1966-04-19

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of a system of collective bargaining applicable to employees in the public service of Canada and for the resolution of disputes that may arise in the negotiation or conclusion of collective agreements applicable to such employees; to establish a process for the presentation of grievances of employees arising in connection with their employment and to establish a system for the adjudication of grievances of employees; to provide for the establishment of a board, to be known as the public service staff relations board, which shall be responsible for the administration of the said measure and to provide further for the constitution and appointment of such other authorities, offices and employees as are required in connection with the administration of the said measure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (for Mr. Sauve) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a corporation, to be known as the Canadian livestock feed board, for the purpose of assisting livestock feeders in eastern Canada and British Columbia; to empower the board to make payments related to the cost of feed grain storage in eastern Canada and payments related to the cost of feed grain transportation to or for the benefit of livestock feeders in eastern Canada and British Columbia, to enter into arrangements for the purpose of ensuring the availability at reasonable prices of adequate supplies of feed grain for such livestock feeders, and when authorized by the governor in council to enter into direct marketing operations in feed grain; to provide for the administration of the said board and for the establishment of an advisory committee; and to provide that all expenditures in connection with the said measure, other than those related
to direct marketing operations, will be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament therefor and that any expenditures related to direct marketing operations in feed grain will be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund and charged to an account to be known as the Canadian livestock feed board account, the amount of any such expenditure to be charged to the said account not to exceed the amount by which ten million dollars exceeds the balance of the said account.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize payments to the provinces equal to 95 per cent of that part of the income tax paid under part I of the Income Tax Act by certain corporations in respect of income earned after 1965 that is attributable to the gross revenue of such corporations from the distribution and sale to the public in the province or the generation and sale in the province for distribution to the public of electrical energy or steam or from the distribution and sale of gas to the public in the province; and to provide that an amount paid under the said measure that is paid or otherwise credited by the province to such a corporation for the use of that corporation shall be exempt from income tax.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposilion):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), as follows:
I ask leave to move the adjournment of this house in accordance with standing order No. 26, in order to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the crisis of uncertainty and chaos in the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation culminating in the current dispute between management and the producers of the program "This Hour Has Seven Days"; and the reported admission by the Secretary of State that "the row over 'Seven Days' is an iceberg symptomatic of more fundamental problems within the corporation", and her reported acknowledgement that there is serious trouble within the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
April 19. 1966

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
1	had a French translation of this motion, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately it did not come down with me. As soon as it is available it will be sent to the various house leaders.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the right hon. Leader of the Opposition would address the Chair on the particular urgency of debate in relation to this proposed motion. The Chair has noted the contents of the motion as moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, and I suggest that either the right hon. gentleman or another member of the house might want to offer comments in connection with the urgency of debate.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Bumaby-Coquillam):: It
seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter of urgent public importance and that there is every reason for Your Honour to allow the debate which has been proposed by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.
I think this matter is urgent on three grounds. I think it is urgent, in the first place, because a statement ought to be made in the house today by the minister responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in order to allay the fears and misunderstanding which are prevalent throughout the country with regard to the recent dismissal of the two co-hosts of the program "This Hour Has Seven Days".
The motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition contains a statement made by the Secretary of State to the effect that the dispute over the program "This Hour Has Seven Days" is only symptomatic of a much wider discord within the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It seems to me most urgent that the House of Commons and the country should know what is the state of affairs within that organization. Certainly the statement made yesterday by Mr. Ouimet has done nothing to allay those fears. There is a contradiction contained in that statement. The chairman alluded to the fact that the producer of the program had mishandled controversial questions, but at the same time said that Mr. Leiterman, who is the producer, would continue with the program next season.
We have, therefore, the man who is responsible being retained on the program and the two co-hosts being removed from the program. This certainly indicates some breakdown in responsibility, and indicates that the

reasons which have been given for the dismissals are not the true reasons at all. The minister's statement, therefore, that there is a crisis boiling up within the C.B.C. would seem to be warranted. I think this house and the country have a right to know what is the situation.
The second ground for urgency is that there ought to be a debate in this house so the government can hear the views of the members regarding this whole question and refer it to the standing committee on broadcasting. Statements which have been made by those within the corporation, statements which have been made by those outside the corporation, and statements which have been made by Mr. Robert Fowler, who was the royal commissioner looking into this matter, all ought to be referred to the standing committee. I am told Mr. Fowler was to be interviewed on the program "This Hour Has Seven Days", and that this interview was quashed by the management. If this is true this matter ought to be settled, and ought to be settled immediately, by having this whole question referred to a committee.
The third and most important reason for urgency, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that there is a grave possibility of either mass resignations by producers and performers or a strike by some of those in important positions within the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Either of these propositions would do great harm to our national, publicly owned broadcasting system. All of us who believe in a national, publicly owned broadcasting system would be loath to see such a thing happen. If it could be prevented by having some arbitration machinery set up immediately to go into this question and prevent the loss of some very important and very capable staff, I think that should be acted upon immediately. I think it would be unwise for this house to sit here and allow the situation within the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to deteriorate further. This is a most urgent matter which ought to be discussed, and it should be discussed today.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the sole question before Your Honour for decision at the moment, as I see it, is the matter of urgency of debate. The hon. member who has just taken his seat indicated that there was certain information he wanted the house to have. The house has already taken action in the matter by referring the estimates relating to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the standing
April 19. 1966

committee on broadcasting on March 22, and I understand those estimates are now before that committee.
I know of no better way of obtaining the information which the hon. member asserts would be the proper concern of this house than by having the appropriate witnesses examined before that committee. There is no reason why that cannot be done today. If the hon. member wishes it to be done today, then that is a matter for the committee.
I do not know whether the hon. member has taken the usual steps to have that done, but the point I wish to make clear, Mr. Speaker, is this. You have been asked to set aside the ordinary business of the house for today, business which is also quite important, in order to permit debate of this matter in this house without hearing witnesses and without having available the information which the hon. member indicated was so important.
I suggest that his whole argument has indicated that the correct method to discuss this matter is through the committee which has been constituted and which has the matter before it. There is no reason to move a motion to withdraw the matter from the committee at this time. In other words, no case has been made for urgency of debate within the meaning of standing order 26.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the urgency of this matter is concerned I am quite surprised at the attitude taken by the minister on behalf of the government. I do not think there has ever been a matter which in so short a time has brought about so much antagonism in all parts of Canada. Indeed, I understand that some 3,800 or more telegrams have been received by the C.B.C. in this connection. I personally have received a greater number than in respect of any other matter in the last couple of years. The question of urgency is apparent in view of an aroused public opinion and the need for parliament to look into this matter.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam made mention of the reaction among C.B.C. employees in consequence of what they believe to have been arbitrary treatment on the part of management. He also mentioned the Fowler commission and the recommendations of that commission. My information, in view of those recommendations, is that because two officials connected with the "Seven Days" program, one in Ottawa and one in Toronto, gave their views to the Fowler commission,
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation these two gentlemen have been advised that their contracts are to be terminated because they have not left a good image of the C.B.C. or in any event that there are doubts about the statements they made before the Fowler commission on broadcasting, and therefore they have lost their right to be treated in the manner in which one would expect.
There cannot be anything more urgent than this. This is not a matter which can be shelved away, as I see it, by saying that some other institution or body can look after it. This is a matter concerning a great national body that incidentally was set up under a Conservative government, under Mr. Bennett. I want to make that clear. That body was to be an institution for the benefit of the Canadian people, not for the glorification of those in high positions.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The Canadian people contribute fabulous amounts of money to the corporation, through parliament. We have a right to expect that those sums shall be expended in a way that is in keeping with the responsibilities of that corporation.
I therefore say there is urgency, and I am amazed at the attitude of the government house leader in this regard. If the members of the government do not know there is urgency, then they have not opened their telegrams.


Mr. Real Caouelie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the motion of the Leader of the Opposition suggesting it is urgent to discuss the action taken by the C.B.C. with regard to the program "This Hour Has Seven Days", hosted by Messrs. Patrick Watson and Laurier LaPierre, does not seem to me as urgent as the Leader of the Opposition would have us believe. I feel there are at present in Canada much more urgent matters than to determine whether the program "This Hour Has Seven Days" should continue to be hosted by Messrs. Watson and LaPierre.
Mind you, Mr. Speaker, I know personally Messrs. Watson and LaPierre. I admire a great deal those two Canadians who have performed a tremendous job at the C.B.C. in order to present the program "This Hour Has Seven Days" to the Canadian people.
We in parliament should keep in mind that, in the past, the hosts of many programs have changed in practically similar circumstances, and neither the Leader of the Opposition nor
April 19, 1966

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation anyone else objected because the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was under a commission independent of parliament. In fact, the C.B.C. was not interfered with.
Mr. Speaker, there will always be an opportunity to discuss the Watson-LaPierre case, and others, before the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, where all members are invited. When the estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State are before us we can bring up this question of the program "This Hour Has Seven Days" and establish the facts concerning Messrs. Watson and LaPierre.
Now, even if we were to discuss this matter today I do not think we could reach an immediate agreement. As I said a while ago, Mr. Speaker, I feel there are far more pressing things to be attended to.
During the last electoral campaign the government promised to wage war on poverty in Canada. That is a far more important matter than the situation in which Messrs. Watson and LaPierre find themselves at the present time. That is something far more urgent than the program "This Hour Has Seven Days".
Everybody appreciated the program, granted, but there are legislative measures to be introduced and studied here, in Ottawa, which are of far greater importance. And, at any rate, as I have already said, "This Hour Has Seven Days" can always be discussed when the estimates of the Secretary of State come up, or else before the appropriate committee.
Now, for my part, I do not believe in the need of adjourning the house to consider that specific case. The Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) stated that the row over that program is symptomatic of more fundamental problems within the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and that the attention paid to it is an indication that there is serious trouble within the C.B.C. Everybody is convinced of that, even the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister of Canada. In fact, at that time he did nothing to correct what took place under his own administration.
Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) that there is not so much urgency to debate this case, but that, on the other hand, there are much more capital issues to be discussed today, in the Ottawa Parliament, for the well-being of the population. The firing of two individuals because of political pressures

or other intrigues not specified in the newspapers is secondary.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the urgency is somewhere else than within the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation today.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I think the very unusual statement which was made a few days ago by the Secretary of State, to the effect that there was far more difficulty and trouble brewing within the C.B.C. than had been apparent up to that time, is one with which this house should be concerned. However, I believe we have set up the proper method of dealing with this kind of information inasmuch as the committee on broadcasting now has the authority to go into this matter at once should it choose to do so. After all, the standing committees of this house are in effect an extension of the house itself.
I think, Mr. Speaker, you will also have to consider this motion to adjourn the house under standing order No. 26 in the light of paragraph 1 of citation No. 100 in Beau-chesne's fourth edition, which states that a motion to adjourn the house under standing order No. 26 must involve the administrative responsibility of the government. The motion before us deals specifically with a question of programming by the C.B.C., and over the years there has been great resistance on the part of the government, and in particular on the part of the minister reporting for the corporation, to any attempt by members of this house to become involved in C.B.C. programming.
This is true of previous governments as well as of the government now in office. I can recall ministers who have held responsibility in the past for reporting to this house on C.B.C. affairs adamantly refusing to accept the kind of criticism which involved C.B.C. programming. Time after time they claimed it was not the responsibility of the minister reporting to parliament to become involved in the programming of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. For these reasons I think it would be difficult to accept a motion such as is now before us, a motion which involves programming, when over the years all governments have claimed they do not have an administrative responsibility in this area.
Another point is this. Urgency of debate requires that the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought up early enough,
April 19. 1966	COMMONS
with the result that the public interest suffers. I suggest that today, or almost immediately now that the estimates have been referred to the standing committees, the particular committee concerned, which as I have said is an extension of this house, can inquire into this matter.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
In my view this would be a far more useful exercise than conducting a debate on the floor of the house. The committee has power to call officials of the C.B.C. if it so wishes in order to find out what is at the bottom of this trouble which the Secretary of State claims is brewing within the corporation. We could call in the president and ask him if there has been gross insubordination sufficient to cause him to dismiss these men for the ensuing season. Until we get the rest of this information I do not think a debate on the floor of the house could serve any useful purpose.
I think what has happened during the course of the last two or three days is something that could have been avoided if the broadcasting committee had been set up several months ago, but it is too late to complain about that now. I sincerely believe the time could be spent far more usefully in calling the C.B.C. officials before the committee and finding out what is at the bottom of all this discord within the C.B.C. That would be far more useful than having a debate here without knowing what the president and other administrators have on their minds.
I also suggest that if the Secretary of State is aware of a lot of difficulty within the C.B.C. administration she should make a statement to the house about it. This she has not done, but she could make such a statement to the broadcasting committee. After all, we in this house do provide the funds for the C.B.C., and if it is not functioning well and properly and in the interests of the Canadian public generally, and she knows about it then she has a responsibility to tell the broadcasting committee or the House of Commons.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I refer you to the first paragraph of citation 100, which says the matter for debate must involve the administrative responsibility of the government and, if we are to follow the pattern of the past, we have to accept that C.B.C. programming is not a responsibility of the government.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to a couple of points in regard to the urgency of debate. 1
DEBATES	3981
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation regret I cannot agree with the hon. member for Villeneuve and the hon. member for Medicine Hat in the emphasis they have placed on the question of programming as mentioned in the motion presented by the Leader of the Opposition. Programming is only a part of the whole problem, and if a careful reading is made of the motion it will be seen it deals with a crisis of uncertainty in broadcasting, particularly in the C.B.C.
On the question of urgency I point out that within the rules of the house the debate which we are to continue today is on fiscal matters, and must run for another four or five days or until the end of this week. Therefore these broadcasting matters are not relevant for discussion in the budget debate, and I think Your Honour would be quite right to restrict that debate to matters coming within the terms of the budget.
Certainly I find it rather passing strange that the hon. member for Medicine Hat would cite a reference in Beauchesne with regard to the administrative responsibility of the government. By statute the C.B.C. is responsible to parliament, and parliament is in this house. It is to parliament that the C.B.C. is responsible. Therefore it is quite right that this matter should be discussed here if it is one of urgency. I suggest that the hon. member for Medicine Hat is placing the cart before the horse in that he is subordinating parliamentary to government responsibility.
The third point I would like to make is with regard to the broadcasting committee. A decision by the majority of that committee to relegate this matter to some indefinite date is not appealable to the house. It is not even referable to the house. What has been referred to that committee are the estimates of the corporation. If in deciding its agenda the committee puts this matter off to some indeterminate date and the Secretary of State does not appear before parliament to repeat the rather grave statement which she made at a partisan political meeting, then this house is stultified.
I suggest to Your Honour that now is the time for the minister to come forward to make her statement, to elaborate on it, and to give us the reasons why she made it originally. That is the crisis of uncertainty with regard to the C.B.C. The question of one program or another matters not. After all, one has only to go back to the records of June, 1959 to see that some hon. ministers now sitting opposite put forward a similar
April 19, 1966

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation type of motion to discuss an internal C.B.C. matter concerning a less popular radio program. I suggest they cannot now argue on both sides of the question and I put it to Your Honour that this motion is entertaina-ble. It is urgent as to debate. Otherwise it will be lost forever in the dim future.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge you to accept the motion on the following grounds. First, I think it is a great error, whether deliberate or innocent, to interpret the motion as one dealing only with programming in the C.B.C. What the motion seeks is a debate on the crisis of uncertainty and chaos in the affairs of the C.B.C. There is the reported admission by the Secretary of State that the row over "Seven Days" is an iceberg symptomatic of more fundamental matters within the corporation, and there is her acknowledgement that there is serious trouble within the corporation.
I submit that the motion seeks to have a debate on the serious trouble and controversy within the corporation, a corporation which is responsible to parliament through the minister. It is wrong to suggest that the motion and members supporting it are concerned with details of programming. We in this group are as anxious as other hon. members to leave the C.B.C. free to deal with its own programming arrangements.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Medicine Hat was right when he said it is important that the minister should make a statement to the house. This is precisely what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam suggested was one of the reasons of urgency for the motion, because it would enable the minister to make her statement today, at a time when everybody in Canada and all members of this house are concerned about the problem.
Third, Mr. Speaker, for obvious reasons I have not had as much experience as many other hon. members in these matters but I recall looking up a number of occasions when subjects were debated under standing order 26 and, speaking from memory but I think accurately, the debates ended in the subject matter being referred to some committee or other. The fact that there is a debate on a matter of urgent public importance does not preclude the matter going to a committee. On the contrary, that may be the desired end. Therefore the suggestion that this matter be referred to a standing committee, and other 
similar suggestions, could be implemented after debate in the house today.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that what was said by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the Leader of the Opposition as to urgency is obvious and compelling, namely that all the reports indicate that unless there is some assurance given through a discussion on the floor of this house we may have wholesale resignations from the C.B.C., or a strike by producers or some other group within the C.B.C. It will not do any good at all to have the standing committee on broadcasting consider this matter either a day or two days from now, if, in the meantime, irreparable harm has been done in the corporation by action which seems to be contemplated by responsible staff members of the corporation.
For these reasons I urge you to accept the motion as presented.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, The Chair has heard arguments for and against the motion proposed by the right hon. leader of the official opposition. While I do not wish to prevent further discussion, I believe the Chair has been sufficiently enlightened in respect of this matter to reach a decision.
As hon. members well know, the guiding principles in matters of this kind are to be found in Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 100. The hon. member for Medicine Hat referred the Chair particularly to paragraph 1 of that citation. However, I prefer to base my ruling on paragraph 3 of citation 100 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads as follows:
'Urgency' within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means 'urgency of debate', when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the House do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
In referring to the question of urgency of debate the hon. member for Edmonton West drew attention to the fact that the immediate business of this house was the continuation of the budget debate, and that there could be no discussion of this matter during the next four or five days. I agree with the hon. member to this extent. This matter cannot be discussed while there is a motion of non-confidence before the house, and while there are before us an amendment and a sub-amendment, both dealing with financial matters. Any attempt to discuss the subject matter of the motion now before the house would be out of
April 19. 1966

order, because of irrelevancy, during our consideration of those two want of confidence motions.
I should point out that the subamendment now before us will be disposed of this evening, and that the amendment will be disposed of on Thursday evening. Assuming that the government survives both amendments there will then be an opportunity to discuss the subject matter of the proposed motion when we have before us the simple motion that the Speaker do now leave the chair. It seems to me that will provide an early enough opportunity to discuss this matter.
In view of these facts I cannot accept the motion proposed by the right hon. leader of the official opposition.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will he arrange for an immediate convening of the standing committee on broadcasting in order that it will have an opportunity to discuss the problems which have been reported to have arisen between management and the creative people of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the committee has been set up and that the estimates, including those of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, have been referred to it for consideration. I shall be glad to get in touch with the chairman of that committee to find out whether it is convenient to arrange for an immediate meeting.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. Will the hon. lady assure this house that when the appropriate committee is convened, senior management officials of the C.B.C. will be available and will appear before that committee in order to facilitate an examination of these problems?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I took the opportunity of speaking to the chairman of the broadcasting committee when he arrived in Ottawa just before the house opened this afternoon. In view of the fact that he is a new member of the house I informed him that it was his
Inquiries of the Ministry responsibility, and he needed no direction from the government, as to when he called a meeting. I also told him that he could call a meeting of the members of the steering committee as soon as he chose to do so, and that it was his right as the chairman of the committee to call before that committee any witnesses necessary.
I should add, Mr. Speaker, that there cannot and will not be any attempt by the government to restrain the committee from calling any member of the board of the C.B.C. at any time.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the government house leader arising out of the statements made by that hon. minister and the Secretary of State. Will the government house leader give consideration to moving, by unanimous consent of the house, a motion in the terms of citation 304 of Beauchesne, directing the committee to make a special report on this matter to the house as soon as possible?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, I think that would be an unnecessary interference with the committee's work in respect of matters now before it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State, asking the hon. lady whether there has been any discussion between her and the president of the C.B.C. with reference to the possibility of arbitrating the dispute now under way between management and certain employees of that corporation.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken to the president of the C.B.C. since Friday afternoon, when I first learned of this dispute. At that time he informed me of the views of the management regarding this matter. Mr. Ouimet was in my office at that time for 15 or 20 minutes in relation to an entirely different matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. minister prepared to make such representations to the president of the C.B.C. as have been suggested?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, since one of the vice presidents of the C.B.C. is in the gallery I am pleased to direct his attention to the suggestions made by hon. gentlemen during the course of this debate. Since this whole matter is between management and employees I must leave it to them.

April 19. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Douglas: May I also ask the Secretary of State whether she will ascertain if it is correct that the president of the C.B.C. instructed his staff on Sunday last to refuse to accept from the Canadian National Railways any telegrams directed to him, but that they be put on telex for transmittal to him on Monday?


Mr. T. S. Barneii (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State which may provide her an opportunity to answer a question asked a moment ago. I should like to ask the hon. lady whether, if it were desired by the committee on broadcasting, she would assure the house that she would make herself immediately available to that committee?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say I would do so with any wild enthusiasm but I would certainly do it.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as house leader.
In view of the insecure situation of our eastern farmers, could he tell us when the government will likely introduce the feed grain resolution, so that farmers can buy their feed grain at a reasonable price? The resolution is dated April 5, and farmers are awaiting the government's decision to deal with this matter.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, we took the first legislative step in this regard by transferring a government notice of motion on the order paper today to government orders. I hope to be able to discuss the business of the house with representatives of all parties with a view to getting this and other important legislation before the house as quickly as possible, in a manner that is agreeable to all members.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO PROPOSED CHANGE IN DATE On the orders of the day:
['Order, please. This question is argumentative and cannot be accepted.']
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether a new date has been set for the federal-provincial conference originally scheduled for 
the first week in June and, if so, whether there has been any correspondence in respect thereto which can be tabled in the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes Mr. Speaker, I learned over the week end, as the result of reports, of the date of the election in Quebec, which will conflict with the proposed federal-provincial conference. Since that time I have been in touch with the host premier of the province of British Columbia, as well as with other provincial premiers, in order to select another date which will be suitable, later in June.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in relation to another of the trouble spots in Africa. Can the minister inform the house whether any Canadian citizens are in the Portuguese territory of Guinea which is presently reported to be in the hands of rebels? If so, has the government taken any steps to guarantee their safe removal?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take that question as notice.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, asking him whether he is in a position to make a report to the house regarding the activities of the Canadian aid for Viet Nam civilian committee. Is that committee in operation to provide assistance to North Viet Nam, and what is the attitude of the government toward its activities in this regard?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, while I have received no official communication that such a committee is in existence, I have seen press reports to the effect that one does exist, and that several hon. members of this house reportedly are sponsors or honorary patrons. There would seem to be no obstacle to the shipping of articles which are on the permissible list provided, of course, the Export and Import Permits Act is observed with regard
April 19. 1966

to the sending of gifts, parcels or medical supplies whose ultimate destination is North Viet Nam or a particluar group in South Viet Nam.


Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs with reference to the matter he has just discussed. In view of the support by members of this house for aid to North Viet Nam, will the government give immediate consideration to extending similar aid to South Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government, of course, is now extending aid to South Viet Nam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister any evidence to support the statement that the medical aid proposed by the civilian aid committee is confined to North Viet Nam, or is it correct that it extends to civilians whether in North Viet Nam or South Viet Nam?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is argumentative and cannot be accepted.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys whether, now that he has had the refreshing interlude of a ten-day holiday, he is in a position to give us a report on the conference between himself and the government of Ontario with regard to pollution of the Great Lakes, a report which a month ago he indicated might be ready in two weeks?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I said that the report was being prepared in my department, would be submitted to the government of Ontario and then, if it were agreed, would be published. The first step is over. We are about to take the second step.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then it is still about to be published.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Prime Minister. Is the government yet in a position to make a statement concerning the study it has been making of the request for an inquiry into the case of Steven Truscott?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Solicitor General to answer that question.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, it has been decided that a review of the case should be made. It should be stressed that the government, in coming to this decision, is not prejudging the matter or the correctness or otherwise of the allegations that have been made concerning the Truscott case.
The official decision has not yet been reached as to the particular form the review will take. Before that is decided I will meet with the Attorney General of Ontario later this week-I have now made arrangements to meet with him on Friday of this week-and the nature of the review will be announced as soon as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the reaction in general to that announcement will be most favourable. I want to ask the minister whether consideration is being given to the granting by His Excellency the Governor General in Council of a new trial instead of reviewing the matter generally through a commission, which of course would have to review the judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Court of Appeal.


Lawrence T. Pennell: This relates to a matter of the administration of justice in the province of Ontario and I think I owe the courtesy, at least, of speaking to the Attorney General of the province of Ontario. May I respectfully decline, therefore, to make any further announcement at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May we in the meantime assume that one of the ways being considered as a possibility is a royal commission?


Some hon. Members:: Order.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reg Canlelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime

April 19. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister. I would like to ask whether, in view of the immense importance to the future of this country of the educational qualifications of her people, he has decided to meet with a delegation of the Canadian School Trustees Association who have been trying to arrange a meeting with him?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have met, of course, a good number of delegations on this vitally important subject. I am not too familiar with this particular delegation but will look into the matter at once and see whether a request has been made.



EXPO '67

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO VISIT BY PRIME MINISTER 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 concerning his recent visit to the Expo '67 construction site in Montreal.
Could he tell the house if the funds are used properly and if the construction work will be finished in time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a general question and it is not urgent enough to be asked at this time.



ESTIMATED DEFICIT-SHARE TO BE BORNE BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance respecting Expo '67. It is reported that the estimated deficit for Expo '67 has gone up to $82 million. Has the federal government concurred in this new estimate and, if so, what share of the $82 million will be borne by the federal government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question should be placed on the order paper.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister, or the house leader now that he is back in the chamber, indicate when we might be able to have the estimates of Expo '67 presented to a committee of the house so that all aspects of 
Expo could be gone into by members of the house?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether they were referred to the committee. I would have to check whether they were referred and are now before the standing committee. I will check into the matter immediately.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compton-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Labour.
The authorities of a municipality located in my riding sent me documents and made certain protests with regard to the winter works program. I was told, among other things, that the bank refused to pay some municipal employees allegedly because it was a federal responsibility.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member put his question? It seems to me he is now making a speech rather than asking a question.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, here is my question. A municipality in my riding was refused the necessary amounts of money to pay employees who had performed work in conjunction with the winter works program.
Further to information I was given-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member put his question?
[English1



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary-Secretary to Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Could the minister advise the house whether a chairman has been appointed for the two conciliation boards established in the dispute between the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways and the non-operating unions?
April 19, 1966
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Howard: I would rather raise it at ten
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will be o'clock, Mr. Speaker, pleased to know that a chairman has been
selected.	AGRICULTURE


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not a matter of great surprise.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Justice F. C. Munroe of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, who did such an outstanding job on the two previous conciliation boards, has agreed to accept this appointment at the joint request of both railways, and of the brotherhoods and unions concerned. This is a great-a unique- tribute to Mr. Justice Munroe.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys based on his statement in Toronto last night relating to constitutional reform. Is the government now postponing indefinitely any meeting with the provinces in order to obtain agreement on a written constitution suited to modern times?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this question can be accepted. It seems to be of a very general nature and does not seem to be very urgent.



PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.-INCREASE IN ELEVATOR CAPACITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. My question is based upon the announcement by the Minister of Finance just prior to the Easter recess that greatly increased sales of wheat would be made to China. In the light of that announcement I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture has reviewed over the Easter recess the prospects of building a grain elevator extension at Prince Rupert and has come to a more favourable decision than he did before?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether this question is so urgent that it ought to be put verbally at this time. I would suggest to the hon. member that he could easily put it on the order paper.



CREAM-REQUEST FOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SUBSIDY APPLICATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister consider asking his department to send a note of acknowledgement to those people who have submitted applications for deficiency payments on cream, thereby avoiding the further confusion of having farmers send letters to the department asking what has happened to their applications?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture has noted the submission made by the hon. member. This is not a question which should be asked at this time.


Stanley James Korchinski: Could the minister indicate whether something will be done? Could he possibly indicate at this time when the final payments will be made so these people will not be kept waiting?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot accept the question. If the hon. member thinks it is urgent enough, he can discuss it on the adjournment debate.


Stanley James Korchinski: I certainly will.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. I did not get a chance to send him notice. Has his attention been drawn to a speech made by a United States government official on the west coast indicating that as a result of the so-called automotive free trade agreement there has been an addition of $100 million to the balance of payments deficit? Has the minister decided on another industry to which the same principle could be applied, resulting in an addition to the balance of payments deficit without any compensating benefit to the consumer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a very interesting argument, not a question.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the interest aroused amongst the Canadian people,

April 19. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry
can he tell us whether or not he has had a Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
discussion with Mr. Laurier LaPierre about Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as Mr. LaPierre's proposed entry into politics as notice and look into it right away, a Liberal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State related to those already asked with regard to the C.B.C. Has the hon. lady a solid basis of fact for her alarm over the affairs of the C.B.C. as expressed in her iceberg statement?



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melforl-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister looked into the high cost of farm machinery, as he said he would, and what steps has he in mind to undertake now in connection with this matter?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the government is looking into this matter and an announcement will be made in due course.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say who is looking into this question? There is a galloping increase in the price of agricultural equipment. The minister said months ago that someone was looking into the question. Is he doing it or someone else?


John James Greene: The government is looking into it.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Will he advise the house whether the government of Canada is either represented directly or has someone holding a watching brief at the hearing of the federal power commission today into the question of how gas from western Canada shall be transported for use in eastern Canada?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know if the Minister of National Defence has been advised of a fight in the officers' mess at Greenwood as a result of the substantial pay increases for pilots? Have any new regulations been instituted by the defence department to avoid further fights with regard to discrimination in pay increases?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this is a question that should be asked at this time. Perhaps the hon. member would want to discuss the matter on the adjournment debate, if he thinks it is urgent enough.


John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps I could ask a supplementary question. What is the government doing to prevent these fights in officers' messes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The government, Mr. Speaker, is doing its best to prevent fights in the House of Commons.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Defence. Is one step contemplated to keep peace and order within the R.C.A.F. the granting of permanent commissions to anyone admitted to pilot rank regardless of further considerations?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: It will be our policy to train only pilots who accept permanent commissions in order to guarantee that we have their services available to the defence forces for a longer period of time. With regard to the previous question, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition and I might join forces to visit some of the messes to see if we could use our influence in a moderating way.


John George Diefenbaker: The suggestion is a good one, but how are you going to explain the unjust discrimination, no matter how pacific a temperament you may have?
April 19. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS	VETERANS AFFAIRS



IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS IN REPORT ON RUN-THROUGHS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if, as has been reported, he is proposing a further commission of inquiry into the recommendations of the Freedman commission; or alternatively, when may action be expected on the recommendations in that report?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The answer to that is no, Mr. Speaker. Consideration is being given by the minister to the matter but no consideration has yet been given by the government.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works which he may want to take as notice. In view of the importance of the employment which may be provided in the area and in view of the fact two ships will soon be docking there, has the minister received a telegram from the Henderson Lumber Company regarding the wharf at Pictou Landing, Nova Scotia, and the fact it cannot be used for unloading these ships because it has been condemned?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This does not appear to be a matter of national importance at this moment.


Howard Russell MacEwan: The urgency is that the ships will be docking any time and the wharf has been condemned so that trucks are not allowed on it. I will raise the matter at ten o'clock.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):: should like to ask the Minister of Labour if, in view of the continuing serious strike in the trucking industry, he has made a decision yet when he will implement the provisions of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code with regard to the 40 hour week?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON PENSION COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chailerton (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs if he can say whether the report from Mr. Justice Wood on the Canadian Pension Commission has been received.


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received the report. I understand that requests for further presentations in the early weeks of May have caused some delay before the report can be written.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
With regard to the recent policy on bilingualism in the public service, does the government intend to include it in the Civil Service Act and to amend very shortly section 47 of that act?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The amending of this section, Mr. Speaker, is a matter of government policy and if any decision with regard to this section is made an announcement will be made in the regular way.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In order to remove uncertainties in the fishing industry, can the minister say when the fishing season will open in lobster fishing district No. 7B?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Again I doubt that this is a question of national importance although it may be. If hon. members think it is I will allow the Minister of Fisheries to make a reply.
3S90

April 19, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I understand the concern of the hon. member because in recent years no definite date was set for the opening of the lobster season due to the ice movement. However, the most recent ice chart issued by the Department of Transport indicates there should not be any ice in the area for the opening date of the lobster fishing season. In view of the foregoing it is recommended that the lobster season for districts 7B and 7C will open, as set out in the regulations, on May 1.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the closing of the oyster season. Has the minister any information on the investigation being conducted into the oyster situation in Kent county, in particular the water pollution samples which were sent to Halifax quite some time ago?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter which comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Following the tests of the samples of water taken from the area, we have ordered that the season be closed for that portion of the Buctouche river affected by pollution.



BAY OF FUNDY-REPORTED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NOVA SCOTIA FISHERMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and involves a matter of discrimination. On January 20 I asked the minister a question about closure of the New Brunswick shore and the minister advised that he would give me a reply in writing. The herring season opened on April 15 and there were over 30 New Brunswick seiners in the Annapolis basin Easter Sunday. Is the minister now able to state the time when closure of the New Brunswick shore will be lifted?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the hon. member that the herring season has been open all winter. There has been herring fishing by seiners during all the winter months.
So far as closure of certain areas in the Bay of Fundy is concerned, this matter is still under review. Because of recent representations received from certain areas on the southwestern shore of Nova Scotia, only this morning I notified the minister of fisheries for Nova Scotia that a meeting would take place in Fredericton on May 7, following the

meeting of the Atlantic herring fishery, in order to discuss this matter further.


Mr. Paul Langlois (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries.
Could the minister tell us at what time with regard to the lobster in district 7-B?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister give the house, either today or at an early date, the 15 items of important government legislation which he referred to outside the house during the recess? Would he indicate which of those items are not yet on the order paper and whether they will be put on the order paper soon?
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minisier):
Mr. Speaker, I think that before I do so there should be a meeting between the government house leader and the other house leaders in order to go into the plans for this part of the session. Most of these 15 items are already on the order paper and are well known to hon. members. Since I picked the figure of 15 I have been told by some of my colleagues that the figure should have been 21.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that industry spokesmen claim that overpayments to the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec pension plan could total up to $30 million a year, would the minister inform the house whether he has instituted a method of refunding overpayments made by employers as workers move from one job to another?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be placed on the order paper.
Apiil 19. 1966



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the repeated increases in the cost of living, is the government considering an amendment to the regulations regarding eligibility in so far as earned income is concerned for those receiving supplementary assistance under the Old Age Security Act?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that this question sounds very much like one posed a moment ago, but if it is not the minister may reply to it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of policy and when a decision is made it will be announced in the regular way.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question either to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys or the Minister of Finance.
I am not sure who is handling the problem at the moment. May I ask how soon the Dr. Ritchie Donald report on coal will be available, whether the contents will be made public when it is available and how soon the government expects to act on the report after it is received?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Donald will probably be reporting to me since the Prime Minister asked me to take general responsibility in this area. We met with Dr. Donald the other day and I understand that his report is in its final stages. The question of whether it will be published will be determined when we receive it. So will the question of whether we act upon it.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, April 1, consideration of the motion of Hon. Mitchell
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Walker Sharp (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Monteith, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands).
Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted by the clock when the budget debate was adjourned prior to Easter there was only time for me to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) on his excellent non-partisan presentation and to point out that the sense of control, firmness and knowledgeable management that emanated from his speech was welcomed by all sections of the country. Since then, on the street interviews, as carried in the daily press, confirm the feeling of confidence on the part of the average citizen in this budget and in the various measures for controlled development of Canada that were put forward.
I trust it is in order to mention that my own minister, the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Benson), undoubtedly made his usual wise and experienced counsel available to the Minister of Finance, and it is only right that his contribution should be noted here. Being a very modest and humble man it would never enter his head to seek this kind of recognition for himself, but I believe I can expose him to flattering remarks at this time. At any rate, it is good to be on the side of the angels.
This business of making a budget and of its presentation is something that has intrigued me for a long time. I wonder whether the importance of budget night is not becoming magnified out of proportion. I am not speaking of the importance of a budget itself. I am speaking of the custom that has grown up where by budget night becomes the surprise package focal point of our hopes and plans, our disappointments or satisfactions, our approval or condemnation of a whole year's program. There is a sort of Christmas morning gift giving or taking atmosphere about the whole thing that seems to me to be a little artificial and in many cases clouds the basic reasoning and logic behind a budget. Many press stories simplify the whole thing into two easily read lists. One is entitled "These things will cost you more" and the other, "These things will cost you less."
There are some well-researched articles on a budget and its implications in the financial
April 19. 1966

The Budget-Mr. Walker pages and editorially but generally my impression is that the main interest on the front pages seems to be focused on whether taxes have gone up or down. Indeed, this concentration on the single point of higher or lower taxes leads many political columnists and pundits to forecast whether general elections are imminent. This is too cynical an approach for me, and I believe the importance of a budget is obscured by these observations.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I think the Canadian people are politically mature enough to understand why taxes go up or down. I think they are more vitally interested in great, imaginative national programs of resources development, medical and scientific research, educational opportunities and external aid than they are in the cost of a package of cigarettes or a bottle of liquor or a few dollars more in income tax. If this budget-making process could be levelled out over the year without this aura of "Guess what's in it for me", and "Do not open before budget night", I think a government's forward planning and management techniques could be more easily applied to five- and ten-year projects. Some of this is done now by individual pieces of legislation. The Canada-United States auto agreement is a case in point. I should like to see our citizens made aware of where their money is going and why it is going there and not just how much they are asked to pay. I believe their sense of involvement and participation in the nation's development and destiny would be heightened.
I know there are some budgetary matters that because of their effect on the stock and bond markets must be highly secret until the "big night". But in many other matters I see no harm-indeed, would it not be beneficial- in having the widest possible open discussion on plans, projects and measures for some months preceding the budget. This would do away with sudden jolts or the delaying of business decisions and an artificial slow-down of development on the part of industry and others who feel they must wait and see what the budget says.
If we used our budgets as a weapon for the achievement of say a four- or five-year development goal and that goal was thoroughly understood by every segment of Canadian society, would this not make the Speech from the Throne much more authoritative? Budget time provides a field day for politicians. Parliament is in the limelight and all of us, the professional experts and the amateurs-I

am in the latter category as hon. members have rightly assumed by now-get the opportunity to speak to the nation. We tell the people in unmistakable political overtones what the budget means. But the people feel left out. I want them involved mentally and not just financially.
I know that a budget controls by acceleration or deceleration the rate of growth of our country. But it does this in accordance with conditions that exist or threaten to exist on a short term basis. Can we have a closer alliance between this budgetary control and our economic and physical five- and ten-year development goals? Are there not other ways of taking the heat out of a fast running economic motor than by lightening the load for a short time? Are we trying to get too much milk from too few cows? When this happens you can do one of three things: carry on and ruin the cow, cut back on her milk production, or get more cows.
If our present manpower resources are numerically inadequate to reach the full potentialities of growth for Canada, I would suppose we should increase those manpower resources quickly rather than lowering our aim. I have felt for a long time now that immigration on whatever scale is necessary to meet our development objectives should be considered as an economic resource as well as cultural and human resource.
There are great differences of opinion in this area. I do not propose to go into it further at this time other than to mention two opposing views on the same front page of the Financial Post of April 2, 1966. The heading of the first article reads: "Do We Really Have A Skills Shortage? Experts suspicious." I quote:
Supplying the facts on skillpower will be the role of an important branch being set up inside the new federal manpower department. It is charged with going into the field to gather employment data, then processing it into detailed and useful forms which can be used in measuring Canada's manpower needs and resources.
This is the result of a growing suspicion among government manpower planners that the skill shortage in Canada may not be nearly as acute as it appears. "There are so few facts to work on," a senior Ottawa official explains. "There are assumptions based on isolated examples, but we lack any really effective and sophisticated system for measuring our manpower resources. We are even worse off when it comes down to measuring manpower utilization."
April 19, 1966

The other front page article is headed, "Men Are Available To Do It Now", and reads:
From Ottawa earlier this week also came news of a long overdue change in this country's approach to skillpower problems. The embryo Department of Manpower will henceforth find out from industry as precisely as it can what skilled manpower needs will be in the months ahead and translate these into training and immigration policies.
This goes far to solve a paradox for policymakers brought about by the steady step-up of the Canadian economy toward capacity operation.
On the one hand we have evidence of an economy hamstrung by shortages of skills. Aircraft orders turned down for want of appropriate workers. Order backlogs one-third higher than a year ago in the plants of industrial machinery producers. Companies and provinces sending abroad for skilled hands for work ranging from textiles to mining. At the same time there have been equally disturbing indications that some so-called shortages are more talk than reality.
Who is right? I think it is time we found out. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and his government, the Liberal government I am proud to support, must be praised for setting up the machine for the establishment of this new ministry under the guidance of a courageous and dedicated Canadian-he has just left the house-who has quietly won the respect and affection of his caucus colleagues and of the house as well, I believe. I refer to the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Marchand).
If any hon. members think, Mr. Speaker, because I have so far spent little time in praising certain budget items, that I am quietly criticizing the budget, they are away off base. For its timing and in the context of traditional budget procedures since our earliest parliaments, this budget is one of the better ones. I will certainly be voting to sustain the good judgment of the finance minister and of the government when the division bells ring, as I hope will all members of the house.
In the time remaining, Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of this house and I hope to the attention of all patriotic Canadians east and west an issue of immediate paramount importance. At least, I conceive it to be so and I do not stand alone in my concern. This matter does not directly concern itself with the budget but its relationship thereto is apparent. Frankly, I am convinced that it is of more immediate and lasting consequence to every Canadian man, woman and child than the budget itself. The issue I bring before the house, Mr. Speaker, is the whole question of the extent of foreign
The Budget-Mr. Walker ownership and control of Canadian resources and industry in 1966, one year before the celebration of our hundredth birthday. Are we quietly strolling down the road to national oblivion? Is there an inherently dangerous relationship between massive foreign ownership and economic and then political sovereignty.
I spoke earlier, Mr. Speaker, of the desirability of communication and public discussion of national goals and projects. If ever a question of the greatest public concern cried out for the broadest public discussion right now it is this one. I should like to see the Canadian people committed one way or the other by the time of our one hundredth anniversary a little over a year from now. What will we be saying as a nation on July 1, 1967-"We wonder what is going to happen to us by 2,000 A.D." or "We know what we will make of Canada by 2,000 A.D?"
I believe this is the major issue of the day. Really it is the only issue because, until it is faced and settled for generations to come, discussions of other matters, including budgets, are academic. We may be spending money for nothing. The moment of truth has arrived for us as a nation and as individual Canadians.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The conscious settlement and decision of this issue in our heads and hearts could prove to be our salvation as a united country. It could lift us out of our introspection and destructive self-criticism, this pulling up the flower to see if the roots are growing. I am convinced that the spiritual resources of most Canadians in every province are more than equal to the challenge and responsibility of owning Canada. This is a big enough challenge to stir their loyalty; this is a great enough goal to enlist their devotion. It is tough enough to use all their muscles and energy and creativeness; it could be the moral equivalent of war for a peace-loving people. There is a contented peacefulness that comes with the tranquility of the grave and there is the peace and poise of a people embarked on a great adventure. I believe I know what kind Canadians will choose when the issue is put to them.
The first question to decide is whether economic and political domination follow large foreign equity ownership of a country's economy. Where is the danger point? The second question is: In this interdependent world how do we handle this problem without becoming selfish national isolationists,
April 19. 1966

The Budget-Mr. Walker without giving ideological comfort to the enemies of freedom and individual liberty, without making enemies of traditional friends and allies whose friendship is valued and unquestioned?
Our aim should be clear: under our own ownership and control to make the greatest contribution our talents allow to the awakening of the sleeping Canadian giant and then, in full co-operation with all nations, to work for equality of opportunity and justice through the rule of law for all human beings, black, yellow or white.
There are those, Mr. Speaker, who believe that Canada can accomplish these aims by becoming economically integrated in the North American complex. By submerging or erasing borders we become part of a larger unit. This thinking, which is represented on both sides of the 49th parallel, has come to be known as continentalism. Those who see more good than evil in foreign ownership penetration into Canada's economy have been called continentalists. For want of a better word those who take the opposite view have been called nationalists-economic nationalists or political nationalists. I prefer the word "Canadians."
Fundamentally-and I hope I am not simplifying this too much-a continentalist seems to think, consciously or otherwise, that whatever is good for North America is good for Canada. He sees no direct relationship between national self-determination, economically, politically or culturally, and the eventual total integration of Canadian and United States economies. If figures mean anything, then the present rate of takeover of Canadian resources, business and industry can lead only to that end. If there is no danger to Canadian nationhood in such an intertwining, we are very fortunate people. However, if there are unknown contingent liabilities involved in such an arrangement which affect all living Canadians and those yet to come, then we are embarked on a hazardous adventure. Those who have done any thinking at all about Canada's future must surely ask themselves; What are we getting into?
It is time, Mr. Speaker, for the fullest and widest public discussion from coast to coast about this whole matter. I ask my generation to answer these questions: Are we giving away our past which we did not earn, and our future which does not belong to us? As temporary custodians of this entity called Canada, have we the right to sell the family assets without reference to our heirs?


If we Canadians can have the best of both worlds, economic and political control of our country plus unprecedented prosperity through foreign equity investment, then everything is coming up roses. I do not believe we can. The hard cold fact of financial equity investment is that political power is always used eventually to protect that investment. We are naive to think otherwise. All the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth will be to no avail if we wake up some morning and find we have lost the right to make our economic and political decisions for all time. And we will have no one to blame but ourselves-not the Americans, not the Japanese, not the Germans, just ourselves. It makes much more sense to me to ask individual nationals of other countries to come here and help us develop our nation from within as Canadians then to import dollars and have them develop and control it from without as non-Canadians.
In terms of labels it is already clear I am an economic nationalist. I believe that whatever is good for Canada is good for North America and the world. I want Canada to be able to speak forever with all the power and freedom of a nation in full control of its future. This does not preclude collaboration and the fullest co-operation with other nations whose aims are compatible with ours. It does mean that we are under economic obligation to no one to compromise our convictions or destroy our destiny. Who is going to develop and own Canada? Other people or Canadians?
This is far too broad a subject to cover in one short speech. If I have done nothing more today than to put question marks in people's minds, to start them seriously thinking and talking about this subject, I am satisfied. No government by itself can solve this question; it is up to the Canadian people. They must make the decision or, shall I say, twenty million individual decisions. To do this they must have the facts. There must be discussion and debate. Either this issue is the most important one, the important one, facing Canadians today or it is of no consequence. Either these figures from the Financial Post of November 3, 1962 are vitally important or they are harmless statistics.
I ask hon. members to note the percentage of foreign equity ownership in the following industries in Canada. This is in the manufacturing area and these are 1959 figures: Rubber, 90 per cent; pulp and paper, 38 per cent;
April 19, 1966
agricultural machinery, 55 per cent; automobiles and parts, 96 per cent; electrical apparatus, 67 per cent; chemicals, 52 per cent; total manufacturing, 44 per cent; petroleum and natural gas, 69 per cent; mining, 53 per cent. Either these figures are vitally important or they are harmless statistics.
Either the following remarks by Beland Honderich of the Toronto Star are terribly important or they are just fillers for an after dinner speech. These are excerpts from the address given by Mr. Honderich on March 12, 1965, to the United States and Canadian members of the International Press Institute in Quebec city:
Total foreign investment in 1961 was just under $24 billion and increasing rapidly. Figures have not been published since 1961 but today it is probably in excess of $25 billion.
To express it another way, if the volume of foreign investment in the United States was as great as it is in Canada, it would total over $375 billion. And that, gentlemen, is considerably more than the combined assets of the 500 largest corporations in the United States.
Foreigners control one out of every three companies with assets of more than $1 million. They control two out of every three firms worth $25 million or more. No other developed country in the world has so many key industries under foreign control. If the same situation existed in the United States, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, General Electric, Westinghouse, U.S. Rubber, Goodyear, I.B.M. and literally hundreds of the largest companies would be controlled by foreigners.
I continue to quote from this address by Mr. Honderich.
Foreign investment which brings with it new technical knowhow for the development of Canadian resources, and provides new jobs for Canadians, obviously contributes to the national good. But even in these cases there should be provision for Canadian participation in ownership. Canadians have a right, I submit, to share in the prosperity of Canadian business.
Foreign capital, on the other hand, that does not add to our productive facilities and, instead, merely brings about a change of ownership of an existing plant, should be subject to close scrutiny.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I polled my electors a few months ago on this problem and had over 2,700 replies. The figures are enlightening. My question was in four parts:
Are you aware of the extent of foreign ownership of "Canadian" industries and national resources?
The answer was yes, 88 per cent.
Are you concerned about this?
The answer was yes, 63 per cent.
Should steps be taken to reverse this trend?
The Budget-Mr. T. M. Bell
Yes, 61 per cent.
If necessary, would you accept a temporary lower standard of living to accomplish this?
Yes, 40 per cent; only 40 per cent, closer to one-third than one-half.
Now you see why I say that it is up to Canadians to make this corporate decision. It is their country. It is their children's country. It is their devotion and commitment to Canada's second century that is on trial. I believe the danger flags are flying. The time has come to face the facts to make a national decision one way or the other. We are all involved. No one can escape this obligation to decide on Canada's future.
Let us move quickly with the Canada Development Corporation. Let us ask the Economic Council of Canada to move quickly on clause (d) of section 9 of the act which spells out a particular duty "to study means of increasing Canadian participation in the ownership, control and management of industries in Canada." Let us get all the experienced counsel available and determine whether we are travelling on a safe high-road to prosperity and power or in a borrowed vehicle down a dead-end street.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Walker). I congratulate him on his eloquent and sentimental address on Canada and its future. He is from a wealthy area of Canada and can afford the luxury of this type of broad thinking. But I am from the Maritimes and am more concerned with matters close at hand. Therefore I hope the house will understand if my remarks are not so full of praise about the budget.
The budget was to be the big effort of the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). Good politician that he is I presume he looked over the last election results. I hope he saw the bitter defeat his party received in the Maritimes and I hope he questioned why. However, that would appear to be all he did because his failure to act on our regional imbalances is not being accepted in the eastern provinces.
The slogans that are prevalent today, "Ban the boom" and "Don't do it now, do it later", mean very little to us. We do not know where the boom is. We do not know what he is talking about that should be delayed. We do not have any idea of this going slow.

April 19, 1966

The Budget-Mr. T. M. Bell
The lack of provisions in the budget to deal with our regional problems has caused the Minister of Finance to fall to the very bottom of the ladder with respect to his political ambitions. He is now the low man. I would venture to say he is just as low as was the former minister of finance, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon), in the eyes of the people in the Maritimes.
I read in the paper the other day that the minister is going to take a course in Berlitz French in order to achieve his political leadership ambitions. I suggest he go out and get a Berlitz course on the Maritimes because it would do him a lot of good and would be easier than the method he is now using to achieve better regard in the Maritimes and to further the ambitions which he quite rightly has.
This problem of regional imbalances is prevalent in many countries of the world. Large and small European countries have had to deal with it. The United States went through a serious period in this respect but has been able to diversify its economy. For example, the motor car industry is located all over the United States. California rivals New York, and the southern states are also well off economically.
It is not an easy problem. It is a difficult challenge to raise the levels of prosperity, particularly in a country with the geography and diversification of Canada. The Maritimes have always been regarded as low income and high unemployment areas. This is not something new. Many figures could be put on the record to illustrate the point.
Lest some people think we are sharing in the current wave of prosperity I point out that in the last five years the regional gain has surpassed the national increase only on three occasions. This might promote false optimism, but so far in the current upswing of the business cycle regional income has not benefited to the same extent as has Canadian income generally. Since 1961-the current expansion began in the first part of that year-personal income has risen 20.1 per cent in the region compared with 22.8 per cent in the nation.
So far as unemployment is concerned I need not give the figures except to say that since world war II unemployment in the Atlantic provinces has been 70 per cent above the Canadian average. Speaking of the postwar period reminds me that it was always said, "You Maritimers have no optimism. You are grovelling around with your problems

without looking to the future". This might have been true but around 1950 we developed a new outlook. As the saying goes, we tried to pick ourselves up by our own bootstraps.
The first measure that we fought for-I see the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming), a former premier of New Brunswick, is in his place and he will know what I mean-was the Beechwood project. To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, that was the first time a federal government assisted a region of Canada in a particular way, and that was the Conservative government of 1957.
The premiers of the Atlantic provinces caught this spirit of optimism, held meetings and introduced constructive proposals on a non-partisan basis. APEC was formed as an agency to gather information which made possible many of the political decisions that were required. Further, the Conservative government set up the Atlantic Development Board, a very revolutionary measure which has had considerable success, and I give the present government credit for modifying it.
A lot more needs to be done, but that was the picture at that time in the Maritimes. At the grass roots and at the political level we were showing new enthusiasm and were trying to do something about our problems. The idea caught on in Ottawa. The Economic Council of Canada was formed and we were optimistic. I digress, Mr. Speaker, for a minute to pay tribute to the work of that council and particularly to Dr. John Deutsch who has shown able leadership. I have always admired him and I particularly admired him for a forthright speech which he delivered to the Canadian Club in Fredericton on January 20, 1966, of which I shall have more to say later.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Dr. Deutsch set as one of the objectives of the Economic Council the study of how "national economic policies can best foster the balanced economic development of all areas of Canada." They admit there is some difficulty in getting at these deep-rooted problems, but one thing was done. They attacked the system of subsidies and their short term benefits. This advice was given to the Minister of Finance in a very straightforward way by Dr. Deutsch and others but he paid no heed to the part of that advice relating to regional plans. I shall return to this subject later.
Many people of the Maritimes at all levels as well as civil servants here in Ottawa have
April 19, 1966

tried to help in regard to our present difficulty. I should like to pay tribute to those civil servants in Ottawa with whom I have had some communication during the years regarding the problems now facing the Maritimes because, without exception, they showed an interest and a willingness to help us with our difficulties. Every one of them, particularly those of the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Finance, were sincere in their efforts to find a solution.
During the last two years we have been discouraged by the fact that the government has undermined the efforts of all concerned by turning a completely deaf ear and cold shoulder to our representations. Many of us expected that bad news would be forthcoming and we were not wrong in this regard. The metropolitan areas of Halifax, Saint John and Fredericton were excluded from the benefits to be received through the Department of Industry in relation to incentive area plans. This matter has been mentioned in this house on many occasions. Delegations have made representations and briefs have been presented to the government, but the same old stalling has continued.
APEC, which is one of the strongest voices in the Atlantic provinces, has recommended that the entire Atlantic region be included in the new incentive plans. In support of that recommendation let me state that in my own area, the city of Saint John, we are not only failing to receive new industry but are losing some of our old and well established firms because they are moving outside the excluded area.
In addition to the fact that the areas to which I made reference were not included as designated areas, the Minister of Finance has ignored the words of advice of Dr. Deutsch and others. Where is the regional assistance that we were led to expect would be forthcoming and where, to quote the words of Dr. Deutsch, is the "set of policies selected and specifically tailored to promote a rate of growth in this region which is significantly faster than in the country as a whole?"
Tight money policy is making a comeback but the only thing the Minister of Finance has done to assist our region is to pick out a small area of "inflation" in Prince Edward Island and in Westmorland for special attention. He stamped out that inflation by delaying for some time the construction of a causeway. Instead of giving that area a tonic the government has given it a tranquilizer.

The Budget-Mr. T. M. Bell
At this stage I should like to put forward certain proposals. As could be expected, I believe that the entire area of the Atlantic provinces, particularly Halifax, Saint John and Fredericton, should be included in the designated areas. I do not think our difficulties will be solved until that has been done. The government has suggested that the Atlantic Development Board will deal appropriately with this matter. However, success will not be achieved when two different agencies are involved in such an important industrial problem as the one now existing in the Atlantic provinces. I should like to quote again from the speech made in Fredericton by Dr. Deutsch. He said:
-we must take advantage in each region of the trend toward the growing concentration of economic activity in the relatively larger urban centres. This has been a major feature of the pattern of development in all industrially advanced countries. Increasing urbanization has brought new problems which call for new solutions. But to try to reverse this trend would involve much greater economic problems and costs, if indeed it were possible at all.
Many resource-based industries will continue to find advantages in locating close to the resources on which they are based, but we shall also have to offer greater encouragement to development of efficient growth centres within the different regions of our country, including the Atlantic provinces, so that they may be able to develop with the advantages of the vital economies of scale, lower costs, larger markets, and more useful pools of skills.
Those are very significant words and I wish the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) were here to listen and pay attention to them.
My second proposal has been mentioned by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton). He stated that different industries and different areas should be exempted from the budget proposals. Some individuals have suggested that this would be selective budgeting. I do not care what name you attach to it, but one thing is certain, the Industrial Development Bank is not giving the Atlantic provinces their pro rata share of assistance.
In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out these facts of interest. The people of the Atlantic provinces received 166 of the 2,209 loans made during 1965, or 7.5 per cent. Of the $96,146,000 lent in that year the Atlantic provinces received only $6,016,000, or 6.2 per cent. The average loan made in that area during that year was $36,000.
The Nova Scotia voluntary planning board prepared an excellent report on economic planning and I should like to quote a portion
April 19. 1966

The Budget-Mr. T. M. Bell of that report regarding proposals on monetary and fiscal policy. The report states in part:
In periods of national monetary restraint, and in the absence of excessive aggregate demand pressures in Nova Scotia, the federal government should make an effort to exclude the province from the full force of credit restrictions by (a) having the agencies of the federal government which provide credit, such as the Industrial Development Bank and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, apply restrictive policies less severely in the province, and (b) encouraging the commercial banks to exempt the province from the full force of restrictions on credit availability.
Evidently that advice did not reach the ears of the minister when he was preparing his famous budget.
My third proposal came to mind when I listened to a question asked today in the house regarding the so-called automobile agreement. This involves an interesting experiment. I do not know what its ramifications are or whether it will or will not help certain areas, but it is evident that the Windsor area, which had employment difficulties, has experienced certain success. I should like to see a similar experiment carried out in respect of particular commodities in the Atlantic provinces area. I think many of our natural markets in the New England states and in the West Indies could be further developed in this way. Let us hope that the next experiment in free trade of this kind is carried out in the Atlantic provinces.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I put forward these proposals to the Minister of Finance with all sincerity, hoping that he will in some way interest himself in them and redeem himself after the fiasco which he brought forward the other night as his first budget. It is for these reasons that we in the Maritimes are so concerned about the budget. We are concerned about the lack of consideration it displays for our particular area. As I said, beginning in the 1950's we supplied new interest and enthusiasm. Planning boards and agencies were set up, the premiers met, delegations came to Ottawa. Within its responsibility the federal civil service supplied research and information, and action was taken by the previous government.
I ask hon. members to remember Beech-wood, the Atlantic adjustment grants and the Atlantic Development Board. The great regional disparities were there before us. We all joined the battle and the fight was begun. But now the Liberals are back and, in the words of many Maritimers, Ottawa is up to
IMr. Bell (Saint John-Albert).]
its old tricks. Can we afford to turn back the clock to 1956? Is it the old Liberal gang that is letting us down? Will the leopards change their spots?
I am surprised that the Minister of Finance, a former respected civil servant who should have the same interest in this problem that the civil service generally has, and his government do not believe in the principle of special treatment for regional needs. They have become the apologists for big business and central, industrial Canada with all its great power and wealth. For this reason, although the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue made a very good speech it did not interest me.
I call on all members from the Atlantic provinces, regardless of their political affiliation, to unite in putting forward our cause as strongly and forcibly as possible. In this connection we can take a lesson from Quebec. I see some of the members from that province in the chamber. When a question of their just entitlement is involved, when economic objectives are concerned, all of them stand together regardless of party. There is no division along political lines, and one would not dare oppose them. They know what they want; they unite, go forward and get it. Let us do the same and once and for all show the political leaders of this country-I include the Minister of Finance-regardless of their ambition or background, that we really mean business.
I have read the subamendment of the New Democratic Party. Personally I would not support it because it involves the principle of a guaranteed annual income and I have not fully made up my mind on that point. I cannot decide whether this should apply to people who are not working. I also believe that the whole subamendment is premature in view of the report of the Carter commission for which we are waiting.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It would be very good for the Maritimes.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Economic White Paper for 1966, which was tabled in this house shortly before the budget was brought down, makes it abundantly clear that during the year 1965 the economic climate in Canada changed from one of moderate expansion in the early part of the year to what the paper describes as a boom climate at the beginning of the year 1966. In this connection I am not going to take the time of the house to read the
April 19. 1966

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson unprecedented figure might have been surpassed if the over-all economic expansion had not diverted investment funds into other opportunities.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
However, as my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), has reminded us more than once during recent weeks, it is significant, most significant, in fact, that the current period of exceptional prosperity, our longest period of unbroken prosperity since world war II, shows no sign of abating. Herein lies Canada's immediate problem. Until very recently, the exceptional high and persistent level of demand for goods and services in Canada could be met by our expanding resources and by drawing upon our idle capacity in our factories and the unduly high, in fact alarmingly high, manpower surplus which existed when this government took office just three years ago.
Over the past year or so, however, Mr. Speaker, it has become increasingly apparent that the persistent demand pressures have begun to exceed our supply of manpower and our ability to meet a very difficult situation, at least, to meet it without very serious acceleration in costs and prices. This is something that we in a free economy have to guard against, must guard against, not only because it can impair our world trading position but because damage can be done to prices. This would have a very serious effect on the distribution of incomes.
The Minister of Finance has referred in his Budget speech, clearly and forcefully, to some of the more significant storm signals with which we in Canada are now confronted. He has outlined also some imaginative and constructive steps that the government is taking to help control the situation and to help guarantee continued expansion of the economy. As the minister aptly put it, now is the time to ease off on the gas pedal a little, though there is no need to put on the brakes.
On March 21, when this house was discussing supply, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) issued a stern warning, a timely one, I agree. He said that inflation signals were flying everywhere, and in a very sad tone of voice he added that the government seemed unaware of the danger. However, Mr. Speaker, the imaginative and carefully thought out Budget that was announced just a week after this speech shows what a very poor analyst the right hon. gentleman really is. I hope that the Budget has reassured him, for it is now evident that
April 19. 1966

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson the government also had seen the inflation signals, probably long before he had, and that as a matter of fact the government had been giving the problem careful thought for some time so it was and is prepared to act decisively to cope with the dangerous situation to which the right hon. gentleman referred.
Hon. members may perhaps be reminded that the Leader of the Opposition said in effect that government action should be fully applied to all over-spending in Canada. In this connection I might refer to the passage at the bottom of page 2943 and continued on page 2944 of Hansard on that subject. In that same speech, on page 2944 of Hansard, the hon. gentleman refers to a statement by Bruce Hutchison as reported in the Ottawa Journal of February 26, in which the author had stressed the necessity for keeping our prices in line with world prices. The right hon. gentleman's remarks were as follows:
Here Is an article by Bruce Hutchison. No one can ever accuse him of admiring anything more than he admires the present government. This is what he says as reported in the Ottawa Journal of February 26:
"The risk, of course, is that we shall price our goods out of the world market when we have a special chance to price them in."
Then he says, "So I could continue". I think, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members might be reminded that in a subsequent article in the Vancouver Sun of April 4, as well as in other Canadian newspapers, Mr. Hutchison commented on this passage in Hansard to which I have just referred. Perhaps it might not be inappropriate for me to quote Mr. Hutchison's comments on that speech in the house. In this article Mr. Hutchison says:
Indicting the Pearson government for its failure to prevent inflation, Mr. Diefenbaker cites me as a witness. He quotes certain statements from these columns to prove that even a Liberal of my partisan bias has seen inflation coming for a long time.
Then he tells parliament, with ponderous irony and a straight face, that my evidence against the nation's fiscal policies must be taken seriously because there is nothing on earth that I admire so much as the government.
This is kind, tender and very touching. After all the hard things I have written about Mr. Diefenbaker his compassion often fills me with remorse but I fight it down in the interests of truth. And as a man equally devoted to the truth Mr. Diefenbaker will be the first to admit an error.
Farther down he says, referring to Mr. Diefenbaker:
He is wrong in saying that there is nothing I admire as much as the government. No, I admire much more the economic revelations of Mr. Diefenbaker.

They are not of the commonplace, grubby sort learned at college. They don't depend on arithmetic or any sordid reports from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
They emerge, immaculate, out of the deep, poetical subconscious, a sudden spurt of genius repealing the old outworn shibboleths, cancelling the obsolete law of supply and demand, burying Adam Smith, Maynard Keynes and all the economists forever.
When Mr. Diefenbaker gets going on the problems of inflation the spectator stands aghast before a primitive, shattering spectacle of nature, like a sunset on the Arctic tundra or the Matterhorn in moonlight.
There has been nothing so majestic and magical since Coleridge walked the road to Xanadu and found the woman wailing for her demon lover. You can hear those same wails in parliament today.
Having read Mr. Diefenbaker's speech in Hansard, I am too shaken to do it justice. The policy of stringent economy combined with vast new expenditures, the immediate tax reduction designed to cool the overheated business cycle, the need of more money in everybody's pocket to reduce the appetite for goods-these feats of subliminal fantasy leave a man dumb and prostrate in reverence.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I may say also that earlier in this debate the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) said he could find nothing good to say about the Budget. For some reason that I find difficult to understand, he failed to recognize the imaginative, courageous and pioneering features of this Budget which he described as inept and bureaucratic. In the speeches to which I have referred, both the hon. member for Perth and the Leader of the Opposition quoted widely from selected newspaper editorials in an attempt to find support for their position. In view of this, it might be fitting for me to give the house just one quotation from an impartial outside observer, the New York Times.
This highly respected newspaper, in its editorial comment on the first Budget of the Minister of Finance, said:
In taking these steps Mitchell Sharp, Canada's new Finance Minister, is displaying both imagination and flexibility in fiscal policy. Mr. Sharp made clear that his tax package is not intended to halt the upward movement of the Canadian economy. Instead, it is designed to sustain the expansion by moderating it.
In the same editorial I find the following:
The most interesting feature of Mr. Sharp's decision is his innovation of a refundable tax on corporate profits. This proposal represents a flexible attempt to influence corporate spending .... This kind of fiscal flexibility, which has been used in Europe, has been talked about in Washington. Now that Ottawa has introduced it on this side of the Atlantic, Washington too may be encouraged to adopt a more flexible stance.
April 13, 1966

[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
As one who for approximately two decades, Mr. Speaker, was active in two major Canadian industries and also in the public utilities field, I have no hesitation in joining with the Times and with many other leading newspapers in stating that the Budget is not only flexible but it is imaginative, timely and sound. This key approach is to move some demands forward in order to even out the level of business activity.
As has been pointed out in this debate, in the last report of the Economic Council the council warned that the recent rate of expansion and investment spending in Canada is clearly not sustainable on a long range basis. In view of this, Mr. Speaker, may I ask how any intelligent, well informed person can seriously argue that this budget will not relieve at least some of the excessive demands on the economy?
In his comments on the budget the hon. member for Perth also referred to page 7 of a pamphlet entitled "Private and Public Investment in Canada, Outlook 1966." His remarks are reported at page 3729 of Hansard and he quotes from page 7 of the pamphlet as follows:
Within the goods producing industries the greatest additional strength appears in the resource based forest and minerals industries where outlays are expected to increase by one-third compared with the 14 per cent rise recorded last year. Of particular significance are the programs currently planned by the mining industry. These involve a doubling of expenditures in iron mines and a similar increase in outlays for potash mines. In addition, spending for facilities for non-ferrous metal mines is expected to rise by about 50 per cent. The added strength in the forest based industries is entirely the result of a further substantial expansion of investment for pulp and paper mills, involving outlays some $120 million greater than those of 1965.
Then the hon. member goes on to ask this question:
Does the minister want to stop this? These industries help our foreign exchange position; they provide employment and expansion.
In answer to the hon. gentleman's question, Mr. Speaker, it is safe to say clearly and positively that the government does not want to curtail desirable expansion in the forest industry or in any other industry where immediate expansion in these industries is likely to be in the national interest. But what the hon. member for Perth seems to forget is that the forest based and certain other industries in Canada are faced with considerable over-expansion at this particular time, and
The Budget-Mr. Nicholson this is particularly true of the pulp production capacity of this country.
As some hon. members know, I was associated with Canada's forest industry for some little time before I went into politics and, as hon. members will recall, I had the honour to serve as minister of forestry for a period of approximately one year. I speak with some little knowledge and I can say unequivocally that as a result of the enormous expansion of the pulp and paper facilities which is now under way in Canada, particularly in the pulping industry, not only Canada but other export nations of the world are faced with a huge surplus capacity for almost every kind of pulp for the next six or seven years.
In this connection I might refer hon. members to a study which was made in Rome by FAO in the fall of 1963 when I headed the Canadian delegation to the conference held there and my deputy minister chaired the international group who made a study of forecast forest products through to 1975. This review showed conclusively that there will be a huge surplus of certain forest products for the period 1967-1973, followed by shortages in or about 1975.
The forest industry of this country is looking forward to this increased demand in 1975. A great deal of planned expansion in most forest industry activities, however, will not be needed for another five to seven years. That is with the possible exception of newsprint of which there is a shortage. Yet in spite of these figures and in light of the facts brought out in the international study in which representatives from Canada took an active part, at the time the Budget was presented, Mr. Speaker, new pulp and paper capacity representing an investment of approximately $500 million, perhaps more, was either under construction or on the drawing board in British Columbia alone. Other such plants valued at hundreds of millions of dollars were either under construction or on the drawing board in the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Still others are in the planning stage. I can show hon. members these plants and the forecasts of production and surplus capacity. What the minister is doing in this Budget, Mr. Speaker, is to encourage the owners of plants which will not be needed for two, three, four, five or perhaps seven years to defer construction where it seems wise to do so until closer to the period of anticipated shortage in the 1970's. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, there is little
April 19. 1966

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson point in building plants at a time when we are short of labour, particularly skilled labour, and when we are short of funds, to meet a demand that is not going to be here for several years.
I can state quite frankly that if I were still in business the fact that after March 31, 1968 there will be no sales tax whatever payable on production machinery and equipment would be a very great inducement for me to defer at least some expenditures of that nature. This is especially true, Mr. Speaker, when you consider that the complicated machinery and equipment in a modern factory, such as a pulp or a paper mill, represents the bulk of the huge expenditures involved. Some of these plants are running into $85 million to $100 million, nearly two-thirds of which cost is for machinery and equipment. Why in the name of common sense should one not wait until there is no sales tax payable on that machinery and equipment?
But, Mr. Speaker, in addition to the inducements or incentives which are provided for in the Budget the federal government itself is easing the pressure-taking some pressure off the gas pedal, if I may use my colleague's words

by reducing its own expenditure program for existing and planned capital projects by some 10 per cent. True, some people, including some members of this house, say that the government could and should have gone farther along this line. But I ask hon. members just to keep in mind that the minister said there was not to be a sudden application of brakes but rather a slowing down. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, a reduction of 10 per cent in anticipated capital spending, representing a postponement of several hundred million dollars, is a slowing down that should set a good example both to private industry and to provincial and municipal governments.
Surely the provinces and some municipalities at least can assist in this slowing down process by carefully examining their planned construction programs with a view to seeing just what projects may be lengthened or what projects can be postponed for a year or two. A postponement of at least some public projects would, I believe, certainly be highly desirable in my own province of British Columbia.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
In addition to the private investment slated for this year, which I have already said is running into hundreds of millions of dollars, there are two large provincial hydroelectric projects in B.C. each running to a total of at


least two-thirds of a billion dollars. The costs of each of these projects have skyrocketed since they were first announced. The ever-increasing payrolls which reflect the recent high wage levels in the province of British Columbia are, I can assure all hon. members, a source of grave concern to private industry in my province. Private industry in British Columbia is finding it increasingly difficult to compete with the tempting wages being paid by the provincial government agency concerned and by its contractors.
In this connection I was gratified to read just a few days ago that the premier of British Columbia, who is certainly a great optimist and who had some critical remarks to make about the Budget when it was first presented, made a statement on April 9 in which he expressed grave concern over the inflationary situation that was developing in the province. He is now suggesting caution in language not very different from that used by the Minister of Finance.
May I read two passages from the Vancouver Sun of April 9, 1966. The headline is: "Bennett Asks Restraint To Halt Inflation". I quote his words from the body of the article:
This Is a dangerous period we're in now . . . . It is an inflationary period and it is not a time at which management should try to make excessive profits nor for labour to make excessive demands.
Farther down he says:
We want to keep this dynamic society of ours moving-
Might one not think that these are the words of the Minister of Finance rather than the premier of British Columbia?
But, Mr. Speaker, while adequate and appropriate fiscal and monetary measures are important and very necessary tools for use in keeping our expanding economy on an even keel, the solution of our other economic and social problems must also be kept in mind. In fact, some such needs must be vigorously pressed. Vast sums of money must be paid out for greater assistance to those who need it. I refer to programs like the Canada Assistance Plan. Vast sums of money are needed for education and vast sums are needed for health purposes. The Minister of Finance made this very clear in this Budget presentation, even though some hon. members opposite who have spoken seem to have overlooked this fact completely.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) in his remarks on April 1 referred to the war on poverty as "government whitewashing." It is hard to
April 19, 1966

believe, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member is serious. Perhaps his statement to which I have referred, having been made on April 1, April fool's day, was intended to be taken with a grain of salt.
The existing activities of the government, which it has been made clear are to continue, include a vast expansion of the technical and vocational training facilities built during the past five years, the rural rehabilitation and development agency, the $112 million housing and electrification program for our Indian communities, area development for industry and vocational rehabilitation for the handicapped. No one, Mr. Speaker, can seriously call the expenditure of $112 million for this very proper and very essential purpose mere whitewashing.
Among other new activities also provided for, which are also to continue, which have been included in this year's estimates and therefore in the Budget are programs of manpower mobility, the development of special experimental training programs for people in areas where opportunity is lacking, an expansion of area development to include capital cost grants to new industries of a fifth to a third, and the expansion of the ARDA program to include a $50 million fund to finance projects in rural areas where poverty is severe. Again, Mr. Speaker, these programs can hardly be referred to as mere government whitewashing. Included also in the war on poverty are the Canada Assistance Plan, recently placed on the order paper, and the Company of Young Canadians, now being established.
True, some of these activities lie ahead. However, in the face of such programs it is hard for me to understand, and I am sure it is difficult for most hon. members in this house to understand, how any responsible member can say that the government is prepared to discard our poor, our handicapped, our unemployed and our untrained as defective parts of the machine.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands at one point in his remarks actually painted Canada as little better than a disaster area. He mentioned slums, poverty and waste of manpower. That there have been problems and serious problems, in some of these areas is true. But what is more important, Mr. Speaker, is that steady progress is now being made to surmount them. Our improved youth allowances program, our increased university grant program, our student loan program and the Canada Pension

The Budget-Mr. Nicholson Plan are good examples of progress. They are certainly not mere whitewashing on the part of the government.
We all know that the provinces have been making enormous efforts to gear their educational systems to our modern needs. We all know that the federal government has been backing up the provinces, especially in areas of technical and vocational training and higher education generally.
Since 1961, when the present technical and vocational training agreements with the provinces came into force-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Minister of Labour but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: The
Chair is under the impression that the minister has unanimous consent to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: May the
minister continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their courtesy. I am almost through and I will not be very long.
As I was saying, since 1961, when the present technical and vocational training agreements with the provinces came into force, the federal government has shared with the provinces in capital expenditures on more than 860 projects for building and equipping technical and vocational schools. Just within the last year enrolments in all the programs under these federal-provincial agreements have increased by 300 per cent. Those are things that people ought to bear in mind before they start talking about government whitewashing.
In the setting of this Budget debate and in the light of our current problems, Mr. Speaker, it might have been appropriate for me to devote some time and thought to the role that our system of labour relations can and should play in contributing to Canada's social progress and continued economic growth. It has seemed to me for some time that we in Canada have been entirely too reluctant and hesitant in breaking new ground in the solution of broad economic and social problems through the combined efforts
April 19. 1966

The Budget-Mr. Brand of labour, management and governments. What we need today, in my opinion, is a new strategy of labour relations in Canada to ensure that economic growth is achieved and that its benefits are fairly shared.
In spite of the indulgence extended by the house, time does not permit me to develop this theme adequately during this debate. I hope to do so, however, on another occasion at an early date. In the meantime I urge hon. members to study and restudy the Budget proposals. When they have done so I have no doubt whatever that both the amendment and the subamendment will receive scant support when the time comes to vote on them.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak in the Budget debate perhaps I may be permitted, since it is the first opportunity I have had, to congratulate you and your colleagues on your elevation to the high positions you hold in this house. Coming so many months late, my congratulations may possibly carry a greater note of sincerity, especially after having watched you perform your duties.
I should like, if I may be permitted to do so, to pay a very brief but very sincere tribute to my predecessor in the House of Commons, Dr. Eloise Jones, who served the constituency of Saskatoon with such excellence. Now and for many years to come she will be held in high regard and affection not only by those in this house but also by her constituents in the city of Saskatoon.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
After spending a few days in my home riding, as most members did, I came back to Ottawa having listened to many of my constituents. I received many telephone calls from them and talked with many of them personally. There were many letters waiting on my desk when I returned expressing disappointment because nothing had been done in the Budget to curb the increasing cost of living which is presenting such a serious and real problem to the average Canadian.
I have also received, as I am sure members of the government including the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) have, many letters from those unfortunate people who are caught in the cost-price squeeze, people who live on fixed incomes, old age pensioners, for example, for whom no relief is in sight. It disturbed me that there was nothing specifically laid out in the Budget to help solve their serious problem.

At the same time I was disturbed that there appeared to be a lack of proposals to increase the supply of doctors and medical schools in the light of suggestions for a medical care plan applicable to this great country of ours. This situation has prompted me to offer some advice to the government, possibly gratuitous, with regard to a field about which I believe I have some slight knowledge, that is to say, the education and training of doctors and, in particular, of general practitioners, and to suggest means by which we can make use of existing facilities to train more doctors without incurring tremendous expenditures. I consider the present shortage of doctors to be a serious problem. The national need for physicians, particularly for general practitioners, is increasing daily. Along with the necessity to satisfy this need comes something which is just as important-the responsibility of the government as well as of the profession to see that a high quality of medical care continues even as the ranks are thinned. I should like to direct my remarks specifically to the general practitioner, the so-called family doctor, and refer briefly by way of background to his status among his fellows, his opportunities or lack of them, his continuing education and his role in the health team of today.
Perhaps it would be wise first to place this problem in its proper perspective. It is difficult for most of us to realize the immense advances which have been made in medical science as well as in the other sciences in the past half century. In the area of organization and quality control of medicine it was only in 1910 that the Flexner Report made its impact on the United States and Canada, and only in 1912 that Sir Thomas Ruddick fathered the Canada Medical Act, one of the first attempts at organization and quality control of the practice of medicine. It was as recently as 1929 that the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada was formed to help organize the specialists who were springing up as a result of the advances of the day.
However, with these changes in the organization of medicine came the trickle that became a stream and the stream that became a torrent of advances in medical knowledge. Dr. Raymond Keating, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic post-graduate school, pointed out the remarkable fact that 90 per cent of all advances in scientific knowledge, including medical science, have taken place during the past ten years by scientists living
April 19, 1966

at the present time. This avalanche of advances has had a profound and lasting effect on medical practice.
As I mentioned before, specialists within medicine were created, five main ones at first and 24 sub-specialties. This was a very necessary and important development in view of the amount of knowledge which was so vast that no one man could grasp more than a small amount of it. This, of course, had other effects. The conscientious family doctor has striven mightily to keep up but has found himself swallowed up in this avalanche, his status and duties becoming more attenuated as the years went by.
The public too have become confused. Surrounded by these advances and anxious to seek the very best care available, they have in many instances sought out specialists directly for medical care, services that few if any specialists have the training and experience to provide.
The medical schools too have undergone a change. Whereas they used to educate doctors for general practice, they now aim to produce what they term a basic undifferentiated doctor. After graduation it is easy for specialist training to be obtained in excellent schools throughout the world, but this does not hold true for general practitioners, although very recently attempts have been made to correct this gap in their continuing education. Little, if any, initiative has been taken by the medical schools to come to grips with the problem.
It is true that brief post-graduate courses are held in an ostensible attempt to continue the education of the general practitioner but these are little more than sounding boards for the lecturers involved. A few of the more enlightened universities have included general practitioners on their faculties, albeit in the lowly positions, but even these attempts have been half-hearted and would seem intended more to quiet the agitated general practitioner than to elevate his intellect. The result of this has been that since our medical knowledge has a half life of ten years or, to put it another way, one half of one's knowledge is replaced by new knowledge in ten years time, specialists have become better with all the facilities available to them. Meanwhile, however, the general practitioner has become in the eyes of his peers a second-class doctor or, in that faintly contemptuous phrase, "only a general practitioner".

The Budget-Mr. Brand
Despite all this, the family doctor of today is better trained than he has ever been, and with the facilities he has at hand he is better able now to diagnose and treat disease than he has ever been. The dedicated general practitioner works harder on the average for longer hours and for much less pay than the great majority of his specialist colleagues. This is something I should like the government to take a close look at if they wish to maintain a high level of medical care as they develop schemes for medical care across this country.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The lack of continuing training for the family doctor has resulted in the gradual closing of hospitals. I do not mean the closing of beds or of front doors; I mean in the medical sense of restricting those who are admitted to hospital staffs. I mean the limiting and restricting of privileges of general practitioners who by some stroke of fate are still allowed to practice in the precincts of a particular hospital. In Britain we have the ultimate result of family doctors practising completely apart from the hospitals, becoming office and home doctors with no opportunity to practise continuing care for their patients. This was clearly pointed out at the first international conference of Colleges of General Practice, which was held in Canada at the behest of our College of General Practice in 1964. At that conference general practitioners from Britain and other countries which have followed this same type of practice very clearly pointed out the trend.
In many areas of our own country the general practitioner is still allowed to practise within his competence in our hospitals but every day more and more these privileges are being whittled away. In the university centres, except for the few enlightened ones -they are few, I can assure you-such as the University of Alberta, at Calgary, the University of Western Ontario at London, and Dalhousie in Halifax, except for those which have pilot projects coming up this year the general practitioner is being squeezed out of hospital work under the guise that his continuance would only lower the standards of medical care.
By some strange process of reasoning the majority of our medical educators today seem to believe that you can elevate the standards of medical care by excluding almost totally from the centres of learning those who look after between 85 per cent and 90 per cent of
April 19. 1966

The Budget-Mr. Brand the health care of Canada. They do this without seeing what is obvious to me, that by free association with the very best in medical care, by rubbing shoulders and practising alongside those who represent the finest in specialist care, and by having their work scrutinized by these same people, our standards of care could not help but rise to meet and face the challenge that would be their's. This is something that our medical educators do not seem to understand.
We hear the pious platitudes of these same educators who say, and I have heard them, that their primary purpose is to train general practitioners because we have such a need of them and because we shall need more and more of them due to all the medical care programs that are coming along. They say this publicly but at the same time they do their utmost to downgrade the work of the family doctor and expose the medical student to a totally specialist or fragmented atmosphere where the patient becomes lost in the shuffle and becomes an interesting case rather than a human being afflicted with disease.
Hospitals even outside the university setting are becoming increasingly departmentalized and with this the privileges of the general practitioner on staff are becoming increasingly restricted, even in areas of already demonstrated competence.
There is no question in my mind that those who perpetuate this state of affairs are sincere in their objectives, but there is also no question in my mind that they are very wrong in what they seek to achieve. They are not entirely to blame. The general practitioner himself has become so used to being a second-class medical citizen that in many instances he has given in and has watched his privileges being whittled away without a murmur.
Others, however, in the general practitioner group, with the encouragement of some of the more enlightened specialists, have tried to break through the indifference that has settled on general practice. In 1954 they set up the College of General Practice of Canada with the objectives of stimulating postgraduate training, research and teaching in their chosen field. This college was incorporated in 1960 and has as its motto, "In education lies our strength." This group certainly recognizes the necessity of doing something now to try to produce more general practitioners to meet the needs in Canada today.
TMr. Brand.]

I should like to quote briefly, if I may, Dr. Rice who is executive director of the College of General Practice of Canada.
Is it not paradoxical in the presence of a demonstrated need for more family doctors, to have a decline in the number of general practitioners who are leaving practice for other endeavours, and in the numbers of newly-graduated doctors entering general practice as a career? Why has this situation developed? To those who study this problem, the answer is obvious and should surprise no one. Simply, we-
By "we" he means the general practitioners as well as the medical professors.
-have not kept pace with present community needs. We have failed to keep up to date by adapting the present day pattern of general practice to meet these needs, and more seriously we have given up training medical students as family doctors. We have permitted a situation to develop where general practice has been allowed to become in the eyes of many, and in particular in the eyes of the medical student, that which remains in the practice of medicine once the specialities have been extracted from it.
We have permitted the general practice of medicine to become increasingly unattractive by allowing it to become a way of life which is more restrictive in its scope, more demanding in terms of time, lacking in recognition and prestige, and less remunerative in its monetary return.
The College of General Practice has gone ahead and set up these post-graduate programs. I have mentioned three universities where this year residencies in general practice will be going into effect to help improve the standard of general practice in Canada, and it needs to be improved. It was this same college which commissioned Dr. Kenneth Clute, a specialist from Toronto, to do a study on the general practitioner, to do it without fear or bias and see what was wrong with the profession in Canada and what could be done about it. These residencies I have mentioned are training programs which are being set up and they are a step in the right direction. But the point is that the College of General Practice is still going to be stymied in its ultimate objective unless we awaken our medical schools and make them realize that they must integrate fully into their cur-riculums the general practice of medicine.
It is no longer good enough for them to say that this cannot be done. Such arrogance can only hurt the practice of medicine in the future. They must recognize that they have a direct responsibility and be willing to act on this responsibility. You can give medical schools as much money as you want, but until they change the manner in which they are training their doctors you are not going to
April 19. 1966

maintain the standard of medical care or increase the number of doctors who are going to be needed in future years.
Hospitals too must realize that it is no longer good enough to departmentalize into departments of medicine or surgery, or what have you, or clinical departments where patients are treated and then, in order to keep the family doctor from making too much fuss, allow a general practice department which is not in the least bit clinical, which is merely a paper thing where you have a meeting once a year to satisfy some administrative thinking. This does away with the continuing education of general practitioners. It does nothing to boost the sinking morale of the family doctor. It just keeps him from raising too much fuss at the local medical meetings.
With the prospective need for doctors in our country it is up to the government to give direction to the medical schools and to hospitals to encourage the continuing education of the general practitioner and help break down the ivory tower bastions that have been set up in so many of our medical schools. We can turn out more doctors without building too many more medical schools. We have countless community hospitals ready and available now in which the integrated training of doctors can be carried out in co-operation with our medical faculties. What we need are medical teachers. We need more teachers and facilities to train medical teachers.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
We need more teachers not only in the specialties but teachers in the general practice of medicine, the only practice which looks at the patient as a whole patient rather than just a part. This is the segment of the practice of medicine that is so necessary for the preservation of the human being and human dignity in the presence of disease.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, it will seem quite obvious to everyone that I am somewhat partisan in my remarks, but I think it is high time someone took to task those medical educators and specialists who are so insular in their approach that they consider the average family doctor as someone to be tolerated only and never totally accepted in the great society of Hippocrates.
We need more doctors, primarily family doctors, and unless we change our attitude and integrate general practice into medical schools and hospitals the trend already started, where 60 per cent or more of our medical students go directly into the specialist fields, 23033-2541
The Budget-Mr. Lewis will continue whereas the reverse used to be true. Closed hospitals, limited and restricted privileges and other terms like these should be abolished. In their place should come practices related directly to one's training and one's competence.
In conclusion may I say that the general practitioner agrees with Maimonides in his "Daily Prayer of a Physician":
May there never develop in me the notion that my education is complete, but give me strength and leisure and zeal continually to enlarge my knowledge.
On that note may I make a plea to the government to look very carefully at the problem of medical education. This is something that cannot be swept under the rug in the hope that as a result of establishing a medicare plan it will be solved. This problem will not be solved in this way. We need direction and help from the government and I ask the government to look seriously at this problem to see what can be done to improve the lot of the largest number by far of men educated in the medical profession today.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the general rate of growth of the economy in Canada I wish it were possible to say nice things about the Budget and, more particularly, about the Budget speech, but I do not think that is possible for any objective person studying the social and economic conditions of our country today.
When I read and re-read the minister's speech in introduction of his Budget I came to the conclusion that this Budget decrees that the poor shall, indeed must, always be with us. In his speech the minister bemoaned the fact that inflation hurts the poor the most, and he was right. Rising consumer costs certainly hurt people on low or fixed incomes most of all. But the minister says in effect, we cannot do anything or we can do very little for the poor precisely because of the inflation which hurts them. To me this is not only a vicious circle but a declaration of moral and social bankruptcy on the part of the minister and the government for which he speaks, and indeed of the entire social and economic establishment in Canada.
So is another lamentable implication of the minister's speech, and I challenge him to show where at any place in my general analysis of his words there is an illogical point. His analysis of the economic situation alleges that the reason for the inflationary

April 19, 1986
The Budget-Mr. Lewis pressures, as he insisted throughout his speech, is the fact that we are using our productive capacities to the full or almost to the full.
What does that mean? It means that the minister boasts of our expansion and prosperity and then concludes that he can do nothing substantial for the poor of Canada. I say to him and to you, sir, that there are only two alternative implications to be drawn from this kind of analysis of our economic situation. The first is that we can do more for the poor when we are experiencing a recession, when we do not have inflationary pressures. That is an obvious piece of arrant and cynical nonsense. Or, alternatively, the implication in the minister's analysis is that we can never eliminate poverty in Canada; we cannot do it in times of recession because we do not have enough and we cannot do it adequately in times of prosperity because we have too much.
That is precisely what the minister says in his Budget speech to the poor of this country, and I have no doubt that he will deny any such implications in his speech.


Mitchell William Sharp: I do.


David Lewis: I was sure that the minister would deny it, but I say to him in all seriousness, because I think this is the basis of the discussion that ought to take place in this parliament and in our country, that whether he denies these implications or not, indeed, whether he intends them or not, they are the only conclusions that can be drawn from the totality of his presentation. Otherwise he would have said to this parliament and to the country that it is precisely because we have such expansion in our economy, and precisely because we are experiencing a period of continued prosperity, that this is the time when the government will take all necessary measures to eliminate poverty.
Furthermore, I say to you that the blind approach which the minister and his government have taken to the social purposes of our economic activity has shown one thing that has always annoyed me beyond words, and that is the ease with which economic experts and ministers of finance point to indices of prosperity and rates of growth, always ignoring the one basis for that growth and that is its social purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: Let me say I am not concerned with economic growth, nor is anyone in my

party, nor should anyone in this house be, if the results of that growth are concentrated in the hands of those who already have too much. That is exactly what has been happening in this country. It is only this blind approach to the social purpose of our economic activity that could have led the minister and his government to commit such a regrettable and repellent hoax on the low income groups as that contained in the minister's manipulations of the income tax provisions.
The minister went into a long song and dance about the fact that even though inflation required him to take back the tax reduction which was made a year ago, or most of it, he was not going to touch the poor people and he was going to make their lot better. After this self-righteous speech, if you look at the tables that he himself included in his budget speech, what do you find? You find that this tremendous generosity on the part of the minister will result in a reduction in taxes for a single person who earns $1,500 a year of $4 per year.


Mitchell William Sharp: How much tax did he pay?


David Lewis: That does not matter and it is not relevant.


Mitchell William Sharp: I think it is.


David Lewis: The minister says it is relevant and I say it is not relevant, and that proves my point. If these people were unable to pay bigger taxes before it was the fault of the minister and his government because they were not able to earn more money to pay more taxes.
The point with which I am concerned is the ease with which the minister is able to salve his conscience by saying, I am helping the poor. What does this help consist of? It consists of $4 per year for a single man earning $1,500, 33 cents per month or 7J cents per week.
[DOT] (5 .40 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: How much did they pay in taxes?


David Lewis: The minister has already asked that question and I think I have answered him. I say to him in further answer that he might have been more generous to the people of Canada and more appreciative of their need and would have shown a much more sincere feeling for the poor had he increased old age pensions and established a floor in respect of income instead of perpetrating this
April IS, 1966



insincere hoax which gives a single man $4 per year, 33 cents per month or 7J cents per week, this hoax which gives a married man without dependants earning $2,500 per year $4 per year, 33 cents per month or 7J cents per week. To the married person with two children earning $3,000 a year he gives 5-| cents a week, to the $3,500 a year man, 17 cents a week, to the $4,000 a year man, 9i cents a week. This is the generosity he shows to the poor of Canada. My point is not that he was doing anything completely wrong in reducing taxes for these people; it is that he should have reduced them substantially more. I am making the point that the entire policies should have been directed toward raising the living standards of all the people who pay such low taxes and a third of the people who do not pay any taxes at all.
Despite this, Mr. Speaker, if you look into the record you find that over a year ago, in the 1965 Throne Speech, the government declared a war on poverty; indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) talked about it before the Throne Speech. On April 5, 1965, His Excellency the Governor General read some stirring and ringing words. Some of them are worth recalling. The Throne Speech said:
All the great potentialities of our economy are not, however, being realized. The talents of some of our people are wasted because of poverty, illness, inadequate education and training, inequality in opportunities for work.
I pause here to say that at least the Prime Minister and the government realize that these conditions, which some of us have been drawing to their attention for decades, do in fact exist. The Throne Speech went on to say:
To combat these problems, to improve the opportunities of people who are now at a disadvantage, is to put new power into economic expansion and to enhance the unity of our country.
I applaud that sentiment. Who would not? Everyone in Canada applauded that statement because increasingly we are becoming aware of these things. What are we talking about when we speak of poverty in Canada?
I want to spend a few minutes outlining the elements of poverty directly from a publication of the Special Planning Secretariat that the Prime Minister set up. These figures are contained in a publication called "Meeting Poverty-Profile of Poverty in Canada." The first few pages of this publication contain a summary of the findings of the secretariat. Here you find some really distressing facts which ought to have found their way into the Budget or at least into the Budget speech.
The Budget-Mr. Lewis
You find that in Canada- and this is what we are talking about when we speak of poverty- at the census of 1961 some 23 per cent of Canadian families had an income of less than $3,000 a year. This figure of $3,000 is the line drawn by welfare counsellors and sociologists as the floor for a half-decent standard of living for a family with children. As I say, 23 per cent, one out of every four of our Canadian families, had an income of less than $3,000 a year. In addition some 700,000 single persons made less than $1,500 a year. If you add these numbers together you have some four million Canadians or more than 25 per cent of our people, who are members of families or are single, below the line of income required for a half-decent standard of living. One out of every four Canadians is in that situation.
With regard to families headed by women, says this report, more than half-not 23 per cent but more than half-had incomes of less than $3,000 a year and about two-fifths or 40 per cent of them lived on less than $2,000 a year. If you consider the situation with regard to fishermen, logging and farm workers, you find that three out of five families of fishermen, which is 60 per cent, and every second family of logging and farm workers, which is 50 per cent, and one third of our labourers, which is 33J per cent, had incomes below $3,000 a year. This is the extent of existing and continuing poverty in Canada. This situation is even more striking if you analyse it in some of its various aspects.
In early pages of the same report you find that the unemployment rate among workers under 20 years of age is more than double the national average. Note that this applies to people under 20 years of age, which is precisely the age when we should develop young Canadians into having an appreciation of their country and a desire to make a contribution to it. Yet their unemployment rate is more than double the national average.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we think of Canada as a country of widespread education. But note this. In 1961, says this report-I am not quoting it but am citing figures from it-of Canadians aged 15 and over there were 5,166,346, or 47 per cent, with no more than elementary schooling. I draw to the attention of the house this figure of 47 per cent of those aged 15 and over who in 1961 had only elementary schooling. These included 176,524 with no schooling at all, and a figure as high as 848,261 with schooling of four grades or

April 19, 1966
The Budget-Mr. Lewis less. These conditions are found in an affluent, expanding economy. These are the facts about the situation in Canada today.
When you come to the aged people, which is the next most helpless group, you find that 21 per cent of Canadians aged 65 to 69 consistently receive old age assistance. That is, almost one out of every four persons aged 65 to 69 receives old age assistance. The median annual income for men in their late 60's is $2,000, $1,500 in their early 70's, and $900 in their late 80's, if they live that long. As they become older, in need of greater income, as their health fails, as they become more helpless, their income is reduced from $2,000 in the late 60's to $900 in the late 80's. How more inhuman and thoughtless can a society be than one which treats its old people this way?
If you look at health, which is the next criterion in the realm of poverty, you find this statement at page 5 of the report:
Low income groups receive less health care than higher income groups, although they suffer from more illnesses in general and their illnesses tend to be more severe.
In housing you find the same story. You find that among families earning $6,000 and over in 1961, only 18 per cent lived in dwellings providing less than a room per person. But among families earning less than $3,000 this proportion was 35 per cent. They also lived, in significant measure, in houses infested with rats and vermin, houses in need of major repair and unfit for any human being to dwell in. This is what we are speaking about when we talk of poverty.
The Canadian Welfare Council prepared a report for the conference on poverty last December. For the purposes of this report they carried out a survey of families in four Canadian cities. In their report the Canadian Welfare Council "painted a bleak picture of poverty among city dwellers". They found that the median income per person for the families studied in Saint John, New Brunswick, and Montreal was $34 a month; in Toronto it was $44 a month and in Vancouver it was $53 a month.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The majority had less than grade 8 education, insufficient to enable them to get better or more permanent jobs or even to take part in retraining courses. The report stated that housing is a source of deep anxiety for the poor. Few own their own houses and rents are high. Food and rent consume almost 70 per cent of all incomes.

Then there is this sentence in the report:
Sharing the house with rats and other vermin does not give people a sense of their own worth or a wish to be part of the community. Nevertheless, most do want to be part of their neighbourhood and do not want to move away even from these tenuous connections.
The Canadian Welfare Council also stated in a report on rural poverty that Canada's rural poor subsist in some areas on incomes as low as $11.71 per person per month. These are the facts about the Canadian people. I repeat that we are dealing with somewhere between 25 and 30 per cent of Canadians. These are the facts which the minister had before him when he was preparing the Budget.
There is no word in the Budget about the war on poverty. There is nothing to suggest that there are steps being taken that are adequate at the present time. This so-called war on poverty is a paper war. There is not a day but I find on my desk some press release from the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) about some kind of pilot project which has been established in some part of some province of Canada. By this time I think the minister ought to have enough pilots to get himself at least one ship that knows where it is going and how to get there.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask the hon. member a question? If I had filled my Budget speech with already announced policies of the government, would he not now be accusing me of having padded it?


David Lewis: No, I would not. I would have been delighted if he had been able to find government policies with which to fill his speech. I would have been delighted to listen to a list of government policies to deal effectively with this problem in Canada. Let him not hide behind other government promises. As Minister of Finance, and I shall come to this in a moment if I can, he had certain steps to take with relation to taxes; he had certain steps to take with relation to monetary policy; he had certain steps to take with relation to the fiscal field generally.
He could have taken these steps if he had not been completely blind to the real needs of Canada and if he had not taken off on the usual course of the big business fraternity in this country. All of these factors to which I have referred persist today, as they did in 1961. Of course I agree, as anyone with any sense of integrity at all would agree, that some of the problems will require time to be solved. They cannot be solved by the wave of
April 19, 1966
a wand or the snapping of somebody's fingers. Certainly it takes time to retrain; it takes time to replace illiteracy with some education; it takes time to have industry that will absorb such people. However, precisely because it takes time, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot help but become angered by this kind of excuse from the other side, the longer you delay the start the longer it will take to find a solution and the longer these people will continue to suffer. The start that has been made is a picayune and pusillanimous one which does not even approach the problems with which we are faced. Hence the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, because as one expert in the United States said some time ago, and I do not recall his name, many people forget the simple proposition that the poor need income. It is as simple as that.
It is for this reason we say in our subamendment that people who make as little as $1,500, if they are single, ought not to pay any income tax, and married people, with a family, making only $3,000 ought not to pay any income tax. We ought to begin now to build a guaranteed floor under income for every Canadian in every part of the country. There is no other way in which you can get people out of their poverty except by providing them now with the necessary income to live like decent human beings in self-respect and dignity. Then their attitude will change. Then, and then only, will it become possible to retrain them, to educate them, to make them more productive citizens of our community.
The point is, Mr. Speaker, that in order to do this the Minister of Finance would have had to bring in a Budget which made some drastic and radical redistribution of income from those who have too much to those who have nothing or too little. It is this refusal to recognize the need for using monetary and fiscal policy to redistribute income, including in this case the taking of more power into the hands of the government, that leads the minister to present a Budget which contains relatively nothing at all. If he had had any less, he could not even have made a speech about it, let alone call it a Budget.
The minister is anxious and concerned about inflation. He is so concerned about it that he makes an elementary error in economics unless what I studied in economics in two universities was completely wasted on me. As reported on page 3380 of Hansard the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion minister stated that there would be an increase of rather more than 9 per cent in the gross national product in 1966. Of this, a little more than 5 per cent would be in volume and 4 per cent in price. Then he says:
That is the prediction my advisers made without taking into account any of the proposals that I shall make subsequently. Part of the expected price increase is attributable directly to contributions under the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans and to the recently announced increase in the Ontario provincial sales tax, both of which reflect improvements in public and social services.
There may be some element of validity in the reference to the Ontario provincial sales tax, which is in the short run handed over to the consumer in the form of higher prices. But surely it is sheer nonsense to talk about contributions under the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans as being inflationary. Surely they are the opposite. Surely they are just as much a tax as any other tax, and are deflationary rather than inflationary.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sure the hon. gentleman wants to be fair. I did not say they were inflationary; I said they were the cause of some of the increase in prices.


David Lewis: The minister is either playing on words now or he was playing on words in his Budget speech.


Mitchell William Sharp: I was being exactly accurate in the Budget speech.


David Lewis: No, in the Budget speech the minister dealt with increases in price as being synonymous with inflation.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, I did not.


David Lewis: Yes, the minister did. In any case, even the statement that they put pressure on prices is an exceedingly questionable one for anyone to make in this house or elsewhere.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) -Trois-Rivieres-possible closing of elevators; the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford)-External Affairs- India-request that further aid be given; the



April 19. 1966
The Budget-Mr. Lewis
hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquar-rie)-Transport-Prince Edward Island causeway-application of stretch-out policy.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Monteith, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands).
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, at the dinner recess 1 was dealing with the minister's erroneous statement, to be found at page 3380 of Hansard that the contributions to the federal and Quebec pension plans will be directly responsible for part of the price increase he expects in the future. I want to make clear that I did not refer to what I think is an error merely to introduce a minor technical argument, but because it seemed to me to indicate an approach typical of conservative economic thinking which seeks to tarnish the value of welfare measures such as old age pension plans.
Every member of this house is concerned with increased prices. Last year there was an increase of 3.5 per cent. After making long dissertations about the action he was going to take to stop this inflation, the minister ended up by telling us that he hoped-he could not guarantee it obviously-that the expected increase of 4 per cent in the consumer price index might be reduced to 3.5 per cent. After all the effort he expended and all the words he threw at this parliament and the country, he ended up by reducing the inflationary percentage from 4 per cent to 3.5 per cent.
Three point five per cent last year and 3.5 per cent this year will be a 7 per cent increase in the cost of living in two years. This will be disastrous for industrial and agricultural workers generally and those on low and fixed incomes such as old age pensioners, in particular.

What causes these terrible increases in prices, Mr. Speaker? Did the minister bother to ask himself whether they were justified by cost increases or by other genuine and legitimate factors of the market? Should we not find out whether they were justified? Before putting on the brakes, or taking the foot off the pedal, or whatever simile the minister wants to use, should he not have satisfied himself that the price increases came from justifiable economic pressures? I can look only at the available data, and the available data I want to deal with first are the profit increases as compared to the price increases.
It is true that we have had an overall price increase of 3.5 per cent. The largest increase is the rise in food prices. As my hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) pointed out, and as the Canadian Economic Council also pointed out, that was mainly the result of shortages in meat products, fruit and vegetables in the United States.
However, if you look at what happened to profits in the year 1965 you really find an astonishing result. There was an increase in the profits in all industries, as can be seen from a study of any of the publications dealing with this matter, of 13.5 per cent in 1965 over 1964. That was already on top of an increase of 14.6 per cent in 1964 over 1963, which again was on top of an increase of 6.6 per cent in 1963 over 1962, and of 9 per cent in 1962 over 1961.
One might say that 1961 was the year in which the upward curve of the economic cycle started, and therefore you would expect a somewhat higher rate of profit increase to result in 1962; but there is no excuse, other than sheer profiteering, for an increase of 14.6 per cent in 1964 over 1963 and an increase of 13.5 per cent in 1965 over 1964. If you take the five years from 1961 to 1965, the total percentage increase in profits in that period for all industries is 51 per cent.
I was particularly interested to look at the profits in the food and beverages industry, from which some of the particularly large increases in the consumer price index come. I found that in the food and beverages industry there was an increase in profit of 18.5 per cent in 1965 as compared with 1964, which is 5 per cent more than the average increase for all industries in Canada. This is where the price increases on food come from- profiteering by food processing and food packing companies.
April 19, 1966

Taking the five year period 1961-65 there was an increase of 43 per cent in the profits in the food processing and packing industries. The same thing applies to retail trade profits, which show an increase of 20 per cent in 1965 over 1964.
When the subject of profits is referred to in this house, and also outside the house, somebody immediately raises the question: How-about wages? Well, how about wages? If a similar calculation is made with respect to wages-I am referring to total labour income, which includes salaries, wages and other sources of labour income-you find that the increase in 1965 as compared with 1964 was only 11 per cent, as against 13.5 per cent increase in profits. In 1964 it was 8.7 per cent over 1963, compared with 14.6 per cent for profits.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired, unless, of course, he is given additional time by the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members and I hope I will not be too long in completing my remarks.


An hon. Member:: We do have a time limit.


David Lewis: No time limit was set. I do not intend to take advantage of my extension, but I do intend to take enough time to enable me to complete my remarks. I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that if you look at wage increases you will find that only in 1963 compared with 1962 was the percentage wage increase, 6.7 per cent, about the same as the profit increase for that period, namely 6.6 per cent.
Because of the kind of propaganda I have often heard both in this house and outside, I should underline that the important thing when you look at these figures is to realize that they are figures for total labour income. If you look at wages only you will find an increase in 1965 over 1964 of only 5.2 per cent, as compared with the figure of 11 per cent representing the increase in total labour income.
Wages of industrial workers alone-wages which are said to affect prices-increased in 1965, compared with 1964, by only 5.2 per cent. In the manufacturing part of the industrial complex, which of course is the major part as far as value of production is concerned, the increase in 1965 over 1964 was only 4.9 per cent. Remember too, Mr. DEBATES
The Budget-Mr. Lewis Speaker-and I underline this-that these statistics are based on surveys of firms which employ 15 employees or more, they do not cover firms which employ less than 15 employees.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
It is a well established economic fact that the smaller the firm, generally speaking, the smaller the wage rate, and therefore the smaller the wage earnings of the workers. There are exceptions to this, of course, but generally speaking that has been established in economic history. If you take the workers in smaller establishments, particularly in manufacturing industries, the likelihood is that you would find a picture that is worse than the one that has already been given.
Aside altogether from these percentages, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that after you have dealt with all these increases in wages you still have an average weekly wage in Canada, in the industrial composite, of $91.18. That is in Canada as a whole. That is the average. This is not a high wage today, and anyone has the right to complain if he has a family in modern Canada, in 1966, if he is earning that. That is only a total annual income of approximately $4,500, or less, which is about 50 per cent above the poverty line of $3,000 a year which we discussed earlier.


Mr. Vincent:: What about the farmers now?


David Lewis: When you come to the farmers the statistics for their earnings are made up in a different way. While the increase in food prices has been the most substantial part of the total price increase, as far as I have been able to ascertain from my studies of the situation, it is not the farmer who has received that increase: it is the middle organization, the corporation that packs and processes the farmer's product, that has had the advantage of this increase in price.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands proposed on behalf of this party the subamendment to which I referred earlier and which will be voted on later. It was because of the thinking involved in it that my leader earlier in this session proposed a prices review board to investigate price increases in order to find out whether they are justified.
What the minister should have done, before he condemned the lower economic areas of this country to at least another year of stagnation, before he condemned the people in poverty in this country to continue in their
4014	COMMONS DEBATES	April 19, 1S66
The Budget-Mr. Lewis poverty, is this: He should have satisfied himself how much of the increase in prices is due to administered prices; how much of that increase is due to monopolistic greed; how much is due to a deliberate policy by the corporations to get as much money as the traffic will bear. In short, how much of that increase in prices is due to sheer conscienceless profiteering?
If this is the reason for much of the increase in prices, as I am personally convinced it is, the remedy is not to condemn millions of Canadians to continue living in poverty. The remedy is to take a number of new, brave, logical steps to stop this profiteering, rather than to condemn poor people to continue being poor.
But the minister in his budget was very tender to the corporations. When he imposed a 5 per cent tax on them, he made it refundable. The corporations will pay this refundable tax in monthly instalments over a period of 18 months. At the end of that time, for the following 18 months, he will return it to them with 5 per cent interest.
I was struck by the comparison between the personal income tax, which the minister said, and I am using his figures, meant a total annual addition to revenue of $210 million, none of that being returned to the taxpayer, and this 5 per cent refundable tax which will bring about $250 million a year, but which is to be returned to the corporations with interest. What an eloquent contrast there is in the minister's treatment of the workers and middle class people of this country who pay most of the $210 million that he is going to get in additional money and the way he treats the corporations.
From the corporations he takes this refundable tax in a measure which is just about as useless, and I say that, choosing my words carefully, as anything of which a serious economist could possibly conceive. The $250 million involved in this 5 per cent refundable tax, amounts to about 2 per cent of the total projected investment by private corporations. And, Mr. Speaker, I see no reason in the world why these corporations should not pay the 5 per cent refundable tax into the minister's treasury and invest exactly the same amount as they intended to invest. These corporations never invest the last of their pennies. They always have resources in their undistributed reserves, or from borrowing, if that is what they intended to do. Giving the minister money at 5 per cent, money which in 18 months or 24 months they will get back, is not a bad thing for them. Five per cent is

not a bad return, when all you have to do is let the money lie in the minister's pocket.
Therefore this whole gesture is so phony as to be outrageous. The minister said that this is economic planning. With due respect, it is an example of nothingness of the most meaningless kind.
I will not deal with the Swedish system because my hon. friend the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has already done so.
I wish to conclude by very briefly suggesting the following measures which are necessary now: I respectfully say to you, sir, and to all hon. members in this house that this budget underlines as few things have done the need for full and courageous planning of Canada's economy.
The minister talks about the construction boom. He talked about it in most of his speech. Sure, there is one. It does not require an economic genius to know that the boom is primarily due to centennial projects across Canada; to Expo '67, and to all the various projects undertaken all across the country. That there is a boom in other building as well I will not deny. But the great pressures on the construction industry, the more than desirable pressures on that industry are due to the building programs of villages, towns, cities, provinces, and the federal government across Canada, having to do with the centennial. Those pressures will end in 1967 or 1968. There is not a word in the budget of any plan to provide a necessary substitute. There is no shelf of building projects except the few things that the minister has deferred in public construction.
We now need more, and not less, expenditure on area development, in order to equalize opportunities in this country, in the way in which the Speech from the Throne said on April 5, 1965 it should be done. We need the Canadian Development Corporation about which not a word appeared in the Throne Speech, and about which there was not a word in the Budget.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is in the Throne Speech.


David Lewis: If it is, then I take back what I have said just now. But there is not a word about it in the Budget. And, what is perhaps more important, it is not on the order paper.
Even more significant is the fact that last week end at a Young Liberals Convention one of the senior ministers of the Crown said that he doubted very much whether there
April 19. 1966



was any value in this development corporation. This was the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters). The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) later appeared at the convention and read a lecture on how the corporation was very necessary, and that the government will introduce it.


Mitchell William Sharp: It will.


David Lewis: I am glad to hear it, and I hope that the minister introduces it.


An hon. Member:: It is not what you would do.


David Lewis: I am sure it will not be the kind of corporation I would introduce, Mr. Speaker. I am certain that the minister will introduce something similar to the idea that was laid out before us one or two years ago, where 90 per cent of the public corporation was to be in the hands of private corporations. I am sure that in the minister's proposal the government will have very little to do with the policies of this Canadian Development Corporation. Certainly, that is not the kind of proposal that we would introduce. That is not the* kind of thing the New Democratic Party had in mind when it proposed, as it did propose years ago, the Canadian Development Fund-long before it appeared in the Throne Speech of this government.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I go on to say, Mr. Speaker, that we need planning to which public investment is tied in as a necessary instrument all down the line. We need to use the Canadian Development Corporation for the purpose of increasing the public sector in the economy in order that the minister may have much greater control than he has now. At the present time, when he says he intends to reduce public spending on construction by 10 per cent he is talking, as I am sure he will agree, about a very small part of total investment in Canada. The effect of such a reduction upon the economy is almost infinitesimal because of the relatively small amount of expenditure in the public sector of the economy. The greater the investment in public hands, the more the steps which the Minister of Finance takes in future years, the greater will be the effect on the economy as a whole.


Mr. Chretien:: What about the constitutional problem?
The Budget-Mr. Lewis


David Lewis: Of course there is a constitutional problem, but there is still a large area of investment in which the federal government could participate without encountering any constitutional difficulty. And there are still large areas in which the provinces could co-operate with the federal government in public investment if the federal government takes the lead, as we hope it will.


Mitchell William Sharp: We hope they will.


David Lewis: Let the minister try to give some leadership and see what response is forthcoming-not leadership in words, not leadership in speeches on the floor of the house, not leadership in a Speech from the Throne only, but in terms of actual plans with concrete financial propositions, plans the details of which are laid out in such a way that the provinces will know exactly where they are going; not in such a way as to place added financial burdens on the provinces which they are unable to bear.
I say, briefly, that we need legislation to deal with foreign ownership. The Canadian Development Corporation, or Development Fund, is the only effective way to deal with foreign ownership. Again there is not a word about it in this Budget. I was pleased by the compliment the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), a very honourable gentleman, paid to the previous minister of finance, another honourable gentleman. Nevertheless, it was significant that despite these honourable exchanges between honourable men-and I note that the former minister of finance paid the present minister the same kind of courteous compliment-the fact is that many of the things which the former minister of finance considered the cornerstone of Canada's economic future have been forgotten by his successor, particularly with regard to the question of foreign ownership.
We need a policy aimed at redistributing income in Canada to give everyone a fair and adequate income. This means the placing of a floor under income. I say, with all the emphasis I can, that if a prosperous time of economic expansion is not the time for taking these steps to improve the quality of life in Canada, I should like to know when the time will be ripe for this kind of action. This is the time to fight poverty, to take steps to eliminate inequalities in Canada as between groups and regions. It is not a time to stand pat as the minister did in his Budget, or to sit complacently as he does now.
April 19, 1966

The Budget-Mr. Rochon [Translation]


Mr.   Jean-L. Rochon@Laval: Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate the previous speaker for his creditable attempt to win us over to his views. But all members of the house realized that the politician gave way to the petty politician, never losing sight of the interest involved: that of his own party.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly how many budgets have been brought down since confederation. A hundred? Perhaps more, perhaps less, because it must be kept in mind that in certain circumstances, twelve months have elapsed without a budget being submitted to the house, as was the case, for instance, during the last year of the administration of our friends opposite, and that some other years, there were more than one, the main budget and the other commonly called the baby budget. Obviously, then, it is difficult to specify, even with all these statistics.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Be that as it may, the bringing down of the budget is always wrapped in mystery. There is in the air an atmosphere of suspense, as it would be called in the film industry, and the other evening, it was surely a good idea to adjourn the house for a little over an hour before the arrival of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp).
Like other government members who spoke previously, I feel duty bound to congratulate him on his masterly report of the situation in Canada; he clearly indicated the soundness of our economy, the leading part played by our country among the great countries of the world; his words gave clear indication that he fully intends, in spite of present difficulties, to hold back the threat of inflation.
He would have liked, as he said himself, and I quote:
I need hardly say that as a new Minister of Finance I would have preferred the main features of my first Budget to be proposals to reduce taxation. But we can all take satisfaction from the fact that our problems are no longer the problems of overcoming slackness or stagnation but those of managing growth and prosperity. Our task is to sustain the longest economic expansion in Canadian history.
Those words, Mr. Speaker, show what a great Canadian he is, a Canadian who believes in the future of his country, a great Canadian who realizes that, even at the price of sacrifices, there is but one way to follow, which may not be the wide and easy way, the wide way of the easy life, but the more austere one, at least for the time being, of the

freely-accepted sacrifice for the well-being of everyone.
Perhaps the hon. members who spoke before me did not emphasize enough, in this budget debate, the remarkable character of what might be termed in sports a real performance. I am simply referring, sir, to the material aspect of the matter.
The Minister of Finance and his collaborators have in fact been working for months to prepare it, he had indicated his intention to present it to the house some time previously. He was ready on time.
He came here with a white paper, a document impressive by its contents as well as by its sincerity, and which, this year, achieved greater dimensions than usual. As customary, copies had been distributed in advance to the press and to leaders or financial critics of the various opposition parties. Moreover, all those documents had also been previously translated in the other language and similarly distributed.
Everything went off without a hitch, as it will be remembered, and it is certainly appropriate to congratulate-which is too seldom done perhaps-all those in the Finance Department, in the Bureau for Translations or elsewhere, who share in that annual operation. There, it seems to me, is an excellent example given to other government departments and more particularly to certain royal commissions which, at times, keep us waiting longer than we would wish for their reports.
There is another phenomenon which occurs every year and it is the foreseeable reaction of the leaders of the opposition parties. That is also part of the ritual.
Sometimes, one can guess or foresee the contents of the budget speech but one also goes wrong at times. On the other hand, it is seldom a mistake to say that whatever happens, opposition critics will never be satisfied. The short interviews they give newspapermen and radio and television reporters as they come out of the house could almost be written in advance. I do not think those should be taken seriously.
Today, they can complain of the deficit and say the government should do more to save the taxpayer's money but who does not recall the postwar years when the minister of finance of the time, Mr. Abbott, used to announce surpluses at times reaching hundreds of millions, but complaints were no fewer. It was said then that no government had the right to ask the taxpayer for one cent more than necessary.
April 19, 1966

This is not the case today, although the estimated deficit is relatively small compared to total expenditures. After all, an amount of $150 million out of more than $9 billion is an acceptable ratio. It is like borrowing 15 cents to buy something worth $9, when one does not have all the cash needed. Viewed from that angle, the deficit is more acceptable and shows how sound our economy is.
However, if the Minister of Finance had been perfectly free to do everything he wanted-I am thinking of the fixed expenditures he had to meet-I am sure he would have preferred to balance his budget, even announce a surplus which would have helped reduce the national debt.
Everybody becomes an economist the day after the budget is brought down.
Perhaps this was not the case a generation ago, because the influence the government could exercise on the economy was not known then. Things have changed a great deal today, and observing the country's economic situation, it is easy to imagine what one would have done under the circumstances as Minister of Finance. That is why I think the last budget speech did not really surprise anyone. The budget brought down on March 29 was, first of all, an extremely serious and reasonable budget.
Yet the minister was in a difficult situation. At the present time Canada is enjoying great prosperity. Generally speaking, practically every region is in full development. Except for some more or less chronically poverty-stricken areas-which are being looked after, as we know-there are no serious problems in any part of Canada. Unemployment is decreasing, and there is even concern, particularly in the larger cities, about a labour shortage, especially skilled labour.
Money circulates easily and cannot be said to be excessively concentrated in the hands of a few. The measures to stimulate the economy launched with the return to power of the Liberal party have been extremely successful, but at the same time have created problems of a different sort which are just as difficult to solve.
The climate of confidence prevailing in our country gave rise, to use the expression of Claude Ryan in he Devoir, to a thirst for investment. Understandably, under these conditions, with money rolling and investment opportunities multiplying constantly, the demand for consumer goods-for, in the final analysis, the consumer is the one who benefits from this state of affairs-is very
The Budget-Mr. Rochon great, greater than necessary for a sound national economy.
In saying this, Mr. Speaker, I am not telling anyone anything new. We can all see the rising cost of living. I spoke earlier of buying something for $9. While saying that I was trying to think of something one could buy today for $9.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
What amount of groceries does this represent in the local supermarket? Not much. Can clothing for a child be bought for this sum? Perhaps a pair of shoes? But when one has several children, or even just two or three, the money does not stretch very far. In 1910, a young civil servant could live on $600 a year. Today, he begins with a salary seven or eight times higher and he may not live any better, taking into account, of course, the change of circumstances since that distant period, although basically statistics indicate that since the end of World War II the average salary of the workman, for example, has increased more than the cost of living, which proves that the workman does live noticeably better now than he did then.
But this situation will not last forever and if the present trend continues all these advantages may be lost.
This was well understood by the Minister of Finance. This was certainly what the population understood also. In spite of the recriminations of the opposition, it can be said that the budget was well received. I was saying that the day following the budget everyone becomes somewhat of an economist; the average Canadian has perfectly understood this very simple principle that the pressure on prices cannot decrease as long as the amount of money in the hands of the consumers increases constantly. To reduce demand by increasing taxes is to avoid the risk of inflation.
But there is something of an alarming nature and somewhat of a paradox in that. It would be inhuman, in certain cases, to reduce the purchasing power of the taxpayer at a time when the cost of living increases rapidly. "The certain cases" to whom I am referring are the small taxpayers. It is in that light that the serious and complicated document which is the minister's budget speech takes a really human aspect because although it provides for a general increase in personal income tax, it grants the small wage earners real relief.
April 19, 196$

The Budget-Mr. Rochon
That is where some reservations could be made. It would be impossible to blame the minister for relieving the small taxpayer who has much more difficulty in finding $100 than the big taxpayer in finding $1,000 to pay his income tax.
I wonder, however, if the minister went far enough in that direction. The maximum amount in that respect is $5,000. Over that amount there is an income tax increase. But, in 1966, even $5,000 is not such a high income. Personally, I think that the minister might have been a little more generous and set at $7,000 the amount over which income tax would have gone up. It would have shown a more realistic view of things, for instance, the price of groceries or children's shoes, about which I spoke a little earlier.
Of course, it would have been necessary in that case to find the money elsewhere or to agree to a higher deficit. The easiest solution would have been, of course, to increase even more the income tax at higher levels. However, I think that would not have been a very good idea. Canadians are now among the most highly taxed people in the world -which is not so hard to understand in a wealthy country like ours-and when getting the money where it is-to speak like some socialists-we must be careful not to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. An income of $12,000 a year does not allow anyone to live ostentatiously and, in spite of that, the state now claims almost $1,000, that is what it would cost one annually for instance to change one's car. It is quite enough.
Then where can we find the money needed to protect the economy while not increasing too much the already heavy burdens which the taxpayers have to bear? I admit that the answer is not easy to find and that, had I been the Minister of Finance, it is quite likely that I would have done the same thing.
However, while studying the rest of the budget and particularly the refundable tax of 10 per cent on gross profits which will from now on be imposed on corporations, I was reminded that during the war the government of the day whose minister of finance was Mr. Ilsley, adopted a similar policy with regard to the individual taxpayers. At that time, if I am not mistaken, it was called compulsory savings. I wonder if a similar method could not have been used, in spite of the administrative difficulties involved. And so, two birds could have been killed with one stone: decrease the amount of money in

circulation, and therefore the demand, without totally depriving the taxpayer of the enjoyment of his money.
There is an idea; it may not be of the brightest, but I wonder if the advisers to the Minister of Finance might not consider it.
The debate on the budget usually gives the opportunity to discuss matters that, in fact, have no direct bearing on it. Members are allowed to introduce local problems that are of particular interest to their ridings. That is why, without taking up too much of the time of the house, and after expressing in general terms what I thought of the seriousness of the speech made by the Minister of Finance, of the wisdom with which he intends to achieve the goal toward which every Canadian should aim: "stop the advance of inflation without making anyone suffer too much," that is why I should like to point out two matters of interest to the riding of Laval I represent here. For many years now, my predecessors and myself have asked for the dredging of the two rivers des Mille-lles and des Prairies which completely surround lle-Jesus, which became last fall the city of Laval, the second largest and most populated city in the province of Quebec, larger and more populated with its 185,000 inhabitants than the capital of the province, Quebec City.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to point out once more what this work would mean to our region in economic benefits. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has understood it so well is so well aware of it, that he said last month, at Ste Rose where he addressed the Thousand Islands Yacht Club, while he was not speaking in an official capacity, that he understood and suggested, as a member of the executive committee, the importance of this work to a city in full progress that will become one of the most beautiful and modern cities of Canada, as can be foreseen from the architects' and town planners' overall plans. These words were from an authority and I wanted to remind you of them, Mr. Speaker. During the discussion of the estimates, I will go further into the idea of the Minister of Transport and I will submit in detail the reports of the government's engineers, those of public works as well as those of transport, who recommend the carrying out of those works for the economic development of the area as well as that of the Montreal region, since a report of the consulting engineers shows that the dredging of the two rivers and the building of dams would raise
April 19, 1966

the water level in the harbour of Montreal of approximately five feet.
The other matter deals with penitentiary employees, especially the clerks who could be better treated than they are presently. I studied the matter and I know it well since one of the largest penitentiaries of Canada, St. Vincent de Paul, is in my riding of Laval. During discussion of the Solicitor General's estimates, it will show you, Mr. Speaker, that a clerk P-A-5 receives only $4,800 while a grade 2 employee, which is the equivalent of a clerk P-A-5, gets $5,300; that a clerk P-A-3 receives only $4,380 while a guard of comparative grade gets $4,900.
As I say, I shall have the opportunity to come back to it, but in the meantime, I wanted simply to substantiate the claims of this class of employees who are as much in danger as their colleagues, the guards, since in their employment contract they are included in what is called the "reserve". In the case of a riot or any other trouble, they are called on the front line.
In closing, may I say that I am satisfied, as we all are on the government benches, that this year's budget will yield the anticipated results. If the minister succeeds, as he proposes to do, in stabilizing prices while safeguarding the prosperity we now enjoy, he will have deserved well of his country.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate tonight I propose to confine my remarks to one aspect only of the Budget, and that is the matter of dominion-provincial fiscal arrangements. In this connection I want to deal specifically with my own province of Prince Edward Island and try to present to this house as succinctly and as clearly as I can the particular plight of our province and why I think it should receive special recognition in the matter of fiscal assistance from the central government here in Ottawa.
I know-and the figures and statistics that I shall quote later will substantiate my contention-that our province, in its attempt to maintain for its citizens the same sort of provincial and municipal services that Canadians generally enjoy, is confronted with greater difficulties in public finance than any other province in Canada. We must, however, provide our people with the same standards of services that are being enjoyed by people living in other parts of Canada, and we must never forget that a Canadian citizen has certain inalienable rights whether he lives in
The Budget-Mr. McQuaid Prince Edward Island, Ontario or British
Columbia; and there can be no justification for having high standards of education, health, welfare and all the well-established functions of government in one part of Canada and pitiably low standards in another. We must deal with the needs of Canadian citizens wherever they may reside, and the federal government must arrive at financial arrangements which will enable each province to furnish to its people a reasonable standard of essential services.
National consideration must therefore be given to the needs of all partners in this great union. The growth and the economic problems of the province of Prince Edward Island must be the concern of every province in Canada. That is why I make this special appeal to the federal government tonight for special recognition in helping us solve these problems. We have strained our resources to the limit, Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to maintain our essential public services at a reasonable level, but we are still not able to establish and maintain national standards because of our inability to raise sufficient revenues from the sources of revenue at our disposal.
Why are these sources of revenue not available to us? They are not available to us for two reasons; first because of our small population, and second because of our low per capita income. Unfortunately, through no fault of our own, we are one of the provinces which has failed to grow in population over the years. We are now only 108,000 people, and since 1951 we have gained only 10 per cent in population. Compare this with the other provinces of Canada. Over that same 15-year period from 1951 to 1965, while we have gained only 10 per cent in population the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta have gone up 50 per cent, the Provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland have gone up 40 per cent, and Manitoba, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have gone up 20 per cent.
Unfortunately, too, our young people are leaving our province in increasing numbers because central Canada affords brighter prospects and opportunities. With their departure the province loses not only the most efficient type of worker but also the progressive ability important to further expansion of industry and enterprise. Unfortunately only the very young and the very old stay with us and, as the Special Senate Committee on Aging
April 19. 1966


43 per cent; New Brunswick's revenue went up 44 per cent and its expenditures by only 34 per cent.
How long, I wonder, can that situation continue? How long can we continue to allow expenditures to exceed revenues by such large amounts and at the same time hope to maintain a solvent position? Our people have a deep respect for financial integrity and have demanded in the past that government spending be as commensurate as possible with ability to repay. For this reason successive governments have practised drastic economy in expenditures and have exploited every feasible means of raising provincial revenues. The province has tried to perform its functions with great frugality and economy but there are certain basic essentials which must be provided, and even when these are kept at the lowest possible level they are still high in relation to our small population and low tax potential; consequently the province has been going steadily behind each year.
The net increase in provincial debt for the year ending March 31, 1966, was $6 million, and as of March 31, 1965, the province had a net debt of $44 million plus an indirect debt of $14 million. This, Mr. Speaker, makes a total direct and indirect debt of $58 million, which is not very large when compared with the debt of many of the larger provinces, but when we consider it represents a per capita debt of $537 and that in our province we have not behind the debt the natural resources which are enjoyed by many of the other provinces of Canada, it is very large indeed. From March 31, 1958, to March 31, 1966, for example, revenues including what we received from Ottawa increased from $9,400,000 to $23 million, or almost 150 per cent, while expenditures during the same period increased from $10,800,000 to $30 million, or almost 215 per cent.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
These mounting deficits, Mr. Speaker, cannot continue indefinitely, and yet on what is the province able to cut back? Every item of expenditure in the provincial budget can be justified. Even then, our expenditures on essential services are below the standards enjoyed by people in the other provinces of Canada. Let us consider for example the field of education. In 1964, 24 per cent of our provincial revenue was applied to education as against the Canadian average of 30.9 per cent. We are the second lowest province in
April 19, 1966	COMMONS
Canada with regard to expenditures on education. The average salary of our teachers is only $2,783, the lowest in Canada. In Ontario, for example, the average salary of a teacher is $4,922; in Newfoundland, it is $2,818; in Nova Scotia, $3,504, and in New Brunswick, $3,254.
We have only 124 teachers in our schools today with university degrees. This is the lowest figure in Canada-11 per cent as compared to the Canadian average of 30.4 per cent of teachers with university degrees. We have only one with a doctorate, six with masters, and 117 with bachelor degrees. Teachers are just not remaining in the teaching profession in Prince Edward Island. We have only 75 teachers with 26 years or more experience; 145 with 16 to 25 years experience; 180 with 10 to 15 years experience and 245 with 4 to 9 years experience. Teachers require more advanced training in order to cope with a more advanced curriculum and they consequently, and rightly so, require more pay. Specialization in the teaching profession has become necessary and the small school, staffed with one or two teachers instructing in all subjects, can no longer furnish a sound, basic education for our students. We must not and we will not cut back expenditures on education, thereby neglecting the educational needs of our children. They must have available to them the best educational opportunities that are possible, because this will equip them with the means of making a better living.
An average male, for example, who goes only to grade eight in school will earn in later life an income of $3,526. If he completes high school he will earn $5,493 and if he gets a university degree he will earn $9,188. Can we be expected, therefore, to cut back our expenditure on education to the very definite detriment of our children? I say emphatically no, we cannot and we must not. Our children must have available to them the best educational opportunities that are possible. Equal educational opportunities should be available to all Canadians regardless of the economic circumstances of their province.
The government of our province is attempting to carry out a program of industrial development. However, Mr. Speaker, it has been said very correctly that industry cannot operate or expand in a vacuum. In order to flourish, it requires a friendly climate, one created in part by a broad structure of provincial and municipal services including highways, electric power, hospitals, welfare
DEBATES	4021
The Budget-Mr. McQuaid services and many others. Our expenditures on these items are by no means exorbitant and annual appropriations for the departments of agriculture and fisheries are very moderate. In short, Mr. Speaker, all costs are kept at the barest minimum level and as a result there are certain almost basic essentials which our province is not able to provide for its people, although they are entitled to them and they are being enjoyed by people living in other provinces of Canada.
As I mentioned previously, we have strained our resources to the limit in an attempt to maintain our essential public services at a reasonable level, but we are still not able to establish and maintain national standards. We are, as partners in this great confederation, entitled to enjoy these national standards. Since, through no fault of our own, we are not able to raise the money to provide them, we must receive federal assistance over and above the amounts which we are now receiving. In other words, we must receive a greater share of the taxes which are being paid to the federal government and this should come to us in the form of a special adjustment grant based on fiscal need.
In asking for this, Mr. Speaker, we are only asking for part of what is our own. Let us not forget that the federal tax revenues are the result of the collective effort of all our people. Merely because taxes are paid in one province does not mean that this revenue is necessarily produced in that province. Corporations and individuals in the central provinces, who pay taxes to the federal treasury, in many cases earn their incomes from businesses carried on in all the provinces of Canada.
We in Prince Edward Island have seen other provinces grow richer at our expense. We see every day the best of our youth being attracted to other provinces just as they are entering the period when they might become an asset to us. You will find in almost every part of Canada a great number of persons, born and educated in Prince Edward Island at our expense, who are now holding positions of trust and responsibility in the professional, academic, commercial and industrial fields and contributing by way of taxes to the economic advancement of the province in which they live. We are more than happy that we have been able to make this contribution to the economy of other parts of Canada but we cannot really afford it.
April 19. 1966

The Budget-Mr. McQuaid
We argue most vehemently, therefore, that we are entitled as of right to a special adjustment grant, the amount of which must be arrived at on the basis of fiscal need and not on the basis of some over-all formula worked out for all the provinces of Canada. Any attempt to meet the needs of Prince Edward Island based on a formula of universal application is doomed to failure. I am convinced that no formula of general application can give realistic recognition to the special financial problems of our province with its relatively low natural resources, its small population and its low per capita income.
In asking for this special treatment, Mr. Speaker, we must not be looked upon as beggars or poor relations, but rather as Canadians who have made and will continue to make a contribution to the development of this great nation. I think it was the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) who said at one provincial premiers conference in 1960 that we must get away from the idea that the premiers of the provinces come to Ottawa like well dressed, respectable bandits, desirous of breaking into the treasury in spite of the Herculean efforts of the Minister of Finance to retain its pristine purity. As I say, we are entitled as of right to this special adjustment grant.
Ahead of us, Mr. Speaker, lie great and challenging opportunities, but if we are to make the most of them in Prince Edward Island it is essential that we achieve more equitable and satisfactory fiscal arrangements, based on the fundamental principle of fiscal need. This is a situation which demands immediate action so that the people of Prince Edward Island may enjoy the same standards of public service as are being enjoyed by people in other parts of Canada.
I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that our province will not be discriminated against by reason of the fact our people did not elect anybody on the government side of the house at the last election. Such a suggestion has already been thrown out to the people of Prince Edward Island by the leader of the Liberal party in that province. This is what he said just a few days ago, immediately after the provincial election was announced. He said that we must elect a Liberal government in Prince Edward Island because of the deteriorating liaison between the Shaw administration and the federal government at Ottawa, which can only be remedied by a change of government on the island. I hope,

Mr. Speaker, some responsible person on the front benches would deny this statement and assure this house and the people of Prince Edward Island we will not be discriminated against by reason of the fact we did not elect anybody on the government side at the November 8 election.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, at the very outset of my participation to the debate on the budget brought down by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), I wish to state that his budget disappointed everybody. It was disappointing, discouraging and disgusting. The Canadian people did not expect that type of budget at all, because during the electoral campaign, barely four and a half months ago, the government did not promise that kind of budget, which would literally ignore the old people and children of Canada, our education, and would even fail to present a concrete program for our war against poverty in Canada.
The budget is a disappointment to the whole population, to all classes of society. When one realizes, Mr. Speaker, what this budget means for instance to the small wage earner, worker or farmer-and their name is legion-one can see a taxpayer earning $3,000 a year, who paid $22 in federal income tax before this budget, now pay $20 a year-I am talking here of a married taxpayer, with two children eligible for family allowance that is $2 less per year.
And what of those, Mr. Speaker, who earn less than $3,000 a year, who will not benefit of any tax exemption, who will have to pay sales tax on all kinds of things, on clothes and everything else, sales tax here, manufacturers tax there, taxes here and there and everywhere.
We know they are legion those who still earn less than $3,000 a year. Not so long ago, a member for Montreal was telling me that there are still in his riding, thousands of workers who earn from $1,900 to $2,000 a year. And in a riding where human beings are human beings as everywhere else in Canada, will those people, those workers, have any tax exemptions? Absolutely not. Will they have increased family allowances for their children? No. Will they have higher old age pensions? No. And the Minister of Finance delights in a system of that kind, telling us that our people, our business men will have to put a brake on economic expansion in
April 19. 1966

Canada; that even the government will have to postpone construction of government buildings and that even the government will have to reduce the rate of growth in Canada.
And, Mr. Speaker, over and above this, we are told that these measures will facilitate borrowing in Europe, that provincial, municipal and federal governments will have easier access to foreign capital as a result of the cancellation of the 15 per cent tax imposed on non-residents in Canada, on Canadian government bond interests. This exemption which came into effect on April 15, that is four days ago, is intended to facilitate the sale of debentures and bonds in the United States and Europe and to allow the three levels of government to get more easily the money required to pay the cost of public services.
In addition to public administrations, hospitals and educational institutions, which will have their bonds guaranteed by the provinces, will also have the same type of exemptions.
The Minister of Finance stated in his budget speech that he does not want to make decisions in this connection on corporate or personal loans before the general revision of the Income Tax Act which will be dealt with in the report of the Carter commission on taxation.
Mr. Speaker, those are points raised by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech.
The government, of which the Minister of Finance is a member, during the election, promised to increase old age pensions. We expected that the government or the Minister of Finance, in his budget speech, would announce an increase to $100 per month in pensions paid to our people aged 60 or over. Nothing doing. They turn a deaf ear when it comes to raising pensions.
As far as family allowances are concerned, the minister knows that they have not changed since 1945, and he also knows that the cost of living has at least tripled in that period of 21 years.
What do the minister and the government do to increase old age pensions according to the cost of living index. Nothing at all. And the government boasts on the hustings that it wages a war against poverty in Canada.
Through its recent budget, the government creates new indigents in Canada and lets poverty work havoc all over our confederation, all over Canada.
Mr. Speaker, by this system, we are now taxing taxes and nobody protests against that.

The Budget-Mr. Caouette As concerns automobiles, the government takes right away $600 on a $3500 car, which means that the automobile would cost only $2900 without the federal tax.
Not only is a $600 tax levied on a $3500 automobile but provinces are allowed to levy a tax; for instance, the province of Quebec levies a provincial tax of 6 per cent on the federal tax of $600 on a car. This means that in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and also in other provinces, we pay $36 as provincial tax on the federal tax, and the federal government says nothing. The provincial government is happy to take its $36.
Nothing is being done to change this system. The Minister of Finance is aware of it. Instead of getting at the financial system, the minister says: stop the economic expansion, stop building air terminals, roads, and developing your country, stop that expansion which could be detrimental to the future of Canada.
Instead of putting forward a program intended to stop or restrict the economic expansion of Canada, the minister should have established clearly a means of distributing our Canadian affluence. The minister knows that affluence does exist in our stores. He knows that our farmers can produce more, and that our manufacturers can manufacture more. The minister knows that production renews itself and increases from year to year and that stocks of previous years are not consumed, so that we are confronted today with the following situation: our stores, our businessmen, our industrialists in their buildings, in their storerooms, on their shelves, have all kinds of products in such quantities that our consumers are not able to consume what is actually for sale in Canada.
Instead of offering a system by which the Canadian taxpayers could go and draw on their own wealth and resources, on their tremendous production, the minister tells us: "Stop growing, stop developing, stop!" What will the minister say when industry, for example, is confronted with automation?
Does the minister wish to ask me a question?


Mitchell William Sharp: If I may, please.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. gentleman whether he is really suggesting that I said in my Budget speech anywhere that the expansion should stop. I hope it proceeds at a steady and high rate.
April 19, 1966

The Budget-Mr. Caouette [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the minister has a short memory. In his budget speech, he asked, on behalf of Canadian prosperity, not to build, not to carry on some building projects, to stop public works in some areas, not to build federal buildings. He asked the Canadian industrialists not to make investments or to invest as little as possible to enable the economy to stabilize itself. That is what he said in his budget speech.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. gentleman would want to be fair with the minister.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: No, he would not.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I suggest that he is grossly perverting my words in the budget speech, which was strongly in favour of continued and steady expansion in this country, and was directed to that end. I am sure he and I agree on the desirability of a steady and high degree of expansion.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the minister has a short memory. He encouraged the business world not to do it now, but rather to wait. He is afraid of too quick and too strong an expansion in Canada. Do the Canadian unemployed agree with the minister? Do the Canadian economists agree with the minister?
Production will come from automation. What does he propose in his budget speech about the problem that automation will create in Canada?
When I compare that budget of the Canadian Minister of Finance with the budget that the Minister of Finance of British Columbia tabled on February 12 when the latter predicted a crisis:

Increase in home-owner grant to $110 from $100; removal of the sales tax on all meals, confections, candies, soft drinks, newspapers, periodicals, magazines, school supplies; removal of real property tax on non-profit organizations operating for community benefit and on community halls.

While the federal Minister of Finance, on behalf of Canada, is submitting a budget likely to make Canadians tighten their belts, in British Columbia, administered by a Social Credit government, taxes are reduced instead of being increased.

I would advise the Minister of Finance to visit British Columbia and Alberta to find out how Social Crediters operate without increasing taxes.


Mr. Basford:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


David Réal Caouette: Certainly.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Is the hon. member also aware that the people of British Columbia provincially are the highest taxed people of Canada.


David Réal Caouette: It is not true. They have better services in British Columbia than anywhere else in Canada. There is greater economic expansion in British Columbia than anywhere else in Canada, and my hon. friend must know it.

The Minister of Finance says that taxes are highest in British Columbia. That remains to be seen. What taxes are higher than the federal taxes? Look at the personal income tax. What tax, compared to the federal income tax, is charged to the individual?


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena.


David Réal Caouette: Their national resources are great-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Order, please. I have recognized the hon. member for Skeena on a question to the hon. member for Villeneuve.


David Réal Caouette: I have only ten minutes to go. He will have plenty of time when I have finished. If he is satisfied, perhaps he may defer his question.


Clément Vincent: We want to know why Lesage goes out to British Columbia to borrow?


David Réal Caouette: My hon. friend from Nico-let-Yamaska reminds me of an occurrence.
The Minister of Finance must be aware that Hon. Jean Lesage went to borrow $100 million from British Columbia; yet, during the 1963 federal election, some of his organizations claimed that British Columbia was bankrupt. Three weeks after the 1963
April 19, 1966

election, Mr. Lesage's government was borrowing $100 million from British Columbia. Not too bad for a bankrupt government.
In 1965, the member for Quebec West (Mr. Marchand) repeated the same thing about British Columbia. Premier Bennett said: "Gentlemen, we have disbursed $100 million; if you need more, come back, we still have $800 million to lend."
All kinds of stories were made up at that time about the Creditistes; during two elections. Today, the Minister of Finance would tell the house that the citizens of British Columbia are paying more taxes than anybody else in confederation. That is as false as can be. The citizens of the province of Quebec are the most heavily taxed. According to its population, the province of Quebec has more debts than any other province. This situation is due to Premier Lesage. The hon. member for Saint-Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) is smiling; he will be helping his co-religionists of the province of Quebec on June 5. Quebec never had a more costly government from every point of view. We do not want a similar government in Ottawa. But that is practically what we have.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, the minister said in his budget speech, according to some of the highlights published in the newspapers:
In future, charitable donations may be deducted only if the donee is an organization registered with the government.
That is a fine state of affairs. Parish priests, presbyteries and charitable organizations will have to apply to the Minister of Finance for a licence, and they will need one because they will be registered with the government. Therefore, those charitable donations will be the only ones accepted.
I have here a letter dated February 22, from a parish priest of Verdun, in the province of Quebec. This is what he says about charitable donations that may be deducted for income tax purposes, and I quote:
Mr. C. A. Bergevln, public relations officer of the Department of National Revenue, Taxation Division, 305 Dorchester Street, Montreal; this man, under instructions from Mr. J. Gear McEntyre, is causing a great deal of trouble to members of the clergy regarding receipts for charitable donations deducted from the taxable income of taxpayers.
The abovementioned gentlemen reserve themselves the right to reduce the receipts for 1965 as they see fit and without possible appeal.
Parishioners sign a form and we trust everybody. The law allows 10 per cent of the salary, less deductions for married men with or without children
The Budget-Mr. Caouette and for single persons. The 10 per cent deduction should be fully applied to the taxable income and we should no longer be bothered with those annoying receipts.
The staff called upon to check those receipts could be given some other work; this would result in a significant saving and trust would prevail once and for all.
Under this system, in short, the wage-earner is always being pestered by the vultures of the federal or provincial income tax.
I rely on you and the wage-earners also count on your help to obtain a final solution.
The following solution has been suggested by the minister: charitable donations will only be accepted in the future if they are made to organizations registered with the government. All parish priests will have to register and be licensed to collect charitable donations, in order that Canadian taxpayers might claim an exemption to that effect.
Mr. Speaker, here are other highlights of the budget. An $11 million increase in the estimates of the Department of National Defence. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) is happy. The C.B.C. is getting $110,643,000 compared to $97 million, that is, an increase of $13 million. The national debt charges cost $1,185,500,000, that is one-ninth of all government income, one-ninth of the budget, but no one questions it. Why did the Minister of Finance not penalize the financiers instead of asking the Canadian people to accept more deprivation and more sacrifices? Why does he always put the touch on the builders of the country and not on those who are gobbling it up?
I mentioned that the age of automation is coming and that the department will be hard put to find an appropriate administration, a financial administration conscious of the realities in Canada.
I have here an article from a Vancouver paper, the Vancouver Province dated February 11, 1966 in which it is said:
lEnglish1
Guaranteed Incomes Posed to Answer Automation Fear
A guaranteed annual income of at least $3,000 for everybody may be the eventual solution to growing problems of automation, says W. H. Ferry, vice president of the Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions at Santa Barbara, Calif.
Asked at a press conference whether this would be the same thing as the original Social Credit concept of a free monthly dividend for everybody, Ferry said. "It's the same result, but on a very different basis."
However, he said he thought the national dividend Ideas of Social Credit founder Major C. H. Douglas would come back into prominence in future years.
April 19, 1966

The Budget-Mr. Caouette [Translation]
This means, Mr. Speaker, that in the south of the United States, in California and elsewhere in Canada, people are beginning to realize the logic of the national dividend advocated by Major Douglas, to fight against poverty efficiently in any country of the world. Against these solutions which would efficiently combat poverty, the fact is brought forward that a number of economists are not in agreement over the Social Credit propositions. In Quebec, we have economists who believe in Social Credit. Here are some of them: Mr. Yordan Kostakeff, professor of economics; Mr. Ernest Gregoire who was for 35 years professor of economics at Laval University, Ernest Gregoire, a former mayor of Quebec City; Mr. Robert Theobald, who accepts the principles of Social Credit, as well as Mr. John Snyder, who advocates the distribution to the consumers of wealth and plenty.
These people agree that the Creditist proposals should be tried instead of criticized. Instead of ridiculing the creditist proposals, let us try to put them into practice in Canada; then we will no longer have to read budget speeches such as that of the Minister of Finance the other day in which he announced unprecedented prosperity in Canada: a prosperity illustrated by the dissatisfaction of all the classes of society.
In fact we are witnessing ever-increasing strikes, not only in Quebec but in all of Canada: strikes of teachers, of students, of Canadian mailmen, of Hydro-Quebec engineers, of truckers in Ontario, of farmers in northern Quebec and in the Lake St. John region technicians strike.
How does the government try to put an end to these strikes? By increasing salaries? But even if a workman were to earn $10 an hour, if he must pay $350 for a suit, $200 for rent, if in fact he pays three times what the goods are worth, where will he be? Exactly where he was before. That is why I am utterly convinced that under the present system strikes will never solve the problems of workers, farmers, teachers and engineers. A problem solved by a strike means another strike in two, three or four years.
There is another solution to the problem: that advocated by the Creditistes, or the use of the Bank of Canada according to the physical possibilities in the country, in our respective provinces, and the distribution of a dividend to each and every one, in order to divide the
tMr. Caouette.]
riches, wealth and production of the country according to the work of Canadians.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
That is the solution which would end fights between management and labour, and which would remove this general dissatisfaction within the whole population, not only in labour and farming, but in the small local businesses, in industry which faces unsold production, and in all social classes affected. All social classes are affected and lessened by this financial system which the Minister of Finance dares not touch. The Minister of Finance knows too well-he knows it as well as I do-that the financial system is not adapted to Canadian needs.
The other day I reread the speech made by my colleague for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), who said: "Why is it that the United States government succeeds in creating finance? Why is it that we, Canadians, have to borrow on the United States market to develop our national heritage? Why is it that we cannot, here in Canada, through the Bank of Canada, create the credit required for the financing of the economic development of this country?"
But the Minister of Finance would rather make his pilgrimages to Washington, New York or elsewhere, to work out loans from Europe and the United States for the municipalities, the provinces and the federal government. The government would rather borrow than create its own credit.
Can loans from France, Belgium or the United States give more value to the economic expansion and to the development of our natural resources?
If we have the brains, the labour and the physical capabilities of building public hospitals and buildings, not only in Ottawa, but also in Hull, of building schools in Canada, in short, if we have all the physical potential, with greater reason we should use the Bank of Canada to finance everything the Canadian people are capable of developing and building in this country.
But no, the Minister of Finance goes running to Washington to ask permission to build a trans-Canada highway. They rush to France to ask permission to develop our natural resources. We have huge quantities of minerals: copper mines, gold mines, iron mines, but we must ask the Americans permission to develop this tremendous wealth.
Mr. Speaker, this budget is a sucker offered to the Canadian people: a tax increase. The budget tells the Canadian people exactly the opposite of what the government promised before November 8, 1965. The government
April 19. 1966

can make promises but it is unable to keep them after the election. We should have benefited from tax reductions instead of being loaded with tax increases. And it is clearly stated here that six out of ten taxpayers will be paying more taxes, possibly up to 14 per cent more.
Mr. Speaker, in a few moments, we will be asked to vote on the Conservative amendment and on the New Democrat sub-amendment. I must say, in my name and on behalf of my group, the Ralliement Creditiste, that we will vote for the sub-amendment calling for tax-exempt incomes up to $1,500 for single persons and up to $2,500 for married persons. We had asked exemptions of $2,500 for single persons and $5,000 for married persons, but this sub-amendment is a step in the right direction and that is why we will support it in order to force the government to face up to its responsibilities. If it cannot take its responsibilities, let it give way to others who can.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 9.45 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 of standing order 58, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on the amendment to the amendment.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.


Erik Nielsen: May I adjourn the debate, Mr. Speaker?


Frank Howard: The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) and I had the unique and perhaps unhappy distinction of being paired.


Mr. Macquarrie:: I was not paired, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
GRAIN-TROIS-RIVlfiRES-POSSIBLE CLOSING OF ELEVATORS
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, the other day I put a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) in which I asked him, in effect, if he would consider taking urgent action to cope with the serious crisis facing the grain elevators of Trois-Rivieres.
I have brought up the matter on two or three occasions, but any action seems to lag alarmingly. This is constructive criticism and 1 have no intention of blaming anyone. However, no solution seems to be forthcoming and no thought given to repercussions which are naturally detrimental to the economy of the St. Maurice region of the province and even to the national economy. The grain elevators of Trois-Rivieres handle wheat from the west. This is known to be very important to the economy of the country. They handle great amounts of it, as may be seen in the report of the National Harbours Board which we were given today. In fact, for last year only, the total amount of merchandise handled at the Trois-Rivieres wharf was about 5,222,689 tons. The report further asys that grain exports are still increasing.
I think that if a solution to the problem is not found soon the grain elevators will have to close.
What is the problem? I shall state it briefly. Until now, the grain elevators paid some $26,000 a year in taxes to the municipalities; suddenly, they were required to pay some $280,000, an increase of over 1000 per cent.


You will understand that this is prohibitive, seeing that the Canadian Wheat Board fixes the handling charges and that our grain elevators compete with others which are not so burdened.
The only way we can solve this problem is to bring together all the people concerned, namely, the National Harbours Board, the operators of harbour facilities, the municipal council of Trois-Rivieres, and in all probability, the Municipal Board of the Quebec legislature, as well, because everyone will have to contribute his share in order to find a solution, which would probably be spread out over a period of three, four or five years.
Grain elevators directly provide a living to some 300 to 350 people as well as to the handlers who live in the neighbourhood; in turn, these people provide a living for corollary or subsidiary industries, namely trucking and other such industries.
Under the circumstances, owing to the vast industrial development which is going to take place in the Trois-Rivieres area, should these facilities be denied to the area, I think it would be a real disaster for all the Mauricie, which includes, by the way, Champlain county, Saint-Maurice-Lafleche county, part of Maskinonge county as well as Nicolet county, and of course, the county of Trois-Rivieres.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. Minister of Transport, taking into account precisely all the possible consequences of such a crisis upon regional, provincial and national economies, to lead the way in order to hasten this procedure, this settlement, this solution.
I know that the municipality of Trois-Rivieres is concerned. I know that something has been done already. Mr. George Lloyd, of the National Harbours Board, already went on the site to discuss the question, but the proposed solution does not seem acceptable as such and no conclusion has been reached anyway. I know that he is supposed to go back there soon.
I suggest that the hon. Minister of Transport and the National Harbours Board had better give Mr. George Lloyd a free hand, so to speak, so that he may find a solution before it is too late.
With the most constructive possible intent, I should like to appeal to the minister most insistently, and I know that in so doing I
April 19, 1966

reflect the wishes of all those concerned in my constituency. Thus will we prevent a very acute crisis.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister without Portfolio):: With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I shall reply on behalf of the Minister of Transport.
The problem of the grain elevator company at Trois-Rivieres referred to by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres arises solely from the expiry in 1964 of a tax agreement between the elevator company and the city. In 1965, the city fully assessed the elevator company and this resulted in a greatly increased tax bill for 1965. I understand that the elevator company has instituted legal action to set aside the increased assessment.
Despite the fact that the cost increase to the elevator company at Trois-Rivieres is not due to any action of the National Harbours Board, that board, in co-operation with the city of Trois-Rivieres and the Trois-Rivieres Chamber of Commerce, is attempting to work out arrangements which will lessen the impact of municipal taxes on the principal users of the harbour.
These arrangements require not only action by the board, as suggested by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres but also concurrent action by the city. I can certainly assure the hon. member that the National Harbours Board has shown its willingness to co-operate to the extent of its ability to do so, but it would not seem appropriate for me to give the impression of interfering in municipal matters at Trois-Rivieres such as the tax relations between the city and a private company.
The hon. member asked whether the minister was willing to appoint a special committee to look into the matter at once with the interested parties. This would not seem to be necessary, because in fact, though not in name, such a special committee already exists by virtue of the fact that representatives of the city, the elevator company and the National Harbours Board are discussing the matter extensively.
I hope that the matter will be brought to a successful conclusion.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)



TRANSPORT-PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAUSEWAY-APPLICATION OF STRETCH-OUT POLICY

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I asked a question the other day concerning the reference in the budget address of the Minister of

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Finance (Mr. Sharp) to the deferment of construction of the Northumberland causeway. It is clear to anyone who is familiar with the maritime provinces and their economy that transportation has been and is a major and most important issue in that area. Communications with the mainland have been of the essence of the social and economic life of Prince Edward Island since the time of confederation. One can say without hesitation that the provision of adequate communications with the mainland is a federal obligation. It is therefore incumbent on those of us who represent the province to remind constantly those in charge of the national administration of their obligation in this respect.
The causeway project, one which was long sought and one which has transcended partisanship in our province and beyond it, activates us all. It was therefore with profound disappointment, shock and surprise that I listened to the Minister of Finance the other night while he outlined his restrain-the-boom technique, with particular reference to our long sought and desperately needed transportation project.
There has been a great deal of discussion, and my question was motivated by concern about the semantic exercises which have been carried on as to whether or not a rescheduling meant, or means, a deferment. I can only form my judgment, as is fair and proper, on the basis of the utterances of the minister himself.
One of the most important sections in the budget address spoke of the necessity for the government to review its construction program and defer a number of projects, as can be found in Hansard at page 3381.


George James McIlraith: Deferment or rescheduling; read the whole thing out.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I have always listened to the minister with great restraint. Perhaps he will practise a little restraint and do me a similar courtesy.


George James McIlraith: I will not allow Hansard to be misread.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The suggestion is to defer or reschedule a number of specific projects. Now rescheduling is apparently not a deferment. Yet I find that after the minister listed the five projects concerned be said:
I regret and I am sure everyone in this house regrets, that it is necessary to defer these projects-
April 19, 1966
4030	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
And among the five projects are a grain elevator at Prince Rupert-the problem there was that the tenders were too high-the proposed new taxation building in Ottawa and a national museum, some less urgent work at airports, some harbour and marine works in coastal areas where there is serious pressure on the construction industry and, last, some smaller public buildings in Ontario and British Columbia.
Among this interesting collection of projects is the great Northumberland causeway under class "d". Why? It is to minimize the pressures on the peak summertime employment market, and maximize winter employment possibilities. I would be interested to know where that minister, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith), or any other minister finds these dreadful and overpowering pressures upon our labour force. If he would consult the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) he would find the last report indicates that the Atlantic province unemployment figure stands at 10.5, a drop from 10.9.
I would be interested to know when any project need be deferred because of lack of available labour. If it is not a shortage of labour, it is also not because we are galloping into excessive prosperity in the Atlantic region. Any minister need only read the second report of the Economic Council to find there a prescription not of restraint but of what our region needs in acceleration.
For the government on one hand to seek to encourage industry to move in and assist the economy of the region, and then exercise unnecessary and unwarranted restraint in one of its projects, leads me to believe that the reasons are not economic but political.
I quote from the Charlottetown Guardian of November 10, 1965, these words in its editorial notes:
"We spent $100,000,000 in Prince Edward Island and we didn't get a seat there" complains revenue minister E. S. Benson. It was asinine misstatements of this kind that helped them lose the two seats they had.
I hate to believe that it is for political considerations. I hate to believe that it is a five cent speech, Mackenzie King theory, once again being resurrected, but I would like very much to find an economic reason and I have not yet been able to do so in all the post-dated explanations and equivocations. I would simply ask the government to admit it


made a mistake in including this project, and that it push forward with an essential development in our area to help the economy of the Atlantic provinces, rather than hinder it.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I hasten to assure the hon. member that the Northumberland strait causeway is not being delayed in any way. The completion date is unchanged. It remains as it was when stated in the first announcement. What has been done here-and this fact has been asserted in a press release from myself, in correspondence from the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson) and in other statements-is that a certain rescheduling has been made since the preliminary statement.
The rescheduling has only to do with the time of the maximum workload in the area. This is being done for the benefit of the maritime provinces, in particular for the wonderful province from which the hon. member comes.
As a result of this new timetable we are assured of a significant volume of winter work in late 1966 and early 1967, which is exactly the time of year that the hon. member has complained about when giving statistics on winter unemployment. This work activity will come at a time of the year when work is normally needed in the hon. member's province. It will be a positive factor in the economy of the province.
The new schedule provides for uninterrupted efforts to build the P.E.I. approach to the proposed nine mile crossing. Tenders for the 41 mile approach road will be called in June, following completion of land acquisition.
This road, at the P.E.I. end of the crossing, will be completed in the latter part of 1967 as a step toward the construction of the main structure and it will serve as a hauling route for the project. Plans for the two mile New Brunswick approach causeway will be completed in July, with the call for tenders expected in August. This will permit the contractor to be on the site for work throughout the coming winter period. Of course, there is no alteration in the existing schedule for the approach road begun last year and it is moving ahead on schedule, to be completed by August of this year. This is perhaps a little better than on schedule.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
Perhaps I should set out the other three major contracts involved. They are: the substructure for the main bridge portion of the
April 19/ 1966	COMMONS
project approximately four miles in length; the bridge superstructure of structural steel, and the tunnel section and off-shore tunnel portal to be constructed from the Prince Edward Island side. The detailed plans and specifications for the main bridge elements will be completed about December, 1966, and
DEBATES	4031
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion for the tunnel-causeway section a little later than that. These are all on schedule. There is no delay.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister's allotted time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.33 p.m.

Wednesday, April 20, 1966