to make a brief statement.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Does the committee agree that we should now discuss the wheat board?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, will it be necessary to call an item in the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce in order that this subject can properly be discussed?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, the items relating to the Canadian Wheat Board which now come under my jurisdiction are statutory items. They are not callable in the ordinary sense but are subject to statutory approval. It was in an effort to help the committee in dealing with the estimates of the Department of Finance as such and the estimates of the Canadian Wheat Board later that I made my first suggestion. I have no objection to whichever way the committee wants to handle the matter but if we are going to deal with the Canadian Wheat Board under the first item, which is a possible way of dealing with it, I want to make a short statement.
[Translation1


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I believe it would be more sensible for us to start with the finance estimates since they are the estimates under discussion. Later, I will have no objection to coming back to the Canadian Wheat Board estimates. I believe we should start with the estimates of the finance department.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, we are trying to expedite things and the minister has shown a very great willingness to have this question discussed under item No. 1. If other members want to discuss other subjects under item No. 1 there is no reason they cannot do so. I can see no objection to the procedure suggested. We are trying to co-operate in bringing about a reasonably early examination which will not be unnecessarily lengthened. For that reason I think there must be general agreement that the wheat board can be discussed under item No. 1.
[The Chairman.]


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee now agree that the wheat board can be discussed under item No. 1?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal in this brief statement with the question of procedure raised the other day when I followed what I considered to be sound parliamentary practice in attempting on motions to table the order in council in which the government approved the final payment by the wheat board, and the press release made by the Canadian Wheat Board that day. Members of the opposition in remarks made outside the house accused me of arrogance, cowardice and some other attributes that I am a little too modest to recall at this time. May I be permitted to plead not guilty and to explain why I followed the procedure I did.
I followed this procedure for what I consider to be excellent reasons and reasons which I believe should appeal to the house. Since taking responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board in 1963 I have been very much concerned about establishing the respective responsibilities of the Canadian Wheat Board under the Canadian Wheat Board Act and the responsibilities of the minister who answers for the wheat board in this house.
Hon. members will perhaps recall that when I took over responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board I made a very significant change in the method of dealing with that board. Originally there had been a tendency, particularly under the previous administration, on the part of the minister which caused a good deal of confusion as to his responsibilities and the responsibilities of the Canadian Wheat Board. I was not here to listen to the statements but it is very difficult in reading what was said by the minister who was responsible at that time to determine whether he was boasting about the achievements of the Canadian Wheat Board or taking credit for them.
When I took office I decided I was going to attempt, if I could, to clarify this relationship in the minds of the farmers, members of parliament and the public at large. The form of the first announcement I made in this house relating to the wheat board was very different from any announcement made previously by any minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, and I went back through the records to see what the practice had been. In the first statement I made, and I have adhered to this form every since, I said that the Canadian Wheat Board was that day
March 1, 1966

making a certain announcement in Winnipeg. In doing so I was very much influenced by the views of the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board.
The advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board is composed, as hon. members at least from the west know, of some of the most eminent leaders of the farming community in western Canada, as I recall it, the presidents of the three western wheat pools, the president of the United Grain Growers and representatives from farmers' unions.
I should like to state what those eminent gentlemen suggested because it is pertinent to the procedure I have been following consistently in this house. I am sorry I have not got the date of their suggestion but it was that when the board has any payments to make these announcements should be made by the board and not by the minister, the minister, because if the government makes the announcement the producers get the idea they are receiving government money. Therefore I have been very careful in all the statements I have made to make it clear to the western farmers that the Canadian Wheat Board is their agency responsible to them and that the minister does not interfere with the operations of that board.
On many, many occasions, Mr. Chairman, I have made that fact quite clear in this house. Indeed, hon. members will recall the first statement I made in the house when I announced the conclusion of the first agreement, made while this government has been in office, between the Canadian Wheat Board and Communist China. At that time I said the credit for this went to the wheat board and not to me. This caused a great deal of comment in western Canada to the effect that for the first time a minister responsible for the wheat board was giving full credit to the wheat board, which deserved the credit. This related to that first transaction and to the transaction which preceded it in respect of which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle made a trip to Hong Kong in an attempt to get in on some of the credit for that great transaction.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I therefore decided on this occasion to carry this process of administrative clarification one step further, because on the previous occasions when I had been making these announcements all I said was "the Canadian Wheat Board is today making the following
Supply-Finance
announcement in Winnipeg". Therefore I decided that, rather than cause any further confusion as to the relationship between the minister and the board, the best thing, the sound parliamentary practice under the circumstances, was for me to table in the house the statement made by the Canadian Wheat Board that day. My reading it into Hansard made no difference to the statement and if I read it, it would appear that I was somehow taking responsibility for some announcement of government policy. There was no government policy involved. This was simply a statement by the Canadian Wheat Board of the results of their operations during the crop year 1964-65.
This was not arrogant nor was it intended to be arrogant; nor, may I say, have I any qualms at all about discussing this announcement on these estimates or at any other time. This is the time to discuss these things. I answered questions about the announcement in the house that day; I was ready to answer as many as were put to me.
May I say in conclusion that there is no suggestion that I was trying to duck any responsibility. That was the farthest thing from my mind. I think that in the very difficult circumstances that prevailed with respect to the marketing of the 1964-65 crop the Canadian Wheat Board did an excellent job.


Mr. Jorgenson:: They did but you failed miserably in your responsibility.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, we all have some responsibility to get these estimates through in view of the impending end of the financial year. However, I must observe in all frankness that the minister's statement today indicates that he has no political judgment either out in the country or in handling the feelings of members of the house with regard to our responsibilities to the people of Canada.
The argument put forward by the minister today in his opening statement is nothing more nor less than a political argument that has been fought in western Canada since the change of government in April, 1963. We in western Canada gave our answer loud and clear last November 8 with regard to how we felt about the arguments of the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The minister has made two main points. One is that he has tried to establish in the minds of the public the

March 1, 1965
Supply

Finance
respective responsibilities of the Canadian Wheat Board and the minister in charge of that board. All I can say in reply to that argument is that it goes back to the same sort of thing we had to endure from ministers of Liberal governments from 1945 right up to 1957.
I refer to the attitude that the Canadian Wheat Board is a separate power unto itself, that it has no responsibility to the people who set it up. This attitude is completely erroneous and morally wrong. The farmers have put their fate in the hands of the Canadian Wheat Board and the only place they have for their views to be represented effectively is this House of Commons. We do have an advisory committee but every member of that committee with one exception is a representative of the various organizations dealing with grain. The one exception is the man we always appoint as a matter of tradition, a farmers' union representative.
I point that out because the political issue raised by the Minister of Finance today must be given an answer once and for all. The people have accepted and like the idea of the wheat board marketing their grain. They recognize that it is a socialistic type of operation, they recognize that they have given up their freedom in this regard, but they do expect somebody and some organization to speak for them. This point has to be realized by the minister. This is where a previous minister and his deputy minister let us down. The actions of Mr. Howe, or his lack of action, were what destroyed not only Mr. Howe but Mr. Gardiner.


Mitchell William Sharp: I thought it was the pipe line.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If you go back and read Mr. Gardiner's statements made in the west during the five or six years before 1957, you will find that over and over again he begged his farm audiences not to blame him for what Mr. Howe was doing but to point the finger at Mr. Howe. I do not know what Mr. Howe's personal thoughts were. All I know is the end result of the type of action he carried out and that was a lack of interest on his part in the Canadian Wheat Board and a lack of defence of the farmers' interests.
To be precise, Mr. Chairman, what are the farmers' interests? Once you commit yourself to a controlled system of marketing grain such as we have under the Canadian Wheat Board there has to be a tremendous amount of constant, daily effort to see that the farmers' interests are not harmed. Let me give the

minister a few examples. First of all I refer to the question of box cars. The wheat board has no power under any act to control the railways of this country. The wheat board has no power really under the act to control the grain companies, and in grain companies I include the pool and private elevator associations.
One of the first things we did as a government was to have a westerner, Mr. Bracken, look into the question of box car allotment. He made certain recommendations. I do not want to go into the details of box car allotment but I raise it as an example of the wheat board not having the power to deal with the problem, and this situation was responsible for the rising antagonism against them in 1956 and 1957. This was due to the indifference of Mr. Howe and all those around him, an indifference which was costing the farmers money.
Everybody knows that when the farmers tried to protest to Mr. Howe the only chance they got to do so was at public meetings. I am thinking, for example, of the meeting held in Manitoba when Mr. Howe poked a farmer in the stomach and said, "You don't look too badly fed". This was the type of attitude that set the west in rebellion. During the last few years this minister and his predecessors have been guilty of the same crime against western farmers and the wheat board as was Mr. Howe.
Let me give some examples, Mr. Chairman. Under the Canadian Wheat Board Act there is nothing-the minister is quite correct in this-that lays down what the minister shall do precisely. Really the minister has only to report to the house. The minister is quite right in interpreting the act in that way. But the way the matter has worked out is that the minister must take an interest in the Canadian Wheat Board; he must protect the interests of the farmers. The only way he can make the wheat board system work in a humane, non-discriminatory way is by cooperating with the wheat board on several intimate matters.
Here are two examples of the kind of thing in which the minister must take an active interest in his relationship with the Canadian Wheat Board. One is the domestic handling of grain. For many years there has obviously been a problem with regard to box cars. It is not a new problem. The wheat board has no power in this connection. All they can do is call in the representatives of the railways and terminal management and say to them,
March 1. 1966

please do certain things and reach certain objectives, but they have no power. But if a minister of the crown is in attendance when the Canadian Wheat Board meets the representatives of the railways or the operators of the terminals and listens to the discussion and is prepared to act, you can get action.
No one wants to take on the power of the Canadian people even if he is running a railway or a grain terminal. I know how necessary it was to use the prestige of the people of Canada to get grain moving. It would not have moved if the laissez-faire, drifting policy of the minister had been followed.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask the hon. member a question? How much grain did he move in the greatest year?


Michael Starr: You never moved any.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The minister will not learn anything. If the minister wants to learn something he should listen.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am listening.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The other day the minister was too frightened to stand up and take a two minute tongue lashing which he deserves. He ran away from that fight.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am quite happy.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wish the minister would keep quiet and listen to me. It is about time somebody put him where he belongs. I was mentioning box cars. In 1961 I was advised by the Canadian Wheat Board, the terminals and the railways that we could not move enough grain through the western ports to handle the sale to China. This was the official advice which I received from everybody. I went to each one and in turn said, what is the reason? Each one blamed the other. This is a matter of tactics which has been developed over the years. When I was the minister I did not sit back and do nothing. I called the 17 organizations together in the early spring of 1961. We had a meeting and I made them voice their criticisms of each other face to face. For the first time the men working in the terminals and on the docks and their employers were able to see each other face to face. They gave their reasons and as a result of that meeting they were able to assure me that they could boost the capacity of the west coast ports by 33 per cent without spending a single dollar of their money or anyone else's.
Not only did they do that but in January, 1964, they moved 29 million bushels in one
Supply-Finance
month through these ports. This shows what co-operation can do there. However, let me tell the minister that if it had not been for the minister of that time sitting right down with the railways and the terminal operators and listening to their discussions, there would not have been that co-operation. They did not want to take on the federal government.
In the year 1962 we had another problem with box cars. Once again the wheat board met, as it has to do, with the railways and tried to bring about movement of grain. They met again and I believe they met a third time. If my memory serves me correctly this third meeting was on a Wednesday. Then a telegram signed by the minister was sent to both railways, with a copy to the Canadian Wheat Board, saying, even though we are reluctant to set up a transport controller we will do so if you do not move the grain. The telegram was sent on Thursday and you never saw so many box cars in your life as had rolled into western Canada by the next Tuesday.


Mitchell William Sharp: There have been more since.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am trying to get across to the minister, if he will only learn, that what the farmers expect from the minister now is action and not drift. They got box car movement then and they got the grain moved. I just use that as one example, Mr. Chairman. Let me give the minister a second one.
We had an innocent Minister of Agriculture stand up in this house two weeks ago and read a statement regarding quotas in western Canada. This is none of his business actually because the wheat board is under the Minister of Finance, but that poor sucker, if I may use that word, did not even know the significance of telling us that some farmers were on a one bushel quota and others were on six. This is a discrimination that the western farmer protested against from 1950 to 1957. We got rid of most of it but you cannot eliminate all of it. Now the criticism is rising to a new crescendo. What does it mean to most people to say that one farmer is on a one bushel quota and another farmer is on a six bushel quota? If you live in those areas you will learn what it means. The farmer living on one railway line who has a six bushel quota is able to deliver six times as much wheat as the farmer living on another railway line who has only a one bushel quota.
If you do not understand the pressure that arises because one farmer who has 600 acres is allowed to deliver only on a one bushel quota while another farmer who has the

March 1, 1966
Supply-Finance
same number of acres can deliver on a six bushel quota, let me explain it. Just imagine the pressure from his creditors, just imagine the pressure from his wife. There is nothing so depressing as curtain lectures. I hope the minister is beginning to see that the farmers expect from him a day by day interest in these quotas and once again I put it to the minister that the wheat board cannot handle this matter alone. Can the wheat board call the President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool or the presidents of the line elevator companies and say, your boys have not got their orders in for cars. The minister should know that the grain companies have an interest in keeping their granaries filled. He should know that somebody who has power has to call them on the telephone and say, look, on that line your orders are down; you are responsible, not the wheat board.
Another time you look at the situation and find that the railways have not been doing their job. Can the wheat board call up the heads of the C.P.R. or the C.N.R. and point out what is going on? Can the wheat board say, If action is not forthcoming we will be prepared to take action? The wheat board has no power. To be completely fair about it, the wheat board sometimes slips up in allocating shipping orders. I kept a chart in my offce showing the 1,900 shipping points in the west. I knew every day where there was discrimination and if it developed too much along one line there was action taken. Sixty per cent of my time as minister was spent working with the Canadian Wheat Board. In my time we reduced the number of criticisms of the Canadian Wheat Board in the form of phone calls and mail from hundreds to a trickle.
Now you go through western Canada and hear the criticism of the wheat board that has developed and you ask these farmers who is the best friend of the wheat board. If the minister does not take the blame the only person left to take the blame is the wheat board. The best feature about the wheat board system is the man who steps in the breach and takes all the blame. I took the blame as minister on many occasions for the Canadian Wheat Board and kept the pressure off them. I put the blame right on you, the minister, because you have not defended the wheat board on these matters of life and death to these farmers in their and their families' daily living.
I could speak for an hour on where the failures have occurred but this is enough as a

domestic example. I have given some examples where the minister has to enter the picture, defend the wheat board, get action from the railways, get action from the grain companies, and make sure the grain is moving in the interests of the farmers.
Let us take another altogether different type of duty of the minister which is not in the act. The minister knows that we are a party to the International Wheat Agreement and he knows that every three years the agreement comes up for renewal. He knows that the principle is that when the price during the last part of the agreement has been near the top level or maximum you expect to negotiate the next minimum and maximum slightly higher to allow the law of supply and demand to work. Here we have a situation where the International Wheat Agreement ran out in 1964. It has been renewed on a one year basis three times since. Not one organized move has been made, so far as anyone in western Canada knows, by the Canadian government through the minister to gather information on the International Wheat Agreement and seek a new range of prices for the next three years.
We got the price up 12J cents in U.S. funds both on the floor and on the ceiling after weeks of hard fighting. Finally we forced the United States authorities to agree. We asked for 25 cents and by sheer persistence we got 12J. When world demand was strong in the last three years, the prices should have been raised. In this respect the minister is responsible for taking the lead. This is one of the things not laid down in the act. Surely it is the responsibility of the minister to work in a way to help the nation.
In 1957 when the government changed the then prime minister went to Washington to meet with President Eisenhower. One of the main subjects of discussion was the effect of public law 480 of the United States government with respect to the sale of our wheat in commercial markets. President Eisenhower was appalled at what he thought his country was doing to an ally. At that time an agreement was made between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada to the effect that there would be no more cutting of each other country's throat in commercial markets of the world. In that respect a gentlemen's agreement was reached.
Pursuant to that gentleman's agreement quarterly meetings are held between United States officials and Canadian officials to clear
March 1, 1966

away misunderstanding with regard to transactions or anything else of importance that may come up. When President Kennedy took over in 1961 that oral gentlemen's agreement between the head of a great state and the representative of the Canadian government was renewed.
That agreement worked well for us in 1962 when France moved 200 million bushels on to the world market at 25 cents below normal French prices. The United States reduced its price by 25 cents and the Canadian Wheat Board recommended that we follow suit. There is nothing in the act that allows a minister to interfere with the wheat board in setting prices but the minister knows as well as I do that I did not allow the wheat board to drop its price by 25 cents.
I asked the wheat board to hold up everything until I had talked with the responsible United States minister. After I finally reached him late on Sunday evening the price which had been reduced by 25 cents at the close of business on Friday was put back on Monday morning to where it had been. The Minister of Finance knows that the United States official in doing what he did not only was guilty of breaking a gentlemen's agreement between the heads of two governments but he also had run afoul of the decision made under the International Wheat Agreement and under GATT. I say that there is nothing in the act that states that the minister in charge of the wheat board has any power-


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask a question for clarification?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.


Mitchell William Sharp: Is the hon. member saying that this was in breach of the International Wheat Agreement? That was what I understood had been the point at the time.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am suggesting that there were three grounds for my protest. The main protest was under the political agreement between the two governments, which had been breached. I am also suggesting that because of the extent of the drop in price by the United States that country had put itself in jeopardy with respect to having broken through the floor under the International Wheat Agreement. Another point which was not clear was that we had acted in a way which had infringed on GATT.
I make these points to illustrate that there is a job for the minister and that job is to protect the wheat board. A commissioner of the wheat board cannot approach the Presi-
Supply-Finance
dent of the United States or any one of his executives or ministers in his cabinet. Ministers of the government may do that. Ministers make the agreements and they have to honour them.
In concluding this part of my remarks may I say I know that the Canadian Wheat Board Act lays down none of the responsibilities I have talked about as being responsibilities or duties of the minister.
Today the minister began by saying that he had tried to make clear what the divisions of responsibilities were between the Canadian Wheat Board and the minister. I say that what he did was exactly nothing. He did nothing. The Canadian Wheat Board Act lays down no duties for the minister.


Mitchell William Sharp: But there are many duties.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: What I have tried to do is show the contrast in the way the minister backed up the Canadian Wheat Board at the political level internationally and the way the minister backed up the wheat board at the domestic level thereby reducing complaints against it. I would suggest very strongly that the better friends of the Canadian Wheat Board were those who tried to make it work.
I have another example I wish to pass along. I want to conclude my preliminary remarks by talking about the sale to China. You can imagine Mr. Chairman, how tired one gets hearing a gramophone record saying over and over again that the Canadian Wheat Board sold wheat to China in 1961. How many times have I heard that either on radio, on television or in this house.


John George Diefenbaker: Nobody believes that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The farmers do not believe it.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is true.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The minister says that it is true.


Mitchell William Sharp: I know it is true.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I want to tell the minister the facts of life. Can this minister who knows everything and who learns nothing say that the Canadian Wheat Board can sell grain on credit? It cannot sell a single bushel on credit and he knows it.


Mitchell William Sharp: I did not say that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: When the wheat board went to Peking for the second sale members of the board telephoned me. They said, "The Chinese want to buy wheat but they have no money". Can the minister say that the wheat

March 1, 1966
Supply-Finance
board could have done anything in those circumstances? I say it could have done nothing.
However, the negotiations were kept going for six long weeks. The members of the wheat board did not want to stay there particularly but nevertheless they stayed. It was my job as minister, as I saw it, and that of the cabinet to which I belonged to secure enough money to make credit sales possible. Not one bushel of wheat after the first cash sale could have been sold to China if we on this side of the house had not put our political life on the line and made available $100 million eventually in the form of a revolving credit.


Mr. Churchill:: That is how the wheat was
sold.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We were condemned for that sale over and over again by the Liberal party. That sale could not have been made without the tremendous experience and know-how of the officials of the Canadian Wheat Board. Over there there was no way for the minister to back them up. The minister had to go along with them and he had to be prepared to come into this house and take the abuse to which we on this side were then subjected.
When your son is called a communist because you are selling wheat to red China, when your party is castigated by the Liberal and Social Credit parties because you are selling wheat to China, when you are told by the then leader of the opposition who is now the Prime Minister that you are selling too much wheat to China on credit, it makes you think. I read speeches to this effect made in New Brunswick by-elections. I know the whisperings and rumours that went round Toronto and Montreal. The Liberal party ought to talk to the farmers with respect to the vile campaign of calumny in which the Liberals engaged. The farmers know something about this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Do not try to tell the western farmers who sold the wheat. The western farmers will simply say to you that the Chinese know who sold the wheat.


Mitchell William Sharp: It was the Canadian Wheat
Board.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There was a former line of kings known as the Bourbons who learned nothing and forgot nothing. C. D. Howe was a representative of the Bourbons and the minister is his successor.


Mitchell William Sharp: And I am proud of it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: You are proud?


Mitchell William Sharp: You bet I sun.
/'"'"Mr. Hamilton: I know you are. You have ruined the Liberal party in western Canada for a generation to come. Jimmy Gardiner spent 40 years building up the most amazing political machine of force and inducement that Canada has ever known. The minister put that organization on the skids. The man who did more to destroy it than any other man is the Minister of Finance who is now in charge of the wheat board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I know they will blame the loss of the next election on the appointment of Mr. Argue to the Senate, but that will not be the real reason. The real reason will be that the minister refused to back up the Canadian Wheat Board at the international and domestic level when it needed his backing. I wish to conclude with a personal observation.


Mitchell William Sharp: These have all been personal observations.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I know the minister is very happy about these remarks. He would not take them on Friday because he was frightened.


Mitchell William Sharp: Don't be silly. They would have been out of order.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: All right. The minister is happy with his announcement. I want to conclude with some personal observations with regard to the minister and myself. After the government changed in 1963 the minister imagined himself as a new type of political know-how man. He was going to show everyone how to win political support. He started out on a campaign in western Canada to cut the previous minister of agriculture down to size. I have noted the innuendos in all those speeches of his which have been acknowledged by the genteel clapping of all the gentlemen of the grain exchange who came to hear him. I have known of every snide remark he made. He featured himself as a great new type of political person. He sat in his place as Minister of Trade and Commerce and lectured the Conservative party on politics.
Then he went on the campaign in 1965. He said he was accepting the challenge in the west and was going to increase Liberal strength there; whether by six seats or 12 seats
March 1. 1966

I do not know. He went out there. He started to canvass and speak. The first thing we knew was that meetings had been cancelled and he had run back to Eglinton to save his own seat. He now thinks that having done such a wonderful job in the west for the Liberals he will start out to lose the cities for the Liberals too. The type of delusion from which the minister suffers is only matched by people who live sometimes in institutions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There is something else-


Mitchell William Sharp: This is the non-personal remark, is it?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is a personal one.


Mitchell William Sharp: The other one was not?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: You have been very free in sneering at the efforts of the first government which did anything for the western farmers for years. You have been very free in trying to work up this alliance between the wealthy and the wise, in running down us poor prairie farmers-"cowboys", they call us. The minister has been very free with his superior intellect in slighting those of us who might have been green and awkward. At least we tried. I have listed two or three examples for the minister. If he does not want to accept these answers and wishes to continue this ping-pong battle about who is best for the west, I will yield, but I say to him: You are doing harm to more than the west; you are doing harm to all of Canada.
In 1963-64, according to the Canadian Wheat Board, we lost 100 million bushels in possible sales. Mr. Bentley of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture said only last week that we could have sold 200 million more bushels this year. I will take the word of Mr. Bentley over and over again. Then last Friday we heard an announcement that the final price had dropped from that of last year. A year ago the minister said we would not notice the drop because we were selling so many millions of bushels. He does not seem aware of the fact that the price of wheat is the same today as it has been for 50 years though the price of machinery has jumped in the last two years to the highest level in our history. The minister stated the other night on television that the farmers would be paid such huge amounts that they would not really notice the drop in prices. But let me point out that 300 million bushels in lost sales at $2 a bushel represents $600 million to Canada. On top of this there is the $60 million or $80 million we lost in the price drop last year.
Supply-Finance


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Maurice Rinfret: Does the committee agree that the hon. member may have permission to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I want to thank hon. members of the committee. I have hit as hard as I can today. This matter is very deep within me. I cannot defend myself except by saying that I am emotionally involved with these hundreds of thousands of people who found conditions very tough in the fifties. When I hear this talk about how wealthy the western farmers are and how we can take this loss of $70 million or $80 million and how we shall never miss this $600 million worth of lost sales I feel bound to protest. If the minister cannot be moved by my appeal to him on behalf of these people, he might consider what I have said as being for the good of the whole country.
Surely this amount of $700 million means something to the Minister of Finance whose greatest problem is the deficit in our international balance of payments. Surely $700 million in three years would make quite a difference in that deficit. Maybe in the interest of all the people of Canada, maybe in the interest of keeping prices down, maybe in the interest of raising the incomes of those who work in the steel plants or in the mines of the north he will reconsider his position and stand by and defend the wheat board both domestically and internationally and not leave the board alone and exposed as it is now. The minister says he has nothing to do with selling grain, that this is a matter for the board and that if mistakes are made there is no one to be blamed but the wheat board. We are trying to defend the wheat board system of marketing. Mistakes are bound to be made in such a complex operation and when they are made we think the minister should stand up and take the blame. Let him also stand up when sales are made and make the announcement. Surely hon. members have a right to be informed inside the house on these matters. They should not have to run to the press gallery to get information. Surely the House of Commons system means something to the minister.
I had no intention on Friday of saying anything like this on the minister's estimates but when the minister departed from the

March 1, 1966
Supply-Finance
traditional procedure of making announcements I had no choice but to stand up and let him know that not only do we not like it in parliament but thousands of people across this country feel that a fair chance is not being given for the expression of their interests in this house.


Mr. Greene:: Would the hon. member permit a question? I just want to be sure that the record is straight, as I know that the hon. member with his high reputation would want it to be clear that the whole and entire truth was on the record. Does the hon. member state that it was not the wheat board which sold wheat to China during his term of office but that it was he himself who effected the sale?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will tell the Minister of Agriculture that as one who preceded him in office I have no choice but to support him in everything worth while that he does. I want to thank him for speaking up for the farmers on his trip west, but please do not get mixed up in something you do not know too much about.


John James Greene: I take it the hon. member does not wish to answer that question and I hope the record so indicates.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Chairman, I would be surprised if this feud between the spokesmen for the Liberal and Conservative parties continued for a lengthy period. It has been going on for about two years but unfortunately it has resulted in no clarification. However, I hope that discussions such as this may lead to a review of the Act with a view to redefinition of the relationship between the wheat board and the government.
From a cursory reading of the legislation I understand the wheat board is a crown agency, autonomous in its day to day operations but subject to some degree of government policy direction. I believe there should be a redefinition because there is a great deal of misunderstanding and misapprehension in the minds of the public about the relationship of the board to the government. That should not be surprising since obviously there is misunderstanding among members of the committee.
The misunderstanding and misapprehension are so great that when some people, particularly urban dwellers, read about interim and final payments being made to wheat producers they think these payments are in the nature of a government subsidy. Why does this kind of misunderstanding
fMr. Hamilton.!
arise? It must be because of misleading statements issued by the minister's office which are picked up by the press and headlined as final payments emanating from the government treasury. If the Minister of Finance has any desire to clarify the true relationship between the board and the government, and I believe he has, I wish him well in his task.
As its major function the wheat board has the task of selling wheat and other grain. How do the cabinet and the government enter into this function? It seems to me the board is entitled to assistance in arranging for long-term credits and things of that sort.
I find I must agree with the last speaker that up until 1960 or thereabouts Canadian governments were not prepared to back the wheat board substantially enough to provide long-term credit for prospective customers. That is why the board found it so difficult to carry out its work. To be fair and candid about the matter, I must give credit where it is due and it is due to the Conservative minister of agriculture and his colleagues in that as a matter of policy they arranged for long-term credit for prospective large customers such as China.
On the other hand, after giving such credit to the former minister I must say the impression left with western grain producers, I think almost deliberately, was that the sale to China was due entirely to the work of the Conservative government and in particular of its minister of agriculture. In fact, many people still hold that view, and I think it is noble of the present minister to avoid trying to take personal credit for any large scale sales. This is as it should be. But he should be frank and admit that prior to 1960 the board was not being given the kind of backing it needed at the highest political level in order to enable it to make sales.
I am sure the minister is aware that dissatisfaction among farmers in western Canada is due to the fact that prior to the 1962 election the minister's colleagues said it would be part of Liberal policy to ensure a $2 per bushel price for wheat. I am told the Prime Minister himself promised that, and I know that one person who has since been appointed to the other place made such a statement on more than one occasion. But when the Liberal government had an opportunity to fulfil that pledge it failed to do so and later the price fell.
In fact, we have the spectacle of a provincial leader of the Liberal party sponsoring
March 1, 1966

a resolution in the provincial legislative assembly asking the provincial government to call on the federal government to honour its pledge of $2 per bushel for wheat. Naturally there is considerable dissatisfaction on that point because the promise was made and subsequently broken. Now the final price to the producer is several cents lower than it was in the preceding year and this too is causing dissatisfaction.
The cost-price squeeze is being accentuated. We talk about a war on poverty, land purchase, land resale and so on, but with the kind of pricing practice being followed it seems there will have to be many square miles and sections of land purchased in western Canada and resold for consolidation unless the government takes some action, perhaps through a two-price system, to increase returns to producers. If it does not, low incomes and poverty will be more widespread than they are at present.
The third cause for dissatisfaction among western producers is the fact that sales of over 100 million bushels of grain, if not 200 million bushels, have been lost because Canada's transportation facilities are inadequate to move any more grain to the ports.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Farm organizations talk about the need for maintaining an adequate price, the need for a two-price system and the need for parity prices. In the past they were told parity prices were not possible because of the great surplus problem faced at that time. The fact of the matter is that the so-called surplus problem in Canadian agriculture is fast becoming a thing of the past. In a few short years there will be no such thing as a surplus problem of any longlasting duration. Therefore I hope that, if nothing else, the inadequacy of our transportation facilities in this country will go to demonstrate that we should have sold a lot more than we did in the past year if only we could have marshalled the facilities to deliver what we had been able to produce.
I harbour no malice or ill will toward the present Minister of Finance, the man in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, but I do hope he will look seriously into the farm income problem even though he is not responsible for agriculture per se and then work together with the Canadian Wheat Board to see what can be done to raise grain prices to the western farmers.
Supply-Finance


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on item 1 of the estimates of the Department of Finance, I would like to raise today one of the most important problems affecting seriously the Canadian economy, not only at the national level, but also at the provincial and municipal levels-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. Order. Would the hon. member resume his seat?
I understand that hon. members have now more or less agreed to discuss the Canadian Wheat Board. As this seems to be the understanding, I wonder if the hon. member for Lapointe could make his remarks later on when the house is considering other items pertaining to the Department of Finance.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, since we are now considering item 1 of the estimates of the Department of Finance, we may deal with the problems facing that department. This is precisely what I am doing.
At the outset, when it was decided to consider this department's estimates, we said that on item 1, all the problems related to the Department of Finance could be dealt with. If other members wanted to bring up several matters, such as the Canadian Wheat Board, they were free to do so, but according to the procedure, you know it as well as I do, Mr. Chairman, when we are considering the first item of a department, we may discuss any problem concerning that department. We do not have to agree to a different arrangement on that point.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) has something to say about the remarks of the hon. member for Lapointe.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Chairman, in support of what the hon. member for Lapointe has said I should like to say that I think the understanding was that we would deal with item No. 1 in whatever way hon. members wished to deal with it and if some hon. members wished to talk about something other than the Canadian Wheat Board they would be at liberty to do so and those who wished to talk about the Canadian Wheat Board would also be at liberty to do so.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the hon. member for Lapointe and the hon. member for Provencher are certainly correct when they suggest that many other matters

March 1, 1966
Supply-Finance
besides the Canadian Wheat Board can be discussed under item 1, but it seems to me there was general agreement that the Canadian Wheat Board would be considered under item No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Finance as the first subject matter of discussion before going into other matters.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I think the agreement arrived at this afternoon between representatives of the various groups in the house was effectively that we should discuss item 1 of the Department of Finance and at the same time, those who wanted to discuss the Canadian Wheat Board could do so under item 1 of the Department of Finance.
So I believe the hon. member for Lapointe is in order in discussing the Department of Finance because the Wheat Board may be of interest to the people from the West but if we are to hear them for three days discussing this subject, there will be no time left for those who have other financial questions to discuss.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I have no desire to delay the exchange of views on the estimates of the finance department but it was my understanding that it was the hon. members' wish to discuss first the estimates of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to co-operate and show the spirit which seemed to prevail in the house and discuss first all matters relating to the Canadian wheat board, and perhaps come back later to other matters related to the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Finance.
I am simply appealing to the spirit of co-operation which the hon. member for Lapointe has always shown in the past and I ask him to comply with the wishes of the house and the Chair.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if you appeal to my heart, you can win me over, but although I want to co-operate with Your Honour acting with such efficiency and graciousness, I cannot co-operate in that respect. I do not intend to speak about wheat. I leave that to the westerners who do it so well, but when it is my turn to have the floor, I insist on taking advantage of it.
I wish to talk about what I feel is an important problem within the Department of Finance. Therefore, I ask hon. members to be kind enough to allow me to speak of the

problem I want to bring up this afternoon. After that, I will let the others return to wheat.
I would like to deal with one of the most serious and most important problems facing the Canadian economy at the federal, provincial, municipal or educational level.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It is, Mr. Chairman, one of the largest expenditures of the Department of Finance and one of the largest in the Canadian budget, namely the interest paid by the government on the national debt.
If you study the details of estimates of the Department of Finance, you will see that the total expenditures for 1965-66 with regard to the interest on the public debt amount to $1,101,056,400 and for 1966-67, to $1,185,000,000. That is a lot of money, Mr. Chairman, $1,101,000,000 in interest only on the federal government's public debt.
With $1,101,000,000, we pay the interest only, not the principal. It makes you shudder to think that this huge amount is used solely to pay the interest on the public debt and for the federal government only. Our debt is astronomical.
This morning, in the finance committee, I had the opportunity to question the former governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. James Coyne, who was submitting a request for a chartered bank. I asked him this:	"Mr. Coyne, when your bank loans money, it will inevitably intend to get it back. If it lends money to the Canadian government, when we know that the debt of the federal government is larger than all the money in circulation in Canada-the federal government alone owes more than all the money in circulation in Canada, legal money, scrip money, that is the whole of the money supply-it will therefore be physically impossible for it to reimburse its debt-is it a good risk for a bank to lend money to the federal government when it knows that the latter will never be able to pay it back, because it owes more than all the money in circulation in the country? Is it a good risk? Mr. Coyne answered: "The federal government, when it wants to pay it back, must borrow elsewhere."
Now, in order to pay back, it has to borrow and our debt increases constantly, as does the interest on that debt.
Four years ago, when we first came here, the interest on the debt was $820 million. In four years, that interest has increased by more than $400 million. We now pay $100
March 1, 1966

million more annually than we did four years ago; the interest will be $1,101 million this year, and $1,185 million next year, which means an increase of $85 million in one year.
Mr. Chairman, we are no longer able to pay back our debts; our liabilities are greater than our assets.
The Canadian government owes more money than there is in circulation in the country. Even if it dug into the pockets of every Canadian citizen, every company, every industry, every business and every member of parliament, it would not have enough to pay the Canadian government's debt. Is this not the brink of bankruptcy? And would this not be a fraudulent bankruptcy, when debts exceed the money in circulation?
The government has more liabilities than assets. Why? Because certain institutions are empowered to create money and lend it to the federal government. But although the bank creates money, it does not create the interest, and the government has to pay back not only the principal but also the interest. However, the amount required to pay the interest has not been created; only the capital has been created. Whenever interest is repaid, the capital remains the same, and this reduces the money supply so that one fine day, there is more indebtedness than money circulation. But there is not only the federal debt, there are also the provincial, municipal and school debts.
Interest is paid, and thus the money supply is reduced, but that interest has not been created and the capital is still due. Nowadays, the indebtedness is greater than the money supply. This is nonsensical. The situation has taken alarming proportions.
When one figures that the interest on the national debt is increasing at a frantic rate, one realizes that before long, that interest will exceed the national defence budget. At the rate things are going, within five years the interest charges on the federal government debt will have exceeded the national defense budget and have become the major item of government expenditure. Yet, this yields absolutely nothing to Canadians.
We will soon find ourselves in the same predicament as many municipalities, in Quebec at least, where 35, 40 and even 45 per cent of the municipal budget is used to pay interest on the municipal debt. The municipality taxes and overtaxes but when $100 have been paid off, $45 are used to pay the interest on the debt alone and not on the capital; these municipalities are left with $55
Supply-Finance
out of every $100 to undertake improvements and provide necessary services.
The situation has become alarming and the same situation exists in the case of provincial governments.
At the rate the province of Quebec is now running into debt, it will not be long before a great part of the budget of that province is spent to pay the interest on the debt of the Quebec government, just like the federal government is doing for its debt today. One billion 101 million dollars a year, compare that to family allowances. The latter did not increase, but the interest on the debt increases every year, to the point where it has become one of the most important and urgent questions to be settled in our economic system. Unless it is stopped by the Minister of Finance, future generations will be faced with economic and monetary disaster.
It was announced last September that Canada had loaned $5 million to Jamaica for the construction of a bridge and a sewage system in Kingston, and that the loan was interest-free. The Department of Finance of the federal government made a $5 million interest-free loan to Jamaica for 60 years. The Prime Minister will long be dead by that time, just like the Minister of Finance and myself too probably.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
For 60 years, and without interest. Without interest. Meanwhile our federal government borrows money at a high rate of interest. We see the astronomical sums which are paid today as interest on the national debt.
This, Mr. Chairman, I repeat, is one of the most important and serious problems which the hon. Minister of Finance must solve. But this does not seem to worry him too much, or very little, because, paradoxically, this is one of the items in the estimates of the Department of National Defence which does not have to be voted. It is statutory. That is why it must be discussed on item No. 1; it is shrouded in silence and secrecy and cannot be discussed then. It is statutory. On the other hand, there is income tax to pay, because money is needed to pay the big financiers. But you have no right to discuss the matter or to talk about it-it is statutory. We should have an opportunity to deal with this, Mr. Chairman.
What is the solution? The solution is to have public debts-federal, provincial, municipal and school debts-financed by a public

March 1, 1966
Supply-Finance
bank. Let private debts be financed by private banks.
Chartered banks are private institutions, so let them finance the private sector of the economy. But federal, provincial, municipal and school administrations are public bodies that ought to be financed by a public body, the Bank of Canada.
I cannot understand and cannot admit that Canada, if it is the sovereign country, the sovereign state it claims to be, should have to borrow from private institutions whose goal is to make a profit through the people's taxes. That is inadmissible. Let private banks finance private enterprise in our economy, but let the Bank of Canada finance our public services, road construction, bridges, hospitals, all public works, in short, all public expenditures. A public bank must do this and not a bank whose object is to make a profit; for it is inadmissible, anti-social to see private enterprise making astronomical profits-$1,101 million in the case of the federal government alone-from the government. The government can levy taxes, but it must not exist to make private enterprise such as chartered banks benefit therefrom.
It is all very well to continue having chartered banks, but let them operate for private enterprise and not in the field of public services. There lies the difference. As far as the public sector is concerned, the Bank of Canada, a public bank, should be used to finance not only Canada's debt, but also the debts of provinces, municipalities and school boards, and all projects essential to Canada, no matter at what level. Public works, for instance, should be financed interest-free by the Bank of Canada which is not in business for profits but to serve the Canadian people.
Therefore, public debts should be refinanced through the Bank of Canada. The government did not want to do this in the past, but a great deal of money would thus be saved.
I am convinced that if the Minister of Finance could allot $1,101 million more to the various departments, and then he could afford to increase family allowances, old age pensions and undertake various projects, and even reduce taxes.
One billion, 101 million. When one thinks that only $121 million are ear marked for the Department of Agriculture. And yet, all of it is not for the farmers. Most of it goes to pay for red tape and the cost of bureaucracy in the various departments.

If only there were more to help the people and less for the financiers. And what about the fact that the interest on the public debt is twice the amount spent for family allowances distributed among all the Canadian children. The chartered banks of Canada get twice more in interest than the Canadian children receive in family allowances. This is what is unthinkable, Mr. Chairman.
Not only is the interest a cancer which eats away the federal, provincial, municipal and school budgets, but it must be realized that the chartered banks of Canada receive in interest twice the amount paid to all the Canadian children in family allowances.
Mr. Chairman, I say this constitutes an anti-social policy. We do not advocate reducing or abolishing debts, wiping them out or writing them off, no. But let us have these public debts refinanced by the Bank of Canada, which is a public bank.
Let the private banks remain in the private field but let the Bank of Canada handle the public field.
Here, Mr. Chairman, is one of the major problems we have to solve. The Minister of Finance, I know, does not seem to take this suggestion seriously; it seems to be over his depth. It seems to him something idealistic.


Mr. Guay:: That is right.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Levis says that is right. But let the Minister of Finance beware lest he realize one day-because he has not yet consented to study the matter-that the interest on the debt is driving the country into a depression and that the national budget is being eroded by $1,101 million.
He should know that if the government had this sum of money, it would be used to help the children of his county and other counties by increasing family allowances.
If a private bank is able to finance public works, why could a public bank not do the same? Let the Minister of Finance tell us why the government gave the Bank of Canada that name, if not to finance such undertakings? And if it is a public bank, why should it not finance public works? Does the government lack the sovereignty and the power to control its own public financing organization?
Is this what-


Mr. Laniel:: Is this what Mr. Bennett wanted to do with his Bank of British Columbia?


Gilles Grégoire: You will see, that might help him to finance some projects in his province.
March 1, 1966

I would like the Minister of Finance to tell us why the Bank of Canada could not play that part. One of the greatest attributes of its sovereignty is surely to be able to control its money. But the Canadian government is leaving that to capitalists and big financiers. The Canadian government is leaving that in the hands of a few big financiers who control credit in Canada, when it should take back that control for its own expenditures and stop filling the financiers' pockets through taxes paid by the people.
The aim of private institutions and chartered banks is to make profits. That is true. Then let them make those profits at the expense of the private sector of the economy and not at the expense of the public sector, which comes under public banks, the aim of which is not to make profits but to serve the people.
The Minister of Finance should start thinking about using the Bank of Canada; that is its purpose, it is a financial institution. And it is not being used, or rather, it was used once, when time came to lend $200 million to England, without interest; it served the purpose then, but when it comes to lending to Canadians, then things do not work out.
The member for Levis said a while ago that the Minister of Finance is an idealist. Let him explain then, why the Bank of Canada did this for England and why it does not do it for Canadians. If $5 million could be loaned to Jamaica, without interest, why can the Bank of Canada not do the same for Canadians and public organizations in Canada? That is what the Bank of Canada should be doing. But no, the present government, like those before it, has always preferred playing into the hands of international finance.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
When you consider that the government dipped into the Canadian taxpayers' pockets and spent $1,101 million last year and $1,187 million this year to pay interest to those big international financiers who control our economy, then I say that the government does not play its proper role, does not do what it should do, that is serve the people and not a few big financiers.
The Minister of Finance should begin by studying seriously suggestions such as this one which are meant to serve the people and protect the money of the Canadian people rather than give it to the chartered banks or to big financiers.
Supply-Finance
Where did the chartered banks and the big financiers find money they loaned to the government? There is not even enough to pay all the debts in Canada. How is it that we owe them more than the money in circulation? Can the minister explain that? How is it that the debts of the federal, provincial, municipal governments and school boards are twice as large as the money in circulation? Where did the bankers get the difference which does not even exist? Can the minister tell us that? If the government wanted to repay the debt in full tomorrow, could he tell me if there would be enough money in the pockets of all the people, all the companies and all the businesses to pay back such a debt?
How can the minister explain such a situation when we owe more money than there is in circulation? Surely somebody loaned money that did not exist. Then, how did they do it and how could our Ministers of Finance let certain financial organizations lend money that did not exist and let us pay interest on it? Every year, we pay astronomical sums in interest; the situation is serious and important not only for the federal government but for the provinces, the municipalities and the school boards.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the minister should take that problem into serious consideration. The committee on finance, trade and economic affairs will soon meet to study the Bank Act; at that time, the Minister of Finance might suggest that the Bank of Canada should get a charter like the other banks but should use its privileges only to finance public works, in short that the Bank of Canada only be authorized to finance public bodies and governments and should leave to the private banks or other chartered banks the financing of private enterprise.
The minister might find his way to making such a suggestion to all levels of government, the federal, the provinces, the municipalities and the school boards. Large sums could then be included in the budgets of each of those governments and be earmarked for the carrying out of works or the performance of services for the Canadian people. It would no longer be necessary, as it is today, to pay interests to a few big financiers or a few big financial institutions who add billions to their wealth at the expense of the taxpayers.
Then, let the minister take this suggestion into consideration, submit it to the committee and have experts study it and he will realize that it is sound and likely to improve the economy of the country, while enabling the

March 1, 1966
Supply-Finance
government to be really sovereign, self-governing and independent, instead of being the servant or the slave of high finance as it is today-


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow a question?


Gilles Grégoire: Surely, Mr. Chairman.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to say that my word seems to have been questioned a while ago when I said the system the hon. member was describing to us was idealistic. Not only is it idealistic, it is beyond understanding and, as was said during the last election campaign: "You don't have to understand. Vote Social Credit and it's all over."
The question I want to put to the hon. member is as follows: In other countries and in other provinces, is interest paid on the debt?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, to reply to the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) let me say: They have ears but they are deaf. He never wanted to understand and he never will, because if you want to understand, you must first eliminate prejudice, and the member for Levis is unable to do that.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: We shall have to change the teacher.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will not understand because he does not want to. Although other provinces and other countries pay interest, it should be recognized that, in British Columbia, the direct debt is paid directly. There are indirect debts Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Prittie:: Many of them.


Gilles Grégoire: -owed by crown corporations with assets. For example, there is a railway company in British Columbia which is a crown corporation. It has assets and a debt guaranteed by the government. But, besides the debt, there are assets. Let the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) show me that the federal government has assets to support or guarantee its direct debt. The federal government's assets are made up of the home of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, the home of the hon. member for Levis, the home of the Minister of Finance. Those are the assets of the citizens and the companies of Canada, not those of the Canadian government.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond should know that the direct debt of the

federal government is supported by nothing at all, while the indirect debt of British Columbia is supported by assets and interests are paid with profits from those assets, not with taxes paid by the people of British Columbia. Surely the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond can see that there lies the difference.


Robert William Prittie: I simply tell the hon. member that the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, for example, does not have as many assets as it has charges against it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I could say that the C.N.R. is in a worse situation even, but the interest on the debt owing by the British Columbia railway is not paid out of public taxes, but out of the railway's own profits. That is the difference, while this amount of $1.1 billion in these estimates comes from the taxpayer's pocket. That is the difference.
If a province or a country has indirect debts reflecting assets and if the interest on those debts are paid out of those assets, fine. I do not see any problem there.
But I do object when the federal government's debt and the interest thereon are guaranteed by the assets of the Canadian people, because the federal government has no collateral for its debt, except the people themselves and their assets. It is absolutely impossible for the federal government to pay its debt; it is impossible because there is not enough money in all Canada to do so. That is what is so serious. Why, the government is bankrupt.


Maurice Rinfret: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Canada owes more than it has.


Maurice Rinfret: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I was not out
of order for I was replying to interruptions.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Lapointe, but his time of speech is over.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to try to reply to the hon. member for Lapointe but I should like to tell him a story.


Gilles Grégoire: Will I understand?


Mitchell William Sharp: I should like to tell him a story about a previous encounter between the leader of the Social Credit party in the house at
March X, 1966

that time, Mr. Blackmore, and the governor of the Bank of Canada. Mr. Blackmore was urging the sort of proposals that the hon. member has been putting forward and Mr. Towers replied, "Mr. Blackmore, the financing of government expenditures by the issuance of currency is the second oldest profession in the world".


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I hope members of the house in all parties are now ready to pass the estimates for the fiscal year which is just coming to a close. In my remarks this afternoon I hope I will be in keeping with that general spirit. I am not going to get involved in the claims that have been made by the two old-line parties as to who should have credit for what the Canadian Wheat Board has been doing over the past number of years.
I suggest that whether the minister who reports to parliament for the wheat board likes it or not he must agree that there must be some way in which members of parliament can make inquiries about the operations of the board which was set up by this parliament. I certainly agree with him when he suggests that there should not be attempts to obtain a lot of political credit for the actions of the Canadian Wheat Board. At the same time I hope he does not carry this idea to the point where he will divorce himself of his responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board to such an extent that we will be stymied in our attempts to inquire into the operations of the board.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I know that the minister's statement is in keeping with the plea made by the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board that something ought to be done to eliminate the misunderstanding on the part of the Canadian public that payments made by the Wheat Board to the farmers are some kind of government subsidy. Over the years this has been a real problem. Unjust criticism of the payments made and of the governments making them has been voiced in that it has been said that the government has been oversubsidizing Canadian wheat farmers. I have to agree with the minister that when political attempts were made to claim credit for these payments there was an undesirable side effect in urban areas and even in rural areas. Some people believed that these payments in fact were made out of the federal treasury. Of course, the minister and anyone else familiar with the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board know that this is simply not true.
Supply-Finance
These payments are additional proceeds from the sales of wheat. It would be desirable if that were known and understood clearly by Canadians in all walks of life in all regions of Canada.
I do not believe that directing questions to the minister about the operations and results of the operations of the wheat board means interference by the minister in the operations of the wheat board. The minister happens to be responsible for the wheat board at this time. Surely, as I have said before, we must have some way of communicating our views to the Canadian Wheat Board respecting, first, complaints and, second, the results of the operations of the wheat board. I hope the minister will not carry the separation of his responsibilities and the responsibilities of Canadian Wheat Board officials so far that we will lose this means of communicating complaints.
I said I would be brief. I will now turn to one other matter. When the minister made his opening statement respecting the wheat board he said it had been doing a good job. I agree with his opinion. However, when we consider the whole operation with respect to sales of grain during the current crop year, I would not agree that everything is satisfactory. On the basis of all the investigations and statements which have been made across the country I am convinced that the railways, in particular the Canadian Pacific, have not performed their tasks satisfactorily. In fact, I think it is fair to say that shipments out of southern Alberta at least to the end of January, 1966, are probably the poorest in any crop year within the last six or seven years. I say that because a large number of shipping points in Alberta were still on two bushels per acre quotas at the end of January. The quota has not been that low-


An hon. Member:: At the end of February too.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -for many years. What I cannot understand is why the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport continually defend the Canadian Pacific Railway in the face of its very poor performance, at least in some areas. The Minister of Finance has on several occasions said in the house that a very large amount of grain, in fact a larger amount than in almost any other year, has been moved out of the country elevators into an export position from the first of August until the fifteenth of February, let us say. I think the minister mentioned something over 300 million bushels. I should like to remind

March 1, 1966
Supply-Finance
the Minister of Finance that early last fall an arrangement was made between the Canadian Wheat Board and the railways, an arrangement to which the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance were parties, that the railways would be completely free to haul as much grain as possible into export position as quickly as possible.
The result is that the railways have now hauled all of the short haul grain. If the grain has been hauled from the points closest to the west coast, surely it is normal to expect that the grain that is left is going to take more time to haul per car load or per train load, as the case may be, because the distances involved are greater. Looking at the over-all performance of the railways suggests to me that we are going to have a great deal of difficulty in meeting the commitment of some 600 million bushels for export by the end of this crop year. I say that in spite of the repeated hopes expressed in the house by the minister and expressed outside the house by the railway company officials with respect to meeting the target of 600 million bushels by the end of the crop year. The easiest part of the task of moving the grain has been done. Now the long haul grain remains to be shipped.
That is not the whole story. The fact is that there has been terrible discrimination with respect to equalizing quotas on the prairies. To say that what has been done has been done simply for the purpose of getting the largest total volume into export position in the shortest time is not a satisfactory answer. If that type of program had been followed, then since December 14 when the locks at Sault Ste. Marie were closed the greatest movement of grain into export position should have been from southern Alberta, the grain growing area nearest to Vancouver.
However, Mr. Chairman, there has not been a substantial increase in quotas in that area since the Great Lakes navigation season closed. I agree with the sentiment expressed by the Minister of Finance when he hopes that the grain will be moved and that the program will be carried out. However, when one looks at the over-all picture objectively, looks at the performance of the railways in the past, and notes what has happened in the last two and a half months it does not seem to appear that the Canadian Pacific is making great efforts to meet its commitments even in following the program it claims it is following.

I think the Minister of Finance will have to agree that the wheat board has been under severe criticism by some farmers in western Canada with respect to the failure to meet quota targets. That is not the fault of the wheat board at all. As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle mentioned a few minutes ago, the Canadian Wheat Board has no authority to direct the Canadian Pacific to set off railway cars at any specific shipping point. The wheat board may encourage the railway and the Board's officials may have meetings with the railway but there is no authority to give instructions to the railway to set off X number of cars at any particular shipping point.
I sincerely believe that the Canadian Wheat Board has been frustrated in its efforts to equalize quotas and to do justice to the low quota shipping points. I believe this situation has been brought about as a result of the failure of the railways to set off cars at particular points where the Canadian Wheat Board has placed shipping orders. I think that the minister would be doing a service not only to the Canadian farmers but also to the Canadian Wheat Board if he would state that the Canadian Wheat Board has no authority in this respect. I think it would also be helpful if there were a concerted effort by all ministers on the treasury benches, including the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport, to inform the railways that they were not satisfied with their performance to date. That seems to be the only kind of action that will produce the results needed.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Finally, Mr. Chairman, may I say that we have had enough of this buckpassing. I am not accusing the Minister of Finance but there has been buckpassing from the railway companies to the terminal elevators and to other people involved in the grain trade with regard to who is responsible for the situation. I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle that all these people ought to be called together to try to solve the problems and find the bottlenecks with respect to the grain trade is a good one.
The minister has stated that a co-ordinating committee was set up. I hope the committee has been doing good and useful work. Unfortunately no reports have been issued to the farmers of western Canada about what the committee has been doing and what it has found. Nobody knows anything about it. It would certainly help the morale of the farmers of western Canada, who have been
March 1, 1966

almost completely without income in the last six or seven months, if they knew that somewhere, somebody, be it the Minister of Finance or this committee, was making a sincere and genuine effort to solve the problem of congestion.
I do not intend to comment on lost sales. It seems to me this is something we would not like to see happen again, if we indeed have lost opportunities to make large additional exports of wheat. But I shall not comment on that point at length for this reason. Even without these additional sales we have plenty of deliveries to meet in regard to sales already made. The greatest need at the moment is to deliver wheat to customers who have already bought it.
One suggestion made earlier in the house was that a traffic controller should be appointed to enable better co-ordination between the various agencies involved in moving the grain. If the present situation does not improve soon we should probably take a day to discuss this matter although, goodness knows, we are running short of time in which to carry out our normal work pertaining to estimates and other matters. But I think the situation is sufficiently serious for us to set up a traffic control officer and give him the support he needs.
It is not enough for the government to say: We intend to keep our hands off the wheat board; we intend to keep our hands off the railways. The performance has not been satisfactory. I would agree with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport that if everything was going along reasonably well it would be desirable that the government should leave the C.P.R., the wheat board, the terminal elevators and all others concerned to do the job as best they could. But we can point to hundreds of shipping points in western Canada where quotas and deliveries are lower than they have been at this date for many years past. This in itself is sufficient indication that the result of the whole operation is not satisfactory. I hope the minister will continue his efforts and that he will be a little firmer with the railroads. C.P.R. shipping points in particular show that the company has not been performing as well as we have a right to expect and certainly not up to the level of last year or the year before.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to remarks made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, the former minister of agriculture, with regard to the shipping of grain. In a small way the question of grain 23033-125J
Supply-Finance
shipments made an impact on me during the time he was minister and subsequently.
The present government was elected in April of 1963. At that time the port of Vancouver was blocked with vessels waiting to get to the grain jetties and load grain. There were between 13 and 15 vessels swinging at anchor in the harbour. They were there for everyone to see. In the latter days of that election compaign the concentration of these vessels had been building up and catching the attention of everyone in the city of Vancouver. This is a sight which no one in Vancouver can avoid seeing if he moves round the city at all.
A general uneasiness begins to take hold in the city as people watch this sight and ask: What is the trouble? Is it due to labour or to the grain elevators or to the harbours board? Just what is it that is causing this build-up and thwarting the efforts of Canadians to send their wheat to the markets they have secured?
We heard this afternoon from the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. He told us how he had gone to those responsible for the movement of grain in the port of Vancouver and discussed with them the means by which the harbour could be unplugged and these ships could be kept moving. He told us how he brought together these various agencies at a meeting and asked them what could be done about it.
When I came here in April, 1963, there fell into my hands a memorandum which the agencies in Vancouver had supplied to the hon. gentleman, the former minister of agriculture. It contained suggestions as to what could be done to improve grain traffic in the port of Vancouver. There were many suggestions made.
It was suggested, for example that the jetties should be lengthened to allow bigger ships and in some cases two ships at a time to dock. There were suggestions that the draft alongside various jetties be increased so that more ships could use these jetties. There were suggestions for improving the cleaning machinery, the drying machinery, the elevating machinery. All these suggestions were made to the minister in an effort to see what could be done to speed this trade. I am referring to the memorandum which was sent to him in 1961.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle had two years or more in which to do something about that memorandum before the government changed. What did he do about it? He

March 1, 1966
Supply-Finance
filed it. Big smoke and no fire. I wish to refer now to the annual reports of the National Harbours Board for those years because hey give a good idea of what actually took place after the former minister took this matter in hand and urged all those concerned with moving grain at Vancouver to get along with the business of improving the port facilities so that the government of the day could move the grain more speedily.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I have before me the annual report for 1961 and I am looking at the page dealing with capital works in the harbour of Vancouver. They did build a cargo crane for the new centenary pier. They did some work on an overpass over some streets. They built a coffee shop on Granville Island. The total sum spent on capital works in that year amounted to $785,000. We find that provision was made for some flax cleaners at No. 3 elevator. We were not handling a great deal of flax. The movement of wheat, not flax, was our problem. So they put their money into providing some flax cleaners at No. 3 elevator. That was the extent of the implementation in that particular year of the memorandum to the hon. member on grain handling.
Meanwhile, what was he doing in Montreal? Capital works in that year in Montreal amounted to $15,322,793. That is what they thought about eastern port facilities as against the three quarters of a million dollars in improvements of all kinds at Vancouver, of which only a small fraction represented improved wheat moving facilities. What did they spend their money on in the city and port of Montreal? It was spent on the construction of grain elevator No. 4 and marine towers in section 56-


Mr. McIntosh:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Grant Deachman: When I am finished, sir. I now want to go on and look at the report for 1962. Perhaps the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was a little slow getting under way. Indeed, looking at the report for 1962 we find that the memorandum was catching up with him and something was happening. Capital expenditures in the port of Vancouver that year were $301,942. That is what the previous government thought of the port of Vancouver and improving the facilities there in a peak year for the movement of grain.
One item was the construction of the Heatley Avenue overpass. They were still

worrying about that overpass. They also involved themselves in the installation of a partial dust control system and the replacement of car hauling machinery in No. 2 elevator. So they did put a little money into the elevators.
Meanwhile, at Montreal expenditures on capital account in that year amounted to over $10 million. That is where the funds of the previous government were being spent on harbours at that time. In spite of all he has told us this afternoon, the previous minister of agriculture in the Conservative government did not implement any of the recommendations that were made to him when he went to the city of Vancouver. That is why, when we were elected in April, 1963, vessels were swinging at anchor in the port of Vancouver waiting day after day for an opportunity to load, and we were getting ourselves into the position in which we find ourselves now.
The solutions for overcoming these problems involve enormous undertakings but they were never undertaken or ever dreamt of by the former minister of agriculture. He filed the memorandum. He was all smoke and no fire, and that is where his statement stands today.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, and it would be interesting to know what amounts have been spent on the port of Vancouver by the present government since it took office. Though there might be some political policy involved, all of us from the prairies are in sympathy with the hon. member in his efforts to get money allocated for the Pacific coast ports. We feel that the future of grain marketing from western Canada largely depends on the Pacific ports and they should receive more attention from governments than they have in the past.
We had quite a spectacle in the chamber today just as we had the other day in watching the Minister of Finance trying to justify the position of the government and his own position as minister responsible during the last three years for the Canadian Wheat Board. They have been an eventful three years but not because of the actions taken by the government or the minister. They have been years of panic and years of inaction so far as grain marketing is concerned. When I say that I give full marks to the government for the recurring wheat sale to China and the
March 1, 1966

new sales made to the U.S.S.R., but I can remember that when we made the first sale to China the Prime Minister, who then sat in opposition, said that Canada was selling on credit to its enemies and at the same time selling for cash to its friends. He tried to discredit our government because of the tremendous wheat sale to China.
The minister has said that the past year has been a difficult one and that he is well satisfied with the results embodied in the final payment announced a few days ago. But I would remind him that this year's prices are from 9 to 17 cents per bushel less than those of the previous year, this in the face of rising costs for farm machinery, rising costs for labour and everything that goes into the cost of production, this in the face of the promise made by the Liberal party in two election campaigns to provide a guaranteed price of $2 per bushel for western grain producers. Instead of getting $2 per bushel western Canadian farmers received Hazen Argue as a senator, and when one considers the loss of 9 to 17 cents a bushel for that privilege I think the government owes the , western farmers something over and above , what they have received during the past l three years.	'
Today the minister made much of the fact that the advisory board had said that producers were getting the idea they were receiving government money. If that is what I understood him to say, I find it very difficult to believe that the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board would make such a suggestion, because the people who have that kind of understanding are not the producers. They are people other than grain producers who think some of the payments represent government money.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member will accept my word, but he has only to speak to the members of the advisory committee to learn that they have become very concerned about the idea prevalent every time the government makes an announcement that somehow the government is distributing largesse to the western farmers. I know my hon. friend does not think this is so but many people had that misunderstanding and I am doing my best to clear it up.


Edward Nasserden: If I heard him correctly the minister mentioned producers, and I am satisfied that the producers in western Canada know where the money is coming from in the sale of their grain. They do not think that
Supply-Finance
any government is giving them anything, certainly not this government.
A number of things are responsibile for the amount of the final payment made this year. First, there was the serious situation with regard to the allocation and supply of box cars. I believe that situation was largely the result of the detached attitude taken by the minister with regard to all matters concerning the Canadian Wheat Board. He likes to tell us it is his job as minister to report on its operations to the House of Commons. We in western Canada, regardless of party, believe the minister has a greater responsibility with regard to the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, may I say the hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that what I have said on so many occasions is that it is my job to support the Canadian Wheat Board and I repeat, to support it, not to report on it.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I say to the minister that he is doing a very poor job when he does not give them that support that will make their work just as effective as it can be. I was about to refer to the open barley quota that was put into effect last fall. Some farmers could deliver 17,000 bushels and others did not harvest a bushel. Elevators became congested and then there was a cutoff of box cars which meant that they could not make deliveries of the barley they had in stock. There has been an inequitable allocation of space to farmers in different areas of Canada and all because the minister wanted to do something during that period to indicate that grain was moving freely on the prairies under a Liberal government.
Another point with which I should like to deal is that I have heard nothing from the government or the minister about any machinery which has been set in motion to try to bring about some cohesive thinking on the part of the government as it prepares to embark upon the next International Wheat Agreement negotiations. That is something which should be receiving attention at the present time and which should have been receiving attention during the last year or more. It is one of the failures of the government that it has not given the leadership that is necessary in that respect.
I should like to refer also to the ports on the Pacific coast and support a couple of speeches which have been made in the house during

March 1, 1966
Supply-Finance
this session with regard to the development of those ports. We on the prairies endorse the stand these members have taken that the government of Canada should allocate more money to the development and improvement of these ports. I know that criticism may be levelled against what has been done in the past, but let us go back and take a look at 1961, 1962 and 1963. The China wheat agreement had been signed and hon. gentlemen opposite, then in the opposition, questioned whether it was anything more than a onetime deal. What would they have said at that time had the government of the day embarked upon considerable and widespread development of the ports on the Pacific coast in the face of the assertions made by them during the course of the debate in those days

they even convinced me of the possibility-that perhaps the China wheat agreement might not be renewed, although in our hearts and minds we hoped that that agreement would pave the way for sales that would continue for many years to come?
The inaction, if there was any inaction at that particular time, is no excuse for the inaction since that time when the hon. gentlemen opposite have been in office and have had the assurance of recurring sales not only to China but to other nations across the Pacific.
Another matter which should be dealt with is the increase in the loss to farmers ranging from 9 cents to 17 cents a bushel. We all know how it started. It started when the minister panicked and did not support the Canadian Wheat Board the way he should have in the face of what he thought was competition from Australia, competition which has evaporated as a result of events which have taken place.
When you take a look at this whole situation and the grain which has moved in the markets of the world during the last two years you cannot come to any other conclusion but that price has not been a factor in the movement of grain during the entire period. The loss to Canadian farmers, ranging from 9 to 17 cents a bushel, is only part of the loss to Canada as a nation, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle outlined this afternoon, with regard to meeting the balance of payments situation that this country is faced with at the present time.
As these are the estimates of the Minister of Finance I should like to deal for a minute with the balance of payments situation. I wish to refer to an article in Business Week
[Mr. Nasserden.l
of February 19, 1966. The article is captioned "The Lessons of Power Politics":
At first reading, the U.S. balance of payments figures for 1965 look impressive. They show that the deficit in this country's international transactions was cut to $1.3 billion last year, about half that of 1964 and the lowest deficit in eight years.
Quite a co-incidence when you take a look at the figures in the last eight years. A second look at the figures is anything but reassuring. The article goes on to say:
-arguing that the U.S. should continue to run a deficit indefinitely to finance European expansion and international trade. . . . But in the world of international power politics every dollar that leaves the U.S. lessens our power and increases the hold that our creditors have on us.
That is the United States of America talking.
The massive dollar balances now held by the Europeans can and will be used to force concessions from the U.S. not just in monetary affairs but in foreign policy.
Then they go on to say:
As long as the U.S. has this fishhook planted in its gullet, those with whom we have to bargain always can jerk the line. The only way we can regain our freedom of action is to close the deficit before we weaken our position still further.
If that is true of what could happen in the United States, how much more true is it of Canada today with the alarming increase in the deficit in respect of our balance of payments? It is for the government of the day to try to protect against this problem. We on this side of the house have the satisfaction of knowing that our ministry and the prime minister of that day were able to make inroads into the problems which existed at that time. But some of the measures or policies that had been efficient were allowed to fly out the window by the panic and inaction of members opposite, particularly the Minister of Finance in respect of his attitude concerning grain sales.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. As it has been agreed that there will be no private members' hour today, I would ask the consent of hon. members to announce at this time the questions to be raised on the adjournment motion tonight without my leaving the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman), Labour	conditions-Windsorprospective lay-off of Ford workers; the hon.
March 1, 1966

member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) -Agriculture-request for announcement of dairy policy.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to unduly prolong the debate but in view of the course of action that was followed by the minister on Friday in his refusal to face the House of Commons and allow comments to be made on the final price of wheat for the previous crop year I feel I must make a few remarks today. The minister offered a very vacuous excuse for deciding to table the order in council rather than read it as has been the practice in the past in the House of Commons so that opposition members would have an opportunity to comment either favourably or unfavourably on the contents of the particular order in council.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Everyone knows that the real reason the minister did not make a statement, as has been the custom, is that he refused to face up to his responsibilities as the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. The reason he gave us was that he was trying to cut short the amount of time he uses in the house. He was not worried about that last year when the final price was the highest on record. He was not worried about making a statement on behalf of the Canadian Wheat Board in respect of the Russian sale or the renewal of the China contract. He does not seem to be worried about taking the credit for those things that sound good.
The unhappy thing about the minister is that he refuses to take the responsibility for those things for which he is responsible and for those things which are not so good. He cannot have it both ways. He must either be the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, answer questions on behalf of that board and accept his responsibility or pass that responsibility on to someone else.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat, as near as I could follow him, suggested that the minister should take credit for all those things that are good but never take the blame for anything that is bad. I suggest that this is not the kind of attitude that we can stand for in this house.
The minister strove very valiantly to convince the house about the situation in respect of the price of wheat during the years 1957 to 1963 and I noticed that members opposite pounded their desks every time he referred to those years. However, I think it should be
Supply-Finance
pointed out that when we assumed office in 1957 the price of wheat was $1.60 per bushel but as a result of the course of action followed by the party of which I am a member the price of wheat was gradually increased to $2 per bushel. That is what the price was when we left office in 1963. It did not appear to us during that time that there was any great difficulty in holding the price at that level in view of the markets that existed, the demand that had been created and the fact that our surplus had to all intents and purposes virtually disappeared.
What happened following that year? As was pointed out earlier by the hon. member for Rosthern, the government panicked and refused to assist the Canadian Wheat Board in dealing with the United States regarding the cut in prices. The minister has come to the house time and time again and said that he did not want to take credit but that the wheat board should have the credit. Yet at the same time he makes all the announcements. The only announcement he refused to make was that of last Friday, because he knew there would be criticism levelled as a result of his inaction and failure to support the Canadian Wheat Board which resulted in a drop in the price of wheat.
The very fact that the price of wheat is again climbing to the level it was in 1963 is all the proof needed to support the suggestion that the price should not have dropped in the first place. Just a little action on the part of the minister would have saved the farmers of western Canada some $70 to $80 million. Yet the minister had the stupid audacity to say: Well, they have enough money anyway.


Mitchell William Sharp: Who said that?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: The minister sits in his ivory tower on Bay street and tells the farmers that a drop in the price of wheat is not going to hurt them.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member a question. When did I make such a statement?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: You made the statement in the house.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Yes, you made that statement in the house.


Mitchell William Sharp: Would the hon. member care to quote it?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I do not have the passage before me.


Mitchell William Sharp: You would not find it if you looked for it.

March 1, 1966
Supply-Finance


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: You made a statement to the effect that because of the volume of sales the return was going to be the highest ever and therefore the farmers should be satisfied.


Mitchell William Sharp: I did not make such a statement and I should like the hon. member to quote the passage to which he refers.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I do not have the quotation in front of me at this moment.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The minister says he did not make that statement and I think his word must be accepted unless, of course, the hon. member is able-


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I do not intend to press this in any event, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. One moment, please. The minister's word must be accepted unless the hon. member is able to produce the quotation.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Give us a little time. We are looking for it now.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Chairman, I should again like to deal for a moment with the impression that the farmers in the west thave at this time so far as the Canadian Wheat Board is concerned. As the former minister of agriculture pointed out, prior to 1957 there was a great deal of dissatisfaction with the Canadian Wheat Board. The dissatisfaction arose because of the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite in refusing to accept the responsibility that is theirs to answer to the House of Commons on behalf of that Crown agency. The fact is that the only way the Canadian Wheat Board has of reporting to parliament is through the minister and unless the minister is prepared to accept that responsibility the farmers are going to misunderstand what is the real problem.
We observed quite a spectacle in the house during the spring of the year in which the China grain sale was made. I do not intend to repeat all the statements that were made inside and outside the house in that regard at that time but I do wish to refer to the fact that the Prime Minister said in eastern Canada-I noticed he would not repeat this statement in western Canada-that the China wheat deal was not a good deal, that it was a hoax on the part of the hon. member for Assiniboia of that time. All the time the debate was going on in the house concerning the China grain deal the members of the government party, then on this side of the house, were nitpicking and attempting to find some obscure reason why the credit terms of 
the China wheat deal or the deal itself should not be accepted. In the meantime the farmers of western Canada were pocketing the money that resulted from that sale.
We in the west have had enough of this minister and his failure to do anything to support the Canadian Wheat Board. We have had enough of this rusty Rasputin and his ivory tower on Bay street. The Prime Minister should remove the Canadian Wheat Board from the responsibility of this minister and turn it over to the Secretary of State. She may not know anything about wheat or the wheat board either but at least she is not afraid to get out and attempt to do something.


Mr. Gundlock:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take only a few minutes to put forward the three points I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. As a farmer, and I use myself as an example, I have not delivered enough wheat as of this moment to pay last year's fuel bills. One month from now we will be faced with seeding a new crop.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
In my opinion this is not a matter of high finance; it should be very simple and there should be no argument about it whatsoever. I have listened to a great deal of talk in the house this afternoon and agree with most of it. I would not agree with one or two things the minister said or with the hon. member opposite who said that there was not time for this sort of thing. I think there is time. When a western Canadian farmer at this time of the year has not delivered enough wheat to pay for last years' fuel, I think it is high time something was done.
I should also like to point out what this situation means in our economy. I borrow money from the bank and pay interest on that money. The wheat board borrows money from the bank to make the initial payments and they pay interest on that money. The elevator companies in turn enjoy the revenue obtained from storage. All these costs are charged to the farmer's account, to my account. The farmer pays interest on the money he borrows, interest on the money the wheat board borrows and pays for the storage. I do not believe it is necessary to be Minister of Finance of a country to add up these costs and realize they take the cream off the crop.
Canadian farmers generally need consideration in this respect, not just western farmers. Western farmers are renowned for their ability to spend their money. Where do they spend it? It is spent in the rest of Canada,
March 1, 1966

particularly in eastern Canada. Western farmers contribute to a very great extent in helping to solve our balance of payments problem.
I have one last point, Mr. Chairman. We do not only have to consider this situation and correct it or bring it to the point where it is acceptable but we have to go one step further and get out of the rut we are in. I say in all deference to the government that we have been in this rut for many, many years because we wait until someone says we can deliver wheat. In our part of the country the C.P.R. has a captive market. If they do not haul grain this month they can haul it next month. The elevator companies have a captive market in regard to storage. I believe we have to break this problem wide open. Hon. members have made suggestions in this regard but I say that to really improve this situation we have to deliver the crop after it is harvested or at least a good part of it. If we do that we will get rid of the three charges which I mentioned and which constitute the real cream of the crop. This would cost nobody anything. The farmer will have an improved price without costing anyone anything and he will have the price he rightly deserves. This can only be achieved through proper management. I submit this suggestion to the Minister of Finance and the other ministers concerned-I see the Minister of Agriculture is here- and I sincerely believe that farmers need this kind of consideration, not only wheat farmers in the west.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration-
Id. Departmental administration, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $15,000.
Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Chairman, there is one short question I should like to ask the minister. It has to do with the sales tax in relation to municipalities. Perhaps I should have asked it under vote No. 1 or maybe it should come under another item. However, perhaps you would guide me in this respect, Mr. Chairman, or the minister would allow me to ask my question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It is quite all right for the hon. member to ask his question now.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The question I wish to ask concerns the application of the sales tax to municipalities in their purchase of certain materials. It is my understanding that municipalities are not subject to the payment of sales tax in respect of certain materials. By way of explanation I
Supply-Finance
would point out that irrigation companies are paying sales tax on culverts.
Hon. members will appreciate that culverts are important in the work carried on by irrigation companies. In our part of the country over 500,000 acres are under irrigation and there are some 22 irrigation companies which are paying sales tax on culverts. For this reason it is quite an important item and I wonder whether the minister will give me some explanation in this regard.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, the fact is that municipalities are not exempt from sales tax except on certain special equipment such as road graders, I think, and so on.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: And culverts.


Mitchell William Sharp: And some things that are associated with the movement of water. I am not absolutely sure. Perhaps the Minister of National Revenue could answer this question if the hon. member would ask it when the minister's estimates are under consideration and the minister could give the details at that time. In general municipalities do pay sales tax except on items that are specifically exempted.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Perhaps by way of explanation I might point out that irrigation companies were, under the Department of Labour, defined as municipalities for the purpose of winter works. I think that definition should apply in this case. If I am not wrong about this, culverts are one of those items that are exempt. However, since the time irrigation companies were considered to be municipalities and therefore came under the winter works program they have been charged sales tax on culverts. I wish the minister would take this matter into serious consideration. It means a great deal to irrigation companies because culverts, as hon. members will realize, pass water under grades and over hollows and this constitutes a very considerable expense.


Mitchell William Sharp: I can assure the hon. member that I will look into this question. I will be preparing my budget and will take this as another recommendation.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, I hope the few remarks I wish to make will not be deemed to be out of place under this item. Perhaps the provisions of item Id may be extended a little so that my remarks may be in order. I was caught between my office and the chamber and am consequently a little late in speaking on this item.

March 1, 1966
Supply-Finance
There are a few points I should like to make to the minister on the first item of these estimates. I shall refer to them at this time and indicate that we want to hear a great deal more explanation and discussion of these matters during consideration of the subsequent estimates.
One question I wish to raise at this time is the matter of guide lines. The fact that the minister is going to the United States. I want to know whether he is proposing to meet the relevant officials of the American administration to discuss with them further and put before them the very strong resentment that exists in Canada with regard to the effect of these guide lines in this country. It is almost as though the American administration had taken a swipe at something and was unconscious of some of the side effects of its actions in dealing with a problem which we recognize.
We recognize that the United States has a problem in this regard but it must be remembered and re-emphasized, as has been said by my colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland and others on this side of the house, and I am sure this concern is shared by the government, that there are certain considerations that apply to Canada in this connection. We are the best customers of the United States, and if the effect of these guide lines is to stultify the Canadian economy and make it much more difficult for our economy to maintain its progress, of course the Americans are only cutting off their nose to spite their face, although they may not recognize that fact. This is the point I want to emphasize.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
Not only is there the question of the guide lines but also the action of the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States in their requirement that in Canadian companies where there is a 10 per cent shareholding, I believe it is, in the United States, these companies must make full disclosure as required by the American authorities. I believe this is going rather too far. It will only create resentment in this country. It is not that we have that many Canadian companies operating in the United States where the shareholdings by United States interests may amount to 10 per cent; yet we find Canadian companies are being asked to supply information as to their total operation. We might counter by saying that any United States corporations owned by 1 per cent, 10 per cent

or 15 per cent Canadian interests must disclose to us all of their operations. I am sure that Washington would react very promptly and with a great deal of resentment if we did that. What is fair for them is fair for us. I believe that this action by the S.E.C. is totally uncalled for. It will be the duty of the Canadian government to make these views known to the United States government and to tell that government this is the type of action that is not calculated to improve relations between our countries.
So far as the guide lines themselves are concerned, I think I can only emphasize what has been said on this side of the house. I do not believe the guide lines are innocuous. I think the minister recognizes that perhaps his first indication was that he was taking it all too calmly; otherwise we would not have had the action taken by Mr. Kierans in the province of Quebec and others. Albeit they did use rather unorthodox means of getting their point across, yet they do have a point to get across. That is all I am going to say on this matter.
On February 2 the minister was good enough to file an answer to a question I put on the Order Paper, question No. 100, concerning the results under a supplementary agreement according to the provisions of the Established Programs Act. This was the 1964 Bill No. C-146 which, if I recall rightly, was going through some time in July or August of that year. I remember the hon. member for Davenport, who occupied the portfolio of the Minister of Finance, hailed this particular arrangement as one of the stars in the Liberal heaven.
This bill for the opting out of joint programs was going to be the solution for the relations between the federal government and the provinces in connection with such programs. At the time I indicated, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands indicated and so did some of my other colleagues that this bill was a hoax. There was nothing to it in so far as granting greater fiscal autonomy to the provinces was concerned. The Prime Minister paraded up and down the country saying that this was the new Liberalism. The then Minister of Finance did the same. The proof of the pudding is always in the eating and I am very interested to see that there was only one province that took advantage of the provisions of this bill. Yet it had been designed for the benefit of all Canada because dominion-provincial relations
March 1, 1966

are not the private preserve of the government of Canada and one province. Dominion-provincial relations apply to all provinces, whether on the Atlantic coast, in central Canada or out west.
I assert that in this regard all provinces have their rights and their positions. They stand as equals in fiscal relations. Certainly as a representative from the western provinces in this house I doubly assert that. The detail of the answer given by the minister is immaterial in so far as the quantum of money that will be realized by the province of Quebec under the income tax abatement provided for under the supplementary agreement, but I must insist again on pointing out that as soon as the principal agreements terminate the supplementary agreement falls to the ground and unless there are renegotiations of the original agreement the abatement of income tax goes back to the government of Canada. This has not been a permanent abatement or assignment of these points. The law is patently clear and there is not much more freedom under Bill No. C-146 than there was heretofore. The Auditor General has access to the records of the provinces to the same extent as he had before. The government of Canada is entitled to the reimbursement of any funds in excess to costs. The government of Canada has the right to assess the validity of the cost under such joint programs just as it had before.
In the event that there is a deficiency between the cost and the revenues ascribed to that particular joint program, the province can come in for a special grant. But I would be the most surprised man in the world if the Treasury Board and the Auditor General did not insist upon a complete accounting of the cost of the programs administered by the province. Therefore I repeat what I said at that time, that this Bill No. C-146 was only brought before the house as a result of a deal for the 1963 election, one of those deals that we find so repugnant. The other provinces showed the back of their hands to this sort of thing because they realized that they were not receiving anything out of it. In so far as fiscal autonomy is concerned this is precisely what this bill meant. As of October 31 it became a dead letter in the realm of greater fiscal autonomy for the provinces because it was completely and utterly meaningless.
Then, on February 14 the minister replied to a question I had put with regard to the agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom for tax credits.
Supply-Finance


Mitchell William Sharp: What is the page number?
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Question No. 410, which is found on page 1146 of Hansard. He mentioned, as indicated, that a sort of interim agreement is applicable. One point, however, worries me, and that is the effect of British surtax and whether that is covered under this interim agreement. I should like to know whether Canadian investors in United Kingdom securities are in as good a position today as they were heretofore. The capital gains tax which has been implemented by the United Kingdom government must be considered.
I refer to the minister's answer to part 4 of the question, page 1146 of Hansard:
An interim agreement referring to four classes of income was signed on December 6, 1965. It is expected that this will be replaced by a further agreement of broader application after the report of the royal commission on taxation has been considered.
I am concerned about the effect on Canadian investors in British securities as a result of what happened in 1964. Have Canadian investors been placed in a position inferior to that which they occupied prior to the expiration of the agreement? This is important, Mr. Chairman, because of the fact that British tax rates are rather serious and in some instances rather savage. It is important when one considers the effect upon dividends or income earned in the United Kingdom, which also may be subject to a certain degree of Canadian taxation.
I trust that we shall have some information on this. Personally I should be satisfied with an interim reply and with a further consideration in detail the next time we meet the minister.
I wish to refer to university grants. I know that this subject is covered in a later vote, but I do wish to make certain references to the recent grants made by the government of Canada to the various provinces. I find some difficulty and regret with respect to what appears to be the action taken by one province. I know that the door has not necessarily been closed because negotiations are going on. As a matter of general principle I accept that the government states that it has made grants unconditionally. What is somewhat surprising in this regard is that the government says it was following a precedent in this connection. I realize that the precedent, if one did exist, resulted in all the moneys made available to the Quebec administration of the

March 1, 1966
Supply-Finance
day being turned over to the universities. Mr. Chairman, this is $17 million that the government of Canada has turned over to the province of Quebec to assist universities without any strings attached that the money should go to this area or that area, or this or that use, or that the universities shall bend their energies this way or that way. To this extent these moneys have always been unconditional and have been recognized by the majority of the Canadian people as such. However, I do find difficulty in accepting any justification that any of these moneys shall be turned to other uses. One could almost say:
[Translation1
To use the sentence, during an election year, the $8 million which makes the difference between $17 million and $9 million will be spent on the construction of sections of roads.


Mr. Graffley:: Prior to the election.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, obviously, during an election year; that is when sections of roads are built, and not only in the province of Quebec, but everywhere-


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: In Alberta too.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, certainly, but there it is not only sections of roads, but long roads which are built. I wanted to say that I would find it abnormal and frankly immoral if that money were used for other purposes.
I claim that there is a question of morals involved. There is, if not a formal undertaking under an agreement, at least, the moral obligation to use those funds for the purposes set out by the federal government.

This is one point that I think the minister should clarify. He should clarify what representations have been made in this regard in view of events, or is it intended to await the ultimate solution of the difficulties now being discussed in the province of Quebec?
My last point is one that I shall wish to discuss with the minister at greater length on future occasions and it is the question of money grants in lieu of taxes by the government of Canada. This is a problem that exists not only as between the government of Canada and the municipalities but between provincial administrations and municipalities. Frankly, I find the activities of government, both federal and provincial, with respect to their powers of expropriation to direct government facilities, their relative freedom

from town planning restrictions or, shall we say, their influence on town planning in various municipalities, and the predominant position inherent in the status of federal and provincial governments vis-a-vis the municipalities, places upon them a much greater responsibility than now assumed by the two senior levels of government with regard to the payment of grants in lieu of taxes for municipal services.
Some grants, in some instances, I would almost categorize as niggardly. Municipalities are called upon to assume greater responsibilities for streets, for public transportation, for schools and for all sorts of other things. Yet there is only a sort of nominal contribution to the municipalities. I think that is apparent here in Ottawa. I think it is apparent that there should be a complete review of the formula for the determination of municipal grants in lieu of taxes. This also applies in my own city of Edmonton which is a capital city. It has certain federal properties and it has a great number of provincial properties. I am sure that there could be worked out a much more equitable dealing for the municipalities in this regard.
I do not know that the federal government necessarily would be the loser because money for these things has to be found somehow. The municipalities must provide these services. I think it is much more honest and much more equitable for the municipalities to acquire these funds in a direct, appropriate manner rather than in a circuitous, ad hoc manner forcing them to come cap in hand, almost like beggars, to both provincial and federal administrations in order to get funds. They have to acquire funds properly to discharge responsibilities that are in many instances forced upon them by the activities of both senior levels of government.
I wish to discuss other points as we go along. However, I think that these brief remarks will indicate the general tenor of my comments at this time.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, my intervention in the discussion at this point will be brief. I have made an attempt to estimate the number of hours remaining to us until six o'clock on Friday evening when I believe we have the objective of passing all the estimates for the current fiscal year. On this basis it seems to me each member is entitled to four minutes. I shall therefore take approximately that amount of time.
March 1, 1966

On November 6, 1962, the colleagues of the Minister of Finance proclaimed themselves in favour of debt free money. I recall the fascinating speech made at that time by that intrepid financial figure, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday the minister, in a reply to a question I had on the order paper asking him whether the present government has taken any steps to bring about debt free money in the years between 1963 and 1966, said the answer was in the negative.
I should like to compliment him on returning his colleagues to fiscal orthodoxy and I should appreciate his assurance that he will see to it that what happened in 1962 will not happen again.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Subsidies and Other Payments to Provinces-
5. Payments, computed in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council, to the government of each province, in respect of income tax paid by corporations whose main business is the distribution to or generation for distribution to the public of electrical energy, gas or steam; the said payments to be made in respect of such part of the income of the corporations for the taxation year ending in the calendar year 1963 (as determined under and for the purposes of the Income Tax Act) as is derived from the said distribution or generation in the province to which payment is made, $8,500,000.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is on this page a statutory item in respect of university grants. I think the minister should perhaps make some comment in reply to what I have said.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I comment briefly on two or three of the points made by the hon. member for Edmonton West?
First, as to his comments on the United States guide lines and the attempt to apply U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regulations to Canada, I entirely agree with the position the hon. member has taken. It is one which I personally have taken and one which the government of Canada has taken and will continue to take with the United States government. We may even quote the hon. member for Edmonton West as an example of Canadian public opinion on these issues.
The hon. member referred to the Established Programs Act. I would point out that these are transitional measures. It is not expected that arrangements of the kind we have been describing will continue indefinitely. They are in the nature of transitional measures which will be replaced in due course by measures of indefinite duration.
Supply-Finance
The comments he was making are, I think, quite accurate on the whole but they are not comments which would apply generally in future years when we have got through this transitional period.
The hon. member then talked about the United Kingdom taxation agreement. Like him I have had complaints from taxpayers who are caught by the new United Kingdom taxes and have not been able, because of the terms of the present tax agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom, to get as much relief as they would like to have from the adverse effects of double taxation. We are very much aware of this situation. Had it not been for the fact that the Carter commission may be recommending some important changes in Canadian taxes-I have not had access to the report but I hear it is far-reaching-we would probably be engaged in negotiations with the United Kingdom to secure a more satisfactory agreement.
On the question of the university grants let me point out that these arrangements are for one year only. The Prime Minister has dealt with this matter. I do not think that in fact the province of Quebec has any greater freedom in the use of the total resources at its command than have the other provinces. As the Prime Minister has said, we set no conditions as to how the other provinces should use their money. So they are free to give as much or as little aid to the universities as they wish.
They could, for example, decide that they would not spend as much on the universities because we were helping the universities. Since this is for one year only, it is merely a transitional arrangement to be replaced by a more permanent arrangement when we have had the opportunity of discussing the whole question with the provinces at a conference. The hon. member will understand that we were not able to have a conference earlier and we had to make a decision because of the great need of the universities.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Will this $17 million be a related item in the estimates or will it be included in this particular item? Will this $17 million be paid as a supplementary item to this particular item, item 5, which is headed "University Grants" or is it some related item? If the item under which this money will be paid has the appellation "University Grants" there is a moral obligation to spend the money as such.

March 1, 1966
Supply-Finance


Mitchell William Sharp: I will bear that in mind when we are preparing the supplementary estimate. I am sorry but I cannot answer the hon. member's question off the cuff. There were other questions which the hon. member raised but I do not think he would expect me to discuss them at this time.


Mr. Orlikow:: I hope the minister would be able to say something more about university grants than he has said tonight. When the government announced an increase in per capita grants for the provinces from $2 to $5 in respect of universities it was said, as the minister has said tonight, that this was an interim and temporary payment. The provinces were, of course, happy to get assistance. An increase of roughly $60 million in one year from $40 to $100 million looks good until one considers the problems which our universities face.
The day after the Prime Minister made his announcement about the increase the Toronto Globe and Mail conducted a survey. I am sure it could not have been a complete survey in the time available but it did take account of the needs of all major Canadian universities in relation to the cost of their present building programs. They came up with a figure of $500 million.
Universities across Canada now have on the drawing boards or in their building programs provision for meeting the needs of students who are likely to enter universities during the next ten years, a period in which an increase of between 300 and 400 per cent has been estimated. The universities are moving as energetically as they can to meet the requirement but they are faced now with building costs of the order of $500 million.
The cost of building up a staff of professors and research workers to guide these universities is fantastic. Costs in every field are likely to double in the next ten years. Even the Maritime provinces which have a lower per capita income than the other provinces in Canada have done tremendously well in assisting the universities in the light of the many other calls on their services. The cost of education in every province today is probably twice as much as the total provincial budget in 1945. It is obvious that the provinces alone will not be able to meet the cost in the future.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
They certainly cannot meet the needs expressed by the Economic Council in its second annual report, which pointed to the fact that

there are twice as many young people of university age in the United States attending university as there are in Canada. It seems to me that what the federal government announced this year was just a beginning, just a small proportion of what is required, and I would hope the minister could tell the committee in greater detail what are the government's plans.
I am not too concerned about the details of how the money is paid out, whether directly to the universities or to the provincial governments. What is important is that the federal government recognize the fact that in the field of education the provinces face such tremendous problems that they simply cannot meet the needs by themselves. The federal government will have to co-operate with the provinces, and I would hope the minister would say more than he did when he stated that this was just a temporary measure this year and that the federal government will be discussing the matter further with the provinces.
We have had discussions on this matter for many years. Municipalities have made representations to provincial governments, provincial governments have made representations to the federal government, as have university organizations to both the federal and provincial governments. The Association of Canadian University Teachers has made representations to the federal and provincial governments and so have the medical research people. We have had lots of talk about these problems. I do not intend to put all these representations on record tonight, though I shall certainly do so at a more appropriate time, but I know the people vitally concerned about the educational problem would be very heartened if the minister could indicate in a broad, general way the basic principles which the government is thinking about in this field.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
15s. Government's contribution to the superanua-tion account and the public service death benefit account, payments under earlier superannuation and retirement acts and under the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act, and gratuities to families of deceased employees, $61,882,600,
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Could the minister tell me what is the intention of the government with regard to the older superannuates? Representations have been made in this chamber and outside it by hon. members and interested bodies which indicate that the position of senior superannuates cannot continue. The last review was made in 1958, seven
March 1, 1966

years ago. There is a large body of retired public servants whose pension rates are based on low earnings in years past.
Between 1958 and 1963 there was an increase of 1 to 2 per cent per year in the cost of living and since that time the cost of living has increased further. Indeed, it has gone up by 3 per cent in the last year. We have got to do something for these people. To say they are going to get additional old age pension or are going to qualify earlier for old age pension is not sufficient. Most of them are already getting old age security but so is everyone else.
The man who has been a spendthrift, who has been a ne'er-do-well is entitled to old age security and it is not sufficient to say these superannuates qualify for it. We have to update the level of pensions under the Superannuation Act. What I say here applies equally well to retired members of the R.C.M.P. Last year I met a retired R.C.M.P. corporal, who is between the age of 65 and 70, and after a whole lifetime of service he is getting the munificent sum of $68.70 a month. This is not good enough. To say to these people, "We are increasing the old age pension and making it available earlier" is in my opinion a contemptuous dismissal of a legitimate claim.
Royal Canadian Mint-
35. Administration, operation, and maintenance, $2,701,000.


Mr. More:: Since commemorative coins will be struck for our 1967 centennial can the minister assure the committee that Canadian collectors will have preference in obtaining them and that the supply will be adequate? I understand United States collectors have preference for coin sets in their own country and I think the same should apply for Canadian investors in Canada.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I should like to confirm that new coins are being struck for 1967. 1 saw the designs the other day and they have been approved. We are planning to issue the sets in boxes that are suitable for presentation and collection. We hope to make a little money out of this, apart from the ordinary seignorage, and I shall bear in mind the comments of the hon. gentleman to see if we can give some preference to Canadian collectors as against others, although perhaps fewer of the coins would be spent if they were owned by foreigners rather than Canadians.
Supply-Finance


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I would not think so. I would not like the minister to get away with that comment because I think Canadian collectors do not spend such coins. We have had previous experience with United States collectors flooding the market seeking Canadian coins, which caused great worry for Canadian collectors, and I would not want to see that happen in 1967.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Frank Howard: I understand from the press announcement made last fall that the set of coins for 1967 will contain all the decimal coin units from a penny to a dollar and in addition will contain a $20 gold piece. Is this still the procedure? Will that be the only set produced by the Royal Canadian Mint in 1967?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, those are the coins, the designs of which I have approved and which the government has approved-the penny, the five, the ten, the twenty five, the fifty, the one dollar, and then the twenty dollar gold piece.


Frank Howard: What I sought to ask is, will that be the only set of coins produced by the mint for distribution in the form in which they will be distributed, or in addition will there be the proof-like sets which are produced and distributed now, namely the penny through the dollar; will there be two types of sets in 1967?


Mitchell William Sharp: Obviously I am not a collector like my hon. friend, and some of these terms are confusing to me. Perhaps I could answer this when we come to the estimates for 1966-67.


Frank Howard: Yes. I understand it is illegal to be in possession of gold in the United States produced after some date; at least there was a time limit. If such is the case, if the United States still holds to that prohibition, and I understand that an announcement to this effect has been made, then it would be illegal for United States collectors or investors even to purchase the sets from our mint, which would perhaps satisfy the thought raised by the hon. member earlier.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Municipal Development and Loan Board-
45. Administration, $216,000.
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I think the importance of this particular vote is such that a few comments should be made in respect of it. We were pleased the other day when the

March 1, 1966
Supply-Finance
minister announced his intention oi extending the expiry date of the Municipal Development and Loan Board, because had he not I believe many municipalities in the country would have been in difficulty in respect of completing projects which had been started under the provisions of this particular facility. I think the minister and the government of the day should take a real hard look at this particular point before they go into the final decisions regarding the new budget. We regret that this particular loan development fund was not made the beginning of a new approach to the problem of municipal financing.
I note the arguments the minister has put up with regard to the fund; but I think this fund has justified itself by the degree of participation of the various municipalities. The question of municipal financing in this country is the most difficult single problem of public financing, simply because the municipal authorities in particular face an unequal struggle for the tax dollar in so far as being able to finance those services which it is their obligation to provide. It has been true down through the years that some permanent facility should have been established in this regard. If my memory serves me right, I believe it was in 1938 that the municipal development and loans act was passed and in the meantime nothing very much was done to act upon this authority.
Mr. Chairman, unless something is done to assist the cities, towns, counties, municipal districts and villages in meeting the tremendous problem they face in financing the public developments, which basically are those services which it is their responsibility to provide, then we are not going to be able to progress as we should.
I would urge upon the minister and upon the government the necessity of getting down to this particular level of financing so far as the governments of our country is concerned. How can municipalities contend with the demand for schools, the demand for hospitals, the demand for water and sewage facilities, for streets, parks and all the rest when repeatedly they themselves have to go out to the public market, or often to the United States, to borrow money at tremendous cost- a cost which is so great that by the time the payments are amortized the expenditure for the use of the money has at least doubled and sometimes trebled the cost of the project they are seeking to construct. It is in this area that the federal government could do more than

in any other way toward helping the local governments.
We in the Social Credit party for years have recommended that this is the responsibility of public financing. This is not to pay for the services which should be paid for by the taxpayer's dollars, but it is money for the facility that provides those services. That money should be available at lesser cost, and through an easier means than is presently available.
This would tend to lessen the tax burden; it would tend to decrease the cost to the government and leave more money in the pockets of the taxpayers for the essential cost of government at other levels which cannot be provided for in this way. We recommend now that the minister very seriously consider, before we enter into another year, that a permanent municipal loan fund be set up, not as a board but as a separate bank. We have the Industrial Development Bank, a bank which has served a very legitimate purpose in our economy in the post-war years. A bank which originally was intended to provide capital for high risk development and industry which could not obtain capital through the normal channels of finance. This bank has functioned well. It has authority as part of the Bank of Canada to expand its own credit. I believe the record will show that the expansion of its reserves has rendered an effective service. I would suggest, in light of the present financial situation, that the minister would be well advised to take the Industrial Development Bank and transfer it as the municipal development bank so that its credit would be available to the municipal governments for their capital costs.
If the Industrial Development Bank can do what it has been doing in the private sector of the economy, there is no reason why the municipal development bank as part of the Bank of Canada could not render as good a service for public financing. I believe this is one of the greatest needs of our whole financial situation at the present time. It would lift the burden and ease the problem in respect of education. It is evident that in the next ten years we will need $10 billion for school expansion alone. This is the kind of service which could be rendered to the municipal and provincial governments. I would urge the government and the Minister of Finance to take this into serious consideration.
A little while ago the hon. member for Halifax made a sarcastic remark about the debt free money. During the war we were
March 1, 1966

able to get money which was necessary to the country at cost, because of the national emergency. At one time Mr. Ilsley, the Minister of Finance, announced a bank loan for the financing of the war and someone asked how much it would cost. Mr. Ilsley replied that it would cost three quarters of 1 per cent. The hon. member then asked how he could get it at this when he personally had to pay 4 or 5 per cent, and the answer was simply that that represented the actual cost.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
Perhaps you could not obtain money at the cost of three quarters of 1 per cent, but you could obtain it for less than 5, 6 or 7 per cent which is the price being paid for public developments. This is what we are referring to when we say that we should make special provision for another category of money, that for public financing. We do not refer to tax capital or private capital, which ought to come out of our own savings, but to public capital to provide for the tremendous financing need we have in this country for the facilities I have just mentioned.
One of the most important things the government ought to consider in the area of financing, aside from the expected reforms in the way of new legislation which must come in regard to the Bank Act, is the establishment of this new category. If the government gave consideration to the establishment of something of this kind, I believe it would provide a solution to one of our most difficult financing problems. I cannot urge or recommend in strong enough terms to the government that this be done. I am convinced that if some solution such as I have suggested was brought forward many of our financial problems would be solved. If the government does not wish to adopt my suggestion perhaps they could revert to the original 1938 legislation and put that into effect.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates. $5,664,700.
Mr. Irvine:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask first of all whether, as is customary, the minister is going to make a statement at the present time?


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Chairman, I did not plan to make a statement at this time, as these estimates are for the current fiscal year and I have not personally been identified with them. If there are any questions hon.
Supply-Trade and Commerce members wish to ask I shall be glad to endeavour to answer them, but I do not intend to make a formal statement at this time.


John Alfred Irvine: In that event, there are a few questions I should like to ask and a few statements I should like to make.
First of all I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether it is his intention to recall his trade commissioners to Canada for the purpose of attending a conference with Canadian businessmen so that they might renew their knowledge and energies and go out again into the world markets, with new vigour and sales know-how, to do something about the current deficit in our balance of payments and trade.
I have been connected with a number of businesses involved in selling. My experience is not as great as that of the minister, but it seems to me that sales organizations recall their representatives from time to time so that they can have a new look at their problems and survey the markets, before going out into the field again to make a concerted effort to increase their sales effectiveness. There is an old saying in the selling business, that when you review the things you think you know you get to know about the things you thought you knew.
I have an article in my hand from the London Free Press dated July 31, 1965 under the heading "Warning Signs Starting to Appear in Business Outlook, States Bank". The bank referred to is the Bank of Montreal. This item states in part:
But the bank warns of uncertainty In the future of external trade, which had been one of the major sources of strength throughout the current business expansion. The review says there has been a growing gap between imports and exports in recent months.
The bank said strong upward price pressures had appeared late in 1964 and, in the nine months to June, 1965, wholesale prices in Canada rose by more than 3 per cent. Consumer prices and most other prices also rose.
There must be a reason for that, Mr. Chairman.
In view of the statements that are alleged to have been made by the minister during the recent election campaign I wonder whether he is going to recommend the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on production machinery and building supplies. I understand that such a statement was made by him, although I stand to be corrected if I am wrong. To my way of thinking this 11 percent sales tax is an unfair tax which is putting
March 1, 1986

Supply-Trade and Commerce many of our firms in what we might call an economic strait-jacket and is pricing them out of many foreign markets. Has the minister had any representations in this regard from two major groups in this country, and I refer to the Auto Parts Manufacturing Association and the Canadian Tooling Manufacturers Association? It is my understanding that if representations have not been made to the minister on behalf of Canada's eight major automobile manufacturers, they will be made very shortly.
I have in my hands another article which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail on February 5, 1966 under the heading "Grain output below target set by Soviet". The article states in part:
Soviet grain production last year fell short of government targets by 30 million tons, a state planning official said yesterday.
That was an article which appeared in the paper on February 5, 1966. By simple arithmetic that 30 million tons would amount to a billion bushels of wheat. Perhaps the Soviet Union had budgeted for a surplus of some kind to their needs. However, this is a market we should be after, and I am sure the minister is now giving consideration to it. Perhaps we cannot obtain the whole market, but if we were able to get part of it this would be a wonderful opportunity to sell more of our grain. I should like to know what the minister's plans are in this regard.
We in this country have a very favourable balance of payments position with some of our Far East customer nations. Sooner or later these nations are going to demand a greater portion of our import business, and when that time comes we are not going to be in a position to turn a deaf ear to their requests. However, we find ourselves in the position of putting all our eggs in one basket: We are now doing 75 per cent or 80 per cent of our import business with one nation, the United States. This creates another very important problem.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
I know that all hon. members in this house and everybody in the country must be interested in the recent guide lines established by the United States government as they affect subsidiaries of American owned companies in Canada. This is a very serious problem and is something with which we have to deal. I should like to say that I do not believe these guide lines were aimed at us in the first place. The United States finds itself in a very

poor position with regard to its balance of payments and laid out these guide lines for subsidiaries of American owned companies in all countries throughout the world. But it happens that we are the ones most seriously affected because we have a very, very poor balance of payments picture with regard to the United States.
In conference this week end I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce, together with the other ministers who are present, will arrive at some kind of agreement whereby we will be exempt as a country from those guide lines. Imagine reducing the amount of U.S. capital in Canada, returning larger dividends from these subsidiaries to the United States or decreasing Canadian exports to the United States. These are some of the guide lines that were imposed. Imagine also increasing United States exports to Canada. What position does this leave us in? These are matters that are very important to every Canadian taxpayer today, because they constitute a threat to our economic sovereignty.
This threat to our economic sovereignty comes about through strong controls of businesses operating in Canada. Further, Mr. Chairman, insisting that United States subsidiaries operate in Canada in such a manner as to increase our balance of payments deficit will have the effect of decreasing our competitiveness in world markets by increasing our costs of production. It would make it almost impossible for Canadian businesses to compete for Canadian capital. Where do we go from here? Perhaps this is the time to establish our own guide lines. We must do something to protect ourselves and Canadian business. We are in a vulnerable position because this year our balance of payments deficit amounts to approximately $1J billion.
I remember reading in Hansard some time ago that a minister made the statement "What's a million?" I am wondering whether the present Minister of Trade and Commerce will increase that figure and say, "What's a billion?" This is a serious situation and is something we cannot put up with; something must be done in this regard.
I know this is a new portfolio for the minister. I also know it is the custom for a new broom to sweep clean. We certainly hope it does, because somehow or other something must be done to alleviate our balance of payments position, which is in a deplorable condition. No business can continue, no matter how big or how small, if it pays out more than it takes in. Nor can we do this with our
March 1, 1966

trade and commerce accounts; it just cannot be done.
It is my feeling that some arrangement could be made this week end in the conference with the United States officials without necessarily affecting our relations with the United States, because certainly this would not be our desire. Our future is so closely interwoven with that country that we would not want to see this relationship harmed. They are a financial and industrial giant next door to us. Here we are, a somewhat larger nation with great natural resources but limited money with which to explore these things, and somehow something must be done about this problem. Mr. Minister, we depend on you.
In making such an arrangement we must at the same time preserve the great spirit of unity that exists between our two great countries. We cannot do this by handing over to the United States our economic freedom and perhaps our sovereignty as a nation. We must cling very jealously to our economic sovereignty, to our identity as a nation. Canada and the United states have lived side by side in peace and harmony for 150 years, with no guns, no forts. The entire world envies the association we have had together as nations with just an imaginary line between us. It is not a line to separate us, but rather to hold us together as two races of people with but one common purpose-life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the dignity of the individual.
The United States of America owns at the present time 62 per cent of our petroleum industry. They also own or control over 50 per cent of our manufacturing industry. I believe it is about time we grew up as a nation. I should like to ask the minister a few questions. I shall not ask facetious questions because I do not believe in them; I am asking them in the interests of Canada, as a Canadian. What are the minister's plans? What is he going to do about the deficit in our balance of payments, or what is he going to attempt to do? We do not think, of course, that the minister will be a cure-all for every problem but I am sure all hon. members will go along with him as long as he is attempting to do those things that we consider to be in the best interests of Canada.
I should like to know what the minister's policy is going to be with regard to the Department of Trade and Commerce. I should also like to know-and I mentioned this before-what he is going to do about the 11 per cent tax on production machinery and
Supply-Trade and Commerce building materials. Fourth, I should like to know, is he going to do everything in his power in an endeavour to protect our sovereignty, or is he going to permit us to become vassals of another country, friendly though it may be?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, it does seem somewhat unique that we have a minister who at the first opportunity in presenting his estimates refrains from outlining to the committee the plans he has in mind or what has been the situation during the past year. It sort of leaves one groping in the dark, as it were, about policy, about the attempts and accomplishments of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
The minister did say that he refrained from making what is called an opening statement because he is so newly attached to the department and most things happened under the wing of his predecessor, the hon. gentleman who is now Minister of Finance. There could be some substance to this as a reason, but it seems rather incongruous when placed against the fact that the minister's press release people seem to be working overtime in churning out reams and reams of press statements, speeches, copies of speeches made by the minister, appointments and activities within the department since he took office.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
It seems incongruous also that the minister would take up time during the Throne Speech debate to make a rather lengthy speech about the activities of his department. Now, are we to take that speech which was delivered on January 28 and substitute it for a statement which he might have made at this time? This is difficult to say. However, it does seem rather strange that the minister would adopt the course of being silent tonight and be desirous only to answer questions. So far as I am concerned, the ministerial position is not one solely of listening, not one simply of answering questions, but should be one primarily of enunciating and developing policy from time to time to parliament and the public. Then we in Canada would know what it is the minister and his government are trying to do. It is not possible to be in this position if the minister simply answers questions. In my opinion it was somewhat of an affront to the committee for the minister to say, so casually, that he was not interested in making any statement at this time, that he was not interested in laying before the committee some ideas with which the committee could agree or disagree. However, this is his decision and he has made it.
March 1, 1966

Supply-Trade and Commerce
One of the minister's speeches, a copy of which we received by way of his public relations men, was of interest to me. I should like to quote just one or two sentences from it because I feel there is something extremely significant here in so far as the relationship of a public servant and a particular section of our country is concerned. This is a speech the minister made to the Board of Trade in metropolitan Toronto on January 24. I gather from reading it that it is a sort of coming back home speech. His comments were related to the fact that Ottawa is sort of removed from what he considered to be the centres of commerce of the nation. He said, and I quote:
-it is all the more important to make special efforts to maintain close liaison between the business community and those who are responsible for developing of economic policies for the country as a whole.
At another point, he said:
There is widespread desire on the part of business executives to be actively helpful to those who have the responsibility to govern the country.
I take it he means helpful at election time, to fill the coffers. This would be the type of help most sought after. I shall not read much more from this speech. Toward the conclusion of it however the minister said:
In any event, my training over the past eight years-
That is, his training in the business community.
-should better enable me to consider and weigh the impact on the business community and on the economy as a whole, of decisions that are contemplated in the national interest. In this, I am looking to you, the Canadian businessmen, for advice, guidance and support.
All through this particularly interesting and revealing speech, there was an indication that the minister thinks of himself as nothing more now than the business agent of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, not a minister of the crown ministering to the needs of the economy and the needs of the Canadian public. He seemed to be particularly oriented to one section of the economy, namely the business section. We all know that when businessmen have their way and their sway on such as the Minister of Trade and Commerce and others in the cabinet, the likelihood is that the public interest will come second. Even though the minister has resigned various directorships in companies, I think it is regrettable he sees fit to maintain this extremely intimate association with one group in the economy to such an extent that it may injure his impartiality and fairness of

judgment in dealing with some matters that come within the scope of his department.
Canada's primary role historically in world trade has been one of exporting what we loosely call the raw materials, and of importing the finished products. Because we have followed that course steadily over the years, we find ourselves in the position referred to by the hon. member for London, tighter and tighter in the grip of the nation to the south. We find ourselves in this position because of the prominent position of the United States in world affairs, because of the relative size of their population compared to ours, because of its proximity to us, because of the relative wealth of that nation as compared to Canada and because of some factors contained in domestic policy within Canada. Since we have been historically an exporter of raw materials, for which we receive a low return, and an importer of manufactured or finished products, for which we pay a higher amount, we find ourselves increasingly in an extremely awkward position.
The minister recognized this on January 28, at which time he said, and I quote from page 385 of Hansard-he was talking about the trading account, the current account, balance of payments and so on:
It is therefore important that all elements in this equation realize the circumstances and bend every effort to improve our exports, while at the same time keeping our imports within reasonable limits and financing in Canada as much of our development as possible.
If I may read between the lines there, I think the minister would not disagree if I were to suggest that when he was referring to improving our exports he meant improving our exports of manufactured goods as opposed to improving our exports of prime raw materials. I am sure he would not disagree with me, either, when I say that when he talks about improving or keeping our imports within reasonable limits, he is talking in terms of keeping our imports of finished products within reasonable limits so that there will not be this continual drain upon the wealth of this nation-since we find ourselves always in debt and on the wrong side of the balance.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
I would have thought this would be one of the things about which the minister would feel glorious in telling us. We would be interested to know what it is that he and his government intend to do when they bend every effort to improve our exports and to keep our imports within reasonable bounds.
March 1. 1966

In my opinion, this is the crucial part of the speech he made on January 28. The reference is to the most important facet of our economic activity. I feel the minister owes the house and the country a complete, detailed explanation of the policies, attitudes and plans which exist in order that the government, as one part of this group, may bend every effort as the minister suggests. At some subsequent time in his estimates I am sure that we shall want the minister to give us in great detail what he is doing in that regard.
Even in light of the minister's remarks of January 28 and in light of some of the press releases that pour out of his department, and in light of statistics he has used, Canada cannot be said to have improved her position. It remains a fact that in the last ten years, ended in 1963, our exports, though to a large extent exports of raw materials, have grown more slowly than world exports generally. It remains a fact that our manufactured goods, which are of prime importance in these considerations, account for a smaller share of Canada's exports and for a larger share of Canada's imports than is the case within any other industrialized nation in the world. In other words, Canada is at the bottom of the list. Canada is in the position of being worse off than any other industrialized nation in the world, because Canadian manufactured goods comprise a much smaller share of exports than is the case with any other nation, and a much larger share of imports than any other nation.
If it is true, as the minister indicated in his speech of January 28, that we suffer by exporting raw materials and importing the finished products, then because of the fact that we are in the worst position, relatively speaking, of any industrialized nation in the world, it follows we are in the worst position of any industrialized nation in so far as the deficit of our balance of payments is concerned. Regardless of the blandishments issued from the minister's office, regardless of the phrases used, and the juggling of figures and statistics to show that we are doing this and that Canada's position is worsening. The fact of the matter is that we are and have been for many years getting into an increasingly worse position.
I think there is a sort of four fold blindness on the part of the government in this matter. It exists with respect to developing the economy of the nation, and with respect to our relationships with other countries in so far as trade barriers are concerned. One of
Supply-Trade and Commerce the blindnesses I refer to is, in effect, that we place all our eggs in one basket. One form of blindness which was recognized by the minister, although nothing worth while was done about it, is as stated by the minister at page 383 of Hansard, where he says:
Canada's exports to the United States have maintained a strong upward trend during this period-
He is talking about the past three years here. He continues:
-having increased by 13 per cent in each of the past two years. Imports from the United States have also risen sharply and Canada's trade deficit with this country has been growing.
He went on to make other remarks about the situation respecting foreign ownership, and so on. The gist of the remarks with respect to the United States is that because of our import-export relationship, and because of the degree to which the United States controls and dominates industry in Canada, and perhaps not so much because of our own foolhardiness in permitting this, we are in an extremely vulnerable position.
The least little change in the economic climate of the United States affects us to a far greater degree than it does that country. If there is a decline in economic activity in the U.S. we feel it immediately. If there is a desire on the part of the United States government to curtail some activities of its companies in the United States, we feel the brunt of that through subsidiaries in Canada. By placing all our eggs in one basket, by continuing to feel an affinity because of closeness of language, and because of geography, and the desire to follow that affinity through so that it is reflected in our trade patterns, we are increasing our vulnerability. This was recognized for some years, and was recognized during the time the Conservatives were in office. I was interested in listening to the words of the hon. member from London with respect to this situation.
I point out to my hon. friend from London that during the time his colleagues were in office the only method of direction with respect to companies under foreign control was the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, if I remember correctly the title of the law, under which trade unions and companies were required to disclose to the dominion bureau of statistics the extent to which they were owned or controlled, or associated with foreign companies. Anything of substance there was not: anything concrete, that dealt with this question was pushed to one side or
March 1. 1968

Supply-Trade and Commerce forgotten. Therefore that was blindness then, just as much as it is now.
I think also that we are making ourselves more vulnerable by placing undue reliance on prospects of success in the Kennedy round of tariff negotiations. You may recall that I asked the minister if he wanted to report to the house about his meeting in Geneva with trade commissioners and other delegations with respect to the Kennedy round of tariffs. He said at that time that he was going to wait until the estimates of his department were before the committee. I thought this was one thing he would be champing at the bit to talk about. So far he has felt somewhat bashful about getting into this field.
If as we have done in the past, we place too much faith in the prospects of something worth while coming out of the Kennedy round of negotiations, and then find that such is not the case after they are completed, then again we shall be in a position of being more vulnerable, and we shall suffer more thereby.
Another area of blindness is that we have failed to recognize fully the impact that the growing and developing trade blocs will have on world trade patterns. Examples to which I refer are the European Common Market, the European Free Trade Association and like organizations. Relatively speaking we have remained aloof from these. We have maintained trade relationships only with our Commonwealth connections. We have not established connections, or have failed to maintain connections with others.
This I submit is a failure on our part. We should be searching diligently to find ways and means to increase our exports into areas such as the Common Market, and E.F.T.A., because in those are developing industrial nations that will require machinery and manufactured goods. I think it is well established that industrial nations tend to trade with each other on the basis of manufactured goods for manufactured goods. It is not a situation in which we export raw materials to a country which processes them into a finished product that we import back.
We have also failed to take firm steps to develop extensively our own secondary or manufacturing industries. In order that we should be able to increase our production of manufactured goods, and reduce or lower some of the tariffs or other barriers to international trade, we should be in a position to export finished products, thereby bettering our position vis-a-vis other nations.

[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
The European Economic Community, as an example of what could be done, is, I am told, by far the largest importer of goods in the world, accounting in 1963 for some $24.6 billions of goods. The other day the minister gloated over the fact that exports in Canada were pushing $1 billion, indicating that this was very big business indeed. It may be very big business indeed as far as Canada is concerned, but when the bulk of these exports are raw materials, just think what it would mean if we could take these materials, convert them here into manufactured articles and export those manufactured articles. Our exports might then be worth three or four times the figure the minister quoted. In Europe, as I have mentioned, we find a group of nations who are importing goods to the value of $24.6 billion. The figure for the Free Trade Association-the second largest importer in that area-is $19.3 billion. There is a tremendous market there and I think we should be searching out ways and means of getting into it.
We are seriously concerned about what the minister and his department are doing in a concrete and determined way to cope with these problems. You cannot cope with them by increasing your public relations staff or by churning out press releases day after day. I get more mail from the minister's department than I do from anybody else in Canada including the other government departments, all of it with a fine red banner on the top, all of it containing press releases about speeches the minister has made or trips he has taken or visits paid by manufacturers to other countries, or things they have sold, or how much business has been written up at some trade fair. My hon. friend here says the minister has some close competitors in the cabinet. I am probably not on the mailing list of his competitors, but I do get swamped by material of the public relations type from the minister's office. It is interesting. I like reading about the chit-chat he had with his old buddies back on Bay Street on January 24 when he said: Never worry; I am still with you; if there are any problems, call me at my office and I will fix them. Those are not the actual words he used but that is what he meant. We are more interested in hearing a detailed explanation of the plans the department has made and what it is doing.
It may be true that nothing can be done about the 12 months which have passed. They have gone by, as the minister has said. But there is another year ahead. Never mind
March 1, 1966

waiting for the estimates of the next fiscal year. Tell us now. There is no better time. Let the minister follow the advice of his colleague the Minister of Labour. Why wait for spring? Tell us now what you are proposing to do.
There are one or two other matters on which I should like to comment. There is the possibility of exporting more goods from our secondary and manufacturing industries. I have been in some doubt whether this should be raised under the estimates of the minister's department or under those of the Department of Industry. I have read the relevant sections from the annual reports of each of these departments and, frankly, I am thoroughly confused, because the Department of Industry deals at length with questions involving exports and the balance of payments, questions in which I thought the hon. gentleman was involved, while the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce finds time to deal with a variety of other matters.


Robert Henry Winters: Industry.


Frank Howard: I understand the minister to say it should be dealt with on the estimates of the Department of Industry. I hope this is not one of those situations when we find the Minister of Industry in turn telling us: You should take this question up with my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce who deals with this matter because he is so concerned about its effect on our balance of payments.
The revealing part of what the minister has just said is that there is conflict-and he knows it-between his department and the Department of Industry over who should be dealing with what. There is a misunderstanding about guide lines for operations in each of these departments. And within the departments themselves little kingdoms are growing up. The kings themselves are not interested in stepping out of their niches, or in relaxing their control over certain parts of the public service. As a result, the Canadian people suffer. Nevertheless, we can all fully understand the importance of the manufacturing and secondary industries and their relation to the work of the Department of Industry.
We should like to know from the minister how much Expo 67 is likely to cost the Canadian public,-not that we want to leave the impression that Expo 67 should fail or that it is in trouble or that difficulties are brewing. But we should like to know.
Supply-Trade and Commerce
At the time of the establishment of the corporation an understanding was given to parliament that a certain maximum amount of money would be contributed out of the federal treasury. I think we have far overstepped the maximum set out in that statute by making payments in other ways. I ask the minister to set out in as much detail as he can figures showing how much Expo '67 is likely to cost the Canadian taxpayer by reason of the federal government's participation. I am sure the Canadian public, bearing in mind that Expo '67 will be commemorating our 100th birthday, something of which we shall be proud, will not mind knowing what the tax bill is likely to be. I am sure that the Canadian taxpayer, whether he lives in Quebec or anywhere else, is concerned that this trade fair should be a success, first because it is in Canada and next because it will take place at a time when we shall be celebrating our 100th birthday.
These are the questions I should like the minister to answer. The most important one is this: What is his department doing to increase our exports of manufactured products? What is he and this government doing to try to get through the trade barriers which other nations are erecting at this time. What is this government and this department doing to increase the strength of our secondary or manufacturing industries?
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, before this gets too far ahead of me I think I should comment on one or two of the points made, very good points indeed. There is very little in the speech of the hon. member for London with which I could disagree. He propounded a number of economic theories that are sound and with which I agree. We must generate a climate in this country even more than now that will be favourable to exports, to encourage secondary manufacturers to produce more goods of the kind that can find their way on to the markets of the world; and through the instrumentality of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and otherwise, we must see that the doors are open to the world markets. We are endeavouring to do that.
In the department I have found a corps of excellent trade commissioners. I had the opportunity of meeting 29 of them from 25 countries in Paris a few days ago. We spent a very good day going over the prospects for trade in the countries they represent. They
March 1, 1966

Supply-Trade and Commerce expressed the desire that more Canadian businessmen should visit their areas so that there would be an opportunity for them to have more Canadian goods flow on to those markets, but always with the understanding that they must be competitive in price, quality, and service.
This is a fiercely competitive market but Canadian exports are growing in quite an encouraging way. There is a great deal of work to be done and we have to develop ways and means of getting the optimum benefit from our efforts. I have been in the department less than two months, but the officials of the department and I are planning programs to have the Canadian business community become more closely associated with the trade commissioners, so that they will know of the facilities offered by the trade commissioners, the opportunities available in the areas they represent, and so that the commissioners in turn can be more closely attuned to what is going on in Canada, so as to be fully familiar with the products that are available for export.
With respect to the very important matter of guide lines raised by the hon. member, we in Canada have been considerably concerned about the impact that any rulings made abroad might have on Canadian industry. The Minister of Finance has expressed his concern about the financial aspects of the guide fines.
As hon. members know from some of the press releases that have been referred to-I may say I have no public relations man at all in my office, and it is a matter of surprise to me that there is a flood of publicity material going out from my office because I have not seen it-


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: You are
not on the mailing list.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, I might not be on the mailing list. Hon. members know we have consulted certain companies about the guide fines, and the answers we received from them are that, to date, the guide lines have made no impact on their financial programs, on their pattern of dividends, their pattern of payments to their parent companies, or their patterns of purchasing and exporting. Of course there is always the shadow of the guide lines hanging over us, and we intend to discuss this most seriously and searchingly in Washington this week end.
The majority of the companies in this country can protect themselves against the

guide lines. They are good, corporate Canadian citizens and wish to remain so. The imminent danger, if there is one, is for the small companies who are apt to feel more quickly the impact of any financing problems that might arise in the country, and may also be less likely to know how to conduct themselves as good, corporate Canadian citizens within the framework of the Canadian economy. We are endeavouring to work out programs which will give these companies the guidance they might need as to how they should conduct themselves between the guidelines on the one hand, and what we regard to be good, corporate behavior on the other.
We in the department are prepared to offer as much guidance and advise as we can, and we shall establish codes of conduct that will enable them to conform to the best Canadian business ethics, as we understand them.
The hon. member for Skeena referred to my association with business and he thought I was a little one sided on this. He quoted my speech in Toronto as evidence of that fact but, Mr. Chairman, he quoted only a certain passage of it. I thought that at the same time I challenged the business community to conduct themselves so as to give expression to all aspects,-all the aims, and aspirations of the society they serve. I quote only from one page, page 4 of my speech, but there are other references I could give, because these are not the only remarks I have made on the subject:
My own philosophy, however, is that the more good decisions that are made in board rooms, on the factory floor and across the negotiating table the fewer will have to be made in cabinet chambers-
-about the conduct of business.
To the extent that the public mind is convinced of the basic strength and purpose of present day private enterprise and its concern for the welfare of the community as a whole there will be less call for measures which restrict or regulate.
I am glad to be able to say, from my modest association with the business community, that I believe most business executives of this country, and others I am sure, are fully impressed with the need to develop the kind of programs that provide the optimum benefits and security for the people within their employ. I think it is a fact too that within the framework of some large corporations in this country there are higher levels of welfare measures than the country as a whole provides. I believe there is a good trend in this country with respect to the
March 1, 1966
responsibility of private enterprise, and what I said about it in that speech in Toronto reflects pretty much the attitude which businessmen take today toward the people for whom they are responsible.


Frank Howard: Would the minister permit me one observation? He quoted from his speech at page 4, but he had some words inserted, and the insertion of those words alters the text I have here.


Robert Henry Winters: I do not understand why one text should be different from another, but I will see the hon. member gets the text with all the remarks I have made.


Frank Howard: And I will give you a copy of this one so that you will see everything that goes on in your department.


Robert Henry Winters: Thank you. The hon. member talked about exports, and the desirability of stimulating manufacturing in this country and cutting down the gap between imports from the U.S. on the one hand and our exports on the other, with all of which I agree. We must make every effort to export from this country. To do that we have to keep our costs down.
The hon. member for London mentioned one item of costs, the 11 per cent sales tax. He asked what was my position on that. I remember making a statement on that subject in response to a question on the Saturday before the election. It was reported in the Globe and Mail and when I read it the next morning I was surprised how carefully I had chosen my words on that occasion. But I did say at that time I was in favour of the abolition of the 11 per cent sales tax-which, of course, I am-at the earliest possible moment, when the government could do this consistently with its requirement for revenues or if needed to stimulate the economy of the country. Nobody likes taxes of any kind. They add to costs, to the burden of doing business, and when they can be eliminated I am sure they will be eliminated by this government, or any other government that has tax problems confronting it.


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


Robert Henry Winters: Certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was interested in the minister's statement with regard to the 11 per cent sales tax and his wish that it be removed at the earliest possible moment. I hope that that will not be interpreted in
1991
Supply-Trade and Commerce the same way that the Prime Minister's promise to negotiate out of nuclear arms has been interpreted. That has gone on for three years. "At the earliest possible moment" in the words of the minister, means some time this year, right?
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Robert Henry Winters: Of course that is a matter for the Minister of Finance, as the hon. member knows.


Michael Starr: Are you not going to ask him?


Robert Henry Winters: I have given you a little background history in this regard. This is one element of cost, and we must do everything we can to reduce cost in this country. The automobile pact is one of the best examples of where we can expand trade by getting the benefit of the long runs and mass production which are available to our competitors south of the border. Perhaps this can be carried into other fields.
We must become competitive. I think we must concentrate on those things we do best. It is difficult to pinpoint those commodities now, but I know that within good companies management seeks to do those things which they do best. I believe that in a country we must also seek to isolate the things we do best and concentrate on them. In this country we are blessed with abundant natural resources, more so than perhaps any other country in the world. It is natural and logical that the goods we produce should be related to our resource industries.
The country is growing and we are developing more secondary manufacturing. If the hon. member had read the speech I made in Paris, he would have noted that I advocated more production and more export of our manufactured goods. That would have been a good speech for the hon. member to quote.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Does the minister realize it is very difficult to keep up with these speeches, which have been coming very fast.


Robert Henry Winters: I have not been able to keep up with them either. The hon. member mentioned Expo, which is a project that should be supported by all Canadians and one in which we should take great pride. It will reflect the best of Canada to the eyes of the world. We have a great many things we can show with pride. This is a program which was embarked upon by the previous Progressive Conservative government, and I give them credit for that. However, at the



March 1, 1966
Supply-Trade and Commerce same time once they embarked on that program they I am sure and the Canadian public must have recognized it was an expensive undertaking, if it is to be done well, and that is the only way it should be done.
It is quite apparent there will be a budgeted deficit. If everything goes in the best possible way and patrons flock to the gates of Expo, the deficit may be reduced or eliminated, although I doubt the latter. The last forecast is for a deficit of $61 million. In that kind of budgeting one can estimate the expenditures reasonably well; but it is almost impossible to estimate how many people will go through the turnstiles. So it is an estimate that may be increased or decreased. The budgets are being revised continuously and are being brought up to date at the present time. However, the secondary benefits will be very great. It is estimated that Expo will bring more than $1 billion into Canada, and one of the directors who now sits on the benches of the opposition estimated that figure to be well over $2 billion.
It is also estimated that the tax revenues from Expo that the federal and provincial governments together will receive will be more than the deficit is estimated to be. Those are estimates; but the fact of the matter is this is going to be a great institution. This will be the greatest exposition ever staged by any country in the world, and I can say that with confidence because there are many yardsticks to support the statement.
I refer to the number of countries already signed up, the number of tickets sold in advance, and other yardsticks. Based on and judged by the many yardsticks, Expo holds the promise of being the greatest exposition put on anywhere. It should be a matter of signal pride to Canadians and I urge everybody everywhere to get behind this great undertaking and support it in the best tradition of Canadians.
ITranslation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, no one will deny that, having been associated with various industries for the past several years, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has acquired a fairly complete experience in that field.
We have before us now the estimates of his department, one that will have cost the Canadian people $82,340,040 for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966, that is at the end of this month.
Mr. Chairman, I was glad to hear the minister tell us how much he expects, for

Canada, from the world fair which will show a deficit of something like $61 million but which, on the other hand, will bring billions of dollars to Canada and fill the coffers of the various governments-municipal, provincial and federal- with hundreds of thousands, even hundreds of millions of dollars.
That is probably why the minister hopes that the 11 per cent tax on building materials will eventually be abolished. We hope to make a profit with the world fair.
Mr. Chairman, I shall not be long but I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the balance of payments with the United States and urge him to try to find out why this balance shows a deficit.
The minister has his explanations, so has the government and so have we. We believe that the agencies of the department, which are scattered abroad to promote Canadian goods and products manufactured in Canada for export, do not give the results which we have the right to expect.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
First of all our foreign trade or our sales to other countries seldom bring us any profits. We sell our products much below cost to the United States as well as to other countries. That is undoubtedly why our balance of payments shows a deficit or it might be because we owe more than is owed us especially by our neighbours to the south, the United States.
Mr. Chairman, the minister is undoubtedly aware that our trade with the United States boils down to selling them raw materials. We do not sell manufactured goods to the United States but raw materials, iron from the Un-gava, water from British Columbia or any other natural resources; we sell our raw materials to the United States and at prices lower than production costs.
The United States process those materials and bring them back to Canada as manufactured goods.
A little earlier the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) mentioned it and rightly so. The minister said that was a problem for industry. Well, not primarily; it is definitely a matter related to our foreign trade because the minister undoubtedly knows that if we processed our raw materials in Canada, if we had more secondary industries, for instance in my own region, where we produce copper in large quantities, if we had secondary industries, not only gold, copper or zinc
March 1. 1966
mines to process those materials, it seems to me that Canada would benefit from it.
It seems to me that we could sell at a better price to the United States and to other countries. Then, our people, our country, Canada, would benefit to a large extent.
I sincerely believe, Mr. Chairman, that Canada is being drained of raw materials by the United States. The United States have to get them here. They have to get iron here. They had to ask British Columbia and the Canadian government for water from the Columbia river. For instance, they will have to ask for water from James Bay and Hudson's Bay for the Great Lakes where the water level drops every year. As a matter of fact, they have already done so. The United States have to come to us.
It does not mean that we should take advantage of the situation, but it means, for instance, and very clearly, that we should at least take advantage of the privileged situation where we find ourselves. And there is no doubt that we are in that situation.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that an incentive to the establishment of secondary industries to process our raw production at home, would help considerably, and that the United States would nevertheless come and buy from us finished, or at least, semifinished products which would yield millions and millions of dollars in profits to Canada instead of our having a balance of payments.
Besides, Mr. Chairman, the minister is very well aware of this. As I said a few moments ago, he has undeniable industrial experience. He knows very well that if we had secondary industries in this country, the Canadian people would derive profits from them. Then, we could perhaps consider lowering taxes, lowering the sales tax on building materials, etc.
I do not intend to speak very long on this vote No. 1 of the Department of Trade and Commerce, but I call the Minister's attention to the fact that it is important, and I believe in his good faith and his goodwill to stimulate the creation of secondary industries in this country, not only in Toronto or Montreal, but in other areas, and those areas where the raw materials exist, such a Rouyn-Noranda, or Val d'Or, where there is copper. And the same applies to eastern and northeastern Quebec and to Ungava, to northeastern Ontario, such as Timmins, Cochrane, Kirkland Lake. Everywhere, secondary industries could be created in order to industrialize the country to a greater extent. Such industries
1993
Supply-Trade and Commerce should be created as soon as possible to put to work all our labour force and all our skilled workers. The Canadian people would be the first to profit by this natural wealth by using it to their own advantage and by putting it at the disposal of other countries later.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, on consideration of the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, I wish to raise with the minister a problem of great concern to the constituents of the constituency of Sherbrooke, as well as to numerous Canadians. I refer to the recent U.S. decision to cut investments.
A few moments ago, the Minister referred to this in his short speech. I do not have to recall here the mechanism and the background of that decision of the United States which is to remain in force until February, 1967. They are well known.
However, I wish to reflect on what we are told and on what should be done to reduce as much as possible, its bad effects on our country.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce maintains that it is not proven that the American guide lines affect Canadian subsidiaries of American companies.
It should be noted, in the comments of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that this embarrassment was not openly shown until now, but the minister does not tell us in sufficient detail his concern for the days to come.
Mr. Charles Chartier, general delegate of the province of Quebec to New York, said that until now the measures taken by the United States do not unduly affect Canada and that, for the moment they only diminish temporarily the importance of New York as the capital of international finance.
But this general delegate of Quebec does not specify what present limited effect these measures have on Canada and what would be their future implications.
In an interview given on February 10, 1966 to the New York Times, the premier of Quebec, Mr. Jean Lesage, said that the measures taken by Washington would be harmful to the growth of the province of Quebec.
On the other hand, in addition to denouncing the direct intervention of Washington in the Canadian economy Hon. Eric Kierans, Quebec Minister of Health foresees serious

1994	COMMONS
Supply-Trade and Commerce consequences on the structure and organization of the Canadian economy. He foresees a harmful increase in our trade deficit with the United States, and lower profits for American subsidiaries in Canada. That is the opinion of a responsible man, which creates worry and disappointment.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Let us study briefly, Mr. Chairman, the concern expressed summarily by Hon. Eric Kierans. He states that the guideline was given by the Secretary to the U.S. Treasury, Mr. Henry Fowler. The American Congress did not study the matter, nor did it enact any law in this regard. American capitalism is controlled by a handful of men who try to achieve the political objectives of the country without consulting Congress.
Mr. Kierans still claims that the decision constitutes foreign meddling in Canadian business and keeps us from being masters in our own home. It is a violation of Canadian sovereignty.
Such decisions, adds the Quebec minister, affect our growth, our development. Before taking them Washington should consult its branch offices, Ottawa and Quebec.
It is clearly up to Ottawa to show all those companies, subsidiaries and others, what their responsibilities are as Canadian citizens, and those are to seek a higher rate of growth, increased efficiency and a more intensive use of our resources and skills. Ottawa is entitled to full explanations as regards changes in the distribution of dividends, in the investment policy and in the purchasing system. Ottawa should also ask for reports on transactions made between Canadian subsidiaries and their American parent companies.
According to the Quebec minister, the Companies Act should be amended in order to redefine the status of private companies. The majority of subsidiaries do not inform the public about their activities in Canada.
In Great Britain it appears that a company is not considered a private company, and therefore exempt from informing the public, if some of its shares or bonds are held by an incorporated company. Canadian-owned companies having to file financial reports are in an unfair position as compared to American subsidiaries which do not have to do so. Of course, this creates unfair competition, concludes the Quebec minister.
There you have, Mr. Chairman, the opinion of a responsible man creating concern and deception.

DEBATES	March 1, 196S
As for the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Louis Rasminsky, he advises against raising prices and production costs without, however, intervening directly in the debate. The situation will be rosy: on the one hand, American investments are refused Canada and, on the other, Canadians will not obtain as much credit from the banks.
Mr. Chairman, the situation is serious, even alarming. What are the government and the minister doing at the beginning of this crisis? Very little, indeed.
We have already begun to feel all the ills we shall experience because of the decision of the United States and the apathy of our government. Allow me to list a few of those ills: hardening of Canada-U.S. relations; increased friction between federal and provincial governments; increase of our discount rate from 4J to 4J per cent; postponement of many works; slowing down of our economic development; increased unemployment; higher prices and costs; increased trade imbalance with the United States; decrease of our exports; financial disturbances in Canada; decrease of fiscal receipts and of per capita income; increased poverty and destitution in Canada.
I admit, Mr. Chairman, that those prospects are not too bright, but it is better to face the situation squarely than to bury our head in the sand.
From the shades of meaning of the remarks made by Messrs. Chartier, Rasminsky, Lesage, Kierans and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) and in view of the events arising out of the American decision, three facts emerge: (1) Canada's economy, money and finance are too highly dependent upon the United States and to date, our country has not shown enough awareness and foresight in its policy, being often thrown off balance and surprised by decisions of our neighbours to the south.
(2)	Our economic, financial and monetary policy lacks Canadian characteristics and a definite orientation.
(3)	Confronted by policies initiated by other countries, including the United States, our government is timid, easy-going, if not altogether soft, ashamed to complain or to react.
It is not enough to record present and future inconveniences for Canada and to be satisfied with recriminations. The government, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and the whole government must act
March 1, 1966

together, with dispatch, and on several fronts simultaneously.
If the minister was unworried as to the consequences upon Canada of the recent American decision, I recommend that he immediately order a study in that connection and that he publish the report at the earliest possible moment. I am inclined to believe that the apprehensions of many Canadians are well founded.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I would not want to talk too long about a suggestion which seems reasonable to me. According to the president of the Royal Bank of Canada, Mr. W. E. McLaughlin, Canada should contemplate bringing to an end the agreement on our exchange reserves. That might increase slightly the cost of our loans, but we would have free access of the American market and would no longer have to hinder our monetary policy by maintaining our reserves at a pre-arranged level.
With regard to foreign investments, looking for new sources of capital would help us to maintain a better balance. We could go to other European countries who are anxious to invest abroad.
I hope that when he was in France recently, in Paris particularly, the minister had the opportunity to invite the French people and the French businessmen to invest more capital in Canada.
Why not create also in Canada a national investment board to better co-ordinate our long-term needs in capital and find the best places in Canada to use it? We are proceeding at random.
The Bank of Canada should play a more active role in the present economic circumstances by putting more money in circulation to meet additional needs.
Nothing would legally prevent the Bank of Canada from lending money to the provinces and the municipalities at low and preferred rates.
Chartered banks should agree to lending revolving funds to finance enterprises, which would enable them to use their own savings for investments.
If the maximum interest rates now set at 6 per cent were abolished and set up at a more reasonable level this would enable the banks to meet the competition they now face and would reduce the need for many Canadians to borrow from finance and personal loan companies often at excessive and prohibitive rates in some cases.
Supply-Trade and Commerce
On the other hand, the government should accept at last to reduce taxes. It would be an encouragement to the taxpayers and the companies.
I would now like to draw the attention of hon. members to an article published in the last issue of The Monetary Times in which the assistant dean of the political science faculty at the Ottawa University invites the government to reduce taxes.
The government should promote personal savings, and in order to encourage Canadians to invest their savings, it would help if an amnesty were granted in the case of legal proceedings taken for money hidden in woollen socks, safety deposit boxes and other secret places.
The restrictions announced by the White House show that it would be advisable to set up an investment agency in Canada. The leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) has made such a suggestion in the past. I think it deserves serious consideration and should not be brushed aside.
In my opinion, the federal government should take into consideration the suggestions of Hon. Eric Kierans to the effect that a full explanation should be demanded concerning the changes made in the distribution of dividends, the investment policy and the purchase system.
The federal government should redefine, in the light of the American decision, the status of private companies, so that the Canadian people may be informed about the whole financial and administrative setup of the companies established on their territory.
There is one sure thing, Mr. Chairman. Because of the problem raised by the American decision, Canada is faced with a positive challenge. Should we blissfully await the nefarious consequences of this event or should we, on the contrary, make the most of it to secure our economy, our financial system and our trade on a more solid and more flexible basis?
So I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to get together with the Minister of Finance and his other colleagues to study my comments and inform at the earliest possible moment, all Canadians who await his intents, his initiatives and those of the government.


Mr. Otto:: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister will listen to a few words from a backbencher or at least a sidebencher in connection with the problem of export trade. I do
March 1, 1966

Supply-Trade and Commerce not want to take up time to belabour the point that has been made time and time again that Canada has to export more manufactured products. I believe the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam once said that we no longer want to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. This is true; we want to export manufactured goods. So does every other country in the world, but with this difference today, Mr. Chairman, that at one time it was very difficult for a new country or for a poor country to acquire the capital with which to purchase equipment, machinery and so on. These capital goods are now readily available from Germany, France, and especially Germany on the never, never plan. We are therefore in very serious competition.
We have two ways of trying to promote an increase of export trade in manufactured goods. One of the ways was the way the present member for Northumberland, a former Minister of Trade and Commerce, expounded. This was by the hoopla method, the great trade fairs, gladhanding and going around the country stumping the idea that businessmen are lazy, that they need to get up and get going and sell. This is a rather archaic method today. Canadian businessmen are not lazy, they are hard working, and they are quite aware of their potential.
However, there are other problems which are difficult for Canadians to overcome. I have been in this business, probably longer than other members, and I have tried exporting. First, we are competing with nations which are well established in the export trade. They have had their export machinery established for 40 or 50 years. They know with whom they are dealing, where they are going to deal and the prices of the types of products. We do not. The establishment of a trade or export department is a very expensive business. Second, the financial set-up in these countries for export trade is much better than ours.
With all respect to GATT, there are countries today which will allow their exporters to sell their products without careful scrutiny, and on which financial institutions paid one hundred cents on the dollar for receivables. In other words, the governments of these countries are absorbing the total risk. We are not. Most important of all, many countries today are using very sophisticated methods of market research, the results of which become available to the exporter and manufacturer. We do not do this. The reason I am making these remarks now is that the

minister, being a new minister and a reform minister, will want to hear what I say and ascertain whether or not it can be introduced by our government.
Let us consider my own case. When I was in business, I naturally went to the Department of Trade and Commerce to find out what the picture was in one of the South American countries. We had the normal statistics given to us, the currency exchange, tariffs, etc. Then of course the balance of the information was to be forthcoming from the trade commissioner when we got to that country. However, we found the trade commissioner, although working hard, did not really know what we were after, did not really know what was available in that country. He was more interested in transferring into the Department of External Affairs. This is another curious thing. When we are depending upon exports, the head of state in just about every country comes from the Department of External Affairs and not from the Department of Trade and Commerce. We have had occasions where a grade eight civil servant has been under the jurisdiction of a grade five civil servant who happens to be from the Department of External Affairs. In other words, there is not enough incentive to stay with the Department of Trade and Commerce. This is something for the minister to consider.
Let me give you an example of a very progressive country which has accepted the more sophisticated methods of market research and applies them to their export trade. I refer to Japan. Some hon. members will have heard of an establishment called JE-TRO, or Japanese Export Trade Research Organization.


Robert William Prittie: Will the hon. member permit an interjection? I think the minister might misunderstand his remarks. He said "head of state", when he meant head of mission. The hon. member is referring in that connection to the head of our mission in each country.


Steven Otto: Whether it is the head of state or head of a mission, the point is that the chief man in that country is usually from the External Affairs Department and not from the Trade and Commerce Department.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
In order to continue my illustration, I may say that the Japanese government pays for and obtains careful research for certain products. They find out what Canadians want.
March 1, 1966

They find out through private research organizations in Canada the types of goods that Canadians like; the colour; the weight. They find out the prices we are willing to pay. They go farther than that and they find out who buys the goods, to what clubs they belong and so on. One would be amazed at the detail in these reports. The result is that when a Japanese salesman or representative comes to Canada he knows exactly where to go to sell his goods. An example of this type of research is seen in the fact that Japan now controls 68 per cent of the stainless steelware market in Canada, when she started with only 18 per cent a few years ago. This is sophisticated marketing. If the Canadian manufacturer had this information he would be in a much better position. I would urge the minister therefore to introduce this idea, even if we have to get outside help to advise our trade department, so that we shall develop within our Department of Trade and Commerce an up to date market research branch.
I should also like the minister to consider that there are some fields in which we have an edge. We may not necessarily have to sell goods. Let me illustrate what I mean, for example. We have just about the world's supply of uranium. There are many countries in the world, and South America is a good example, where electric power is not available and will not be available for many years. We have the money, we have the uranium: Can the minister not imagine what we could do if we manufactured right here atomic electric units to provide electricity and then installed them in countries needing power? We do not have to sell this equipment. Even if it cost $10 million we could lease it to countries needing it, and charge so much per kilowatt. Eventually we should establish for ourselves a ready market, and help have-not nations, without a great expenditure of money. There is nothing wrong with the leasing business. I.B.M. made a fortune from the leasing of equipment.
We have the money, we have the men; we have the know-how. We need a new approach, and not necessarily that staid, solid approach which has been used for years and years in our trade relations. I trust that the minister will prove to be what I hope; I trust that he will guide his department into a completely new avenue of endeavour.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He has a parliamentary
secretary.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to detain the house for a few minutes. First of all I want to congratulate the minister on his appointment. I may say that if we had to have a Liberal appointed to that post, from that constituency, I am very pleased to see that he was the one to arrive here.
Mr. Chairman, I must admit before I proceed that I shall be speaking here under what I consider undue influence. I was talking to my wife before, and she said to me, "Mind you be careful about what you say, I am very fond of Mr. Winters." As you see, Mr. Chairman, I am rather restricted.
I do want to express my support for the policy announced by the members of this party in connection with this department. I support all efforts to promote greater manufacture from raw materials in Canada, to promote the development of secondary industry, particularly in smaller towns and communities under Canadian ownership. I support this program, which I believe can only be brought about as a result of co-operation between the minister, departmental officials, municipalities, trade unions, farm organizations and other community organizations. I am a great believer in getting the participation of as large a number of people as possible in the advancement of any program. I do suggest to the minister that it would be well worth his time and the time of his officials to promote this participation among the various groups I have mentioned. I also suggest that the minister should as much as possible visit not only the larger centres of Canada, but those centres that are not usually visited by members of the ministry or by his senior officials. People must understand programs that are being developed if they are to participate in those programs satisfactorily.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I extend a hearty invitation to the minister to visit the Kootenays at the first opportunity he has, because I know he will be well received and well listened to there.


Frank Howard: Before the item passes, would the minister tell the committee what is the total amount of money it is expected the Canadian government will contribute toward Expo '67. The minister indicated that there was an estimated budgetary deficit of some $61 million. What I am talking of is the total amount of money that, in addition to the $61 million expected deficit, will be put into Expo '67.
March 1. 1966

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Robert Henry Winters: I am sorry I cannot answer that fully, Mr. Chairman, because a great many departments including the Department of Public Works, the Department of Transport, and others, are building structures, works and facilities related to Expo. I can simply answer for Expo as such, and tell the hon. member that under the statute there was a grant of $20 million in the first instance. Over and above that there is provision in the statute for borrowing by Expo. That is how Expo is being financed.
Of the estimated deficit to which reference has been made, the federal government has the responsibility for half. I have not the figures before me of amounts spent by the other departments of government.


Frank Howard: 
Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


Frank Howard: Will the minister glean from all the other departments their contributions to Expo, and will he undertake to correlate all this information, set it down in a letter and send it to me or make it public some time in the future, so that in one way or another we may be able to find out what amounts of money will be expended by the government of Canada on Expo '67.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact on orders of the day under question No. 5 there is a question which seeks information very similar to that being asked under the name of the hon. member for Cumberland. It reads:
What is the total amount of expenditure of the federal government made as of this date, or undertaken, or planned directly or indirectly, in connection with Expo '67?

The Department of Trade and Commerce has submitted its material, and I presume that in a few days the question will be answered by the Secretary of State.


Frank Howard: Could we ask the Secretary of State to make available this information, and to show what has been done in compiling it.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not intend to delay these proceedings for more than two or three minutes. The hon. gentleman knows that the committee is always easy on a new minister. And he is new to this parliament, although he is still steeped in Liberal lore and tactics from days gone by when we were here together. But we will defer any remarks critical of the minister until his estimates come up the next time around.
We shall not remind him on this occasion of any speeches he has made, since he has been divorced from political matters for about eight years, though we may call to his attention some day a speech he made in 1962. We feel kindly disposed toward him because he is interested in the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax, and his phrase "at the earliest possible moment" means something, I think, to a man of his capacity who is accustomed to getting things done, not just talk about them. So we are resting our hopes on this minister.
I should like to commiserate with him on the situation with regard to his department, the Department of Trade and Commerce, which at one time was one of the largest and most important departments of government. But in his unfortunate absence this department has been emasculated and another department has been set up called the Department of Industry. The Department of Trade and Commerce has suffered accordingly. Now that the hon. gentleman is back in the house, with all his experience, I think the government might seriously consider transferring the Department of Industry back to where it belongs in the Department of Trade and Commerce, and restoring the Department of Trade and Commerce to the position it occupied only a few years ago.
I wish to ask the minister a question or two now with regard to the Export and Import Permits Act. If he is not in a position to answer them tonight he may do so later on. In any case this act comes up for review in June, when it lapses unless renewed.
My question relates to export and import permits as far as Southern Rhodesia is concerned. The Secretary of State for External
March 1, 1966

Affairs relied on this act in order to impose those sanctions. May I ask the minister this: Under section 4 of that act has the governor in council published an order in council adding Southern Rhodesia to the area list, as should be done under this section of the act? Then I am wondering whether under section 3 of the act an order in council has been published establishing the list of goods which come under the export control list, over and above the ones which were on the list before it was decided to impose sanctions against Southern Rhodesia. Similarly, what is the situation with regard to imports from Southern Rhodesia? Have these steps been taken in order to support the position of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the application of sanctions?


Robert Henry Winters: I should like to be precise in my answer. Much of this action was taken before I became minister. I should like to take the question as notice and answer it later, if I may.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That will be fine. The minister may find that some of his colleagues, without his sensible advice to assist them, may either have failed to take the steps they should have taken, or have taken the wrong ones.


Mr. McCutcheon:: In the same vein, may I say I was interested in the announcement the minister made today. We know there are three main headings under which this could become operative. He could say that we were likely to become short of copper-he could give that as a reason. Is there a world shortage of copper?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, there is a world shortage of copper, and it has taken on quite serious proportions. Several hon. members who have spoken this evening have quite properly referred to the advantage of processing our own copper in Canada. We have reached the stage where some processors have been unable to get the supplies they require. We therefore took the further step of restricting exports of scrap. As a result we find that scrap is now getting back to the domestic processors.
Some of the concentrate-the ore is a very small part of the picture-is able to find its way towards the London metal exchange. We want to be sure, without interfering at this stage with the normal flow of commerce, that we do have authority under the Export and Import Permits Act to review these contracts

Supply-Trade and Commerce when they come up for renewal. We have extended the date until March 21 so that anybody who has a contract can have it appraised in the meantime. There is not much point plugging one gap if you fail to notice the others. Most of the concentrate produced in Canada does go to Canadian smelters, but some of it is shipped abroad, and some will continue to be shipped outside Canada for economic reasons-the inaccessibility of a smelter, for instance. But we think that in present circumstances this should be under control and review.


Alfred Dryden Hales: One further question on the copper situation. I compliment the minister on having placed scrap copper under export control. As I understand, about 7 per cent of our supply of copper comes from scrap. But why does the minister allow scrap copper to be exported to the United States where it can be made into finished products and then sold on the Canadian market in competition with Canadian producers? To my way of thinking control over exports of scrap copper should include scrap copper sent to the United States. I should like to hear the minister's reasoning.


Robert Henry Winters: Well, it has been traditional to have an open border policy with respect to scrap movements to the United States, and United States scrap coming here. If we found there was a significant volume moving we would have to do something about it; but there are no indications that there is very much, if any, copper scrap finding its way from Canada to the United States. Nevertheless we have this under consideration.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few minutes to ask the hon. minister whether, during the year just ended, some companies asked his department for a licence to import butter into Canada?
Now, if the minister cannot answer me tonight, I should also like to know whether or not licences have been given to companies to import butter, and if so, what are the names of these companies? If butter was imported during the year which has just ended, how much was imported, from what country, to what region and for what purpose?
Would the hon. minister be able to tell me tonight whether Canada has imported butter or whether he expects such imports in the near future.
March 1, 1966

Supply-Trade and Commerce [English]
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Robert Henry Winters: I do not know oi any butter that has actually been imported into Canada. There has been an application to import some into Canada on a re-export basis and on the grounds that there would be no net import of butter. There was an application to bring some in, process it into butter oil and reexport it, but I do not know what the status of that transaction is.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, can the minister tell us which is the company or corporation that asked to import this butter for re-exportation?


Robert Henry Winters: I wonder if I might get that information and provide it to the hon. member.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, earlier today the minister made an announcement with respect to copper and exports of copper. In B.C. in recent years we have had extensive development in the mining industry, in the development of mineral claims and properties, development which hinged upon the interests of Japan, or upon mining and smelting interests in Japan. Coming into production in my constituency shortly will be Granisle Copper, a subsidiary of Granby Consolidated, but I understand all the concentrates from the mill will be exported to Japan, smelted there, presumably processed into a finished or semi-finished product which we will buy back again at a higher price than we received for the ore or concentrates themselves. As I understand the minister's statement today, it preserves that situation because presumably this is a contract which is currently in existence.
We also have iron ore prospects and mines in B.C., one of which is in the Queen Charlotte Islands, again a Granby Consolidated project, which is under contract to ship the iron ore to Japan. Japanese freighters call in at regular intervals at Jedway to carry the ore to Japan for smelting purposes. In recent years a large amount of our mining development in B.C. has rested upon the interests of a foreign country, namely Japan.
This was recognized not long ago by the Premier of B.C. when he visited Japan and made the comment that possibly B.C. has a greater attachment to Japan than it has to the eastern part of Canada. I am sure he


meant by that, that B.C. in years past has suffered at the hands of selfish interests in eastern Canada, in Toronto in particular, selfish mining interests, who have always wanted to preserve their own position within the economy, wanted to exert their power and authority wherever possible and, as a result, whenever they have been successful, we in the western part of Canada have suffered.
Even though we desire smelters to be built in B.C., even though a smelter would advance us economically and put us in a position of being able to export materials at a higher price than we export our ore and concentrates, and even though moves have been afoot on a number of occasions in the past, dating back to the period just prior to the second world war, we have found those legitimate needs and desires frustrated at every turn because of the interests with which the minister is so intimately associated, the interests in Toronto who want to preserve their own position. Though the minister is shaking his head at what I say, this is the fact of the matter.
If the minister wants to go back to the period at the end of the second world war and make inquiries about the attitude within the department of finance in the province of B.C., when we were on the verge of establishing, or having established an iron smelting industry in B.C., he will find that project was killed before birth because of the interests in eastern Canada who wanted to preserve their position and did not want any upstart western province becoming an industrial section of the nation because they felt it would interfere with their monopoly position in this field.
The minister does not have to take my word for this. He can get this information by searching diligently in the files of his own department and the files of the Department of Finance, and seeing the correspondence which took place at that time with the province of B.C.
We are still in this position. We still have to export nearly all of our ore and ore concentrates to other countries, which puts us in a relatively bad position when we need to use structural steel, copper tubing, copper plate or copperware, or anything else of that sort, which is made from the minerals that exist in B.C.
When the minister made his statement today about the changes that are to take place with respect to the export of copper ores and
March 1, 196$	COMMONS
concentrates he opened the door wide enough for us to be able to express concern tonight about the question of developing or promoting the development of smelting industries close to the sources of raw matrials.
It is a simple and historical fact that in the period prior to the start of the Second World War, prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbour, we in B.C. were shipping scrap-iron to Japan, at a time when people who were unemployed were standing around trying to buck the spare board on logshore work, in order to load some of that iron, which we ourselves could have made good use of had we the smelting facilities to do so and develop it into finished products.
We have not progressed a solitary inch from that position. There is still only one smelter in B.C., at Trail, one that has been there for some years. We still have not advanced anywhere in the direction of developing a smelting industry in B.C., yet the minister has it within his power or authority, in concert with the Minister of Industry, to take concrete steps to do something about that.
Earlier I asked the minister if he would outline to the committee in detail his plans and his ideas, and his government plans and policies to deal with the problems which he posed on January 28 in the Throne Speech debate. He did not say a single solitary word tonight about what his government intends to do to promote a greater degree of Canadian control of industry. He did not say a single solitary word about what he plans to do with respect to developing manufacturing and secondary industry. He did not make a single solitary comment, or even express a hope about what he or the government has in mind so far as planning, or about dealing with balance of payments questions. Yet these are extremely serious matters.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Our whole economic welfare is tied up in the answers the minister should be providing now. He may have been in that department as minister only for two months, but in the face of his experience in earlier years in the cabinet, and in the face of his past eight years experience in the business community in which I understand he was a really powerful figure, and one with a great deal of knowledge, greater than most other people in business, in the face of his experience in the business community and in the cabinet prior to that time, he cannot now rest his failure to say anything on the basis of ignorance of 23033-127*
DEBATES	2001
Supply-Trade and Commerce matters in his department. Certainly it is not intimate knowledge of his department which is necessary; but what is required is some policy decision. Is he not speaking to the Minister of Finance; cannot the Minister of Finance tell him what the government was planning to do while the Minister of Finance held the position of Minister of Trade and Commerce; does he not know what the cabinet or the government has been doing in respect of some of these important things?
It simply is not good enough for the minister to start off his estimates this evening by saying he has no comment to make but that he would be glad to answer questions. It is not good enough, when particular questions are posed to him asking about policy matters and the plans to cope with the matters which the minister himself outlined; it simply is not good enough for Canada, for the minister to take this sort of casual disinterest in the problem.
The minister remembers well his words of January 28 and I need not repeat them. He has made speeches all across the country. He has stated that he is not on the mailing list, but I am sure he knows about the problems confronting Canada and about the things which should be dealt with. I am sure he can recall some of these. Would he mind telling the committee about the specific detail or about the general plans the government has to deal with the problems which were outlined on January 28 in his Throne Speech?


Mr. Grills:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister one or two questions. We hear a great deal about free trade with our good neighbours to the south. I happen to come from the hub of the cheese industry of Ontario, the home of Black Diamond and other famous brands of cheese. Would the minister tell us whether there is any quota on United States imports of cheese into Canada comparable to our exports to the United States? As we all know, the United States of America has a population of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 million people and we have approximately 20 million, about ten to one. As I understand it, our quota on cheese imported into the United States of America is 600,000 pounds, a little over half a million pounds. I wonder whether the minister could tell us what the other quota is and how it compares? I say this because I think our good Canadian cheddar cheese holds the key to the balance in our dairy industry, and the surpluses of the dairy industry can be best turned into cheese.
March 1. 1966

Supply-Trade and Commerce
In respect of the importation of butter, as previously referred to by my colleague from Quebec, is there any relationship between the stabilization board, of the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Trade and Commerce which I understand would grant these import permits; is there any relationship between the two so that the one knows what the other is doing.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is very close collaboration between the two departments; each knows what the other is doing. On the matter of cheese, the quota in the United States is a matter of considerable concern to us. It is something I would like to discuss in the meeting in Washington. I can assure the hon. member this matter is receiving very serious consideration.


Lee Elgy Grills: Could you tell me what their quota is into Canada?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not have the information at the moment, but I might be able to obtain it for you this evening.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister is very interested in promoting trade within Canada, and I would like him to have a look at a situation whereby copper concentrates from the east coast are going to Japan to be smelted. We are sure the Japanese have a cheap form of transportation, lower salaries and so on, and can overbid our Canadian companies for some of these concentrates. When we realize that the concentrates are going thousands and thousands of miles away and there is a smelter within 100 miles or so from the source of supply, it is rather difficult to understand why the Japanese can overbid some of our Canadians.
One reason may be the charges made by some of the departments of government. The excessive charges made by the Department of Transport may be one of the reasons the Japanese can overbid the Canadians for these products. It is very difficult to understand, especially when there is a smelter which at this moment possibly is operating only at about 80 per cent of its full capacity in respect of these products which should be processed and manufactured in Canada, why the concentrates cannot be obtained in the area in which there is a smelter.
I would like to impress upon the minister that when he has an opportunity he should urge upon some of the other departments of government that it sometimes is better to alleviate the charges which are being made against some of these services and thus allow

our Canadian companies to compete for some of these Canadian products.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I still would like to get some answer from the minister in respect of what plan he has to deal with the important problems confronting Canada's trade and economic growth which the minister himself outlined in his Throne Speech of January 28.


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps the hon. member was out when I spoke on the subject of trade promotion and mentioned the great importance the department, the government, and I particularly attach to the very important problem of increasing our trade. One development we attach a great deal importance is the Kennedy round of negotiations. Canada is in the forefront of the countries which are urging a successful conclusion to these negotiations. By the further reduction of tariffs and other impediments to our trade, we think Canadian industry can benefit substantially and that the flow of world trade can be greatly stimulated. This however is a very difficult exercise.
Recently I had the privilege of spending a day with our team at Geneva and was able to get a firsthand understanding, in so far as I was able to do so in that short time, of some of the severe problems involved; but I did tell our people there that Canada attaches a great deal of importance to these negotiations and that we want them pursued with all vigour. I had the opportunity of expressing my views in Paris to my opposite numbers in the French government.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I gained some understanding of the very severe problems that are confronting them in this area. I am hopeful that all the nations concerned will very soon come to the conference table at Geneva and negotiate in a very purposeful way toward the successful conclusion of what I regard as one of the most hopeful avenues for the development of Canadian and world trade. In other areas we do what we can on a bilateral basis to stimulate trade. As the hon. member knows, we have increased the number of trade missions we are sponsoring abroad; we are increasing the number of trade fairs; we are trying to stimulate Canadian businessmen into greater awareness of the export markets that the world provides at the present time. Generally we are making every effort to promote the volume of our exports abroad. I was told this morning, for example, that the
March 1, 1966	COMMONS
total volume of trade sponsored under the Export Credits Insurance Corporation has reached the figure of $1.9 billion, which in itself is an indication of the importance that successive governments have attached to the various instrumentalities for stimulating trade by Canada.
The hon. member referred to the position of British Columbia in regard to smelting, and attributed the lack of a smelter to eastern interests. I shook my head because I am one of those who do not believe that the eastern financial interests have held up the development of British Columbia. As a matter of fact, I had the privilege of discussing this problem not long ago with some interested people and I think the hon. member can take it that when there is sufficient copper concentrate available in British Columbia serious consideration will be given to a new smelter. I know hon. members are aware that it takes a great deal of concentrate, indeed, to justify the construction of a smelter on an economic basis.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre:
That all the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, including all the supple-mentaries, be approved and do now pass.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I regret that the Chair cannot accept this motion because what is now before the house is item 1 of the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. I believe we should continue our consideration of that item. I do not believe the motion is relevant to item No. 1.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concern of the hon. member for Oxford about proceeding as quickly as we can but I think-


An hon. Member:: Sit down then.


Frank Howard: I just heard someone say, sit down. If that is the only interest the hon. members in the Conservative party have in the question of our economic well-being-


An hon. Member:: Please do not talk nonsense.


Frank Howard: -then it is extremely revealing as to the degree of hypocrisy that exists within that party.


Mr. Fairweather:: You are a prime example of hyprocrisy.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Do you not want the bills paid?
DEBATES	2003
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Frank Howard: The mouthy member for Oxford asks, do I not want the bills paid. Of course I want the bills paid; don't be so asinine. We want to deal as expeditiously as possible with these estimates, but we also want some answers as to what is likely to happen. We just cannot blandly go along and say we have no interest in what is likely to happen to the economic welfare of the nation.
I gather the crux of the minister's answer was that a great deal rests upon the success or otherwise of the so-called Kennedy round of tariff discussions or negotiations. I believe it is correct that if we can participate with other nations in effecting lower tariff barriers we can open up markets for commodities that these tariff barriers were associated with before. However, it seems to me that tariffs were instituted primarily to protect home industries and that their secondary effect was the provision of income to the government which imposed them. However, the tariffs were originally put into effect to preserve the economic positions of the industries associated with the tariff barriers, the feeling being that if the tariff was low enough the industry concerned would be driven out of business by the importation of lower priced articles.
Tariffs are imposed in respect of manufactured products rather than raw materials. If the government feels it has the degree of faith indicated by the minister in the forthcoming tariff negotiations, it should be doing something to bring about an agreement to lower tariffs, and should operate in concert and conjunction with the Department of Industry, and the entire cabinet, to promote as fast as possible the development of secondary manufacturing industries in Canada. If this is not done we will find ourselves very likely participating with other member countries of GATT in lowering tariff barriers, thereby opening up markets in other countries for those countries which are now highly industrialized. We will not be opening up markets for ourselves, because we will not be operating in the direction of developing secondary manufacturing industries here in Canada.
It seems to me that if the Minister rests his case and the solution to the problem on his statement of January 28 regarding the potential success of the tariff negotiations; and is hopeful that something worth while will come from those negotiations, he should be pressing just as hard as possible in the direction of building up secondary manufacturing industries in Canada, so that we will be in a
2004	COMMONS
Supply-Trade and Commerce better position to promote the export of those manufactured goods to those countries we hope will open their doors to us. To have faith in the one and not take some concrete steps to work toward the other seems to be nonsensical. Perhaps the minister will deal with this aspect of the situation. However, as he said earlier, perhaps he would like to leave this to the Department of Industry in so far as the responsibility for promoting the development of secondary industry is a concern of that department. On the other hand, the two seem to go hand in hand. This is one of the strange fields of government activity in respect of which one department cannot be divorced entirely from another. Each has to know what the other is doing because the decisions of one could very easily offset the efforts of the other.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I agree generally with the hon. member's premise, and the Minister of Industry has just said that I can assure the hon. member he has his full support.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall item 1 carry?


Mr. Laiulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few remarks to make to the minister concerning the sales of uranium.
What does the minister think will be done to promote the sale of Canadian uranium to other countries? What kind of agreement do we have with the United States to sell them uranium? Are there other countries to which the federal government intends to sell uranium? What conditions does the federal government require of various countries before selling them uranium? What agreement has the federal government reached with France to sell it uranium?
Those are the few questions I wanted to ask the minister. Some people ask us questions about uranium and since, personally, I do not know much about the matter, I would appreciate it if the minister would give me that information.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, at the moment I do not believe any company in Canada is selling uranium to the United States. Sales at present are to the stockpile and for the balance of the United Kingdom contract. In selling uranium abroad the conditions are that the purchasing country must undertake to abide by the terms of bilateral agreements under which they must agree to use the

DEBATES	March 1. 1966
uranium only for peaceful purposes and submit to inspection to ensure that this is so. There are no contracts with the French government and none are being negotiated at the present moment.
I believe the demand for uranium will increase. It has long been my view that as we go into the 1970's the demand around the world for uranium for peaceful purposes will increase considerably. The outlook for the uranium industry in Canada is a bright one.
[Translation1


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Chairman, I shall take up only a few seconds of the committee's time, to ask the minister to give us a few explanations on the administration in his department.
We are here as members of Parliament as representatives of our fellow-citizens, and we must scrutinize the minister's expenditures and find out from him how he spends his estimates.
If the minister cannot reply tonight, he might do so on another occasion. I wish to refer to pages 436 to 441 of the estimates. I note an extraordinary increase in personnel, in new employees in certain divisions. For instance, on page 436, in the category of employees earning from $12,000 to $14,000, there has been an increase from 0 to 41 employees; on page 437, I also note, under item 5, an increase of 0 to 32 in the number of employees earning from $10,000 to $14,000 annually?
The minister should give a little more information on these items which represent a rather large amount in salaries. The amount may be warranted, but somehow the increase seems considerable compared to last year.
The minister may answer tonight or later, but I think the house is entitled to be informed about this.
On behalf of my colleagues, I take this opportunity to offer the minister our best wishes for the success of Expo '67. And I think I am expressing here the feelings of all the members of our party and all the members of the house.
In the light of the information provided by the minister to the effect that quite a large total deficit is expected, I wonder whether he would accept a suggestion which could perhaps make up for a probable deficit? We all hope that there will be no deficit, but should there be one, I would have a suggestion to make to the minister.
My proposal is based on a precedent which took place in France around 1870-75, at the
March 1, 1966

time of the first trade fair in France, which was financed by a specially-organized lottery to pay for the travel costs of persons who had to travel quite a long way to get to the fair.
I wonder if the minister could not suggest to his colleagues that the government advocate and pass special legislation to allow, during the world fair in Montreal, the holding of a lottery which would help make up for the deficit, so that the burden would not rest only on overtaxed Canadians. Thus, even visitors could, through their spending, contribute to a very large extent to reduce the Expo deficit. We all hope that there will be no deficit, but I wonder if the minister could not take this suggestion, as well as the questions I put to him previously, in consideration.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall vote 1 carry?


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the minister whether he will provide that information.


Robert Henry Winters: I would be very glad to provide that information at a later date, if that is agreeable to the hon. member. I could speak on this matter now but I understand the time is short.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
IS. Canadian Government Travel Bureau-to assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada including a grant of $37,000 to the Canadian Tourist Association, $6,290,600.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could just have one moment to leave a thought with the minister.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: It will take you longer than a moment to leave a thought with anybody.


Frank Howard: This is a plea in respect of a part of my own constituency. In northern B.C., in what is now loosely and I think improperly called a ghost town, is the community of Atlin. Atlin was a pretty important area in the gold rush days at the turn of the century. There are still there remnants of one of the communities that sprang up as a result of the discovery of gold. This community is just outside Atlin a mile or two away.
I would urge the minister to take some steps through the Canadian Government Travel Bureau to publicize the history of Atlin and the fact that it does exist. Driving along the Alaska highway this side of Whitehorse in the summertime there are hundreds upon hundreds of tourists, a great
Supply-Trade and Commerce many of them being Americans, who are travelling through to Alaska, the Yukon and the north. All that exists in so far as an indication that Atlin is there is a weatherbeaten sign. It is the usual sort of directional sign with an arrow indicating that Atlin is in that direction.


Erik Nielsen: That is at Jake's Corners.


Frank Howard: Yes. I think some work could be done by the Canadian Government Travel Bureau in promoting a visit not only to Atlin itself but to the area of British Columbia surrounding Atlin in order to view some of the history of the area and see some of the beauties that exist there. This is a matter that probably comes within the jurisdiction of the provincial government and I have been in contact with that government on numerous occasions in the past in order to try to get them to do something with Atlin in much the same way as was done with Barkerville in British Columbia. This could be done by depicting scenes from the old days and promoting this area as a tourist attraction. It would give recognition to that part of the country and would provide tourists with an opportunity to see a section of British Columbia that played such an important part during the gold rush days and also contributed somewhat to the difficulty we now have with respect to the location of the Alaska boundary. I do not expect any comment from the minister tonight, because of the time, but I merely wish to pose this question to him. Would he please look at it and see whether something could be done to build up some tourist attraction for this part of the province.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Robert Henry Winters: I found it a most intriguing place. They were still carrying on some gold operations when I was there a few years ago. I will bear this in mind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
1967 World Exhibition-
29. Canadian government participation in the 1967 world exhibition, Montreal, $9,540,500.
John Alfred Irvine: A few moments ago the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre made mention of the fact that we had a new minister. Perhaps after tonight he will consider himself to be a used one. I think after the remarks made by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie with regard to Expo '67, it would be only proper for one of his brother Canadians, who does not have the ability to
March 1, 1966

Supply-Defence Production use the other official language of Canada, to say something on behalf of people in other parts of the country.
I know that I express the sentiments of this entire committee when I say we are very proud of this Expo '67. I should like to say too, on behalf of our party, that we are very proud that we laid the foundation for this exhibition. We are pleased to think that we picked out the site for it. We feel it was a proper site, in the largest city of this great country in which we are privileged to live. I hope too that every member in all parts of this house, every citizen of this great country of ours, will do everything he can to make sure that this is the finest exhibition that has ever been held in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maurice Rinfret: This concludes consideration of the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. The committee will now proceed to a consideration of the estimates of the Department of Defence Production.



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION

Mr. Drury:: Mr. Chairman, there are three departments or agencies concerned here, the Department of Defence Production, the Department of Industry and the National Research Council. I suggest that perhaps as we did last year it would be more convenient if we were to deal with each of these separately, since they are to some degree separate and distinct subjects. In order to save the time of the committee, I will not make a statement on any of these departments, but I would be most interested indeed in providing information or answers to questions in so far as I am able.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it agreed that the committee shall proceed to the consideration of the Department of Defence Production?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
1. Departmental administration, including the care, maintenance and custody of standby defence plants, buildings, machine tools and production tooling and grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on Crown-owned defence plants operated by private contractors. $16,922,800.


Frank Howard: I did not realize we were going into this department. I thought we were going into the industry section. There is one matter about which I should like to inquire which relates to the Department of Defence Production. I understand that some time ago, a year or two ago, the purchasing of materials for the Indian affairs branch was

taken over by the Department of Defence Production. In talking with Indian affairs branch personnel in the field, in talking with local suppliers of goods and materials that are required by the Indian affairs branch, I have learned, to put it mildly, that they think this system leaves a great deal to be desired. They feel it allows for a great deal of inefficiency and increases the length of time it takes to make deliveries of orders compared with what it used to be under the Indian affairs branch.
In many instances local suppliers of materials are cut out of the picture because the Department of Defence Production has some relationship or liaison with the larger centres for distribution purposes. I do not want to document these instances, and I do not think they need documenting in any event. Some instances have been related to me of misunderstandings over orders which were given. In other instances the materials which are supplied are not the ones which were ordered. All of this leaves a great deal to be desired.
I seriously urge the minister, if he does not appreciate fully what is taking place here, to relinquish these activities by the Department of Defence Production for the purchase of materials for the Indian affairs branch and give those activities back to the proper minister who, in this instance, would be the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. These activities should be returned to the Indian affairs branch which is intimately involved in the ordering of the materials and which will have the greatest amount of control in the placement of these orders. This will overcome a great deal of the difficulty.
I can assure the minister there is a fair amount of dissatisfaction within the Indian affairs branch in connection with this operation. If the Minister of Industry would just lean over and consult with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources he would probably get confirmation of this dissatisfaction. I believe the minister should relinquish this activity because he has enough to do in this department without fiddling with the Indian affairs branch and causing a great deal of difficulty and inefficiency there.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I should like the hon. gentleman perhaps to try to accord us a little patience. It was not two years ago this activity was taken over. The functions are in the process of being taken over now. I can readily understand that there are, in the process of
March 1, 1966

changing to new techniques, new personnel, new channels, certain transient dissatisfactions with decisions. I hope that, as the Department of Defence Production, which is being converted into the department of supply, becomes more skilled and more accustomed to this, the very substantial economies which are being realized in the expenditure of government funds would be coupled with a much higher degree of satisfaction to the ordering department.


Frank Howard: In reply to the minister, I may say that I understand this may be a transitional period. I can quite understand the savings which could result from bulk purchases and the concentration of activity in one field if this is to be the purchasing department for all government services. I understand also the waste and inefficiency that can come from centralization. This is what I want to get at. In one sense, I really do not care who does the buying as long as it is done efficiently, and so long as you take into your confidence, perhaps even appoint as some of your agents, Indian affairs officers who work in the field, those who are in daily contact with the native people and know their requirements for housing, sewers, electrical facilities and many of the other things that are required. If you communicate with the local officials of the Indian affairs branch you will get along a lot better than you are by attempting to centralize these purchases within one department with its headquarters in Ottawa.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, because the Minister and the government has decided to take positive action in the standards branch of the department relating to the problems of highway deaths and injuries, I wish to make a few remarks relating to the general subject. May I again congratulate the minister and the government upon the positive action which has been taken. As the minister announced in the house a few days ago in answer to written questions that I put on the order paper, the government intends to draft in the standards section of the Department of Defence Production a relatively definitive code pertaining to the purchase of government automobiles and to the safety features that should be included in motor cars at the production stage. I think that the Canadian public will be glad to receive the good news the Department of Defence Production has announced, namely that it intends to draft three codes for the public relating to the driver, to
Supply-Defence Production the car, and to the highway. Those three factors are obviously involved in highway deaths and injuries.
I do not intend to go into the great detail that I covered in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, but may I clear up some misconceptions. Many spokesmen for the industry and for the automobile establishment, for highway safety leagues, have stated up to now that I have placed too much emphasis on the car and not enough on the driver and on the highway. I have said that we must educate people to become better drivers; that we must encourage drivers to be more safe; that we must encourage provincial governments to build safer highways, and that we must encourage provincial governments to make sure that motorcars are operational at all times.
As a federal legislator there are some things which I may suggest. As federal legislators we can do something about what most members recognize to be an epidemic of massive proportions which has to be cured by massive public interest and massive public funds. That is what I said in the house before.
Unless something is done immediately, unless something is done to check the numbers killed on our highways, unless something is done between now and 1970, over a million Canadians will be injured and between 35,000 and 40,000 killed on our highways. What can we as federal legislators do about this. We can make certain that when the Canadian public buys an automobile that automobile is the safest that can be produced.
I have been criticized by some persons who say that I place the emphasis in the wrong place. I admit that apart from mechanical failure it should be recognized that judgment errors on the part of individuals are invariably responsible for an accident. However, as I keep saying to the leaders of the industry that after I have driven 80,000 miles, and just because I make a judgment error at a speed under 45 miles an hour, and just because the industry has not produced a safe automobile, is no reason for me to die.
As federal legislators, Mr. Chairman, if we support the initiative taken by the Department of Defence Production in the announcement of its code, if we support this worthy cause, it is my firm belief-and I draw the attention of the house to this at this time, -that we shall cut down the toll of deaths and injuries by 50 per cent.
I pointed out in the debate in the Speech from the Throne that 87 per cent of all
March 1, 1966

Supply

Defence Production deaths and injury-producing accidents take place at speeds under 45 miles an hour. This, Mr. Chairman, is something that we, as federal legislators can do something about.
There are those who pretend that we have no authority over the policing of safe motor cars. I say that the federal government has authority. May I direct your attention, Mr. Chairman, and the attention of the house to the Food and Drug Act. May I refer to the case of Russell v. The Queen. May I refer to the fact that the federal government has jurisdiction to police the manufacturing of aeroplanes, of all rolling stock on our railways, of all ships, and safety features in them, at production levels.
I should like to thank most sincerely the officials of the Department of Transport who, with the concurrence of the minister, put this working paper in my hands. It clearly demonstrates how at the production level the federal government has this authority in relation to planes, rolling stock on railways and the construction of ships to make sure that safety features are included for the protection of the public. These modes of communication and travel fall under the rule of law. The automobile alone falls outside the rule of law, and in the light of the few statistics I have put before the committee tonight I think it is incumbent upon us in a bipartisan spirit to conquer this epidemic which has now reached major proportions.
Some people approached me a few days ago and said that those of us who are working in this direction must be pleased by the announcement the industry made last week in connection with brakes and steering columns. I do not want to be a killjoy and say that these innovations are insignificant per se, but I believe that until we have government specified codes by which to measure the value of these innovations we have no means of knowing how significant they are.
Would we permit the food industry to say: "We are going to be good boys; we have taken a little poison out of our food"? We should want to know how much poison there was in it in the past and how much was left. Until we have these codified standards set by the authority which should make them, the public will not be protected.
The real reason for my intervention this evening is to congratulate the minister on the initiative he has taken in the Department of Defence Production. It is only a beginning. I can visualize the possibility, when the codes come out, that we shall need to do more than


hold them out to the automotive industry and say: "Be good boys; this is what we think you should do." We shall have to say: "We know these are scientific and proven safety features, and they must be in the cars within a definite period of time-or else."
Even if we do this we shall only be scratching the surface. The industry doubts whether we have authority to act in this field. It does not want to be policed. But if we are to do our duty to the public it will have to be policed. In the second place, the industry says we are setting back safety in general when we talk about the car and do not talk about the driver and the highway. I have already cleared up this point. The provincial governments have a definite role to play in helping to produce better drivers and in building safer highways. This does not mean we should avoid our responsibility at the federal level.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The third argument that is being presented by the industry over the past few weeks is that they say if those who seek the building of a safer automobile want just that, they will build us an ugly tank that can go at 15 miles an hour. I would like to show members of the committee pictures of a prototype safety car that is being produced as a result of a feasibility study in New York. This is a safe car and a good looking car. How about the Pina Farina that is coming from Europe this year, which includes many safety features upon which no research is required, as they are already in existence?
It is patently obvious that you can build a good looking car and have safety features in it at the same time, and I think the minister's code and investigation will prove that. The industry says it cannot build us a good looking car and a safe car at the same time. I ask the industry, since when would proper rollover bars detract from beauty? Since when would properly recessed padded dash panels detract from the beauty of a car? Since when would integrating the seats of a car to the frame, so that they would not fly off at speeds under 45 miles an hour and cause great injury, detract from the beauty of a car? Since when would putting something stronger than cardboard between the rear end of a car and the valise, so that tools would not come in and cause injury and death, detract from the beauty of a car?
I put the following suggestions before the minister. First of all, I ask the minister would he plead with the automobile industry to
March 1. 1966

forgo costly retooling costs for style changes in the next year, and devote that money to putting safety in their automobiles.
Second, I have already talked about the New York prototype safety study, and I would say the state of New York is more advanced than any governmental body in the western world in the completion of a real safety car. The state has spent $500,000 on a feasibility study. They need from $4 million to $6 million to complete the building of a prototype car. It is interesting that the feasibility study was done by the aircraft industry. It is the aircraft industry which has spent millions and billions of dollars on research, while almost less than nothing has been spent, on automobile safety research.
I put the following suggestion before the minister: First of all, I ask:
What happened at Ste. Therese two years ago? An aircraft crashed and the government spent millions of dollars putting that aircraft back, piece by piece, and spent months studying it. We tried to find out why that tragedy occurred in order that we could do something about it. But what happens when a car crashes? We lose over 100 people a week on the highways; but after an accident, within 10 to 20 minutes of the ambulance or morgue wagon leaving the scene, the car involved is brought to the dump and not one dollar is spent on research to discover the cause.
It is the aircraft industry that has researched safety in automobiles. Therefore I would like to recommend to the minister the possibility that Canada could reach across the border, break precedent in many regards, if you will, and participate in a financial way in the building of the New York prototype car.
Though we have not reached the National Research Council aspect of the minister's estimates, I do feel that it could have a part to play in offering know-how in the completion of this prototype car. This is one instance where Canada can take a real lead in getting something done. If Canada takes the lead with New York and California, and one other large state, the major part of this war can be won. Can we expect much from Washington? The automobile lobby in Washington is very large and, as the minister knows, the G.S.A. recommendations were watered down last year because of that lobby. Canada must play its part.
Supply-Defence Production
The last recommendation which I put before the minister is that I hope the government will encourage its members, and opposition members, to have the house committee on research and industry call before it responsible leaders of the industry and research safety experts, so that in a spirit of co-operation we can get something done. I regret very much the outcry from the industry against me last week. I will not reply in kind to the executive who spoke the way he did, because I think this is too important a subject to get into a shouting match about.
Let us not allocate blame. I blame legislators such as ourselves for the state of affairs that we are faced with today regarding the problem; I blame the public because they have been so apathetic in demanding safety, and I blame the automobile industry also for being delinquent in their social and economic responsibilities. But let us not allocate blame; the blame is collective. Let us get on with the job and produce results. The last misconception I would like to shoot down is with respect to the safety experts. I am not sure what a safety expert is, but I tell the people in the industry that you do not need to be an employee of the industry to be an expert. The industry builds automobiles for people who are not experts; the five thousand people who died on our highways in 1965 were not experts, they were amateurs. These people are driving automobiles and the automobiles should be designed in a safe way so that they are adapted to the human animal. We should stop putting emphasis on the human animal always being adapted to the automobile.
What I am talking about will do two things: If we live up to our responsibilities and make sure that all scientifically proven safety features are put in cars at the production level, we will not only reduce death-producing and injury-producing accidents by 50 per cent, but we will also avoid many accidents occurring in the first place. I refer especially to such things as driver fatigue, and the basic research being done by the aircraft industry, on pilot fatigue, easily could be transferred to the automobile industry.
Great research has been done by the aircraft industry in matters relating to proper vision and noise, research which could avoid accidents in the first place. I am not talking about only reducing injury and death once the accident takes place, but also about the possibility of reducing the occurrence of the accident in the first place. While I am sure all
March 1, 1966

Supply-Defence Production members would agree that things such as high speed and drinking, pure bad driving and bad manners on the road, often are the cause of accidents, I do not think these things in themselves are an excuse for us to let the automobile as a mode of transportation go unpoliced.
I repeat that the problem is too great for us to just shunt off our responsibilities in this manner. President Johnson a couple of weeks ago when referring to the matter in Washington said that the whole problem of highway death and injury, came second only to the problem of Viet Nam, and suggested that surely this means we have a role to play in overcoming the problem.
I would like to congratulate the minister for his initial thrust and initiative in tackling the problem, and I would like to ask all the members of the house to pledge their support to him when we move into this area.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I think all the members of the house will welcome the very evident sincerity and energy which the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi has put into this problem, which is a very serious and significant one for our country. I share his concern and I thank him for the kind remarks he has made. I will be delighted to consider all his recommendations.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for
London.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order; could we have some understanding about what we are doing. I can still see the clock, whether or not anyone else can. It seems to me we should not just go on as though there was no clock, without arriving at some understanding. It seems to me that in view of the unnecessary time that was taken on one department this afternoon some consideration should be given as to what the program is now to be.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member will agree not to see the clock, in an effort to finish the estimates of the Department of Industry. I think everyone will agree that it is highly desirable that the ministers of the five departments mentioned today have their estimates completed in order that they may attend the joint United States-Canadian ministerial committee meeting on trade and economic affairs.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to sit until midnight to get some of this


work done. We did not take up the time on the other department today; that time was largely consumed by members of other parties. We are quite content to sit until midnight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I trust that the statement made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is not an order of the house. Could we have some indication as to how many speakers there may be on the estimates of this department. It seems to me that in view of the unnecessary argument that was started this afternoon by the Minister of Finance in introducing his estimates, and the time that was taken on the consideration of those estimates, there should be some mutually agreed to arrangement. We are prepared to attempt to get the estimates of this department through if it is clearly understood that there are not too many speakers who wish to speak on them, but to sit until midnight and then go on at length tomorrow we think is too much.


Gilles Grégoire: There are no speakers from this party.


An hon. Member:: Are you speaking for the government?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Where is the hon.
member for York-Humbug, he may have something to say?


An hon. Member:: We sent him on another trip.


John Alfred Irvine: Mr. Chairman, what I have to say I am sure will be of grave national import.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to be co-operative in not shouting that it is ten o'clock, but I do not think I should be fobbed off without any understanding as to what we are going to do.


George James McIlraith: I believe there are very few speakers on the estimates of this department. There are none as far as this side of the house is concerned, and I believe there are none in the Creditiste Party. I cannot speak for the Social Credit party or the official opposition, but they have made it quite clear they are anxious to co-operate and get these estimates through.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are prepared to consider the estimates of the Department of Agriculture as well.


George James McIlraith: The government is certainly most anxious to get the estimates through. We are anxious and willing to co-operate in
March 1, 1966

every possible way with all hon. members in order to continue and complete our consideration of as many estimates as possible, for the reason I gave a few minutes ago and for the additional reason that within a very few days a very real difficulty will develop if we have not completed the estimates. We are now in the fifth week of the discussion of the estimates for the year just ending. I hope that we can see our way clear to continue to sit tonight and go as far as we possibly can to finish the estimates of this department, and possibly those of the Department of Agriculture.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask that there be some spirit of compromise. We will go part way but we ask the rest of the house to meet us part way. We are suggesting that we sit until we have completed the estimates of this department now before us, and at that point call it ten o'clock.


Maurice Rinfret: Is that agreed?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are prepared to sit until midnight, Mr. Chairman.


Erik Nielsen: Let us sit until midnight.


Maurice Rinfret: Is that agreed?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, we should agree on something, or somewhere along the line those Tories who are so helpful now will become obstinate and we will then find ourselves in difficulty.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, would it be satisfactory if we finish the estimates of this department, assuming we can finish them in a few minutes, then discuss matters further, because we are certainly very much concerned that we get the next two departments through tomorrow afternoon. Even that leaves us with quite a heavy program for Thursday and Friday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are ready to work tonight.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre could raise the matter again if we are not making good progress at, say, eleven o'clock. Would that be agreeable?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, everybody knows from past experience that we would be much better off if we could clearly set out now what we intend to do. I suggest that it would be agreeable, without any difficulty, if we were to deal with the items for which the Minister of Industry is responsible and at that
Supply-Defence Production point call it ten o'clock, and then start tomorrow with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Gilles Grégoire: We approve of that course, Mr. Chairman.


George James McIlraith: While it does seem to be the consensus of the committee that we go further tonight, if the hon. member feels strongly about it and in view of the fact that it is past ten o'clock-and we appreciate the fact that he did not see the clock-we could agree to finish the estimates of the Minister of Industry tonight. I would point out that it is hardly the consensus of the committee that we stop there; it is the wish of two hon. members.


Erik Nielsen: Right.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, there is one further thing I think we should have clear in respect of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Skeena. It is that we are not going to have, say six half-hour speeches from members of the official opposition.


George James McIlraith: I must, Mr. Chairman, out of fairness say that the official opposition have been very co-operative today.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There are 97 of us, too.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: Perhaps in view of the strong feelings of the hon. member for Skeena on the subject it will be agreeable if we finish the estimates of the Minister of Industry tonight and try to finish those of the other two departments tomorrow. Perhaps that is the most satisfactory course.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We would like to sit until midnight, Mr. Chairman. This discussion is all out of order; we have lost 15 minutes because of it.


George James McIlraith: Certainly the government is prepared to sit until midnight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre be allowed to stay here until midnight, if he wishes to do so.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will extend it to one o'clock.


Frank Howard: I have a delightful way out of this impasse which will satisfy the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Winnipeg South Centre.


Frank Howard: In this way the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre could stay here all
2012	COMMONS
Supply-Defence Production night it he wishes. So far as this party is concerned, we are agreeable to dispensing at this juncture with any debate on the items of the Department of Industry, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. If the Conservative party will agree to this, we can pass all these item right now.


Erik Nielsen: That is irresponsible.


Frank Howard: Otherwise I suggest you call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Enns:: Two minutes ago you spoke quite differently.


Frank Howard: There is a choice before you.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall vote 1 carry?


Frank Howard: Carried.


John Alfred Irvine: Mr. Chairman, had we proceeded some 15 minutes ago I would have finished my remarks by now. I think it is a well known fact that I have had many questions on the order paper with regard to the Canadian Government Printing Bureau. It is also a well known fact to me that I have received some very left-handed answers to these questions and there are some 20 question to which I have not yet received any answer.
I should like to say that I am not on a witch hunt; I am not seeking to aggravate French-English relations within the bureau, which I know personally to be on the most unhappy of all bases. In my opinion the situation within the government printing bureau warrants, indeed demands, a thoroughgoing public inquiry. I am deeply disturbed by the situation that I know to exist and I have reason to believe that the minister also is much more concerned than he will admit to this house.
I have had a whole series of questions on the order paper seeking to elicit detailed information on the bureau operation, employment practices and inventory procedures, all with a view to establishing the fact that the Canadian taxpayer is indeed getting value for his tax dollar. I have been bombarded with a mass of ministerial white paper which promises to tell much but which, in reality, discloses very little. I said, Mr. Chairman, that I was not engaged in a witch hunt and I meant precisely that. It matters not a whit to me whether anyone attributes the real situation that exists in the bureau to the years the present government has been in office or to any other administration. My own,

DEBATES	March 1. 1966
fundamental concern is to eradicate from the bureau, which bears the proud title of the Queen's Printer, practices that I am fully convinced are mulcting the Canadian public of thousands and thousands of dollars annually.
My information is that over the years there have been illegitimate practices at the bureau involving shortages of stock, the use of or outright theft of bureau equipment and supplies for private gain of certain individuals. My information further is that within the internal operation of the bureau there has been rank discrimination against certain personnel. My inquiries have revealed the operation of an illicit lending agency, group or society or what you might wish to call a Caisse Populaire. I have heard this described as a loan shark business. I say to the minister, this is just not good enough. This is deplorable, and is a situation which cannot be tolerated within an agency of the Crown.
Proof that the case I am submitting to the committee is not a witch hunt, Mr. Chairman, is provided by acknowledgements from the minister himself in some replies to my questions to the effect that the R.C.M.P., and the Hull city police have been compelled to carry their investigations into the theft of television sets, radios, tape recorders or other equipment into the bureau itself. My information is also that the city police of Ottawa have had a hand in these investigations. Indeed, in one instance, they seized a television set in the possession of a bureau employee.
The minister's response to my series of questions was beyond criticism for volume, but left much to be desired in the way of providing specific answers to specific questions. I can only conclude that he does not provide these answers in detail because of the danger of embarrassing himself and the government.
It seems to be the custom of employees of the Canadian Government Printing Bureau to become connected with outside enterprises, the work of which is allied to their line of work in the bureau. I will cite three or four cases, but I am going to refrain from naming individuals in so far as I can do so. I am not interested in castigating anyone, only in protecting the rights of the Canadian taxpayer. My information indicates the existence of the following examples:
A man who is a full time photographer within the bureau operates his own photography business outside of the bureau and has
March 1, I9G6

access to equipment and supplies within the bureau.
The firm of Gasparo Limited, a commercial printing firm located in Hull, according to the answer given to question No. 329, is operated by at least a dozen employees of the bureau, three of whom are listed as directors of that company. The answer also relates that they have a 60 per cent interest in this business. I am further informed that 40 per cent is held in the name of a Hull businessman, as a front to keep the employees out of trouble.
I am further advised that this man either received a lump sum or an annual fee or dividend to protect these people.
It has also come to my attention that shortly after the first questions were asked, some of these people in the bureau worked long and hard removing equipment, etc. from these premises. I should think that an investigational committee would want to know what equipment was moved; where did it come from; where is it now? I am sure these answers would be very revealing.
I can also see two of these foremen, whom I could name, meeting in the Printing Bureau that evening, shaking hands and feeling that they have covered their tracks.
Further, No. 3, my impression of Accurate Printing, according to my informants, in spite of left-handed and evasive answers to question No. 327 is that one, Mr. A. R. Gentile was employed by the Printing Bureau until October 12, 1965, at which time he was a hand compositor. During this same period he operated a firm known as Accurate Printing, 12 Kevin Crescent, Ottawa. Further, I have documentary proof that he had a contract to print hundreds of voters lists and received the sum of $5,848.35 for this service.
I am informed that this work was done at the bureau, perhaps on bureau printing time, and perhaps using printing bureau equipment and material. This contract was given to this man while he was still an employee of the printing bureau. According to the answer to question No. 327(4) he retired on October 12, 1965. According to the Canada Elections Act, section 237, these lists must have been printed and ready for posting on October 13, 1965. Therefore they must have been printed while this man was still in the employ of the printing bureau.
Mr. Chairman, how can the minister justify the fact that an employee of his department was also doing a governmental printing contract, supposedly in his own personal plant at
Supply-Defence Production 12 Kevin Crescent. Were these voters lists- and I wish to ask the minister these questions, because I am sure that he is more interested than he appears to be-printed in the printing bureau? Were these voters lists printed on government equipment and supplies, on printing bureau time? I would think the minister would want to know the answers to these questions, and we certainly must have them.
To sum it all up, Mr. Chairman, my inquiries have revealed very definite wrongdoing in the Canadian Government Printing Bureau. First, there are three firms, all owned and operated by employees of the Canadian Government Printing Bureau, and interested in allied trades. These employees had access to equipment and supplies which could be used in their own, private business. Two of these firms have received government contracts.
Second, there is information that a money lending syndicate has operated and may still be operating within the bureau, and is doing business with the less fortunate at exorbitant interest rates in excess of 100 per cent.
Third, I have been informed that a ring has been operating in selling television, radios, tape recorders, etc., at ridiculously low prices at printing bureau premises to printing bureau employees. I am further informed that a television set was seized by Ottawa police from the home of a printing bureau employee and has not yet been returned.
How many other operations there are only a complete investigation would bring to light. I am informed that there are many.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)
Why, according to the answer to question No. 64, were the R.C.M.P. called in to investigate stolen goods at the Canadian Government Printing Bureau? Why were the Hull city police called in to investigate wrongdoing as detailed very evasively in answer to question No. 331, part D? Why were the Ottawa police brought into the picture supposedly to seize a television set sold to a printing bureau employee?
I should like to see a copy of the authorization dated July 12, 1962 which permitted the establishment of a credit union in the printing bureau. Why was there all the secrecy in answer to question No. 330?
I have grave fears that printing for outside interests has been going on in the printing bureau at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer.
March 1, 1966

Supply-Defence Production
In answer to question No. 327 it was disclosed there was a deletion of stores and equipment from the inventory, as detailed in board of survey No. 5, listed as obsolete and unserviceable items, in the amount of $123,111.74.
I should like to know this, Mr. Chairman. What were those items in detail? Did they not have some salvage value? Why were they not turned over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation? Surely something could have been saved. Or was this representative of an inventory shortage; was this an attempt to cover up? What about other shortages in the inventory? Why could not the R.C.M.P. and the other police forces track some of this equipment down? Why is it that according to my information so many employees were intimidated as result of my questions on the order paper?
Mr. Chairman, I am not interested in ruining the career of any individual, hence my hesitation about mentioning names. But I am interested in protecting the Canadian taxpayer. I am not approaching this matter in a partisan way. I am happy to let the chips fall where they may. If part of this situation can be traced to the previous administration, so be it. We are interested only in seeing that this situation is cleared up.
The onus is directly on the minister. Nothing will satisfy me or the people of Canada short of a public inquiry. Or we might turn the whole messy business over to a parliamentary committee composed of representatives of all parties in the house. I would personally supply to such a committee a list of some 30 or 40 witnesses to be called.


Mr. Coates:: At this late hour I do not intend to make any extensive comments. However, I do wish to make some reference to the Department of Industry more particularly in connection with the government's designated area policy.
First I think it is necessary to mention the historic apathy felt by the Liberal party toward policies relating to the Atlantic area. This is the basic problem as I see it. In the 22 years up to 1957 we in the Atlantic area were retarded because the government of the day did not appreciate the fact that special policies, and a special application of national policies had to be considered as far as the maritime provinces were concerned.
Because of this we were not able to move forward. When a Conservative government

was elected in 1957 in Ottawa, consideration was given to the special problems of the Atlantic area, and legislation was passed which had an immediate impact, and continues to have an impact on the economy of the area.
The minister has indicated that the government will continue to look at the Atlantic area in just the same way as it looks at the province of Ontario or the province of Saskatchewan, with respect to the area development program and the selection of designated areas. Everybody who has an appreciation of the problems in the Atlantic area has requested the minister to designate the whole area, but he has continuously refused to do this and says the program will apply in the Atlantic provinces in the same way as in other parts of Canada.
One of the best examples why this does not work is to compare a designated area in Ontario, which is surrounded by non-desig-nated areas. Immediately there is an attraction to it from the areas not designated, so that in a short time its designation can be removed, but it will still be able to attract industries from the surrounding areas. This does not happen to be the case in the Atlantic provinces.
In the Atlantic provinces we have three or four growth areas, the rest being designateed. Our problem is that we must first create the right kind of atmosphere in the areas of affluence, if one wishes to call them that, so that benefits will flow from those areas into the other surplus labour areas, and so that surplus labour may be attracted into the affluent areas.
The minister has adopted the attitude that he does not want any change made in his program. He says it is going to apply the same way in B.C. as in Newfoundland, but surely he is coming to realize that things are not the same in the Atlantic provinces? If he is not, then he should go beyond the borders of Quebec and get some appreciation of what our problems are.
Just a few days ago in the provincial legislature, Premier Stanfield condemned the federal government because it was not willing to listen to the proposal that the whole Atlantic area be designated, and the special assistance granted under it be made available no matter where an industry might wish to locate in the Atlantic provinces. If the Minister of Industry does not know now that Premier Stanfield has the best possible appreciation of how to improve the economic
March 1. 19G6

climate in Nova Scotia, he never will because, as he should be aware, this was one of the basic arguments in Nova Scotia during the federal election campaign.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)
The Minister of National Health and Wei-fare adopted the attitude he adopts in so far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned, adopted the attitude which his government adopts, and surely the result on November 8 is the best indication in the world of where the people of Nova Scotia put their confidence in so far as progress is concerned. There certainly are not many indications that it is with the present government which is in office.
Surely this government is interested in the seats in Nova Scotia, and is interested in improving their position there in the days ahead, because if redistribution comes into effect, under the existing conditions and the existing recommendations, the Liberal party as it stands at the present time is going to be left without one representative from that area, unless they are able to convince somebody in that province that they are realistic in their policies and that their policies are going to have some benefit.
In the Conservative party we even have taken the approach, if the minister cannot do what we ask within the confines of this legislation, that it should be done through the Atlantic Development Board, a board set up specifically to take into consideration situations such as this. But the Minister of Transport, who is answerable to the House of Commons for the Atlantic Development Board, certainly indicated in no uncertain terms to the member for Saint John-Albert that the Atlantic Development Board was not going to become involved in this matter, and that it is a matter which is being left at the door of the Minister of Industry.
I say to the Minister of Industry that his policy as it presently applies to the Atlantic provinces is not good enough; it is not good enough for the Premier of Nova Scotia, it is not good enough for the people of Nova Scotia, and I am sure that applies in any given area in the Atlantic region. I ask him again to re-consider a decision in respect of a policy which may be very satisfactory in some areas of Canada but is most unsatisfactory in the Atlantic area.
When you take a body like the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, which for years has been studying how to improve prospects with regard to the attraction of industry and the elimination of high unemployment, and
Supply-Defence Production which presently is very much in existence in our area, you will get some appreciation of the kind of policies which should apply. This body has been urging the minister and this government for some time to designate the whole of the Atlantic provinces, and not leave out Halifax, Dartmouth, Saint John and Frederiction, and make sure that we do nothing to hinder this kind of growth that is needed in this area so that we will be able to attract to the whole of the area, to any part of the area, the industry that we must have if we are to eradicate the high unemployment that is so very evident there at the present time.
I say to the minister, never mind being a bureaucrat, like he once was; never mind being so difficult that when he once has made a decision he will say it never can be changed. Just give the kind of consideration that will be of benefit to our area, through this program. If he will do this, I am sure he will get full marks for it. The first man who would commend the government for its action would be the Premier of Nova Scotia, who I believe stands second to none in his knowledge concerning how new industry best can be attracted to our area, the problems associated with high unemployment and how they can be eliminated.


Mr. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):: Mr. Chairman, I too, want to say a word or two about designated areas and the criteria used to set them up, as carried forward by the Department of Industry. I realize that time is quickly passing and I will not go into this whole subject of diversification and decentralization of industry, about which I have spoken on many other occasions. However, I feel this is very important to a young country such as Canada is today.
I think we in this country can profit by the experience of Japan and cities like London and New York, which have found that the building of metropolitan areas has drawbacks which lead to difficulties in society in relation to expensive programs for traffic control, policing, fire protection and so forth.
I am prompted to speak tonight on this question because of the fact that in my own area there was a meeting sponsored by the council of the town of Mount Forest, an area which one might call a slow growth area. Even though we in the province of Ontario may be the envy of the people of the mari-times, as my colleague the hon. member for Cumberland mentioned a moment ago, there are areas in the province of Ontario which
2016	COMMONS
Supply-Defence Production have not profited or increased economically or in population as they should have, considering the tremendous expansion we have enjoyed in this province.
I feel that the criteria that have been set up in respect of designated areas are not fair and just. The unemployment figure in Ontario is now about 2J to 3 per cent, so there are very few areas suffering an unemployment problem. I do maintain, however, that there are areas which have slow growth problems where the municipal officers, councillors, members of the chambers of commerce and wardens have done everything in their power to make their communities attractive, by providing the services to be found in larger and more industrialized centres, in the hope that industries could settle there and carry on their businesses at lower costs, providing employment. I suggest this is an advantage because many of these communities have high schools where vocational training is provided, and if there is employment the students graduating from these vocational schools can find jobs where they can use the skills they have been taught in their own communities.
The meeting held at Mount Forest on February 9 was prompted by a resolution passed by the council of the town. This resolution was circulated throughout the adjoining communities. This is the resolution that was passed and sponsored by this community:
Whereas the present method of providing assistance to certain municipalities by means of designated areas of slow growth has created advantages to such municipalities in preference to neighbouring municipalities where similar, or in many cases more serious, problems of growth exist.
And whereas it is felt that if assistance in its present form is considered to be necessary, and if it is to be rendered on an impartial basis.
Now therefore be it resolved that in designating areas of slow growth it is recommended that total areas as opposed to individual municipalities be so designated and that all municipalities in such area shall be entitled to the same type of assistance, and in particular, that the area extending from Goderich to Orangeville, lying north of provincial highway number 9 and extending to Georgian Bay, be so designated.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)
This resolution was circulated throughout the area and prompted the meeting which brought together representatives from more than 34 communities in that area. I was rather surprised to find in the minutes of the meeting that representations had been made by two or three of the communities within that area, who had come to Ottawa asking

DEBATES	March 1. 1966
that they might be included in this designation and participate in the special privileges given to communities within those areas. They were not too happy with the reception they were given and were sent home feeling there was just no hope for their ever being able to participate in this type of program.
I suggest to the Minister that once again a committee will be coming from that area to Ottawa asking that when the final reassessment is made of what are to be the criteria for designated areas, this formula perhaps should be changed and some consideration given to slow growth and to the young high school students in order that their names may be added to the number of people seeking work within that community, giving some hope that these areas will come within the special designation that is set up by the Department of Industry.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take a very few moments of the committee's time in regard to this question of designated areas. The minister knows of my interest; he knows the representations I have made; he knows of the group that, with me, saw him in this regard. I would add my voice to that of the people who at that time put up, in my humble opinion, a very good argument for the balance of the municipalities in the Georgian Bay economic region to be included in the designation of that area.
The minister replied to me personally at that time. I shall not go into the discussion that took place; the minister will recall it very well. But I would be remiss in my responsibilities if I did not bring to his attention the fact that I have had verified by the provincial government that the counties of Grey and Bruce are included in what is termed by the provincial government to be the Georgian Bay economic region. I asked the minister on that occasion, and I have asked him since, to include this area in the designation. His reply has been in the negative. I might say I was not particularly happy with the reception the delegation were given at the time they visited Ottawa. The minister himself was not present. We saw the Minister of Trade and Commerce of that day, who gave us a very reasonable reception. However, I feel that the officers of his department were extremely harsh in their view. I did not think they took into serious consideration the criteria that had been set up, particularly in regard to slow growth areas mentioned by the hon. member who preceded me.
March 1, 1966

This point was stressed by the Prime Minister when the legislation was introduced. I know that such legislation might well be termed discriminatory so far as the national picture is concerned because some will receive benefits and some will not. I am not saying that the people in the Georgian Bay area who are receiving the benefits of this designation are not in some way entitled ot it.
However, there is a tremendous differential between the municipalities who now have the benefit of this designation and those who do not. I ask the minister once again to recall that, from a provincial point of view, the entire counties of Grey and Bruce are considered as part of the Georgian Bay economic region. I request that they be considered as such when considering the extension of these designated areas. As the previous speaker mentioned: There is no question about it; there is no future in these areas for young people. We are exporters of our own youth, of our own product in education and in every field. Without these designations, there is no hope for future development such as the urban areas have. I hope at some time in the future the minister will see fit to give to the balance of Grey and Bruce counties the benefits of this legislation.


Edward Nasserden: There is just one point I should like to make in connection with these designated areas, and it is with regard to the designation in the province of Saskatchewan. I have discussed the matter with the minister. I feel that the area from Saskatoon, north, between the South and North Saskatchewan rivers, should have been included in the designated area, and east from the South Saskatchewan river from Wakaw up to Melfort. Both the towns of Rosthern and Wakaw are on the outskirts of the designated area. The trade from the area around them is going to be funnelled into the city of Prince Albert and other places. I think the minister can understand what the people of both these towns think about that type of operation. I am not going to dwell any longer on it. I hope the minister will give some consideration to the matter in any plans he may have for the future.


Siegfried John Enns: I had not really intended to say anything. I can assure the committee I will be only a few minutes, but I should like to make some comment on the designated area program. As the minister already knows, I am personally interested in this and since other provinces have made some protest I felt
Supply-Defence Production Manitoba should have at least some slight voice in this discussion. I have met with the commissioner of the Area Development Agency, and I have been impressed with the difficulty of the administration of this program.
I merely want to say to the minister that I will follow up the pressure put forward by the province of Manitoba to have pretty well everything but the city of Winnipeg included in the area designation, and certainly the city of Portage la Prairie. The Chamber of Commerce of that city, the mayor and city council have put forward their views strongly in a previous presentation. I hope to see the minister to follow up this matter and will therefore not take up any further time of this committee.


John Alfred Irvine: I should like to ask the minister if he is prepared to answer some of the questions that I posed, particularly the one with regard to the establishment of a parliamentary committee to check into the affairs of the printing bureau.
[DOT] (11:10 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the question of
designated areas has been a difficult one. I think hon. members know the program was designed to provide, through industrialization, job opportunities in areas in which there is a long standing high rate of unemployment. It is only natural, of course, that because of the very substantial advantages accorded to areas designated, all of those on the periphery should be very conscious of the advantages on one side of the line and the lack of them on the other. The residents of those areas just on the perimeter of designated areas, whether they be in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba or Saskatchewan, feel that some slight modification of the boundaries could usefully be made which would make them very happy. I would agree with this. However, when one starts on this slippery trail there is perhaps no stopping.
I should like to say to the hon. member for Wellington-Huron and the hon. member for Grey-Bruce that a study in conjunction with the government of Ontario is being undertaken to determine what should be the economic region known as the Georgian Bay development area. As the hon. gentlemen know, there is some difference of administrative definition of boundaries in this region, as between the federal and provincial governments. Perhaps a closer look at the economics of the problem would be helpful. This is about to be undertaken.
March 1, 1966

Supply-Defence Production
Mr. Chairman, I was very distressed indeed to hear the remarks of the hon. member for London with respect to employees of the printing bureau. The hon. member appears to have been the victim of what I can only refer to as the most malicious kind of gossip. He has placed on the order paper 20 questions, 17 of which have been answered so fully that he finds the answers boring. An endeavour has been made to answer as fully as possible for a specific reason. The three outstanding questions are about one week old, and are now in the process of being answered.
The reason why answers have been fully given, or given in full, is that the printing bureau is quite naturally disturbed, as is the Department of Defence Production, at the insinuations carried in the questions themselves. I have personally indicated to the hon. member that I am prepared to provide any information that he wants from me. I share the interests of all members of the house in ensuring that the taxpayers of this country receive the full value for their dollars that they are entitled to. Personally I have absolute confidence in the head of the Canadian Government Printing Bureau. It is, I suggest, irresponsible, unfair, and unworthy of the conduct of a responsible member of this house to stand up and, in relation to a group of honest, hard-working civil servants, accuse them without any substantiation at all of bilking the public, of theft of government supplies, and of illicit operations in the Government Printing Bureau when, on the strength of the questions he has asked and had answered, there is no foundation whatsoever for any such charges.
I suggest the hon. member is being unworthy not only to himself but to this house in engaging in this kind of conduct. In one unanswered question he made references to a photographer in the Canadian Government Printing Bureau. That man was unnamed. It is a sly habit to refer to people who are easily identifiable, and in a holier than thou attitude not mention any names. The name of the man is contained in a question now on the order paper! Mr. Whelan. He was described by the hon. member as being a photographer in the Canadian Government Printing Bureau, a man who also operated his own photographic plant outside the printing bureau. The implication of this, the bland assumption by the hon. member, is that all government servants are dishonest-that in this case, because he has these two jobs he must be mulcting the public. Let the hon.

member stand up and stake his seat on laying a charge.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: Are you laying a charge against a member of this house or are you talking about laying a charge against a civil servant.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: A civil servant.


Michael Starr: How do you, then, stake your seat?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I will answer by staking my seat. I am not afraid to do so. Let the hon. member make a specific charge and back his charges up with what he has here, if he is going to be a responsible member. I am sorry to say it has been a disappointment to me to be a member of a house where this kind of irresponsible behaviour-I should like to use stronger adjectives-is practiced.
Mr. Whelan is not employed as a photographer in the Canadian Government Printing Bureau. He is a clerk in the office there. He does have camera equipment of his own which he uses and from which I understand he makes money. A great many people in this country of ours do such things but if the hon. member is suggesting that no man in the employ of the government should have any kind of work for gain outside of his employ, then I suggest this will mean a new regime, a new dispensation for the civil service.
A fuller answer will be provided to this question which, as I say, is not yet seven days old, giving all the details. I am giving this example now, to indicate that a man whose name is now on the order paper was wrongly described. I regret to say the hon. member is either getting his misinformation from malicious sources or he is not taking the trouble to check it. This, I suggest, is unworthy of any member of this house. It is unworthy that he should take a chance of demeaning another man's name while relying on his parliamentary immunity in doing so. This is something about which I feel very strongly indeed.
As to the suggestion that on the strength of a series of imputations absolutely unsupported, indeed denied by the information he already has that this, as he calls it, stinking mess-and his charges are a stinking mess; that is a proper description-should be referred to a parliamentary committee and that the time of such a committee should be taken up by this kind of malicious gossip, I find that altogether unacceptable.
March 1, 1966	COMMONS


John Alfred Irvine: I am indeed sorry to see the minister take such a view. I like to think of him as a minister of the Crown, a minister to be respected. I like to think of him addressing other members of the house in the manner in which one would expect a minister of the Crown to address them. We have listened to a verbal tirade but I do not think it was in keeping with what we expect to hear from a minister. He mentioned these questions. I have them here in front of me.
[DOT] (11:20 p.m.)
He says there are three questions. It is a matter of how you look at it. The questions are numbered 789, 790 and 791, but there is a complete total of 19 subquestions. I believe I made a mistake and said there were some 20 questions. I am sorry; I was one out. I did not count them that closely, but they are important, and if the minister is interested in the well-being of the people of Canada he should be interested in following up anything of this nature which has a solid foundation.
I purposely did not mention the names of individuals. I do not want to hurt any individual man. That is not my purpose but I am still convinced something should be done, and I am convinced the minister should appoint a parliamentary committee to look into the matter. I do not think there is any point in his being stubborn about it.
I would not bring this up if I did not think I was right. I have spent some two months checking a few things and, according to the information that I have, I stand on very solid ground. I do not want to have any feeling of animosity between the minister and myself but I do feel that the language he used was not right. It was not in keeping with a minister of the Crown. I think some of those things he said he would like to retract but, on the other hand, I am still sure we should have a parliamentary committee investigate the public printing bureau.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief in the remarks I have to make. They are generated only because of the minister's totally unwarranted reply to some legitimate questions that he had been asked by an hon. member.
Those opposite seem to be unduly sensitive about the endeavours of individual members of the opposition performing what is their responsibility in this chamber in exposing to public scrutiny, particularly in their function
DEBATES	2019
Supply-Defence Production of examining the estimates, all facets of government spending, and all facets of the operations of government departments, bureaux, crown corporations and the like.
The minister has described the conduct of the hon. member who raised these questions as unfair, unworthy and irresponsible.


Michael Starr: Dishonest.


Erik Nielsen: And, indeed, he used the term dishonest. It is a member's responsibility in opposition to endeavour to lay bare those areas of government spending which the opposition feels are deserving of public scrutiny; and a government, if it did not have its eyes closed by blind arrogance, a government that has in it a generous proportion of members who once sat in opposition-but apparently not long enough-would see that that is the responsibile function of the opposition.
The questions raised by the hon. member for London are legitimate. They are deserving of careful and responsible replies, which have not been forthcoming from the minister this evening. Instead of dealing in the invective which he has used with regard to the remarks of the hon. member for London, the minister could have answered the questions. He could have told members of the committee what were the results of the R.C.M.P. investigation. He could have explained the circumstances under which a member of the printing bureau was given a contract to print voters lists.


George James McIlraith: That is awarded by the electoral officer.


Erik Nielsen: He has not done this. Instead he has challenged the hon. member for London to stake his seat in connection with it. The Minister of Public Works says this is wrong.


George James McIlraith: No, I did not say that. I pointed out to my colleague that the contracts for the printing of voters lists are not awarded by the government. They are awarded by the returning officers for the electoral districts. The returning office in such case has the exclusive responsibility for it and can not be interfered with.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, but let us face facts and not split hairs. The Minister of Public Works is a practising politician and he, as well as the rest of us, knows precisely how these voters lists get into the hands of printers for printing.
March 1. 1966

Supply-Defence Production


George James McIlraith: Yes, but the electoral officer in the constituency of Carleton, who is notoriously well identified politically, is the one who gave this contract, and I am surprised any member of the official opposition would raise anything about the placing of this contract.


Erik Nielsen: This is not the point. The Minister of Public Works, as usual, is appearing to drag red herrings across the trail. The point is this; if these circumstances are so, and if a government employee working on government time has been awarded a government contract paid for out of the taxpayer's money, surely these are circumstances which require a searching inquiry, as well as the other circumstances that have been raised. It would appear that the questions placed on the order paper by the hon. member for London are particularly with regard to the activities which apparently are transpiring in the printing bureau, or the activities regarding the disposal of alleged stolen goods which have been investigated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. My recollection when I looked at those questions and answers very carefully, is that if it was serious enough to warrant investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, surely it is a reasonable request the member is making to have the matter referred to a parliamentary committee.
Perhaps it is possible to have the activities of the public printing bureau referred to the committee of the house which has been set up for the purpose of examining the minister's estimates. If that is so, instead of engaging in the kind of invective which the minister did, he could have told us that the activities of the bureau would be open to the fullest possible scrutiny and that any persons whom the members wished to have called would be called before the committee when his estimates are referred to this committee. That is what he might have told us at that time, and had he done so I am sure we would have been satisfied.
Were it not for the kind of inquiry the minister has asked for, we never would have discovered the horses on the payroll, but I will not mention that because I do not wish to engage in the same kind of politics that the minister has engaged in. However, certainly the request of the member is reasonable. The minister has referred to something the member did not say, a not uncommon practice in the heat of exchanges in this house. He referred to the member for London having

called the situation in the printing bureau a stinking mess. I did not hear him say that. I am sure he did not, and I am sure the record will disclose that he did not say that.
I would ask the minister to give the committee an assurance that the printing bureau will be open to the fullest possible scrutiny when the estimates of his department come before the committee later, and that the printing bureau will be a part of the estimates to be examined by that committee.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, of course the estimates come before the committee. The government, in respect of all estimates, is prepared to submit them to the fullest possible scrutiny. This goes without saying. I am afraid that what the hon. gentleman wants me to do is to accept these insinuations and say we will let you have another run at it. I feel it is my duty to deny baseless charges. The hon. gentleman says I will not answer questions. I have answered in writing 17 out of 20 questions placed on the order paper. The hon. gentleman did not ask one single question tonight, except the sly kind of question with which some members of the house will be familiar, such as what happened to the television sets. What television sets is he talking about?


Erik Nielsen: I assume the ones in respect of which the R.C.M.P. conducted an investigation. What were the results of that investigation?
[DOT] (11:30 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If the hon. gentlemen will read the answer he will find that the results of the investigation were nil. The R.C.M.P., operating as they frequently do, on the basis of gossip, have chased this down and discovered nothing, and so the hon. gentleman was informed. He is not satisfied with that answer. The fact that the R.C.M.P. examined an alleged condition in the printing bureau and found nothing is to him a cause for further suspicion. I do not know how that kind of a suspicious nature can be satisfied. If the hon. gentleman has questions to ask I will be glad to answer them because I am persuaded that the fullest kind of information about the Canadian Government Printing Bureau will redound to its credit. I am prepared at any time to answer any and all questions, and I will be delighted to do so, but I do not like at all sitting here hearing expressions such as that quoted alleging shortages of stock.
The hon. gentleman knows that the Auditor General peruses the entire accounts of the
March 1, 1966

Canadian Government Printing Bureau annually. He knows that is a customary practice because he has looked into the operations of the printing bureau. He knows that book shortages are surveyed annually and written off. He also knows, because he received a written answer to his question, that obsolete and surplus equipment are declared surplus and written off, and then disposed of by the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
What questions did the hon. gentleman ask me? I suggest he asked me none; he merely made allegations.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the hon. member for London and I found more substance in his questions than the minister would like to have us find. If the minister is prepared to say now that he would be more than willing-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I have already said that I am.


Erik Nielsen: The minister has not answered because he has not heard the complete question I want to ask him. If the minister is prepared now to assure the members of the committee that when his estimates come before the standing committee of the house later this session, officials and other with-nesses referred to by the hon. member for London will be given an opportunity to appear, I am sure that all the members of this committee will be happy to allow the matter to stand there.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I repeat that I have given that assurance.


Erik Nielsen: The minister has not given us that assurance. He has only said that he would be willing to answer the questions asked of him.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: I hear groans from the other side. I am sure that hon. members will find a distinction between the minister appearing and the officials of the printing bureau appearing, and that is what the hon. member for London asked for, as I understood his remarks.
If the minister is prepared to give us the assurance that he will give an opportunity to the officials and employees of the printing bureau to appear before the committee I am quite sure the members of this committee will be happy to let the matter stand.


John Alfred Irvine: I have in my hand a rather lengthy answer to question No. 327, having to do with certain items of equipment that were
Supply-Defence Production allegedly written off, and I am sure that they were. This shows that one item, according to the board of survey No. 5, was considered obsolete and unserviceable equipment, made up of printing and duplicating equipment, bindery and allied equipment, spare parts and miscellaneous equipment in the amount of $121,953.47. This was listed as a gross write-off. Surely there must be some salvage value, and that was the substance of the question I asked. Surely this equipment would be turned over to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, because $121,000 worth of equipment and machinery would have some salvage value. I do not wish to belabour this point but I think it is very important.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am confused, Mr. Chairman. Is the hon. gentleman referring to the answer to question 327?


John Alfred Irvine: Yes.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Will the hon. member tell me where he gets these figures; is it out of the answer to question 327?


John Alfred Irvine: The answer is detailed as follows:
June 1, 1965, Schedule I. Canadian Government Printing Bureau-Board of Survey No. 5. Summary.
Under this heading is listed:
Obsolete or unserviceable.
Then below that;
Printing and duplicating equipment, $92,383.45; bindery and allied equipment, $23,368.53; spare parts and miscellaneous accessories, $6,201.49.
This gives a total of $121,953.47.
I will leave that matter with the minister for a moment. I am quite sure the minister has nothing to hide, but why would he not want to turn this matter over to a parliamentary committee and have it checked out? I am very interested in the question and suggest that the minister follow this course. There is another matter in which I am very interested; it is that the minister should withdraw the word "dishonest" because it is not in keeping for any member of this house, let alone a minister of the Crown, to use that kind of word when addressing a fellow member of the house.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, if I did use the
word "dishonest", I recognize that it is unparliamentary and withdraw it.


John Alfred Irvine: Thank you, Mr. Minister.


Erik Nielsen: All we need now, Mr. Chairman, is the minister's assurance in reply to my question, as far as I am concerned.
March 1, 1966

Supply-Defence Production


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then we might pass the estimates.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I shall be glad to make provision for the fullest examination of the estimates of the Canadian Government Printing Bureau when they are placed before the committee studying those estimates, and facilitate the appearance of officials to give evidence before that committee.


Erik Nielsen: I would include in the term
"employees" the witnesses to whom the hon. member for London has referred.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I have no control over witnesses. If the hon. member for London has some friends from whom he is receiving his information and wants to bring them before the committee, he can do so; but I am not going to sponsor them.


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps the minister would extend this facilitation to include employees as well as officials in the appearance before the committee. There would be no objection to employees appearing before the committee?
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman accused the Minister of Public Works of splitting hairs, but this is the finest hair-splitting I have seen this season. We will include all employees, both male and, if necessary, female, so there will be no misunderstanding. I do not want to hide anything.


Erik Nielsen: The minister is being facetious now. We all know how the standing committees of the house function. The majority lies on the government side and their friends to my left, and more often than not when the opposition asks for witnesses to appear or documents to be produced before committees we are frustrated in that objective. The minister has given his assurance that he will facilitate the appearance of these witnesses from the printing bureau. I for one am happy with that assurance and I would imagine the hon. member for London is also.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall vote 1 carry?


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the minister one question with respect to the heavy water operations in Glace Bay. Could the minister indicate what the requirements are at the present time for heavy water in this country and whether any progress is being made in the awarding of a second contract to the Glace Bay plant?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would be delighted to furnish the information if I had it, but responsibility for the production of heavy water now rests with the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[DOT] (11:40 p.m.)

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $6,007,600.
Alfred Dryden Hales: Is the minister going to make any statement on the Department of Industry.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think, having regard to the lateness of the hour, this would not be welcome, Mr. Chairman.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I realize the hour is late, but there are one or two things the minister should answer at this time. I feel he may be expecting me to say something about the Canada-United States car treaty, but I do not propose to say anything about it. The government has a resolution on the order paper and the house will be asked to give approval of that later.
In so far as the Department of Industry is concerned, it is only three short years ago since this department was established. At that time we suggested to the minister and the government that it was not necessary to set up such a department; that the work the department intended to do could quite easily be done by the Department of Trade and Commerce. We even suggested the name be changed to trade and industry. I realize that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association perhaps made requests to have some department in Ottawa for industry. At the same time, I feel they would have been quite satisfied to have a branch of industry within the Department of Trade and Commerce headed by a Deputy Minister.
When we realize that this department started three years ago with around 50 people and has now grown into one of the fastest growing empires on parliament hill, we feel the minister is duty bound to explain to this committee just what all this is about. Where is all this money going, and where are all these people employed? In the 1964-65 estimates there were $24.5 million allotted to this Department of Industry with a staff of 573 people. The next year's estimates indicate a jump of $10.5 million would be needed to operate this department with a staff of 583 people. Then, when we look at the estimates for 1966-67 we see this department needs $50.5 million with a staff of 635.
March 1, 1966

Now, Mr. Chairman, we of the official opposition want to know where this money is being spent and what these people are doing. Why is this necessary? What is this Department of Industry doing? We want to know more about the results being achieved for all this money that is being spent. We want to know the results which are being achieved for the expenditure of the taxpayers' money.
Time is very short and there are many things I should like to enlarge upon. However I reiterate that this is the fastest growing empire on parliament hill and I think it is high time the opposition knew something about these great expenditures.
I am only going to mention a few things concerning the free trade pact as it applies to car parts manufacturers. This is one thing the Department of Industry has done: It has put out of business the Canadian car parts manufacturers. They have dropped out of business like flies in all parts of the country. I have one specific case in my own riding in which a man is in the business of making electrical car harnesses. He tells me he has simply got to go out of business because he cannot compete in view of the cost of the wire which is based on the price in the United States, plus the cost of transportation and importation. This makes it impossible for him to compete on a free trade basis.
I know that the minister, and through him the department that deals with taxation, has said to this man, "You can bring this wire in duty free so that you can compete with United States competitors, but it has got to be cut in lengths. It has got to be in varying lengths rather than in a roll." Theoretically that is of great help to this man, but practically it is not worth a sou. Therefore the man I talk of has got to get into another line of business to do, perhaps, with boats, tractors, or forked lift trucks. But so far as the car business is concerned he is out.
In this country we have car parts manufacturers trying to compete with manufacturers in the United States. They have to bring in extra machinery, they have to enlarge their production, increase their efficiency, and the first thing that is done is that the 11 per cent production tax is put on. I hope that the minister will have a word with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I hope that communications in cabinet are good, because the minister has said, tonight, that he was all for removing the 11 per cent sales tax. We have car parts manufacturers saddled with an 11 per cent sales tax that their counterparts do not have. Firms making replacement parts,
Supply-Industry
not new parts, for cars are now very concerned that the free trade agreement is going to apply to them as well, and they are concerned that they will be put out of business, as have been the car parts manufacturers. I am not talking about cars at the moment. So far as the manufacturers of parts are concerned, they have had a rough time. I agree that a few of the large operators will survive. Those people who can get adequate capital, buy extra machinery, and so on, will survive. But smaller operators I am afraid are out of luck. I feel sorry for them. They have had the course, due to this treaty that was brought in by the Liberal government.
The other day tool and die labour people were in Ottawa. They saw the minister of manpower, and told him that their problem was due to the shortcomings of the Canada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement. This is a big subject which we have not time enough to go into tonight. We want to know about the area development program mentioned here through the designated area legislation. No matter what happens with respect to that, you are in trouble. If you move the line from here to there, you are still in trouble. Ever since this legislation has been brought in it has been nothing but discriminatory from beginning to end. I had experience in the early days of it. One of my first experiences with it was when Brantford was made a designated area, and the city of Guelph was not. So far as the designated area and area development legislation is concerned, it has been nothing but trouble from that day to this.
We want to know something about the industrial technology that was introduced, I think, last June. The hour is late, and there are very many things I should like to go into, in more detail. We want to know about the Department of Industry, because we were told when it was set up that it would be staffed by people moving from the Department of Trade and Commerce and from the Department of Defence Production. I have a question on the order paper, asking for the staffs of these departments as of certain dates. I have not received the answer yet. However, I am as sure as I am standing here that there will be a staff increase in every one of these departments. Yet we were told that the staff would come from other departments. There has been nothing but confusion in this from beginning to end.
If a man comes to Ottawa and he wants to talk to somebody down here about textiles, or chemicals, or food products, or certain types of machinery, he can go to any one of these

March 1, 1966
Supply-Industry
departments-Industry, Trade and Commerce, and Defence Production-and find somebody to talk to in each one with respect to what he wants, but he will have the run around until he finds the right man. He will find that what he seeks is not here; that he will have to go over there.
[DOT] (11:50 p.m.)
It has been nothing but confusion from beginning to end since this department was set up. I think it is high time we got things on to an even basis and end this duplication and overlapping. When we realize the cost has risen to $50 million and that we have a staff of 635 people in the department we are entitled to know where this money is going, what all these people are doing and what are the results.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
I. Salaries and other expenses, $27,973,900.
Mr. Cantelon:: I do not doubt that I shall be one of the most unpopular members of this committee for a few minutes but I believe national research is a subject on which some comment should be made. I feel sure that in a country such as ours there is no more important thing for the future than research. It is on this basis that I make these few comments.
Two or three weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister a question about the amount of research money which is coming to us from the United States. Unfortunately, the information which Dr. Polanyi gave in the course of a broadcast dealing with the subject was not quite correct and the Prime Minister pointed this out. Nevertheless the fact remains that there is a substantial amount of money coming to us from the United States for use in research. I fear we shall lose much of this money as a result of restrictions in connection with the transfer of funds from the United States to Canada. This makes it imperative in my view that we should increase our research grants.
I know that a great deal could be said about the subject but it is my intention to be brief. I hope the minister when presenting his estimates for the coming year will take this matter into consideration and see that his colleagues increase substantially the grants
[(Mr. Hales.]
which are made to the National Research Council and to the Medical Research Council.
There are many points I could bring out to support this contention, but time is short. However, I want to illustrate what is happening by referring to the two gentlemen who were mentioned on the broadcast to which I have referred, Dr. Bartlett from the University of British Columbia and Dr. Polanyi of the University of Toronto, who made the broadcast. Dr. Bartlett, I am afraid, is leaving for Princeton though other universities in Canada have done their best to keep him here. Since he has won not only the Steacie award but another award, the research corporation award for 1965, worth $10,000, he is obviously the kind of man we would like to keep in Canada. If we are to do this we must not only see that these men are well paid, we must see they get the students who can work with them, places in which to live and the equipment necessary for them to carry out the research they want to do.
Much of it may seem to be research that does not mean anything, but in the long run often means a great deal. We need the buildings which will accommodate this research, so I make a plea to the minister to see that in his new estimates full consideration is given to this fact, so that research grants will be greatly enlarged, and I mean greatly enlarged.
The best estimate the Canadian Association of Graduate Schools was able to come up with was that expenditures should be $160 million a year by 1970-71, and over $250 million a year by 1975. These are almost astronomical figures in relation to what is being done today, but I hope this will be given the fullest consideration and that more generous grants will be made.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, since we have gone along this far I think I should join the hon. member for Kindersley in doing my little bit to assist the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre in achieving his objective of sitting until midnight.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you very much. I said one o'clock.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Earlier this evening we had some discussion on designated areas, which the minister said were designated because they contained so little industry and had such high unemployment that the government felt something should be done about the situation. I suggest we are reaching a point where there are other areas in the country which should
March 1, 1966

be designated because of the fact that they contain so much industry that they are reaching the stage where they are no longer fit for people to live and work in them.
This is because industry has been allowed to develop in a way that its operations create pollution of the air and neighbouring waters, pollution which is reaching an acute danger point so far as the welfare of people is concerned.
I discussed this matter for a few minutes the other night when the estimates of the Department of Forestry were before us, with particular reference to one research item. Also, as the Minister of Industry may have noted, I have a question on the order paper, but apparently I am not alone in that, in attempting to find out what the federal government is doing through its various agencies in the field of research into air and water pollution.
So far as I am aware, the National Research Council is the most important research organism in the whole establishment of the federal government, and this item of the estimates is of interest to me.
I have noted a resolution on the order paper respecting certain changes in the operation, as well as the title of the research council. I am sure the government house leader is anxious that that resolution be discussed at the earliest possible date. However, one of the reasons I am rising tonight is to draw to the attention of the minister the fact that my question has been on the order paper since February 9, and to say I hope I shall receive an answer to it before we come to deal with the resolution preceding legislation respecting the National Research Council. I am referring to question No. 555, and I hope I receive the answer before we come to discuss what the future nature of the federal government's research activities should be.
[DOT] (12 midnight)
I am not going to pursue this question at any length tonight, except to say that I would appreciate it very much if the minister could, out of hand, name for me any of the major efforts presently under way by the National Research Council in the field of air pollution research or water pollution research, if such in fact do exist.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I cannot give the hon. gentleman a precise
23033-128a
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion answer to his question, but I will inform myself and inform him.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maurice Rinfret: This concludes the estimates of the Department of Defence Production, the Department of Industry and the National Research Council. We will now proceed to study the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh no we don't.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I think we would be prepared to sit and conclude the estimates of the Department of Agriculture but I have been discussing this matter with the government house leader and we have taken into consideration the staff, the Hansard reporters and the translators who now are fairly tired. In view of the situation I think we have had enough for tonight.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, it is very commendable to hear the hon. member for Ontario express his consideration for the staff. I also would remind you, Mr. Chairman, that we agreed to sit through these estimates we just now have completed. Because there are a number of members who are interested in the agricultural estimates, who are not here now, we would not wish to continue further.

The Depuiy Chairman: Order. It being now
past ten o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again? Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; would the house give unanimous consent for the two questions which were posted for the late show tonight to be stood over for another night and hold their position.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Rinfret): Is it
agreed that the questions which were to be heard tonight after ten o'clock should be put forward to the next day.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 12.07 a.m.

March 1. 1966
Supply-Items Passed
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day:]



DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
Administration-
1. Departmental administration including administration of the Guaranteed Loans Acts, the salaries and expenses of the inspector general of banks' office, and grants as detailed in the estimates. $3,862,800.
Royal Canadian Mint-
35. Administration, operation and maintenance, $2,701,000.
35b. Administration, operation and maintenance, $165,500.
40. Construction or acquisition of equipment, $480,300.
40b. Construction or acquisition of equipment, $107,200.
Municipal grants-
10b Grants to municipalities-To extend the purposes of Finance Vote 10 to the main estimates, 1965-66, to authorize a grant to the corporation of the city of Ottawa in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the Governor in Council with respect to buildings owned by Her Majesty in right of Canada and situate in the city of Ottawa in lieu of redevelopment charges imposed upon owners of buildings erected or enlarged under building permits issued after May 2, 1960 and to provide a further amount of, $3,850,000.
Government administration-
15. Contingencies-Subject to the approval of the treasury board, (a) to supplement the paylist provisions of other votes; (b) for miscellaneous minor or unforeseen expenses; and (c) for awards under the Public Servants Inventions Act; including authority to re-use any sums repaid to this appropriation from other appropriations, $6,000,000.
15b. Contingencies-Subject to the approval of the treasury board (a) to supplement the paylist provisions of other votes; (b) for miscellaneous minor or unforeseen expenses; and (c) for awards under the Public Servants Inventions Act; including authority to re-use any sums repaid to this appropriation from other appropriations, $35,000,000.
15d. Contingencies-To extend the purposes of Finance vote 15 of the main estimates for 1965-66 to supplement, in such amounts and in accordance with such terms and conditions as the treasury board may prescribe, the 1965-66 and 1966-67 estimates of other departments in order to provide for a winter construction and repair program and to provide a further amount of, $25,000,000.
17d. Government's contribution as an employer under the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan in respect of persons employed in the public service whose remuneration is payable out of the consolidated revenue fund, $3,550,000.
18. Government's contribution to the superannuation account as a result of the authorization of salary increases, each one of which was applicable to at least that percent of the contributors under the Public Service Superannuation Act, during the 1963-64 and 1964-65 fiscal years, as may be prescribed by the treasury board, in such amount as, in the opinion of the minister of Finance, is necessary to provide for one fifth of the cost to
Her Majesty in right of Canada for the benefits payable under that act, as a result of the said salary increases. $10,000,000.
19b. To deem, for the purposes of subsection (4) of section 11 of the Public Service Superannuation Act. Mrs. E. T. Pettie to have been employed in the public service substantially without interruption for a period of five years immediately before her retirement therefrom, $1.
20. Government's share of surgical-medical insurance premiums and government's contributions to pension plans and death benefit plans for employees engaged locally outside Canada who are excluded from the Public Service Superannuation Act, to the unemployment insurance funds in respect of government employees paid through the central pay office and to the hospital insurance (outside Canada) plan, $11,340,000.
21b. To authorize, with effect from April 1, 1965, payment in the current and subsequent fiscal years of an annuity under the locally engaged (noncontributory) pension regulations in respect of Hilda L. Waddell as if. upon her retirement from employment, she was an employee within the meaning of the said regulations on July 1, 1961, and to repeal, with effect from April 1, 1965, Vote 95 of Appropriation Act No. 5, 1959, $1.
22d. To authorize with effect from April 1, 1965, payment in the current and subsequent fiscal years of an annuity under the locally-engaged (non contributory) pension regulations in respect to Mr. Julio Moreira as if upon retirement from employment he was an employee within the meaning of the said Regulations on July 1, 1961 and to repeal with effect from April 1, 1965, Vote 734 of Appropriation Act No. 4, 1954, $1.
Comptroller of the treasury-
25.	Administration, including the administration of the Superannuation and Retirement Acts, $25,077,400.
Tariff board-
30. Administration, $312,800.

[Stage Direction]
1. Salaries and expenses of office, $1,746,200.

[Stage Direction]
Municipal development and loan board-
45. Administration, $216,000.
50b. To authorize the municipal development and loan board in the current and subsequent fiscal years, in cases where a municipal project, in respect of which a loan is approved by the board under the Municipal Development and Loan Act, is not completed on or before the 31st day of March, 1966, to forgive payment of 25 per cent of that portion of the principal amount of the loan that is advanced after the 31st day of March, 1966 with respect to the costs, as determined by the board, incurred on the project on or before that date, $10,000,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
L26b. To provide for the purchase, acquisition, and holding by the Minister of Finance of securities issued by the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition pursuant to subsection 1 of Section 12 of the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition Act and to subsequently dispose thereof, $80,000,000.
March 1, 1966
[Stage Direction]
LlOOd. Special accountable advances during the 1965-66 and 1966-67 fiscal years to or in respect of persons employed in the public service whose remuneration is payable out of the consolidated revenue fund and who are required to make contributions under, (a) the Public Service Superannuation Act or the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, and (b) the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan, in the amounts by which the combined contributions required from such persons in respect of remuneration to which an Act referred to in paragraph (a) and an Act referred to in paragraph (b) both apply exceed 6J per cent of such remuneration in the case of males and 5 per cent of such remuneration in the case of females, $3,550,000.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration. $950,400.

[Stage Direction]
Administrationlb. Departmental administration including administration of the Guaranteed Loans Act-To extend the purposes of Finance Vote 1 of the main estimates, 1965-66 to include the payment of service fees to the provinces, as described in the details of estimates, the grant detailed in these estimates and to provide a further amount of, $141,500.
Id. Departmental administration, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $15,000.
Subsidies and other payments to provinces-
5. Payments, computed in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, to the government of each province, in respect of income tax paid by corporations whose main business is the distribution to or generation for distribution to the pubic of electrical energy, gas or steam; the said payments to be made in respect of such part of the income of the corporations for the taxation year ending in the calendar year 1963 (as determined under and for the purposes of the Income Tax Act) as is derived from the said distribution or generation in the province to which payment is made, $8,500,000.
Municipal grants-
10. Grants to municipalities in accordance with the Municipal Grants Act and regulations made thereunder, $33,000,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
General administration-
1. Departmental administration including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates. $5,664,700.
Trade commissioner service-
5. Administration, operation and maintenance. $7,173,000.
Trade Commissioner service-administration 5b. Operation and maintenance, $138,000.
10. Exhibitions branch. $2,591,700.
Supply-Items Passed
15. Canadian government travel bureau-To assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada including a grant of $37,000 to the Canadian tourist association. $6,290,600.
Standards branch-
20. Administration and operation, $3,602,700.
Dominion bureau of statistics-
25.	Administration and operation including the fee for membership in the Inter-American Statistical Institute and a contribution of $500 to the International Statistical Institute. $14,298,000.
26.	1961 Decennial Census of Canada, $285,200.
27.	1966 Quinquennial Census of Canada, $1,113,800.
1967 world exhibition-
29.	Canadian government participation in the 1967 world exhibition. Montreal. $9,540,500.
B-National energy board-
30.	Administration, $954,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
Trade and Commerce-
L77d. Acquisition in the current and subsequent fiscal years of uranium concentrates in accordance with contracts to be entered into, with the approval of the governor in council, by Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada and uranium producers; and to provide in the current and subsequent fiscal years in respect of the uranium concentrates purchased under the said contracts, (a) the cost of stockpiling; (b) the cost of refining to uranium trioxide; and (c) interest payments to Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited at a rate equal to the monthly average of weekly three-month treasury bill tender rates less 0.5 per cent; authority is granted to expend in the current and subsequent fiscal years in respect of this program an amount not exceeding $135,000,000; estimated amount required for the current fiscal year, $13,500,000.
L78b. To increase to $850,000 the amount that may be charged at any time to the special account mentioned in vote L61e of the Appropriation Act No. 4, 1964, that was established for the purpose of providing working capital advances to posts and to employees on posting abroad and to departmental field offices in Canada, $150,000.
L78d. To increase to $1,150,000 the amount that may be charged at any time to the special account mentioned in vote L61e of the Appropriation Act No. 4, 1964, that was established for the purpose of providing working capital advances to posts and to employees on posting abroad and to departmental field offices in Canada, $300,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
1. Departmental administration including the care, maintenance and custody of standby defence plants, buildings, machine tools and production tooling and grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on Crown-owned defence plants operated by private contractors, $16,922,800.
Id. Departmental administration including the care, maintenance and custody of standby defence plants, buildings, machine tools and production tooling and grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on Crown-owned defence plants operated by private contractors, $155,000.
[Stage Direction]
March 1, 1966
Supply-Items Passed
5.	For the establishment of production capacity and for capital assistance for the construction, acquisition, extension or improvement of capital equipment or works by private contractors engaged in defence contracts, or by crown plants operated on a management fee basis, or by Crown companies under direction of the Minister of Defence Production, subject to the approval of Treasury Board, $2,217,000.
5b. For the establishment of production capacity and for capital assistance for the construction, acquisition, extension or improvement of capital equipment or works by private contractors engaged in defence contracts, or by Crown plants operated on a management-fee basis, or by Crown companies under direction of the Minister of Defence Production, subject to the approval of Treasury Board, $440,000.
10. To establish qualified sources for the production of component parts and materials, subject to the approval of treasury board, and to authorize, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, total commitments of $1,200,000 for the foregoing purposes during the current and subsequent fiscal years, $500,000.
B-Emergency measures organization-
20. Administration and operation, $2,719,800.
25. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including authority to make recoverable advances not exceeding in the aggregate the amounts of the shares of the governments of the provinces of the costs of joint programs, $1,764,200.
30. Grants to provinces and municipalities for civil defence and related purposes and authority to make recoverable advances in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board, $5,200,000.
C-Crown companies-
35. Expenses incurred by Defence Construction (1951) Limited in procuring the construction of defence projects on behalf of the Department of National Defence and procuring the construction of such other projects as are approved by Treasury Board, $2,085,000.
Canadian arsenals limited-
40. Administration and operation, $2,017,000.
45. Construction, improvements and equipment, $188,000.

[Stage Direction]
1.	Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates. $6,007,600.
5. To sustain technological capability in Canadian industry by supporting selected defence development programs, on terms and conditions approved by treasury board, and to authorize, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, total commitments of $60,000,000 for the foregoing purposes during the current and subsequent fiscal years, $25,000,000.
10b. To advance the technological capability of Canadian manufacturing industry by supporting selected civil (non-defence) development projects on terms and conditions approved by Treasury Board and to authorize, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, total commitments of $20,000,000 for the foregoing purposes during the current and subsequent fiscal years, $5,000,000.
Public printing and stationery-
1. Departmental administration, $223,100.
5. Printing, binding and distribution of official documents and publications for sale and distribution to departments and the public including the Canada Gazette and the annual statutes, and the purchase for sale of such other publications and related material as the treasury board may approve, $3,154,400.

[Stage Direction]
Atomic energy control board-
1. Administration expenses of the Atomic Energy Control Board, $186,400.
5. Grants for researches and investigations with respect to Atomic Energy, $1,600,000.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited-
(Research program) -
10. Current operation and maintenance, including expendable research equipment, $40,549,600.
15. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment and to authorize Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to undertake construction of works near the White-shell Nuclear Research Establishment for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, $12,976,500.
Loans, Investments and Advances-
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited L5. Advances to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in such amounts and on such terms and conditions (including the delivery to Her Majesty, in satisfaction of the advances, of obligations or shares of the Company) as the Governor in Council may approve, to finance the construction of the Douglas Point generating station; to share in the construction of the Pickering Generating Station under agreement between the federal government, the province of Ontario and the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario; to finance the construction of an engineering design office at Sheridan Park; to finance the construction of housing and other works near the Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment; and to authorize Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to undertake construction of the said housing and other works near the Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, $112,162,000.

[Stage Direction]
1. Salaries and other expenses, $27,973,900.
March 1, 1966	COMMONS
lb. Salaries and other expenses-to extend the purposes of vote 1 of the main estimates for 1965-66 to include the making of recoverable advances not exceeding the amount of the share of the United States government of the cost of operation of the Churchill Research Range and to provide a further amount of, $2,141,000.
5. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $6,700,000.
5b. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-to extend the purposes of Vote 5 of the main estimates for 1965-66 to
DEBATES	2029
Supply-Items Passed
include the making of recoverable advances not exceeding the amount of the share of the United States government of the cost of improvements to the Churchill Research Range, $1.
10. Scholarships and grants in aid of research, $30,700,000.
15. Assistance toward research in industry under terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $4,500,000; $3,500,000.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 2, 1966