1967-03-09

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I find it more difficult than usual to find words adequately to express the grief that I know we all feel at the passing of our Governor General. That difficulty for me is increased by the recollection of our close personal friendship over so many years.
Since his death on Sunday morning messages have been coming in from the great in the world and from plain citizens in Canada, all testifying, high and low alike, to the affection that was felt for him by everyone. Among the first messages to arrive was one from Her Majesty the Queen, whose servant and representative in Canada he was. This message, which has already been made public, read:
My husband and I are so deeply distressed to hear the tragic news of the Governor General's death. We send our deepest sympathy to you and the Canadian people and the Canadian government in the loss of this most distinguished Canadian.
He was indeed, Mr. Speaker, a distinguished Canadian and his whole life is a record of that distinction; a record of his service to Canada, a record of willing acceptance in peace and in war of every duty he was asked to perform or, perhaps I should put it, of every duty that he asked to be permitted to perform.
As we know, Mr. Speaker, General Vanier was trained for the bar to which he was called in 1911. He answered the call to arms shortly afterwards and served for three years in France as a gallant officer of a gallant regiment whose traditions he helped to create and maintain. The Distinguished Service Order, the Military Cross and bar and the Legion of Honour attest to his courage. His wounds attest to his sacrifices. After the war he returned to civilian life for a very short time, then again took up a military career, as a member of the permanent forces.
During the years he was in the army there was a steady promotion to new responsibilities until in 1928, I think it was, he was asked to be the Canadian military representative on the disarmament commission of the League of Nations at Geneva. At that time he acquired the interest in diplomacy and international affairs and in peace keeping which he retained throughout his life and which was recognized a few years later, in 1931, by the government of the day when he was made the secretary of the office of the high commissioner in London. It was at that time that our official and family association began, Mr. Speaker, which was broken only by his death.
After serving at Canada House in London, General Vanier was made Canadian minister to France. After the outbreak of war and the collapse of France in 1940 he returned after a series of adventures to London, where I had the privilege of meeting him and Madame Vanier on their return. Although he had been going through some pretty difficult and dangerous moments he had that calm imperturbability and good humour that always characterized him in any difficulty. During the war he went to Algiers, where he was the Canadian representative to the Free French government headed by General de Gaulle and established a relationship and friendship with General de Gaulle which has persisted to the present. Then after the liberation he went back to Paris as Canadian ambassador, where he and his wife became outstanding members of the diplomatic corps.
On his retirement from the diplomatic service he might well have looked forward to some years of peace and tranquility, but when he was asked by the prime minister of the day, now the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, to be Governor General he naturally accepted it as a call to duty. When his normal term of office ended and I as Prime Minister asked him to stay on, he agreed to do that at my request as long as his health permitted. That was permitted by his health until last week.
As you know, he had an operation last autumn, but he was recovering well from it except for his heart. I went to see him at Rideau Hall last Wednesday, after he had
13754	COMMONS
Tributes to Late Georges Philias Vanier been examined by specialists, in order to discuss with him whether his health would permit him to take on the very heavy duties of Governor General during our centennial year. We agreed to meet again on Friday, and at that time he indicated that he felt he would not likely be able to continue in office.
On Friday afternoon he made his last appearance before a group, when he talked to students of the University of Montreal very eloquently and impressively on a subject so dear to his heart, namely Canadian unity and the part which French speaking Canadians can play in the development of this country. Then, as we have learned, he spent Saturday evening indulging in a favourite pastime, watching the hockey game on television, and he enjoyed the victory of his favourite team. On Sunday morning this good and faithful servant passed away peacefully and quietly, without pain and with the spiritual solace of the last rites of his church.
His public career, as we know, was marked with distinction and wisdom in everything he undertook and with a broad understanding of Canada and its problems, coupled with faith and confidence in our ability as a people to solve those problems. He had a passionate belief in this country, in its unity, in its destiny of true greatness based on enduring values and patriotic ideals which should be shared by all its citizens. He made Canada and its unity his own crusade, in every word he uttered, in every visit he made and on every occasion that he honoured with his presence.
His French ancestors were among the very first settlers in Canada. He was very proud of that ancestry, but prouder still, I think, of the Canada of today. With roots so deep in our soil, he also saw far into the future and gave his all to make it a good future for the country he loved.
All his life he maintained that keen and expert interest in defence matters that befitted such a distinguished soldier and the commander in chief of the armed forces. He was always particularly interested in the welfare of the veterans. He was grand patron and honorary life member of the Canadian Legion, and he was the comrade of every legionnaire and every veteran.
As a man he had the dignity of the true patrician and the modesty and simplicity of the true gentleman. He had the calm security and inner strength that come from a deep belief in the Christian faith. His religion

DEBATES	March 6, 1967
meant very much to him indeed. He was a devout man without being sanctimonious. He was a serious man but with a delicious sense of humour. He was a man of high quality without being stuffy or superior. Indeed, I believe our Governor General embodied in his own person and in his own life and achievements all that is best in Canadians and all that we hope for our country.
When General Vanier was installed as Governor General on April 15, 1959, he said this:
Each one of us, in his own way and place, however humble, must play his part towards the fulfilment of our national destiny. To realize how mighty this destiny will be let us lift our eyes beyond the horizon of our time. In our march forward in material happiness, let us not neglect the spiritual threads in the weaving of our lives. If Canada is to attain the greatness worthy of it, each of us must say "I ask only to serve".
His request was granted. No Canadian has ever served more abundantly, more unselfishly or more gallantly.
We also think at this time of Madame Vanier, a very gracious, generous and, indeed, wonderful person who has earned and will retain her own place in the esteem and affection of the Canadian people. She was the perfect partner for her husband over the years; to his strength and his character she added her own superlative qualities of grace, kindliness and warmth. To Madame Vanier and to the children, who are following the family tradition of service, I am sure we all in this house would wish to send our deep and heartfelt sympathy. I know they are all getting comfort and support in this dark time from a faith which has given them the peace which passes all human understanding. To this spiritual peace is added the solace which comes from pride in the life of one dear to them, a life which had nothing in it of littleness or meanness, and everything that makes for a happy memory.
Mr. Speaker, when I saw the Governor General on Friday evening and he indicated to me that he did not think it would be possible for him to carry on, I said I hoped we could find some way of maintaining his association with our centennial year even if he did leave Rideau Hall. Then I made an observation which was picked, as it were, out of the air. I said "What we should do is give you a position which would in no way tax your strength but which would maintain your association with Canada in this centennial year; and perhaps I will ask you to go down to Quebec and take up residence there, at least for 1967, as Keeper of the Citadel."
March 6, 1967	COMMONS
He smiled at the idea of becoming a keeper. Indeed, it would have been a small honour for a man who throughout his life was the keeper of the citadel of truth and faith and honour.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, His Excellency General Vanier, Governor General of Canada, is dead. He departed very peacefully from this life on earth for the other in which he believed so deeply. His death does not seem like a break or an end but rather an expected transition which did not disturb the continuous and coherent course of his life.
Those who had the privilege to talk with the Governor General in the last months before his death could not help but notice the elevation of his thoughts and feelings. The breath of life which still kept him here revealed to us, without his being aware of it, the spiritual level which he had reached and which left human values far behind. Not that he had lost all interest in our problems. On the contrary, a few weeks ago in a private conversation, I had the honour of discussing with him the great problems which concern our world. I was amazed at the keen interest he took in the future of this country, to understanding between groups, to the brotherhood of men. From his lofty position, in spite of his wavering health, he was present and active to the end.
His Excellency General Vanier was the first French speaking Canadian to occupy the position of Governor General of Canada since Confederation. This event marks an important stage in the evolution of this country, because his appointment was not merely an act of condescension towards French Canadians. During his military and diplomatic careers, he was the embodiment of our people's aspirations, as well as the human symbol of our common ideal.
I hope the life of this great man who has just passed away will serve as an example for all those who believe in justice, peace and brotherhood.
All French Canadians, I am sure, wish the family of His Excellency to accept their heartfelt sympathy.
In conclusion Mr. Speaker I shall simply quote these few lines of verse by Charles Peguy:
Heureux ceux qui sont morts pour la terre char-nelle,
Mais pourvu que ce fut dans une juste guerre.
Tributes to Late Georges Philias Vanier Heureux ceux qui sont morts pour quatre coins de terre.
Heureux ceux qui sont morts d'une mort solen-nelle.
Heureux ceux qui sont morts dans les grandes batailles,
Couches dessus le sol a la face de Dieu. Heureux ceux qui sont morts sur un dernier haut lieu,
Parmi tout l'appareil des grandes funerailles. Heureux les epis murs et les bles moissonnes.


Hon. Michael Siarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, how little any of us thought when we adjourned on Friday that we would meet today under the tragic circumstance of the loss of our Governor General.
It is my sad duty this afternoon, in the unavoidable absence of the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), to add to the tribute paid to General Vanier by the Prime Minister an expression of the sorrow that lies heavily at this time on the hearts of my colleagues here, and on their behalf to pay our heartfelt respects to the memory of a very great Canadian. As perhaps no other governor general in our history he was known and loved by every member of this house, and to an amazing extent by the millions of Canadians whom we have the honour to represent here.
1 speak, too, of the sympathy we all feel for the gracious lady who was so often our hostess at Rideau Hall, whose charm and poise have so often been the chief ornament of this parliament in the other place, and whose so sudden bereavement cries out for the utmost of our sympathy, understanding and appreciation of the great loss that has come to her, to her sons and daughters, as well as to us and all Canadians.
Today we pay our profoundest respects not only to his memory as the representative of the Queen of Canada and head of the Commonwealth but also to his memory as a man, one would almost say the ideal man, and certainly one who set a standard and example of Canadian manhood which we would hope to see every one of our fellow citizens, young or old, emulate.
The word that will be linked over and over again with his career and character will be "gentleman". It is, perhaps, an old fashioned word. No one who knew him will say that he was in the ordinary sense old fashioned, but he did practise, as none other I have known, the old fashioned virtues of courtesy, kindness and consideration for his fellow men
13756	COMMONS
Tributes to Late Georges Philias Vanier whatever their station in life, whatever their creed or colour.
"A Christian," said Robert Louis Stevenson, "is God Almighty's gentleman." General Vanier was that kind of gentleman. During his term of office he gave a new dimension to the term Canadian. He was the first French Canadian since the Marquis de Vaudreuil to hold the post of governor general. Representing a different crown there was, nevertheless, a dedication and devotion unsurpassed.
He acted at all times with a largeness of view extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific encompassing the many shades and varieties of opinion, race and creed which make up the greatness of this nation. He was a great Canadian. In the tradition of Macdonald and Laurier he was beloved by Canadians. His name will live in the annals of the nation as one personifying in his conduct and his beliefs a type of Canadianism which all can follow regardless of origin.
This was a man whose vision of confederation was such that it embodied a living reality. He saw confederation as a rich stream of commonly shared experience and belief springing from two main cultural sources, widened, deepened and strengthened by the later infusions from other groups. He saw nothing contradictory in the flowing together of many cultures, all tending toward the same objective-a greater, finer and stronger Canada.
Surely we can all pay to his memory the tribute of our support of this powerful thesis, on the acceptance of which depends the future strength of this nation. Some of the things he said in his high office, with all the dignity and prestige of his personal and public stature will be remembered so long as there is a Canada. He stressed what is good, what is creative, and what is strong in our history and being. In his message on January 1, 1967 appear these thoughts:
-let us remember and cherish that which is creative in our history-if we imagine that we can now go our separate ways within our country; if we think that selfish interests can now take precedence over the national good; if we exaggerate our differences or revel in contention; if we do any of these things, we will promote our own destruction-
His last formal message to Canada in that address was this:
The resolution which the Canadian nation must now propose for 1967 and for the century to come, is the unity of our country.

DEBATES	March 6, 1967
Mr. Speaker, as a member of this house and speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, I endorse those words and put them forward as a goal toward which we must all strive. Their adoption is the greatest tribute we at this stage can pay to a great man who has passed from our midst.
A soldier of the Queen to the last breath; a patriot, statesman, devoted Canadian; an ornament to his province, his people and his nation; let us all unite in saluting a Canadian whose greatness we shall not soon see again.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainf-Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, the death of General Georges P. Vanier plunges all Canadians into deep mourning, and French Canadians are particularly grieved.
The dignity with which this great Canadian discharged his military and diplomatic duties, as well as those of Governor General, has gained French Canadians much admiration and respect on the part of all Canadians. General Vanier was the true image of French Canada, namely respect for tradition and order. He was also proud of the part he had been given to play in history.
When he became the Queen's representative, General Vanier was succeeding another great Canadian, His Excellency the Right Hon. Vincent Massey, who was the first Canadian ever to hold such high office.
General Vanier's stay at Rideau Hall has shown that the two founding peoples of confederation have within their ranks men capable of serving their country with honour and attaining the highest position to which a Canadian can aspire.
The name of General Vanier will be inscribed in letters of gold in the history of Canada. His personal qualities, his wisdom and his courage will forever be a source of inspiration as well as legitimate pride to his compatriots.
General Vanier was not content to assume passively the role of representative of the crown. On the contrary. His inexhaustible optimism and dynamism inspired the life of the community. The Vanier Institute of the Family will stand as a lasting monument to his memory.
To Madame Vanier, so sorely tried, who contributed immeasurably to the affection we all felt for General Vanier, to the children and relatives of the illustrious deceased, I offer, on behalf of the French speaking Canadians, the condolences of a people who will always consider General Vanier as one of its noblest sons.
March 6, 1967	COMMONS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, in common with all Canadians, the members of the New Democratic Party are saddened and distressed at the passing of Governor General Georges P. Vanier, and we join most sincerely with those who have spoken in paying tribute to his memory.
Throughout the years we have had not only a profound respect and admiration for his public service but also a deep personal affection for him as a kind and warm hearted person. During his long term as Governor General he and Madame Vanier have broken through the trappings of their high office to endear themselves to us and to Canadians in every walk of life. His death at this time occasions a sense of personal loss as well as regret at the passing of an outstanding public figure.
The late Governor General was the personification of the dedicated public servant. In war and in peace he gave of himself unstintingly with modest courage and quiet determination. His heroism on the battlefield has added lustre to the already magnificent traditions of the famous Van Doos. His performance in a succession of overseas posts demonstrated his stature as a competent and effective diplomat.
But it was in the role of Governor General that he made his most lasting contribution to Canada. The grace and charm which His Excellency and Madame Vanier displayed won the hearts of the Canadian people. It was clear from the beginning that they loved the Canadian people and they were soon beloved by them in return. Personally what I shall cherish most in my memory of the late Governor General was his unfailing kindness to people in the every day walks of life. To me he will always be associated with the lines of Wordsworth:
That best portion of a good man's life,-
His little, nameless, unremembered acts
Of kindness and of love.
General Vanier was the first French speaking Canadian to occupy the high post of the Queen's representative in this country. He himself was the personification of the finest attributes and culture of the two races that laid the foundations of Canadian confederation. Few men have done more to promote a better understanding and mutual appreciation between French speaking and English speaking Canadians than the late Governor General. His New Year's message to the
23033-870a
Tributes to Late Georges Philias Vanier Canadian people was a plea for good will and forbearance in learning to live together in harmony. But it was more than that. It was a challenge to all Canadians to realize the potential enrichment that can come from a bicultural and bilingual society. If Canada is to survive as a viable nation it must produce more men of the calibre of Georges P. Vanier.
Example is often much more important than pronouncements, no matter how sincerely they are expressed. The greatest contribution of the Vaniers may well be the lasting effect of their personal lives. With clear insight they recognized that the family is the heart of a nation's life. The formation of the Vanier Institute of the Family could be the most lasting memorial to one who in addition to being a distinguished public servant was also a good man in the finest meaning of that word.
General Vanier's concern for the family as the well-spring of our national life was undoubtedly motivated by his own happy family life. His successful tenure of office as Governor General was enhanced by the devoted assistance of his gracious, charming and highly intelligent wife. Together they symbolized all that was best in Canadian life, and they displayed a genuine fondness for people which was reciprocated in increasing measure with the passing years.
Today we mourn the passing of one who was a great Canadian and a true friend. While we shall miss him we shall also be challenged by his example. Because he lived, Canada will be a better place and we shall all be better men and women. That is his tribute, and that will be his epitaph. All of us join in extending to Madame Vanier and the members of his family our deepest sympathy at the loss which they and we have sustained. Our sorrow is great, but it is lessened by the memory of a life lived to the full in dedicated service to Canada.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, the whole country was saddened on learning of the death of His Excellency the Governor General, Mr. Georges P. Vanier. Every Canadian is moved and affected by the departure of this man who worked unceasingly to improve the lot of his fellow-men in all circumstances and everywhere he happened to be.

Mr. Speaker, his life activities, whether political, military, social or other, always reflected the great respect he had for his
13758	COMMONS
Tributes to Late Georges Philias Vanier country. He was a brilliant example of what Canadianism really is, a sentiment that he tried to communicate throughout his lifetime to his fellow countrymen.
I shall not try to give a life history of General Vanier. The Prime Minister has done so in a marvellous way. I am only sorry that I could not also have been a close personal friend of His Excellency. However, with all Canadians I feel I was his friend because his lifetime activities devoted to the welfare and benefit of the Canadian people could not but make one feel a close relationship with the greatness of this man. As a young member of parliament I feel it my duty to ask young Canadians today to look upon Georges P. Vanier as I do; as a model of a true, honest and sincere Canadian.

It is all the more of a privilege, Mr. Speaker, that General Vanier was among my ancestors in the province of Quebec.
His activities, his sense of justice, his regard for Canada, the tasks he accomplished over a period of almost three quarters of a century, always striving to promote national unity, understanding and peace, in short, the achievements of this valorous man should make him an idol of all Canadians, whatever their origins.
French Canada can be proud of having produced such a great man. His labours, his patience, his devotion cover a period of three quarters of a century and I appeal to all Canadians, young, middle-aged and advanced in years, to consider that here was a true Canadian who was devoted to the welfare of his country, respectful of its traditions and convictions, while respectful of those of others.

Mr. Speaker, to any Canadian of the future General Georges P. Vanier will be as he was to those who knew him in his lifetime, a man of honour, wisdom and understanding, a just man and a man of great distinction who always had that humbleness about him that when I as a fairly young Canadian heard him speak, reminded me of my father. I think to the Canadian people he was everyone's father.

To Mrs. Vanier, her children and family, we extend our deepest sympathy.
DEBATES	March 6, 1967
Mr. Speaker, I am not only paying tribute to a great Canadian, but to one of the greatest Canadians in our history.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Social Credit party wish to join in expressing our sorrow and deep sense of loss in the passing of our respected and beloved Governor General, Georges P. Vanier. General Vanier's distinguished and heroic military career, his outstanding service in the diplomatic service of our country, and the efficient and dedicated manner in which he fulfilled his responsibilities as the representative of Her Majesty the Queen have combined to assure him of a special place in the hearts of Canadians and in the history of this nation.
While fully recognizing the outstanding contribution made in these important fields of service there is another area in which his example and influence and that of Madame Vanier will long be remembered and appreciated, namely in emphasizing the importance of spiritual values and the development and maintenance of the family as the foundation and bulwark of the nation. Deeply religious, warm hearted and sincere, dedicated and courageous, Governor General Vanier, though dead, still speaks, challenging us all to thrust aside those things which divide and destroy and to press forward under God to build an even greater and better nation.
We join in extending to Madame Vanier and the members of the family our sincere sympathy and the assurance of our prayers.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, with respect I should like to suggest that you might be pleased to convey in an appropriate manner the record of today's proceedings, in a form which you consider appropriate, to Madame Vanier as an indication of the feeling of pride we have in our late Governor General and our feeling of loss at his passing. I should like also, Mr. Speaker, if I might, to suggest that you might convey to Madame Vanier and her family an expression of our deep and heartfelt sympathy.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works) moved:: That this house adjourn until Thursday, March 9, at 2.30 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 3.20 p.m. until Thursday, March 9.

Thursday, March 9, 1967



FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the twenty second report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.

Mr. Speaker, the report is in both French and English.
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]



HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I raise this question because of the fact that it has already received attention in the press, and to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to explain a situation that has already caused a great deal of questioning. Did the Prime Minister, in his constitutional position relative to Her Majesty, ask for representation of Her Majesty at the funeral of His Excellency the late Governor General? Was there such communication with the government of the United Kingdom? I ask the question because I know the Prime Minister will wish to clarify it before it assumes the proportions that are apparently developing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether it is a proper question at all, but it has been asked. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that I had been in touch with the palace on this matter immediately after the death of the Governor General.
I regret to have to report on this at this time, but I point out that when the administrator was sworn in Her Majesty the Queen was then represented by the administrator. He has all the powers of the Governor
General, and he represented the Queen. I think that was the proper constitutional procedure. It was up to the British government, of course, to decide how they would be represented at the funeral, and they were represented.


John George Diefenbaker: May I say at once that the Prime Minister has clarified the situation. That is the reason the question was asked; the press has devoted considerable space today in this connection. Now the Prime Minister has given the answer.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, but perhaps before doing so I might be permitted to say to the Secretary of State that I hope she will convey to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the appreciation which many of us felt yesterday for the competent and inspiring way in which the corporation transmitted to the people of Canada the moving service which was held in the Basilica for the late Governor General.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made by Mr. James S. Rockefeller, chairman of the First National City Bank of New York to the effect that his bank has no idea of getting out of the Mercantile Bank of Canada. Has the minister asked Mr. Rockefeller for any clarification of this statement? Does it mean that Citibank has no intention of divesting itself of any shares, or does it simply mean it intends to hold on to whatever percentage of shares it is

March 9, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry
allowed to hold under the amendments to the in mind and direct his question to someone Bank Act which will be coming into effect? else in the ministry.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Anticipating a question of this sort I made inquiries as to what Mr. Rockefeller had actually said. The information I have is as follows. The first question put to Mr. Rockefeller was "What about the Mercantile mess? Why don't you sell out?" To which Mr. Rockefeller replied "Because we have confidence in the future of Canada and of the Mercantile Bank and we have no intention of getting out of Canada."
The second question was "Why don't you put pressure on the Canadian government?" Mr. Rockefeller's answer was:
Because we don't want to interfere with the right of a sovereign government to make its own laws. We would not do anything to give the impression to the Canadian government that we are putting pressure on them. We just maintain the status quo until they decide what the law ought to be.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What interpretation does the minister place on this statement by Mr. Rockefeller? Is it his intention to proceed with the recommendation of the banking committee that there should be a five year period allowed during which the bank could divest itself of its shares?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will recognize that this is not a proper question to ask at this time. The report of the committee is now before the house and it will be considered by the house when we get an opportunity-


John George Diefenbaker: I would direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio, the former minister of finance for the purpose of identification. Was this question of the Mercantile Bank considered by the task force set up to look into this matter of United States investment and headed by the hon. gentleman? Was this question before the committee, and is he in agreement with the suggestion of a five year postponement or freeze, putting the whole thing into deep freeze for that period?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some doubt as to whether the question is proper. The Leader of the Opposition knows that the Chair is always in a difficult position in trying to determine whether a question is asked of a minister in his ministerial capacity. I have been in trouble before on this point and I expect to get into trouble again. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman would like to bear this


John George Diefenbaker: This time I come squarely within the rules. This is the minister who is in charge of the task force. He is the one who is looking after it. I would ask him, as chairman of the task force looking into this question, was the Mercantile Bank matter brought to his attention, or does the task force just start to sit after it becomes useless to do so in this connection?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the question should be directed to the right hon. Prime Minister, who seems to be ready to reply.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would be very glad to put the right hon. gentleman right. In the first place his question was out of order, if he would read the rules; but apart from that-[DOT]


John George Diefenbaker: I followed the rules.


Lester Bowles Pearson: *-the hon. gentleman is not chairman of any task force, as my right hon. friend would have realized if he had read the press release at the time.


John George Diefenbaker: What is he?


Lester Bowles Pearson: He is chairman of a committee of ministers of the cabinet looking into a certain question.


John George Diefenbaker: What question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: A task force has been set up to report to that committee of m:nisters. Now, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend has been in this house a long time-


Some hon. Members:: Too long.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and may be in it for a much longer time, and he must know it is out of order to have cabinet ministers, meeting in committee, report to the house and not to the Prime Minister and the cabinet as a whole.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: May I say at once the question is not out of order. I ask the Prime Minister now, was the Minister without Portfolio consulted regarding this deep freeze proposition, like saying "Don't open until Christmas-don't open until five years from now"? Was he consulted on this, or was it because he was not consulted that he went to the Caribbean?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker-
March 9. 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would think Mr. Speaker: This question is essentially that at this point the right hon. Leader of the the same as the one which was considered as Opposition is asking about communications unacceptable a moment ago. The hon. mem-between ministers of the cabinet and that, ber, by putting it now, undoubtedly wished to obviously, is not in order.	discuss it on the adjournment motion?



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General of Canada.
Is it true that a unilingual R.C.M.P. inspector has been appointed as liaison officer between the federal police and the Expo security services and, if so, will the minister take steps to appoint a bilingual officer to that important position?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not quite sure whether this question is so urgent that it could not be put on the order paper. At any rate, that is my suggestion to the hon. member.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Gérard Laprise: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Chapleau gave notice that he wishes to discuss this question at ten o'clock, in view of my ruling that it was not sufficiently urgent to be put immediately.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if you will permit me to justify the urgency of the question. I should note that Expo opens in a month and a half, approximately, and that security operations are already-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Obviously, I have taken into consideration the fact that Expo opens only in a month and a half and that is why I suggested that the hon. member put his question on the order paper.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General of Canada. Has he received complaints from Expo '67 officials to the effect that it would be urgent to change the R.C.M.P. inspector appointed to the security service at Expo?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we still have 10 minutes left in the question period and nobody else seems to have any questions, and after considering the type of questions put-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has only 10 minutes, so would he put his question?


Gilles Grégoire: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I consider that the question I put a while ago is urgent, and I would ask you, since we have 10 minutes left, to allow the minister responsible to the house for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to answer the question


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The procedure suggested by the hon. member is dangerous.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the peace efforts made by the Italian ambassador in Saigon, acclaimed by the Italian foreign minister as producing the best results to date, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs bring the house up to date on these developments in Viet Nam?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there will be a time when this can be done, but I am also sure my hon. friend would agree that this is not the moment. These efforts are under way and it would be wholly improper for me to disclose them.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. the Prime Minister whether the statement purported to have been made by the Secretary of State in Philadelphia on Saturday, to the effect that United States citizens who wish to evade
March 9, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry their responsibilities under the draft law of that country will find a welcome here in Canada, represents the policy and the position of the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State will explain the situation.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The rule of the house is that in relation to a speech made outside the house hon. members can only ask the Prime Minister whether that statement made by a minister represents government policy. This is precisely the question the hon. member has asked. Perhaps by agreement hon. members would prefer to have the statement made by the Secretary of State; perhaps this would be in order.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply by way of a question of privilege if necessary, because my hon. friend's erroneous information concerning the remarks I made in Philadelphia is now on the record. I have in my hand the only newspaper report there was as a result of that particular press conference, where I pointed out that I was not responsible for immigration but for citizenship and that any such individual who wished to come to this country was free to enter it. "Free", that was the only word used. The word "welcome" was not used. The newspaper report goes on to say that if the immigrant indicated after entering that he reserved the right to decide himself whether or not he would serve when this country was at war, he would not be considered to be suitable to be admitted to Canadian citizenship.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: May I
ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether she could inform the house in any detail whatsoever where these draft dodgers who enter Canada are being employed.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not have the slightest idea. I am not responsible for immigration, nor for employment policy.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to

the Minister of Industry. Is it a fact that Canadian industries have lost valuable orders to firms in the United States which have been able to obtain strategic industrial raw materials in Canada in preference to Canadian industry?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt about the validity of the question at the present time, but I understand the hon. member has been very patient, waiting for recognition from the Chair for quite some days to ask this question, and I think the Minister of Industry might accept to reply to it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, this is a very large question and a very general one. I think undoubtedly there are United States firms which further process strategic materials from Canada and that such firms have been successful in competing with Canadian firms. If there is a specific case where there appears to have been discrimination or injustice, then I would be glad to look into it.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to give the minister a specific case.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio and chairman of the committee of ministers to inquire into foreign ownership in -Canada. I should like to ask him whether he is now in a position to inform the house what is the composition of the task force which the right hon. the Prime Minister stated would be set up under that committee.


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister without Portfolio):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The members of the task force include the following: Professor Melville Watkins of the University of Toronto, chairman; Professor A. E. Safarian, formerly of the University of Saskatchewan and now at the University of Toronto; Professor W. J. Woodfine of St. Francis Xavier University, Nova Scotia; Professor Bernard Bonin of Ecole des Hautes ICtudes Commerciales, Montreal; Professor Abraham Rotstein of the University of Toronto; Professor Stephen Hymer now at Yale University and formerly at McGill University.
March 9, 1967



It is expected that two additional members will join the task force, but they have not yet been sworn in.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought there was not a task force.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The two additional members are Professor Gideon Rosenbluth of the University of British Columbia and Professor Claude Masson of Laval University who at present is at Harvard.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour, but in his absence I will address it to the Prime Minister. In view of the drop in housing starts in January, to 30 per cent below the preceding January, and the clear indication from these figures that we will not reach anywhere near the 170,000 starts this year which according to the Economic Council of Canada are necessary if we are to avoid a serious shortage, has the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that questions should not be preceded by speeches, however short. Has the hon. member now reached the question?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I now have laid the groundwork for my question. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the housing situation today, whether the government has decided on any additional incentives to induce the house building industry to produce the 170,000 housing starts which, as explained by the Economic Council of Canada, are necessary.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been discussed in the house. The minister concerned is not present, but he has been speaking on this matter. When he comes back I will be glad to discuss it with him in light of the hon. gentleman's question, but not in relation to the preamble.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Is the government considering additional incentives to induce a greater volume of housing starts in Canada this year?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Steps have already been taken in this regard, and more are under consideration.
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister tell us when the Minister of Labour will stop speaking and start acting on this very pressing problem?


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance asking him whether, in light of the circumstances referred to in the previous question, the government is considering removing the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the numerous requests we are getting from dairy producers associations in Canada, is the minister in a position to tell us when we can expect him to announce to the house the dairy policy for 1967-68?


Mr. Speaker:: That question was asked last week and I think that the minister answered it.



NOVA SCOTIA-SUGGESTED DELAY IN ACQUISITION OF DOMINION COAL COMPANY HOLDINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberl Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of recent developments and the apparent delay in the acquisition by the government of the holdings of the Dominion Coal Company, will he give consideration to the recent suggestion of Mr. John H. Delaney, international board member of the United Mine Workers, that the government get on with the job of operating and improving the coal mines and that the price to be paid for these assets be established by independent arbitrators?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there has been no delay. Negotiations are now proceeding, but perhaps my hon. friend is not as aware of the complex

March 9. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry and important nature of these negotiations as we are over here.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the right hon. gentleman that this is a complicated matter, but does he not agree that there has been enough delay regarding what is to be done for coal miners in Nova Scotia without adding to it the time consuming diversion relating to the question of price?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Donald MacXnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question based on the Prime Minister's reply to the effect there has been no delay. Is he aware of the dilemma which faces the coal company in making up its mind about the price it should ask the government to pay for its assets? Does he not consider this to be causing delay?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



VOCATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
With regard to the new federal manpower training program, has the minister, or his government, reached an agreement with the Quebec government on which of the two governments will have the power to determine manpower priorities?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are now in progress between my department and the provincial department of immigration. I am not in a position to give any details on the agreement which has been or will be reached.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister make some report to the house about the 
conversations he had yesterday with Mr. Humphrey, the Vice President of the United States?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure members of the house warmly welcomed the visit paid by the Vice President of the United States to Ottawa yesterday on the occasion of our national sorrow. This was a visit prompted by a decision of the President of the United States.
My colleagues and I had an opportunity of discussing matters of interest to our two countries. I am sure that as a former member of the cabinet of another government, my hon. friend would realize that it is not possible to disclose the nature of such conversations.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not in a position to inform the house of any results arising from these conversations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot add to what I have said, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Some time ago I directed several questions to the Prime Minister in relation to the possibility of amendments to the Migratory Birds Convention Act in order to clear up some of the difficulties as between that act and our Indian treaties. The Prime Minister mentioned that this matter was being studied. I wonder if he can now say whether a decision has been reached.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot, at this moment; but I will look into it right away and reply as soon as I can.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska, the chairman of the standing committee on external affairs. Now that the hon. member has returned to this house after his official duties abroad I should like to ask whether it is his
March 9, 1967

intention to convene the committee on external affairs as soon as possible.


Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Resligouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I was away last week and I realize now that the order for the standing committee on external affairs to meet has been adopted. We are prepared to meet at any time, and I expect to call a meeting of the steering committee very shortly.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[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 Public Works in his capacity as house leader. Can the minister give any explanation to the house why a proposed visit by the Indian affairs committee to a number of Indian reservations in British Columbia was cancelled?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker; I am not aware of the internal administrative decisions of that committee.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I did not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the question asked by the hon. member has reference to the deliberations and conduct of affairs of a committee. I am not sure whether the question should be asked at this time.


Frank Howard: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that I was not seeking to ask about the internal conduct of the committee itself but the conduct of the house leader. I asked the house leader whether he has any knowledge of why the trip of that committee was postponed, and whether he had any hand in it. That is my question.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has answered the question.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that Northern Natural Gas Company has placed before the United States
Inquiries of the Ministry federal power commission a completely new proposal to move gas to eastern Canada, has the minister received any indication or notice that Trans-Canada intend to withdraw or change their application to the United States federal power commission?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I was given the contents of a declaration made at noon by the president of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. The president is challenging the compromise project on the basis that it is not as economical as the Great Lakes project, and on the basis that it would not be completed in time to provide the Canadian needs of gas for next winter.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the chairman of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines indicate to the minister that that company intends to proceed with the application it now has before the federal power commission of the United States?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether, in view of the time this case is taking before the federal power commission, and the fact that it is obviously likely to take a great deal more time, he would now consider getting Trans-Canada to start work in twinning the northern line?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the position of the minister and the government has been clearly stated in a letter which was sent to Mr. Kerr on February 2 and which was reported by the press and reproduced as an appendix to a document issued by the federal power commission of the United States.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question which I put a few minutes ago to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines' application before the United Stated federal power commission, the minister referred to a letter which he had sent to the president of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. He was good enough to let me see that letter, which he said appeared in a publication of the federal power commission. I should now like to ask the minister whether he would be prepared to table that letter to the president of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, since he has referred to it and based his reply to my question on it.

March 9, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will do so, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table the letter to which the hon. member has referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport; I see that he is well sun tanned. I wonder whether, having already avoided this question three times, he could now tell us if the report on the special maritime transportation study has been brought to his attention. Has the minister seen it, and if so, can he advise the house when we will be able to get on with it?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I will have to continue my evasive tactics.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Since there was an item in last year's estimates covering the installation of escalators at the Winnipeg international airport, I wonder whether the minister would consider it to be another of his centennial projects to see that this work is completed this year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems a very worth while suggestion, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of further representations made to the minister by interested citizens throughout the Atlantic provinces regarding the Bluenose dime, has the minister secured sufficient documentary evidence to prove that the ship on the dime was the Bluenose, and has the government

reached a decision to restore the Bluenose to her place of honour on the dime beginning with our coinage in 1968?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


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


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I may transgress briefly on the time of this house, the matter I have raised is most urgent. Today Canada is spending millions of dollars on our centennial celebrations, and sincere men are searching desperately to establish a Canadian identity. I submit that there is nothing more truly Canadian than the Bluenose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It is indicative of an age of wooden ships and iron men. It is indicative of a generation that established our coastal trade in Nova Scotia, our great fishing industry and our trade with the West Indies and Europe, and I believe it is time this government gave an indication of when the Bluenose will be returned to our coinage.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the latest D.B.S. report showing that Canadian productivity is rising at a rate considerably slower than the level of wages, is the government giving consideration to offering inducements to make possible a greater rate of increase in the level of productivity in Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad indeed to advise the hon. member privately, without taking the time of the house, of the substantial number of effective programs that are directed precisely to the end of increasing productivity.


George Harris Hees: I should like to address a supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that productivity is rising at a relatively slow rate in Canada today, and in view of the fact that the minister's programs are not producing the desired
March 9, 1967



effect, would he consider introducing some that really are effective in increasing productivity?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



COLUMBIA RIVER-REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF FURTHER U.S. DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. My question is based on the fact that I have been informed that a flood of representations is being sent to the minister at this time.
Has the minister received any representations from any organizations or persons urging that the Columbia river treaty be sent to the committee in view of the recent developments in the United States?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, indeed; I have received at least one. The chairman of the House of Commons committee on industry, research and energy development told me, however, that the committee is very busy at this time and that he will have to reconsider the suggestion later in the session.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is it his intention to introduce a program of capital assistance for class A fairs, and if so, will the program be available for action during the current year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It has been suggested to the Chair that the question has already been asked.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent (Onl.)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Now that the planting season is fast approaching, can the minister indicate whether provision
Inquiries of the Ministry will be made for seasonal immigration of farm labour as was done in 1966, and whether other measures will be considered to ensure adequate farm labour in these critical times?


Jean Marchand: I will be looking into this matter immediately.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Has it been indicated that Easter Monday will be a holiday for classified civil servants but not for prevailing rates employees? Will the government consider treating both groups in the same manner?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: I will be pleased to look into this matter.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Some time ago he instituted a new mail service, which was intended to be an improvement, in the lower part of the St. Lawrence. Can he tell the house now whether he intends to establish another mail service which will deliver mail to the people within eight days at least?



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I wish to ask him when he changed his mind about elevating the Minister without Portfolio to a more responsible position in the cabinet.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to be able to put the hon. member from Cape Breton in a more responsible position.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

March 9, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry SHIPPING



REQUEST FOR SAFETY INSPECTION OF STEEL HULLED TOW BOATS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In the light of the large number of tow boats which have sunk on the Pacific coast, can the minister tell us whether he has recently received representations from the Canadian Merchant Service Guild to the effect that all steel hulled tow boats be called in so it can be determined whether they have three watertight bulkheads, and if not that they be required to have them in order that future disasters be prevented? Can the minister tell us whether he has received such communications, and what plans are being made to cope with that request?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Judging from the careful way in which the hon. gentleman was consulting his notes I would assume that such representations must have been made to me in my absence, and no doubt were dealt with in a most effective manner by the acting minister. Nevertheless I will make inquiries and let the hon. gentleman know.
I might also remind the hon. gentleman that it is contrary to the rules to ask questions of the acting minister when the minister is in the house.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I will use this forum to extend my apologies for puncturing the ego of the minister or for letting him suppose that I might ask the acting minister a question while the minister is here.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saini John-Alberi):: Will the Minister of Transport also inquire into the matter of icebreaking on the St. Lawrence, which has reached serious proportions during his absence?


John Whitney Pickersgill: When the hon. member said it had reached dangerous proportions did he mean there was too much of it or too little?


Thomas Miller Bell: Too much, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I
[Mr. Speaker.)
should like to reply to a question put to me on March 3 by the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam concerning the number of automobile workers who have been placed in employment through our Canada manpower centres. Unfortunately I cannot give a complete answer because automobile workers reside in many places, and over 30 Canada manpower centres are known to have some registered. To avoid unnecessary paper work we keep separate records of placements only where there are substantial numbers of automobile workers, and of course these are the areas where placements are slow.
As of February 24, 833 referrals for employment had been made and 336 workers had been placed in employment. As I have indicated earlier, this is far from satisfactory. It has to be recognized that the re-employment of workers from a high wage industry cannot be done as quickly as we would like, but we are doing all we can to speed it up.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the minister has just stated that there is difficulty in getting adequate information regarding the auto workers who are laid off, I should like to ask whether this does not stress the need for the setting up of the kind of committee for which the U.A.W. has asked, a committee of the government, employers and employees, so there may be some co-ordinated follow-up as to what happens to the auto workers who are discharged.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to refer to the particular problem which the hon. gentleman has in mind but will only say that personally I certainly favour all joint committees of management and labour in order to solve those problems.



BANK OF CANADA ACT


Mitchell William Sharp: that the house go into committee on Bill No. C-190, to amend the Bank of Canada Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Richard in the chair.
On clause 1:


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs reported this particular bill without amendment on March 1 of this year.
March 9, 1967

[DOT] (3:20 p.ra.)


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Order. Would hon. gentlemen please observe some silence and allow those taking part in this debate to be heard.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, the rules of this house with regard to debate on a bill of this kind make it a little difficult to mix general remarks with specific remarks relating to the bill, in that I want to discuss the determination of monetary policy and the maintenance or creation of statutory secondary reserves.
There is not a great deal in the act other than general housekeeping matters. If one refers back to the 1953-54 amendments which revised the act, as contained in the 1952 revised statutes, one can see that there are not now many changes in the provisions of the Bank of Canada Act. However, I feel there should be some remarks of a general nature made at this time and with your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I should like to address myself to these subjects. My colleagues may have considerably more to say when we reach the individual clauses of the bill.
I wish to deal primarily with some of the testimony of Mr. Rasminsky, governor of the Bank of Canada, which appears in the minutes of proceedings and evidence No. 19 dated October 31, 1966. I am sorry I was not able to be present at this particular meeting of the committee, but in any event there is reproduced in the minutes for the edification and instruction of hon. members a fairly extensive brief which was presented by the governor and on which he was questioned.
One point with which I agree, and which is one of the crucial points made by Mr. Rasminsky, is that there is nothing in the bill which diminishes the responsibility which the governor bears for the monetary policy being followed. Then as reported at page 990 of the report the governor went on to say:
So long as he occupies the position of governor the public is entitled to assume that the policy being followed carries his personal judgment. As the minister said in the second reading debate in the House of Commons, if the government of the day ever issued a directive to the governor to execute a monetary policy which he felt was contrary to the public interest, it may be taken for granted that he would resign rather than accept such a responsibility.
I find some difficulty in the provision of the bill which, shall we say, statutorily enshrines this difference of opinion and which would put it beyond the pale of a reconsideration of
Bank of Canada Act
position either by the government or the governor so they could arrive at some consensus or at some variation. I want to discuss this further when we get to the appropriate clause, which is the proposed section 14, being clause 6 of this bill; but it seems to me that these differences of opinion have to be underlined by a written directive from the Minister of Finance, after consultation with the governor in council, to the governor of the Bank of Canada instructing him to follow a certain policy, which should be published in the Canada Gazette.
I think it would be beyond the pale that this should ever arise, Mr. Chairman. I just cannot conceive of any governor remaining in his position if he had to be subjected to this type of treatment. It might be that the government is now thinking that this would be an additional weapon with which to beat a governor-and I am referring to a recalcitrant governor-into submission. There is no doubt that monetary policy is the responsibility of the government.


Mitchell William Sharp: This is a recent conversion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, no. The minister may want to play around with this, but he has had experience with the esteemed gentleman who was involved in this connection, and I am sure he would realize that if that man occupied his former position today there would be a great deal of difficulty. The minister would have to deal not only with the hon. member for Davenport but also with a governor of the Bank of Canada who at one time was making rather extraordinarily freelance speeches.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I found his behaviour at the time completely incomprehensible, and since then I have at times found his behaviour equally incomprehensible. However, I realize that the minister is trying to get some form of statutory power into the bill in order to deal with a governor who might refuse to carry out the monetary policies of the government of the day.
Then Mr. Rasminsky spoke of the technical arrangements, of which he sought improvement, for the exercise of monetary control by the Bank of Canada. This is by the institution of statutory secondary reserves about which I must confess I am not yet convinced in spite of all of the persuasive advocacy of the governor. To me this is adding a surplus of power to a surplus of power.

March 9, 1967
Bank of Canada Act
There is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that within the statutory reserves, and particularly the statutory reserves which are embodied in the amendment to the proposed section 72 of the new Bank Act, the twelve and four formula, the effect of the 12 per cent requirement is felt on demand deposits. To me this is an extraordinarily effective weapon, and because of the changing picture of Canada's banking system as a result of the growth of a number of near banks and other financial institutions-a matter which we will be discussing when we reach the Bank Act-the Bank of Canada has less and less control over the monetary system of this country. It is trying to maintain the same level of control through the chartered banks by measures which will be and which will have to be all the more radical in their effect on the chartered banks. In other words, the basis of the exercise of this control is being narrowed as our financial system in this country evolves, and this proposal of the government to me compounds the difficulties.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I find that the provision for statutory secondary reserves is piling super-caution upon caution and it is not at all necessary. I spoke to the minister concerning the situation in the United States where the federal reserve board has the statutory power of varying the reserve requirement up or down in order to affect the monetary policy of the country. In Canada, as we know, it is a question merely of the Bank of Canada making more money available or restricting the amount of money in circulation. This has some effect on the bond market and it also affects the interest rate.
I would have thought, in addition to the power that the Bank of Canada has to affect the monetary situation in the country through this particular procedure, there should have been an amendment to the Bank of Canada Act to allow for a variation in the primary reserve rate, particularly in connection with deposits on a fixed or term basis.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes.


Mitchell William Sharp: Is the hon. gentleman aware how many times the power that is already in the act has been exercised? I can give him the answer. It has never been exercised, but it has been there from 1954.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The power to vary, to reduce, but never on fixed or term deposits.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, on the total; we could have increased it in steps from 8 per cent to 12 per cent.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, but never below 8 per cent, and there is a distinction between current deposits on a demand basis and deposits on a fixed or term basis. I would have thought that in addition to the power to affect the quantum of money there should have been an alternative procedure open to the Bank of Canada to affect the monetary situation in the country by allowing the bank to reduce reserves below the level indicated in the act. I hope when the minister replies he will comment upon the sufficiency of the powers at the disposal of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, in relation to the Canadian monetary system, and whether we can add this particular tool of monetary control to our system.
This is the extent of my general remarks and I thank the committee for allowing me to make them. After all, the amendment called for by clause 1 is very limited. I hope we can get further comment from the minister, either in reply to these remarks or at the appropriate time when we are considering the clauses.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take too much of the time of the committee. I do not believe there is a great deal to be said about this bill because its purpose is to clear up some anachronisms. Unlike the hon. member for Edmonton West, I do not believe clause 6 can be interpreted as a club with which the government may beat the governor of the Bank of Canada. Rather, I suspect it is a club the governor of the Bank of Canada insisted upon having placed in his hands in order to beat the Minister of Finance of the day over the head. Certainly this is the view I take of it. I must say this particular minister has never done so but, having heard a number of his predecessors dodge their responsibilities by telling the House of Commons that, after all, they could do nothing because the matter was in the hands of the Bank of Canada, I suggest that neither this minister nor his successors will be able to do so now. Any attempt to do so will meet condign punishment, I am sure, from whatever opposition there is in this chamber.
As I say, I believe the hon. member for Edmonton West has it the wrong way around. I would not be surprised if the governor of
March 9, 1SS7

the Bank of Canada had written that particular section himself. I regret I was not in attendance at the committee on finance and economic affairs when the Bank of Canada Act came before it. I had previously asked Mr. Rasminsky if he would be prepared to give us some information with regard to the role that the Bank of Canada plays in some of the conversations regarding reform of the international monetary system. I was hoping, as I told Mr. Rasminsky, that this might provide an opportunity for him to give at least some elementary education to myself and other members of the committee about what is going to be the next vexing question in monetary affairs. However, we can perhaps hope to get another opportunity to have the governor give us some information on that matter.
There is one thing I should like to stress now which perhaps is not truly linked to this bill. I ask the minister if he would not sound out the governor of the Bank of Canada and his staff as to the possibility of publishing some of the results of their research. I am informed the bank has collected one of the ablest stables of economists in the country who do a tremendous amount of research whose results stay in the bank or possibly go to a few selected people. If this information were made available to the public I think it would be useful in enabling the Canadian public and members of parliament to understand better the operations of our monetary system.
Beyond this, I have nothing to say about the bill. As I say, it clears up a lot of anachronisms. My seatmate, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, was rather regretful when he read that the phrase "will pay to bearer on demand" was being removed. He has always cherished the idea that one day he would take a dollar bill to the Bank of Canada and ask for a dollar for it. Now this opportunity is gone and he says that is the difficulty with postponing things. This is one of the anachronisms that has been cleared up. I think we can accept the bill as it is without further ado.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


The Chairman:: The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) on a question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, we have
before us the proposed amendments to the
Bank of Canada Act
Bank of Canada Act and my question of privilege-I will hasten to say-is to the effect that French speaking hon. members in this house do not have the same opportunity to discuss these amendments as those whose mother tongue is English.
Let me explain my question of privilege. All these amendments to the Bank of Canada Act have been examined in committee. The evidence heard is contained in various numbers of committee hearing reports. You will note, Mr. Chairman, that the numbers containing the committee proceedings have only been printed in English. We have not yet received the French version. The French text is twelve numbers behind, since we have only received the French up to No. 41, whereas No. 53 of the English has been printed and distributed.
The amendments to the Bank of Canada Act had been disclosed in committee when No. 53 was published; it is still only available in English. At that time, we were discussing Bill No. C-222 and the amendments to the Chartered Banks Act. We have the English version of the minutes with respect to the clause by clause study of Bill No. C-190. However, we do not yet have these in French, since the French version of the reports on committee proceedings only go as far as January 31, 1967.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I submit that we are at a disadvantage. I know that my colleague, the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latulippe), followed committee discussions very diligently. Under ordinary circumstances, it would be his turn to speak, after the Conservative party spokesman and the representative of the New Democratic Party. I am sure that he and I could express our views much more clearly if we had French transcripts of the proceedings, but we do not have them.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I feel that under the present circumstances, discussion of Bill No. C-190 should be postponed until we have received the French version of the proceedings of committee discussions.
I should like to put forward two arguments in support of my request, Mr. Chairman. My first argument is the fact that French is supposed to be an official language in this house, on a level with English. Since the proceedings are not available in the two official languages, the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp) should himself ask that consideration of the said bill be postponed until we receive the French version of the proceedings,

March 9, 1967
Bank of Canada Act
at least those concerning Bill No. C-190 which has been studied in committee.
I also wish to refer to a precedent established in this house two or three years ago, when we were considering the Canada Pension Plan or the Canada Pension Act.
It will be recalled that, at the time, a group of members pressed for postponement of examination of the Canada pension bill until such time as the proceedings on examination of the bill in committee were distributed to us in both languages.
At that time, also, we had received in English only, the reports concerning the study in committee of the Canada Pension Plan.
And, at that time, the government had graciously agreed-thereby establishing a precedent-to postpone the study of the Pension Act until such time as we would be provided with the reports in both languages. And I recall very clearly that, at that time, the government acted quickly and, in less than 24 hours, we received the reports. In less than 24 or 36 hours, if my memory serves me right, we received the reports in French, since we already had them in English, and the study of the Canada Pension Act, or the Canada pension plan, had been postponed until we received the French translation of the committee reports.
Mr. Chairman, since it has always been said that both languages, French and English, are official in this house, and since we have received the reports in one language only and it is very important for a proper discussion of the amendments to Bill No. C-190, which is a very important bill, to have the documents in French and English to be able to discuss them better, and since a denial of those documents would be an obvious discrimination against the members who speak French as their first language, and since a precedent has already been established in that respect and the present government had accepted to establish that precedent, in those circumstances, I would ask the Minister of Finance and Receiver General to agree to the postponement of the study of Bill No. C-190, as did his colleague who is today the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), until we have the reports in both languages.
I shall ask him to move the postponement of the study of Bill No. C-190 until we have the reports in both languages. I think we could get unanimous consent in that respect.

I understand that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is the spokesman for his party as far as this bill is concerned. He will also agree no doubt, since that procedure was followed at the time of the study of the bill concerning the Canada Pension Plan, that we postpone the study of Bill No. C-190 until we have the said reports in both languages.
I shall ask the Minister of Finance and Receiver General to move himself that the study of this bill be postponed. I know that it will not be very long before we have those reports in French, and it will avoid that kind of discrimination the government does not want to have in this house.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I regret just as much as does the hon. member for Lapointe that we do not have before us at this time a complete set of the reports of the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs. The principal reason for this situation is the diligence of the committee. This committee has given a more thorough examination to the bank acts than has ever been given by any committee, I believe, in the past and this has taken a great deal of time.
The hon. member for Lapointe has himself contributed very extensively to these debates and I am sure that he would like to see his contribution before us in both languages. Unfortunately this has not been possible. Had the committee been able to complete its hearings some weeks ago we would now have these reports before us.
The position in which we now find ourselves is that we must deal fully with these bills both in this house and in the Senate, so that they may receive royal assent before April 1. If we were to delay consideration of them now in order that these reports might be available in French as well as in English, something which we would all like to see, it would be necessary for parliament to extend once again the present acts. Failure to deal with the bills before us at this session would mean that consideration of these matters would have to begin all over again. I am sure the hon. member would not wish to impose a delay of that sort upon the house or upon the country.
These banking bills have been before the house on two separate occasions. They have been introduced twice. There has been general discussion on each of them and there has been detailed consideration in the committee of the bill now before us. So I hope the hon.
March 9, 1967

member will not press his point. I believe we are making progress in the direction he has indicated and I can assure him on behalf of the government that we are making every effort to ensure that these reports are translated quickly.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, somewhat on the same question of privilege raised by my colleague for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), I must say I listened to the answer given by the hon. minister, which was of interest to me, as you may imagine, and also to the representations made by the hon. member for Lapointe.
I was surprised, for once, at the way the hon. member for Lapointe made his representations, for he was moderate and reasonable and, without any intention of insulting the government, he justified his request with arguments I believe serious. Therefore, I must isay, Mr. Chairman-and I am trying to say it dispassionately and in the most objective way possible-that I feel compelled to support the request made by the hon. member for Lapointe and I ask the hon. minister to reconsider his decision.
There are other reasons in favour of such a suggestion. I am aware of the spirit of goodwill of the hon. minister and I do not doubt it; besides, I am also aware of the spirit of goodwill on the part of most of the ministers concerning that question. I am one of those who have asked isince the opening of this session last year, for instance, for the simultaneous publication of the French and English versions of the Labour Gazette. And X have been told, since that time, that there would be improvement in a month, in two months, in three months, but it is always the same thing.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that if the government does not make up its mind one of these days to take extreme measures in order to grant to all members their right of having the documents in both languages and of being able to take part in the debates in an intelligent way, the question will not be settled. I must admit that, in my case, there is no inconvenience whether the documents are in English or in French, since I had the privilege of learning English, or rather I took the trouble of learning it, since I felt the need to do so. However, some of my colleagues here did not have the same privilege; in spite of all their
Bank of Canada Act
willingness, they did not have the opportunity of learning English, but they take part in the debates in this house, they attend very regularly the sittings of the committees of which they are members and they tell us that they are embarrassed, since they cannot discuss intelligently the bill they are interested in.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this principle is more important than that of not delaying the study of the bill concerning the Bank Act. I do not intend to venture into a protracted debate, Mr. Chairman; besides, I think the hon. minister understands, since I already had the opportunity of knowing how he feels about that bill. I simply wish to say solemnly and sincerely that I feel compelled to support the request made by the hon. member for Lapointe and I object to the examination of this bill if the French documents cannot be produced.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, when I was listening to the hon. member for Lapointe I wondered whether he was aware of the inclusion in the final report of the committee of a recommendation with regard to translation. I have great sympathy for the hon. member. I am sure he will recall that during the committee hearings our chairman was constantly pressing the translation authorities to speed up the French translations. It became obvious that the translation facilities are inadequate. But I would plead with the hon. member for Lapointe to realize that this is a much larger question than merely getting these particular minutes translated. It involves an extension of the whole translation service and I do not think we should hold up the proceedings on this bill, on which there is great urgency, because of this very reasonable grievance which the committee attempted to deal with in its final report.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, in support of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), I should like to quote section 133 of the British North America Act, which states:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the house of the parliament of Canada and of the house of the legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses;

March 9, 1967
Bank of Canada Act
Therefore, proceedings of committees of the house must be published in both languages and now, we do not have these reports today. As my friend the hon. member for Lapointe said a while ago, there is a substantial time lapse between the publication of the English and French versions. The minister told us a while ago that there is no delay, but I submit that there is a one-month gap between the two, because no particular effort was made to make the French version of the proceedings available to hon. members.
Mr. Chairman, for four years now, we have been demanding equal standards in house services with respect to the two official languages, and we intend to see to it that our request is granted.


Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I too would be glad if Bill No. C-190 were passed without delay. But since we still have many aspects of the bill to look into and even have amendments to move, I would have liked to read all the proceedings in French. The more important discussions concerning the Bank of Canada, in which its president took part are to be found in proceedings we have not yet received. Therefore, since we do not have those proceedings in which we could find the required information in order to discuss sensibly, I fully support the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Lapointe who wants those proceedings printed in both languages and the discussion on the bill suspended until we have obtained the French proceedings.
Mr. Chairman, at least a dozen issues of the proceedings in French have not yet been distributed. We surely need them, because discussion of the Bank of Canada is of the utmost importance. Discussion of the Bank of Canada includes basic aspects which must be considered and known in all their phases. We need the French version of the proceedings of the committee to be in a position to deal with the question. We have considerable discussion to carry on as regards the Bank of Canada.
I know that discussion of the Bank of Canada has not been very long in the past. Most of the time, the charter has been renewed without amendment. Now, we have amendments to the charter of the Bank of Canada to move and if they cannot be taken into consideration at least we will have the opportunity to move them, because we intend to fulfil our responsibilities as far as the financial situation of Canada is concerned, since that

question and the question of the Bank of Canada is of major importance and constitutes a greater factor than all the others. To my mind, every member should closely consider the financial aspect of the Bank of Canada and, for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I fully support the statement of the hon. member for Lapointe. So, we will not agree to continuation of the debate on this bill without first having in hand a French copy of the proceedings of the committee.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, just a few words about the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), who was admirably assisted by the hon. members for Trois-Rivieres, Chapleau and Compton-Frontenac (Messrs. Mongrain, Laprise, and Latulippe).
The question raised by the hon. member for Lapointe is not a new problem in the house. Indeed, over the years, it has often happened under different governments, that committee reports did not appear at the same time in both languages, which prevented hon. members to have an intelligent discussion in the house. That which the hon. member complains about is not only convenient discrimination during a debate. This discrimination also becomes evident, as the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac pointed out, when the house is about to study an extremely important bill which is, let us say, the financial, economic and administrative backbone of our country, an act concerning the Bank of Canada. Now, it is most important that all hon. members be made aware of the learned proceedings which took place in the parliamentary committee.
There is, in the English text, technical and specific terms which it is difficult for us, French Canadians, to understand properly, to grasp their meaning and their scope in the financial and monetary field. That is why, it is necessary for us to have in our own tongue, the exact meaning of the word or expression that will enable us to understand the full scope of the wording or the principle to be incorporated in this new bill.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
That is why, it would be highly appreciated if the hon. Minister of Finance and Receiver General postponed the study of this bill in order to allow us, French Canadians, to get the French version of the proceedings of the committee.
We are not doing this, this afternoon, merely to complain about a certain discrimination
March 9, 1967

in the distribution of French copies; we do so especially that we may better understand this most important bill. It is precisely because we French Canadian members of the house here in Ottawa want to contribute substantially to the study of important bills such as this one; because we want to address ourselves to the questions seriously, conscientiously and responsibly. Now, under the present circumstances, we cannot do so.
I must say that personally, although I speak and read English well enough, as it is not my mother tongue, I often find it difficult to understand certain technical and scientific expressions and realize the full impact of the bills or amendments we are asked to deal with.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I should like to mention the Hansard of last Friday. I believe the hon. Minister of Finance and Receiver General, who was asked to introduce his bill today, could very well refer, in order to delay study of this bill, to the business of the house as given last Friday, that is on March 3, by the leader of the government. It did not provide for the immediate discussion of the hon. minister's bill at the next sitting. On the contrary, it indicated that the government proposed to call item 119, that is third reading of Bill No. C-259, then item 135, that is, second reading of the bill dealing with federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. And then we see Bill No. C-190, which it is proposed to consider this afternoon, as well as items 137 and 136.
Consequently, while we would discuss the four or five items included in the last list of business of the house for its next sitting, that is this afternoon, the translators would have plenty of time-even if we spent the few remaining days of this week on the four other items-to give us a French version of the parliamentary committee proceedings.
I hope that the government which, in different circumstances, appeared well disposed -and as the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) said, a precedent was furthermore created by the Liberal government, during consideration of the Canada Pension Plan Act, then the minister who is now Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) had accepted, as a result of similar representations, to put off consideration of the Canada Pension Plan bill to enable all members, and especially French Canadian members, to understand perfectly the scope, the meaning and all the implications of that act which was very important-will do the same once again.
Bank of Canada Act
As was so ably and rightly pointed out by the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac, this bill before the committee-perhaps the Minister of Finance and Receiver General is an expert in this matter, perhaps he has gained some experience as a civil servant, when he met experts in finance and economy, and I do not know whether or not he realizes that many hon. members here, in this house, despite their education and their particular knowledge in other subjects, despite all their good will are not as knowledgeable as him in this matter-demands much thought. Now, the first requisite to good comprehension is to have in one's mother tongue the true meaning and perfect translation of this act. And that is why, from time to time, we refer to tradition, not so just to recriminate, but because we want to make a substantial contribution to the debates. Therefore, we do want to understand correctly the meaning and the implications of the legislation before us. And we want to understand at the same time as the other hon. members in the house who speak our country's other official language, so that the members of the province of Quebec or the French speaking members will not be accused of inaction in the House of Commons. We are here, Mr. Chairman, to play a useful and adequate role and we want to do it with as much enthusiasm and interest as all other hon. members. To that end, we need an essential tool, namely documents and bills in French and we must have them when they are made available in English. If we always get them late we are in an unfavourable position, in which some discrimination might easily be seen, and for which we might be criticized, not so much by the taxpayers of the province of Quebec as by some people in English Canada who sometimes say that the French Canadian members from Quebec do not take part in discussions on economic or financial matters and do not seem interested to do so. I want to state clearly this afternoon that this is false. On the contrary, we are greatly interested, we are here to make a contribution. Therefore, since this bill of the utmost importance is being considered, we should be given what we need to understand the discussions in committee. The documents available in English now should also be available to us in French. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would very much appreciate it if the minister would reconsider the matter and comply with that request.

March 9, 1967
Bank of Canada Act


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, may I point out two or three facts to some of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this question of privilege with which I have a good deal of sympathy, because I would protest as they have against the fact that these reports are not available in French. First of all, the hon. member who has just spoken asks the reason for the change in procedure. The reason, of course, I think is pretty plain. A very sad event has intervened which has placed before the government the necessity to proceed with the bank acts in an order other than had been decided in the program because these acts must be through this house, through the Senate and receive royal assent before April 1. Otherwise we will have to introduce another bill to extend the charters of the chartered banks for another period while we reintroduce the bill or extend this session indefinitely. Second, all the testimony relating to the Bank of Canada Act is now available in the French language. There is nothing missing.
While the argument may be valid in respect of the Bank Act and could be a valid criticism of the procedure with regard to that act -perhaps there is not much point in my bringing this to the attention of hon. members-in fact all the testimony relating to the Bank of Canada Act has been printed in the French language. No amendments were made in respect of this bill when it was under consideration. It is reintroduced exactly as it was introduced. Therefore I hope that hon. members, having raised this legitimate grievance, will be content to proceed with the Bank of Canada Act with regard to which the testimony in French, I am now informed, is printed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) stated that evidence before the committee is now available in French. I am happy to hear it. As far as we are concerned, I believe that those proceedings have not yet been distributed to our offices. If he has them, would it be possible for him to have them distributed, particularly those dealing with the Bank of Canada? That would be acceptable for we obviously are not asking for the proceedings of the committee on the Bank Act or the Quebec Savings Banks Act since those are not now before us.
We are now considering the Bank of Canada Act, and if the minister says those reports

are available in French, let us have them and we will be satisfied. We have not yet received them in our offices.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, the testimony given in respect of the Bank of Canada Act relates to the testimony given by the governor of the Bank of Canada. That testimony was given quite early, has now been printed and has been available to members for quite some time. When I appeared before the committee, for example, I gave no testimony whatsoever on the Bank of Canada Act and I was not asked for any. It is my understanding that when the bill was before the committee no amendments were made so there was no discussion about changes. While I understand that there is a legitimate grievance about the reports not being printed in French as quickly as in English, that is not a complaint that can be directed particularly to the bill before us today. There are no technical questions of the kind the hon. member has raised which have to be translated since there were no technical amendments made.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister could indicate what kind of a delay we might expect before we have a translation department which will give us publications in French and in English at the same time. I have been complaining for more than a year about this situation, particularly in relation to the Labour Gazette.


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps I should at this time give this factual answer. The minutes of proceedings and evidence of 50 meetings have been published in English and 43 have been published in French. The proceedings of three meetings have not yet been published in either language. I agree with the hon. member that it would be better if we could say that 53 had been printed in both languages but the disparity between the two is not as great as perhaps suggested. Certainly it is not as great as it once was, which is some evidence of the progress we are making.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I just want to correct a point raised by the minister. The governor of the Bank of Canada appeared before the committee before the Minister of Finance did, of course, and we then examined him on general matters. The Minister of Finance appeared afterwards and we also
March 9, 19G7

obtained, in French and in English, his evidence before the committee. But after that, we studied the Bank of Canada Act item by item and discussions took place, even though no amendments were moved.
Now, it is precisely the proceedings covering the study of the bill item by item that we have not yet received.
The Minister of Finance says that 43 issues have been sent; it may be so, but No. 41 was our latest issue. Perhaps 43 fascicules are ready but the proceedings end with Nos. 42 or 43 and we have not yet received them and those are precisely the issues dealing with the section by section consideration of the Bank of Canada Act. Even though no amendments were introduced, important discussions took place and if the minister says that the proceedings have been printed, there may have been a delay in their distribution. If that is the case, we shall not ask for a very long extension of time. As soon as we get them- this could be done before six o'clock-we will be ready to resume the debate.
I think the minister will realize that we are making this request in good faith, especially if 43 issues have already been printed and in view of the fact that we have not received Nos. 42 and 43 of the proceedings even though consideration of the Bank of Canada Act is over.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) rises on a question of privilege-I listen to him with much interest-he does it well, he makes a serious contribution to the debate, and it is interesting to have him make a serious contribution.
Mr. Chairman, for my part, I believe that when an hon. member insists on occasion to have a committee report in his own language -which, by the way, is one of the two official languages in this country-what he asks for is an absolute right, and the government and the house are going to take such absolute right into account.
However, in all fairness to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), I do believe that he is not responsible for all existing administrative problems.
Mr. Mongrainr Nobody says the minister is responsible, nobody blames him.


Georges-C. Lachance: I do not contend that the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) said he was; I am giving my personal
Bank of Canada Act
opinion concerning this matter. In all fairness, the Minister of Finance should not be thus held responsible for all those administrative problems.
The minister should not be blamed either for the unfortunate aspects of this problem, if there are any such aspects. On the other hand, the problem of the translation of reports into the two official languages of the country is a new one. Only recently has the business of the house become so voluminous and the committee meetings so numerous; the point is just that the staff of the house is not yet adequate, and that is what should be emphasized. In fact, the staff should be increased so as to meet in so far as possible the needs of hon. members.
In my opinion, it is quite impossible to have the debates of the standing or special committees of the house translated into English or French barely five minutes after the end of a meeting; in fact, that would sometimes force us to delay consideration of an urgent bill. Hon. members know that there is as yet no automation or adequate planning to ensure that the translation and printing of committee proceedings are done quickly enough to meet the needs of the House of Commons.
Not so long ago when I was a member of the committee on procedure, we studied the committee problem and when, in June 1965, the number of committees was increased, the whole house agreed that it would create problems. In fact, it still creates problems and it will always do so, whether we like it or not, because the whole government staff cannot be assigned to translate the proceedings which take place in English in a committee. If that were done, the work in other government services would be delayed proportionally. Now, when a member asks to receive the proceedings of a committee in his mother tongue, whether he is English or French speaking, I think that the house must grant to an hon. member the right to check, in his own language, the proceedings of a committee.
But, I believe also that hon. members, aware of the administrative problem, must not make it a problem which unduly delays the study of a bill. I do not say that this is done in this case, because I do want the hon. member for Lapointe to know full well that if I take part in this discussion on a question of privilege, it is to support his request. However, in all fairness for the Minister of

March 9, 1967
Bank of Canada Act
Finance, we must not blame him for a situation for which he is not responsible.


Gilles Grégoire: Oh no. This is not what I meant.


Georges-C. Lachance: Now, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latulippe) said that the members should study the Bank Act. There is no doubt about that, and I think they are studying it; however, if they do not speak, that does not mean they are not considering the said act.
As to the matter of discrimination I do not see any in the present case. It is a technical problem, which members must try to understand, because I feel this problem will never be settled unless a miracle solution is found.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, it is rarely that I intervene on a question of privilege and it is even more rarely that I agree with the hon. member for Lapointe. However, I think we are faced with something really fundamental here and I should regret very much if the burden of discussion were carried by those who speak in the French language.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
In my opinion this sort of thing is happening far too frequently. This country may not be bilingual but this is certainly a bilingual parliament and the two languages are equal, one to the other. One is in no way subordinate to the other, and there is no reason those who have difficulty with the English language should have to be content with documentation in English rather than in the language they find most familiar. I for one would protest most vigorously if the documentation relative to this bill were in French only, because my difficulty in reading French would delay me a good deal and I am sure I would not be finished reading the documentation until long after the bill had passed. I think hon. members who have protested have a legitimate protest. This is not a new situation which faces the government. I remember so well many such discussions when the Canada Pension Plan bill was before the house. I remember that when I first came to this house the sacred document of our procedure, Beauchesne, was available in English only and members who spoke the French language only had great difficulty in dealing with such matters.
I would say that if there are bills that are so urgent that they require immediate treatment

efforts should be made to see that urgent measures are invoked with respect to the translation of any proceedings thereon. While there may be 43 copies printed in French and 50 in English, there should be 50 copies printed in French and 50 in English. I think it is quite unfair to those who speak French to be constantly left as a sort of second string. French is not the second language of this house; it is one of two languages which are equal and in no way subordinate one to the other.
Since "task force" is now an operative phrase on the government side, I think they should get a task force to work in order to complete this translation. There is plenty of room for flexibility in government orders. We frequently have examples of this flexibility. Frequently we do not know from day to day which particular order is going to come before us. I suggest that on a matter of principle so important as the rights of each language the government should take the necessary steps, provide a task force and get the translation done. I suggest that in the meantime we take up another important measure- there are several before us-and stop this situation whereby when something important comes before us we are told: "It is too bad but the documentation in French is not completed; and because this is an important matter let us deal with it in this form and we will do better next time".
We have been promised these better efforts for many years. If the translation facilities are not adequate, it behooves the government to make sure that they are improved and that bilingualism in this house is a functional fact as well as a legal fact that is acknowledged and a principle that is established.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to bring a slight correction to what the minister said. We may not have received the 43rd part of the French version of the report, but I want to point out to the house that it is in the 43rd part that we find final consideration of Bill No. C-190, as pointed out by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). In fact, it is then that Mr. Rasminsky, governor of the Bank of Canada, was again questioned, .when several members took part in the discussion.
I would like to make another slight correction. My colleague the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) had moved an amendment which was rejected in committee
March 9, 1967

and there had been a debate on that amendment. Even though the substance of that evidence and the minutes of proceedings concerning that bill was replaced in the 41st part of the report, we evidently have an addendum in the 42nd part, and I think it is necessary to point out this correction.
Now, I do not know whether we should postpone consideration of Bill No. C-190 this afternoon until we have the translation of report No. 49. Why consider the Bank Act? In fact, our position would be even more difficult, since we have not yet received the complete proceedings in English, let alone in French? Therefore, I leave the problem with the government. The leader of the house must decide what we shall do. It is not for the hon. Minister of Finance to decide the speed of translation of the committee reports. I think the government has had sufficient notice to realize that this situation constituted a problem, even though we must admit that great progress has taken place.
At this point, I would like to point out a paragraph of the committee report, page 3, where nothing is said, of course, about translation unfortunately. In fact, this is what the committee says, on page 3 of the English version. I quote:

Your committee recommends that the supporting services for this and other standing committees be expanded to meet the volume of work presently being carried out by them, such expansion to include
(a) more prompt translation of briefs and proposed amendments-
It says nothing about reports of proceedings. I suppose in general these should be included, but it does not specifically spell out the translation of reports of proceedings. I think this is just by way of per incuriam and I am sure all members of the committee would want to have this recommendation applied to the translation of all documents. They are not included specifically, but surely they fall within the generality of this recommendation.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Edmonton West has brought to the attention of the house quite well the recommendation of the committee with regard to the improvement of supporting services. The fact that certain specific improvements were enumerated certainly does not, I think, preclude the argument being made that the general recommendation for expanding
Bank of Canada Act
the supporting services for the finance committee and other standing committees was intended to be carried out in such a way as to include translation. In fact, recommendation (b) refers to the faster printing of committee proceedings, and I think implicit in this recommendation would be the services for translation. The members of the finance committee at least are well aware of my own efforts to attempt to have this aspect of the printing of the proceedings carried out in a better way. Unfortunately this responsibility is not something that comes within the direct powers of chairmen of committees.
Since this matter has now been explored in detail in the house at this time I suggest that perhaps it would be suitable to dispose of it in the following way. The Minister of Finance is in charge of this particular legislation. He is a cabinet member of great prestige, if I may say so, and has great responsibility. Perhaps he will be able to say that he will use his influence and will work with the house leader and others to make sure that this problem is finally resolved.
I think an even more appropriate time to discuss this particular problem would be when the estimates pertaining to the services of the house are before us. Generally these estimates are disposed of without any particular discussion and debate. I am not saying this is necessarily wrong, but I believe this will be one occasion when, since the matter has been brought before us in this way, we might explore this aspect of the services of the house in greater depth, particularly with the attendance of the house leader who has some responsibility in this regard and who at that time or earlier might assure us that this type of problem will not continue to recur. This point having been made and as the existing legislation expires on April 1, while fully recognizing the principle of having publications completely available in both languages I suggest that we should not overlook our responsibility to all Canadians throughout our country, both French and English, and should now go on to dispose of this very important legislation.

The committee of the whole knows how hard I tried to create in the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs a bilingual atmosphere which, in my opinion, helped all members of the committee to do their work in a friendly and serious manner, in short according to the proper method for

March 9, 1967
Bank of Canada Act
a bilingual parliament in a country like Canada.
I am disappointed to see that in spite of all my own efforts to get the services of the house to operate in a more adequate manner and to improve the translation services, we are still without the full translation of all the committee proceedings as we are considering the bill. However, even those who like myself and other hon. members who spoke take a great interest in having fully bilingual services in this house must admit that we have a responsibility just as important toward all the people of Canada, English speaking as well as French speaking to study and pass, if they are adequate, the Bank of Canada Act and the Bank Act bills, because they are of capital importance to all Canadians. Should we find it impossible to conclude our consideration of those bills in committee of the whole before April 1, I feel that all hon. members who like myself are interested in promoting bilingualism in Canada will not be serving at all the interests of the people of Canada.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Gauthier:: Regarding this question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I also wish to join with my colleagues and other English speaking hon. members in urging the minister this afternoon to make a gesture which will be conducive to greater unity in this house.
One French speaking member said that the minister should not be blamed for everything. I bear the minister no malice, but I submit he must accept his responsibilities. Having decided to introduce this bill this afternoon, he knew very well he had to make sure that we had the necessary documents in order to discuss the bill.
Words are all very nice, Mr. Chairman; I have been here almost five years now and, on both sides of the house, whenever this question of bilingualism comes up, I hear only one word: "sorry, sorry". Well, today, we say the same in French: we too are very sorry.
Mr. Chairman, we have been the first to demand what the constitution already provides; we have been doing this for almost five years now. It is not a question of favouritism, nor is it a question of one French Canadian speaking better English than other. No, no. It is a matter of constitutional right. I wonder when both groups will finally understand the meaning of this and I cannot see why the minister had to bring this bill before the house today.
We are told that discussion has to be completed by April 1. Mr. Chairman, let me

point out to the hon. minister that there were exactly 12 months in the year 1966 and, since he knew that the bill had to be passed before April 1, 1967, the minister should have acted accordingly and brought the Bank of Canada Act before the house earlier, so that committee consideration might begin at an earlier date. Thus, he would not have to tell us, in a last minute rush: I have no alternative-


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me a question?

Is he aware that the bill now before us received first reading on May 30, 1966?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I am well aware of that, and it is precisely what I want to tell the minister. It should have been introduced in January; once more, enough time was not allowed, since we are caught again at the last minute. Something surely went wrong somewhere, since we face conditions which force us again to rush through the debate of a bill which is supposed to be of the utmost importance to Canada. Once more, we are confronted with a minister in the soup and we are told: The people will pay the toll; it must be done.
We are fed up with that. For four years now, we have heard such reasons, such excuses which are nothing more than excuses to us. The minister delayed amending the bill for two years now, if not three. Let him take the required time because, according to the amendments to the bill, I have a feeling it will not improve considerably our economic conditions in Canada.
I am merely telling the hon. minister to assume his responsibilities. If he is not ready, because of the documents, to present the bill to the two groups in the house, let him give the necessary instructions and wait till we are given the copies so that we can study the question in our own mother tongue and know what we are talking about when we express our views.
I therefore ask the hon. minister, without prejudice, to respect the constitution, to respect the two ethnic groups in the house, to put them on an equal footing with regard to the debate.


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Roberval.
March 9, 1967

Of course, this is indeed an unfortunate situation, but one must remember that out of the 50 days of committee sittings that we have had and which ended recently, proceedings of 43 meetings have been translated and printed to date, while the 44th issue is being printed today and should be sent to hon. members tomorrow.
Out of the six fascicules which have not been translated and printed, three, I think, are not directly related to the Bank of Canada Act nor to the Bank Act, since they deal with evidence given in the Coyne-Stevens case as well as the evidence in connection with the Deposit Insurance Corporation Act. This would mean that there are no more than three or four reports, at the most, relating to the Bank Act and to the the Bank of Canada that have not been translated; there are also three English reports which are not ready.
One must not forget that the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs in whose work members have had a hand held 109 sittings in 50 days of work, since the end of October. Of course, this is committee work as has never been seen before, and this is the committee which has had the most sittings of all those created here in the House of Commons. Members of the committee have raised that question several times, and all were in agreement to demand that the translation be done more rapidly. Now, thanks to the efforts of our chairman and of other people on our committee, we have been successful in improving the situation greatly. Right now, even if we are three or four behind, I feel that is quite an improvement. Three years ago, one did not even expect to get them until six months later sometimes, whereas now one gets them only a few days late. In my opinion, one must recognize that the government is of good faith, and particularly the translation service which, as far as this committee is concerned, did a tremendous job. Of course, the system is not perfect but it has been tremendously improved and I think that a lot would be gained if hon. members were reasonable under such circumstances.
I know it is unpleasant, and I am as frustrated as any other member of the house. On the other hand, I sincerely believe that we have accomplished great progress. The fact that we spent one hour or perhaps an hour and a quarter this afternoon discussing this problem will make the heads of that
23033-87H
Bank of Canada Act
service understand that we are really determined to find a solution. Their staff has been increased-I do not know by how much, but I believe it has tripled in the last two or three years-and when these new translators have acquired more experience, perhaps we will get a greater output.
As for now, I think it would be better to proceed without delay after making it clear that we will not tolerate such a situation indefinitely. We are honest enough to recognize the tremendous effort made, and I can assure the hon. member that we have pressed the translators every week to have the translation ready. I made every effort myself, but it was mostly the committee chairman. We are greatly disappointed.
On the other hand, because of the importance of this legislation and the work done by all committee members, and since we are all ready, at this time, to study that legislation, I think we could proceed without any prejudice to anyone. Under the circumstances, I do not think any members can complain, because the main evidence has been translated. I appreciate that the hon. member for Lapointe, (Mr. Gregoire) raised a very good point when he said that the last testimony of Mr. Rasminsky, which is recorded in fascicule No. 49, has not yet been translated unfortunately. On the other hand, one must admit that all relevant questions to the governor of the Bank of Canada were asked during many other sittings held previously. Under the circumstances, I do not think any member can complain that he has not received detailed information in his own language. And what is also most surprising, is that when the governor of the Bank of Canada was asked questions in French, he kindly answered in French.
There is also the fact that all those who have shown any interest in these debates have had the benefit of simultaneous translation. Truly, in the circumstances, we must admit that considerable efforts have been made in the last three or four years. In 1963, there was no simultaneous translation in the committees. But we have had it at every sitting of the committee.
In the circumstances, I think it would be reasonable to recognize the efforts that have been made. Obviously, the serious discussion that has taken place today in this matter is surely likely to improve this service which will gradually get better as the staff gains experience. To my mind, every effort has been

March 9, 1967
Bank of Canada Act
made to give adequate simultaneous translation service and we should recognize it in the present circumstances.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Edmund Davie Fulton: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the government has gotten itself into a hopeless situation here and I do not see how it is going to get out of it. There is no doubt that a matter of very fundamental importance, indeed a matter of principle, is involved. I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague the hon. member for Queens, who has pointed out to us that this is not a concession for which the members of the French tongue are asking. The proceedings before this parliament may be conducted in French or English. Those whose mother tongue is French have the right to have the proceedings to which we are referring and the documents with which we are dealing printed in their own language. I would further agree, Mr. Chairman, that were the situation reversed and the documentation was not available to me in the English language, I would be taking the position that my colleagues who speak the French language are taking, when they say that we should not be asked to proceed with the matter now before us until the French translations are available.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Is he aware that there are three English reports which are not yet printed?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am aware of that. I will take the minister's and the parliamentary secretary's word for that, but I submit that this makes my case even stronger and that the government's sloppiness has put it into an inextricable position. We are here asked to deal with important legislation when some of the committee proceedings have not been printed at all and ten sessions have not been translated into French. If the governments are anxious, as they are to get on with the consideration of this legislation, then are they incapable of addressing their minds to the importance of having these committee proceedings translated into French?


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Would he not agree that it was the inability, the failure, of the former government to deal with this question that caused some of the difficulty we now are facing? The translation staff has increased about threefold since the present government has been in office.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I certainly do not agree, Mr. Chairman. In fact, this only emphasizes the inadequacy and the impotence of the present government. Five years ago a situation arose of which the house leader said he had notice. This government have been in office for three and a half years but have still been unable to deal with the situation of which they had notice. The hon. gentleman is now trying to shift the responsibility to the former government.


George James McIlraith: I was really trying to correct-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the house leader really trying to suggest that because there was an incident five years ago when a document was not translated that gives this government an excuse for not having taken action to correct the situation?


George James McIlraith: I am trying to correct the wrong impression that is being created by the hon. gentleman.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is obvious to me, Mr. Chairman, that what the hon. member is trying to do is to make a political point which does not apply.
Getting back to the question of principle involved here and away from the partisan political attitude of the house leader, I reiterate that proceedings in this chamber may be conducted in either French or English. The proceedings before the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, which are important to the consideration of the bill before us, are not available in the French language. Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 49, the report containing the evidence of Mr. Rasminsky, the governor of the Bank of Canada, in connection with the Bank of Canada Act is one of the volumes which has not been translated and made available in French. Yet the evidence of the governor of the Bank of Canada dealt with a very important point in connection with the Bank of Canada Act, a point which is bound to come up for discussion in the consideration of the bill in this committee. That point has to do with the cash reserves which the chartered banks are required to maintain with the Bank of Canada as well, amongst other things, as the question whether or not the Bank of Canada should pay interest on any portion of those reserves. That, Mr. Chairman, is a difficult, complicated and important point which is bound to come up for consideration in this committee at this time.
March 9. 1987

Therefore my position is that if my colleagues of the French tongue say seriously that they find themselves in the position where they are unable to deal as they wish with the points that are before us because of the lack of a French translation of the proceedings, then I think they have established a case that we are bound to support, and I submit that we cannot proceed with our consideration until these reports are made available.
I recognize the dilemma in which the government find themselves, but surely the government of Canada are not so impotent-and I say this seriously and not entirely sarcastically-that they cannot correct the situation. The Minister of Public Works-the house leader-the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Finance, the Postmaster General and the Associate Minister of National Defence are all men, I am sure they would feel, of ability and energy, able to get things done. They and their colleagues collectively are able to carry on the government of Canada, if one were to take their word for it.
Are we to believe, Mr. Chairman, that these capable and energetic gentlemen cannot, if they address their minds to it, have these translations produced, overnight? If they gave the instruction, "Look, we need to deal with this bill without further delay so get going on the translation and printing of the French version of the reports", are we to understand that this cannot be done by tomorrow morning? If that is what hon. gentlemen are inviting us to assume, then I say in all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, and more in sorrow than in anger, that it demonstrates perfectly the incapacity of this collection of ministers to carry on the government of Canada.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I do not know when last I listened to remarks more calculated to create a wrong impression about what is a difficult situation of great concern to this committee and to the House of Commons. The facts are these. The use of committees in the parliamentary procedures of this parliament has increased very sharply in this session. It increased by many times over the use made of them in former sessions. For example, there were 13 committees dealing with estimates alone. In no session in the past has the volume of committee work been anything more than a fraction of what it has been during this session.
Bank of Canada Act
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
To meet that situation, steps were taken to provide simultaneous interpretation in the committees. In this way, there would be a full appreciation of the right to use both languages without embarrassment to anyone. In spite of the difficulties in acquiring a sufficient number of skilled personnel, and thanks to the outstanding services of the personnel we were able to obtain, the system has worked well. Simultaneous translation was provided in all the committees and committee reports have been provided in the two languages. When the hon. member speaks about proceedings of the house, I must say we are not concerned now with the proceedings of the house, but rather with the printing of the evidence of a standing committee.
The situation in that respect has changed over the years. It has changed substantially. The former practice was to print the evidence of only some committees while other committees did not print any of the evidence of their hearings At the moment the practice is to print the evidence of all committees, with the possible exception of one or two. One exception is the special committee dealing with procedure. The other exception is a committee which does not meet very often, the committee on standing orders.
There has been a sharp change then in this regard, and there has been a sharp increase in the use of committees as an aid to this house in the performance of its duties. The demand that has been created has been difficult to meet. I regret that I must tell the committee that our educational system in this country has not been producing the volume of trained personnel necessary for this kind of work. The government has done everything in its power to get them-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has it?


George James McIlraith: I am sorry to contradict the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but the government has given a great deal of attention to this subject, as he well knows.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of personal privilege. I was referring to the minister's statement that the government had done everything about education. That was the remark to which I was taking objection.


George James McIlraith: I made no reference to doing anything about education. I said we had done everything we could to obtain translators.


Colin Cameron: Oh, no.

March 9, 1967
Bank of Canada Act


George James McIlraith: Yes, and the record will speak for itself.


Colin Cameron: If it is not changed, yes.


George James McIlraith: It will not be changed. I am not like the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, so the record will not be changed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Mr. Fulion:: May I ask the minister to explain this fact? As a result of a recent tragic event this house has been adjourned for three or four days during which time there were no proceedings to be printed or translated. When the government knew this legislation was coming up as the first matter today why did they not give the necessary instructions to make arrangements to have this particular translating and printing done so the record would be available?


George James McIlraith: My answer is that I do not know. I did not check that administrative aspect, so I do not know what the explanation is. I do know something of the burden that has been put on these translators. There simply are not enough of them.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a question?


George James McIlraith: In a moment. We have used every means possible to acquire a sufficient number of translators to do this job in a reasonable time. It is quite unrealistic, by the way, to expect that it could be done overnight.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask the minister a question?


Colin Cameron: May I ask the minister a question?


George James McIlraith: If there could be some order-


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order. Hon. gentlemen must realize this should be a quiet debate. There is a matter of principle involved. If the minister wants to answer questions, he will do so. I do not see why the debate should develop any heat.


George James McIlraith: The situation is that we have made every effort possible to get a sufficient number of translators to translate the
[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) .1
proceedings. However, it has not been possible to get them. We have used a great many different methods to try to meet the situation. I hope it can be corrected reasonably soon. I am confident that it can. I am appreciative of the fact that the problem came upon us very suddenly when we changed the practice of the house and sent so much work to committees. I, for one, am fully appreciative of the desirability of having committee proceedings printed in both languages, although I do question the wisdom of all the committees ordering the printing of their evidence. This is a new practice which I think has been adopted without sufficient consideration.
In so far as the situation today is concerned-perhaps before I deal with it I should take a question from the hon. member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: My question is the following: As the minister is aware, in 1964 when the pension plan was started the same problem arose but we were provided with 24 fascicules of the proceedings in less than 24 hours. Would the minister say, as the hon. member for Kamloops asked a few minutes ago, if he could take responsibility for producing seven or eight fascicules for tomorrow morning? As I said, the Secretary of State at that time succeeded in producing 24 fascicules in less than 24 hours, so could the minister do that for tomorrow?


George James McIlraith: I cannot give the hon. member an answer concerning the proceedings in 1964. However, speaking from recollection and without having any direct knowledge of the matter, I believe the difficulty at that time was in connection with printing and not translation. This is the difference.
In any case, in order to get the evidence I will undertake to ask the appropriate officer to find out what can be done about getting it at the earliest possible moment. Unfortunately some of the printers were off duty yesterday, as were members of this house. These things do eat into the time available. In any event, in order to ascertain what can be done about this matter and how to do it I suggest that we should rise, report progress and then proceed to a consideration of items 135, 86 and 119 on today's order paper but not necessarily in that order. I should like to hear a discussion of that suggestion.


Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne):: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) if he would permit me a question.
March 9, 1987	COMMONS


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The hon. member for Kamloops said a while ago he was supporting the statement made by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean). Here is what the hon. member for Queens said: Parliament is bilingual but Canada is not a bilingual country. Does he agree with that statement?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the hon. member can relate this question to the present discussion, I shall give him an answer.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I wish to make something clear as concerns the statement made a while ago by the hon. member for Saint-Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) and I also wish to caution the leader of the house to the effect that we have never asked to bring pressure on the translators or incite them to give us the committee reports more quickly. What we want is sufficient staff and equipment, so that we can get those reports. And we think it inhuman to press or prod the civil servants, calling for more work than they are able to do normally.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Colin Cameron: I wonder whether the leader of the house would answer a question I wanted to ask him earlier, one which perhaps he did not wish to be asked?


George James McIlraith: No, I would be glad to answer it.


Colin Cameron: Is the minister aware that in the last year we have lost several members of the translation and interpretation service of this house because of dissatisfaction with the conditions imposed by this government? If he intends to look into this question will he look into the reasons for their resigning to go into private practice?


George James McIlraith: Yes, I will be very glad to do so. I have considerable knowledge of this matter. There is only one error in what the hon. member said. That was the phrase "due to conditions imposed by the government". If he had left out "the government" and associated himself and the members of his party more closely with his complaint, his statement would have been more accurate.


Colin Cameron: What is the minister inferring? Is he
Bank of Canada Act
telling us that the government is no longer responsible? Is he giving us to understand that this is the case? We have accepted it for quite a while. Whose responsibility is it?


George James McIlraith: I do not know whether I should try to enlighten the overheated hon. member. Technically, this work is the responsibility of the Clerk of the House of Commons under the direction of the Speaker.


Colin Cameron: The translation bureau is not. It comes under the control of the Secretary of State. If the leader of the house does not know that, he should find out these things before-


George James McIlraith: It is presently being undertaken by the bureau of translation of the Secretary of State so as to avoid adding personnel directly to the House of Commons staff since it was thought-and the record achieved has proven this to be correct-that the method now in effect is much the better way of doing things. The bureau of translation is, of course, a government agency and a direct responsibility of the government.


Colin Cameron: Then the government is responsible.


George James McIlraith: No. That is the wrong way of stating it. In any event, I do not think this is relevant to the question before us. It is a difficult question and one which deserves attention. Perhaps the hon. member could inject less heat into the debate and shed more light.


Colin Cameron: We can get no light from you.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to conclude my remarks on this subject by making a suggestion to the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith).
He mentioned, quite rightly, that the government has difficulty in obtaining enough interpreters to meet the needs of the house and the parliamentary committees. I think the government should increasingly consider raising the salaries of interpreters. During the present session, the salary of judges has been raised from $21,000 to $26,000. In another session, the salary of members of parliament was raised to $18,000. If we wish to have as interpreters extremely qualified persons or encourage people to specialize in this field-the difficulty in recruiting interpreters is not new, for the situation has been with
13786	COMMONS
Equalization Payments to Provinces us for many years, here, in Ottawa-I suggest that we should offer exceptional salaries, very high salaries, so that in the house and in the parliamentary committees, we might have a greater number of interpreters and we might even get a greater number of Canadians interested in specializing and offering their services and even leaving private enterprise or other private organizations, to devote themselves to interpretation in the House of Commons.
Mr. Chairman, we did not want this afternoon to criticize at all the work of the interpreters; on the contrary, they do an excellent job and I want to congratulate them for their eagerness and their devotion to their work. But they are not numerous enough and I hope that very soon, since salary increases in all areas seem to be the trend, the government will not hesitate to grant substantial increases to our interpreters.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
I note that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith), government leader in the house, has just suggested that we proceed to the consideration of other government business.
I am one of those who wondered this afternoon at the great efforts made by everyone to guard against emotion and excitement Which prevent mutual understanding.
I would like to suggest, if I am in order, that we accept the suggestion of the minister to proceed to another item; the minister will have the opportunity tomorrow to ascertain to what extent he can satisfy our complaints and we will then decide whether or not we are in a position to accept.

Progress reported.



FINANCE


Mitchell William Sharp: moved the second reading of Bill No. C-277, to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, to authorize the entry into tax collection agreements with provinces, and to amend the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act.
He said; Mr. Speaker, in opening the debate on second reading of this bill it might be useful if I were to say a few more words of

DEBATES	March 9, 1967
explanation to enable hon. members to have a better understanding of what is proposed and how it compares with present arrangements which will expire at the end of the month.
First, on the joint use of tax fields. Parliament is being asked to increase the general abatement of the federal individual income tax from 24 to 28 percentage points and the abatement of the corporation income tax from 9 to 10 per cent of corporate profits. As I explained when moving the resolution preceding this bill, this action is proposed to enable the provincial governments to make corresponding increases in their income taxes to help meet the rising costs of higher education. Parliament is also being asked to continue the present arrangements under which the provinces receive the equivalent of 75 per cent of the yield of the federal estate tax and to extend for two more years the agreements we have with nine provinces under which the federal government collects on their behalf the income taxes they impose. Thus the change in the arrangements concerning the division of tax fields is the reduction of the federal personal income tax by four percentage points and the reduction of the federal corporation income tax by one per cent of corporate profits. If the provinces ultimately were to accept the federal offer in respect of the continuing and well-established health and welfare shared-cost programs, the general abatement of the federal personal income tax would be further increased to 5 percentage points.
Second, a fundamental reform of the equalization arrangements is being proposed. Under existing arrangements the per capita yields of the personal and corporation income taxes and the estate tax at standard rates of taxation are equalized to the level of the top two provinces and then a deduction is made in the case of provinces whose natural resources revenues are above average. In addition, special grants, the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants, are paid to the four Atlantic provinces. These grants were originally paid in amounts equal to an approximation of the amount required to equalize the yield, at national average rates, from all provincial-municipal revenue sources other than those already included in the general equalization formula, up to 85 per cent of the national average.
* (5:10 p.m.)
The equalization formula proposed in this bill differs from the existing arrangements
March 9, 1967	COMMONS
in three important respects. First, it is based on a comprehensive index of the relative fiscal capacities of the provinces and takes all provincial revenues into account. Second, it is sensitive to the revenue requirements of the provinces taken together and to changes in the relative tax capacity of the individual provinces. Third it takes into account objective factors only; transitional problems are dealt with in special transitional arrangements.
If hon. members will refer to the two tables which were placed in Hansard of March 2, pages 13684 to 13687, it will be observed that for purposes of calculating equalization payments provincial revenues have been grouped into 16 classes. As indicated in Table 1, pages 13684 and 13685, the tax or revenue base for each class of revenue is identified and determined for each province and for all the provinces together. Having determined the revenue base for each revenue source, the amount of revenue derived from each source by all provinces is determined. The total of provincial revenues for each revenue source is then applied to the total appropriate revenue base to determine the national average provincial revenue rate for each source.
In brief, the average provincial "tax rate" for corporation income tax, the average provincial tax per gallon for gasoline, the average provincial sales tax rate, etc., is determined, and this average provincial tax rate is applied to the appropriate revenue base in each province to calculate the revenue each province would derive from its own revenue base at this provincial average tax rate. The total potential revenue available to each province from all provincial sources, at average provincial tax rates, is then converted into per capita terms for comparative purposes.
If the total potential per capita revenue for a province is below the per capita total for all provinces, that province will be entitled to an equalization payment equal to the difference. The total payment, as indicated in line 8(b) of Table II, pages 13686 and 13687 of Hansard, will be the product of the per capita deficiency multiplied by the population of the province.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that I am describing this like the announcer on the radio in the morning who is trying to convince us that the simplified tax forms are indeed very simple. However, I think it will be better understood on reading than on listening.
Equalization Payments to Provinces
On applying this formula to provincial data it was found that six provinces would be entitled to equalization and four provinces, Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, would not. To enable the province of Saskatchewan, which will receive equalization grants amounting to about $33 million in 1966-67, to make an orderly transition to its new status, provision is made to phase out Saskatchewan's current equalization entitlement over the five-year life of the new arrangements.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: I think the hon. member
for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) will understand how embarrassing it is to be the premier of a prosperous province. He was never faced with this dilemma but I am sure his sympathies will go out to Premier Thatcher and the dilemma in which he finds himself of now being one of the "have" provinces.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I sympathize with him having to deal with such a Scrooge of a minister of finance.


Mitchell William Sharp: The bill also includes a special guarantee for the Atlantic provinces. It provides that no Atlantic province shall receive less under the new formula than the amount it received in total in the present and last year of the existing arrangements plus an amount equal to its 1966-67 share of the Atlantic provinces adjustment grant, that is, $3.5 million in the case of Prince Edward Island and $10.5 million in the case of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. These guarantees are reflected in line 9 of the table on page 13687 of Hansard for March 2.
I have had a table prepared which compares the estimated payments to the provinces in 1967-68 under the equalization formula provided for in this bill with the estimated payments this year under the current arrangements, and with the permission of the house I would be pleased to have this table placed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the minister shall have leave to table certain documents which will be part of Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to is as follows: ]
13788	COMMONS DEBATES	March 9, 1967
Equalization Payments to Provinces
Comparison of Estimated Equalization Payments to the Provinces in 1966-67 Under the Present Arrangements with Estimates of Payments for 1967-68 Under the Proposed Arrangements
(Millions of Dollars)
Provinces	Total Payment	Per Capita Payments	Present Arrangements	Proposed Arrangements	Change	Present Arrangements	Proposed Arrangements	Change1966-67<'>	1967-680)	1966-670)	1967-680	Newfoundland	.. 37.7	66.9	+ 29.2	74.65	129.90	+55.25Prince Edward Island.	.. 10.6	14.1	+ 3.5	97.24	127.02	+29.78Nova Scotia	.. 50.2	73.4	+ 23.2	66.05	95.57	+29.52New Brunswick	.. 44.7	64.8	+ 20.1	71.29	102.20	+30.91Quebec	. 150.4	260.2	4-109.8	26.18	44.39	+ 18.21Ontario	-	-	-	-	-	-Manitoba	.. 27.7	29.5	+ 1.8	28.91	30.38	+ 1.47Saskatchewan	,. 33.0	26.4	- 6.6	34.59	27.35	- 7.24Alberta	-	-	-	-	-	-British Columbia	* [DOT] -	-	-	-	-	-Total	.. 354.3	535.3	+181.0	-	-	-
0) The amounts shown for present arrangements include the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants.
0>
The amounts shown do not include equalization associated with the revenue, in each province, estimated to be derived from the additional 4 percentage points of personal income tax and 1 percentage point of corporate profits being transferred to the provinces under the new post-secondary education arrangements.
March 7, 1967.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can the minister present any figures projecting what the revenues will be over the lifetime of the agreement?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot. That depends both upon the rates of provincial taxes and the revenues that are actually raised in a province and the revenues raised by all provinces. The difference between this formula and any other is that it is much more comprehensive and completely automatic in its operation, and I believe is a very considerable improvement over anything we have had previously.
I do not believe I need add to what I said earlier in the house about the provisions of this bill for stabilizing provincial revenues. Nor do I need to add to what my colleague, the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), has said concerning the proposed arrangements in respect of post-secondary education.
I would like only to say a word about the value to the provinces of the whole of the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements being
proposed and their relationship to the fiscal circumstances facing both levels of government in our country. As a result of the arrangements provided for in this fiscal arrangements bill and in the income tax bill, and as a result of the extension of capital assistance for technical and vocational training provided for in Bill No. C-278, the provinces will receive next fiscal year, either in the form of cash payments or additional tax transfers, a total amount estimated at over $1 billion. This is' approximately $375 million more than the provinces will get this year under existing arrangements. With the permission of the house I would like to place in Hansard a table which compares estimated payments to each province in 1966-67 under the existing arrangements with estimates for 1967-68 under the proposed arrangements.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
lEditor's note: The table above referred to is as follows:]

March 9, 1967

Equalization Payments to Provinces
Comparison of Estimated Fiscal Transfers to the Provinces Under the Present Fiscal Arrangements in 1966-67 and Under the Proposed Fiscal Arrangements for 1967-68 (S Millions)
Present Arrangements-1966-67 (Estimates)
Provinces	Equalization Payments including Atlantic Provinces Adjust. Grant	University Grants at $5 Per Capita Adjusted	Technical and Vocational Training Operating and Capital	TOTAL	TOTAL Per Capita (Dollars)a)	(id	(III)C*	(IV) = (I+II+III)	Newfoundland	
37.7	2.2	1.1	41.0	81.2Prince Edward Island	
10.6	0.6	0.2	11.4	104.6Nova Scotia	
50.2	5.1	4.1	59.4	78.1New Brunswick	
44.7	4.0	3.4	52.1	83.1Quebec	
150.4	28.9	68.3	247.6	43.1Ontario	-	33.4	63.7	97.1	14.1Manitoba	5.1	4.8	37.6	39.2Saskatchewan	
33.0	4.5	4.5	42.0	44.0Alberta	-	7.0	7.3	14.3	9.8British Columbia	
-	8.9	12.9	21.8	11.7Total	
354.3	99.7	170.3	624.3	31.4Provinces	Proposed Arrangements-1967-68 (Estimates)	Equalization Payments	Fiscal Transfer in respect of Post-Sec. Education	Extension of Capital Assist, for Tech, and Vocational Training	TOTAL	TOTAL Per Capita (Dollars)a)	(ii)	an)	(IV) = (I+II+III)	Newfoundland	.... 66.9	7.7	0.8	75.4	146.4Prince Edward Island	.... 14.1	1.7	0.8	16.6	149.5Nova Scotia	.... 73.4	13.7	6.0	93.1	121.2New Brunswick	.... 64.8	9.5	2.0	76.3	120.3Quebec	.... 260.2	106.0	45.0	411.2	70.1Ontario	-	112.7	40.0	152.7	21.7Manitoba	.... 29.5	17.8	5.0	52.3	53.9Saskatchewan	.... 26.4	15.6	7.0	49.0	50.8Alberta	-	30.3	7.0	37.3	24.9British Columbia	30.6	8.0	38.6	20.3Total	.... 535.3	345.6	121.6	1,002.5	49.5
O'Does not include adult operating or capital expenditures under Technical and Vocational Training Agreements.
March 7.1967


David Lewis: What is the difference between the two tables?


Mitchell William Sharp: 
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated in the course of his remarks that the found the formula he was trying to explain much like the new simplified tax form that we have to fill out. I think he is minimizing the difficulties facing hon. members generally in respect of really analysing the bill to see who is to gain and to assess the value of the government's proposal. We recall that last autumn at the dominion-provincial conference there was a tremendous uproar from the representatives of the provinces because they felt that the proposal then put forward by the federal government was not even understood by the representatives of the federal government. Since that time the Minister of Finance (Mr. 
DEBATES	March 9. 1967
Sharp) and his staff have had an opportunity to really study all the implications, as have the provinces.
At the outset I must say I find it rather singular that last autumn the provinces cried to high heaven that they were being maltreated. There was a great performance all around. As a matter of fact, there were real histrionics. Since then, however, there has been a deadly silence. Although the bill has been published since March 3 we have not heard much, if anything at all, from the provinces concerning its effect. True enough, there is one, I suppose, who might be deemed to have benefited from the objectives he raised in view of the provision in clause 9 of the bill with regard to Saskatchewan transitional payments. I am wondering whether we should call it "Thatcher's Soothing Syrup". It does provide for some easing of the change with regard to Saskatchewan. I do not know whether this is an attempt to try to blight the cause of the premier of that province who seems to delight in raking the backs of his colleagues in Ottawa from time to time. I am not going to go into, shall we say, the period of transition in his political philosophies from when he sat with hon. members on the left to the position he now occupies where he seems to be in the Liberal right.
Some years ago at the time we went through a mammoth exercise when the minister's predecessor was in office we had presented to us with a great fanfare of trumpets, as though it was really the epitome of co-operative federalism, a bill called the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act. I remember that the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) and I characterized that bill as the smallest mouse the mountain had ever produced in its most difficult labours, because it did nothing. Lo and behold, it does nothing again today. All it does is confer on one province an extension of the famous opting out formula in part. Mind you, when we consider the bill clause by clause in detail I think the minister had better explain just what it all means and whether it is limited or applies to all joint programs. In essence, however, it does indicate that it applies to any program commencing after September 30, 1967. We will get around to that.
As I said, I still think that earlier legislation was the biggest fraud perpetrated on the Canadian public as being a new formula for granting the provinces fiscal rights. Under that act they had no more rights than they
March 9, 19S7
ever had in so far as these particular programs were concerned. They were still tied to the agreements and are now still tied to the joint program agreements. There are no relaxations at all. The only thing is that the one province, the province of Quebec, which has availed itself of the provisions may feel it is getting squatters' rights with regard to certain tax revenues. That, of course, will be something for the future to decide. I am trusting that there will be some amicable form of arrangement, because if there is not there will be a cataclysmic collision between the two governmental authorities and we will be in for a difficult time. If such is to be our fate, we may just be postponing the evil day. I trust that this will not be the case and that we will be able to work it out.
I agree that there is to be some sort of reallocation of the sources of funds between the federal government and the provinces. Just what the formula is is hard to define. It is worthy of note that the provinces and their municipalities now spend far more money than the federal government. Obviously this bill is the incarnation into a statute of a principle that was enunciated back in 1961 when the prior dominion-provincial agreement was negotiated, that is, if the provinces want to spend money, then let them tax for it. I think this is a sound and fundamental principle and I agree with it. Those provinces which wish to carry on at a higher level than some of their counterparts in the remainder of Canada can legislate and face up to the realities of imposing the taxes for the money they wish to spend. They have this right. The then minister of finance and the government were severely criticized for imposing this upon the provinces but, as I say, like Paul on the way to Tarsus the present administration became converted to this fact and now really is putting it into force with a vengeance.
One question on which the minister did not touch has to do with clause 5. This will be my only reference to that clause. It deals with the basic estate tax, its definition and what happens to succession duties. I should like to hear what the minister has to say about the proposal contained in the statute introduced for first reading in the legislature of the province of Alberta the other day in which power is given to the province to repay-this is a novel way to do it-to the administrators, trustees, or successors of an estate up to 75 per cent of the estate tax that has been paid. Presumably this is an initial step to create Alberta as an estate tax haven.
Equalization Payments to Provinces
How will this affect this particular agreement? How will it affect the relationship with the other provinces? As a matter of fact, I think the province of British Columbia has similar legislation before its legislature. Perhaps it is not exactly the same in detail but it has the same aim. We will find, of course, that a number of other provinces will follow this example. How is this going to affect these agreements? After all, the agreement is for five years. Much can happen in that time in relation to succession duties, and the balance of payments to provinces may be completely upset. What then will be the result?
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
In concluding my remarks on second reading I should like to protest once more against what I think is a fundamental error in the determination of revenue source. I made this protest at the time of the passing of the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act. I have specific reference to federal-provincial fiscal arrangements in relation to the determination of what moneys obtained by the provinces from the sale of crown leases and reserves on oil and natural gas lands shall be deemed to be revenue. This is fundamentally wrong because the sale of crown leases and reserves is in effect the alienation of capital assets.
It is true that revenue can come from royalties but the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan have objected strenuously to the oil and gas revenue feature being incorporated in the formula in earlier years. I remember that the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) also objected very strongly. The principles behind our arguments at that time apply equally today. I cannot for the life of me see why something which is in essence the sale of an asset should be considered revenue. In that event one might say that in a certain regard the province of Alberta would be acting like the prodigal son. I think a fundamental mistake has been made in this regard because of the budgeting philosophy of the province of Alberta which has always considered the proceeds from the sale of leases and reserves on oil and natural gas lands in the same way Saskatchewan considers the sale of leases on phosphates. If these were bonus considerations, that would be one thing, but these are sales of capital assets and it is fundamentally wrong to incorporate them in any revenue picture. This would be a method of financing

13792	COMMONS
Equalization Payments to Provinces a spendthrift or a person going into bankruptcy. One must believe that one could live off the proceeds of the disposal of capital assets.
Certainly this whole question involves millions and millions of dollars for the province of Alberta and has involved a great deal each year for the past ten years. This has altered the revenues of that province. I cannot understand why the proceeds from the sale of crown leases and reserves on oil and natural gas lands should be included as a revenue source.
I trust that other members of the house will express their views on this point and I hope the minister will give us a detailed explanation of why this is being done. It is my suggestion to the minister that this is working an injustice on the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and to some extent British Columbia. I do agree that royalties should be considered as revenue because they are obtained over a period of years but I cannot understand the inclusion of bonus considerations on auction sales of crown leases and reserves. I hope we will be given some explanation.
In respect of this bill we are again faced with the five minute to midnight situation. We are being asked to pass this bill because the present agreement expires on March 31. A conference was held in this regard in September and I wonder why the bill was not introduced long before now in order that we could carry out a thorough study of it. The adoption of this bill will determine for several years the division of revenues between the federal government and the provinces, and I think it is almost contemptuous of parliament to ask us to pass it at this late stage. Had it not been for the accidental rising and reporting of progress of the committee in respect of Bill C-190 we would not now be dealing with this bill. Probably we would not have dealt with it until much later this month after we had considered the Bank Act.
I cannot let this opportunity pass without vehemently protesting against the comtempti-ble attitude the government has shown toward parliament. This action embellishes the image of this minister vis-a-vis that of one of his colleagues who wants one uniform and one rank structure. In my opinion this measure is far more important than Bill C-243. With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I wish now to let others indicate how dissatisfied we are with the timing of this measure and some of its features.


Mitchell William Sharp: Do not prejudice the discussion.

DEBATES	March 9. 1967


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that this bill has been brought on suddenly before we have had an opportunity to study it in detail. The resolution preceding the bill was only passed the other day and there are a great many details we need before making a complete assessment of the bill. It was my hope that we would be given a more detailed statement by the ministers concerned than we have been given today. Perhaps after we look at the two tables the minister put on the record we may get some further information.
Having regard to the bill before us and the statement of the minister let me raise several objections. The first is that the new equalization formula will equalize grants to provinces to the level of the national average whereas in the past they were equalized to the average of the two top provinces.


Mitchell William Sharp: In respect of two sources of tax.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, in respect of two
sources of taxes. But many of us have argued for a long time that they ought to be equalized to the top province. However, we have settled for an average of the two top provinces. The minister now intends to base the equalization payment on the national average. This will destroy much of the value we estimated would result from the equalization formula.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Let me remind the house that if one reads the Rowell-Sirois report one finds that its whole concept, was that the federal government should collect the three main taxes, income tax, corporation tax and succession duties, and that this pool of tax revenue ought to be divided, after the federal government had taken out its share, among the provinces on the basis of need. This was the fundamental concept. The concept of that report was that payments should be made to the provinces in order to bring them up to a level of services for education, health and welfare that would make for uniformity across Canada. The concept of the Rowell-Sirois report was that a Canadian, irrespective of the geographic area in which he or she might live, was entitled to a certain standard of health, welfare and educational services commensurate with the level of services enjoyed by Canadians in other parts of the country.
Successive governments, of course, have never lived up to this principle of need. What we have done instead is to work out an
March 9, 1967	COMMONS
equalization formula designed to mitigate the worst discrepancies that obtain between the various regions of Canada. I submit that the equalization formula now before the house is certainly not going to eliminate the existing regional disparities. The minister says, of course, that the total amount for equalization grants is larger. That is true; it is higher in total by some $140 million. But I would point out that in connection with the $494 million in equalization payments one province will receive almost half, namely, $235,282,000. I am not complaining about that but it will do little to remove the disparity that exists in some of the other provinces. When one sees that the province of Newfoundland will receive $59.8 million, Prince Edward Island $14 million, Nova Scotia $69 million, New Brunswick $60 million and Manitoba $29 million, one realizes that this formula will do little to enable the people in the have-not provinces to enjoy the same level of services that is enjoyed by people in other parts of the country.
I understand it is the intention to eliminate the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants. If those grant are eliminated, of course, the special consideration which was being given to the Atlantic provinces will be removed. I am fearful that the minister is thinking purely in financial and budgetary terms and has lost sight of the original principle of equalization which was to eliminate as far as possible the discrepancies which obtain between the revenue of some parts of Canada and others and their ability to provide their people with adequate services.
I noticed that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said that the provinces should impose the taxes for the money which they want to spend. This, I take it, is the principle upon which the minister is proceeding. That seems logical in theory. The fact is that there are provinces in Canada which do not have the tax base from which revenue can be derived. There are provinces in Canada that, no matter what taxes they impose, cannot possibly of their own accord give to their people a level of services that would in any way be related to the services provided in the wealthier provinces. The whole purpose of equalization was to recognize this fact, to recognize that much of the money collected by the federal government is collected from corporations which are located in certain provinces but make their money in other parts of Canada, and that the money,
Equalization Payments to Provinces although it is collected in the wealthier provinces, is not all earned in those wealthier provinces but is earned as a result of the effort of all the people of Canada and by doing business in every part of Canada.
I am fearful that the reducing of the equalization formula to the national average is moving in the wrong direction. For a while it was based on the national average. The provinces felt it was a significant gain to be able to get equalization to the two top provinces, and we hoped that eventually we would get equalization to the top province and thus we would bring the other provinces up to the level of the highest income province in Canada. Now we are taking a retrograde step and going back to the national average.
My second objection to this legislation is that it completely ignores municipal revenue. I think that the government in its equalization formula would have been wiser to have stayed with even the three original sources of revenue that were in the agreement preceding the one now in existence. But if the government is going to take into account all forms of provincial revenue it ought to go one step further and include municipal revenue, because there is a wide variation among the provinces in the division of responsibilities between the respective provinces and their municipalities. Some provinces spend more money to help their municipalities and their school boards, and provide services which in other provinces have to be supplied to a greater extent by the municipalities. I feel that the government has ignored this factor completely, which will further accentuate the discrepancies that are bound to occur between provinces.
My third objection to this legislation is that it is concentrated solely on the revenue side of the equation and takes no account of the variations in the cost of providing services in different parts of Canada. The cost of providing services in some parts of Canada is considerably higher than in other parts of this country. I think the minister, in basing an equalization formula solely on the total average tax yields across Canada, has overlooked this important point.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
My fourth objection has to do with the desirability of including all forms of provincial revenue in computing equalization grants. I remind the house that originally equalization was based on the revenues which a province received from three fields of taxation, namely, income tax, corporation tax and succession duties. In arguing the case when
13794	COMMONS DEBATES	March 9, 1967
Equalization Payments to Provinces
the present formula was introduced I for one opposed including revenue from resource development, and I am still opposed to it. I am opposed to including it for two reasons. First, as has already been pointed out, revenue from resource development is a declining asset; it is not a recurring revenue. It is revenue from oil, from minerals of various kinds and from timber, much of which is not renewed. Timber if properly managed can be renewable, but oil, gas and minerals are not renewable assets and as they are used up the revenue will decline. To use this as one of the factors in determining equalization payments seems to me to be most unfair.
The other reason why I do not think revenue from resource development should be included is that the minister is taking into consideration the gross revenue. If a province succeeds in getting revenue from oil, potash, sodium sulphate, copper, lead, zinc, coal or any of the minerals that are mined in a province, that province must spend very large sums of money to bring about that development. It must spend money on geophysical surveys, on exploratory work and on building roads into these areas. Therefore if the minister must include the revenues from resource development in computing the equalization formula, surely it should at least be a net figure and not a gross figure. The result of including not only resource development revenue but all revenue for the province and taking the national average means that we are getting what I think will be a very unfair distribution of revenue to the provinces and I think it will create a great many anomalies and discrepancies.
The minister has mentioned the province of Saskatchewan. He said he is very pleased that Saskatchewan is a "have" province. If he took the trouble to look at the figures he would find that Saskatchewan has been a "have" province for a great many years. Saskatchewan's per capita income has been above the national average for a long time. He would also find that the resource revenue which is coming in now is coming in from potash mines and oil wells most of which were established prior to 1964. So the situation which faces Saskatchewan today is not much different from what it was when the present agreement was signed. The only difference is that, first of all, resource development is now being included, whereas in previous agreements prior to the one now in effect resource development was not included, and I do not think it should be. Second,

while Saskatchewan's resource revenue is increasing as potash mines come into production, no account is taken of the fact that the province of Saskatchewan has had to spend very large sums of money in order to get this revenue.
The minister is going to give to Saskatchewan and also to Prince Edward Island, if I remember correctly, a sort of guaranteed equalization grant which will help them to phase out this situation. However, I do not think that is the answer. The fact that Saskatchewan is going to get some $8 million less out of this formula than it got out of previous formulae is not so much because Saskatchewan is a great deal better off financially but because it is dealing with a Minister of Finance who has changed the rules of the game. The formula he is now imposing upon the provinces is one which is designed to work against those provinces which have spent large sums of money in order to get resource development, and no account is being taken of the sums of money which they have spent for that purpose.
I close by saying that I hope that before we get into committee of the whole the Minister of Finance will give us some of the figures which I understand have been compiled by the tax structure committee. I referred to this matter when the resolution was before the house the other day. I want to ask the minister if the tax structure committee made an estimate which showed that, on the basis of an annual increase in the gross national product of some 7 per cent, by 1972 the federal government will have a surplus of $727 million and the municipalities and the provinces will have a deficit of some $2,100 million.
I also want to know whether on the basis of a 6 per cent annual growth in the gross national product the federal government will still have a surplus by 1972 and the provinces and municipalities will have an estimated deficit of $2,100 millions. It is important that we have this information because I think that we in the house have to be concerned about what this agreement will do for the provinces and municipalities. The provinces and municipalities have to provide certain services. They are the only bodies which have the constitutional authority to provide such services as education, health and welfare and municipal services such as water, sewers, etc. If they are not able to provide those services, then irrespective of whether or not the federal government has a surplus the people of Canada will have a low standard of
March 9, 1967

life and young people of Canada will be deprived of educational opportunities and opportunities for good health, adequate hospital facilities and the other things which are required. I think that the minister should give us that information.
This house must be concerned about what this very rigid agreement is going to do to the provinces and the municipalities and to what extent it will limit their capacity to provide the services which they are required to provide. If over the course of the next five years the municipalities and provincial governments have to curtail services, then it means that the people of Canada are going to have a lower standard of living. I say to the minister that with the Carter report having just come out and with the whole question of taxation being considered he might be well advised to look into the possibility of a shorter term for these agreements. I must confess that I am seriously worried about a five-year agreement formulated on the basis of a tax structure that the Carter report has shown to be markedly inequitable. If this agreement is imposed on the provinces for the next five years, the fiscal changes which will be necessary in this country will not benefit them to the extent that they ought.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
I see you are going to call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I have completed my remarks. I simply want to ask the minister whether, when we come to the committee stage, he will give us some of the information that has been collected by the tax structure committee.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. It is my duty to inform hon. members that under provisional standing order 39A the following matters will be discussed on the adjournment debate:	The hon. member for
Chapleau (Mr. Laprise), R.C.M.P.-Appointment of a unilingual liaison officer at Expo '67.

It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills, public bills.
Motions for Papers MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
PAYMENTS MADE TO JOHN T. SAYWELL AND/OR JOHN C. RICKER
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber) moved:: That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents, dated since January 1,	1961, exchanged
between the Secretary of State or any agency or department of the government of Canada relating to payments made to John T. Saywell and/or John C. Ricker by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and a list setting out in detail each such payment to each such person.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving this motion for the production of papers which has just been read by Your Honour I would point out that I would not have had the temerity to move a motion asking for information from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation having had many years' experience of requesting information, which requests have been met with the bland answer: "We don't give out information. Such information is not in the public interest. Such information is not divulged to parliament". They continue to ask us for money but they do not give us any information.
About two months ago Mr. Alphonse Oui-met, president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, made a statement in connection with what became known as the von Thad-den incident, during the course of which he made these remarks:
This action does not mean that the corporation will abrogate its responsibility in terms of the principle of the right of the Canadian public to information.
There, Mr. Speaker, is a flat statement if there ever was one. Mr. Ouimet said:
This action does not mean that the corporation will abrogate its responsibility in terms of the principle of the right of the Canadian public to information.
For the past 30 years or even longer the C.B.C. has been telling all questioners: "We cannot give that kind of information. It is not in the public interest. Such information is not divulged." But here is Mr. Ouimet, with big, mouth-filling words, coming down flat footed-ly on the side of truth and making the statement:
This action does not mean that the corporation will abrogate its responsibility in terms of the principle of the right of the Canadian public to information.
The information that I want, Mr. Speaker, is how much money has been paid by the C.B.C. to Professor John T. Saywell and/or

March 9, 1967
Motions for Papers
John C. Ricker, another teacher in Toronto, by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation year by year for the last five years.
I was strengthened in my expectation that there had been a tremendous volte-face by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as outlined by Mr. Ouimet in his press release of January 16, 1967, because Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), who answers in parliament for the C.B.C. and, as I have pointed out before, in fact does not make any answer but just represents the C.B.C. in the house, in commenting on the von Thadden incident had this to say. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that there was an outcry against the C.B.C. for spending the Canadian public's money bringing this man to this country, and as reported at page 11819 of Hansard the Secretary of State stated:
But there is the principle of respecting the right of the Canadian people to know what is current in the world-
If there is the principle of respecting the right of the Canadian people to know what is current in the world, I should like to know how much money has been paid to Professor John T. Saywell and John C. Ricker; and I think that I am looking for information to which the public is entitled because it is taxpayers' money that is being put into the pockets of these two gentlemen.
Picking this incident concerning Mr. Say-well and Mr. Ricker as the peg on which to hang my motion, Mr. Speaker, in view of these two flatfooted statements by Mr. Ouimet and the Secretary of State in which I presume we are supposed to place some reliance, even though it may be falsely placed, my interest in ascertaining how much money has been paid to Messrs. Saywell and Ricker has been triggered by the fact that in a book jointly authored by the two of them entitled "Nation and Province" which has been circulated among the schools of Ontario by the Ontario department of education there were some very sharp attacks on the printed word.
I have been engaged in the publishing world for 40 years and have a very high respect for Canadian publishers. Messrs. Saywell and Ricker collected money from the C.B.C. by expressing opinions from time to time, many of which have no doubt come to the attention of hon. members. However, in their book "Nation and Province", under the heading of "Parliament and the Press" they go out of their way to point out that there are some dangerous tendencies in the world of the printed press, one being a dangerous

tendency toward centralization. This book was published about eight years ago, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps one reason the federal government is leaning toward decentralization more than ever before is that Messrs. Saywell and Ricker have referred to the dangerous tendency toward centralization.
Let me repeat what I said in this house on February 10. Who says that centralization is dangerous, Mr. Speaker? In the publishing world in Canada more and more publications are joining what are known as the great chains. Those of us who have had experience in the publishing world in Canada cannot see that there is a dangerous tendency in that regard. Many of these publications would not be in existence today had they not sold out to a chain operator, as a result of which they get the economies of mass buying and come under the brilliant management of people who are, without question, first class operators. As a result a publication that singly might have foundered is now able to continue profitably under chain operation.
Messrs. Saywell and Ricker make reference in their book not only to the dangerous tendency toward centralization but also talk about whether people can believe the news which is published in our papers. The interesting thing is that they praise the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. They point out that newspapers may well be reluctant to print news or opinions which could have an adverse effect on advertising interests.
I should like to ask Professor Saywell and Mr. Ricker for their comments with regard to some newspapers I could name that are owned by very large corporation which are among the biggest advertisers in the whole Dominion of Canada. I think in particular of one paper owned and controlled by the largest advertiser in Canada, about which Professor Saywell and Mr. Ricker might tell us you cannot believe a word this publication prints because its ownership rests in the hands of an advertiser. But, Mr. Speaker, this does not automatically make you a liar, or open to criticism, or convict you of being unable to tell the truth. I submit that the statement of Messrs. Saywell and Ricker is absolutely uncalled for.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
But having accepted money from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation they go on to make their case on a comparison with private newspapers and private radio stations
March 9. 1967

and on page 60 of their book, "Nation and Province", I find the following:
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, owned by the government and the people of Canada, does an admirable job in keeping the public informed on events in parliament; being the servant of public rather than private interests, its news is impartial.
This is quite an interesting statement for these gentlemen to be making. The money they have received from the C.B.C. in the past has of course, never influenced their judgment. They, of course, would be the last people in the world to extend any modicum of thanks to someone who had benefited them in a pecuniary way, such as the C.B.C.
Then we have the attack made by Knowlton Nash of the C.B.C. on August 11 in a C.B.C. broadcast against these nefarious newspaper people. I have in my hand an exact transcript of the comments made by Mr. Knowlton Nash from Washington as supplied to me by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation itself. It does seem to me that the C.B.C. spends much of its time trying to cast reflections on United States' action in Viet Nam. If there is the slightest tittle of information they can pick up that might reflect on United States' action in Viet Nam, the C.B.C. gives it national coverage. In this statement which I hold in my hand, and which is just the way the C.B.C. gave it to me, I find the following:
Today, one hundred United States servicemen answered a call for blood donors sent out by the hospital in Cam Tho. And teams of American and South Vietnamese doctors and nurses have been sent there to care for the injured civilians.
In Washington, C.B.C. correspondent Knowlton Nash reports that authorities there are becoming concerned at the "bad press" the United States is receiving in some countries over her actions in Viet Nam.
That was the introduction, and now we have Knowlton Nash, the voice of authority, the voice of righteousness, the voice of correct opinions, saying:
The United States has been getting increasingly alarmed lately at the somewhat less than enthusiastic support given to U.S. actions in Viet Nam by reporters in Canada, France, the United Kingdom and other countries.
The United States must be greatly upset over the fact that reporters in Canada, France and the United Kingdom do not support them.
To try to rectify this so-called "bad press" the U.S. information service has come up with a rather traditional press agent approach. It's flying free to Saigon specially selected editors and commentators from other countries ... including three Canadian newsmen.
Motions for Papers
The U.S. agency says that it does not want to identify the newsmen because it says this might lessen their credibility.
This statement, of course, is being made on the C.B.C. national network by a C.B.C. employee in an effort to discredit the three newsmen who had accepted an invitation to be flown to Viet Nam to see what is going on with their own eyes so they can give an accurate report to the Canadian public. These three newsmen were later identified. I identified them in my remarks on February 10. Toward the end of his statement Mr. Knowlton Nash says:
The Post says some Canadian newspapers have turned down the free trip preferring, as the C.B.C. has done, to pay their own way for their correspondents.
He refers to the C.B.C., that guardian of the truth in Canada. What about Miss Beryl Fox of the C.B.C., who went to Viet Nam to report on the situation there? The C.B.C. may have paid her way to South Viet Nam, but everybody in this chamber knows that she could not have seen anything in Viet Nam if the United States government had not made transportation available to her throughout the length and breadth of that country. She took advantage of the hospitality of the United States government and toured South Viet Nam. She comes back here and over the C.B.C. comments unfavourably on the attitudes and actions of the United States government in South Viet Nam.
If Mr. Knowlton Nash feels that the gentlemen who accepted the hospitality of the United States government and made visits to Viet Nam cannot be believed because they have accepted this hospitality, then why does he not condemn the Canadian cabinet which invites people to come here to look this country over and form an opinion about what is going on in Canada? I have in my hand a photostat record of people coming to Canada at government expense. By the way, Mr. J. Hourie, editor of the Jerusalem Post, is in the city of Ottawa at the present time at the expense of the Canadian government. If there is something the matter with people accepting expense paid trips across the Pacific Ocean to South Viet Nam, then is there not something the matter with the Canadian government bringing people into this country? Are we trying to influence their judgment? Does this mean that when they go back to their countries the people cannot believe them because they have been influenced by the hospitality of the Canadian government?

March 9, 1967
Motions for Papers
I have a clipping from the Ottawa Citizen dated February 25 which reads:
Erik Blumenfeld, chairman of the West German Bundestag's (Parliament's) Vietnam subcommittee, will speak to the Council of Foreign Relations in New York Tuesday, it was announced Friday.
He then will visit Montreal and Ottawa at the invitation of the Canadian Institute of Public Affairs.
Is the Canadian Institute of Public Affairs trying to influence this man's judgment? If they are not, why are they bringing him over here? If all these newsmen who visit South Viet Nam at the invitation of the United States government are to have their credibility called into question, then how does it come about that when the Canadian government fly C.B.C. equipment, cameramen and commentators all over this country and in many cases across oceans to distant parts of the world, the C.B.C. does not state, do not believe us; we have been influenced by the munificence of the Canadian government toward the C.B.C? If the C.B.C. believes what Knowlton Nash, a paid employee of that organization, is saying, then why does not the C.B.C. pay its own expenses in sending cameramen and commentators wherever the C.B.C. may desire instead of participating in the generosity of the Canadian government? This is certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It is a two-faced attitude, if I ever saw one, to criticize men who have accepted the munificence of the United States government and then turn around and accept the generosity of the Canadian government.
I also have in my hand a clipping from the Ottawa Citizen dated February 4. Under a three column heading, "VIP Arrangements Under Way", there is mention of the people who are going to visit Canada during centennial year. The article is by Shirley Foley, assistant women's editor. In the article I find such phrases as, "The government's invitations have also included... "the provincial and federal governments will collaborate on these outside Ottawa visits in matters of security, hospitality, etc.". Then there is this phrase: ".. .while the Canadian government will see to their getting about within the country."
There is another article concerning the President of Zambia which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of November 18, 1966. The article states that the President of Zambia arrived in Ottawa after a flight from New York in a transport department Viscount. Later in the article I find this statement:
On Saturday, he and Mr. Martin will leave by transport department aircraft for the university convocation at Windsor.

Then we have a story in the Montreal Star of November 17, 1966, which states that a Swedish prince is in that city. The article states that the prince flew in aboard a Canadian government Viscount from Ottawa and was taken immediately to the Expo administration building on the site of the 1967 world's fair. If it is irregular and incorrect for newsmen to accept invitations from governments to visit parts of the world where the action is, then why does the Canadian government participate in such nefarious practices by asking people to come over here at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer? Does the Canadian government expect these people to accept our hospitality and then go back and knife the host country in return? This practice has been going on for hundreds of years. People who have been anxious to create a good impression have been willing to pay money to entertain those who might be commenting on the situation.
A less interesting angle of this situation is the search for the truth which the C.B.C. recently undertook when it went to great lengths to interview an 11-year-old girl. She had written a piece of poetry which appeared in a United States magazine. The poem attacked the United States action in Viet Nam. This is a religious publication which printed it. It is a small publication and this was a small contest. I said a little while ago that if the C.B.C. could find some way of attacking the actions of the United States government in South Viet Nam it would go to any lengths to do so. This is a perfect example of that. They send interviewers down to interview a little girl and reproduce this poem. However, the ideas of an 11-year-old girl on the United States government's interference in Viet Nam are not of much importance to the people of Canada. But that does not bother the C.B.C. It is the Canadian taxpayers' money they are squandering, and they are going to give the opinion of an 11-year-old girl on this affair. Why in Heaven's name cannot the C.B.C. spend its money to get the opinions of people who are knowledgeable on the subject instead of interviewing 11-year-old children?
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
We have three members of this House of Commons who are at this moment touring Taiwan, South Viet Nam, Indonesia and the Malay States at the expense of the governments of those countries. When they return, are we to say to them that their words cannot be believed or taken at face value because they have been influenced by the generosity
March 9, 1987

of their hosts-brainwashed by the host countries? This is what has been said of three newsmen who were attacked and held up to public ridicule by Mr. Knowlton Nash in that broadcast on August 11. 1 sincerely hope the C.B.C. will produce the information for which I asked so that you and I will be able to judge just how impartial are the opinions of the news commentators of the corporation.
I have a C.B.C. list of more than 80 newspapermen who have been paid to broadcast on C.B.C. programs such as "Pre-view", "Viewpoint" and the six o'clock news. Do you think the C.B.C. uses newsmen because the corporation has a high regard for them? Far from it. Mr. Stanley Burke, the gorgeous anchorman on the C.B.C. national television news, speaking in Toronto on March 2 at a reorganization meeting of the Sigma Delta Chi fraternity, said in the course of comments to a group of newsmen that the primary concern of the new operation was to develop an organization which would enable the C.B.C. to go after its own news rather than rehash news provided through the print media. Burke told us what he thinks of the news provided by the news media. So why do they have these newsmen appearing all the time on C.B.C. radio and television stations if they have such an opinion of the work they are doing? The answer is that they do so in order that these men will be favourably disposed toward the C.B.C. and that, as they write for the papers which employ them, they will make laudatory references to the corporation commending it for its noble work and on the vast undertaking which it is operating.
If anybody was ever paid money to get a favourable opinion it is certainly the newspapermen whose names the C.B.C. has on lists which are interminably long. But why does the C.B.C. turn around and attack Canadian newspapermen of the utmost reputation? Of the three, I have known two of them for many years and I have no hesitation about believing anything they write. When the Secretary of State makes the statement that there is a principle here which involves respect for the right of the Canadian people to know what is going on currently in the world, and when Mr. Alphonse Ouimet in connection with the von Thadden incident passes the remark that the principle of the public's right to information was involved-this was why they were going to bring the German here before they changed their minds-let me say that I too have a right to some information. There is something I want to know and it is: How much has been paid to Messrs. Saywell
Motions for Papers
and Ricker who have made these commendatory statements about the C.B.C.'s service while giving the back of their hand to the established print media which have been in business in this country for over 150 years?
Of course, there is no connection between the money they received and the laudatory things they said about the C.B.C. But I believe that as a matter of record we should know how much was paid to them and then we shall know just how impartial is the judgment of these men. Hon. members may be interested to know that the Ontario Department of Education has withdrawn the book from the schools of Ontario because of the bias shown by one medium of communication against the print media.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. I regret to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: By
leave, the hon. member may continue.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I wish to thank the house for giving unanimous consent in this regard. I had almost finished my remarks.
In speaking of impartial news coverage- and I have made reference to the von Thadden incident-I hope I may be allowed to comment on a story which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of yesterday where it was reported that a young man in Rockford, Illinois has been accused of double murder. I know that the C.B.C will be bringing him to Canada to go on the program, "Sunday". He must be a famous man or he would not have shot two boys of 14 or 15. It has just come out that last week he was acquitted of having shot a 15-year-old boy, though he did not kill him. I sincerely hope that when the C.B.C brings this person up here they will provide him with a return ticket because I would not want this fellow, who has just been acquitted of shooting one young lad and who is now charged with the murder of two others, to come here with a one-way ticket and get lost among the draft dodgers who are now residing in this country.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that many of the requests to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for information should be given favourable consideration. I believe that much of the misunderstanding which occurs could

March 9, 1967
Motions for Papers
be eliminated if we knew just how the corporation operates. Like many other people I have been shocked about some of the things which the C.B.C has done and I regret that it has been so difficult to get information from the corporation.
I am of the opinion that the broadcasting committee should have recommended the disposal by any means possible-retirement, promotion, or what have you-of the old strata in the C.B.C. who we found on investigation serve no function at all. They were a little like the Senators in the other place. After a politician has outworn his usefulness it is nice to have a place in which to put him. The C.B.C. has a large selection of vice presidents who might be placed in that category. Inefficiency at this level is marked, and this may be connected with the reluctance to give information which might shed light on some of the things which happen in the C.B.C.
The hon. member who has moved this motion for the production of correspondence has told us he is not particularly interested in learning the amounts of money paid to these two gentlemen. Frankly, I do not know either one of them. I think the hon. member has probably moved this motion in order to call attention to the unwillingness of top management of the C.B.C to co-operate by complying with very simple requests which do not seem to be unreasonable or even, in some cases, to contain much merit.
The C.B.C in refusing to table this type of document puts on the type of halo that it does not deserve. It is necessary for members of parliament who are particularly interested in the C.B.C to speak out about some of the abuses which the corporation perpetrates or there will be a lot of people who will say, "To hell with the C.B.C."
I am sure those who watched the coverage of the funeral ceremonies yesterday were proud of the job the corporation did on that occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Arnold Peters: 1 think it could not have been done nearly as well by any other agency. Part of the reason they were able to make such a good showing is, no doubt, the range and variety of equipment available as a result of the money placed by parliament at the corporation's disposal.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
We have provided the C.B.C. with facilities. That being the case, how is it that with respect to northern Ontario, where sports are
fMr. Peters.]
very important, the C.B.C. is quite willing, openly and without bias or charge to provide the other networks with full coverage of a national event such as that which took place yesterday, but when C.T.V. buys the coverage rights for sports it will not allow that coverage to be carried by the C.B.C. to areas the C.T.V. cannot cover, on either a gratuity or exchange basis? This means that all those areas beyond the fringe of C.T.V. coverage are prevented from receiving national coverage of events such as-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. The subject which he is discussing now may be very warm and close to his heart but I see no possible link between what he is advancing and the motion before the house. Unfortunately I was not in the chair and privileged to hear the remarks of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), and so I must assume that with his usual respect for the rules he limited his remarks to the motion before the house. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) knows what the limits are and he should restrict his comments to the very limited point concerning the advisability of tabling certain documents, that is whether certain documents specified in the motion proposed by the hon. member for York-Humber should be tabled or not. Certainly that has nothing to do with C.B.C. coverage in northern Ontario.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am glad you were able to ascertain that from the remarks made by the hon. member. I certainly was not, and I am not in a position to tell you whether these two newspapermen were not covering sports. However, I agree the debate may have extended beyond the terms of the motion and therefore I will return to it.
The motion refers specifically to two members of the press who did some work for the C.B.C. As I say, I am not prepared to state whether or not this was in the field of sports. Obviously Foster Hewitt was not involved, but I am not sure what these men did. However, I do not think the point I was trying to make is unrelated. My point was that no matter what correspondence is sought it is always considered to be privileged.
I only wish you, Mr. Speaker, had the opportunity of listening to the questioning of C.B.C. officials every time we raised matters concerning salaries and stipends paid to people working for that organization. In no case was the information given graciously or gratuitously; it was always obtained by circumvention.
March 9. 1967

When discussing this motion we must consider something else which has happened in the C.B.C. and which is not to our advantage or in the national interest. I refer to the hiring of newspaper people to do some of the jobs previously done by well known news commentators. We now have on television a new news format, introduced by people like Mr. Saywell and Mr. Ricker, dramatizing the news, leading to particular segments of news being picked out and linked together. Competition being what it is, and the C.T.V. having developed this type of format, the C.B.C. had to follow suit. We no longer see Mr. Cameron broadcasting the news in a matter of fact, factual manner. We see the dramatization of news, and this format eliminates anything that is not dramatic, and leads to the introduction of outside press people.
Because of this it is important that we know how much these people are paid because I think, due to the dramatization of the news, we are being misled in many cases. If public funds are being spent to pay these people, and if thousands of dollars are spent for short excerpts involving outside camera crews in order to dramatize certain aspects of the news, then I think it would be in the interests of the C.B.C. to make such information available and to table the correspondence that is sought in the motion before the house. But if it does table that correspondence it will lead to demands for more correspondence of this sort; everyone will want to know what everyone else, hired on an ad hoc basis, is paid.
This may lead members of parliament to say, when watching news on television, "If he got $20, that is too much." On the other hand if somebody else got $40 they may say it was probably a reasonable amount. We may say that Mr. Lynch is worth $100 an appearance on C.B.C. news and Mr. Saywell worth only $40, at which rate he may be overpaid or underpaid, depending on our own opinions. If the C.B.C. is not willing to give the general public some knowledge about its operations, then it can expect nothing but criticism for hiding behind a smokescreen of civil service bureaucracy, something which is not in the interests of the public. If the C.B.C. is not willing to give this information, then the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) should be prepared to come into this house and give good reason why the information cannot be made available.
Motions for Papers
I agree that in some cases it may not be proper to provide such information, but when someone does a piece of work in the news field-and obviously newspapermen are well suited to that field-we should have enough information to form a pretty good idea of whether or not we are getting value for our money for the work being done. I am violently opposed to the practice of the C.B.C. having a list of newspapermen and calling on each one in turn to present his viewpoint. This is not in the interests of good broadcasting and is one of the reasons why C.B.C. programming has reached the stage where I am receiving many letters objecting to its news coverage.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
At present I am getting many letters objecting to the C.B.C.'s mediocre public affairs program, "Sunday", which obviously is not keeping up with its competition on the other channels. I am surprised when, every time we raise a matter about the C.B.C., there is this hue and cry that it is a sacred cow about which there cannot be any discussion. I think it would do the C.B.C. a lot of good if it were more frank with members of parliament and the public in general. They should pay some attention to suggestions and criticisms. No matter who we are as individuals we will not like everything they do. They might hire Mr. Saywell whom I may like and Mr. Ricker whom I may not like. If, however, we should think that both these gentlemen are unacceptable or that their work is mediocre, we should have some way to indicate our disapproval or, if we approve of them, our approval. I do not think we should be placed in the position of having power to make a decision in these matters, but I do think a great deal more information could be provided by the minister.
It is time we changed the system by which the C.B.C reports to the house through the minister. I believe the minister should have more authority as to what she can demand they produce and what cannot be demanded. I do not see much difference between the situation of the C.B.C. in the production of this type of correspondence, and that of the Canadian National Railways when they are asked to produce correspondence. Very often when an individual member has a request of this nature he takes it to the minister who, in very strong language I presume, refers it to the Canadian National Railways. The minister in turn receives a reply which he then gives in the house to the member who asked the

March 9, 1967
Motions for Papers
question. This is not what is being done with the C.B.C. It seems to me that this is one of the weaknesses we should try to strengthen.
I should like to see in C.B.C. television the vibrant influence it has always been in radio. This has not been accomplished. One reason is that we pay out too much money for mediocrity to the people we hire. If some of these accounts were produced the public might be in a position to judge whether or not we are paying too much for mediocrity. I think on the other hand we might be surprised also to learn how much we sometimes receive for a very limited payment. It might balance out. I am not suggesting it will be all one way or all the other. I believe that if more information is provided by the C.B.C. the people will be able to get closer to its operations. With the result that the C.B.C. would operate more on our behalf.


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Anligonish - Guys-borough):: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? I do not ask this question to imply that I disagree with what the hon. member has said, but simply to ensure that he does not "have it both ways" too easily. He suggested the minister should be fully responsible in the house for the operation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in a manner comparable to that of a minister answering for a department. I am wondering whether he would be willing to go that far. Some people are willing to go so far as to make the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation an integral part of one of the departments of government. Is the hon. member proposing that?


William Arnold Peters: No. I am very pleased that that question has been asked. I am absolutely opposed to the C.B.C. becoming a department of government. I used the example of the Minister of Transport reporting on behalf of the Canadian National Railways, because I see a similarity between that operation of a crown corporation and the operation of the C.B.C. as a crown corporation. There is however a vast difference when a question is asked concerning the C.B.C. To my knowledge the minister has never been able to come back with an answer which provides any detail concerning her discussion with the C.B.C. management.
I believe there is correspondence in the possession of the C.B.C. which they do not wish to have presented. When there is a good reason for that position, I think it should be honoured. On the other hand there is much information members might ask questions

about, not as to the running of programs but as to how much money is paid for a certain type of program. I would presume that such information is available to ACTRA, and that everyone who participates in the programs, whether in the C.B.C. or in C.T.V., can ascertain the range of rates paid, while we as members of parliament when asking for this kind of information receive a blanket refusal.
I presume the government will talk out this motion, even if it takes two and a half hours, rather than have these particular documents relating to two individuals presented. I think the reason the question has been asked is so that the government can refuse and therefore discredit the operations of the C.B.C. I may be unfair in this, but I think these two particular men are incidental. They should not be. This is a reasonable request which should be conveyed to the C.B.C. by the minister who speaks for the C.B.C., with the suggestion that she sees no objection to these figures being presented and advising them that unless they have a damned good reason they should provide the information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before I allow the parliamentary secretary to ask a question of the hon. member, I should like to bring to his attention the fact that his time has expired. However, by consent a question might be asked and a reply given.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I will make my question very short. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman what he would say if he, as Secretary of State, went to the corporation and put to it the questions embodied in the resolution put forward now by the hon. member, and was told-I am not pretending to quote-that, "Really, this is not your business. We have not been asked in the past to give that type of information and do not intend to give it now". What would the hon. gentleman say beyond certain strong but empty words? How would he propose to go about producing the results he desired?


William Arnold Peters: I would think the answer is very simple. I would use those strong words with the corporation. I think we would have a very serious heart to heart discussion about the operations of the C.B.C. and when I came back to parliament I would be quite prepared to say just that; that is, that the corporation told me it was none of my business and that it is none of our business. I believe that if this kind of answer were given firmly to parliament, we would see an end of this business
March 9, 1967

and we would have a very different type of operation in the C.B.C. than we now have. It seems to me that this really is what the C.B.C. is now saying to the minister and the minister, being a lady, is too polite to come back and tell us this. I do not think it is in the interest of the C.B.C. for it to act in this way. I take it from the fact that the minister is not here that her personal argument is not the corporation's argument, and she does not wish to say just that. She does not wish to say they have told her it is none of her business. Because of the fact that there has not been a legitimate answer given at any time to any of these questions I think parliament might as well be told that this is the attitude of the C.B.C. In this way we might have a closer relationship between members of parliament and the minister, in her role as the minister who speaks for the C.B.C.


Mr. Keith Hymmen (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, in opposing this motion I do so for a very good reason. Before I come to that, however-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering whether I was in order in recognizing the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Hymmen). I was not in the chair earlier this evening. I did not realize that the hon. member was speaking after another member of his own party already had taken part in this debate. If the hon. member for Waterloo North will allow me to look in the other direction, I should now like to recognize the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt).
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate your courtesy and that of the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Hymmen). There is very little time left for either of us to make many observations, and perhaps on another occasion that hon. member will have a better opportunity to express his position. I also hope I will have another opportunity to elaborate on this subject at greater length.
In the very few minutes left at my disposal I should like to say that I support the motion of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan). He has brought out a very important principle which we all must consider carefully. The "I's" were dotted and the "T's" were crossed as a result of the question posed to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart).
Motions for Papers
What are we to do about these emanations of parliament or, as someone perhaps more aptly called them, these creatures of parliament which refuse to answer questions or give information? I refer not only to the C.B.C. but also to the Civil Service Commission and the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The remarks I intend to make apply equally to the others.
These creatures of parliament as the hon. member for Timiskaming suggested, have almost become sacred cows whose activities cannot be questioned by members of this house. In fact any member who tries to do so is considered "far out" or naughty. These organizations have been very careful through their propaganda to make sure they do not fall under the control of parliament. They are financed by the taxpayers, but apparently no one outside those organizations has any control over them.
While I agree that there must be special limitations in control over these creations, and while I do not have time to go into that aspect of the matter, the situation now is that they are not responsible to the public and not responsible to this house. More and more of these creations are being established and I think hon. members ought to examine very carefully into whether these creatures should be allowed to go off on their own, without any de facto control.
Many people argue that there should not be any political influence in the C.B.C., so as to prevent its becoming a government mouthpiece. I think all hon. members will agree with that theory. We do not want political control and interference from within the C.B.C. itself. However, apparently this is what has happened, particularly in view of the extreme bias shown by this organization in reporting news items. Again I have not sufficient time to go into details and will reserve the right to do so on another occasion.
I suggest the same situation applies in respect of the Civil Service Commission. It has been said that we should not have political interference in the appointment of officials and that we do not want political patronage, but I am sure most hon. members will agree there are all sorts of devices used within the civil service for exactly that purpose. No one who has been around here for any length of time could be ignorant of the fact that there does exist a special kind of patronage within the commission. For example it is curious to find that very often qualifications set up to cover created positions fit to a remarkable
March 9, 1987

Equalization Payments to Provinces degree certain individuals lined up for those positions.
Hon. members must decide sooner or later the degree of control that should be exercised by the house over organizations which have become complete entities unto themselves. I agree there must be some limitation of parliamentary control, but the situation at the moment is highly unsatisfactory.
The hon. member for York-Humber is asking for some simple information which could not possibly prejudice the financial activities of the C.B.C. in competition with the C.T.V., but the corporation has refused to provide that information. I suggest there is no sound reason for such refusal and that the C.B.C. has refused because it is afraid of setting a precedent. This organization does not wish to give information on any subject.
I am reminded of a situation which existed when a former member for Temiscouata, now in the other place, used to ask a former president of the Canadian National Railways how much was being paid for charcoal and fence posts. The president of the railways used to turn purple in the face and tell the hon. member that it was none of his business. But that former member was very shrewd and somehow always managed to get the information.
Unfortunately few of the members of this house have had the opportunity in recent years of examining the spending estimates of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. For some reason or another they have always been brought forward at the end of our discussion on estimates, on the last day of a session or when the time has run out. We have not had the opportunity recently for any examination in the house of C.B.C expenditures. While this organization and its activities have been referred to in certain committees, the great majority of us have not had the opportunity of examining its operations. Whenever we ask questions about its activities, and why they will not give us certain information, we are told by the pipe line or the mouthpiece of that organization in the house, that the disclosure would not be in the public interest. We should like to know why this would not be in the public interest.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members business has now expired.
Pursuant to special order of the house adopted on Friday, March 3, the sitting stands suspended until eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]

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


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp for the second reading of Bill No. C-277, to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, to authorize the entry into tax collection agreements with provinces, and to amend the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act.
Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhem):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a few words on the measure before us I want first of all to assure the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) that he should not be too quick to take too seriously all the things said by the Premier of Saskatchewan. It is a well known fact that the Premier of Saskatchewan makes some extravagant statements, and during the past two years, in trying to build up an image in our province, throughout Canada and indeed throughout North America he has found occasion to make some claims regarding the situation in the province of Saskatchewan that are exaggerated to say the least. I should also like to refer to the fact that the premier of our province has described the deal that he received at the hands of the Minister of Finance as a dirty deal, in so far as concerns the equalization that would come to my province.
In dealing with the situation with regard to the resource industries in a province I should like to point out that Saskatchewan at the present time is particularly interested in potash, the effects of this industry and the revenues derived therefrom. I believe this resource contributed in some degree to the decision taken by the minister in arriving at the formula, so far as concerns the phasing out of the equalization grants for Saskatchewan. While these industries are desirable for a province and increase the revenue of the country, they are not all gravy as far as the province and municipalities are concerned.
For this reason I wish the minister had taken into consideration the situation of the municipalities in this whole context when the government tried to arrive at a formula for the provinces. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read part of an article which appeared in "The Rural Councillor", a municipal magazine in the province of Sas-
March 9, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	13805
Equalization Payments to Provinces
katchewan. The article deals with the problems concerning the development of potash. This is what appears in volume 2, the issue of March, 1967, of that magazine:
Fertile Belt, in which is located Esterhazy, the only large residential centre near the mines-
That is, the potash mines.
-claims that 80 per cent of the miners "either live in our (rural municipality) or drive through it." The R.M. is "building and maintaining roads and not getting any revenue to offset the extra costs involved." This situation prevails in the other two R.M.s. Miners travel for miles in every direction, some crossing two or three municipalities, twice a day. Many farmers and their sons work in the mines and expect good, snow-free roads on which to get to and from work.
One of its special problems has been overweight trucks hauling crushed rock.
As a result, the traffic counts on these roads has increased. Another feature that has emerged as a result of this development in our province has been the expense of snow removal. The particular municipality referred to in the article which I have read had to have three large graders, which represented a total investment of approximately $100,000, available in the winter for snow removal. This article goes on to indicate that the cost of snow removal might be reduced if the roads were built up to a higher standard. This raises the situation a province faces in regard to the demands from municipalities for assistance in building the roads necessary for resource development. The article goes on to say that some of the roads they have built were used very little, but now are classified as good roads.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The other problem that has faced the provinces and municipalities is the critical lack of housing in potash mining areas in Saskatchewan. The federal government's program is almost totally unsuitable to provide the assistance required, and as a result people are forced to use the roads more than they would normally use them. I wanted to bring that to the attention of the minister, because in light of the resource development which has taken place over the long-term period, when one considers the population of that province in relation to the bill now before us it would almost seem that the government has decided to discriminate against those provinces that are trying to develop the natural resources of our country. This is a very poor policy for the federal government of Canada to be following at a time when the high standard of living which Canadians expect demands a greater
development of our resources to sustain the increased costs that have to be met.
This measure incites an opting out mentality that has been one of the earmarks of this government. It has forgotten the old premise of payment on the basis of need, and the need for uniformity across Canada in many of the programs that are being undertaken. I want to say a few words about the need for uniformity across Canada and I hope the minister will listen to me. There is a great deal of talk about national unity in this centennial year. If we cannot give to Canadians in every part of this nation a greater measure of equity we will not be able to achieve as quickly the spirit of unity which I am sure all members of the house would like to see.
I will not say any more on this subject. I just want to remind the minister that sometimes the extravagant statements made by provincial premiers should be taken with a grain of salt. There are many people in Saskatchewan who believe that that is what the minister would be well advised to do.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make in connection with this bill. Similarly to other hon. members on this side of the house I cannot agree with the decision of the government to phase out the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act which was brought in by the Diefenbaker government, and with much success. I am sure it is generally recognized that the technical institutes built by the action of the former government filled a great need and provided an answer to the growing need for technical training to meet the present manpower requirements.
I have a particular interest in the future of technical institutes, the construction cost of which the former government paid from 50 to 75 per cent. There is a very fine technical institute in my city of Moose Jaw and it is filling a great need. It was officially opened by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) who at that time was the minister of labour. The government of which he was a minister paid 50 per cent of the construction costs, and because of the demand for technical training an addition was built, 75 per cent of the construction cost of which was covered by the federal government.
I mention these facts to emphasize the importance of the Moose Jaw technical institute and the need to expand the operations there. The Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), as reported at page 13689 of Hansard, speaking
March 9, 1967

Equalization Payments to Provinces about federal help in post-secondary education adjustment payments, said:
The central concept In this plan is that the fiscal transfers will be calculated in relation to postsecondary operating expenditures only. The federal government considers this the only satisfactory measuring stick of rising education costs, and is prepared to increase its future transfers by the rate of increase in these costs. I must stress, however, that it is the province which determines upon the allocation of these funds, and it will have to do so in the light of both the operating and capital requirements of post-secondary institutions. The funds transferred are calculated in relation to operating expenditures, but are intended for use in both the operating and capital areas.
I want to emphasize the last part of the statement in which the Secretary of State said that the grants are intended for use in both the operating and capital areas.
I see a danger in handing the complete administration of these funds to the provincial government. With a provincial election coming in the very near future and with a $7 million grant in the next fiscal year I believe there is a danger that the provincial government may decide to use this federal grant for the purpose of building another technical institute in some other city. This is what I am concerned about. It is important for the federal government to protect its interests in the institutes it has already helped to build, rather than risk the danger of the money being spent on new buildings not required at this time. It is much more important to make the best use of the technical institute at Moose Jaw and the one in Saskatoon, and to use any additional money on the continuation and expansion of the technical training there which, as I have said before, has met a great demand, and for which I can see a great need in the days ahead.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
If I may, Mr. Speaker, there is one other point I should like to put before the Minister of Finance in connection with this bill. In clause 5(3) at page 2 of the bill reference is made to a basic estate tax. As we all know, 75 per cent of this tax is paid to the provincial governments.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but as he knows, on second reading hon. members should not refer to specific clauses of a bill. I wonder whether the hon. member would not want to make this argument when we reach committee stage.


James Ernest Pascoe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I just wanted to clear up one point in regard to
[Mr. Pascoe.1
estate tax. As I was saying, the federal government collects this tax but pays 75 per cent of it to the provinces. According to the 196667 allocation of estate and succession duties the share of estate tax paid to the provincial governments amounts to $2,652,000.
My point is this: I understand that the government of Alberta have stated that they wish to renounce their share of this estate tax, and the government of Saskatchewan have also indicated that they will do the same. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether, if the government of Saskatchewan do renounce their 75 per cent share of the estate tax, the whole of the estate tax will be collected anyway, or what arrangement might be made in this regard. I hope the minister can explain this to my satisfaction at some time.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, on second reading of Bill No. C-277, I will not say much since the minister is well aware of what Quebec members think of the equalization payments and particularly of this act entitled:
An act to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, to authorize the entry into tax collection agreements with provinces, and to amend the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act.
What strikes me in all that, is the two words before last, "Interim Arrangements", because we are still hoping in Quebec that all those agreements, all the present arrangements, all those meetings with the provinces are of an interim nature only and that Quebec will one day win back what the constitution has guaranteed her since 1867, namely the recovery of her three taxation fields.
Of course, we cannot object now to the small share which is given us because we realize-and I want to point that out, here, to the minister-that the federal government is taking the lion's share and leaving to the provinces the hare's share. It has the cake and when it has taken its share, it remembers the provinces and gives them the crumbs. Every day we find that the federal government cuts largely into that cake, it makes fabulous and exorbitant expenses and even reaches the end of certain quarters with surpluses. And yet, it is always seeking new taxation fields.
This afternoon I listened to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) quote the amounts of equalization payments some provinces would receive. The minister
March 9, 1967

had said before that four provinces would not benefit from equalization because they were too rich. If I were a citizen of those provinces, there would be no advantage for me to commend the minister's words, although the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam suggested, without saying so specifically, that Quebec enjoys a special status by getting $235 million in equalization payments.
I suggest that what he forgot to mention, or what he did not want to mention, is that Quebec alone has as many people as the other five provinces together. When speaking of equalization, we should not compare Quebec with Newfoundland, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. At this stage, I should like to call the attention of the house to the fact that the population of New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba are probably not much greater than that of the province of Quebec; these provinces will nevertheless receive a total of $215 million, whereas Quebec will get $235 million. One must not forget that although the province of Quebec will receive this amount, it has been taxed according to population, since taxes are always proportionate to population.
When all comes to all-this is why I said a while ago that we are only getting bits and pieces-when we look at the money the federal government takes out of the province of Quebec and the money returned, having picked up billions of dollars in this province,
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no reason to jump for joy. However, we could go on talking for hours on end and it would serve no purpose, since talking to the hon. member is like talking to solid rock: he merely smiles. I do not know whether he is laughing at us, or if he always sports such a wide smile. I am under the impression that our speeches are not being heard; however, we are waiting for the government of our province to take action, to demand what belongs to the province as a matter of right.
I should like to state here, in this house, that if the Quebec government wants more autonomy, it must make the first move. It should not wait until Ottawa takes action because every time this happened, Ottawa took advantage of the opportunity to penetrate more deeply into our fields of taxation. It is therefore up to the hon. premier of the province of Quebec, it is up to the Quebec government to make a stand, to demand that the federal government respect its rights and put a stop to this procrastinating. We want him to mind his business here and let

Equalization Payments to Provinces us collect our taxes in the province. We are old enough to collect our taxes. It seems to me we would be relieving him of this great burden resting on his shoulders. He says himself it is a tremendous burden and we want to relieve him of it. Let him simply give us the right devolved upon us by the constitution to collect our taxes and we shall administer our own affairs with our taxes.
This year, 75 per cent of succession duties will be returned to the provinces. As for personal and corporate income taxes, I hope that the minister will at least add a certain percentage each year, so that in two or three years, all succession duties and all personal and corporate income taxes will be returned to the provinces. I feel that the federal government and the hon. minister would avoid a big headache if they put a stop to this practice which consists in levying taxes in provinces and then returning their money by means of various payments. The minister says that he is returning the product of the tax to the province. Well, if he is returning the product of the tax, why go to all the trouble of taxing the province in the first place? Why not leave these taxes to the provinces? We simply want to lighten the burden of the hon. Minister of Finance.
If the other provinces want to do otherwise, they are free to do so, but if we want to relieve the federal government a little, if we want to reduce its work and, especially, alleviate the burden of this double administration, often the cause of financial troubles and misunderstandings on the administrative level, I do not see why the government does not accept our suggestion.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
For instance, we now have financial assistance for higher education in Quebec. Mr. Speaker, we accept proper federal assistance -that is the only thing we can do-but we are now wondering who should implement federal-provincial agreements in the field of education, whether it should be the province or the federal government.
In my district, there is almost a quarrel over the matter. In the end, everyone wants to do it, but no one does. But those who are entrusted with that education get salaries though. Many a misunderstanding would be done away with if, once and for all, the matter were settled. If the federal government wants to pay 50, 75 or even 80 per cent of those courses, it should pay the amount to the provinces and let them implement those
13808	COMMONS
Equalization Payments to Provinces schemes; otherwise, if it wants to implement them alone, let it say so.
Again last week, a group asked me which government was responsible for managing those courses. One claimed it was the provincial government, and another, the federal government. Even I did not know and if I now ask for an explanation, I do so not to And out who is really responsible. I realize today that if the federal government minded its own business and allowed the provinces to handle their own spheres of authority, everything would be much clearer. At least, we would know where we are going with all those new organizations which pop up every day.
Mr. Speaker, we will study this bill clause by clause as well as the motion for third reading in order to try, we, the members from Quebec, to recuperate the highest percentage of all those amounts and to achieve one day what every one in the province of Quebec hopes for, namely to control our three main taxation fields to be able at last to administer our own business. If the provinces which do not get any equalization payments are now considered wealthy, I say that they are provinces which looked after their own business, provinces which have levied charges, royalties on their natural resources, in short, provinces which had the nerve to stand up to financiers and tell them: You will develop our wealth but you will pay us so much. They charged royalties which would enable them to five and that is exactly what is lacking in our own province of Quebec and probably in other provinces too. That is always what happens. We should start by making the financiers pay for a right of way, pay royalties in each province and, possibly, in a few years from now, all provinces will be on the same level, each having average wealth.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, this Bill C-277 called an Act to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, to authorize the entry into tax collection agreements with the provinces, and to amend the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act, will elicit from me comments and remarks which may be different from those of most of my colleagues here since they will be based upon several years' experience in municipal affairs.
Naturally, this bill will affect our day-to-day life to a considerable degree, for we are told that the municipalities are creatures of the provinces. We recognize that, of course. But no one who is seriously concerned with public

DEBATES	March 9. 1967
administration today can determine or establish a clear and definite dividing line between the powers of each of the three levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal.
And I should like to have it remembered, throughout the remarks I shall make as briefly as possible, that I recognize the principle that the municipalities are legal creatures of the provincial governments. I say legal, because in other aspects, I hold other opinions. From a legal standpoint, they are creatures of the provinces but because of that very fact, they feel the effect of tax agreements between the federal government and the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat in that spirit that I should like to make certain remarks on Bill C-277. I, for one, believe that municipalities have been, for too many years, treated as orphans in the family, as retarded children, although they are one of the levels of government. They are, if you will, the third level of government, prestige-wise, but they are probably at the top level in terms of responsibility, considering that municipal administrations are the nearest to the people.
Always in the same spirit, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a few questions to the minister. I have a feeling that the provinces have been consulted on those interim arrangements and I should like to know to what extent and how much they have agreed to them? Which provinces said: Wait a minute. Well, we accept this, we are ready to enter into such an agreement? Which ones rejected it formally? Which ones accepted part of it? It might be interesting to get an answer from the minister on that point. I am not asking for an answer right now, because I know he will have the opportunity to speak again, but I am under the impression that a great number of my colleagues would like to see his reaction in that respect.
I should now like to revert to what I was saying earlier. If the Fathers of Confederation came back on earth in 1967, they would have many astonishing surprises.
At the time this agreement was concluded, that is what we call the British North America Act, or the confederation pact, the question of municipalities was almost non-existant in this country. The very few existing ones had so few responsibilities that no one gave it any thought. But, in 1967, the problem is quite different.
By leave, I should like to come back in a few minutes to some remarks made in respect of the tax distribution at the three
March 9, 1967

levels of government, each of which has responsibilities of its own, and to quote from a brief submitted to the royal commission on taxation, the Carter commission, whose final report we have just received; this brief was submitted by the Canadian Federation of Mayors, an organization that includes all mayors from the ten Canadian provinces. Since this report has been presented in French and in English, I shall read this text in the language that is before me:
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)

Though still largely overlooked as a serious subject for study, municipal governments are now carrying some of the most critical responsibilities for public policy. The quality and efficiency of our urban communities where more than 70 per cent of Canadians now live-

Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that this was written in 1965 and we are now in 1967. The proportion has increased since them.

-and where 80 per cent or more will live by 1980, depend to a large extent on decisions made by municipal authorities and on the financial and technical assistance received by them from senior governments.

This is where federal-provincial tax arrangements come in.

Public concern is being focussed more and more intensively on regional and local interests. A new urban-minded generation is becoming more fully aware of its needs and responsibilities. The remarkable surge of provincial activity in most parts of Canada today is in large measure a response to the economic and social demands of urban populations who are expressing their needs with increasing force and clarity.

And if I mention it, Mr. Speaker, and I will mention another with your permission, it is precisely because I will repeat what I said earlier: in all those federal-provincial talks, everyone seems to forget that there is a third level of government which, in the opinion of many well-informed people, is just as important as the others, although it has less prestige, because it is closer to the people and has to face problems which are more vital, more essential in some respects than the others, although I know very well that the three levels of government must work hand in hand. And that is how I will conclude soon.
Equalization Payments to Provinces And with your permission, to buttress up the argument I want to make here about Bill No. C-277, I will quote another extract of that brief submitted by the Canadian Federation of Mayors to the Carter commission, as prepared by Professor David Slater of Queen's University about the problems of municipal financing. It reads as follows:

-that the municipal finance dilemma was summarized as follows:
Municipal government expenditures have increased more rapidly than the national output, rising from about 4.9 per cent to 8.3 per cent of G.N.P. between 1950 and 1962.

Those are the figures for 1962, but it is a sure thing that in 1967 they were still higher. I regret that I do not have those figures. Since the bill was withdrawn at the last minute this afternoon, I had them in my files, but I did not have time to take out the 1966 figures-

The revenues raised by municipalities have increased from about 3.5 per cent to about 5 per cent of G.N.P. Despite the proportionately more rapid growth in the revenues raised by municipalities than in the value of the national output, the share of municipal expenditures financed by their own revenue-raising activities has fallen steadily, from nearly 70 per cent in 1950 to about 60 per cent in 1962.
I repeat, and this is my comment, that the figures for 1966 will be even worse. The summary continues:
This growing gap has been filled primarily by increased reliance on transfers from provincial to municipal governments. There has been no trend of increase or decrease in the proportion of municipal expenditures financed by borrowing.

-and it could even be added that municipalities are now in a difficult position as far as loans are concerned.

Even so, the outstanding municipal debt has increased more rapidly than the national output or the municipal tax base. The strain on municipal finance appears to have inhibited the carrying out of municipal projects, particularly those which are ordinarily financed by the issue of debentures.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker, this is proved by the figures presented in this brief. I see here that the general administrative expenses of the municipalities, in all the provinces of Canada-

March 9, 1967
Equalization Payments to Provinces I take them all together, and I am not concerned at the moment with a distribution or an analysis which would be beyond the scope of my comments-totalled $303 million in 1933.
In 1953, these expenses reached $1,010 million. In 1961, which is unfortunately the last figure I have-again, Mr. Speaker, I repeat I must apologize, for we were taken by surprise by this bill this afternoon-in 1961, the total expenses of the municipalities in Canada were $2,242 million.
And what were the revenues, Mr. Speaker? It is simple. In 1933, when the municipalities were spending $303 million, their revenues totalled $294 million. Therefore, they had a deficit. They had to depend upon the provinces or the federal government to meet their needs and discharge their responsibilities to the people within their confines.
In 1943, the municipalities' revenues amounted to $348 million, while their expenses were $302 million. Then we had a cruel, inconceivable and unusual period of prosperity called war. Evidently, because in 1953, let us say, things came back to normal, that is they continued to be abnormal, municipalities continued to show a deficit because the federal and provincial governments-as my friend from Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) said a moment ago-were monopolizing nearly everything, leaving nothing to local administrators, since the municipalities then had total expenditures of $1,010 million-I refer to 1953-and their revenues amounted to $840 million only.
In 1961, when the expenditures of Canadian municipalities in the ten provinces were $2,242 million their revenues were $1,823 million only, that is they showed a large deficit.
Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what I am driving at. What I want to say here is that, in all these discussions, all these conversations, all these negotiations between the federal and provincial governments, the municipalities are treated like abnormal orphans, like poor children who must be content with the mouthful of bread they are condescendingly given. What is more, they are expected not to be too demanding, as they are not even allowed to participate in the round table dialogues, as they should, in view of their considerable responsibilities toward the taxpayers. Their responsibilities may perhaps even be greater than those of the other governments, may be even more critical, because they live from day to day with the citizens, hear their complaints every day, and must find solutions to those problems, while

often having their hands and feet bound by the superior administrations.
If the Fathers of Confederation came back to earth, they would be amazed at how things they knew have changed in 100 years. And they would find it difficult to understand how one can take the liberty of dealing so lightly with the officials of that third level of government known as municipal authorities.
I say that mayors and aldermen are martyrs of the public cause, for they are the ones who hear the repercussions of what is done in the House of Commons and in the provincial legislatures, as the electors do not often have an opportunity of seeing their M.P. or M.L.A. and complain to their aider-men and mayor. And very often they do not understand why municipal administrations do not have the powers they should, why they do not have the finance required to meet the needs of the municipality.
Mr. Speaker, the mayors have been asking for several years to be allowed to participate in the federal-provincial conferences. This request has been made through the Canadian Federation of Mayors, comprising all municipalities in every province. Together, they try to examine the problems of municipalities in the light of the experience of mayors and aldermen of the most important municipalities of the country, with the help of the best economists, the best statisticians, the advice of the most reputable sociologists invited to attend their convention. The members of the federation make this request even if they were only allowed to sit in as observers-the municipalities realize that they are merely provincial bodies-in order to see how their fate is discussed and in order to put forth, occasionally, constructive and intelligent suggestions in order to help certain ministers or premiers upon whose decisions depends the fate of municipalities. These decisions are often the result of haphazard consideration and are often made by people who are not familiar with municipal government.
Some provinces-and I know, because I have toured the ten provinces several times and on many instances I have met municipal heads and administrators-have reduced the role of municipal administration to the so-called rubber stamp, and they are not even given that basic privilege of being asked for their advice about legislation on municipal affairs.
I glanced over the Carter report-of course, I did not have time to read all those things-
March 9, 1987	COMMONS
but I went over it with a curiosity that you will understand after what I have just told you, in order to try and find what could be said in it about the implications of those recommendations on municipal administration.
In my opinion, the Carter report, is a masterpiece, it contains recommendations which are absolutely valid, which will certainly involve a fiscal revolution and will probably create an economic climate that will indirectly assist the municipalities.
But I would have liked to see in that, as in some other documents coming from the provinces of Canada, an awareness that the municipal governments, exist, that they are grouped, provincially, in a union of municipalities and federally grouped in the Canadian federation of mayors, that they are entitled to have a say in the matter and that, in most cases, they have in this third level administration an experience greater than that of most of those who are legislating on a higher level.
Mr. Speaker, to show that I am not imagining such things, I wish to point out that even if the municipalities are provincial creatures, there are, nevertheless, joint fields of authority and of responsibility where the three levels of government must step in.
I should like to enumerate a few, very briefly, and without comments. The three levels of government are trying, of course, to improve the living conditions of their constituents. The elected representatives at the municipal level see their constituents and hear their representations night and a day.
Those who among my colleagues have been mayors or councillors know that it is not unheard of to be awakened in the middle of the night by people reminding them that they are unemployed, that they cannot take advantage of this or that piece of social legislation, that the entrance to their house or yard has not been cleared. They know that is part of the social awareness that the municipal administrator must keep alive twenty-four hours a day.
There is the winter works program which should be financed by the federal government and which, in my opinion, should be amended somewhat, brought up to date to take into account the present situation. There is the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, there is urban renewal which is a tragic problem in a great number of municipalities. There 23033-873
Equalization Payments to Provinces is also the financing of sewer systems, contributions to centennial projects, the retraining of workers, the general control of the economy which results in indirect taxes such as the sales tax and others. There is also unemployment which is precisely the great plague of municipal authorities, because if the federal and the provincial governments fail to take appropriate action to alleviate unemployment, mayors and aldermen are the ones who listen day in and day out to the grievances of the jobless. Taxes of all kinds drain the financial resources of the taxpayers to such an extent that municipal authorities are unable to draw up their budgets.
Mr. Speaker, I could refer to many other things, but I do not want to overtax the patience of the house. In conclusion, I have a simple and practical suggestion to offer the Minister of Finance. I see he is busy with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) and I am not blaming him, because it is always wise to draw near to wealth, whether natural or artificial, but to make sure that the minister understands me-I am aware of his worthy efforts to learn French and I would not want him to be vexed at my procedure but rather to consider it as an effort at understanding on my part-I shall try to make my point in a language which is not my own-
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)

There are three levels of government in this country, the federal, the provincial and the municipal. Each has its own responsibilities and each must have the means to carry out its responsibilities. I think one thing is missing; that is, municipal governments are not consulted often enough. For years and years they have been asking that they be allowed to attend these conferences between the federal and provincial governments so that they would know what is going on, and so that they would have an opportunity eventually to speak their minds, since they have a very heavy responsibility. I would suggest that we establish in this country the type of intergovernmental advisory commission they have in the United States, which operates for 12 months of the year and which is assisted by a task force-and this is a word I heard this afternoon-of specialized people. This intergovernmental advisory commission, board or whatever you might call it, would be made
13812	COMMONS
Equalization Payments to Provinces up of representatives of the federal government, the provinces, and the municipal governments which have their own organization, the Canadian Federation of Mayors.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to insist on this. Most of the time when one speaks of municipalities he is not taken seriously. In the minds of many people these governments are considered secondary, because after all they are composed of mayors and aldermen. The prime ministers and ministers of the provinces control them and sometimes have them elected or defeated. However, they have their responsibilities, and need the financial means to exercise those responsibilities. I think we should bear this in mind when we discuss financial arrangements between federal and provincial governments, because the province is supposed to be the father of the municipalities which, I am sorry to say, is not always so.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: If the
Minister of Finance speaks at this time he will close the debate.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the hon. member if he would accept a question.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Certainly.


Mitchell William Sharp: I should like to ask the hon. member whether he thinks the philosophy he has just enunciated would be acceptable to the prime minister of Quebec.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I am happy- [English]
I am sorry I am not able to say this in English. I wish to say it the way I really feel it.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the minister put this question to me because this is precisely the type of question that I would call provocative in the positive, non-pejorative sense of the word. I do not know; the premier of the province of Quebec does not confide in me, since I am an independent member. As a matter of fact, I was even too independent for the former premier of the province of Quebec to confide in me.
But I am well aware of municipal matters, however. I have visited all ten provinces, and during my visits the mayors of all the

DEBATES	March 9, 1987
important cities told me of the problems they faced, and I would also say, in answer to the minister that I do not know what the hon. minister of the province of Quebec thinks, nor do I have any idea of what the ministers of the other provinces think, today. I do know that a few years ago, no one shared my views; nevertheless, I believe I am telling the truth since this is not of my own invention. I have heard all my colleagues, mayors from the ten provinces, make the same statement. I assure you that some of those persons -I was going to use the word "brilliant", but I will refrain from doing so because I note that some of the present hon. members were mayors of their municipality at the time-

If the minister is interested I could check with the ministers of the province of Quebec. It happens that occasionally I can make a phone call to them.


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to delay unduly the second reading of this very important bill. There are, however, one or two principles in it with which I must disagree, and I take this opportunity to make known my disagreement. I am convinced that the proposal in the bill to relate equalization payments to the average of all the provinces of Canada very definitely is a backward step and one which will react unfavourably on the poorer provinces of Canada. I refer particularly to my own province of Prince Edward Island.
At this time I should like to place before the house, before the government and the minister just as succinctly and concisely as I can the situation in which the province of Prince Edward Island finds itself at the present time, in so far as being able to finance its essential services is concerned. I think probably I can exemplify this very clearly first of all by pointing out the debt situation in which Prince Edward Island, the smallest province of Canada, finds itself.
I should like to go back over a three year period, starting March 31, 1963. The direct debt of this province at that time, less of course our sinking funds, was $38,709,000, or $362 per capita. One year later, March 31, 1964, the direct debt had increased from $38,709,000 to $50,059,000, or $468 per capita. As of March 31, 1965, the net direct debt had increased again from $50,059,000 to $56,200,000, or $520 per capita. Finally, as of March 31, 1966, the last fiscal year for which definite
March 9, 1967	COMMONS
figures are available, that debt had increased from $56,200,000 to $62,200,000 or $575 per capita. That, Mr. Speaker, represents an increase in debt for a small province of only 108,000 people over a three-year period of 62 per cent.
For the year ending March 31, 1967-the end of this present fiscal year-it is estimated it will take $4,300,000 to service this debt. This amount of $4,300,000 must come out of our revenues. It is required to pay the interest on what we owe and to establish an adequate sinking fund to meet our provincial debentures when they fall due. I should like to point out that under the proposed agreement in respect of this bill which is before us now our province will receive from the federal government under this arrangement a total of $14 million. It will take 30 per cent of that $14 million simply to pay the interest on and service the present debt.
From these figures I believe it must be obvious that that $14 million certainly will not be enough. If we look at it from another angle, our revenue from provincial sources for the year ending March 31, 1967-this is the revenue we will collect from our own taxpayers-will amount to only $12,500,000. That is the amount our government can collect from its taxpayers. Out of that $12,500,000 we first must take $4,300,000 and set it aside to service our debt. In other words 35 per cent of our provincial revenue must go immediately to service the provincial debt, pay the interest and provide an adequate sinking fund.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
It is obvious to anyone who takes a close look at the figures that our province is heavily dependent upon the revenues we hope to receive from Ottawa. Our total estimated revenue to March 31, 1967, is $33,500,000. That is the total amount our government has available to it to run the province, and of that $33,500,000 we will receive $21 million from Ottawa. In other words, 60 per cent of our total revenue will come from Ottawa. Ours is the only province in Canada that receives more from Ottawa than it collects from its own taxpayers. I am only pointing this out to impress upon this government just how heavily a province such as ours is dependent on the federal treasury.
I submit very seriously that we in the province of Prince Edward Island cannot pay more in taxes. That is because our tax potential is extremely low. We have the lowest wage earners in Canada. The average weekly 23033-8731
Equalization Payments to Provinces wage in our province is $64 as compared to the Canadian average of $96.53. Our wage earners receive about $32.50 below the national average.
According to the latest figures available the average Canadian makes $5,000 per year. In Prince Edward Island the average is $3,600 per year. We have greater unemployment and underemployment than any other province in Canada. In December of 1966, we see that 5.8 per cent of the labour force in the Atlantic provinces was unemployed, as compared with only 2.4 per cent in Ontario. Taking into account the very low per capita income, I very seriously suggest we do not have the tax potential in our province to provide through our own revenues the essential services to which people are justly entitled.
One might very well ask what are the causes of this low per capita income. I suggest there are several, including the loss of our markets to the south, the increase in tariff barriers against our exports, the opening up of supplies of natural products from other countries and the centralization of industries in close proximity to big population centres. We find it extremely difficult to encourage industry to come to our province. Our geographical isolation is probably another reason our per capita income is so low.
Often we talk about the war on poverty. I suggest that one of the most effective weapons with which successfully to fight this war is a plan whereby we can bring about a more equal distribution of our national wealth. If a plan could be devised to bring about a more equal distribution, then we in our province would benefit and our people would be able to contribute more to the provincial treasury by way of taxes.
National prosperity is not spread equally throughout the provinces and regions of this country, and regional disparities in incomes and opportunities have persisted. I suggest they will continue to persist until we hit upon a more socially equitable policy for distributing income throughout the economy.
For the past 100 years our biggest export from Prince Edward Island has been in the form of brains. Statistics conclusively indicate that our birth rate over the years has far exceeded our death rate, but our population remains at about the 100,000 mark. It has stayed at that point for 50, 75 or 100 years.
You may well ask what has happened to our natural increase. It is syphoned off to other parts of Canada, where the prospects
13814	COMMONS
Equalization Payments to Provinces and opportunities of enjoying a higher standard of living are greater than in our own province. I suggest therefore that until such time as effective measures can be devised to bring our incomes at least close to the national average, we must lean heavily on Ottawa in order that we may enjoy the same measure of essential services being enjoyed by other provinces of Canada. Of course as fellow Canadians and citizens of this great country we are entitled to the enjoyment of the same essential services as are enjoyed by the other provinces, in spite of the fact our unfortunate position is such that we cannot possibly provide these from our own revenue. It must not be forgotten that we are citizen of Canada, and that it is not through any fault of ours our incomes are not high enough to provide sufficient tax to enable our government to give us these services.
Any fiscal policy inaugurated between the federal and provincial governments must take into consideration the fiscal ability of a province to maintain a national standard of service. This is the area in which this proposed arrangement falls down drastically. It does not take into consideration the fiscal ability of the province to provide essential services.
Every Canadian from Newfoundland to British Columbia expects, quite rightly, the same quality of services in education, highways, health and welfare, transportation and in other well established government programs. That is all we ask. We do not want to be considered as poor relations in this great confederacy, nor do we ask for any privileges. We do not want any; but we do very vigorously claim a recognition of a right to fiscal equality. We shall never be satisfied until that right is afforded us.
As I mentioned before, ours is one of the provinces with inadequate tax collection potentials and we must have a substantial increase over and above the amount we are to receive under this proposed bill. The provisions of this measure definitely do not go far enough to meet our needs. No arrangement will be satisfactory which does not make it financially possible for our province to provide a reasonable level of provincial services without imposing an abnormal burden of tax, because our people cannot bear that burden of taxation. This is the basic and indispensable minimum requirement of any division of revenues between the heads of government and the measure of relief given to us under the provisions of this bill. An additional $3,500,000 does not come anywhere near meeting this requirement
[Mr. McQuaid.l
DEBATES	March 9, 1967
We take the position in our province that federal-provincial agreements must seek to attain a balance between the financial capacity and the responsibilities of government, and we therefore must have a formula based on fiscal need.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Fiscal need is the only satisfactory base upon which any formula can be devised. The policy which is incorporated in this bill, that of relating equalization payments to the average per capita revenue of all the provinces of Canada, is very definitely not in accord with the principle of fiscal need and is not satisfactory to us.
Another thing we are disappointed about is that the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants-those grants which have meant so much to us in past years-while strictly speaking they are not being abolished, they are losing their identity. I suggest it is not fair to have the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants incorporated in our equalization grants. I am afraid that this is only the thin edge of the wedge. The Atlantic provinces adjustment grants as such will be no more. I realize that the 3i million we have been receiving each year under the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants is now being incorporated in the $14 million we are about to receive, but it goes in under the heading of equalization. I do not think this is right. I think the identity of the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants should have been maintained.
I would suggest three remedial measures that will give us and the other poorer provinces of Canada the relief which we need, the relief to which as a province of this country we are entitled. The first would be a basic payment across the board to those provinces with a low fiscal capacity and a low tax potential. This refers to any province that has a low fiscal capacity-that is, the earning power of its people is not sufficient to allow them to pay taxes to provide the essential services that are required-and a low tax potential. With regard to the provinces which find themselves in this situation, I very seriously suggest that they should first of all receive a basic payment. Second, I suggest that the present equalization payments must be averaged to the highest income province in Canada, and not to the national average. These equalization payments should not be geared to the national average of all the provinces of Canada but rather to the revenue of the highest income province. Third, Mr. March 9, 1967
Speaker, I suggest an increase in the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants from the present $35 million to $60 million a year.
These suggested amendments would certainly result in an improvement in the financial arrangements suggested in the present bill and would help our province and other provinces which find themselves in practically the same situation to meet the mounting costs of provincial services, without resorting to an abnormal burden of taxation. I suggest that as a province of Canada this is the minimum to which we are entitled. I very seriously recommend these three remedial measures to the minister before we pass the present bill.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest this evening to the minister's preliminary statement. As usual it was a very reasoned one and one that I know will strike some response in my own province of British Columbia, because we are a province of very reasonable people.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Hear, hear.


Howard Earl Johnston: At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I must confess that we are one of the "have" provinces. Any time a British Columbian begins to talk about his own province it becomes immediately obvious that ours is one of the provinces of this great country that has been particularly blessed. Therefore there is a danger inherent in the sort of lengthy and seemingly complete bill before us this evening, when it is considered with the reasoned statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), that too reasonable people will think our province has really nothing further to ask of any federal government. But I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a delusion.
It is one of our Canadian problems, that too many of the schemes, proposals and arrangements that are put forward for the development of this country become rescue operations, rather than operations designed to assist the provinces that are in a position to go ahead. We in British Columbia feel that there are many areas in which our province has not had the kind of assistance from the federal government that has been given to other provinces. This problem is sometimes concerned with geography.
I might mention that although we are very proud of our history and the fact that Vancouver Island and the mainland formed a political union a long time ago, we realize
Equalization Payments to Provinces now it was fiscal folly to do so in the light of what has happened to date. Had our people had sufficient foresight into the development of this country, they would never have united Vancouver Island and the mainland; they would have left Vancouver Island as an individual province. If that had been done, the city of Vancouver would now have no problems in connecting its heart with the north shore, because the federal government would have seen that highways were built; and there would be a project at least under way, if not completed, to build a bridge, causeway or tunnel between the mainland and Vancouver Island. We can see now, with hindsight, that perhaps what seemed such a farsighted view 100 years ago was really something that eventually posed a problem.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I would mention our railroad, the Pacific Great Eastern, which because it is a provincially owned railroad has never been on the same sort of financial footing as other railroads in this country. I might tell the house a story about that railroad. I lived in the little village of Lillooet, in the Fraser canyon, for several years and the Pacific Great Eastern Railway ran through that village. We had a very good friend, an immigrant from Germany, who lived in the house beside ours. She did not know the history of British Columbia very well. Her house, like ours, overlooked the railway track, and she watched trains go by every day of the year, month after month. One evening she came over to us, much agitated because something strange had happened that afternoon; A train had gone by and the whole village had risen as one and rushed to the bank overlooking the railway track to watch it pass.
Our neighbour could not understand why this had happened. I explained that it was really very simple. There had been a disastrous series of slides in the Fraser canyon which had completely blocked off the two major railways, the C.P.R. and the C.N.R., from the city of Vancouver, and for the first time in history the Canadian National had run a train over the tracks of the Pacific Great Eastern down to Vancouver, in order to bring freight in, while they were waiting for repairs to be carried out. The little village of Lillooet appreciated the fact that for the first time there had been forced upon that other great railroad recognition of the fact that the Pacific Great Eastern actually existed. I do not think this recognition has as yet reached

13816	COMMONS
Equalization Payments to Provinces the federal government. The federal government does not seem to have recognized the special situation which exists in British Columbia.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does the hon. member know it has been reported recently that Premier Bennett suggested that the province of British Columbia should take over all the railroads in British Columbia?


Howard Earl Johnston: I think this would probably be an excellent idea. From my observation, only one railway has been extended recently into the undeveloped parts of the province, and there are probably a good many sections of the province that would be overjoyed if the province took over the management of the other lines, as well as the one it now owns. I think the hon. member for Kootenay West may himself have one or two areas in mind which would benefit from such a far-sighted development.
There are other factors involved in the equalization, and in a reasonable approach from both federal and provincial governments. The whole bill is tied to natural resources and the revenue which they produce. I do not wish to dwell on this topic but we know that within a day or so the famous and long awaited supreme court case between the federal and provincial governments concerning the offshore mineral rights in British Columbia will be underway. We can see a reason for that in this bill. The federal provincial fiscal arrangements are tied to natural resources, and the outcome of the legal decision which will be made will be a most important one, not just for British Columbia but for every province in this country which has a sea coast, and for those parts of the country that are not yet provinces but which will be affected by the decision one way or another. The fact that the court case is under way is a salutary reminder, because if the federal policies were always as reasonable as the words of the minister would indicate then another solution would have been found to this problem. It would have been solved by political discussion and not by the legal means which are being utilized at the present time and which in all likelihood will not produce a satisfactory situation in the future.
The minister's statements have been so reasonable that I am sure this is one of the reasons why the people of B.C. have so insistently and consistently believed hon. members on the government side who have either gone

DEBATES	March 9. 1967
out to that province, or have gone home to it and informed the people of British Columbia that large sums of money are waiting in some federal treasury if only the provincial government would ask for them. We have heard this repeatedly. They talk about these funds when there is either a federal or provincial election, and this story has been so common and so current in British Columbia for several years now that it is not surprising that the premier of British Columbia, who is also a reasonable man, has reached the point of sending a telegram to the Minister of Finance asking whether it would be possible to borrow $100 million from the federal government to be used for the development of hydro schemes on the Peace and Columbia rivers. These hydro schemes were about to be undertaken when the federal government increased the sales tax on construction materials to 11 per cent. This measure which affected construction in all provinces in Canada and was perhaps the most inflationary measure brought in by any Canadian government was one that affected particularly British Columbia.
The premier of British Columbia is a reasonable man and I am sure he knew that $100 million would not be forthcoming as rapidly as some people thought it would, but it was one way of solving the nagging question which I have been asked many times myself and that is: "How about these large sums of federal money? What is wrong with the government of British Columbia that it does not go ahead and ask for some of this money? We are told that it is there, why is the request not made?" The request has been made. An hon. member says that it was made so long ago that even the interest on that sum would amount to a considerable sum of money, and I would agree with that.
I have read the statement made by the minister on March 2 in which he referred to this request. Unfortunately I was not present in the house at the time. I am glad to hear that the statement was much more reasonable than the answers which he gave in the house to questions put to him by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I know how concerned that hon. member is over this whole question, and I know of the high regard in which he holds the policies that are carried out by the government of British Columbia.
I do not intend to oppose this bill because I believe that it does improve the situation in British Columbia in several respects. However, I would like to make it very clear that it does not solve a host of problems in British
March 9, 1967	COMMONS
Columbia, simply because our province attracts people from many other areas in Canada. For example many problems arise in providing hospitals for the aged. In this connection we hope that some day the federal government will be able to increase its per capita grants for hospital construction, an increase that has been long awaited and long overdue in our province.
We also have problems in providing education, because of the families which have moved to our province as a result of its booming economy. I would remind hon. members from other provinces in Canada, whose population is more static and who speak about the brain drain, that they can congratulate themselves on the fact that at least they can cope with the educational problems their provinces have, because in British Columbia it is very difficult indeed to cope with all the demands of education at the present time. I know that this bill will improve somewhat the situation in post-secondary education, but I am concerned about the problems that will arise.
There is a great need for some sort of a federal bureau of education in order to discuss carefully what federal policy will mean in terms of actual schools in the province, to which this legislation will be applied, because it does not take much change in the grants policy to distort the educational picture in a province and to influence the structure of its educational system. Confusion can arise over what is meant by junior matriculation, in view of the fact that some provinces require three years of secondary education before junior matriculation, while others have four years. The whole system of secondary education may well be adjusted in some provinces in order to enable them to benefit to the greatest extent possible from the federal grant.
Finally I would like to say a word about the vexing problem of estate taxes, which has been mentioned already in this debate. The Carter commission had some important things to say about estate taxes. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) was concerned about the fact that there was a five year time limit on this bill. He was afraid that the Carter commission report would run into interference from this bill. I do not think he needs to worry about this because I suspect many more than five years will have
Equalization Payments to Provinces passed before any of the major recommendations of the Carter commission are implemented, judging by the present pace of legislation and the progress which we experience in this parliament.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I hope that the government will move to amend the estate tax requirements and not await any general implementation of the Carter commission report. Because I think the time has gone by when businesses in Canada can afford to be disrupted upon the death of the owner. Sometimes deaths are premature and unexpected, and far too often businesses either have to be sold or undergo a complete change of management in order that estate taxes may be paid.
I am sure that any member who sat on the drug costs committee, Mr. Speaker, heard repeated over and over again the story of drug companies which used to be Canadian, but because their owners were getting on in years and no member of the family wished to take over the company and face the prospect of meeting enormous bills for estate taxes, it became necessary to sell these companies. Because of the size of some of the companies the United States was the only place that could put up the capital, and as a result many of the companies appearing before the committee were wholly-owned United States subsidiaries, instead of being Canadian-owned.
Why is this, Mr. Speaker? Books have been written suggesting that the cause of this is United States economic imperialism; but I contend that far too often the cause has been the tax policies of the government of Canada.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, from 1933 until 1956 there was a provincial Liberal government in my native province. From 1935 until 1957 there was a federal Liberal government in Ottawa. During the whole of this period efforts were made by the various Liberal premiers who held office in Halifax to secure recognition by the Liberal government in Ottawa of the very obvious plight of the maritime provinces. Far too often the late and great Angus L. Macdonald came to Ottawa looking for assistance, and went home empty handed. His successor, Henry Hicks, had the same fate in store. If the Liberal government had not been defeated in the general election campaign in 1957 I dare say that Robert Stanfield would have enjoyed no greater success than his predecessors.

March 9. 1967
Equalization Payments to Provinces
However, Mr. Speaker, in 1957 the Dief-enbaker administration was elected to office and almost immediately the Atlantic provinces found a government with a national policy as well as a regional policy that recognized the special problems of the Atlantic provinces and tried to do something about them.
When I same to this house in 1957 I was impressed indeed by the work of the late George C. Nowlan, who at that time as minister of national revenue put forward the special problems facing the Atlantic provinces and secured early in 1958 the passage of legislation which provided through the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants the sum of $25 million a year for those Atlantic provinces. This was special recognition, Mr. Speaker. The total sum provided at the time was $100 million spread over a four year period.
As the four year period drew to an end, the Diefenbaker administration did not say to the Atlantic provinces: "Well, you have gotten $100 million more than expected when we were elected to office; we do not feel that you should have more, even though your problems continue to exist and persist". Instead, Mr. Speaker, the Diefenbaker administration passed further legislation in 1962 continuing the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants for a further five year period, and increasing from $25 million to $35 million the yearly amount paid.
We are today debating legislation that will eliminate the special recognition granted to the Atlantic provinces by the Diefenbaker administration. To this I object as strenuously as I can, Mr. Speaker. I ignore and discount the argument that is put forward that it is all going into the pot; that it is going to be part of the scheme of things in the future. What the government is doing now, in effect, is eliminating this special recognition that was afforded to the Atlantic area when the Conservative government took office in 1958, and passed this legislation.
Surely there is money available for the present through the negotiations which have taken place; but this special recognition that was made is no longer acknowledged, and the next time agreements are reached between the federal and provincial governments no thought will be given by the present administration, if it is lucky enough to still be in office at the time, to giving the Atlantic provinces the special recognition they deserve.

There is no difference between the problems we face today, Mr. Speaker, and the problems we faced in 1958 when this legislation was passed, except that probably the problems are not as great as they were as a result of the passage of this legislation. But the problems are there. We still have a higher rate of unemployment than any other part of the nation and a lower per capita income than any other part of the nation. As the hon. member for Kings (Mr. McQuaid) so ably pointed out in his address, the problems we had at confederation not only still exist but indeed have increased many, manyfold, the most significant increase occurring when a Liberal administration holds office in Ottawa. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, in the maritimes Liberal times are hard times.
The Progressive Conservative party have always urged special recognition of the Atlantic provinces in order to eliminate the disparity existing between that area and the rest of Canada. The Liberal party has continually ignored our problems and endeavoured to treat us in the same manner as any other part of the nation. When Liberal spokesmen go down to that area of Canada they recognize our special problems, but only for the period of time they spend there. As soon as they leave the Atlantic provinces the problems which are in their minds also seem to disappear. It will be a sad day for the Atlantic provinces when the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants go out the window, as they will on passage of this legislation.
The same thing happened to the Atlantic Development Board, Mr. Speaker. Our concept was that the Atlantic Development Board would endeavour to lift up the Atlantic provinces and assist the people there to lift themselves up. As soon as the Liberal party took office, we found the board downgraded. It was no longer the instrument through which we were to go forward, with hundreds of millions of dollars being poured into our area in the hope that the disparity could be eliminated. Instead, we found the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) telling us that the board was for the future. He even put a date on the future of the board, until we forced him to eliminate it. The position of the board in the future would be that of a gap filler, and indeed that has been its position.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I will say this, Mr. Speaker-


John B. Stewart: Will the hon. member permit a question?
March 9, 1967	COMMONS


Robert Carman Coates: No, I do not have the time. I will say this, that the board has effectively done the job this government gave to it, within the confines of the funds made available to it. However, it has not been the kind of board the Progressive Conservative party envisaged when they established it. It has not done the kind of job that we had hoped such a board would do. The sad fact of the matter is that this government seems determined to eliminate from the statute books of this nation any legislation specifically directed toward eliminating the disparities and recognizing the problems facing the Atlantic provinces.
This is the thing that I abhor the most, the fact that this government is unwilling to recognize our specific problems, is unwilling to give us an opportunity to do the things in our part of Canada that will allow us to move forward with the remainder of this nation. Certainly if this legislation is passed in its present form, all the great work that the late George Nowlan did to see that the Atlantic provinces received special recognition is going to go out the window. Unfortunately there is little hope that this will not happen.
One need only look at the difficulties being experienced in the Cape Breton area of my province of Nova Scotia to realize that we have special problems. We are willing to face these problems, and attack them as best we can within the financial resources available to us. However, we do not have the finances to do so, and we do not get much help from this government. We have not received much help during the four years this government has held office. I do not know what the fate of the Atlantic provinces will be in the future if this government persists in eliminating all the good things that were done by the Diefen-baker administration.
I do not know whether this government realizes or cares to realize how serious these problems continue to be. We hear all kinds of excuses made about why this or that has not been done. We do not get the kind of action we deserve, and we do not get the kind of recognition that we need if we are going to close the gap, which is becoming an ever-widening gap between the Atlantic provinces and the rest of Canada. There does not appear to be any legislation on the order paper, or any prospects of legislation, with the exception of the special corporation which is to be set up to deal with the problems of the coal mining industry in Nova Scotia, that is going to help us eliminate the problems that are very much in evidence in our area.
Equalization Payments to Provinces
Surely to goodness, the government does not think the Cape Breton corporation, which is to eliminate the coal mining problem, in itself will meet all the problems of the Atlantic provinces. I know that in Cumberland county, as well as many other counties, there is ample evidence to indicate a great deal more must be done. Surely, there is not much evidence for the people of the Atlantic provinces to indicate that anything more will be done, if this government continues to move forward as slowly as it has up to now.
We in the Atlantic provinces are told many wonderful stories at election time, and have been told those stories during the last 100 years. Until the Diefenbaker government was elected in 1957, these were nothing more than stories. They were just pie in the sky. But the pie disappeared the day after the votes were counted. During the seven years the Diefenbaker government held office we got action; we got results and we got legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Carman Coates: May I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member still has another two minutes before he can call it ten o'clock. I should like to remind him in passing that we are dealing with Bill No. C-277, and the arguments he is now advancing to the house do not appear to relate very closely to the principle of the bill. This is the reason I take the liberty of reminding the hon. member of the specific principle with which we should be dealing at this time.


Robert Carman Coates: Nevertheless the principle of the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants is very much involved here, and so far as I am concerned it will not be involved in the future if this legislation passes in its present form. This is the main point on which I am speaking, and I should like to see the legislation before the house altered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Between the hon. member and the Chair we have now reached ten o'clock.


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman had concluded his remarks, but if he had I wonder whether we might give this bill second reading and be in committee when next we reach it?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Allmand in the chair.
13820	COMMONS DEBATES	March 9. 1967
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion The Acting Chairman (Mr. Allmand): Shall
I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Tomorrow we propose submitting to the house for its consideration the following items of business: If the evidence is printed in both languages, and distributed, we would take, first, item 63. the house in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-190 to amend the Bank of Canada Act. We would then proceed with items 135, 86, 134, 137 and 136.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, on the orders of the day, I asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) if it were true that a unilingual R.C.M.P. inspector had been appointed liaison officer between the federal police and the security service at Expo and, if so, if the minister would take steps to appoint a bilingual officer to that important post.
I felt prompted to ask that question after reading in the Montreal newspaper La Presse on Wednesday, March 8, a news report that read as follows:
An inspector of the R.C.M.P., unable to speak a single word of French, has been appointed liaison officer between the federal police and the security service of Expo.
Mr. J. A. B. Ryddel, who holds the rank of inspector, was stationed in New Brunswick until his recent appointment to Expo, an appointment which does not seem to please a number of members of the security force of Man and his World.
In the meetings all proceedings are carried out in French only. As Inspector Ryddel does not understand a single word of our language, the higher-ups of the R.C.M.P. had to delegate to him an interpreter who translates for him the words of the security officers.
Mr. Herve T. Poudrette, who heads the security services at Expo confirmed to La Presse that inspector Ryddel spoke only English but he refused to comment on the situation.

A spokesman for the R.C.M.P. at Montreal headquarters also confirmed that Inspector Ryddel spoke only one language but he also refused to comment.
On the other hand, an Expo official said: you would swear Commissioner G. B. McClellan of the R.C.M.P. tried on purpose to offend French Canadians by sending us this unilingual official.
Mr. Speaker, it is inconceivable that, $6 or $7 million having been spent on the Laur-endeau-Dunton commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, a man who does not speak French should be appointed to an important position in the city of Montreal.
In order to understand or to make himself understood, he needs an interpreter, and the dangers of that are quite clear.
Again, we realize that the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. is not working toward Canadian unity, and his gesture tends to sabotage all efforts toward national unity and peace in Canada.
The Solicitor General of Canada should remove Commissioner McClellan from his post for reasons of incompetence, and also replace by a bilingual official the R.C.M.P. inspector responsible for liaison between the various security bodies of Expo.


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: On behalf of the Solicitor General I should like to answer the question asked by the hon. member. May I first express my regret that I am unable to give this answer in the other language. With the increase in duties which the force will have to carry out during Expo it has been found necessary to increase, at least for this year, the number of commissioned officers stationed at Montreal to deal with matters arising, not only out of Expo but also from the general increase of federal police work anticipated during that period.
Every commissioned officer stationed in the province of Quebec, until the transfer of this officer, was bilingual. Inspector Riddell, who was a newly commissioned officer, was sent to Montreal for a two-fold purpose; not particularly as a liaison officer with Expo, nor was he designated as such. Rather, he was sent as a general officer in the division to be available for general duties wherever he may be required and where pressure demands extra help. The second purpose of the transfer was in line with the commissioner's endeavour to encourage the study of French by English speaking officers.
March 9, 1967	COMMONS
The written instructions to the commanding officer at Montreal at the time of the transfer stated that this transfer would afford this officer an opportunity to study French and that he should be encouraged to do so. It is true that this young officer has been attending meetings in regard to Expo and otherwise,
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion but it is to be emphasized that he was being encouraged to learn the French language and he is a young officer with a career ahead of him.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.08 p.m.
13823

Friday, March 10, 1967