1967-10-04

Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a very distinguished delegation of parliamentarians from the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, Jersey Island and the Isle of Man. These distinguished visitors are members of the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and they are visiting Canada, particularly Ottawa, at the invitation of the Canadian branch of the C.P.A. On behalf of hon. members I extend to them a warm and cordial welcome.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



PRIVILEGE


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I gave you notice this afternoon that I wished to rise on a question of privilege. Here is my grievance. I shall explain it as briefly and serenely as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I sat in on the whole three-day debate on housing. I heard 36 or 37 speeches; I followed with interest, 12 or 13 interventions by the Liberals 14 by the Conservatives 6 by the New Democrats and 2 by the Creditistes. I asked that my name be put on the list of speakers six times orally and four times in writing. I got up 23 times to be recognized and yet I have been unable to have my turn.
So, Mr. Speaker, I believe I have legitimate grounds for a grievance, because I think I have the same rights as all other members. And, if the objection is made that other members have not spoken, I may say that one day, if I ever contract a marriage of love or reason with one of the parties in the house, it would be for better or for worse, for worse
in that I would let my point of view be stated by the leaders of the party rather than doing it myself when I have the time. That is my grievance, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



ABSENCE FROM CHAMBER OF MEMBER FOR YUKON

Mr. Auguste Choquelie (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the suggestion you made yesterday on my point of order over the prolonged absences of which the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has been guilty from August 29, 1966 to September 25, 1967 in accordance with your suggestion, I felt it was more in order to proceed by way of a question of privilege.
I do not wish to quote authors such as Dawson who recalls among others, the case of Sir John A. Macdonald, called to the bar of parliament for failing to seek permission of the house for some of his absences.
I should like instead to view the facts in a modern context and recall that Mr. Robert Stanfield, new leader of the Progressive Conservative party, himself deplored absenteeism in the house, and I agree with him, Mr. Chairman.
The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), whose interventions are frequent and even fruitful at times, raised a point of order in 1964, under standing order 5, when he asked, with the talent and ability known by all, permission of the house to absent himself, since the debate on the adoption of a distinctive flag was dragging on unduly.
A little later on, in 1965, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), as reported on page 12,746 of the French version of Hansard, also raised a point of order under standing order No. 5 to point out that he expected to be called as a witness before the commissioner and chief justice Frederic Dorion, who was presiding at the famous Rivard inquiry. The hon. member for Yukon then referred to standing order 5 as shown on page 12,746 of Hansard, saying that if he were called as witness, it would probably be more in order to comply with the provisions of the standing order.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been systematically absent since August 29,
October 4, 1967
2794	COMMONS
Alleged Absence of Member for Yukon 1966. In looking through the official report, I notice that from August 29, 1966 to September 25, 1967, 41 votes were taken in the house, and the member who sits in the opposition, who is not a minister and who has no ministerial duties, did not take part in 32 votes, that is he has been absent 32 times when votes were taken.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. I must intervene at this stage to remind the hon. member that he cannot make a historical account of the matter he is now raising.
It is just a matter of indicating the nature of the question of privilege and the Chair must give its ruling later on to determine if there is a prima facie question of privilege. Until such decision has been rendered, I do not think the hon. member can discuss the matter in detail.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I conclude by following your instructions.
I simply wanted to point out to your attention that standing order 5 requires that an hon. member must request leave of absence from the house if he has to be away. An hon. member who is always absent, without having asked the authorization of the house, is violating that standing order, and when I think that the hon. member for Saguenay (Mr. Blouin), who represents the largest riding in Canada, with a population larger than that of the Yukon, is always here, I say that the hon. member for Yukon shows great irresponsibility by being always absent. I do not ask that the same penalties imposed against congressman Clayton Powell be imposed against him, however-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Auguste Choquette: -he should apologize.


Hon. Michael Starr (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, I should like to point out that his references to dates of absence on the part of the hon. member for Yukon are not true. I am not surprised that such an obviously spurious question of privilege should be raised by a member who is notorious for irresponsibility and his complete lack of understanding of parliamentary procedure. I am a little surprised, however, that he should raise it on the flimsy pretence that it concerns the privileges of this house, with all the implications inherent in such charge for all hon. members.


I am reminded, Mr. Speaker, of the Biblical account of the woman taken in adultery who was about to be stoned by the righteous. On that occasion our Lord said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"-an injunction, Mr. Speaker, we would all do well to ponder in the circumstances which have been so unnecessarily created by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
In its wisdom, over many years of practical experience this parliament has accepted certain rules as to the conduct and attendance at sittings of hon. members. To the newcomer to this house or to those who are ignorant of the peculiar nature of our Canadian confederation, these rules may appear too vague, too flexible and too loose. However, Mr. Speaker, I recall to Your Honour that of our 265- soon to be 264-federal constituencies, no two are exactly identical in size, territorial extent and boundaries, or in distance from the seat of government.


Auguste Choquette: The hon. member for
Saguenay is always here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Michael Starr: May I remind the hon. member that the riding of Lotbiniere, for instance, is a pleasantly compact rural riding within easy commuting distance of Ottawa-I understand about 250 miles-and is well served by rail, road and even air.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: But not
by members.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: The riding of Yukon, on the other hand, is a vast and distant constituency, ten times as distant and difficult of access by any means of travel when judged by the standards of Lotbiniere. Almost each one of our 265 ridings is different in this respect.
There has been no question for many years of the attendance of a member being enforced, Mr. Speaker. If attendance is not enforced, then absence cannot be a breach. The last episode in Canada was a special case involving Sir John A. Macdonald. It was a matter of his having been named to a committee dealing with election breaches in Northumberland county. The other member of the committee was a Mr. Pearson, no relation of the Prime Minister I know.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
October 4, 1967


Michael Starr: They did not appear in the House of Commons and were ordered to be taken into custody. This appears in the Journals for May 10, 1873, at page 317. The historical explanation is that Sir John had remained at home for reasons of health of a liquid nature.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: On May 12 Sir John received a medical certificate from Doctor Tupper which was read to the house in the form of an affidavit, as follows:
I,	Charles Tupper, of the City of Ottawa, in the County of Carleton, Doctor of Medicine, do make oath and say: That having been called upon to give my professional opinion in reference to the state of health of Sir John A. Macdonald, a Member of the House of Commons, I stated my opinion that it was necessary for the preservation of his health, that he should for some days refrain from the discharge of his duties as such Member of the House


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: I ask, Mr. Speaker, is it to be a requirement that members revert to this sort of practice? I submit that it is in the height of bad taste-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: -it is completely futile and a waste of the time of this house for one member to point the finger at another for behaviour which is dictated for him by the unique nature of the constituency for which he sits. One wonders if the good electors of Lotbiniere would not prefer to read of their member's concern for such matters as housing or the plight of eastern agriculture rather than his fatuous remarks and bitter personal attacks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition does not think he has made his point. Perhaps I might be allowed to deal with the question of privilege. I can assure hon. members that I have had an opportunity to reflect on the matter raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. He gave me written notice earlier today, and I am prepared to make a ruling now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: As I have been directly involved in this matter perhaps I might say a brief word. I do not intend to engage in recriminations with my hon. friend across the way, except to say that what he said is false and baseless with respect to the absences mentioned by him in Hansard. I could point the finger at several members on
Alleged Absence of Member for Yukon the opposite side whose record for attendance is a good deal worse than mine.


Auguste Choquette: That is not true.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member says it is not true.


Auguste Choquette: It is not true.


Erik Nielsen: He will not involve me in the name calling in which he is involved.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: I may say that I have been absent over the past few months, but I have also been attending in the house over the past few months. While I have been absent I have missed the hon. member for Lotbiniere as deeply, 1 am sure, as he has missed me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: May I, as a substantive point to the one that has been raised, refer Your Honour to page 2755 of Hansard for yesterday. The translated heading under which the hon. member raised this question is as follows: "Inquiry as to the prolonged absence of the member for Yukon".


An hon. Member:: Terrible.


Erik Nielsen: In all fairness I think that heading should be deleted; at least it should have been couched in terms to show that it is a mere allegation by the hon. member for Lotbiniere and not a fait accompli, as one might gather by what appears in Hansard of yesterday's date. That is all I have to say.


Mr. Speaker:: I had asked the co-operation of hon. members to allow me to make a brief ruling on the point raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
Dealing with the last point of the hon. member for Yukon, I feel sympathy for his suggestion that perhaps the heading of that paragraph in Hansard was not quite appropriate. We might have referred to the question in terms of an allegation rather than in terms of a statement of fact. I can assure the hon. member that the official records of the house will be corrected accordingly.
Yesterday the hon. member for Lotbiniere raised a point of order affecting the privileges of the hon. member for Yukon, and I suggested to him that these allegations could not be considered under the guise of a point of order. In accordance with the standing order he has now served the Chair with notice of

October 4, 1967
Questions
the question of privilege he intended to raise today.

I remind the hon. member for Lotbiniere that standing order 5 has, in fact, been out of date for a long time. I invite him to acquaint himself with the remarks made by Professor Dawson on page 89, of his book entitled "Procedures of the Canadian House of Commons". The author indicates that that particular standing order has not been in force since the year 1877. For all useful purposes, standing order 5, even though never abolished, has been replaced by the provisions contained in the act on the Senate and the House of Commons. That legislation provides for penalties to be imposed in case of unjustified and repeated absence by a member. I believe that, in such cases, the provisions of that statute prevail.
I have therefore come to the conclusion that the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere cannot be considered further.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and I think this is the appropriate time to raise it. Today your attention was drawn to a heading in Hansard with regard to the hon. member for Yukon which was considered to be inaccurate. I notice that as recorded on the next page, 2756, I rose on a question of privilege immediately following that. My point of order is that there is no heading at all to my question of privilege and I suggest, sir, it should read "Inquiry as to subversive activities of the hon. member for Lotbiniere."



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 156, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Hubert Badanai: At the present time the Canadian Citizenship Act does not place a husband on the same basis as a wife. Subsections 1 and 2 of section 9 and subsections 6 and 9 of section 10 provide for the case of a woman whose husband complies with certain

requirements to become a Canadian citizen, but does not allow the husband of a woman who has complied with the same requirements to become a Canadian citizen.
For example, present regulations require a woman whose husband is a Canadian citizen to have resided in Canada for a period of at least 18 months immediately prior to the date of her application, whereas they require a man, whether or not he is married to a Canadian citizen, to have resided in Canada for at least five years immediately preceding the date of his application.
It is for the purpose of removing this and other similar anomalies that this bill is proposed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Baldwin: 1.	Has the Great Slave Railway line operating from a point near Grimshaw, in the province of Alberta, to Great Slave lake, in the Northwest Territories, been declared as a work for the general advantage of Canada?
2.	If so, on what date was this railway declared to be for the general advantage of Canada?
3.	Does the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada have jurisdiction over the Great Slave Lake Railway?
4.	Are the operating and maintenance personnel of the Great Slave Lake Railway employees of Canadian National Railways, the Great Slave Lake Railway, or some other entity?
5.	Are these employees subject to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, the Canada Pension Plan and/or The Railway Act?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
1 and 2. While no specific declaration has been made paragraph 1 of chapter 56 of the statutes of Canada 1960-61 respecting the construction of the line of railway and paragraph 6(1)(C) of the Railway Act c. 170 s.l RS 1952, read as follows:
1.	In order to establish transportation services to and from mining properties in the area of Great Slave Lake, in the Northwest Territories, and otherwise to assist in the development of Northern Canada.
6(1) (C) every railway or portion thereof, whether constructed under the authority of the Parliament
October 4, 1967

of Canada or not, now or hereafter owned, controlled, leased, or operated by a company wholly or partly within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, or by a company operating a railway wholly or partly within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, whether such ownership, control, or first mentioned operation is acquired or exercised by purchase, lease, agreement or other means whatsoever, and whether acquired or exercised under authority of the Parliament of Canada, or of the legislature of any province, or otherwise howsoever; and every railway or portion thereof now or hereafter so owned, controlled, leased or operated shall be deemed and is hereby declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.
3.	As the line of railway is still under construction, the Canadian Transport Commission jurisdiction applies only to construction of grade crossings and grade separations and/or installation of highway protection. The railway operation complies in all respects with relevant statutes.
4.	Some employees such as those operating work trains are employees of Canadian National Railways. Others are employed by contractors working on the line.
5.	Yes, in so far as Canadian National Railway employees are concerned.


C.N.R. PASSENGER SERVICE IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Hees: 1.	Does Canadian National Railways plan to discontinue rail passenger service in Newfoundland?
2.	Has Canadian National Railways set probable dates for the discontinuation of passenger service in Newfoundland?
3.	How many employees have been laid off by Canadian National Railways to date?
4.	How many jobs will be affected if discontinuation of Canadian National Railways passenger service becomes an actuality?
5.	What plans has Canadian National Railways made for finding alternate employment for those to be affected by discontinuation of passenger service in Newfoundland?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. Authority must be obtained from the Canadian Transport Commission before any discontinuance of rail passenger service. The Canadian National Railway proposes to make such an application to the commission due to the fact that since completion of the Trans-Canada highway across Newfoundland there has been a rapid decline in passenger train revenues. The service which the railway can provide with the equipment and rail facilities available cannot compete with the advantages of travel over the highway. As
Questions
a result, the company has decided to embark upon a bus operation to provide the people of Newfoundland with a faster, more convenient passenger service.
2.	It is proposed that rail passenger service be discontinued concurrent with inauguration by Canadian National of highway bus service tentatively set for June 1968.
3.	None.
4.	About 150 positions in railway operations; however, these will to some extent be offset by the establishment of positions for bus operation.
5.	Every effort will be made to place surplus employees in alternate employment.


BUTTER IMPORTS
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How much butter, of what value and from what countries, was imported during the year 1966-67?
2.	How much butter does Canada have in reserve?
3.	How much butter does the government intend to import during the year 1967-68?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Departments of Trade and Commerce and Agriculture as follows: 1. The quantity and dollar value of butter imported into Canada during the year 1966-67 was:
Year 1966*
Country	Quantity	Value
	(Cwt)	($000)
Belgium-Luxembourg	16,643	405France	43,898	2,251Netherlands	171,199	3,986New Zealand	160	8United States	2,220	60Totals	234,120	6,710Year 1967	*	(January to March incl.)	Belgium-Luxembourg	46,849	1,086New Zealand	22,400	846Totals	69,249	1,932
*A11 of the butter imported during 1966 and January to March 1967 was imported for processing and re-export or for re-export as ship's stores, with the exception of the butter imported from New Zealand in January to March 1967. This was imported by the Canadian Dairy Commission for consumption in Canada.

October 4, 1967
Questions
2.	On July 1, 1967, stocks of creamery but- Hon. H.-J. Robichaud (Minister of Fishter in cold storages and dairy factories in eries): 1. Yes.
Canada amounted to 47,406,000 pounds, com- 2. As soon as the provinces indicate their pared to 57,602,000 pounds as at July 1, 1966. readiness to participate in the administrative
3.	Information not available.	arrangements for the field work of appraisals,
premiums and contact with fishermen.


SETTLEMENT OF C.B.C. WAGE DISPUTE
Mr. Ormiston: From January 1, 1966, to September 1, 1967, has the government, the Minister of Labour, or any official of the Department of Labour ordered, directed, recommended, suggested or determined that C.B.C. management agree to a particular wage settlement with a specific union at a level higher than that recommended, suggested or determined by the C.B.C.?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: In September 1966 the Department of Labour participated in the deliberations of the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, with respect to a wage dispute. These deliberations resulted in a settlement mutually acceptable to both parties.


LOCATION OF NEW BUILDINGS IN GATINEAU COUNTY
Mr. Isabelle: What will be the exact locations of the two federal buildings shortly to be constructed on the Quebec side of the national capital, one in the city of Hull and the other in the municipality of Lucerne in Gatineau county?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: The Department of Forestry and Rural Development Headquarters Building will be located in the vicinity of the Canadian Government Printing Bureau, in the city of Hull, Quebec.
The Forest Research Centre will be located on the west side of Mountain road, near the intersection of Gamelin boulevard, in the municipality of Lucerne, Quebec.


EXTENSION OF FISHERMEN'S INDEMNITY PLAN TO PRAIRIE PROVINCES
Mr. Stefanson: 1.	Has the government plans to extend the fishermen's indemnity plan to fishermen in Manitoba and the other prairie provinces?
2.	If so, when will this become effective?
IMiss LaMarsh.]


EXTENSION OF FISHERMEN'S SHORE INSTALLATIONS INDEMNITY PLAN TO MANITOBA
Mr. Stefanson: 1.	Has the government plans to extend the fixed fishing gear and shore installations indemnity plan to fishermen in Manitoba?
2.	If so, when will this become effective?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1. Yes, this coverage is part of the fishermen's indemnity plan.
2. As soon as the provinces indicate their readiness to participate in the administrative arrangements for the field work of appraisals, premiums and contact with fishermen.


RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE BY FIREARMS MANUFACTURERS
Mr. Enns: 1.	Have complaints about resale price maintenance practices been received by the director of investigation and research against certain firearm companies, specifically Remington, Browning and Ithaca?
2.	Has any study been made by the director of investigation and research to determine if the price fixing of guns by manufacturers through franchised dealers constitutes a restrictive trade practice under section 34 of the Combines Investigation Act?
3.	Has any action against the firearms manufacturers been taken?


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: 1. Yes, with respect to Remington.
2 and 3. The general practice is that no information is given out as to whether a particular inquiry has been, or is being pursued with respect to a particular group of companies or individuals unless and until a report is published or proceedings are taken in the courts.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Johnston: 1. Was it necessary to change the name of the National Employment Service to "Canada Manpower Centre" and, if so, for what reason?
October 4, 1967

2.	What was the total cost of (a) separating offices (b) separating staff (c) rental of nonfederal owned buildings (d) discard of stationery and other office supplies for change of name?
3.	What was the total number of staff, in the unemployment insurance and employment services separately, in 1965 and in 1966, and if the 1966 figure is not available, what is the estimate?
4.	What was the area of square feet occupied by both offices in 1965 and in 1966?
5.	How many persons above the classification of local office manager were employed in 1965 and how many in 1966?
6.	What was the amount of salaries paid for these persons above the classification of local office manager in 1965 and in 1966?
7.	How many directors and assistant directors were there in 1965 and in 1966?
8.	What were the salaries of each of these persons in 1965 and in 1966?
9.	How many commissioners were there in 1965 and in 1966?
10.	What were the salaries of each in 1965 and in 1966?
11.	How many federal ministers were involved in Canada manpower and unemployment insurance in 1965 and in 1966?
12.	What were the salaries of each in 1965 and in 1966?
13.	How many local office managers (or equivalent) were there in 1965 and in 1966?
14.	What were the total salaries of these persons in 1965 and in 1966?
15.	What was the total number of staff handling "special placements" in 1965 and in 1966?
16.	What were the total salaries of these persons (as in part 15) in 1965 and in 1966?
17.	What was the total number of authenticated placements in 1965 and in 1966 (disregarding persons called back to their own jobs) ?
18.	What was the cost per individual placement in 1965 and in 1966?
19.	What was the total amount of N.E.S. salaries below the classification of local office manager or assistant in 1965 and in 1966?
20.	How many persons of a staff below the classification of local office manager or assistant were employed in 1965 and in 1966?
21.	What was the cost of moving staff and families to other positions in 1965 and in 1966?
22.	Who was the chief commissioner in 1965 and in 1966?
23.	What was the chief commissioner's salary in 1965 and in 1966?
24.	What is the duration of his appointment?
25.	What were the total expenses of "executive visits" from Ottawa to local offices in 1965 and in 1966?
26.	Do local office radio and TV broadcasts still reflect the same jobs available after all these changes and, if so (a) for what reason (b) who pays for the increases in salaries, upgradings, etc., and costs?
27.	What are the total annual costs to operate each regional and local office in addition to the costs to the department of the head office in Ottawa?
Return tabled.
Motions for Papers [Translation\


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion No. 17?
I ask, sir, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


TRANSFER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS OFFICE FROM AMOS, QUE.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 17-Mr. Laprise:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of all documents and correspondence between the personnel of the office of the Indian agency in Amos, on the one part, and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, on the other part, in connection with the transfer of the district office of the Indian affairs branch from Amos to Val d'Or.
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking for correspondence which passed between officials of my department. It was correspondence entirely within the department, and customarily this sort of thing has not been made public. I would ask him to drop the motion.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, on September 27 last I addressed a question to the right hon. Prime Minister regarding the business of the house, asking that at the earliest opportunity he submit a list of legislation expected to be considered during the present session and detailing a time table, to which the Prime Minister replied that he would be very glad to see that such a list was given to me and to other members. Is the Prime Minister now ready to submit this list of legislation?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Inquiries of the Ministry FORESTRY



FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN STUDY OF FIRE PREVENTION METHODS

[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 Forestry and Rural Development. In view of the serious loss of timber, scenic and recreational values caused by forest fires in British Columbia this year, has the minister received any request from the government of British Columbia for a joint federal-provincial study of new techniques to deal more efficiently with Canada's most persistent form of natural disaster, the forest fire?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for having sent me notice of his question. So far we have received no official request.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As a supplementary question, will the minister consider sending a representative of his department to attend the seminar called by the mayor of Trail, B.C., for some time in November, to discuss forest fire fighting methods, to which representatives of the provincial government and the governors of Washington and Idaho have been invited?


Maurice Sauvé: I will do this with pleasure, Mr. Speaker, if we are invited.



RURAL DEVELOPMENT ARDA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouefte (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the minister responsible for ARDA, the hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Has the minister received representations concerning assistance from ARDA in setting secondary industries in northwestern Quebec?


Maurice Sauvé: Not as far as I
know, Mr. Speaker.


David Réal Caouette: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Supposing the people in northwestern Quebec were to ask for assistance from ARDA, would the Industrial Development Bank co-operate with the minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is hypothetical.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In the light of newspaper reports on the subject could he tell us whether when the French minister of agriculture, Edgar Faure, arrives in Canada he will be conferring with him on such mutual problems as farm prices and the handling of farmers' demonstrations?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minisier of Agriculture):: I regret to inform the hon. member that Mr. Faure's visit, due to circumstances beyond his control, has been cancelled.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Would the government look into the causes which led to the 4J per cent increase in the cost of food during the past two months, as a preliminary step to stemming the rapid rise in the cost of living?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this is a very general question and cannot be asked at this time.



TEXTILES-SUGGESTED RESTRICTION ON IMPORTS FROM JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Finance and Receiver General.
In view of the fact that the sales of Canadian textiles have fallen off for the first time in five years while inventories have doubled, does the government intend in the near future to invite officially the Japanese government to restrict its exportations of fibres to Canada?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minisier of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the government has already invited the Japanese government to do that. When I was in Rio I had the opportunity of
(Mr. Pearson.]
October 4, 1967

speaking directly to the Japanese minister of finance in order to support our application.


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: As
a supplementary question, will the minister assure the house that nothing will be done to interfere with Canadian-Japanese trading?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is the problem the government faces, illustrated most vividly by speakers on this side of the house.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Can he inform the house whether he has taken the necessary steps to protect the shoe industry in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that this question is much too general in scope to be asked at present. I believe that the hon. member is asking the minister to make a statement, which would be appropriate on motions.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: With all due respect, sir, I believe that my question is similar to that asked by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), since it concerns an industry of vital importance to the people of this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made his representations.



TORONTO-STEPS TO COMBAT USE OF MARIJUANA IN SCHOOLS

[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 Prime Minister. Has the federal government been requested to assist the efforts of Toronto municipal and school officials to combat the increasing efforts of international drug syndicates to push the use of marijuana in Canadian schools?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into that question.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO PROVINCES ACCEPTING INVITATION TO ATTEND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, more than a week ago, on Monday,

Inquiries of the Ministry September 25, I asked the Prime Minister to inform the house what provinces had accepted his invitation to the federal-provincial conference called for early next year. The Prime Minister replied that he preferred not to do that then but if I would wait until the end of the week he could give a full reply. Is he now in a position to do so?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can give a fuller reply, Mr. Speaker. I think seven provinces have accepted, and perhaps tomorrow I will be able to give the full list, including those which have not yet been able to answer my letter.


Erik Nielsen: When the Prime Minister replies tomorrow perhaps he would also reply to the question I put to him on two occasions with respect to representation by the governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Yukon and Northwest Territories will be represented at this conference in the usual fashion followed over the years by the federal government.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is he now in a position to answer the question put to him yesterday by the hon. member for York South concerning the reported admission to Canada of 15 supervisors to work for Consolidated Aviation Fueling of Toronto Limited in the face of a legal strike?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I received the telegram to which the hon. member for York South referred yesterday. The report I have indicates that 15 supervisory men came from the United States and concealed the true purpose of their visit to Canada. They did not indicate to our officers that they were coming here to work for the Consolidated Aviation Fueling company. A meeting was held the following day with the president of the company following which our local officers decided, for reasons of safety, that these men could remain in Canada. I am assured now that this is not at all necessary, and these men will be asked to quit Canada within 48 hours.
October 4, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



INQUIRY AS TO REGULATIONS RESPECTING INTEREST DISCLOSURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Finance could advise the house when he intends to publish and table the regulations concerning interest disclosure, as provided for under section 92 of the Bank Act.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will answer that question tomorrow after I have made inquiries.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
As the Economic Council of Canada foresees a marked increase in the number of unemployed this fall, and in view of the Canadian Press report which outlines special steps to alleviate the consequences thereof on Montrealers, can the minister make a statement on his plans to avoid an unfortunate situation this fall?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking the minister to make a statement which can be allowed only on motions.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, may I put my
question in another way?
Does the Minister of Manpower and Immigration intend to take steps in order to avoid a sharp drop in employment in Montreal this fall?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, in so far as my own responsibility is concerned, we have a new manpower training program as well as a manpower mobility program, and there is no doubt that my department will make every effort to improve the situation forecast by the hon. member.


Georges-J. Valade: Has the minister approached the authorities of the city of Montreal or the province of Quebec to discuss this situation which is expected to be rather serious?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a complementary question.
Is it not the opinion of the hon. minister that it would rather be important to lengthen the winter work period instead of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not asking a question but making a suggestion.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External AfEairs, asking him whether during the time he was recently in the United States he was able to get the authority and permission of the United States government to establish the geographic co-ordinates from which the straight base lines will be drawn.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, it was not
necessary to ask the United States for authority to establish either the co-ordinates or the straight base lines system. This is something that depends entirely on the policy of the government of Canada. I hope to be able to make a statement about this matter very shortly.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question. I understand the hesitancy on the part of the minister to be more precise in view of the fact that he was precise earlier in the year and was unable to meet the deadline. However, can he tell us when-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Are the current difficulties being experienced in respect of the Eskimo handicraft industry responsible for the cancellation of the manufacture of Ookpiks at the Fort Chimo cooperative?
October 4, 1967


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether this question is one that should be asked at this time.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of great economic urgency in the north. Perhaps I could rephrase my question. Has the manufacture of Ookpiks at the Fort Chimo co-operative been discontinued?


Arthur Laing: Not to
my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



ALBERTA-REQUEST FOR INCREASED WHEAT QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-
Camrose): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and in his absence I will direct it to either the acting minister or the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that as of October 2 there were still 213 points in Alberta without a one bushel wheat quota, can the minister inform the house what action the wheat board is taking to rectify this very serious situation?
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I will check into this matter and provide an answer tomorrow.


Mr. Smallwood:: I have a supplementary question. As of the same date there were 197 points in Alberta on a one bushel quota as compared to 548 points in Saskatchewan. Will this discrimination be rectified after October 11, which is an important date-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct another question to the right hon. Prime Minister concerning the question I asked on September 28. At that time I inquired whether the Prime Minister had received correspondence dated September 16 from the Serbian national committee, whether he had acknowledged it, and what was the nature of his reply regarding this complaint. Can the Prime Minister answer this question now?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister responsible to parliament for the R.C.M.P. perhaps I might be permitted to deal with the question raised by the hon. member for Ontario. A letter under date of September 16 was received in the office of the Prime Minister on September 28. Acknowledgement of receipt of that letter was sent on September 29. A reply in substance will be forwarded from my office as soon as I have ascertained the facts concerning certain matters raised in the letter.



EXPO '67 REQUEST FOR FURTHER SHOWING OF FILM ON CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the urgent need of a decision will the Prime Minister have immediate studies made as to the possibility of an agreement being reached to have the world famous film about Canada, which is being shown at the telephone pavilion at Expo, and already viewed by over 5 million people, retained and shown across Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that matter is already under consideration. I am taking an active personal interest in this because, as I am sure all members will agree, this is something that should be shown in this country.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. K. Andras (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Ministry of Forestry and Rural Development. Can he tell us what decision if any has been made by the Canadian livestock board regarding an appeal for transportation subsidies on feed grain, to apply in that part of Ontario west of the lakehead?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, an announcement will be made next week by the board in respect of the payment of transportation costs from the lakehead to various regions of northwestern Ontario.


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South):: Mr. Speaker, the minister informed the house last week that the board was considering similar

October 4, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry action in respect of feed grain produced in western Ontario. I am wondering whether any decision has been reached in that regard.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I announced last week that a meeting was to be held in Montreal between representatives of the Ontario winter wheat board and the Canadian livestock board. I expect the board to take a favourable decision on transportation costs in respect of wheat and corn moving from western Ontario to eastern Canada. An announcement should be made early next week.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS AGREEMENT RESPECTING DEVELOPMENT OF TOURIST FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I understand that this matter is before the committee on procedure. My hon. friend is a member of that committee, and may therefore be able to make progress in it. When a report from the committee comes to the house it will be submitted to the Speaker.']
Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Complon-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Could the minister tell the house what kind of agreement has been concluded between the province of Quebec and Ottawa, because that province has apparently decided to develop tourist facilities only in its own parks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that the question of the hon. member should be put on the order paper.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister any objection to, or will he place any obstacles in the way of, a visit to Canada by a member of the de facto government of Southern Rhodesia?
Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a hypothetical question and on that account does not deserve the usual full reply that I give to the hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, so we may get one of those full 
replies which will be not understood by anyone in the house. Is it not a fact that the minister refused to see a member of the government of Southern Rhodesia and declined him the courtesy of making a visit to Canada and conducting a speaking tour in this country.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that I have refused to receive such a person; but I am aware that I belong to a government that has been doing everything it can to remove the discrimination that is practised by that government in Southern Rhodesia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In order to assist in the ministers' aim and to assist the government of Southern Rhodesia to resist the terrorists who are entering that country, would the minister now consider discontinuing financial aid to Tanzania for military training purposes?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I should have thought that my hon. friend, who is a great believer in the commonwealth, would applaud the government for assisting this commonwealth country in the basic maintenance of its security.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister of which I gave his office notice. It is about the somewhat delayed centennial television series of this parliament. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I need about a minute to say that on June 26-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that we have a short question period this afternoon and I am afraid that even a minute is too long.


Mr. Fairwealher:: Fair enough, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the right hon. gentleman has had four notices of this question over the past 13 weeks, will he now tell the house what plans are being made so that arrangements can be proceeded with forthwith?
October 4, 1967	COMMONS


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this matter is before the committee on procedure. My hon. friend is a member of that committee, and may therefore be able to make progress in it. When a report from the committee comes to the house it will be submitted to the Speaker.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry. In view of the proposed move of the head office of Massey-Ferguson from Toronto to Des Moines, Iowa, and in view of the consequent deleterious effect of this move on the Canadian economy, has the government any plans to forestall similar action on the part of other important industrial concerns which in view of the present economic climate in Canada may regard such a move as advantageous?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the announced symbolic walk this Saturday, led by His Excellency the Governor General and members of the government, from Rideau Hall to parliament hill, does this participation by the government indicate that there will be no further reduction in Canada's external aid program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of Justice established a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Carl Goldenberg to study constitutional arrangements. It seems this committee is willing to hear opinions from the public.
My question to the Minister of Justice is the following: Has the said committee received an opinion from the member for
DEBATES	2805
Inquiries of the Ministry Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) on whether he supports the concept of two nations?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not approve of republicans like you.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterlon (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister say whether the government is giving consideration to the possible necessity of other measures being employed to divert private capital into housing?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me this matter was considered at length yesterday and the day before. I do not think the question in that form can be asked today.


George Louis Chatterton: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the information leading to this question has come to me since the debate finished yesterday. Perhaps the minister is ready to reply.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, may I reword
my question to the Minister of Finance? Is the minister in a position to inform the house whether the government is giving consideration to measures to force the private sector to make money available to the housing industry, as was indicated last Sunday in Vancouver by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, within the last few weeks and months the government and some of its agencies have been in touch with various lending companies, including chartered banks, encouraging them to play a full part in the financing of mortgages on homes.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question arises
out of the Prime Minister's answer to a question yesterday regarding the cancellation of the visit by Nationalist China premier, C. K.
October 4, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry Yen. Can the right hon. gentleman assure the house today that Nationalist China day on October 10 has not been cancelled?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the visit has not been cancelled. We learned this morning that the vice president who was to come was not able to leave because of the pressure of business. But the vice premier of the government will be arriving and he will carry on as the official representative of that country. We will be very glad indeed to receive him. He will arrive here accompanied by the minister of foreign affairs and the minister of trade, so I think that government will be very well represented in our official centennial celebrations.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Defence Production, but first I would quickly say "St. Louis 2, Boston 1; game over". Has the decision yet been made with regard to the contracts for the lead yards for the new destroyers; and if so, what is it?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, it is expected that tenders will be called within a relatively short period. Decisions have been made as to which yards are judged to be competent to act as lead yards, and this decision has been communicated to the yards concerned.


Robert Jardine McCleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell us which
are the lead yards?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this question cannot be asked.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Calgary North asked a question with respect to a report appearing in the United Kingdom press about Canadian designed sonar. The United Kingdom procured eight variable depth sonars from Canada which were produced by E.M.I. Cossor, Halifax, on a joint production line for the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy. These equipments are in service with the Royal Navy, and there is no indication that their performance is unsatisfactory. On the contrary, the United Kingdom decided to procure additional systems to fit a further eight
IMr. Johnston.]
ships and made arrangements with Canada to establish a production line in the United Kingdom. Production of these additional equipments is now under way and Canadian contractors are supplying various components for the new systems. The contractor in the United Kingdom, Cossor, has written a protest to the Daily Telegraph for the unwarranted news report.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to express my satisfaction that these reports have been found to be incorrect.
I have a supplementary question in regard to the tenders for the destroyer contracts. What was the reason for the long delay in these tenders being sent out?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There have been extensive consultations with the shipbuilding industry to devise, in agreement with them, a more effective and efficient method of calling for tenders than we have had in the past. Agreement has now been reached. These consultations have not led to any delay in the construction of the vessels.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Having in mind the current concern over Canadian unity and the lack of any real knowledge of the feeling of the population of Quebec on this matter, my question is as follows. Could consideration be given to determining their sentiments by means of conducting an impartial survey of Quebec opinion.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I think the minister will remember he promised to give me an answer to a question I asked him with regard to the possible start of construction, under the supervision of the International Joint Commission, of the Pembina river project in Manitoba and North Dakota.
October 4, 1967


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sorry I did not give an earlier answer to the hon. gentleman, who asked me the question some days ago. The commission's international Pembina river engineering board has completed its study. The commission has held a series of public meetings. It is now completing the preparation of its report to the two governments. Until that report has been received and until the government has had an opportunity to examine it, I cannot say what attitude the government will take.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for having recognized me. I wanted to put a question to the Minister of Labour but after due consideration, I have decided to refrain, because the answer might embarrass our distinguished visitors from England.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Is the government aware of a recent request from the Organization of American States asking that trade and financial exchanges with Cuba be reduced, and what policy does the government intend to pursue in this respect?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must point out to the hon. member that this question is too wide in scope and cannot be asked in such form at this time.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 6, consideration of the motion of Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Monteith (p. 1197), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
(p. 1201).
The Budget-Mr. Sharp
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in view of the relatively long period since this debate began in June I thought it might be helpful to the house if I spoke briefly this afternoon on the economic situation as I now see it, then on the outlook for revenue and expenditures, and conclude with some reference to the tariff changes resulting from the Kennedy round negotiations which I could not disclose at the time of the budget.
It may be recalled that on June 1 I said in my budget speech that the country was experiencing a period of readjustment following the overheated conditions of 1966. Some aspects of the economy were reasonably satisfactory, including the employment situation and our balance of payments position. I was able to forecast a fairly strong demand both for exports and for consumer goods. There had been some moderation in the growth of expenditures by governments as a whole on goods and services compared with the previous year and a flattening out was expected in business capital expenditures this year.
My budget speech underlined one most unsatisfactory aspect of the situation, namely, the continuing upward movements in costs and prices. I told the house that the rate of increase in consumer prices was more than we could tolerate on a continuing basis. It was evident that in general costs of production were rising more rapidly than prices, and I described one aspect of the situation in the following words:
New wage settlements resulting from collective bargaining this year show increases as large as those of last year. Most of the increases now-occurring in wage and salary rates, including executive salaries, are substantially in excess of the general increases in productivity that have been taking place. They clearly imply that further increases in prices are likely to occur.
All in all the budget speech forecast on June 1 was that the gross national product would rise this year by between 6.5 and 7 per cent including an increase in prices of not less than 3 per cent. Since June 1 the state of the Canadian economy has developed fairly well, indeed surprisingly like the forecast I made in my budget speech. If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, when we look at our country we find it to be indeed one of the most fortunate in the world and it continues to be very prosperous indeed. The problems that we face-and this is the first time in our history that we have ever faced any problems like these-are those of managing our prosperity. We have had now a continuing upward trend in the economy over more than six years and

stronger resurgence of spending, prices and incomes in the United States unless these are held in check by tax increases there. In Canada I would expect consumer demands generally to increase more strongly next year and government demands for goods and services to increase slightly less than this year. The prospects for business capital expenditures on construction and machinery are hard to foresee at this time. Because of the relatively low level of profits this year, business investment may increase relatively little next year unless strongly influenced by the situation and by opinions in the United States.
We have already discussed at length this week the outlook for housing. There will certainly be a strong demand for housing and we can expect more capital to be available to finance it.
All in all, Mr. Speaker, we are making a successful transition from the high rate of expansion of the past year to the more sustainable rate of growth that is now beginning to emerge. This has really been quite a remarkable period. There were many people, among them members on the other side, who predicted that we would soon be facing a recession and warned us about this. But I would suggest to them that nothing like this has happened at all. The situation has developed as it was forecast in the budget speech, namely, that we would move from a very, very rapid rate of expansion through a period of inventory adjustment and on to a more sustainable level. And I believe we are so moving.
It has been a really quite successful transition except for one thing, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the rate of increase in costs and prices is still much too high. I feel that we must-and we will-find some way to bring this inflationary movement under control even, if necessary, by letting the economy develop a little more slack for a year or two while price and cost increases taper off. We would certainly prefer to avoid the sacrifices of production and income which this would, of course, involve, but if we cannot collectively and individually exercise the restraint that is called for in wage and price increases in the present situation, then there would appear to be no escape from an essential cooling off period.
I think it is important for all of us in the house to realize that the root causes of the rising prices and costs that we are now experiencing are not located in any one place. I know that it is very easy for members opposite to point to the government and say "You 27053-178
The Budget-Mr. Sharp are the cause". I suppose this is the natural thing to do. It is always quite natural to point to the government and to say that the government is at fault in a given situation. In the present situation the government does have a responsibility. I hope that we will discharge it, and all my colleagues on this side are determined that we will discharge it.
But even if we fully discharge our responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, there will remain a problem which requires the utmost co-operation of other governments and of the public at large. Restraint is needed on government expenditures. However, may I say, in order to clarify one point that always causes me some concern when I read it in some of the comments made in the press, that I am not urging business to restrain its investment in productive equipment and in new buildings. I believe it is essential that business should go on expanding and increase its investment.
The kind of restraint that I am urging here is restraint in the field of prices and costs. This is where restraint is needed. Our objective is to have a steady expansion. The problem that we face, the problem the United States faces and the problem the Europeans face is, how do you combine prosperity with stability? This is a very difficult problem; I hope we all realize that. I trust that our debate on the subject will illustrate our understanding of the nature of this problem, because it is only if we understand it that there will be the proper public response which is necessary if we are going to deal with it.
On June 1 I forecast budgetary revenues, after the proposed tax changes, of $8,960 million and budgetary expenditures of $9,700 million for the current fiscal year. I now expect that because of rising costs and incomes both of these figures will be up by about 1J per cent, leaving the prospective deficit about the same. After reviewing the situation carefully I am now satisfied that the deficit this fiscal year will not exceed what I forecast in the budget and which I still believe is appropriate to an economy in process of transition from a period of too rapid expansion to one of a more sustainable growth rate.
In June I forecast our total net cash requirements for the current fiscal year at $1,590 million. As usual, this forecast excluded any amount that was required to finance any changes in foreign exchange reserves after the budget date. I see no reason to expect any increase in our total cash requirements this fiscal year, a large part of which will be met

October 4, 1967
The Budget-Mr. Sharp by reducing our cash balances. I shall be endeavouring, of course, to reduce our cash requirements below that figure if I can in order to keep to a minimum our demands upon the capital market.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I should like to re-emphasize the two points I have made because I have seen references in the press and elsewhere to fears that the budgetary deficit this year is going to far exceed our estimates, or that our cash requirements are going to far exceed the figures I put forward in the budget speech. In fact, I am satisfied that we shall stay within those figures. Ordinarily the government does not settle its future spending plans at this time of year. At present the situation we face in the capital market and the widespread concern over government expenditures require us to plan ahead as far as we can the general scale of our expenditures and revenues and our demands upon the capital market next year. The government is now engaged in a special effort to limit the growth in its expenditures next year. Many of our large spending programs are now related to the cost of provincial programs which we support, notably hospital insurance, higher education, assistance to those in need and equalization payments to provincial governments. We must also stand ready to assume our obligations with respect to whatever decisions the provinces make on medicare plans that conform to our legislation. To all of these this parliament has given a high priority.
Our public debt charges are increasing. The costs of our own operations increase as prices and wages increase and certain of the benefits we pay, such as veterans' disability pensions, must in all fairness be adjusted from time to time. Even with no new programs or major improvements, our expenditures must rise substantially and absorb most of the growth to be expected in our revenues. Yet a minimum of new programs and projects is necessary if our policies and actions are to meet the needs of a changing economy.
We are determined in our present review to screen out obsolete expenditure programs that cannot be justified in present circumstances. My colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) later in this debate will be talking about the efforts which have been made and the successes which have been achieved. We are determined to wield the knife on everything which we feel has low priority in whole or in part. We are

making real progress but we will continue to be engaged on this task for weeks to come before we present the estimates to the house. Decisions already taken have required departments to postpone or eliminate many items that may be desirable but which must take second place to our other objectives. Already the Treasury Board has eliminated $650 million from the total amount requested by departments and agencies, and that is not the end. The President of the Treasury Board is grateful to those ministers who are responsible for the spending departments for the co-operation they have extended to him.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the minister wishes to refer to deductions and reductions perhaps he could supply the house with the actual figures and tables and the references in which they appear. I shall have more to say about this matter. If the minister is to refer to such figures I think the house is entitled to the information for which I have asked.


Mitchell William Sharp: I have nothing more to say today. I thought that my remarks would interest the house. I have not used general figures. I thought it a good idea to mention the extent to which it is necessary to reduce expenditures.


Mr. Monteith:: This is a red herring.


Mitchell William Sharp: This is not the important point, however. The important point is our objectives with respect to next year, and I wish to define those most precisely. The figures I have put forward here with respect to the cuts which have been made in prospective expenditures are not, I agree, the vital point. I thought it would interest the house to know the serious problem that the government has been facing in carrying forward its policy of exercising restraint. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that most of the programs which have been examined have ordinarily been supported not only by all sides in the house but in many cases have been thought to be most stingy. When we present these expenditures to the house in the estimates I hope that the opposition which has been making speeches about economy will be prepared to show a little restraint and not criticize the government for failing to spend enough money.
The government's objective for the next fiscal year is to reduce the budget deficit substantially below the level of the current fiscal year. I am not talking about savings here; I am talking about our objectives in
October 4, 1967

terms of budgetary policy. As I say, our objective is to reduce substantially the budget deficit in the coming fiscal year. From both a financial and an economic point of view I believe this will be necessary next year unless there is a major change in the economic prospects for that year. We will aim to produce at least a balance in the federal government's revenues and expenditures in terms of our national economic accounts. Such action is necessary to exercise the fiscal restraint on the economy required to check the inflationary price and cost increases now taking place.
I doubt, however, that even the most determined action on the part of the federal government will be sufficient in itself to arrest the kinds of inflationary price and cost increases that are now taking place. I am confident that we shall be able to secure the co-operation of the provincial governments in a similar effort through the consultations that we have with them. I wish to remind the house that the scale of spending and the scale of borrowing of provincial and municipal governments has exceeded that of the federal government this year, and even more so in the past year. When we in the government and parliament of Canada have taken the fiscal actions that we should take, then I believe they should be supported by a determined campaign to achieve by voluntary action a large reduction in the rate at which prices and costs are increasing, including wage settlements. I know this will be extremely difficult in an economy like ours which is so exposed to external influences. In the meantime I would hope that both industrial and labour groups will be considering and discussing among themselves and discussing with governments how best such a campaign might be organized to preserve Canada's competitive position in the world.
We must of necessity restrain our demands on the capital market. It is essential that we hold our government borrowing requirements next year, apart from what may be needed from time to time for exchange purposes, to a total less than we are borrowing in this fiscal year. To accomplish this objective it will be necessary to reduce some of our lending operations such as those for housing loans of a type that could be financed in the market. Our specific plans in this respect will be worked out in the capital budgets of the various agencies involved. Our objective is clear and I am confident that it will be attained.
At present the proper course remains to proceed with the tax measures I placed
The Budget-Mr. Sharp before the house in June. The removal of the sales tax on production machinery and equipment is an important measure to help achieve lower costs of production, and investment in such machinery and equipment is in fact a high priority objective. The removal of the sales tax on drugs does not involve a major loss of revenue and is part of a concerted plan to bring down the cost of drugs in Canada. It should go ahead now.
I wish to turn now to the Kennedy round, Mr. Speaker. The house will recall that I did not have an opportunity in the debate, nor when this question was debated, to put forward the comments of the Minister of Finance.
First, as to the tariff reductions perhaps I might begin by giving an indication of the scope of these reductions. Canada undertook to offer concessions in the Kennedy round equivalent in terms of their impact on trade to those offered to Canada by other participants. The tariff concessions made by Canada cover about $2.5 billion worth of imports, of which almost $2 billion come from the United States. On these imports we cut the average incidence of our tariff by about 25 per cent. The reductions will be found in virtually every sector of the Canadian tariff. In a negotiation of this scope it was necessary, and in my view desirable that we should examine and consider reductions in virtually every item, just as our trading partners were considering reducing each one of their tariffs.
Apart from a few industries such as textiles and footwear, rates of duty higher than 20 per cent ad valorem will now be exceptional. Producers enjoying such rates of protection should realize that they are being left in a specially protected position. This was done because it was evident either that greater reductions would create intolerable problems of import competition and unfair burdens of adjustment or that other countries were not offering meaningful tariff reductions on these products.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Rates of duty on final manufactures will generally be about 17J per cent to 20 per cent, as compared with the 22J per cent to 25 per cent rates now in effect. Duties on production machinery and other producers' equipment will generally be 15 per cent and there will be a new procedure established for relieving Canadians of duty on such machinery not available from Canadian sources. For intermediate products, rates will range

October 4, 1967
The Budget-Mr. Sharp downward from 15 per cent, while many basic materials will be free or close to free.
The reduction of duty on materials, intermediate products and machinery will, of course, be of assistance to those manufacturers who now have a lower level of ad valorem protection for their own products. This means, of course, that these manufacturers will still retain significant effective protection, that is, protection on the actual value added in Canadian production. In a number of important sectors the reductions made in the Canadian tariff reflect recommendations made by the Tariff Board in recent reports on sectors of the tariff schedules which had been referred to the board.
That is all I would like to say at this stage, Mr. Speaker, about the scope of the tariff undertakings given by Canada. Perhaps I might say a word now about how the government went about formulating its tariff offers. We had a number of considerations in mind which I would like to summarize.
First, and most obvious, we wanted to secure every worth-while tariff reduction in other markets that was put on the table by our negotiating partners and we knew we had to pay for each one. Our trading partners, who are just as tough bargainers as are Canadians, would ensure that they got as good as they gave. But we had to be sure that we gave no more than we got. That is what my colleague, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon), called in his budget speech of 1964 the "principle of full reciprocity".
Second, we wanted to ensure a reasonable degree of balance and reciprocity for each major sector of our economy and for each major region. That, I think, we achieved.
Third, we wanted particularly to help our secondary industries break out of the confines of this small national market, and this we could do by getting reductions in other countries' tariffs and by cutting the costs of producing in Canada for that new and expanding market. That is why the tariff cuts on raw materials, semi-finished goods and production machinery are so important a part of the Kennedy round settlement. Indeed, it is my view, Mr. Speaker, that we are emerging from this negotiation with a much more rational tariff structure, but this was possible only because of the opportunities opened up by a major tariff negotiation.
Fourth, we wanted to give the consumers of Canada, that is, all of us, the advantages

flowing from greater international competition and the resulting lower prices. I need hardly add how important this will be in assisting to control the cost of living.
Let me say a word about timing, about when we propose to implement the tariff changes. In the near future I propose to table a resolution to implement the tariff reductions. It will set out in detail and precisely all the changes in rates we agreed to except for those relating to chemicals which will be introduced later.
As I said in a public announcement at the end of June, some concessions will be introduced in one step and the effective date proposed is January 1 next. These concessions to be implemented in one step are: machines classified under item 42700-1; cigars, cigarettes, cut tobacco and alcoholic beverages; certain items in the following sectors-oilseeds, oilcake meal and vegetable oils, wire and wire products, and lumber and lumber products, some tropical products, and a few other products where staging would be undesirable or impracticable.
Changes in the chemicals and plastics schedule will be introduced in a single step as well, but not until July 1, 1968.
Concessions which are not implemented in one step will be staged over a period not exceeding four years beginning January 1. We have undertaken that with respect to these concessions the difference between the base rate and the final rate will be reduced by not less than one-fifth on January 1 of each year, starting January 1, 1968. This does not preclude us from reducing tariffs more quickly, and I am now reviewing our proposals in detail to consider what particular problems may make desirable some deviation from staging in five equal instalments.
As to the anti-dumping convention, at present we in Canada provide protection against dumping to producers of all goods of a class or kind made in Canada. That is to say, when an imported product is invoiced at less than the comparable selling price for that product in the country of origin, we apply a dumping duty equal to the difference between the invoice price and the proper value. We give no such protection to producers who have not been able to obtain a "made in Canada" ruling. To obtain such a ruling, Canadian producers must produce an amount equal to at least 10 per cent of domestic consumption of that product. Many Canadian producers with a smaller share of the market are denied protection against dumping. Many others who
October 4, 1967

are not being damaged by dumping get protection they do not need. It can be argued that many Canadian users of materials and other goods have to pay more than they should because of this so-called automatic anti-dumping protection.
The new convention is based on the test of injury or threat of injury arising from dumping, and we are required, therefore, to adopt a system involving an element of judgment as to the impact of dumping. This should not preclude us from providing protection against injurious dumping quickly and effectively. In agreeing to proceed on this basis we will be getting major improvements in the United States anti-dumping procedures which in the past have given rise to a great deal of har-rassment of United States importers of Canadian goods.
The new convention will lay down rules within which all signatories must operate and clearly Canada will need new legislation by mid-1968 to conform with it. We have now established a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. George Glass, the first vice chairman of the Tariff Board, to receive representations from all interested parties and to hold hearings on the kind of legislation that might best meet our needs within the terms of the new convention. We have already had a good deal of consultation with the industries and industry associations most likely to be concerned. When these representations have been considered we will bring proposals before the house seeking the necessary changes in Canadian legislation. That will provide an occasion for a detailed examination of this important issue.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that the tariff reductions agreed to by Canadian negotiators in the Kennedy round, involving as they do a significant element of rationalizing of our tariff structure and associated as they are with a decisive move to freer trade by the other great trading countries, will recommend themselves to Canadian producers as a just payment for the gains Canada will make in foreign markets. Canada emerges from the Kennedy round with a degree of moderate protection where protection is required but without excess protection. That is what is necessary for Canada in this increasingly competitive free-world economy.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, listening to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) I was reminded of the days when I was going through law school. In the courses on Roman law one was always

The Budget-Mr. Lambert coming across the phrase "pater familias"- the good, prudent man. It seems to me that the Minister of Finance has been working hard to burnish up an image of himself as a pater familias. But we are not at all deceived because we know the record of performance in some of the things he has been trying to do. Some of the difficulties he faces may be likened to a hair shirt which he and his colleagues fashioned but which they are asking others to wear on their behalf.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The minister assumed a rather sanctimonious air. He talked about the efforts being made to prune next year's estimates. I saw a press report a couple of days ago which said that the minister had effected reductions of about $1 billion in his colleagues' estimates. It said that the anticipated budgetary deficit for next year was $1,250 million and that when the minister looked at this figure he is said to have considered that $250 million might be tolerable.
The report did not explain that what is now going on has been the experience of every minister of finance. Now is the time of year when government ministers are called before Treasury Board committees where their departmental estimates are examined and considered in relation one to another. This process continues until the estimates are finally settled upon and printed in the blue book. It is not a new process.
A figure of a $600 million reduction was mentioned with respect to the estimates. All I can say is that it is fluff which has been pared. It is an old and established practice that each department, knowing its preliminary estimates will be cut back, puts everything down on paper. Then, following consultation with the Minister of Finance and other Treasury Board officials, the more valid options are chosen. These make up the final estimates.
What we will want to see is a comparison between next year's estimates and this year's expenditures. That is the crucial point because the main difficulty facing Canada is the monetary requirements of the government in competition with those of industry. I will return to that point, but unless the minister can show that with due adjustment for an increase in population, together with built-in statutory increases for certain expenditures, he is actually reducing expenses then all his talk is worth nothing.
2814	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Lambert
To be fair I must say that all of the responsibility cannot be loaded on the shoulders of this minister and the government. As he quite rightly indicated, the municipalities and provinces combined spend far more than does the federal government. I know the dilemma which the minister faces with regard to budgetary control because only about 35 per cent of federal government expenditures come within budgetary control.
The dominion-provincial agreements cover tax transfers. These are increasing. They are deemed to be part of the monetary requirements of the federal government. Other statutory expenditures contain escalation clauses. Many social welfare payments are fixed by statute, and the obligation to meet them is beyond the control of the Minister of Finance. But having said that, I still believe that the Minister of Finance has a primary role to play in controlling his colleagues and setting the example for the rest of the country.
In receiving this second slice of the 1967 budget without any budgetary proposals we are in a position analagous to that of 1966 except that in 1966 we had a mini-budget in December. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is now almost impossible to refer back to the budgetary proposals of the budget we are supposed to be discussing. The situation has changed drastically since the budget was introduced.
The budgetary proposals of last June were almost stand-pat. I was reminded of a cartoon showing a cat treading upon eggs. The minister was walking very delicately, evidently afraid to upset what he considered to be a position of uneasy equilibrium. Today he is attempting to tread even more lightly on the self-same delicate eggs.
I wish to indicate that I am not going to make any reference to the information on the Kennedy round negotiations which the minister has given to us. That can be more adequately dealt with by my colleagues. Instead I want to talk primarily about the financial difficulties in which the country finds itself.
First I want to say I will not emulate so many members of the Treasury Board who, when in opposition in 1961 and 1962, went around preaching doom and gloom. I remember the rather notorious and damaging speech made at that time by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) in Halifax, in which he likened the financial position of Canada to that of a sinking ship. We know the results which such talk has on the economy and financial strength of the country, and

DEBATES	October 4, 1967
to indulge in such talk now would be a great disservice to our country's financial position.
I do not say that our financial position is beyond repair, but it certainly could worsen. We must consider the unbridled surge forward in the cost of living. A budgetary deficit of $750 million is nothing to be sneezed at, but all we get from the minister is a pious hope that the deficit will work out at something below $750 million. Will it be $650 million? I am afraid I do not share the minister's rather sanguine hopes about a limitation on the budgetary deficit of only $750 million.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask the hon. member a question? Has he overlooked what I said, that our aim was to balance the budget in national accounts terms?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Frankly that is no explanation. You can talk about national accounts terms and other financial phrases to the public, but it is meaningless. The public wants to know who is responsible. If the accounts had been based on that basis of national accounts in earlier years the figures would not have been the same as those used by members of the present government when they were casting aspersions on the financial record of performance by the previous government. Let us not have any illusions about that. It really is a discussion about apples when really oranges are under consideration.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Let us look at some of the problems facing the country at the present time. There has been a diminution in the rate of capital investment. In my opinion this is the most important factor which we must consider. We would be able to advance the economy and assume these social welfare burdens, and many people believe these programs are desirable and absolutely essential, if the economy of this country was in a healthy state. I do not care how many pension programs, medicare or health schemes or other similar programs we can devise; if the Canadian economy is not able to support them in comfort, permitting growth both in population and economic development, they must be deferred or cut back. There is no sense in piling these burdens onto a sick economy. The economy simply cannot carry them. We are only deluding the people by attempting to do so.
It would have been good to hear the minister give us some indication this afternoon of
October 4, 1967	COMMONS
the efforts the government is taking to encourage and increase our level of productivity. In my opinion many of the other things occupying the attention of governments and individuals are relatively minor in importance. The maintenance and the increase of the productivity of Canadian endeavour is of the greatest importance to the maintenance of our competitive position. Let us have no illusions about the results of the Kennedy round tariff agreements. In the short run they are going to create some grave dislocations in certain sectors. Many Canadian industries will have to sharpen their pencils if they want to remain competitive. We need not talk about production or investment of capital and other programs to encourage industry if the products of the investment or the industry remain unsold or unconsumed. Let us make sure we are able to dispose of the goods at the end of the line of production and that we are able to do so at a profit.
The minister spoke of an increase in the gross national product in current dollars of about 7 per cent in comparison with last year. However, with the present rate of increase in the cost of living this really means an increase of about 2 per cent in constant dollars. One merely has to look at the tables of the consumer and wholesale price indices to see the fantastic and unbridled increase in the cost of living in recent months. The minister was quite right when he said this was one of our major problems. Inflation at this time could be one thing that might trigger a flight of confidence from the Canadian dollar and a flow of capital from Canada which would result in the loss of that investment of foreign capital we sorely need. There would be an outflow of foreign investment and confidence in Canada would suffer a serious blow.
According to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics the cost of living increased from January to August by 4.9 points, that is from 146 to 150.9. In August of 1966 the figure was 144.9, so there has been a six-point increase in the consumer price index in the last 12 months. The cost of food is of great importance to the individual, and the figures show that the cost has increased from 148.1 to 151.2. We have just concluded a debate in respect of the cost of shelter or housing. We observe an increase since August, 1966 from 163.6 to 171.8. In order to make some comparison, the figure for 1963 for this category was 150. In other words, since this government took office the cost of shelter has gone up by almost 22 points or about 15 per cent.
DEBATES	2815
The Budget-Mr. Lambert Is it any wonder we have a housing crisis in Canada? People are beginning to believe that the government has buried its head in the sand to avoid seeing the pressures and difficulties the average Canadian citizen faces in respect of housing.
It is not my intention to refer in detail to the increase in interest rates. There was a slight decline last spring which allowed the formula under the Bank Act to be triggered, but since then we have seen a continuous rise in interest rates. By looking at the average figure referred to in the formula for the National Housing Act interest rate, being the average rate on government longs, shall we say, which was 6.10 in the month of September, we can see the position we have now reached.
This is not the only government that has difficulty in regard to bond issues. Conversion loan and cash money requirements are at an all-time high. I remember the late member for Welland standing in this house at the time of the conversion loans, assisted by his colleagues in the opposition of the day, castigating the then minister of finance because interest rates were 4| per cent, 4J per cent and 4J per cent. Now we have effective rates which are over 6 per cent. Well. Let us consider for a moment Canada savings bonds. They have now moved out of the category of true savings bonds. They are now to be used as a form of annual conversion loans because there is no limit on the amount that can be invested or converted. What are the interest rates? Effectively around six per cent.
[DOT] {4:30 p.m.)
The city of Ottawa is another example of a level of government having difficulty in financing its expenditures. Its council called for tenders last week as part of a refinancing program. The civic authorities were astounded when the best offer was 7.4 per cent. Government agencies such as Quebec hydro, Ontario hydro and similar bodies are absolutely dependent on bond issues. This year they are paying rates of up to 7 per cent.
The minister said there were high interest rates in the United States. It is strange that it was not disclosed during the housing debate that the average rate in the United States in respect of loans for homes is 6.4 per cent whereas we have gone to 8 j per cent as the ceiling under the National Housing Act. Of course, the rate on conventional loans has gone up to 8J per cent.


An hon. Member:: It is 9 per cent.
2816	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Lambert


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: An hon. members says it is 9 per cent. Well, I am not conducting an auction today. But the rate is certainly 8J per cent, and if the additional one eighth were brought into the mortgage it would mean an additional 2 per cent over all. It was quite possible last year to negotiate a mortgage at an interest rate of 10 per cent in respect of the total mortgage.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask whether he is not aware that short-term interest rates are higher in the United States than they are here?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes. I am also aware that certain levels of income tax are higher in the United States than they are in Canada.


Mr. MacEwan:: The perfect squelch.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is completely irrelevant.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Are there any other questions?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is no reason why interest rates at all levels in the United States should be lower than they are in Canada. On the other hand, all the income tax rates in the United States need not be lower than they are in Canada.


Mitchell William Sharp: There is no relationship between the two.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, but there is room for difference.
The government has need of funds for the coming year. It needs these funds for refinancing. I trust that the minister's colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, will be able to indicate, because I believe this is crucial-perhaps this information appears in the budgetary papers but I was not able to put my finger on it-precisely how much money will be required for refinancing, in other words, for conversion purposes.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is all in the budgetary papers.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I hope the minister will be able to indicate the precise amount of cash that will be required and also what the government expects to get out of Canada savings bonds in the way of new money in the coming year. It is Canada which must provide the financing requirements of the government and industry. We shall want to know the cash requirements, the net increase through

DEBATES	October 4, 1967
Canada savings bonds, the refinancing requirements, the new cash requirements of the provinces and the capital needs of industry.
We know that some industries overborrowed in the past year because they learned their lesson in May of 1966 when money was so tight. Certainly there has been, shall we say, an overdemand on the monetary market by some corporations which are not going to be caught short again. They have borrowed in order to put themselves in a position of liquidity, as it is said by some. They have no difficulty carrying these additional funds because they can make money on short-term investments. Short-term paper is now paying such a rate that the carrying costs for the corporations of the extra money they were able to borrow and put away is exceedingly small.
I have read one commentary which I think is quite helpful at this time, although I must say I cannot agree with some parts of Mr. Meyer's article. I cannot agree with some of his statements because it seems to me he is able to engage in, shall we say, rationalization after the event. Mr. Meyer neglects some of the factors which were in existence at the time certain decisions were taken. He is now able to rationalize from hindsight. In any event, let us see what he says in an article which appeared in a recent issue of the Monetary Times, that for October, 1967. Mr. Meyer's article is headed, "Money And The Economy. Will Government Adjust?" I quote from the article:
The slower rate of business activity this year would normally have been countered by monetary expansion and an accompanying reduction in the cost of money. The money supply is 11 per cent greater than a year ago.
We know that the Bank of Canada increased the money supply in the past year. I will come to that point later. The article continues:
But though the cost of money did recede briefly through the spring, it has since risen to levels reached last year when the squeeze was at its worst.
According to Mr. Meyer the cause is, of course, the manner in which governments are pre-empting the market. In this article Mr. Meyer says:
Net new government issues in the first quarter-
The first quarter of 1967.
-amounted to $771 million, an increase of $545 million from a year ago. Net new corporate issues-
This is the telling point.
-amounted to $547 million, a decline of $313 million.
October 4, 1967	COMMONS
I would say there are two reasons for this situation. First, in the early part of 1966 there was an effort by corporations to borrow themselves into a position of liquidity, as I have indicated. In addition, there is less requirement for money this year by corporations because there is a decline in capital investment. The incidence of higher taxes, higher costs and lower profits will always discourage capital investment. Mr. Meyer continues:
Both trends-the rise in government borrowing and the decline in corporate borrowing-have persisted.
I am sure that if the figures for the second quarter of 1967 were available to us we would find there has been a continuation of those trends. Then Mr. Meyer says:
Corporations were expected to withdraw from the market following increases in capital investment averaging 16 per cent a year over the past three years. There was room for more government borrowing. This condition, however, can't be expected to last indefinitely. Interest rates must come down and corporate borrowers attracted back to the market before any significant new expansion can be set in motion.
Mr. Meyer then says that the possibility of any reduction in government demand for funds over the next year, possibly two, is remote. Interest rates in this period will be about the same. Mr. Speaker, I am worried about the continuing dampening down of corporate investment in capital projects, which will continue. There are some indicators right now which show that I am not far off the mark in making this statement, because we hear reports that the amount of work in architects' and consulting engineers' offices is very small.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe that at this time members are entitled to 40 minutes in which to speak. If I remember the time rightly, I rose at about ten minutes after four. I believe, Mr. Speaker, you will find that this question is dealt with in standing order 31 (1).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: My decision was based on standing order 58 (7) which reads as follows:
No member, except the Minister of Finance, the member speaking on behalf of the opposition, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, shall speak for more than 30 minutes at a time in the budget debate; provided that 40 minutes shall be allowed to the mover of a subamendment.
DEBATES	2817
The Budget-Mr. Lambert [DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I apologize to Your Honour. I am grateful to the house for giving me this time but I must say that the error arose as a result of a consultation which I had with Mr. Speaker last night. I must conclude that the present Speaker and the former Speaker were jointly in error.
I should like to summarize what I have said previously and to bring my remarks to a conclusion. I feel that the prime purpose of this budget and of the activities of all governments must first of all be aimed at an increase of productivity. By increase of productivity we mean a better return for the dollars spent. This means, as the minister indicated, an exercise in restraint in wage demands and equally in the pursuit of profits. You cannot ask one sector of the economy to limit itself and not the other. Unless all Canadians exercise this restraint we will be committing economic suicide.
This is particularly true at a time when we are so vulnerable during the coming into force of the tariff changes resulting from the Kennedy round of negotiations. The government must implement cut-backs. We can only produce so many goods and services. The pie is no bigger than Canadians are willing and able to make it. We must be prepared to increase our productivity and by that I mean net productivity in the constant dollars, not in the 5 or 10 per cent annually inflated dollar. There must be cut-backs by governments at all levels and those cut-backs should be arrived at by the establishment of priorities tending to encourage productivity, in education, in the training of personnel and in those facilities tending to increase productivity. I will have something to say about some of the other activities in this country and some of the discussions which have taken place which are tantamount to the apocryphal story of theologians going through the exercise of determining how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. It seems to me these discussions are useless in facing and solving the problems that are before us today.
As I said earlier, we must concentrate on the health of the body economic, and unless we turn our primary attention to that all else will fall by the wayside. What purpose is there in working to construct a brand new constitution for a country that is sick
2818	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Matheson economically? What is the purpose of setting up a system of social welfare and social legislation on a body economic that cannot support it? It seems to me that we must first establish these priorities. I am glad to say that the minister has been finally converted to the idea of priorities. This has been advocated by some of my colleagues and myself for a number of years. I will not claim pride of authorship, but first let us consider those matters which tend toward increasing the productivity of the country. Let us put first things first.


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there are times when it is a virtue to get to the point, and I trust I shall make my point
without trespassing long on the time of the house. Speaking for myself and my sons, let me say that any person who seeks to destroy Canada is an enemy.

Countries have been doomed because their people lacked the will to survive, because they lacked the courage to fight back against evil. In my lifetime I have seen countries succumb to a few fascist rogues, and other countries succumb to a few communist rogues. I do not intend to see Canada succumb to a few separatist rogues.

My country is Canada-sea to sea. Every inch of it is mine by birthright and without fences. Within these vast borders there must never be a limit to our search for justice, for generosity, for accommodation. But no part of my country is negotiable, least of all for me the beautiful province of my birth and my boyhood. Members of my family have died overseas for Canada. How can I betray her at home or permit the dismemberment of "mon pays merveilleux"?

Our beloved Canada is not a mere accident of geography; it is a spiritual adventure that transcends both language and race. She is worthy of being possessed only by the large of heart. "Mon jardin, ce n'est pas un jardin, c'est la plaine!" We must live with the separatists, those "little foxes" whose ambition is to carve themselves, right in the midst of us, empires to the measure of their pettiness, but they must not be permitted to destroy our ancestral heritage.

DEBATES	October 4, 1967

Perhaps we of this centennial parliament have the duty now to declare that we stand firmly on guard for Canada. We stand on guard for all Canadians, present and future. We are the trustees of diverse traditions, of priceless resources and to no lesser extent are we the trustees of freedom for all Canada's sons. Nobody doubts that in the proper way we can produce a better constitutional instrument than we now possess. No one must doubt our resolution and determination to continue as a Canadian sovereignty.

The contest between love and hate-between faith and doubt-is not something new. There always have been separatists among us-those who hate the idea of a Canada not in their own image. Victory for the grand design must be won anew in each generation. May I refer to the words of one of Canada's great heroes of the past. Laurier speaking in French at Quebec city on St. Jean Baptiste day 1889 said this:
Our country is not confined to the territory overshadowed by the citadel of Quebec; our country is Canada-the fertile lands bordered by the Bay of Fundy, the Valley of the St. Lawrence, the region of the Great Lakes, the Prairies of the West, the Rocky Mountains, the lands washed by the famous ocean where breezes are said to be as sweet as the breezes of the Mediterranean. Our fellow countrymen are not only those in whose veins runs the blood of France.-As far as I am concerned, loudly do I proclaim it, those are my fellow countrymen. I am a Canadian.
I love Canada and while many millions like me live, she will never be deserted nor betrayed.

A few months later, speaking in English Sir Wilfrid said the following in Toronto:
In the face of this universal distrust, the duty of the Liberal party is to promote, or rather to continue, the policy of hope and exertion for mutual respect and confidence. In the face of disintegration, if disintegration be simply hinted at, it is the duty of the Liberal party to stand firm by the principle of confederation. I do not believe certainly that confederation is the last word of Canada's destiny. It can be looked at simply as a transient state; but whenever the change comes, the change must be a step forward and not a step backward... I am a Liberal and I believe in movement, in progress; but I do not believe in inconsiderate changes... Still less would I be of those who clamour for a constitutional change, because the state of things that now exists comes into conflict with their personal prejudices and opinions.
If any there are amongst my fellow countrymen of French origin who have ever dreamed of forming themselves into a small community of Frenchmen on the banks of the St. Lawrence, I am not one of them. I am not one of them, I say-let my words be heard by friend or foe.
October 4. 1967

[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Let me refer, Mr. Speaker, to one of the great heroes of our own time, Vanier, whose presence amongst us served almost as a benediction. In his message delivered on July 1, 1966, which you will remember was mainly to the young people of Canada, he suggested that we examine our national conscience and say whether or not in 1967 we will as a nation be able to stand up under the world's scrutiny. He never ceased to think of us as a nation and as a family.
Let us never forget his challenge of New Year's day, 1967. He called upon Canadians to forget past bitterness and to build a future "which will make the progress of this century seem pale by comparison". Before his simple prayer that we may all go forward hand in hand, he said:
Canada owes it to the world to remain united because no lesson is more badly needed than the one our unity can supply, the lesson that diversity need not be cause for conflict but, on the contrary, may lead to richer and nobler living.
According to the book of Ecclesiastes, the preacher informs us that to everything there is a season: there is a time to be born and a time to die, a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to break down and a time to build up. The question has been put: Do we now rise as a country or do we call it quits?
For inspiration, Mr. Speaker, I look to our old parliamentary colleague, Cy Kennedy, who epitomizes for me duty, steadiness, sacrifice and courage. All we must do is to ask what is best for Canada and follow that course fearlessly. For me the response is easy. I am not one of those sophisticates ashamed to declare love of country. Indeed, perhaps it is in the moment that Canadians declare their gut loyalty to Canada that we become a nation.

I love Canada and while many millions like me live, she will never be deserted nor betrayed.

I am particularly pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the new Order of Canada bears as its motto the words "desiderantes meliorem pa-triam"-"desirers of a better country". We are embarked on a great pilgrimage of faith in search of a better country. I am convinced that in Canada today many of our people still believe in that Lord of Hosts of the Hebrew prophets who brings down the loftiness of man and who humbles his haughtiness, who 27053-179J
The Budget-Mr. Fane entered into a spiritual covenant to lead those who chose to be his people into the new Jerusalem.
The city of God is not built up on earth by the work of our hands alone. It descends from God out of heaven to those that cry out. That great student of sociology and culture-yes,	and of	history-Christopher
Dawson, speaks of a ladder having been let down out of heaven by which mankind can escape.
What I urge is that in the agony of our self-examination as a country-one nation, two nations, a hundred nations, it matters not for we, like the world, are legion-we never lose sight of the affirmation that "He shall have dominion from sea to sea". If this is so, if in Canada He truly is King, then we have no fear. Who in Canada who believes at all can deny that we are all brothers? Who could deny at this point in our history, which is full of violence, wars and rumours of war, that some group of human beings somewhere must call a new world into existence based upon genuine brotherhood if only to help redress the balance of the old? What better place to start than in Canada.
I am not a wholly impractical fellow. I was a soldier, I was trained in economics, my profession is the law-all pretty mundane preoccupations. Yet I am absolutely convinced that the way of man is not in himself. Let us never overlook the mysterious and unpredictable aspect of history. I believe that already hidden spiritual forces are at work. Our sense of failure and helplessness in this land of plenty at this historic juncture of history compels us to reach out into the darkness for the hand that will guide Canada into a new starting point of progress.
Canadians of both tongues must now march forward together into the second century with heads high and with arms joined like our Expo symbol, in faith, in hope and in love. On this plane there can be no defeat for our nation nor any human being in it.
With the help of Him who will keep our feet from falling-long live Canada.


Mr. F. J. W. Fane (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have an opportunity to say a few words in the budget debate, an opportunity for which I have waited since June 1.
First, I want to say I am more than surprised at the conduct of the government when the session resumed a week ago on Monday, September 25. It was disgraceful

October 4, 1967
The Budget-Mr. Fane that there was not even a corporal's guard of ministers in the house at that time to support the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). I wondered whether the Prime Minister had forgotten to tell his ministers that the session was reconvening on that day and as a result they were all absent.
I also wondered, Mr. Speaker, whether by any chance those of the Liberal party on the front benches who form the government at the moment thought that because their archenemy, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), was not in the house the Conservative party had decided to lay down and play dead. If they thought that, then I can assure them they have another think coming. Believe me, the spirit that the right hon. gentleman fostered in this party lives on and it is going to live on with our new leader.
To return to the budget, I should like to say a few words particularly about the amendment to the amendment which actually is the topic we are discussing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. It being five o'clock p.m. the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions, public bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I thought there was an understanding that we would carry on with the budget debate today. At least, that is what was intimated to me.


Frank John William Fane: And to me, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Does the house agree that we go back to the question under study?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Frank John William Fane: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The amendment to the amendment is what we are talking about now. When the budget was first presented by the minister on June 1 it was still something to talk about. I wrote a newspaper item which was distributed in western Canada. At that time I said:
On June 1st the Minister of Finance took some hours to present his latest budget which, as far as I can see, doesn't mean a thing except perhaps another increase in the cost of living which is already becoming evident. I have not read one favourable comment about this budget in any of the Canadian newspapers nor have I heard anybody, other than Liberal members of parliament, with any good to say of it. It certainly doesn't do anything good for the residents of the prairie provinces.
(Mr. Fane.]
I still maintain that that is correct. I do not intend to talk much more about the budget because my hon. friend from Edmonton West, who is a neighbour so far as constituencies are concerned and a friend, has said just about everything that can be said about it from the financial point of view. I did want to talk about agriculture, Indian affairs, veterans affairs, defence, housing, the cost of living, foreign affairs and a few other matters, but I cannot do so in the 30 minutes each that it has been decided we are to be allowed. This time I must confine myself to the Department of Transport which needs to be discussed most urgently. Don't let anybody ever think that this is not a national issue. I want to talk about a particular case where the Department of Transport certainly has made an awful mess of things.
It is lucky that the former minister of transport had the wisdom, avarice, or whatever you want to call it, to kick himself upstairs by taking the appointment of chairman of the new Canadian Transport Commission before I was able to participate in this debate or I should have had some harsh things to say to him. I cannot make my remarks as bad as I should like to seeing that he is not here to defend himself. But he will know what I think by what I say. I hope that if I get really warmed up I do not lapse too much into western prairie slang. I hope that you will not call me to order, Mr. Speaker.
I want to say, first, what a disgrace it is for the former minister of transport to create a job for himself, establish the rules for it through Bill C-231 which was passed by the house, decide that the chairman of the board should get $40,000 a year, which is more than the Prime Minister gets, and then take himself off like the witches of Macbeth. They made the air to vanish into but they did not create $40,000 to await them at the end of their vanishing act. This does not seem right to me. The Prime Minister could have appointed the former minister to the Senate if he wanted to get rid of him. Now, of course, we have the former minister of national defence to finish the job of wrecking the transportation systems of this country and, God knows, he made one gosh awful mess of the Department of National Defence. We will all rue the day he did that. He will probably finish the job that the former member for Pickersgill began with the Department of Transport. I did not make a mistake when I said the member for Pickersgill. Politically he represented the constituency of Bonavista-Twillingate, but to my mind the first statement is correct.
October 4, 1967

When I criticize transportation in this country I do not wish to include Air Canada because they are doing a pretty wonderful job except for one thing. They do not operate enough aircraft in and out of Edmonton any more. They have given Edmonton the go-by. I hope that I cannot lay that entirely at the door of the former minister of transport, though he may have had a finger in that pie.
We have troubles with the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways which are deliberately destroying the services that they are supposed to provide for the people of Canada. Services are reduced and costs increase, as all other costs have.
Today I complain about a spur line being built from Fort Saskatchewan to a government subsidized Imperial Oil fertilizer plant six miles south of Redwater. The line is supposed to be in a designated area and is 12J miles long. It has been possible to build this line because of clause 77 on page 66 of Bill No. C-231, which says that railway companies may build a spur line 20 miles long without coming to parliament. I believe they need an order in council only. Before this bill, six miles of line was the limit.
The Canadian National received permission to build this spur line which runs through the oldest settled area in Alberta. It runs through the finest farm land in Canada in what is now called the Fort Saskatchewan settlement. It used to be called the Lamoureux settlement. The original settlers there were called Lamoureux, the same name as Mr. Speaker. But they have been out there for so long that they are not called Lamoureux any more. The name is pronounced Lammory now. That is what they are called and that is the name of the settlement.
This settlement was started before the survey of western Canada. The lots are mainly river lots because the highway was the river then. The farms in Quebec too ran back from the river. But these farms are a little bigger than normal because in those days there was more room and there were fewer people in the west. Most river lots are about 300 acres each. There are quite a few of them and they extend for a matter of perhaps three or four miles. However, the railway got authority on April 27 to build a spur line there. On April 28 it wrote letters to all the farmers concerned, 23 in all, many of whom are descendants of people who settled on this land more than 100 years ago. This is not very long in the life of Ontario or Quebec but it is a long time in the life of what is now Alberta.
The Budget-Mr. Fane [DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I said that this letter was written to these people by the Canadian National Railways land agent in Edmonton on April 28. On May 2 the surveyors were out, before most of these people had got their letters telling them that their land would be expropriated. "Expropriated" was the word used but the company did not expropriate the land; confiscated it. When a child of the government, a Crown corporation, can go into the oldest farming district in a province and drive a path right through the finest farming country in Canada we have indeed reached an unenviable point in our history. When I say that this is the finest farming land in Canada, I mean it. When other areas were faced with crop failure this year these people harvested between 60 and 65 bushels of wheat to the acre.
The railway company surveyed the land and decided to go right through the farms. They did not go around the edge of the concession, as it would be called in the east. It went right through at an angle, thus cutting the farms to pieces with the result that they are not worth a dam for farming any more. One man told me his farm has been cut into 14 separate pieces by this spur line. Remember, Mr. Speaker, there has been no real effort made by the C.N.R. to reach any settlement with these farmers. It is really a crime.
This is not the only route the railway could have taken. It could have linked up with the C.N.R. line five miles south of the plant that is being built. It could have gone six miles north into the town of Redwater where the C.N.R. runs. It could have gone eight miles straight west to meet the C.N.R. line at Gibbons. Yet it had to go through all these farms at an angle, thus destroying them. I have a plan here showing the alternative routes. It is available and it can be seen.
Everybody was happy when it was announced that the fertilizer plant was to be built six miles south of Redwater. But this plant also is built on two parcels of land comparable in value with the land which the railway has confiscated and is in the process of destroying. I should like to read a number of letters on this subject though I doubt that I will have time.
I was first informed of what was happening in a letter from a Mr. and Mrs. Keith written on May 17 and received by me on May 25. I at once wrote to the then minister of transport and one month later I received a reply from him, just a brush-off enclosing a letter

that were involved, except for one route which might have been half a mile longer. In any event it would have been along the road allowance, which I understand is called a concession in this part of the country.
It is a shocking thing that this should happen in this country in this day and age when we are so proud and vocal about our freedom and the rights we enjoy. It makes me wonder whose freedom did I go to two wars to protect? Whose freedom was I looking after when I was 34 years in Canada's armed services? It now appears it was not worth a darn looking after the freedom of our private citizens or of land owners.
These people got a letter from the C.N.R. at the beginning of May informing them that their land was going to be expropriated, without any reference to their wishes at all. They were all busy putting in their crops. They could not leave their farming operations to attend to this business, so they hired the services of Farm Surface Rights Consultants Ltd. in Edmonton to look after their interests. The manager of that company appears to be working very hard. He is working on two other similar matters. One is a spur line in Saskatchewan where the people involved have experienced the same thing, and the other is a pipe line from the McMurray tar sands down to the storage place close to the railway.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member to advise him that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Let him continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank John William Fane: I would like to thank hon. members for their consideration in allowing me to complete my remarks. I have here an article which appeared in the Edmonton Journal on September 12 headed, "If You Think You Have Property Rights Try Dealing With The C.N.R." It was written by the wife of one land owner, one of the Lamoureux family whose ancestors first settled at Fort Saskatchewan about 100 years ago. Her husband is a fourth or fifth generation settler there. It reads:
During this centennial year we have heard many officials and dignitaries speak with great gusto on the traditional rights and freedoms enjoyed
The Budget-Mr. Fane
by the people of Canada. There have been long-winded dissertations on how these have been won by our forefathers.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I draw attention to one aspect of our legal structure where the theory of individual rights is flagrantly ignored. In actual fact, there are laws which are designed to allow individuals the least possible say in matters pertaining to their own property. The laws relating to the expropriation of property for the use of the railroads make a mockery of all those highsounding speeches which I hear.
Yes, I am one of a group of farm men and women who have been trying to get fair treatment from the Canadian National Railways. The manner in which they take possession of property to build a spur has to be lived through to be believed. I'm talking of the one for the new Imperial Oil fertilizer plant near Redwater, We have been living in a fool's paradise, blissfully harbouring the illusion that we had some degree of control over our own land. How innocent can you be?
Here is our experience with railway building:
The official announcement of the fertilizer plant was in all the local newspapers earlier this year. On April 28, we received a letter from the C.N.R. telling, yes, telling us, that a certain part of our land was to be used for the railway right of way. This plan had been registered with the land titles office and was subject to the Expropriation Act, for the sake of expediency.
This railroad was to be in operation by September. No plant of this size comes into being without years of planning, nor the railway which is to service it. Yet we were given no warning nor consideration until April 28, and were expected to say nothing.
On May 4th their real estate agent arrived. My husband was not home so the agent came back at a later date. The agent was then told that all dealing would have to be done through Mr. R. A. Doyle of Farm Service Rights, who had been retained to help protect our interests.
On June 7th, we discovered that our three parcels of land registered in the land titles office had been affixed with the expropriation stamp on May 19th. Later the nine acres were officially registered in the name of the C.N.R., neatly bisecting our three parcels of land into six parcels.
This is nothing more than stealing or confiscation, and those are my own words. The letter then continues:
All this without our knowledge or consent! To our astonishment, we discovered that this could be done quite legally under the C. N. Act. The only thing that remained in any sort of doubt was
the price to be paid.
Subsequent legal action resulted in a decision which prevented any obstruction to the building of the railway but allowed the claim for property damage to remain.
Basically what is happening is as follows:
(a)	The railroad has the legal right to lay a line right across our property. We have no control, nor the right to disagree.
(b)	One hundred and five acres of the finest agricultural land in Canada are being violated for this purpose.

October 4, 1967
The Budget-Mr. Fane
(c)	The railroad company can coldly and contemptuously run a railway through a barnyard or 200 feet in front of your home.
(d)	Prices offered for this land have been ridiculously low. There is no understanding of the irreparable damage to be inflicted on land of this value.
This plant is being built seven miles south of Redwater, which has railway service.
As I said, the C.N.R. runs through Red-water. The letter then states:
It is in a depressed area and has been given a 5 million grant by the federal government. Not one of us is against industry to further the economy of a district. But we do resent the manner in which it has been done. We all understand English and feel that a dealing in land, rather than a stealing of land, would not have been such an insult to our intelligence and personal rights.
Their date of expediency was well timed, for the month of May is a busy one for farmers. But they have the advantage. Every act concerning railways gives them the legal right to do what they please and to whom. What's more, they use it to the hilt. The construction is going on at another important time to farmers. While the railroad crew is on the land, combining will be at its height. Granaries will be cut off by the right of way. It could mean driving three or four miles to empty a load of grain, because as yet no crossings have been discussed.
When time is of the essence for the railroad, they use the term "expediency": but when the farmers' bread and butter is involved there is no reciprocal expediency. Such good public relations!
This is not a case of complaining farmers griping about a few acres of land. This could mean you-any property owner from coast to coast.
The present laws are 100 years out of date. A change in these laws would restore my faith in our so-called traditional freedoms. Which one of our so-called leaders has the courage and integrity to use the means at their disposal to see that these laws are examined and changed so that when they speak of human rights, they mean all Canadians in every way.
That is a letter that Mrs. Madeleine Lamoureux wrote to the Edmonton Journal, which published on September 12 of this year.
I should like to take a few minutes to read a letter I received from Mr. Pickersgill in reply to a letter I wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). The Prime Minister, being the gentleman he is, wrote me a very nice letter telling me he was compelled to hand over my letter to the Minister of Transport. He said he had done this and had asked for a full report. This reply was apparently dictated on August 30. I received it on September 19 at my home in Vegreville. The letter bore no date stamp from Ottawa or at the post office in Vegreville, so I do not know when it was posted. Mr. Pickersgill informed me that he had received previous representations.

With a little more indulgence on the part of hon. members I should like to read this letter to illustrate the kind of attention the minister gave to these situations. This attitude cannot be construed as a political reprisal against these people, because this is the only polling division from which I have not received a majority vote during the last three elections. This division gave a majority to the Liberals. Apparently these people did not realize the champion they had in the Conservative member, probably because they did not make use of his services in time. Because they came originally from Quebec they were probably still voting for Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The former minister of transport went on to say in his letter:
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The provision of transportation and communication facilities generally-highways and roads, canals, railway lines and terminals, airports-to a considerable extent involve use of land which might otherwise be devoted directly to agriculture. This also applies to the provision of manufacturing plant and commercial facilities and also to residential developments, all of which tend to use considerable areas of good agricultural potential. This is naturally a matter of some concern to all of us.
"This is naturally a matter of some concern to all of us,"-indeed. The letter goes on to say:
The railway reviewed the various alternatives before arriving at a decision as to the most practical route for this new line.
I would go to the mat with anybody who said that anybody used any judgment in routing that line. The letter continues:
A prime consideration in selection of the route was opportunity afforded to open up for future industrial development a substantial area along the north bank of the North Saskatchewan river -an area well located with respect to the river, situated downstream from and near Edmonton, on good highway, and enjoying good access to certain industrial materials and to western Canadian markets.
I am informed that, bearing in mind this consideration of opening up an area having promise of future industrial use, the conclusion was that the route finally selected is the most practical one, all factors considered. Had the location of the rail route been governed only by location of the industrial project now under construction south of Redwater, a different route somewhat roundabout but involving construction of less new railway line, could well have been chosen.
I am advised by railway officers concerned that a letter was dispatched under date April 27, 1967, to all property owners involved; that survey crews did not go on any private lands until May 2, 1967;-
October 4, 1967

Incidentally, these people live on a rural route. How long did they get to find out about it? Darn little time. The letter continues:
-and that between May 1 and 9 a railway real estate representative called on each owner (with two exceptions) at least once to open discussions concerning settlement for the lands involved, crossings, etc. The reason for two owners being missed was that property of these owners adjoins the Sturgeon river and it was necessary to establish the total acreage required for the Sturgeon river crossing before opening discussions with owners involved.
Can you figure something like that?
Subsequently, the railway received letters dated May 16 and May 23 from Farm Surface Rights Consultants Ltd. to the effect that this firm had been appointed to represent 16 owners-
That number has now been increased to 21.
- (of the total of 23 owners involved). As recently as August 15 the railway was still awaiting word from Farm Surface Rights Consultants Ltd. as to when the consultants expect to be ready to discuss the matter of settlement (compensation, crossings, any relocation of roads, etc.)
The former minister of transport went on to say:
I am assured that every effort will be made by officers of the railway to effect fair and reasonable settlements with land owners concerned respecting compensation for property required for right of way for this rail line, including severance damage and any other damages that might be caused to land outside the right of way during the construction period. It would appear the next step would be for the land owners or their representatives to agree to meet with the railway officers concerned in Edmonton with a view to working out mutually satisfactory settlements.
Regarding the National Transportation Act. this legislation, which increased from 6 to 20 miles the length of a line which may be constructed without authority of a branch line bill, was introduced m parliament in August, 1966, well before there was any decision respecting construction of this rail line or in fact industrial development in this area.
Did the minister forget the difficulty he had getting that bill through the house? Did he forget the objections made by the opposition and how he callously rode over almost every important amendment proposed from this side of the house? The only one we were able to save concerned the Crowsnest pass freight rates. Has the minister forgotten so quickly, or does he think I can forget a thing like that when he writes a letter like this to me? It just is not very sensible. In a letter that I received either from the minister or the C.N.R.-I shall not take the time of the house to read it now-I was told it was a matter of expense, that they took this route to save money.
The Budget-Mr. Fane
They were saving money by not going into Redwater, Gibbons, Scotford or taking a route a quarter of a mile north of the one they have taken. They did not take that route because of the additional expense involved. When they say this to me they make me see red. Another factor involved was the distance they would have to haul the products into Edmonton. It would have been shorter to haul them up to Redwater and along the existing line, out to Gibbons if they wanted to build a spur eight miles long, or down to Scotford where the line would be only five and a half miles long. It would take six miles of line if they were to build a "Y" junction there.
The building of a new railway will cause the Canadian National considerable expense, but they complain of the expense involved in completing the line from Heinsburg in Alberta to Frenchman Butte in Saskatchewan. They haul all the products of the salt factory at Lindbergh back through Edmonton. They haul all the wheat, all the grain and all the cattle back through Edmonton.
They should have completed that little bit of line years ago when they had the roadbed partially built and then abandoned it. Talk about saving expense. Whom do they think they are kidding? Not me, for sure, because I do not kid that easy. I do not believe them. This is a crooked deal. I do not want to get involved in any further explanation, because it is just not right and it is not sensible, o (5:50 p.m.)
If there had been a practical person on the survey team, in the railway company or in the Department of Transport, surely he would have realized that it would not have hurt to build that railway line a quarter of a mile farther north along the road allowance where it would not have destroyed this good land and would not have spoiled the public relations between the Department of Transport and these farmers and between the Canadian National Railways, the Imperial Oil Company and these farmers.
It is too late now to do anything about it because the right of way is built. I did not know about it in time to protest against it and to have it stopped. However, had I known in time I would have taken a lot more time in the house and nobody would have been allowed to forget about the indignity that these people have suffered through the confiscation, the stealing of their land by Canadian National Railways. As I said before, the C.N.R. is a child of the government, it is
October 4. 1967

The Budget-Mr. Gilbert a crown corporation. You could perhaps expect someone to come on to your land with a gun or an army and to take it over, but surely we are entitled in Canada to some protection from government agents.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members for their indulgence in allowing me to -complete my remarks.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. iSpeaker, I am rather disappointed that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is not in the ihouse to hear these remarks because I was going to tell him that the fact he has made two speeches on the economic state of the [DOT]nation within the last few days indicates the seriousness of the situation and the inability -of the government, more particularly his own inability, to cope with the problems and to provide adequate solutions. One could expect the Minister of Finance to show the Canadian people how to manage their affairs. One could expect him to balance the books of the nation so that all debts would be paid and frugality and good management would produce prosperity and stability.
There are three examples I want to set before the minister which belie these assumptions. Things have gone wrong in our so-called prosperity. First of all let us look at the consumer price index which has shown a steady increase. The D.B.S. figures show that in July, 1965 it stood at 139.5, in July 1966, at 144.3 and in July of 1967 at 150.2. There is no sign of any halt in the increase in the consumer price index.
What this means to Canadians is that this year they are paying $150.20 for purchases for which they would have paid $100 in 1949. The people whom this situation affects most are those in the fixed income bracket, more especially old age pensioners and people who have received pensions from companies. It also strikes very hard at the low income groups. This is the effect which the policies of the government have had on the Canadian economy.
My second point is with regard to unemployment which has been a festering sore on our nation for many years. The Dominion (Bureau of Statistics informs us that since 1965 there has been an upward trend in
unemployment despite occasional seasonal fluctuations. In July, 1967 the number of unemployed stood at 330,000 in absolute figures. Shown a percentage of the labour force, the number of unemployed has increased steadily since the end of 1965 despite periodic declines. Graphs published by D.B.S. indicate a steady increase in unemployment since the beginning of 1966. In fact the D.B.S. tables, which are adjusted for seasonal variations, vary across the country. In the province of Ontario the number of unemployed is 3.5 per cent. In the Atlantic provinces unemployment is 6.8 per cent, and in the province of British Columbia, the Minister of Labour's home province, unemployment stands at 5 per cent. This is not a very encouraging picture with regard to the unemployment problem in Canada today.
The third item which should be brought to the attention of the government is the fact that interest rates have soared. The government has announced that the N.H.A. rate will be fixed at 8.25 per cent. This means that conventional mortgages will range from 9 to 9.25 per cent. I notice that the Minister of Labour is shaking his head. During the debate he told us that this was the maximum figure and that he hoped the lending institutions would not take advantage of it. He must have read in yesterday's newspapers that the guaranteed investment certificates of the National Trust Company now pay 6.75 per cent. Anyone with business experience must realize that these institutions must have an interest rate differential of at least 2 per cent so as to make a profit.


Mr. Nicholson:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he not know that the standard differential between N.H.A. and conventional mortgages is .5 per cent? This is accepted right across the country.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I dare to challenge the minister's statement. In Toronto alone the margin is at least .75 to 1 per cent. I would be very pleased to show him figures to prove that. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 5, 1967