1967-02-09

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication.
Ottawa, February 9, 1967
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 9th February, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Twelfth report of standing committee on public accounts-Mr. Hales.
Fifth report of standing committee on justice and legal affairs-Mr. Cameron (High Park).
[Note: Text of the foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)

Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I should like to table two copies in English and two copies in French of the report on amateur hockey in Canada by the hockey study committee of the national advisory council on fitness and amateur sport dated January, 1967.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister have permission to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INCOME TAX


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (for Mr. Benson) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-56 (from 2303S-811
the Senate) to implement agreements for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax between Canada and Trinidad and Tobago, Canada and Ireland, Canada and Norway and Canada and the United Kingdom, and to implement supplementary income tax convention between Canada and the United States of America.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I would ask the Prime Minister whether he got in touch with the centennial commission regarding the unjustifiable omission of the Queen's picture from the confederation train. Did he receive from a high official of the centennial commission the answer which was given yesterday by that official, that the reason for the failure to display the Queen's picture was that "this is a Canadian train"?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I did get in touch with the commission, who informed me that the monarchy, and the place of the monarchy in our history, is evoked by various displays in the train but that there is no picture of the Queen herself in the confederation train. The centennial commission is taking immediate steps to repair that omission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Labour with respect to a meeting which he and his colleagues had yesterday with the delegation of the united auto workers from Oshawa? Press reports indicate that the delegates renewed the request they made last year asking the government to urge the auto companies to enter into joint discussions regarding any major changes which were likely
February 9, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry to cause dislocation in the labour force. I should like to ask the minister whether such an appeal has been made to the auto companies and, if so, what response has been received from them.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I discussed this matter with a delegation whose membership had hardly changed since November last, soon after the question also arose. I told them at that time that our approach to the companies collectively had not been too successful, and I had hoped we might work it out with the individual companies concerned rather than on an industry basis.
I reported yesterday that we were making some progress with one of the companies, and I expected to have a meeting within the next 10 days or so with the chief executive of this one company that has shown interest. Actually a date has been fixed for this meeting, not next week but the week following, and I am hopeful that my colleague the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury), and I will both meet with him on that occasion. Further action will depend on what transpires at that meeting.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: As a
supplementary question I would like to ask the minister would he give consideration to informing the companies that refusal on their part to co-operate with the government and labour in this important consultation might mean that the government would reconsider the whole question of the auto pact?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That may be the way the hon. member would act, but it is not the way I would act.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a further supplementary, may I ask the minister whether the government is still adamant in its decision requiring the workers to use up all their supplementary unemployment benefits before they will be eligible for transitional assistance benefits? Is this a firm decision, or is the government giving it reconsideration?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I assured the delegation yesterday that the further representations they had made would be carefully considered, and I might add that we were in conference with them for some two and a half hours.


David Orlikow: As a further supplementary I would like to ask the minister if in the event that his type of persuasion, which has not


worked until now, does not work, and if the minister is opposed to direction, what other course does the minister propose to take?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is doubly hypothetical.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government received any request from Mr. Coldwell, commissioner on the national security inquiry, that he be relieved from his functions so Mr. Calvin Macdonald might testify before this commission and receive a fair and unbiased hearing?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have received no such communication, nor do I expect one. There is nothing to prevent Mr. Macdonald appearing before the commission.


Raymond Langlois: As a supplementary question, would the Prime Minister consider looking into this problem and studying all its aspects, and then report back to the house as to the intentions of the government in this respect to give Mr. Macdonald a fair hearing?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have looked into it, and I know of no reason why Mr. Macdonald should not have a fair hearing before the board.


John George Diefenbaker: Arising out of the question asked by the hon. member for Megantic and without in any way prejudging the situation, does the Prime Minister not feel in view of all the circumstances that when Macdonald appears-if he does-before the commission, Mr. Coldwell, if any suggestion were made, would withdraw while Macdonald was giving his evidence, Macdonald having advanced the idea that he had already made representations that had been swept aside?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have no information which would warrant any request to Mr. Coldwell that he should withdraw from this commission in any of its activities.


John George Diefenbaker: Just for that particular witness.
February 9, 1987


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think it would be a reflection on Mr. Coldwell and the commission if he were asked to withdraw in respect to this particular hearing.


John George Diefenbaker: It is done every day in the courts.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport which relates to the recent inquest into the Dorion school bus level crossing tragedy, which criticized both the C.N.R. and the Board of Transport Commissioners. Is the minister taking any action himself to clear up this inquiry, or are there any plans afoot that will deal with this level crossing problem in a more effective way?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, without making any observation about the verdict of the coroner's inquest, which I think would be unwise for me to do, I may say that I believe the inquiry by the Board of Transport Commissioners, which was postponed until the coroner's inquest was completed, is to start on Monday. Until that inquiry has been completed I think it would be premature for me to make any observation at all on this subject.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport supplementary to the question asked earlier by the hon. member for Red Deer. In view of the strong criticism in the report of the coroner's jury both of Canadian National Railways and the Board of Transport Commissioners, will a study be made to make sure that there are not other similar level crossings still in existence at which other tragic accidents might take place?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. gentleman well knows, these matters are under consideration all the time by the board. I did not want to be obliged to say that the Board of Transport Commissioners has made recommendations about this particular level crossing and unfortunately the other parties who would have to be involved have not responded in this particular case. It is very regrettable that this should be the case.
23033-811J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the charge that there was negligence on the part of the Board of Transport Commissioners, should not something be done to make sure that the consideration is more effective?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite sure that in this particular case there was no negligence on the part of the Board of Transport Commissioners.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to ask the minister whether he has knowledge of any possible extension of the truce in Viet Nam. I should also like to ask the minister whether the Canadian government accordingly is making any contribution.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with that question yesterday when I replied that we had taken appropriate steps. I have no further information to give now, but I can say that every effort is being made to extend the period of the truce from four to seven days. I sincerely hope that if that is agreed the truce will last beyond the seven days.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a thought has just come to mind. Because this matter is one which affects the people of the world and because I believe Canadians generally feel there should be a cessation of the bombing-I believe this is the feeling across the country-would it not be helpful if a resolution to that effect were given consideration by the House of Commons?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, this government has made it clear that we believe there should be a cease fire. Our views with regard to the cessation of bombing are well known. The United States government has said that it is prepared to stop the bombing provided there is some reciprocal action. There was a statement the other day by the minister of foreign affairs for North Viet Nam which we believe may have advanced the position somewhat. The statement was to the effect that they were prepared to enter into talks once the bombing was stopped. In the light of these statements this whole question is again being carefully examined.
February 9, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question which is directed to the Minister of Labour is based on the D.B.S. figures published yesterday which show spiralling increases in housing costs. In view of this situation, is the government seriously considering revising the mortgage ceiling for home loans in the near future.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing that I can usefully add to the answer I gave yesterday on this subject.


William Heward Grafftey: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The question asked yesterday was not in respect of the mortgage ceiling. In view of the present situation, particularly as it exists in Toronto, could the minister assure the house that the government is going to come to a conclusion very quickly?


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Labour in connection with his statement to the house last January 30.
Can the minister tell the house whether he will recommend to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation any increase in residential housing in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is rather specific in character and deals with a particular area; for these reasons, I suggest it cannot be put now.


Joseph Alcide Simard: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. [English]



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council, although I believe it should be addressed to him in his capacity as Registrar General of Canada. Could the minister tell us whether


the regulations under part X of the Bankruptcy Act, which we amended earlier this session, have been enacted; and whether part X, having to do with the orderly payment of debts, has been proclaimed for Manitoba?


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. friend for having given me due notice of his intention to put this question. The answer is no, but I think it requires a very short explanation.
The superintendent of bankruptcy, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, has prepared draft rules and forms for the purpose of part X, and these draft rules and forms have been sent to the provincial authorities in Manitoba for their comments. As soon as these draft rules and forms are accepted by the provincial authorities they will be submitted to the governor in council.
We have not as yet received a request from the lieutenant governor in council of the province of Manitoba pursuant to section 198 of the Bankruptcy Act that part X be proclaimed by the governor in council to be in force in that province. My understanding is that before making such a request, the provincial authorities wanted to satisfy themselves that the proposed rules and forms for part X would make the legislation operational.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works and relates to an answer he gave yesterday afternoon to a question posed by my colleague the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie). In view of the fact his department has received Mr. McCulloch's report I am wondering whether he will give us some information as to whether any changes will be required in respect of the Prince Edward Island causeway construction?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, if any need for changes arises I presume it will be announced.



REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT ON DIGBY-SAINT JOHN FERRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister
February 9, 1967	COMMONS
of Transport whether he is in a position to give a progress report on the discussions taking place in respect of the Digby-Saint John ferry. Will the minister confirm that Mr. Darling of the Canadian Maritime Commission is involved in these discussions?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the second part of the question is yes, and the answer to the first part is, not yet.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have a supplementary question. May we expect some action in this regard before the commencement of the tourist season this year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member seriously suggesting that a new ship could be built before the commencement of the tourist season this year? If he is, I think he ought to consult his local shipyards.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbiit (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister as yet in a position to indicate how soon regulations under the Canada Assistance Act will be ready for promulgation in order that many very needy cases in the country can be looked after?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the regulations have been approved and appeared in the Canada Gazette on February 8.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the hon. Solicitor General of Canada, who is the minister responsible for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Could the minister tell us how many members of the R.C.M.P. went to Chicoutimi during the last week-end, in order to protect the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think this question is in order.


Gilles Grégoire: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry



INQUIRY AS TO PERSONNEL OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister when we may expect an announcement regarding the appointment of the rest of the members of the royal commission on the status of women, and when that commission will commence its work.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to make that announcement this week, and expect the commission will then be able to commence its work next week.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the resolutions passed by the John Howard Society and the Ontario Bar Association suggesting that during the centennial year provision should be made to expunge from the criminal records any convictions of individuals who have served their time or have been granted full pardons and who have not returned to crime for a period of five or ten years, does the government intend to take any steps to adopt these suggestions in order that the records of these individuals may be cleared? I have particular reference to the case of a New Waterford, Nova Scotia individual which was directed to his attention for examination some ten days ago.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the right hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I respectfully agree that this is a matter worthy of serious consideration, particularly at a time when the Criminal Code and the Parole Act are under study for possible amendment.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of
12828	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Forestry and Rural Development. I am wondering whether the minister can indicate when we may expect an announcement of the setting up of the feed grain board.


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Before March 15, I hope, Mr. Speaker.



QUEBEC-MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES UNDER ARDA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Has the agreement under the ARDA program to carry out the eastern Quebec development scheme been signed with the province of Quebec? If not, will it be signed soon?


Maurice Sauvé: Negotiations between the two governments are proceeding normally, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. I apologize for not sending him notice, but I had intended to ask it tomorrow. A few days ago I brought to the attention of the minister that Mr. Donald Swait, secretary treasurer of the Seafarers International Union, had been named as a co-conspirator in a court in Chicago with respect to the bombing of a Canadian ship. The minister said he would make inquiries. Has he anything to report?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: must confess that I have not, Mr. Speaker. Had I received notice I would have had an up to date report. It happens that recently I have been away from Ottawa quite often or I would have followed up this matter. I will do so and let the hon. member know very shortly-


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the 
DEBATES	February 9, 1967
Minister of Industry and of Defence Production.
As a result of the trade mission to France and the report published in that connection, could the minister tell the house whether profitable relations and exchanges have been established between France and Canada regarding technical development and other joint projects?


Mr. Speaker:: I feel this question is much too general to be put on the orders of the day.


Maurice Allard: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Rene Tremblay (Matapedia-Maiane):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the fact that the winter games are starting in Quebec over the week-end and that these are important events in the centennial of confederation celebrations, would the minister consent to make representations with the organizers of these events so that all members and senators may be invited to participate at the inauguration of these winter games?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to have this matter brought to the attention of the president of the winter games. The Prime Minister will be holding a reception in Quebec city on Saturday at noon, and I hope all members of parliament will find it possible to attend.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. May I ask the right hon. gentleman what success he is having in recruiting personnel for the Cape Breton development corporation, announced by him some weeks ago, or how soon may we expect an announcement of the personnel of this corporation?
February 9, 1967


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, negotiations in regard to the establishment of the corporation are still going on. We hope to be able to make an announcement shortly on this very important matter.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in connection with appointments, would the Prime Minister advise the house the present position regarding the presidency of the C.B.C.? Mr. Ouimet is left in a state of suspended animation, and there are the positions of general manager and vice president to be filled. When will these positions be filled, so the C.B.C. can function with that efficiency and sense of direction that parliament can expect when that organization has leadership?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the criticism that is levelled at the C.B.C. by hon. gentlemen opposite I would not think it is in a state of suspended animation. Without accepting the premise of the right hon. gentleman's question, I would point out that the C.B.C. has a president. The vice president resigned the other day. Steps are being taken with a view to filling that particular post. I believe these matters were being considered last night at a meeting of the board of directors.


John George Diefenbaker: There was some reference in the press to the effect that certain names were before the government with respect to the presidency. I cannot ask, of course, whether that is so, but does not the Prime Minister agree that in recent months there has been a grave uncertainty in the C.B.C. which is a natural consequence of the failure to appoint officials to that body?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am also aware of the fact that there is a white paper dealing with broadcasting which will be considered by a parliamentary committee. After that consideration has been completed there will be a report. That report, I assume, will be the basis of legislation in regard to broadcasting in Canada so far as it concerns the C.B.C. and will have a very direct bearing on the organization of the C.B.C.


Mr. Starr:: This session?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: I have one other question, Mr. Speaker. Are the appointments to await consideration by a parliamentary committee on broadcasting? Surely the Prime Minister does not expect such further delay, because already the delay has been inexcusable.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there are no vacancies at the moment except the one I mentioned, and that is being filled.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the recent announcement with respect to regulations for district 7B for the lobster fishing season, I wonder whether the minister will be able to provide more definite instructions for fishermen planning for the spring season.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the announcement I made recently regarding the trap limit for district 7B was clear and to the point. I am sure it was well understood by the fishermen and by the delegation that met with me to discuss this matter a few days before I made the announcement.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the regulations referred to by the minister there was the comment "extenuating circumstances" which I think interested many fishermen. I wonder whether it is planned to give some clarification about this expression.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the question period is the time for me to explain what "extenuating circumstances" means.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that either of the questions asked by the hon. member was in order. It seems to me his question is a little too limited, and I think it should be placed on the order paper or discussed at ten o'clock.
February 9, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



STILBESTROL-POSSIBLE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF OVERFEEDING TO ANIMALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture but in his absence I will address it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the reports of the possibility of overdosage in the feeding of stilbestrol to animals, with possible harmful effects to humans who may consume their flesh, has the government asked for further investigation into this dangerous situation?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to bring the hon. member's question to the attention of the minister.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Having met this very day a very important delegation from the Gaspe peninsula, does the Prime Minister intend to join those who will board the Grande Hermine when that ship leaves Montreal for Gaspe, the cradle of Canada, after Expo '67?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest that the parliamentary secretary come back tonight at ten o'clock to answer his own question.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question which you might allow.
Will that ship be seaworthy?



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. It refers to a bill in bilingual form which is now before the Massachusetts state house of representatives which in effect declares July 1 a state holiday in honour of Canada and our centennial. I
wonder whether the Prime Minister is contemplating some suitable gesture in response to this significant display of friendship and affection between the peoples of Canada and the United States of America.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will certainly be glad to look into this, and I thank the hon. gentleman for bringing this matter to my attention.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 8, 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.
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I think my opening remark must be that in my opinion and from my experience in this house the speech made by the Minister of Finance on December 19 was the most peculiar budget speech that was ever presented to this house. I say it was peculiar because in theory the minister was saying that he advised the government to proceed cautiously in one direction, and at the same time condoned the action of the government in proceeding at full speed in the opposite direction. The minister on the one hand cautioned the government and on the other condoned the action they have taken although he is against it.
The main message I get from the budget speech is that the government is spending more money than the Canadian people can afford to spend. I think the minister has presented this problem to the house very well, although he has offered no solution whatsoever and no suggestions as to how to stop this trend. In certain parts of his speech the minister appears to advise against any action which would cause an increase in expenditures, but admits that he has been unable to convince his colleagues in the cabinet that his theory is correct, so he proceeds to explain to the nation how additional revenues can be obtained to enable the government to continue its present spending spree.
Some questions come to my mind which I would like to ask the minister. Has the minister admitted his failure to impress upon the cabinet that the danger flag is flying with

February 9, 1967	COMMONS
regard to expenditures, or are his right wing ideas being overruled perhaps by some more powerful personalities in the cabinet? Last night on television I heard a speaker say that the present government has two ministers of finance; one to tell the people what they should do and the other to advise the cabinet to do the opposite. Is the minister making provision for a way out when the balloon eventually goes up so he can say "Don't blame me. I gave you this warning but you took no notice of it"?
In my view the most important statement in the minister's budget speech of December 19-and it appears on page 11331 of Hansard -was when he said:
I want to repeat what I said in this house on September 8 and on other occasions, that we must moderate the rate of increase in new public expenditures.
Apparently the minister repeated this statement time and time again in the house but no notice has been taken by his own colleagues of what the minister said.
Further on he goes on to say:
Neither the capacity nor the willingness of Canadians to pay higher taxes should be taken for granted.
I should like to ask the minister why the government is prepared to impose higher taxes. How much money is the public of Canada paying in taxes every year? The sum is astonishing, and the minister has given us the figures in his speech. I suggest the Canadian people have a right to expect the Minister of Finance, who is supposed to understand Canada's financial position, to take steps to see that the goose that lays the golden egg is not killed.
I am afraid this is not what he has done. We have a right to expect our Minister of Finance to issue warnings not only to the public of Canada but also to the government Which is spending this money. As he said, he issued a warning to the government on September 8 and on many other occasions that it must curtail its expenditures. From all the evidence in the house it appears that the minister has voted on every occasion to accept accelerated expenditures, although he now tells the government that it should not be spending so much money.


Mr. Sharp:: The trouble is that I get no help from the opposition.


John (Jack) McIntosh: You would get some help if you put pressure on the former minister of
The Budget-Mr. McIntosh finance. We are not quite sure which one we should support, but if the present Minister of Finance supported his own statements by appropriate action we would also support him.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask the hon. member why he advocates even larger expenditures?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I think I should clarify this. When did I ever advocate larger expenditures? All I can say to the minister is, either put up or shut up.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek should be allowed to continue his speech.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Not only did the minister issue this warning; he also confirmed it in his budget speech. He said:
It is already evident, however, that our expenditures will continue to rise next year quite apart from the guaranteed income supplement.
He also said:
I now forecast that our budgetary revenues before the tax changes I shall propose would be approximately $8,240 million compared to $8,300 million forecast in the budget last March.
In fact there would be a decrease of $60 million from the budgetary revenues forecast on September 8.
The minister stated further:
Our surplus in terms of the national economic accounts I would forecast at roughly $140 million compared with the budget forecast of $455 million.
In fact the surplus in the national economic accounts will be reduced by some $315 million. The minister continued with more proof which he has apparently put before the people of Canada and before the cabinet. He went on:
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Our net financing requirements for non-budgetary transactions, before tax changes and excluding transactions in our own debt, I estimate to be $342 million compared with $190 million at the time of the budget

That shows an increase of $152 million in net financing requirements for non-budgetary transactions. These several statements of the minister add up to the fact that we are close to the point where the government is spending more than the people of Canada can afford. As the minister himself said, it is all too easy to anticipate growth in our revenues
February 9, 1967

The Budget-Mr. McIntosh and to commit ourselves to spending programs that outrun it.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is exactly what the present government is doing. Its spending is outrunning the money that is coming in. The government is even running out of ideas on how to collect additional revenues from the people of Canada. We on this side, knowing the dangers and the problem of financing the budget, ask the minister why he does not prevail upon his colleagues in the cabinet to hold the line on expenditures within the several departments. We want to know the reason that each department is not holding the line on its expenditure. I can find nothing in the budget speech of the minister to indicate that the government is making any effort to curtail its expenditures.
It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has been warned by his officials that the danger flag is flying, but that he has been unable to stop the spending spree launched by the government, or that this spending spree has been accelerated to such extent that the government has lost control of the brake and cannot stop it. It seems that each department is trying to race the other to obtain cabinet approval for the largest possible expenditure, without regard to the source of revenue.
The minister stated that to raise all the revenue which is required by all governments in Canada, which to use his figure is currently running at about $18 billion a year, a large variety of taxes and charges must be levied. This includes not only federal expenditures but provincial and municipal expenditures. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if my arithmetic is correct the tax requirements amount to $900 for each man, woman and child in Canada today. If I break that figure down, for the average family of four the breadwinner must provide $3,600 in taxes each year before he can even consider feeding and clothing his family.
This amount of $18 billion required by way of taxation every year within this nation amounts, I believe, to roughly the total amount of money on deposit in Canadian banks at the present time. In other words, almost a lifetime of savings is required to pay each year's taxes to run this country. Therefore I suggest that a halt must be called at some point. There must be a revision of our tax laws and a halt called to government expenditure until revenue catches up with expenditure.
Such a figure as that to which I have referred, Mr. Speaker, I suggest is alarming

considering the income of the average family in this country. I contend that this government should be stopped from spending more than it can afford, and stopped before we find ourselves in an accelerated inflationary period or are forced to devalue our currency to the point where it is useless as a medium of exchange. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the government must be stopped before it bankrupts the country.
One would expect, Mr. Speaker, the press and financial critics to have a responsibility to the people of Canada and to focus attention on the uncontrolled spending taking place in this country. I suggest, as others in this party have suggested, that the press are not doing their duty by failing to focus attention upon proper topics. They would much rather take something speculative or sensational and blow it up. I suggest they are not doing the service to the country that is expected of them. The press at this time should prove to the people of Canada the value of the freedom of the press in a democracy by informing them of the financial dangers which lie ahead for Canada if this government's uncontrolled spending is not curtailed.
Why is the press so reluctant, we would ask, to criticize this government and give the public the true facts? It appears that the majority of publishers are more political than the politicians, or at least more Liberal minded than the Liberals. They belittle any attempt on the part of the official opposition to offer constructive criticism at any time on practically any subject to come before parliament. The press, knowing the political affiliation of their publishers, time and time again have charged the opposition with filibustering and obstructing practically every major piece of legislation which has been debated in this house during the current session, and I would say perhaps also in former sessions.
This point, Mr. Speaker, was well documented by one of my colleagues, the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard), in a press release a short time ago, in fact directly after the debate on medicare. I should like at this time to put on record, for the sake of the press if for nobody else, this paragraph which is contained in the press release of the hon. member for Simcoe East.


Mr. Pepin:: Does he agree?


John (Jack) McIntosh: I agree with what he said, and it was this:
I have used this example of the needless debate on medicare because of the frequent government charges that we, in the Conservative party, are
February 9, 1967

obstructing the government's legislative program. Indeed, this charge is levelled at us every time that we are not prepared to go along meekly with whatever legislation the government brings in. We are charged with obstructionism when we opposed the Hon. Walter Gordon's first budget. That our opposition was well-founded was proved by the fact that little of that budget lasted beyond the debate stage. We were charged with obstructionism when the first Canada pension plan was introduced. But that bill, too, you will recall, was withdrawn and one almost entirely different in its concept was substituted.
I might interject here, Mr. Speaker, that to my mind either one was a monstrosity. The hon. member continued:
We are being charged with obstructionism in the bill to unify the armed forces and in our efforts to eliminate the "means test" from the present proposal to increase old age pensions only for those who have incomes of less than $60 monthly. I think I can safely claim that, in many cases where we have criticized government legislation, where we have opposed passage of the legislation in the form in which it was introduced, our opposition and our criticisms have been constructive and have been in the best interests of the Canadian people as a whole.
We make no apology, Mr. Speaker, for the action we have taken on most of these bills, or for the constructive criticism we have offered. In fact it is our duty as members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition-indeed it is the duty of all members of the opposition-to constructively criticize government legislation; and I am only sorry that other parties in the opposition have not taken the opportunity of offering similar criticism.
I wish to deal for a few moments with charges of obstruction with regard to the armed forces bill. Our criticism of the Minister of National Defence is identical with our criticism of the Minister of Finance. Both have informed the Canadian public of problems within their jurisdiction, but neither appears to offer concrete or realistic solutions to overcome these problems. This has been the basis for most of our criticsims all through this session, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Finance has told us that we are spending more money than we can afford to spend but at the same time he is making provision to spend additional sums beyond that which the government is now spending and has in its treasury. Rather than being realistic about the problems in his department and solutions to those problems, the minister has launched on a program of mystification with which he hopes to lead the public down the garden path.
23033-812J

The Budget-Mr. McIntosh [DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I am convinced that the term "unification" is coined. It means nothing. Speaking before in the house I have said that the unification issue comes down to nothing more than a change in wording, with the word "royal" being deleted from "Royal Canadian Air Force" and "Royal Canadian Navy". It may mean a common uniform for all forces but it does not mean much more than that.
For the press the unification issue was an excuse to build up a potential leader for the other side. We have been told we ought to be careful not to destroy the Minister of National Defence. Our own followers tell us, "Under no conditions do we want him destroyed. We do not want his chances to be leader of the Liberal party destroyed. So far as we are concerned, we should like to see him as leader of the Liberal party". I say, God help Canada if the minister ever becomes prime minister.
The sum total of the minister's efforts in jockeying with the term "unification" will prove, when the smoke has cleared away, that he had no conception of the real problem facing his department, the lack of any national defence policy for Canada. The problem is not whether the forces should all have the same uniform or whether the word "royal" should be deleted from the names of some formations, which the minister has shown may be done under his definition of unification. As I said before in the house, the minister's propaganda about his mysterious policy of unification will prove to be the most gigantic hoax ever perpetrated on the Canadian public. It involves nothing but a change of uniform and deletion of the word "royal".
In the process of obtaining information from the minister we in the opposition were charged with filibustering, obstruction and an anti-unity conspiracy. I tell the minister there was no conspiracy, no filibuster and no obstruction. I am sure every member who spoke on this issue was genuinely concerned about the radical change implied in the minister's press statements or in the inferences the press drew from his statements. The minister did not realize what he had implied but it became plain after the press had dealt with it that it was something very serious. In fact, so serious was this matter that a great number of senior officers in all services threw up their hands in disgust and resigned.
We do not apologize for our concern about national security. In a democracy it is not
February 9, 1967

The Budget-Mr. McIntosh enough to trust blindly that the government will decide wisely vital matters such as finance and national defence. Every responsible citizen has a duty to understand what is happening and to exercise his judgment on questions that seem complicated and difficult. It is not hard to understand that we cannot spend more money than we have. Only a certain number of sources yield money.
Even the Liberal press became concerned about the minister's lack of clarification on the issue of unification. They ventured such statements as:
One reason for the doubts and questioning of the opposition is that the government's complete plans for integration or unification are as yet vague and undefined.
Those plans are still vague and undefined. They are still mysterious. For what purpose are funds allocated to the Minister of National Defence? The situation remains the same as it has been. The government never has had complete plans in regard to national defence and it still does not have complete plans. The Liberal press has also said:
Critics of the integration program have three major objectives: 1. They want to see maintained the identity of the three services, even within an integrated defence organization.
I understand that the three services will be retained.
2.	They would like to see a halt made now in the integration program so that problems that have arisen can be examined.
There will be problems with integration but problems would arise with any process.
3.	And they would like to have a full inquiry made into future plans of the government in this field so that their impact can be properly assessed.
I suggest that on this occasion the press made a fair assessment of our objectives. The liberal press went on to state:
In the circumstances it is no more than right that the government should be willing to lay its cards on the table so that the armed services and the Canadian people can see what the government is trying to do and can then give the government's plans the consideration they deserve and should have.
After listening to the minister's introductory remarks on Bill C-243 and observing his silence with respect to questions about press statements he released, it became obvious to many of us that the government has no up to date defence policy. The minister, perhaps because he is taking advice from the wrong people, as we have suspected for some time, is not aware that in our time the technique of war is changing rapidly and that all nations

must adjust their thinking to cope with these changes. Canada is no exception. We have suggested several times that the minister look at what France has done. The French realize they have not too much money to spend. They cannot increase their national defence budget, but their armed forces are as effective, perhaps more effective, as they have ever been. The French have cut down their manpower and increased their firepower. That is what our defence policy should achieve.
For the minister to formulate a realistic defence policy he must accept some modern facts. I will enumerate some. I have said time and again in the committee and I repeat now that it is the minister's duty to inform the public of these facts rather than to bewilder them with the myth of unification. Unification means nothing; it is no different from the integration which would take place in any event.


An hon. Member:: Mystification.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes, that is a good word. The minister has mystified everybody, including his department.
Returning to the point, first, and possibly most important, I believe the minister must accept that the only defence possible for Canada now and in the future is on a continental basis. Our friends across the border to the south have for some time developed the defence of their country on that premise. In so doing they will defend Canada whether we want them to defend Canada or not. These are facts which must be faced and dealt with. We are a proud nation, wishing to retain our sovereignty, but if we wish to share the benefits of this security we must share a proportionate burden of the cost. I do not say we should bear half the cost and the United States the other half, because we have 20 million people and the United States has over 200 million. But we should pay 10 per cent of the cost to defend the North American continent. We should be proud to pay that share in order to retain our sovereignty.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
We want some say in what will take place in connection with the defence of the North American continent because, though small in numbers, we own a large part of it. In fact, the only justification for Canada having a defence force of any kind in the latter half of the twentieth century is in order to participate in some system of collective defence. This is another fact we must face. In other words, our defence policy, if any, must be based on
February 9, 1967

alliances in order to be effective. I see the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux); he will note that I say "if any". Once our forces have been dissipated in accordance with the system of collective defence to which we are committed there is not much left. So why bring in the question of unification which does not mean anything very much-a change of badges, a change of name and putting everyone into the same type of uniform?
For a number of reasons, chiefly geographical, Canada cannot afford to assume an isolationist or neutral role. The old role of neutrality has gone by the board. No country can be neutral unless an aggressor will observe that neutrality. This was clearly demonstrated during both world wars in the case of Belgium and Holland. What did it profit either of those countries to be neutral when the aggressor decided to move his forces through them anyway? This is something Canada must accept.
If the Minister of National Defence wishes now to form another force to be placed under the United Nations to act as a police force and carry out an armed police role, I would not quarrel with him. That might be a good idea if the government, in its wisdom, decided that such a thing should be done. But let us not fool the Canadian people as to the value of our forces. I say the government was right in limiting the budget of the Department of National Defence to $1.5 billion. Our role now in the collective defence of the North American continent is defined. We know what equipment we need. I suggest it should not be exceeded in the absence of good and just cause.
Before I resume my seat I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport for focusing attention on the government's views with regard to the Crowsnest pass rates. In a publication which I believe is issued in his constituency there is an article written by the hon. member himself. The heading is "The Crow's Nest Rates" and beneath it we read: "By James A. Byrne, Kootenay East MP". If this represents the policy of the government it is beyond me how we can ever expect to have unity within our country. I would not mind if the statements made in the article were correct. Maybe I would blush if they were correct. But they are not. Surely the parliamentary secretary, who deals with this type of thing, should understand what he is doing. I can see no
The Budget-Mr. McIntosh hope for our country when the people who are supposed to be running it for us do not understand the situation. The hon. member said in this article:
The western farm members of the House of Commons are continuing a blockade of a bill to amend the Railway Act this week-
This word "blockade" is a new one. The government has accused us of obstruction, it has accused us of conspiracy it has accused us of filibustering. But now the word is "blockade". The hon. member went on:
What is it all about? Mostly their fear, it would seem to me, that the public may be provided a means under the act to determine some of the facts about statutory grain rates, commonly known as the "Crow's Nest Rates".
Later we find these words:
The farm members, well aware that they have a good thing going for themselves (rates for the carriage of grain that were in effect in 1897) do not want the taxpayers in the rest of Canada to learn the facts.
That is an out and out lie. I think the majority of Canadians know the facts, and for no consideration would we try to hide those facts from them. In case the hon. member does not know, let me remind him of what happened at that time. There was an agreement between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian people. The hon. member said further:
Following a prolonged discussion with the government the C.P.R. entered into what hindsight has proven to be one of the most imprudent arrangements in the history of railroading.
But in any agreement there are two sides to the question. The hon. member has implied that the people of western Canada are enjoying a privilege which other people in Canada do not enjoy. I say this is an out and out lie. I could go into details about the tariff situation which we in western Canada condone.
I wonder whether the hon. member knows what the C.P.R. has obtained in return as a result of the concessions which were given under the agreement at that time? I suggest that no assessment could possibly be made now as to the advantage which this agreement brought to the C.P.R. In any case, the fact remains that an agreement was made at that time. I presume it was made by intelligent people representing the government and the railway company and both sides must have been satisfied that a good deal had been made. To say at this point that the C.P.R. came out on the short end of the stick is utter nonsense. Wise as the hon. member appears to be, and wise as he may appear to his
February 9, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Mongrain constituents, he has failed to bring out both sides of the argument. He has not only told a falsehood; he has not been fair. Let him tell us how the C.P.R. is benefiting from the agreement before he starts an argument.
Again, let him not forget for a moment what the production of wheat in western Canada means to the whole economy of this country. If he would follow this up he would find that in Vancouver, for instance, where no wheat is grown, a great many thousands of dollars flow in daily because wheat is grown on the prairies and transported to that port.
Had it not been for the revenue Canada obtained from wheat sales the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) would have been in a very difficult position a couple of years ago. It might be accepted that the Crowsnest rates constitute a type of subsidy. The fact remains, however, than an agreement was made between two bodies and once an agreement is signed that agreement sticks. We are here to see that people like the hon. member for Kootenay East and the minister he supports do not bring in by the back door something which they could not bring in by the front door.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, studying as we are in this house the supplementary budget, or rather the minibudget as it has been called, reminds us that more than ever federal budgets tend to condition our economy, to stabilize it, and to spare us the type of disastrous depressions we have known in the past.
Consideration of the consequences the budget can have leads us to examine certain deficiencies in our economy, to attempt to diagnose them objectively and to suggest remedies. For my part, one of the sorest spots, one of the most damaging deficiencies in our economy at the present time is the proliferation of labour conflicts throughout Canada.
While keeping in mind the workable possibilities of a budget on the economy, I should like to refer, as briefly as possible, to the situation regarding labour disputes, to the possible cause, in my opinion, of this proliferation of labour disputes, of strikes, if you like, to their effects on the economy and the desirable aims of those concerned with labour relations, and finally to suggest briefly some solutions which the government could consider and perhaps eventually apply through appropriate pieces of legislation.
IMr. McIntosh.!

I believe we have reached the point where the Canadian people are desperate in the face of the great number of strikes being announced every day. The point has been reached where the workers involved and the unions themselves are wondering whether strikes, as a means to settle labour disputes, are not outdated by the current economic situation and whether the time is not ripe to seek less costly solutions first for the workers but also for the public affected by the disastrous consequences of such strikes occurring too frequently these days.
To obtain a clear understanding of the situation, Mr. Speaker, we should take a look, for instance, at the number of strikes in Canada since 1961, let us say, up to 1966 inclusive. For 1966, the figures must be estimated for the last two or three months of the year. Since 1961, we have figures which are accurate enough and we find that, from 1961 to 1966 inclusive there have been in Canada, 2,870 strikes and lock-outs. This means a yearly average of 480, which represents about 40 per month. And there is no indication of any reduction in sight. Looking at the figures, they seem to be increasing every year. Some will claim that strikes are a symptom of health. I have some doubts about that.
Mr. Speaker, 2,870 strikes and lock-outs mean 11,424,050 man-days lost to the country, and I do not include the last five months of 1966, because the statistics have not yet been published. You will admit that this is fantastic. Those are days when the Canadian economy has failed to operate, when the Canadian production has brought no profit to the country. Whatever the reasons to justify that-and I submit that there are justifiable reasons-I must nevertheless say that that is disastrous to our country's economy.
If you try to assess those things in terms of dollars, Mr. Speaker, and if you take as a basis something very modest, for instance the five-day week at eight hours per day, at an average hourly rate of $1.50-everyone will agree that this is very modest and, in my opinion, even below average-this means a loss of $137,088,600 in wages in Canada between 1961 and 1966. This does not take into account the days and the wages of workers indirectly affected by the strikes, who were forced to stop working, even though they were not on strike, because certain related industries were themselves paralysed during that period; neither do we take into account the loss of income suffered by companies affected by 11,424,000 man-days lost. Mr. February 9, 1967

Speaker, I feel the situation has reached disastrous proportions for the economy of Canada.
You will note, and I wish to make this clear right away, that I am not trying to blame anyone. I want to make my comments as objectively as possible. I am not trying to find fault with the labour movement nor the government. I am trying to analyse a problem and make positive suggestions to the responsible members of government, with a view to correcting this situation because, as I said, the labour movement itself is beginning to feel this has gone too far; I am referring here to the rank and file, which does not necessarily include leaders of labour organizations who, because of their position, are not always free to express personal opinions or say everything they know; I am talking about the ordinary worker who is the first person affected by these strikes, in his personal economy.
It is therefore a truly alarming situation and, just to make the information complete, some of my hon. friends may be interested in knowing how these strikes were distributed, between 1961 and 1966. I have the doubtful satisfaction of saying that my province suffered the greatest man-day losses during this period, although this is not where the greatest number of strikes occurred. My mistake, Mr. Speaker, I am not referring to the whole period, this only covers the month of July, 1966. So that the facts may be better understood and in order to present a clearer case, I will only quote figures for the month of July 1966.
In July 1966, there were 27 strikes or lockouts in the province of Quebec, causing a loss of 445,263 man-days, whereas the 46 strikes in Ontario were responsible for 312,150 man-days lost. The other strikes were as follows: 12 in British Columbia, 3 in Newfoundland, one in Prince Edward Island, 2 in Manitoba, and 4 both in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Mr. Speaker, all this confirms what I said earlier, that the situation has become critical and must absolutely be remedied.
At this stage, I should like to quote part of an editorial published in the Montreal newspaper La Presse and written by Roger Champoux who concluded his comments on the strikes in the province of Quebec as follows:
Baffled politicians, idle civil servants, teachers flourishing signs, interns and residents in study sessions, a hundred suggestions and few solutions, 18,559 strikers in all... the sight is ridiculous. And this is only the first act.
The Budget-Mr. Mongrain
As I said, this is only the first act of the play, because there is talk of an imminent strike in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, it might be timely to question ourselves about the cause of this proliferation of strikes in our country. There are many causes, of course, and to make a cursory analysis, there is, for instance, the rising cost of living, which increased from 129.2, in 1961, to 144.2, in 1966, and which is still rising; this affects the budget of individuals who want many of the good things of life. On the other hand, workers cannot be blamed, because they need and are entitled to a minimum standard of living. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, this is an essential condition for salvation, even if it may surprise some people.
Automation, of course, is another cause, because it creates problems and causes great concern among workers. From one month to the next, some of them may be laid off and may, after many years with a firm, have to readjust to new conditions, new trades, or go back to school and sometimes leave the place where they have enjoyed their family life for many years.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Another cause might also be this sort of quest for emancipation which is going on in the world and which is not found only in Canada, but in all parts of the world. Everybody seeks freedom and wants to get rid of all restrictions, all constraints. Now, the labour movement, like all the others, has been bitten by the bug and wants to look tough to employers, and most of the time they have reasons to. This emancipation crisis has created problems, even among labour leaders who-a phenomenon more and more apparent than heretofore-can hardly control their members any more and who are often led into courses which they were reluctant to follow originally. Such a state of affairs has created some disagreements among unions, disagreements which, in my opinion, are too much in the public eye and which are not at all favourable to the progress of labour movements in our country.
Moreover, there is perhaps the obsolescence of our negotiating machinery which was suited to other times but is no longer adequate in this atomic age of ours. It must be reviewed. Our governments, it would seem, hesitate to do so because the situation grows more complex every day, the demands are piling up from day to day; the labour climate
12838	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Mongrain has grown fluid and lacks the reasonable stability it had a few years ago.
Perhaps there is also the other phenomenon that is due to the restrictions imposed to control the economy and especially credit. Faced with the competition which is growing ferocious in domestic, local and world markets, some employers harden their attitude, sometimes unreasonably, which provokes the worker indirectly and leads him to resort to that extreme measure which is called a strike.
We always thought that it should only be used to deal with extreme situations. However, we wonder now if extreme situations have not become commonplace, and those who watch our economic situation, especially those who assume responsibilities, namely the members of the government, are concerned. The members of this parliament, who must co-operate with the government to ensure a sound economy, examine the results of those strikes, which are more and more numerous and find that they create problems for our foreign trade, for the delivery of goods we have sold as a result of agreements or contracts, also problems of competition on international markets. Those numerous strikes mean, in many instances, complete disaster for some sectors of our whole economy; they certainly cause a great deal of apprehension to some investors who might have been able to put back on their feet some of our wealth producing businesses.
They certainly ruin the economy of those individuals who are affected by those strikes. In fact, during weeks and months, they see their debts piling up at the grocer's and other stores because they are not getting any pay. And what about all the family problems this implies. Those strikes constitute, in many cases, especially when they are related to public services, a sort of penalty on the public in general, which is to the prejudice of the common good and in many cases, involves extremely serious consequencies that I cannot discuss at length right now for lack of time but that might perhaps be usefully analysed most carefully one of these days.
And all those numerous strikes contribute in the end to the worsening of this climate of emancipation I was referring to a while ago, this climate of revolt, to use a word that might be more accurate and will express more exactly the situation, this climate of revolt that is certainly unhealthy, that often

DEBATES	February 9, 1967
finds expression in open and organized rebellion, in fields where, up to now, everyone admitedly respected what was called authority, which should still be termed thus and without which we will drift into anarchy before long, confusion before long, and the first to be affected will be precisely those workers we are attempting to protect.
Mr. Speaker, after analysing all these things, it might be advisable to set forth some principles. We might ask ourselves what our objectives should be before considering remedies to rectify this alarming situation; what should be the principles motivating the labour leaders, the government, the members of parliament and all those who seek remedies to these problems?
There is one principle mentioned here, in the C.L.C. report which was published yesterday following an interview with the government. It mentions the measures to be taken to settle the labour situation:
It should be something allowing the settlement of disputes in fairness and objectivity.
Fairness and objectivity, it will be understood, obviously require that we consider everybody's welfare, first, that of the workers concerned, who are entitled, like everybody else, to a reasonable share of worldly goods, but also, let us not forget it, the general welfare which we are agreed to call the common good.
Mr. Speaker, I have found elsewhere a description of what should be the main objective of those who are concerned with finding solutions to the numerous labour disputes. This is an article which was written by Mr. A. H. Raskin, assistant editor of the editorial page of the New York Times. This article was published in June 1966, in the magazine Atlantic Monthly, and was reprinted in the November issue of the Labour Gazette-and I shall open a parenthesis here to point out to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) -

So that he will be aware of the situation, I point out to the minister that the French edition of the Labour Gazette which has just been issued is the edition for the month of November. It is at least two months late.
Therefore, as Mr. Raskin was saying:

For the community, the most important question is whether collective bargaining can be used to protect the interests of the general public, and not only those of the unions or the management-
February 9, 1967	COMMONS
That, again, was Mr. Raskin, and the quotation is taken from an article of his published in the Atlantic Monthly. He asks the question and, a little further on, suggests several solutions himself, to which I shall come back later. Meanwhile, I should also like to mention something which the labour congress said yesterday should be the aim of all those concerned with the settlement of these disputes, and I quote from an article published in La Presse yesterday:
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The C.L.C. recognizes that the government is responsible for protecting public interest, sustaining the economy and fulfilling Canadian commitments abroad.
Now, that is just fine; it is comforting to know that labour itself understands these major objectives. Naturally, it raises certain objections further on; for instance, and I quote:
We are absolutely convinced that the government will not solve labour problems by limiting or refusing workers the right to withdraw their services, by forcing them to return to work against their will.
Here we must ask ourselves: do workers seek the right to strike for the fun of going on strike, or are they seeking it to solve their problems? To my mind, the answer is obvious: workers do not want the right to strike for the fun of going on strike: they want to solve their problems.
Therefore, if we could find another formula, if a more modem technique could be found to settle labour disputes, I am convinced that the workers themselves would be the first to applaud and rejoice, since they would no longer have to suffer the hardships of strikes.
The C.L.C. report adds:
This is usual practice among dictatorial governments throughout the world, but it surely could not be applied here.
That would be dramatizing the situation a little; it would be true if we were really trying to abolish strikes, without any substitute acceptable to all parties concerned.
Our main objective therefore, Mr. Speaker, must be the common good. That makes it simple and clear-cut. What then, would the remedies be?
I do not want to be so presumptuous as to try and invent them all by myself, Mr. Speaker; for that matter, I readily admit that my ability in this field is quite limited. However, the Economic Council of Canada recently made public certain suggestions which were discussed in an article published
The Budget-Mr. Mongrain in the January 31, 1967 issue of Le Devoir. Among others, there was the following statement:
The measures suggested by the council in order to ensure adjustment of manpower to technological changes deal with giving notice of changes to workers, natural cut-down in personnel, elaboration of transfer programs, transferable pension privileges, and the creation of labour-management committees in every factory governed by a collective agreement.
This is an important suggestion:	"the
creation of labour-management committees in every factory governed by a collective agreement".
Labour-management committees would function the year round with the help of neutral advisers from outside the factory.
This last comment is my own. Now, to continue:
The document published by the Economic Council also suggests three financial measures which collective agreements should also take into account; these would become applicable when recourse to other means would not compensate for all losses of employment due to technological changes.
These are: a generous lay-off allowance, supplementary unemployment benefits provided by a fund to which employers would contribute, and mobility allowances.
Naturally, the economic council refers here to workers affected by automation or by drastic technological progress. But there are surely other reasons for strikes, other problems must and could be settled as one-I will come back to these later-by implementing in a general formula the creation of labour-management committees operating all the year round, with the help of expert and impartial advisers.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one to think that the time has come to do something. I said so in this house a few weeks ago.
Mr. Walter Reuther, a respected leader of an American union said, following the New York transportation strike, which took place I believe in January 1966, and I quote from memory: It is time for the governments to devise some machinery which would prevent the workers, when they belong to a labour union and when they have a problem to settle, a problem affecting utilities, from always having recourse to costly strikes. It is time to find up to date machinery. That was Mr. Reuther's testimony and I think that I am very objective. Earlier I quoted the evidence given by the C.L.C. and we could discuss it much more fully, but I would not
February 9, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Mongrain want to labour the point. I see for instance that the CL.C. suggested as a remedy:
Among those measures, the C.L.C. advocates a critical appraisal of the level of government expenditures in the field of construction, the abolition of the existing sales tax of 11 per cent on building materials, the need to extend immediately welfare programs and the need to ease our tight money policy.
And this is the objective:
The purpose of those policies should be to promote good and steady development of our economy.
I take this excerpt again from a summary of the C.L.C. brief published yesterday in La Presse. But it seems to me, after reading the brief presented by the C.L.C., that it suggests negative rather than constructive formulas and that it settles some aspects of the problem but not the overall problem.
I think that the most efficient remedies- and here again we could quote another excerpt where remedies are suggested-might be centred around some headings.
For instance, the federal government must undoubtedly continue and increase its control of the Canadian economy to prevent it from going suddenly through a period of recession when the worker has to tighten his belt to the point that eventually he becomes impatient to have recourse to claims which are not always objective.
Then, the federal government must try and control the economy in order to guarantee, inasmuch as is reasonably possible, to all the sons of the nation, that minimum standard of living to which he is entitled. That is beyond argument and in this connection I think it must be said that the government has already done something. On the other hand, perhaps it should still accentuate its policy and direct it mainly towards the protection of the small defenceless people, of the workers, rather than toward the protection of certain financial powers which can take care of themselves.
I was impressed, for instance, when I heard the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), during the debate on the National Transportation Act, say that this bill is greatly concerned with the protection of financial interests of the railways but very little with the protection of the financial interests of workers.
I think that the hon. member for York South hit the mark there. But the government should also be urged to modernize considerably its labour legislation in view of

the new problems facing the labour movement.
Once again, time will not allow me to give all the details. I am sure that the minister himself receives lots of briefs and that his own experience suggests to him many measures which could be included in an up to date labour code. In my opinion, it is urgent to go ahead with it.
I will now deal, Mr. Speaker, with what is probably the most important of my suggestions-which I mentioned earlier-namely that we should find a way to generalize here, in this country, those permanent bargaining bodies made up of representatives from labour and management which would include experts, economists, neutral people who are not on the payroll of employees or employers and who will take part in the discussions to express their views. I would not even be against government negotiators who could, if need be, point out the principles which determine the common good.
Such bodies should operate all year round- not only after the conflict had been going on for months and months-to try to prevent labour conflicts as much as possible.
It might be advisable for the federal Minister of Labour, of course, to hold regular meetings with the provincial departments of labour to synchronize the efforts of all the provinces and the federal government. But this is something which the minister is well aware of, I am sure.
I further suggest, Mr. Speaker, that provision should be made for the creation of labour courts as soon as possible. We should not have to look around for special negotiators, special mediators, and other interminable investigations every time disputes arise.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I believe we should have permanent labour courts in Canada. I know that workers will fear that the members of these courts would simply favour the employer; I also am aware of the fact that employers will fear that these same people might favour the employees, but I submit that mediators must be chosen in our midst or else we will get nowhere. When a dispute arises, we refer the whole matter to ordinary courts of law; but if labour courts were established, presided by the most competent personalities, people who are cognizant of all aspects of the labour problem, there would be no need for strikes, in most cases, because the parties involved would accept the verdict handed down by these labour courts.
February S, 1967	COMMONS
Mr. Speaker, I see that the time allotted to me has expired, and I do not wish to overtax the patience of the house. I merely wish to summarize my comments by saying this-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I understand that the hon. member would like to continue his comments. Is the house ready to allow the hon. member to continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Mongrain:: I have only a sentence to say and I will not abuse this privilege, Mr. Speaker. I thank the house for its kindness and I will merely summarize my remarks. According to Canadian public opinion, the proliferation of strikes has reached an alarming degree and I think that all governments concerned, whether federal or provincial, must give urgent consideration as a priority to introducing and enforcing, without delay, after consultation with the parties concerned, the legislation suitable to the needs of 1967.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) on the excellent, dispassionate, clear-headed and objective speech he has just made. He has touched a raw nerve in our body politic and he has done it, I think, in a most objective way. There is no doubt that last year demonstrated a wastage of millions of man-hours and effort at a time when this world can ill afford it. I think it is tragic, when society is now reaching with the calm assurance of success to probe into outer space and the planets which we once thought were forever beyond our reach, that we should still be struggling with an archaic and obsolete system of dealing with our major problems. I suggest that the genius of mankind which has brought the world to where it is today, if one defines genius as being a capacity to take infinite pains, should surely bring us to a position where we cannot afford to allow this situation to continue. I hope the government will examine and heed the words which the hon. member uttered.
At this stage in the discussion of a budget it is sometimes difficult for an opposition member to say something new, particularly with regard to this budget. Hon. members who were overseas during the last war will recall posters hanging in the railway stations and bus depots in the United Kingdom with a giant finger pointing to the passengers and
The Budget-Mr. Baldwin bearing the caption, "Is this journey really necessary?" I would think this is the sort of poster which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) should have had in front of him but with the word "journey" blotted out and "budget" put in its place, because it takes a certain amount of shrewd ingenuity to discover why this budget was necessary.
My colleagues in this party and other opposition members have demolished with such clarity the features of the budget that there is not too much to say about it. I think one could call it the Muhammad Ali budget. Like the unfortunate victim of the so-called sporting event the other night, the budget has been knocked down so often that it is now wilting and drooping and does not present much of a target to anyone else who wants to take a poke at it. I think it will probably sink into the oblivion of parliamentary history as the budget which was unwept, unhonoured and unsung. In fact, it never should have emerged from oblivion. However, it does give us the opportunity, as an opposition party, to cast before the members of the government those pearls of wisdom which the opposition is presenting with increasing efficiency and effectiveness, but unfortunately with no tangible results indicating that the government is taking heed of them to any extent.
I should like to deal with two matters which I hope are of interest to the house and possibly to some limited extent to the country. I want to comment first on what I consider to be the failure of the government to follow through with the program of northern development which the previous government undertook with such a marked degree of success and such a measure of accomplishment. The minister who is responsible for this department has made some gestures in this respect. I am afraid, however, that he seems to lack the full support of his colleague in this very essential part of the development of our country at the present time.
I have made one or two suggestions in the past with respect to this question. On one occasion I dealt with what I thought was the necessity of a greater degree of international co-operation in scientific improvement and techniques with regard to northern development. I was very interested, when looking through an editorial in the Christian Science Monitor of yesterday, to see that my views as to this objective are shared by this independent newspaper. I will not quote the editorial in full but it points out that Scandinavia, Canada, the United States through the state
February 9, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Baldwin of Alaska, and the U.S.S.R. have complete control of all areas of the north and of the Arctic. The editorial suggested some steps which might be taken because of this particular fact. It suggested that great advantages could be reaped from the nations concurrently seeking to develop these lands. It was suggested that this could perhaps be done through a Northern Area Institute in which geologists, physicists, meteorologists, agriculturists, and many other natural scientists from America, Canada, Russia and the Scandinavian countries could pool their discoveries and help correct each other's mistakes.
It seems to me that relations between the east and the west are not fraught with such serious difficulties as they were. There is not the same measure of hostility now, and I can think of nothing more useful at this stage in the development of our resources, bearing in mind the necessity of providing for a vastly increasing world population, than making arrangements for the proper settlement of the north. I do not mean the kind of settlement we have now wherein all too often people and corporations go into the north with one idea, to explore, exploit, lay waste and retire. We want people to settle, live, and make their homes in the north. It seems to me that the research which might be pursued independently to a limited extent by the scientific apparatus and people of these nations might, if pooled, bring about a greater degree of improvement, a greater realization of our joint hopes to settle, live in and harvest the rich resources of northern Canada and the northern parts of these other nations.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
There is another matter about which I wish to speak. The time has now come when we should have some clarification of the very confused situation and the doubt and uncertainty which prevail in regard to confederation, our constitution and what is to be done, what changes are needed and how we will obtain them. I was not in the house yesterday but I read the dialogue between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) and the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey). Unfortunately, the minister did not intervene actively in the debate but acted more as an irritant at the time. Mind you this is a very essential part of our parliamentary system. We might have an opportunity to hear from the minister later on this very serious and developing situation. The matter has come more to the fore recently 
because of the exchange of correspondence between the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the premier of Ontario following the announcement in the speech from the throne at the recent opening of the Ontario legislature in connection with the holding of a constitutional conference. I have the correspondence here. I think it would be interesting to read into the record parts of what was said by the premier of Ontario and also the reply of the Prime Minister of Canada because I think that the correspondence, together with the answers of the Prime Minister given on orders of the day and at other times in the house, indicates the point of view and the attitude of this government. The last paragraph of the letter of the Prime Minister to Mr. Robarts is important and I believe should be considered by hon. members. After being somewhat critical, in the usual polite way in which these documents are formulated, of the fact that the government of Ontario was taking the initiative in this matter the Prime Minister went on to say:
It seems to me that an alternative to the approach you have suggested could be developed that would be consistent with the practice hitherto. The initiative that the government of Ontario has taken in raising the subject could, if you so wished, be translated into action through having an item suggested for possible inclusion on the agenda of a federal-provincial conference that might be called in the normal way at some time in the coming months. While no conference is scheduled at present, there is no reason why we could not explore-
This is a word beloved by statesmen, who use it frequently in their correspondence.
-with provincial governments the desirability of having a conference and determining when this would best suit the convenience of all concerned. Alternatively, you might, of course, think it best to use the vehicle of an interprovincial conference as a first step.
I would say that this was in effect a complete brush-off of the proposal made by Mr. Robarts.
Mr. Robarts replied in a letter dated February 1, 1967, which contains some views of which this house should take heed. He said in part:
Then there was need for unity. Today there is a swelling chorus of millions of voices expressing a similar need. Perhaps once again, in some measure at least, by appropriate discussion in a conference, unfettered by the techniques and procedures in effect at the various types of conference held over the past several years, achievements might result from representatives of the governments of Canada sitting down together: to examine confederation and to take stock of the state of affairs after one hundred years of partnership together: to take the time to discuss and review, in an atmosphere
February 9, 1967

free from rancour, areas of agreement and disagreement; and to explore through our ingenuity and kinship what can be done to ensure a strong and united Canada.
Surely no harm can result from conducting an inventory of the happenings and events of our century of progressive history since 1867. Out of it, in my opinion, can come suggestions for plans to chart our future and to shape the second century of our nation Uased upon a sure and firm foundation.
The penultimate paragraph reads as follows:
The one objective I have in mind for this conference is that it will serve the interests of the Canadian people and their nation which the provinces created and in whose continued existence, unity and strength, the provinces are vitally concerned.
I say amen, as should all other members, to this very statesmanlike and sensible suggestion.
Following the announcement by the government of Ontario in its speech from the throne some questions were asked in this house. For example, I observe that on February 1 the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the statement made by the premier of Ontario the premier of Quebec would also be interested in taking part this year in a conference on the constitution. The question was as follows:
Would the Prime Minister agree to change his attitude and take right now the initiative in calling such a national conference?
The Prime Minister answered:
Mr. Speaker, I think I should wait for the prime minister of Ontario to reply to my communication before making further statements on this.
Some questions were asked by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and the answers which were received indicated quite plainly that the Prime Minister did not think very highly of the suggestion eminating from the province of Ontario and did not intend to do anything about it.
I think this is the only impression that can be obtained by anyone making a fair, objective and rational examination of the documents and of Hansard. The impression I get is that the Canadian government is not really interested in this subject at this time, does not want to think about it, does not want to talk about it, and does not want to give any information, mainly because it does not have too much to give, but also does not want anybody else to do or say anything about it. Surely the reason for this is not that the matter has not been brought to the attention of this or previous governments or to the

The Budget-Mr. Baldwin attention of provincial governments, and surely it must be acknowledged that there is a very urgent need at this time for a review of the situation and an attempt to make the rules conform in a better way to the present requirements.
In 1964 I placed a resolution on the order paper in which I suggested the following:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should forthwith consult with the provinces for the purpose of establishing a centennial constitutional conference to consist of a given number of Senators and members of parliament and an equal number of members of all of the provincial legislatures: which conference should meet in Ottawa and in all of the provinces to consider amending the British North America Act in accordance with the experiences of the past, the exigencies of the present and the needs of the future-
However, the fortunes of the draw were not with me and I never had the chance to have the resolution debated. Other hon. members have brought up this question from time to time, and so have members of the provincial legislatures, learned professors and people interested in and concerned about the needs of Canada. They have said: we cannot ignore any longer the necessity of examining the present-day situation, the status of the constitution and the relations between the federal and provincial governments, and so we must see what if anything can and should be done about it.
It seems to me that what in effect the Prime Minister is saying is: "Do not worry about it. We are going to look at it. We have some experts and we have my parliamentary secretary who is advising these experts. Some day this body will labour and produce something to show for its discussions." The impression I get from listening to what the Prime Minister and other ministers have stated both in and out of the house is that the whole subject is something so rare, so precious and so exclusively in the domain of experts that ordinary common mortals must not be allowed to give their opinions or help in any way to mould and shape the form which our constitution must take during the course of the next 100 years.
I think that perhaps the Prime Minister visualizes a scene some day in the future when like Moses he will ascend the mountain and some time later will come down, clutching to his bosom stone tablets on which will be engraved new changes to the constitution. He will then say in a tone of wonderment and joy: "Look what my experts have hatched up. This is not to be questioned. The experts have produced it." At that point all that the people
February 9, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Baldwin will be able to do will be to fall down, worship and say: "Hosanna, wonderful, great, we will accept it."


Jean-Luc Pepin: Is that not what you would expect the conference to do?


Gerald William Baldwin: By no means, Mr. Speaker. I would like to see a conference held in every province in this country. Such a conference should have been started several years ago. I do not expect it to come up with changes in a final, finished and polished form, but surely the people who are the beneficiaries and who will be affected by the changes made to the constitution should have some say before and not after the event. The minister knows-I think he is a practical man-what happens. When the experts are finished with the matter it will come before a parliamentary committee, though not with any intention of changing it. It will then be presented to the nation as a fait accompli.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I should like to see a number of these conferences held at which people will have an opportunity to express their views and opinions. There should be a great national debate carried on in all parts of the country. Perhaps the debate is one which will never really be concluded, but when we can say at a point in time that we have reached a certain stage, certainly the matter can then be handed back to the experts to polish, finish, and put the proposals into practical legislative terms.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is this not the equivalent of what is taking place in Quebec now with les Etats generaux, the general kind of debate where all of the intermediary and pressure groups will be represented to give their opinions? Or would it not be what I have been told it would be, a meeting of premiers, leaders of oppositions, heads of national institutions, etc? .


Gerald William Baldwin: I would hesitate to suggest to any province the form which its own inquiry should take. I think that is a matter for each province to determine, having in mind what changes are to be made. It should also be borne in mind that the people of Quebec, the people of Alberta, the people of British Columbia, the people of all the provinces, are also Canadians and must be affected deeply and fundamentally by the problems now confronting us, such as the fact that there is not a clear and decisive line of demarcation in certain areas as to problems which various


governments must solve. I think that each province should establish its own forum of inquiry. I will not suggest what is desirable for the province of Quebec, but my view is that it is essential at this time that this step be taken so that before the experts are finished the voice of the people will have been heard and felt.


Jean-Luc Pepin: But is there not such a debate going on in Canada at this time? How many conferences, seminars, lectures, panels, has the hon. member been invited to in the last two or three years? How many conferences and royal commissions have we had on the future of confederation, on this and on that aspect of our constitution? I would simply suggest that the debate is going on now. If the kind of conference the hon. member has in mind is one only to examine and analyse what is taking place and to suggest answers, then I dare say we have already had it.


Gerald William Baldwin: What we have had is a series of hole-in-the-corner discussions. There have been a very few open and legitimate discussions but not of the type that I envisage at which each provincial government must take the responsibility for canvassing, in the way it thinks best, and securing a body of opinion from its citizens or its citizens' representatives. In recent months we have seen examples of the problems posed because of the present obscurity of certain constitutional lines of authority, problems involving manpower, education, security, pension plans, medicare and transportation, and so on. All of these problems intimately affect and concern the lives, fortunes and futures of the people of Canada.
All I want to achieve is some means by which these people can indicate whether they want their provincial government or their federal government to deal with questions of medical health, certain questions of transportation, certain questions of pensions and pension rights. During the course of such discussion debate of a far more tangible and meaningful form will take place. When this debate has concluded and the matter crystallizes-this operation should have been commenced years ago and been in the process of conclusion today-then the experts will put into final form the proposals which will be made.
Let us remember once and for all, Mr. Speaker, that all too often this business resolves itself into a matter of two dogs quarrelling over a bone: the civil service and
February 9, 1967

establishment in the provinces struggling with the civil service and establishment of the federal government, each one anxious and desirous to retain the spheres of authority they now have and to enlarge them. I do not say that this is done deliberately, intending to do harm, but that is the nature of an establishment of this kind; it is reluctant to give up any form of authority.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, governments and legislatures as well as parliament have failed in their attempt to solve the problem. What I am suggesting is that in his own way the prime minister of Ontario has indicated that he feels some attention should be paid to providing a means of securing an indication of the views of the people of his own province. I suggest this proposal should be adopted by all provinces.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Would the hon. gentleman permit another question? Would the premier of Ontario need federal authorization to set up such a seminar or conference within the borders of Ontario?


Gerald William Baldwin: Did the minister ask whether he has the right to do this?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes.


Gerald William Baldwin: I can see no constitutional, legal or practical impediment. I suggest that he not only has the right to do it but has a duty to do it at this time. I would say that every premier has a duty to undertake a responsibility of this kind. In fact, they are two or three years too late. The initiative should have been taken by the federal government. Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, is very remote from Peace River and from other parts of this country. What happens here sometimes reaches us in a very diluted form. For the people of this country to be seized of knowledge of this problem, steps must be initiated to bring it home to them through a debate of the kind I have mentioned.
As I have pointed out, there are a great many fields of jurisdiction where there is room for doubt. I can think of some examples where the best interests of the people of Canada would be served by deciding to give to the provinces certain jurisdictions which they do not now possess. Equally, I can think of a number of areas where the best interests of the people of Canada would be served by investing in the federal government certain rights which it has exercised but not always legally. There are some rights that I submit
The Budget-Mr. Forest we should make certain are legally exercised by the federal government.
There was some mention of federal-provincial conferences. They have a useful purpose but I think this purpose has been exaggerated. These are conferences where the experts burrow into the darkest corners and holes of secrecy and privacy. Sometimes this is essential, but the difficulty is that I am afraid this sort of thing is emerging in the form of a third form of government, a type of government where there is not the same degree of publicity or the same measure of criticism, argument and examination. True enough, Mr. Speaker, it may be said that all of the proposals which are discussed and canvassed and which ultimately emerge in the form of legislation are brought back to the respective legislatures and to parliament. But once they have become crystallized in a certain form and are brought forward as legislation, governments being what they are there is very rarely any hope of changing them. While they have a function to serve I caution the government to be most careful about trying to build federal-provincial conferences into an ad hoc third form of government which the people of this country have never given authority to the provinces or federal government to exercise. It may be nice and tidy and easy for the governments to do this but it is not, I repeat, in the best interests of the Canadian people.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I believe that premier of Ontario has served a useful purpose with his proposal. I hope it will be copied in various forms in other parts of Canada. Before the debate is through I hope that the minister, who has been most helpful, may see fit to present the government's views on this issue.


Mr. Yves Forest (Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, the supplementary estimates tabled last December by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) have been well received, generally speaking, in spite of the limited increase in personal income tax and the increase in the sales tax levied against manufacturers to finance the pension supplement granted to our senior citizens; it might not have been as well received by those who think that social measures are thus becoming less popular because they have to be paid for immediately through new taxes.
The Minister of Finance proved to be a practical man when he made it clear to the people that the government could not increase
February 9, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Forest social benefits without getting the money somewhere.
If all social benefit increases were introduced in this way, that is by offering a gift with the right hand and presenting the bill with the left, everybody would then be in a position to determine whether, at a given time, any additional levy imposed on the taxpayers and on the country's economy would constitute an excessive burden.
During the last few years, government expenditures in Canada, at all levels, have increased considerably and if we do not curb or stop them, they might bring about a reduction of investments in Canada and make our competitive position more difficult on the international market.
It is a fact that more than 30 per cent of our gross national product in Canada is absorbed by taxation and such a situation is not only frightening but unfavourable to our country, because it brings not only our economic development to a standstill but it lessens initiative, dampens any liking for risk and prevents the achievement of many plans.
Government expenditures in Canada increased from $12,098 million in 1961 to $16,127 million in 1965, that is an increase of 30 per cent in five years, while in the United States, during the same period, they increased by 25 per cent only, in spite of larger expenditures due to the war in southeast Asia.
If we figure the percentage on the basis of population, per capita, and if we consider that the population in Canada has increased much more than in the United States, our increase then is 24 per cent and that of the United States only 18 per cent. The Canadian people must be concerned, and rightly so, about that serious situation which could be detrimental to our economy and our standard of living.
One way to reduce taxation is to increase productivity and the labour output. The federal government has given these goals priority, in an attempt to improve present possibilities, and to give everyone the education and training which are indispensable in this day and age.
We will improve our competitive power by developing more highly qualified professional management and skilled labour.
The state of our economy and its future must become a growing concern because, compared with it, all other matters lose importance. Our people would not accept a

lower standard of living without creating upheavals.
Our economic experts have warned us that 750,000 new jobs must be created by 1970, and this need must induce us to modify certain obsolete economic concepts, to consider new methods.
The normal growth of our population will require industrial expansion, but automation and improved production methods will reduce the number of new jobs thus created. New needs will have to be created; we will also have to encourage industrial research in order to discover new products, different materials or improved finished products, so as to get the markets and open up new avenues.
The greatest discovery of the nineteenth century is said to have been that of the creative approach. More and more, creativity is the prerogative of organized research, particularly in the manufacturing industry. Technical progress depends more and more on organized research for innovation and improvement.
Economists generally agree today that investing in education and research is just as important as capital expenditure. Progress is not so much a function of the amount of money invested in machinery and factories as of technical improvement which can be expected from a given investment.
The supremacy of the United States on world markets is mostly due to innovations, new ideas in industry and ability to invent a great many new products; all this in turn depends on performance in research development.
Industrial development requires an extensive activity promoted by governments in industrial research.
The announcement made in the past few days by the Quebec government concerning the establishment of an important international research centre in electric energy should therefore be particularly welcomed.
Mr. Speaker, we should become less dependent on the United States for capital and new industries by urging our fellow-citizens in various ways to invest their money, their savings, in our Canadian corporations, especially those which develop our natural resources. We should put our own means to a more efficient and a more productive use.
We must consider what we could do in order to strengthen our position without unfairly penalizing foreigners who have invested here
February 9, 1967

their money and their competence tor their own benefit, of course, but also for ours.
We must take positive action in order to secure a more efficient control over our economy and to reduce our trade balance deficit.
Several methods have been suggested to make our economy sounder, better adjusted to our needs, to our aspirations and among those, the establishment of the Canadian Development Board can, under certain conditions, make it possible to channel the savings of Canadians toward the promotion and the development of our industries and resources.
However, it would not be an adequate replacement to an effective policy designed to promote private investments to merely provide enough protection and some relief in taxation.
An improved legislation designed to protect investments and the purchase of bonds and shares of our corporations is essential, especially in the light of some recent events.
Canadian and foreign companies should also be required to supply complete and more detailed information on their financial structure. Succession duties should be abolished or substantially altered. Some provinces have already indicated their intention to alter them. In my view, in an area where both the federal and provincial governments collect taxes, there should be agreement reached on that score.
These succession duties produce very little, slightly more than 1 per cent of the federal government revenue, but on the other hand, they are a major drain on capital available for investment.
We all know that some families had to sell their business or their private industry to strangers in order to avoid this tax or else they have taken up residence elsewhere to avoid these high duties. There is also the fact that several families, several people from Europe or elsewhere, might be interested in investing their capital in Canada if such duties were abolished. We are faced with the progressive disappearance of capital built up in this country and which should serve the economic progress of the country.
The Carter commission, which was established in 1962, is scheduled to present an early report. It will doubtless suggest a thorough shake-up of the entire tax structure and a more sensible distribution of the taxation fields.
The Budget-Mr. Crouse
In the meantime, the government must maintain its policy of promoting production, exports, a more advanced technology and investment of our own resources in our economy.
Canada will not succeed overnight in financing its own development and in eliminating its present trade deficit with other countries, but it should right now continue to revise its economic policy to achieve long-range objectives, which are possible if the effort is made.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenberg):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on the mini-budget introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) on December 19. Speaking as a Conservative I commend the minister for his frank review of our economic situation. His statement was a strong reminder to all Canadians that additional welfare measures must be paid for out of their own pockets.
However, in view of the size of the surplus in the old age security fund, a surplus in excess of $350 million at the end of last October, I think the minister placed undue emphasis on this aspect of expenditure. In fact, the hon. gentleman when introducing his budget seemed to be looking for a scapegoat on which to lay the blame for his government's deficit. He pointed his finger directly at the senior citizens of this country and blamed them entirely for the tax increases which seemed to be necessary. However, his statement served only to emphasize the smallness of the pittance we are giving to our senior citizens even when there is a means test attached to it, a test which would have to be taken every year in which a supplement was paid. We in the Conservative party believe that our senior citizens should have been given this increase as a matter of right without the necessity for a means test. We do not think an attempt should be made to lay the blame for the government's deficit on senior citizens who through no fault of their own need a little assistance in their old age.
What did the Minister of Finance do? In the present government the right hand does not seem to know what the left hand is doing. The minister tells the economy to go forward and backward at the same time. He raises the general sales tax, making it 12 per cent instead of 11 per cent, a move which will bring about an increase of approximately 2 per cent in prices at the retail level. What effect does this have upon Canadians?
12848	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Crouse
A large contractor in the plumbing and heating business in my constituency has written to me bringing two points most specifically to my attention. He states:
1.	To date there is no way to escape paying the increase on materials, ordered, but not delivered, before December 31, 1966. This also applies to contracts entered into months ago. In our business this is going to amount to a sizeable amount of money. The suppliers will not absorb the increase nor is there any provision in our contracts under which we could collect it from the owner. So, unless a change is made, we are stuck with it.
2. Of course insult was added to injury by exempting certain materials. We inquired about a list of exemptions and we were told that those materials exempt before June 14, 1963, will remain subject to the 11 per cent tax rate-big deal. Naturally, there must be some reason for all this but I am sure that only the Liberals could dream it up.
This serves to increase the price of homes, for example. What is needed at the present time are measures which will increase the tempo of housing construction in Canada. The price of houses and factories should be reduced, not raised. The increase in the sales tax hits not only the millionaire but the average man with a family who is already finding it difficult to pay his bills in Canada's inflated economy, as well as the old age pensioners whom the budget was designed to help.
Some of our senior citizens are today subsidizing their basic old age pensions. I refer to the minister's action in declining to retire the bonds issued by the Liberal government in 1936. I raised this matter in the house on previous occasions when I deplored the action taken by the government in this connection. As a result of my concern over this question I have received a letter from a lady in Ontario. It reads as follows:
The bonds of any responsible government are not normally bought for speculation. Most purchasers regard them as a vehicle to earn a modest rate of interest in the meantime, and provide a retirement nest egg that can be liquidated as older age needs arise. Certainly we can recall the speculation in the bonds of some weak European governments following the first world war; but I can recall no case of British, Canadian or U.S. purchasers of their government's bonds over the last 50 years having received the lack of consideration or integrity given those citizens who entrusted their savings to the Canadian government in 1936 in exchange for perpetuals regarded as safe as the old time British Consuls.
As it has turned out, the "oldsters" who needed the money have been obliged to sell at losses of 20 per cent to 40 per cent or more to speculators, but to what extent who can say? But the fact that some have been sold reflects either dire need on the part of the owners, or complete loss of confidence in the integrity of your government.

DEBATES	February 9, 1967
No responsible company doing business in this country would permit their bonds to sink to such values, if only to protect their own good name and credit rating. Some companies even support their common stock by buying it in when the price falls excessively, assuming they have funds available.
Can it be that the Canadian government is on the verge of bankruptcy, and unable to refund a relatively modest issue? If so, God help your reputation both at home and abroad.
This is a copy of a letter which was sent to the Minister of Finance. It is indicative of the feeling of Canadians about the manner in which the government is dealing with the country's finances. With this type of thinking on the treasury benches, I can only describe the Minister of Finance as a wrong-way Robin Hood who robs from the poor in order to give to the poor while extracting for Mitch and his merry men a token to be paid the hunters whose job it is to make certain that the aged and needy have no other income.
The minister has stated that approximately $18 billion is required annually by all governments in Canada, and I deplore the shameful manner in which he has singled out our senior citizens as the target or the excuse for his recent tax raises while ignoring many other government expenditures which deserve to be questioned. There is no evidence that he and his colleagues plan to attack this problem at the core, namely, the waste and extravagance practised by the government which have brought about a sky-rocketing, inflationary spiral of prices in Canada.
Surely the taxpayers who are now required to surrender even more of their savings to provide for the cost of a guaranteed income plan for pensioners have a right to expect some evidence of increased efficiency in government and some restraint in government spending. But what are the facts? The record of the government's financial position, according to the minister, shows that this year's expenditures will reach a record high of $8,580 million, and since corporate profits are lower than the minister anticipated his revenues have dropped and Canadians are still not paying their way despite all the taxes which are being levied upon them.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I ask the minister what has happened to the theory of cyclical budgeting? In times of economic boom we were supposed to have a surplus budget so that in times of economic depression the government could prime the pump with deficit financing. What do we see today? We are told by the Minister of Finance that Canadians never had it so good,
February 9, 1967	COMMONS
that In fact the economy is so overheated the minister must apply the brakes. But if we are enjoying an economic boom, why are we having budget deficits? The minister cannot have it both ways.
The fact is that Canadians are dancing but they cannot pay the piper to the tune of approximately $340 million in this fiscal year. What does the minister promise us for next year? More of the same. Listen to his words as recorded at page 11331 of Hansard for December 19, 1966:
It Is already evident, however, that our expenditures will continue to rise next year quit apart from the guaranteed income supplement.
As a smokescreeen the minister then listed as his reasons the commitments in equalization payments to the provinces and substantially increased assistance for higher education. He knows that if we criticized these reasons it would be like criticizing motherhood. We are not going to fall into this kind of trap, but some of the government's policies and programs are open to criticism.
I say to the government and to the minister that if they believe they have the right to control the economy of Canada through the imposition of new taxes, which in effect limit the spending of Canadian citizens, then it is up to the government to examine its own position and set an example of good housekeeping. Any argument that this cannot be done, that savings cannot be made in administration, is indicative that the barnacles of indecision and the rust of indifference have settled deeper and thicker on the Liberal hull than has been realized by many Canadians.
There is a growing concern among many of our citizens that they are being swept up in a whirlpool of bureaucratic controls from which there is no escape. The list of payroll deductions grows longer and longer, and with prices inflated by excessive taxation the average Canadian the man earning $4,000, $5,000 or $6,000, is having extreme difficulty making ends meet. In my opinion the government must take action on this pressing problem. Failure to do so could have serious effects upon the Canadian economy within the next 18 months.
The minister may well ask, where do we begin? The Auditor General has stated that government overhead has increased by 20 per cent in the past three years, and a study of the report of the public accounts committee should give the minister some leads in the right direction. For example, they recommend
The Budget-Mr. Crouse an end to payment of C.B.C. production employees for work not performed. At present union agreements put employees on the job even when there is no work for them to do. By eliminating this wage bill when current union agreements come up for renewal the government owned corporation could save $450,000 annually.
In my opinion public funds should not be disbursed for work not performed, and the government should direct the C.B.C. management to halt this practice. Incidentally, when is the government going to appoint a president for this organization? Today the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that question, and I listened carefully for the answer. We were told that the C.B.C. has a president, but it is my understanding that the president, Mr. Alphonse Ouimet, has tendered his resignation. Whether or not this resignation has been accepted is open to question, but I believe that a crown corporation should be managed just as efficiently and as independently as one run for profit.
Nobody doubts that Gordon MacGregor runs Air Canada, but when I look at some of the C.B.C. programs I begin to suspect that the C.B.C. is somewhat like a rudderless ship operating without a captain. I cannot help but believe that this is exactly what is wanted by the so-called creative minds employed by the corporation. The idea is to keep things in an uproar. They believe in the freedom of the C.B.C., freedom being an all-embracing word which should cover their bad taste, sensationalism and irresponsible actions. In Nova Scotian language, this is nothing but bilgewa-ter.
However, if this is the way these so-called artists want it and if there is no one in authority to direct them to do otherwise, then Canadians can call themselves lucky that the creative talents of the C.B.C. clique have not produced programs even lower in entertainment rating. Quite frankly, I believe in responsible freedom for the C.B.C. but not in the right of its hired staff to air anything they individually regard as reputation making or reputation breaking, without any interference. They may make great personal reputations by resorting to sensation-mongering, but this is not the purpose for which the C.B.C. was established.
The Canadian people are subsidizing the C.B.C. by more than $100 million a year. I say that in the public interest it is time for parliamentary intervention in the operations of
12850	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Crouse this sacred cow. The government has the responsibility to find a programming boss for this organization, and the sooner this is done the quicker the government will effect savings on C.B.C. operations which have gotten entirely out of hand.
Another field in which I believe the government could pare expenses is its foreign embassies and missions. I know these are necessary, but a periodic audit by our external affairs department would indicate to the people serving in our embassies throughout the world the truth of the finance minister's statement that neither the country nor the willingness of Canadians to pay higher taxes should be taken for granted.
Defence planning is very much in the news these days but the spotlight should not be thrown entirely on the problems of unification. More than a shudder went up and down the spines of many people when they heard the Auditor General report that more than $7 million went down the drain for bomb toss computers we did not plan to use, and that inadequate planning for low level radar installations led to extra costs of $3.5 million.
However, without question the most extravagant waste of taxpayers' money has been through the establishment by the Liberal government of the commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. In three and a half years the government has set up 15 commissions, but this has been the biggest and most bewildering of all commissions. To date it has splurged more than $7 million, with no visible, concrete results for anyone. Its purpose, as I understand it, is to alter the shape and style of our country. But in effect it has only served to rub salt in the wounds of division between our two founding races. In my opinion it has created greater disunity in Canada than any other act by a Canadian government since confederation.
A wound will never heal if it is ripped open every day, and I ask the government to terminate the hearings of the B. and B. commission and let it bring in a report. I ask this not only on behalf of the Canadian taxpayers but also in the best interests of Canada as a nation. It should now be evident that it is impossible to pass laws demanding that a man be bilingual or bicultural. This commission was set in 1963 and its members have been drawing salary and expense cheques of $120 every sitting day. Every Canadian is aware of the French and the English fact. I 
DEBATES	February 9, 1967
believe that if we could do away with hyphenated Canadianism we would build a better Canada.
These are some of the changes which could be made by the Minister of Finance if he really desired to bring expenses in line with government income. If the minister does not act to help bring this about, it is possible that Canada could face another exchange crisis in 1968. It is not inevitable, but all the elements of a crisis are now in existence. It originated with wage increases far in excess of productivity increases last summer and fall, and it is sustained by a continuing clamour for parity with wages in the United States. It is also strengthened by monetary and fiscal policies which will continue in the foreseeable future to inhibit the capital investment in productivity needed to overtake these wage increases. Quite frankly, in my opinion the Canadian economy is being priced out of competition.
If this process continues exports will fall, imports will increase and the deficit in current account will widen to the point where Canada can no longer pay its way in international transactions. In the meantime the awareness of these developments is a large factor in discouraging foreign investment in Canada, while encouraging Canadian investment abroad.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The government is obviously aware of this situation as indicated by the advertisements put out by the Department of Trade and Commerce which urge Canadian businessmen to export. This is supported also by the fact that the department has set up an export advisory council. Personally I hope these efforts are successful. I believe the minister is sincere in trying to do a good job. As I say, I hope these efforts are successful because among this country's principal needs are more investment funds and managerial talent. In some instances the one follows the other.
There is, however, a biblical quotation which states that one cannot serve two masters, and from experience we know that a house divided against itself cannot stand. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon) cannot be given a voice in the government. This is a man who proposes further bureaucratic measures such as the Canada Development Corporation, a man whose budgets had to be completely withdrawn because they almost brought about the downfall of the Liberal government when he was finance
February 9, 1967	COMMONS
minister, a man who opposes foreign investment capital. You cannot give such a man a voice in the government and expect the investment community, both Canadian and foreign, to show confidence in this government and in this country.
Those who wish to lead must give some evidence of their ability along these lines. However, as long as maritime Gordon, as he is affectionately know in Nova Scotia because he wanted to give its people a one-way ticket to some other part of Canada, remains in the cabinet it will be difficult to establish confidence in the minds of Canadian and foreign investors that Canada offers better opportunities for their investment funds than other areas of the world. To clear the air with regard to these differences within the cabinet, the Prime Minister should make an early statement of policy on foreign investment in this country.
Having suggested to the minister a number of proposals which if implemented would effect some savings, I should like to turn to the Atlantic provinces, an area of Canada still haunted by excessive unemployment and one which could use some of the funds presently being wasted in the departments I have mentioned. My own province of Nova Scotia has gained recognition internationally for its stable institutions, its intelligent and adaptable labour force, and its strategic location in the trading world. However, though we can rightly feel encouraged by this progress we can hardly feel satisfied. We have not as yet narrowed the gap between average incomes in Nova Scotia and those in central and western Canada. The simple fact is that we are still too dependent upon forms of employment which do not offer good prospects for growth. We must continue to modernize our economy because despite the progress which has been made unemployment still is twice as high in the Atlantic provinces as it is in the rest of Canada.
To help narrow the gap I believe the government must put forward more programs which will help us progress at a faster rate. This is necessary because we are so far behind; we seem to have to run like the devil just to stand still. Our concern is also increased by the changes we see developing under this government which could be harmful to our Atlantic economy. For example, no longer do we have regional allocations for ship repair work. We are concerned about the effect any changes in our army, navy and air
The Budget-Mr. Crouse force bases will have on the Atlantic provinces. We are watching with interest as each year the government builds at tremendous cost larger icebreakers to keep the St. Lawrence river open for shipping, because this cannot but have a very adverse effect on the ports of Halifax and Saint John. Surely there must be some quid pro quo to offset the damage to our economy which these federal policies are bringing about.
There is much to be done. For example, there is the causeway to Prince Edward Island which must be finished. There is a corridor road to be built through Maine which would bring Montreal within a five-hour run of the maritime border. Such a road would literally bridge the gap separating the mari-times from the markets of central Canada. Then there is tidal power to be developed in Minas Basin. The last of these projects would provide the cheap electricity we need to entice secondary industry into Nova Scotia and the maritimes. Once it was established the sale of electrical energy would amortize its cost over the years.
The Minister of Finance should also take some steps to help our tourist industry. Last year, for example, the United States government brought forward the date for free entry of antiques into the United States from the year 1830 to 1860. The free entry date for antiques coming into Canada is 1847. The tourist industry is of great importance to our country, especially Nova Scotia. Under the existing laws controlling the entry of antiques, Canadian dealers cannot compete with United States dealers when buying abroad. Dealers in the United States can import duty free goods manufactured at a later date than the goods we are allowed to import. This increases our costs considerably. Many United States citizens come to Nova Scotia to buy antiques and this is a stimulant to the country's economy. Since we are celebrating our centennial in 1967 I suggest to the Minister of Finance that one of the steps he might take by way of celebration would be to permit free entry into Canada of antiques manufactured in 1867 or prior thereto.
One of the steps which the Minister of Finance could take immediately would be to declare the entire Atlantic provinces a designated area so that it would be eligible for benefits under that program. This would attract industry to the Atlantic provinces which is now forced to go to other areas of Canada. This is especially true if such industries are
February 9, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Gilbert thinking of locating in Saint John, Fredericton, Halifax or Darmouth where the incentives available under this program are denied. By exempting these areas from the incentive benefits the government has indicated to the people of the Atlantic provincs that it is not yet aware of their needs nor of the fact that special legislation is required to aid them. These are not my views alone. I am supported in this opinion by the Economic Council of Canada which stated in its third annual review, page 39:
During an economic expansion, the typical pattern is for considerable inflationary pressure to develop in some regions or large parts of them (notably from Montreal westward) while elsewhere there is still substantial slack and unemployment. There are few countries where there is a greater need than in Canada for specific regional policies and for additional instruments which are capable of being applied on a differentiated basis from area to area.
In the next paragraph the report states:
We have not ourselves any magic cure or simple formula to propose, but only a combination of tried and new approaches, shaped as far as possible to what seem to be the significant peculiarities of the Canadian economy. Followed with energy, reasonable foresight, and consistency, in a favourable climate of public understanding, these approaches should be capable of progressively diminishing the problem.
I commend these thoughts to the Minister of Finance and to the government. I hope they will follow the sage advice of the economic council so that the people of the Atlantic provinces and of Nova Scotia in particular will share equally with other Canadians in the economic benefits of a developing nation. For the reasons I have given in my speech I intend to support the amendment moved on December 19 by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith).


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, in participating in the budget debate I should like to re-emphasize the position of the New Democratic Party that in our opinion the mini-budget was unwarranted and unnecessary. It was unwarranted and unnecessary because in the words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) the undesirable acceleration of the demands of our economy had moderated and there was some economic readjustment taking place following the excessive rates of expansion which occurred earlier this year. This trend in the growth of our economy, in the minister's judgment, was more in line with the capability of our economy to grow steadily without inflation.
[Mr. Crouse.l
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Why, then, the imposition of tax increases related to the old age security fund and the 1 per cent increase in the sales tax? We feel that the minister made a deliberate move in increasing the maximum rate of contribution to old age security from $120 to $240 to let the Canadian people know in no uncertain terms that so far as his party and colleagues are concerned any advances in our social welfare programs will be met and paid for by an increase in their taxes. This was the minister's method of saying thank you to our senior citizens for their past contributions to the growth and development of our country. He is saying, in effect, that if taxpaying Canadians want to see the senior citizens of our country decently housed, and have adequate food and clothing and a few extra dollars for medical and social needs, then the taxpaying Canadians must pay for it. In the words of my colleague from York South, the minister wants to rap the knuckles of Canadian citizens who desire advances in our social services.
We in the New Democratic Party say that if any supplemental increases in pensions are to be paid to our senior citizens they should be paid to all our citizens without any test whatsoever. The increase could have been paid in full by the increase in the old age security maximum rate and from the increases in productivity that Canadians are making in our economy. There is no reason why senior citizens should not share the fruits of present increases in view of their past services and contributions to our economy.
The increase of 1 per cent in the sales tax was uncalled for. The exemptions on building materials and food were necessary, but the housewife was hit in other areas such as family needs for clothing, appliances and furniture. This tax, imposed with apologies, will doubtless increase the prices of the items on which it is imposed because the retailer and manufacturer will merely pass it on to the consumer.
In exempting housing materials from the 1 per cent increase in sales tax the minister recognized the serious housing problem facing Canada today because of both housing shortages and the high cost of houses. However, mere recognition of the problem is not sufficient. As a first step he should have removed the 11 per cent sales tax from housing materials, thereby helping to bring down the cost of homes.
February 9, 1967	COMMONS
On November 21 last year the Ottawa Citizen indicated in an editorial that I was exaggerating when I stated in the House of Commons that Canada is facing the worst housing shortage in its history. However, when the facts are reviewed the results are more in line with my conclusion. In 1966 construction starts on new houses amounted to 134,474 units compared with 166,565 units in 1965, a decline of almost 20 per cent. What is the picture for 1967? The Economic Council of Canada in its third annual report set a goal of 170,000 dwellings a year to take care of the increase in population and new family formations.
Mr. Hignett, the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, stated in the Globe and Mail of Tuesday, January 31, 1967, that he was doubtful about starts going much above 150,000 this year. It is obvious we will be falling short of the projected goal of 170,000 this year, which does not take into account replacement of older houses. The 1961 census showed that of a total of 4,500,000 single dwelling houses 2,500,000 were built before 1945, that nearly 25 per cent of these houses do not have bath or shower facilities and that 21 per cent are without flush toilets.
Mr. David B. Kirhup, an economist and statistician for the Toronto Real Estate Board, made an interesting projection of housing needs in the future. He stated that it took Canada 100 years for is population to reach 20 million but it will only take 35 more years for the number to reach 50 million. This means that from 10 million to 12 million new housing units will have to be built by the year 2,000, an average of 300,000 to 350,000 dwellings per year. He also stated that one-third of all Canadians live in only eight major cities. If the present trend to urbanization continues five cities, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, will house 35 per cent of all Canadians by the year 2,000. A lot of new accommodation will be needed in the cities. This projection is indicative of the serious attitude toward housing that must be taken by all levels of government.
Many Canadians have asked why there is a housing shortage. We in the New Democratic Party feel that there are at least five major reasons for the shortage. First, all levels of government are blind or apatheric to the housing crisis. Federal, provincial and municipal levels of government are failing to take their full share of responsibility to solve the housing problems; second, the moneys available for housing have been diverted into
The Budget-Mr. Gilbert the building of shopping centres, office buildings and high rental apartments because of the high rates of interest payable in this sector; third, the high rates of interest payable by the purchasers of the new homes, now range from 7J per cent on N.H.A. loans to 8 to 8J per cent on loans from conventional lenders such as insurance and trust companies; fourth, the high cost of building materials and the high cost of serviced land in urban areas and, fifth, the failure of C.M.H.C. to promote its aims and purposes.
I should like to develop these five reasons a little further and then suggest a program of action that should be seriously considered by the government. I have said that all levels of government have been blind or apathetic to housing problems in Canada. The federal government has failed to take the initiative in setting up a federal ministry of urban affairs and housing which would be responsible for the co-ordination of the national housing needs of the country, with the necessary consultation with the provinces and municipalities. It has taken the position of the friendly banker and has regarded housing on the basis of an economic tap to be turned off or on depending on economic conditions in the country at the particular time. The provincial and municipal governments have not taken the initiative in determining housing needs, more especially in public housing and housing for senior citizens, and have not co-ordinated their physical housing needs with federal financial assistance to meet these needs.
I quote the following from the Toronto Star of Friday, January 20:
The apathy of municipal governments has deprived the poor of public housing in Canada, the Senate-Commons prices committee was told yesterday.
The Canadian Welfare Council said in a brief that "remarkably little" use has been made of federal assistance to build more public housing for low-income groups.
Mr. Michael Wheeler is quoted as having said:
Sometimes this apathy is the result of a lack of knowledge. Sometimes this apathy is the result of the fear that the local municipality cannot afford the share expected of it.
He is also quoted as saying:
In some countries, up to 30 per cent of the housing stock is public; in Canada, only 1 per cent of housing is in this category.
Mr. Wheeler is also reported as having
Meanwhile, the housing crisis is worsening... Canada will need 180,000 new units annually for the next four or five years and we have never built more than 153,000 units-
12854	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Gilbert I note that the Ontario Housing Corporation has announced that it will soon allow limited income families to purchase the homes they rent from the corporation. We in the New Democratic Party disagree with this proposal because of the almost impossibility of payment and the reduction from the stock of public housing available.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
In an editorial in the Toronto Daily Star of Monday, January 16, 1967, this argument was set forth. The editorial reads in part:
This is one of those projects which sounds wonderful when you say it rapidly, but which looks increasingly impractical when you examine it in the light of present day realities.
Let us consider, for example, the position of a tenant earning $5,000 a year-one of the group this proposal is apparently intended to benefit.
At the present time, it is virtually impossible to build or purchase a new three bedroom house in Metro (except perhaps in the most remote suburbs) for less than $20,000.
If the corporation charged only 5 per cent interest on the purchase price-and this is far below the going rate and would require subsidization-the interest payments would amount to $1,000 a year.
Let us add to this $250 a year for taxes and $300 for heat and utilities. Our $5,000 a year man is now paying $1,550 annually or 31 per cent of his income.
This is equivalent (in terms of per cent of income) to the highest rent the O.H.C. charges. It goes beyond what is considered a reasonable percentage of family income for housing.
Yet in all these calculations, we have so far made no provision for repayment of the principal owing -in this case $20,000.
It is obvious that if realistic monthly or quarterly principal payments are added to the interest in the usual manner, the burden would be altogether too great for a man with a $5,000 or even $6,000 income.
The only way O.H.C. could sell houses on this basis would be by not only subsidizing the interest rate but by forgetting about repayment of the principal-in effect making the purchaser a present of the capital value of the house.
This would be an inordinately expensive procedure. To supply a relatively few people with homes of their own, the corporation would have to cut back drastically on its funds for building or buying rental accommodation for those in need.
Moreover, the houses it sold would be subtracted from the stock available for public housing, and might easily wind up being sold to some real estate speculator-perhaps to become the nucleus for a new slum.
The establishment of the Ontario Housing Corporation represents public recognition of the fact that the province has an obligation to help provide decent living accommodation for those who cannot provide it for themselves. But it is wholly unrealistic to try to extend this into an obligation to provide full ownership of a house for everybody.
Having made its bow to the spirit of Toronto past, the O.H.C. should quietly bury the whole idea.
May I call it a quarter to six, Mr. Speaker?

DEBATES	February 9, 1967


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member should continue.


John Gilbert: Second, Mr. Speaker, the
moneys for housing have moved into the building of shopping centres, office buildings and high rental apartments because of the high yield of return in these fields. This underlines the importance of direct government participation in the housing field and the necessity of change with the government being primarily responsible for financing housing needs. In 1965 the government was responsible for 35 per cent of house financing and the conventional lenders, insurance and trust companies, 65 per cent. The figures are not available for 1966 but I am sure the participation of conventional lenders was much lower. In the early part of 1966 private moneys were almost nil and this placed the builders in a mortgage strait-jacket in getting their housing programs under way for the year. This in large part was the reason for the substantial drop in housing starts for 1966. The trouble was not that houses could not be built but rather that lenders sought projects yielding higher interest rates, thereby leaving housing needs unfulfilled.
Third, the high interest rates payable by purchasers of new homes now range from 7J per cent for N.H.A. loans to 8 per cent to 8J per cent on money borrowed from conventional lenders. I can only give again the example of the cost of interest on a mortgage to a purchaser, which discourages the purchase of homes. Let us look at the dollars and cents cost of interest. Consider a $15,000 mortgage to be paid off over 25 years. At last year's N.H.A. rate of 6} per cent, payments on principal and interest would total nearly $29,500 or nearly $2 repaid for every $1 borrowed. At 8| per cent, and some borrowers are paying that much for home mortgages right now, the cost goes out of sight. On a $15,000 25-year mortgage the interest alone would total $21,000. The added interest cost over last year's 6} per cent mortgage would be $6,500. This breaks down to extra monthly payments of $21.65.
Much has been made of the chartered banks entering the mortgage field, thereby easing the shortage of mortgage moneys. It should be noted that the bank rate will probably be the same as the conventional lenders, 8 per cent and 8J per cent. It should also be noted that Mr. S. T. Paton, the president of the Canadian Bankers' Association, said on January 31, 1967, at the National House Builders Association conference, "it will be
February 9, 1967

difficult for the banks to come in immediately with a substantial flow of funds for housing." This offers little help to solve present housing needs.
Fourth, one must consider the high cost of building materials and the high cost of serviced land in urban areas. The best thing that the Minister of Finance could have done at this time to help the housing problem would have been to remove the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. It has been estimated that the costs of building a home are made up of 75 per cent for materials and 25 per cent for labour. These percentages indicate the substantial saving on home costs if the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials was removed.
The builders claim that the costs of housebuilding have been cut to a minimum. As reported in an article in the Globe and Mail of Wednesday, February 1, 1967, the president of the National House Builders Association said:
Unless the house, as we conceive of it, changes drastically, we can't reduce its building cost much-
That was said in an interview at the twenty fourth annual convention in Toronto. Then he said:
I have my doubts that any new concept is close. We are as advanced in our technological accomplishments as any industry.
The article continues:
In the N.H.B.A. he has been particularly active-
In the National House Builders Association.
-in the research committee. He is also a director of the Urban Development Institute.
Yesterday's session heard a report on an N.H.B.A. research project carried out in his subdivision in co-operation with C.M.H.C. and the building research division of the National Research Council.
It showed that on a three bedroom bungalow of 1,150 square feet, selling at about $18,000 with land, and costing $10,476 to build, savings of $367 are possible by taking advantage of existing minimum standards and improved techniques.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: The questions to be considered this evening are the following: The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), Criminal Code-possible amendment respecting electronic listening devices; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), Canadian Centennial-failure of armed forces tattoo to appear in Kootenays.
Royal Assent THE ROYAL ASSENT
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to amend the Canada Corporations Act to facilitate the incorporation by letters patent of corporations without objects of pecuniary gain.
An Act to incorporate The Evangelical Covenant Church of Canada.
An Act to amend the Judges Act.
An Act to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions.
An Act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways System for the period from the 1st day of January, 1965 to the 30th day of June, 1967, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions (papers), private bills, public bills.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether it would be agreeable to the house to dispense with this hour and adjourn for dinner until eight o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement to the suggestion that has been made?


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, I think the order that has been called is notices of motions for papers, a debatable item. I had understood informally that the one standing in my name was likely to be called. I have no desire to make extended remarks, and if there can be some agreement among those members present who desire to say something on this item that after they conclude their remarks we will then suspend our sittings until eight o'clock, this would be quite satisfactory to me.

February 9. 1967
Motions for Papers MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all notes and other communications exchanged between Canada and the United States of America since the enactment by parliament on July 16, 1964, of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act having to do with the issuance by the Governor in Council of one or more lists of geographical co-ordinates of points from which base lines may be determined in accordance with the provisions of the act.


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


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I would be most happy if we could have immediate agreement to carry this motion but I have some doubt, in view of the fact that the motion had to be transferred for debate, whether that could be achieved without the advancement on my part of at least some argument.
The subject matter of this motion concerns a matter which in my view represents a piece of uncompleted legislation in the sense that a very important part of an act that has been passed has so far not been acted upon by the government. While there may be times when I would readily agree that the kind of documents asked for in this motion could be properly considered as privileged and it might not be in the public interest to table them in the house nevertheless I feel that under the particular set of circumstances prevailing in this case the general rule has in effect ceased to apply. I believe the time has come when we in this house and those Canadian citizens who are particularly interested in this question should have some factual knowledge of what has been going on rather than being left, as we have been over such an extended period, in a sort of never-never-land on this particular matter.
I hope to be able to prove my point, Mr. Speaker, largely by means of words which have come from the mouth of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) on this subject. In order to do that I should like to recall to the memories of the minister and other hon. members something of what he had to say about the act referred to in the motion when the bill was brought before the house for second reading on May 20, 1964. My motion has to do with the co-ordinates involved in the determination of base lines. On

page 3409 of Hansard of that date the minister referred to the matter in these words:
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
The second important purpose of the bill is to apply the straight base line system to the Canadian coast line. This part of it, unlike the section concerning fishing zones, will be of an enabling character. When the bill comes into effect the Governor in Council will be authorized to draw straight base lines. The question may be asked: what does this achieve? In response, I would say that what the bill accomplishes is of great significance. It makes applicable the straight base line system to the Canadian coast. These straight base lines will be drawn in accordance with international law, on the basis of the decision of the International Court of Justice in the Anglo-Norwegian fisheries case and of the Geneva convention on the territorial sea and fishing zones and taking into account Canadian historic interests in the bodies of water off our coasts.
Then he went on to say:
... it makes applicable, on proclamation, the general system of straight base lines to the Canadian coast line. The authority that is given to the Governor in Council is with respect to the specific lines to be drawn and the exceptions to be made. The larger effect of the bill is to make applicable the principle of the straight base line system to Canada. Hon. members will note that the bill specifically provides that all areas enclosed by the new straight base lines will be internal waters of Canada. This is important and may have far reaching consequences.
He also said:
I am convinced that in taking this action now- as the government is doing, unilaterally-Canada is acting in accordance with present day international law and practice. The government is convinced that we are following the wisest course in immediately seeking agreements with the countries affected by our action.
Later he referred to the pros and cons of the course Canada should have followed after having referred certain things to a Geneva conference on the law of the sea. He said:
When the present government took office a year ago we came to the conclusion-and we regretfully came to it-that for the foreseeable future there was no possibility of reaching general agreement on a 12-mile fishing zone.
Canada had to make a choice. There were two possibilities. We could have decided in favour of postponement. This would have meant an indefinite delay. This would have meant that we would not have for a long time the 12-mile fishing zone which this legislation will make possible. Meanwhile, our resources would have continued to be depleted, as greater and greater fishing fleets drew nearer our shores.
Then he went on to say:
Our experts looked at the situation in international law.
He followed that by saying:
In the circumstances the government concluded that a decision by Canada to establish a 12-mile
February 9, 1967

fishing zone from straight base lines would be soundly based on present-day international law and practice. We chose this course, and so the government has brought forward accordingly the legislation we are now considering.
He went on to say that at the same time Canada recognized that our action had international implications, and it will be recalled that the Prime Minister informed the house a year ago that we would consult with the countries affected by our action and seek to work our satisfactory arrangements with them.
I want to be fair to the minister. He also said:
. . . we did not minimize the problems involved in some of the negotiations lying ahead of us. Nor do we minimize them now. These negotiations may be difficult and we must accept this fact.
He spoke about negotiations further and then said:
This is what the government of Canada is now in the process of doing. We have already had three rounds of negotiations with the United States. In the last two months we have had a round of discussions with Norway, Denmark, Britain, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Japan.
He explained that these countries had sent officials to Ottawa for talks. Then he said:
We have made clear that the United States and France will be allowed to continue to fish in those areas where they have fished before, subject to agreed arrangements and regulations for the protection of the fisheries concerned.
I wish to draw to the attention of the house that the remarks of the minister were made on May 20, 1964, and that as he explained, we had already had three rounds of negotiations with the United States. The government had made clear that the United States and France, because of our conventions with them, might continue taking fish within fishing zones that would be included as internal waters of Canada under the bill the minister proposed.
The minister gave this explanation, as will be found on page 3411:
I have said that the bill makes applicable the straight base line system to Canada. When the specific base lines are delineated, all the waters inside these lines will become internal.
He spoke about the effect that the bill would have on other interested countries, and said:
-we have decided to allow a short period of time to elapse before starting to enforce Canadian laws in the fishing zones of Canada.

813!
Motions for Papers
As found on page 3412 he made this statement, which I was prepared to accept as rational and reasonable:
While negotiations are under way with foreign powers, friendly though they may be, no disclosure may be made until such time as it is in the interest of the parties concerned.
I come to the crux of my argument in respect of the motion before us, that the time has come when it is in the interests of Canada and the people of this country to know what has happened since May 20, 1964. We want to know more specifically what has happened.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Three years ago we were told that there had been three rounds of negotiations with the United States on this subject prior to the passage of the bill. In replies to numerous questions in the house since the bill was proclaimed, we have been told that continuous negotiations have gone on and on and on. I am prepared to accept the statement of the minister and his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) that negotiations have been going on. Apparently, from the way things stand, these negotiations might go on until we celebrate our second centennial. That is not good enough. Parliament gave its assent to a bill. The minister will recall that some of us disagreed with the approach but nevertheless the house did assent to a bill which authorized the Governor in Council to proclaim straight base lines by which the fishing zones would be measured.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
The time has long passed for this action to have been taken. If it is not going to be taken we should be fully informed of the reasons why no action will be taken. This consideration, I now submit, overrules the accepted practice with regard to what has transpired by way of exchanges of notes and communications between this country and a friendly power, to use the minister's expression. On that occasion he said:
I am confident the United States and Canada will be able to work out a solution in this field, as we have to other difficult problems. In view of our tradition of the closest co-operation, I remain optimistic that we shall reach a satisfactory common accord.
My understanding at the time was that this was something on which we could expect fairly speedy action. In fact the minister himself, as I recall it, said he hoped that the base lines, or some of them at least, could be proclaimed before the end of 1964.
128S8

February 9, 1967
Motions for Papers
I know the minister is always anxious to convince us that he is hard at work. On the other hand he should recognize that members are anxious to know what he is doing from time to time. I will refresh his memory as to the continuing interest taken by hon. members by pointing out to him that in the session following the 1964-65 session this subject was raised in the house on four different occasions by various members. While we were not disposed to push the minister too hard in the 1965 session we clearly indicated that we were anxious to see some action taken.
I checked the index of Hansard up to the end of December and I found that during the current session this subject matter had been raised on no fewer than 24 occasions either by questions or in the course of discussion. This reflects the growing impatience on the part of those who have a particular interest in the subject at the delay which has occurred and, if I may say so, at the kind of replies we have been getting from the government.
I have picked out at random some of the questions which have been asked and some of the answers which have been given on this subject. On April 30, 1965, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) had this to say:
A supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker. In his capacity as a swift actor-


An hon. Member:: "Actor" is right.


Mr. Howard:: -I wonder if the minister would mind telling the house how he is progressing with the establishment of straight base lines which matter was dealt with in the house about a year ago now.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: This matter is under very active consideration.
A little later in the same year I addressed this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs:
Have the negotiations for the establishment of base line co-ordinates been completed? If not, what is the minister doing to assist his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, in this connection in view of the minister's primary responsibility for external affairs?
The Secretary of State for External Affairs replied:
What am I doing, Mr. Speaker? I am working very hard together with my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, in respect of a negotiation that is proving very difficult.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs aware of the fact it is almost a year now since the act was proclaimed in connection with the extension of our fishing zone?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am only too well aware of the fact.

Then the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) asked a supplementary question in reply to which the minister said he could give the necessary information in more detail to the meeting of the committee on external affairs.
Let me now refer to the answers we have been getting during the current session. On January 19, 1966, as reported on page 20 of Hansard, the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse) directed the following question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs:
Wculd the minister take the house and Canadian fishermen into his confidence and tell us when his department or the government plans to name the geographical co-ordinates so that base lines can be drawn which will establish the 12-mile limit as set out in the legislation?
To this the Secretary of State for External Affairs replied:
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, the government has already introduced this legislation, which has already been accepted by the house, to establish a 12-mile fishing zone limit based on the straight base line system. Before these straight base lines can be determined agreement has to be reached between Canada and several other countries. These negotiations have not yet been completed but just as quickly as these difficult negotiations have been completed I will be in a position to give a more definitive answer.
On March 9, as recorded on page 2466 of Hansard, we were discussing fisheries estimates. I inquired what was being done and the Secretary of State for External Affairs said:
May I assure my hon. friend that this question is a matter of great importance, and I share his view of that importance.
I know we can always enjoy the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs but I am much more concerned at the moment to have more tangible evidence of his interest than has been given to the house so far in response to questions.
I have one more reference. On December 19, 1966, the minister was asked by my hon. friend from Skeena whether he would be in a position to fulfil his commitment that the straight base lines will be proclaimed before the end of the year. He did not say which year. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said: "I doubt that I could assure my hon. friend-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member as his time has expired. Unless he is granted leave to go beyond his allotted time-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
February 9, 1967


Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: I am at the point of concluding my remarks in any event. I simply wish to emphasize that in view of the long series of answers about negotiations going on and on, the time has come when in my view the house should be given something more definite to indicate what has been taking place. It was for this reason that I decided to put this notice of motion for the production of papers on the order paper. I think we are entitled to know just what the government has been doing or not doing in its dealings with the United States. If it has become apparent that we shall not reach agreement with the United States on this matter the time has come when we should know about it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think we shall.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Unless the minister or his colleague the Minister of Fisheries can persuade us otherwise, I think the house is entitled to the documents referred to in my notice of motion.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up much of the time of the house, since apparently there was an agreement that we might rise before seven o'clock for the supper hour. However I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) for giving us the opportunity to have a brief debate on this important subject.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the law of the sea w th regard to the width of national fishing zones and national waters has been a very live issue for a number of years, joined with the tendency to make greater and greater demands on the living resources of the sea as a source of food, especially by countries such as Japan, which have a relatively small agricultural base and big populations.
It will be recalled that at one point the United Nations convened a conference in Geneva to try to reach agreement on the width of territorial waters and straight base lines. There were two conferences. The Canadian proposal, which was known as the Six Plus Six formula, provided for territorial waters with a width of six miles, plus an exclusive fishing zone of an additional six miles. That proposal failed to carry by a very small margin.
Th's was a great disappointment to Canadians, and in the next election campaign there was much loose language used by certain people with respect to this item. I am not
Motions for Papers
looking at the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) when I say this, but representatives of his party did indulge in this loose talk. They said, "Why, there is no problem at all. All that is lacking is resolve on the part of the government of the day. If we should come to power we will wave a magic wand, the foreign fishing vessels will disappear over the horizon, and there will be no more problems. All we have to do is unilaterally declare a 12-mile zone, and everything within a straight base line is Canadian waters for the exclusive use of Canadian fishermen."
However, when the Liberal government came to power it found the problem was not qu te so simple. My greatest objection to the course being followed by the government is on the long delay in coming to a conclusion; but an even greater misdemeanour, if one may use that term, was perpetrated by the Liberal party in leading the Canadian people to believe that this was a simple problem that could be quickly and satisfactorily solved.
From experience I know there are great difficulties involved, but the question in the mind of the fishing industry is, where do we stand now? I recognize the necessity for a period of negotiations during which the negotiators on behalf of the Canadian people would not disclose the exact situation, while still in the midst of the bargaining process. But it should be recalled that the government was about a year in office when it had this legislation passed, and the legislation itself did not declare unilaterally that the straight base lines system would be brought into effect.
The bill had the effect of creating exclusive fishing zones from the nearest coastline, ex-clud ng nations that did not have historic fishing rights; but the important thing dealt with by the bill was the establishment of headland to headland base lines which would enclose large, important bodies of water, such as the gulf of St. Lawrence, the bay of Fundy and Hecate strait. The catch, however, was that the base lines were to be established by order in council following negotiations with foreign countries. These negotiations have now been going on for three years.
Only history can tell which is the better of two possible approaches to a problem. When I was minister of fisheries my colleagues and I felt that negotiations should be advanced as far as possible before one started to wave a big stick, saying what one would do unilaterally. In some respects our bargaining position may not be as strong as we would like it

February 9, 1967
Motions for Papers
to be, but the question now is how long the government can hide behind the proposition that while negotiations are going on in confidence, parliament and the Canadian people cannot be informed of the exact situation.
Technically I agree with the government that these are privileged documents which should not be produced, because if they were produced it would create a bad precedent. Nevertheless the government in conscience cannot go on year after year telling us the negotiations are continuing, and that it is doing everything it is possible to do. This may be perfectly true; but we have to accept the government's word for it, and no matter how sincere its judgment may be it is bound to be a judgment which favours its own position. The time has come when parliament and the Canadian people must be let into the government's confidence, unless of course that would destroy the hope of an imminent agreement being reached.
But if real progress is not being made, then the government may have to take the responsibility of starting all over again, and possibly of taking action to initiate another law of the sea conference. If such a conference were held now I believe fhe Canadian proposal might carry, because in the interim there has been much change. There are many new members in the United Nations, and in addition many countries which attended the previous conference have since unilaterally declared 12-mile exclusive fishing zones.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Including the United States.


John Angus MacLean: Exactly, and Ireland; there is a whole long list. In this connection 1 might suggest also that the bargaining position of the Canadian government might be enhanced if this parliament ratified the conventions that were agreed to in Geneva at the last conference. I think there are three or four of these. I believe in some cases the required number of nations have already ratified them, and that this is something which should be done. I believe I am correct in saying that none of these conventions as yet has been ratified by Canada. These are suggestions I make to the ministry at the present time; but I say with all the force at my command that I think the time has come when the government must decide what its course is at the present time, and must conclude its negotiations at a very early date so that we can be brought fully into their confidence as to what the situation really is.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the two hon. gentlemen who have just spoken, that this is a matter of considerable importance to the fishermen of our country. Strictly speaking, the motion which is before the house is not one which would allow us to examine the government's policy with regard to establishing a 12-mile fishing zone based on the straight base line principle. However, I understand the interest of the two hon. gentlemen and other members of this house in the substance of the proposition, and therefore I have not raised a point of order.
The issue before the house is not whether the government has made progress in its negotiations. The issue is whether the house should be given documents which have been exchanged between the government of Canada and other governments. That is the issue before the house, and nothing else. I would submit

and indeed the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) has agreed that this is the case-that it is not right for hon. members to ask the government to disclose the house the contents of documents, aide-memoires, and letters which have been exchanged between one government and another in respect of negotiations which have not yet been completed.
It is clear why parliament has devised this rule, because if the rule were otherwise it would not be possible for the government to carry out its diplomatic intercourse and it would not be possible for the government to maintain its diplomatic position in its negotiations with other countries. It is clear that until such time as negotiations have been completed, those negotiations would stand in jeopardy and would suffer if there should be a premature disclosure. I do understand however the impatience of hon. gentlemen. I share that impatience, and so does the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) who has toiled arduously during the past two and a half years in an effort to implement the full provisions of the bill.
The situation briefly is this: We passed a bill authorizing the establishment of the 12-mile fishing zone that is now in effect. It now is the law of the land. There was objection to this measure. Indeed, it will be recalled that when the Prime Minister met with President Kennedy at Hyannis Port in the spring of 1963, the Prime Minister intimated that it was the intention of Canada to establish a 12-mile fishing zone and that we proposed to do so by measuring the 12 miles not on the basis of the
February 9, 1967

sinuosities of the coast but on the straight base line system. The president was not too happy about this declaration of intention. The government nevertheless, while recognizing the cordial relations which exist between our two countries, caused such a measure to be introduced into the house.
As I have said, the law of the land provides that there be a 12-mile fishing zone. This was done because of the frustrations which were experienced by others who had sought to achieve the same thing by the process of international conference. I am not criticizing the former government for having tried by the conference method to bring about what we did legislatively. My friend, the hon. member for Queens, has discussed this matter in most objective terms tonight, and on the other occasions when he has participated in this debate. We felt however that the conference method, desirable as it is and preferable as it is, had not succeeded in achieving its purpose. There was then no other course open to us but to resort to a legislative measure in order to do what other countries-almost half the countries of the world-had done by unilateral action.
So, we have before us an accomplished fact. We could not establish the straight base line system without at the same time asserting with success ownership of certain bodies of water over which we claim a proprietary interest and title. The negotiations with the United States and other countries such as Spain, France, Norway and others have been protracted. They have taken a longer time than I ever anticipated they would. But no one can criticize the government because of the action taken by other countries with regard to our proposal to establish the initial measurement of the 12-mile system based on the straight base line principle.
All has not been in vain. Not only have we established a 12-mile fishing zone, but so also has the United States. As a result of the action taken in this house we have built up a jurisprudence in this matter. There can be no doubt that the United States would not have embarked upon the establishment of its 12-mile fishing zone, in the light of the attitude it took at international conferences when an effort was made to resolve this question, if it had not been for the fact that our parliament at the instance of this government did establish the 12-mile fishing zone.
It had been my hope that we would have been able to start to establish the co-ordinates long before this. As my friend, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni observed, I did say
Motions for Papers
that perhaps by the beginning of 1965 we might be able to do so. But we had to make a choice between doing that and subjecting ourselves to litigation, which would have caused a greater delay than these negotiations have caused or, I am sure, will prove to have caused.
I believe it will not be long now before we will begin to establish some straight base lines. I do not say that we will complete them, but I believe we will be able to establish some straight base lines very soon. If we do not I will be greatly disappointed. I am making this prediction on the basis of my assessment of the state of the negotiations now with a particular country. I am awaiting a reply to a proposal that the government made as a result of negotiations between the Minister of Fisheries and myself with the United States. I believe that we should hear from the United States within the course of the next few days. When this reply reaches us we will have a better appreciation of when we can begin to establish co-ordinates and straight base lines, and when we may take other steps to further the objective we have in mind.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
I believe that, while the negotiations have taken a year and a half longer than I thought they would, the fact is that during that time we have steadily built up a body of opinion to the effect that the Norwegian case is not without application to Canada in the situation we are discussing.
On the question of procedure, it must be clear that I cannot agree to tabling the documents sought in this motion. Hon. members know that diplomatic usage does not permit the government to make available to the public without the consent of the other party, the instruments used in negotiations, until and as long as agreement has not been reached. Whether or not we have this consent from the United States I feel we would not be discharging our responsibilities as a government if we agreed, on our own, to such disclosures. This would make difficult any further negotiations we have with other countries.
This question has been decided many times in the house. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), it will be recalled, on October 6, 1963, moved for a copy of cabinet minutes and other official documents authorizing the Secretary of State for External Affairs to notify the executive director of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission

February 9, 1967
Motions for Papers
that the commission's recommendation for removal of halibut stocks in the Bering Sea had been accepted. I pointed out on that occasion that it was a well established rule in Canadian parliamentary practice that documents and cabinet minutes could not be revealed, for the very reasons I am advancing in this instance. Our procedures clearly establish that documents involving international negotiations which are still incomplete cannot be made available against the wishes of the government, and certainly not without the consent of the other government and without the consent of the other parties to the negotiations.
I remind my hon. friend of a decision in this house on January 24, 1955 when the then secretary of state for external affairs, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), refused to produce an exchange of letters between the government of Canada and the government of the United States concerning the imposition by the United States of total or partial impediments to the importation to the United States of some agricultural products. The then secretary of state for external affairs said that this motion concerned diplomatic corresondence with a foreign government and dealt with negotiations then in progress. He said that according to well established practice of the house, this information was privileged and it would not be possible to table it. That motion was withdrawn.
Likewise in 1957 a motion was made by an hon. member for the tabling of the preliminary report concerning hydroelectric development of the Columbia river system in Canada. The then acting minister of northern affairs and national resources, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) expressed his opposition. These reasons undoubtedly were in the mind of the hon. member for Prince, who concurred in the position I am taking with regard to the application of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I am sorry, I meant the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean). The hon. member is such a prince I always confuse his status with that of his colleague's constituency.
This is what the hon. member for Calgary North said on that occasion:
-negotiations with the United States In regard to the Columbia river system and the development of hydroelectric power on that system have been going on and will probably continue for some time. We do not consider it in the public interest that this document should be made public during the time these negotiations are in progress-

That motion was actually voted on and was rejected.
There have been a whole series of other similar requests. My hon. friend, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud), played a part in a similar request for documents under similar circumstances. That request was rejected on June 5, 1963. The minister refused the production of a copy of a recommendation of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, and all exchanges between the government and the commission and other parties relating to this recommendation. As a result of his opposition the motion was modified.
On May 5, 1965, the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury), found himself in the position of refusing a demand for documents concerning an agreement between the governments of the United States and Canada providing for free exchange in the automobile industry.
We are all familiar with these precedents which one could go on reciting. I think the case for the request is so clearly contrary to our practice and procedure that I am not asking too much of the hon. gentleman, now that he has delivered himself of his irritations and impatience, to acquiesce in the request to withdraw the motion which, in the interest of what he seeks, should not be adopted. I ask my hon. friend not to lose heart, because I am sure he will find that the negotiations the Minister of Fisheries and myself have had are not inconsistent with his objective, and very much in the interest of the fishing industry and fishermen in Canada.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, for the sake of clarification of the minister's statement, and so it will be readily understood by anyone reading Hansard, I should say this. The minister said that we now have a 12-mile fishing zone. That is legally correct; but I am sure he will agree that this does not apply to a number of countries, because of their historic fishing rights in these waters, and that many foreign vessel's are actually still fishing within 12 miles of our coasts.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right. Of course, as my hon. friend knows, if our negotiations succeed, the arrangement is that we will recognize the historic rights of those nations, which will still enjoy the right to fish in these waters for a period of time.


John Angus MacLean: Will the minister agree that if this had been brought about by international agreement, rather than by uni-
February 9, 1967

lateral declaration, the litigation would be greatly lessened?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: As my hon. friend knows, this was attempted twice at an international conference. We gave this idea consideration, but we were satisfied as a result of exchanges we had with other countries that international conferences for this particular purpose would not prove successful. We decided the only way we could do this was to act on the basis of our sovereign power in this country, just as almost 40 other countries have done.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
I am sure that in this way we have not only achieved our objectives regarding the 12-mile zone but we have encouraged other countries to adopt the same practice.


Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it is now seven o'clock perhaps I might be allowed to meditate upon the minister's request that I withdraw my motion. I will, of course, have to keep in mind the minister's own record of persistence in seeking the production of documents when he was on the opposition side of the house, which was a precedent he did not cite-


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Do not remind me of my mistakes.


Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: -in his review of past precedents in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members business has now expired. The house will return to the consideration of business interrupted at six o'clock.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Monteith.
Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that there is agreement that the house adjourn until eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SITTING SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Gilbert SITTING RESUMED
The house resumed at 8 p.m.
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, just prior to the six o'clock adjournment I had set forth the fourth reason why we in the New Democratic Party think there is a serious housing shortage in Canada today, and I said that it was due to the hight cost of building materials and the high cost of serviced land in urban areas. I put forth the builders' claim that the cost of home building had been cut to a minimum, and I quoted from an article in the Globe and Mail which supported the builders' contention.
Another aspect of this matter is the high cost of serviced land in urban areas, which is a very serious problem. This has been caused by land speculators. May I note that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) who is in charge of housing, has been urging Canadian cities to become active in the land market to prevent the prices of lots being forced upwards by speculators. He indicated also that federal legislation has existed since 1949, empowering the C.M.H.C. to help finance residential land development, but he indicated that the provinces and municipalities are not making full use of it. The minister said:
It is our view that provincial and local governments in Canada by a large scale commitment in this activity could market serviced lots at reduced prices at no net cost to the taxpayer either federal, provincial or local.
I agree with these views. However, encouragement should also be given to these bodies to change the expropriation laws in the provinces to ensure that fair and reasonable compensation is paid for such expropriated lands.
The fifth reason is the failure of the C.M.H.C. to promote the aims and purposes of the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act. The housing programs financed by N.H.A. and C.M.H.C. have not begun to take care of low income persons. For example, in 1965 the average income of a borrower under N.H.A. was $7,200 and in 1966 it was $6,600. No help was provided for persons below the $6,000 level. In fact, figures indicate that only 8.5 per cent of N.H.A. loans were given to persons earning between $4,000 and $6,000 and .5 per cent to persons earning under $4,000. This reminds me of Professor Murray's saying that this is socialism for the rich but not for the poor.
Another important aspect is the high percentage of income that a person must pay toward principal, interest and taxes. The
12864
February 9, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Gilbert gross debt service of these three items is not supposed to exceed 27 per cent of gross income according to N.H.A. regulations. This amount is too high. The striking feature in this pattern is that those families which can least afford it spend proportionately more for their housing, and usually get the least value for their money. For families earning less than $4,000 and purchasing homes under the N.H.A. in 1965 the average ratio of gross debt service to income was 29 per cent. For families earning between $4,000 and $6,000 it was 25 per cent and for those earning $10,000 or more it was 13.8 per cent.
The rule of thumb commonly used is that shelter costs should not exceed 20 per cent of income, rising possibly to 25 per cent if such services are included as heat, light and water in rental accommodation, or principal, interest and taxes for home ownership. Such a ratio must be adjusted for persons in the low income brackets to take account of their family needs for a decent and adequate standard of living. For example it has been suggested that a family with a net income of $200 per month should not spend more than 15 per cent on shelter costs.
The federal government has failed to take the lead with the provinces and municipalities to ensure that homes are provided for persons with low incomes and for senior citizens.
Having attempted to set forth reasons for the failure by ail levels of the government to find solutions to our housing problems, I should like to suggest the following 10 point program to meet the problems:
1.	The setting up of a federal ministry of urban affairs and housing, with the C.M.H.C. being directly responsible to the new minister and having the responsibility of suggesting an overall housing policy for Canada based on surveys of housing needs conducted by and in consultation and co-operation with the provincial and municipal authorities.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
2.	The federal government through C.M.H.C. should make available large amounts of money for new houses, public housing, senior citizens housing and co-operative housing. The target for the next three years should be at least 250,000 new homes a year to take care of increases in population, new family formations and replacement of older housing.
3.	Moneys for the new projects should be obtained by the sale of home bonds guaranteed by the government in denominations of

$500 and $1,000, repayable in five or ten year terms and bearing interest at attractive rates for sale to Canadian people and firms. Canadians who bought war bonds during wartime to protect Canada will be prepared to buy home bonds in peacetime to build Canada.
4.	Rates on all new mortgages to purchasers of homes should not exceed 5 per cent, and the federal government should subsidize interest rates above these levels either by income tax adjustments or by direct payments. All mortgage loans should include, if necessary, an extra $2,000 for the purchase of fixtures, furniture, furnishings and appliances.
5.	There should be large-scale land assembly projects initiated by both provincial and municipal levels of government, with financial participation by C.M.H.C. This would cut down the high cost of serviced land in urban areas.
6.	Assembled lands by provincial and federal governments should be leased for development purposes, enabling reduced prices of serviced lots and community control over land use.
7.	Municipal services relating to urban renewal schemes such as schools, recreation centres, parks, streets and sewer improvements should be included in the total cost of an urban renewal project and subject to the three level cost sharing. The cost of renewal should include the relocation and renewal expenses of displaced residents and business firms. Displaced homeowners should be offered special loans to help purchase a replacement property, if they cannot obtain suitable housing with a moratorium on repayment of the special loan until the property is sold.
8.	Direct loans below market interest rates should be provided to low income families for property improvement.
9.	Senior citizen homes and public housing must be an integral part and a first priority of any crash housing program.
10.	We must study and develop new techniques for the mass production of housing and the streamlining of building codes. Habitat is an excellent example of new building techniques.
If the government were to adopt the above measures and develop them into a housing program for Canada, Mr. Speaker, we would be facing our next hundred years with a sense of purpose, pride and concern for all
February 9, 1967

Canadians. Our pledge should be: Decent housing for all Canadians as a basic right guaranteed by government action.


Mr. Jean Chretien (Sainl-Maurice-Lafleche):: The Budget-Mr. Chretien them that they will be given this or that. We know that if $5 are spent, the money will come from the taxpayer's pocket. One may be all for social security or for any new scheme; that is fine. But why try to deceive anyone? When introducing new programs, we should be practical enough and show enough maturity to tell the people how much it will cost, so that they may pass judgment on the way the country is being administered. What is the use of telling them that it is not costing them anything? They find out otherwise six, eight or 12 months later and hold it against our public bodies.
If we always act as we did in December, they will know that they now have responsible people in the government. It is no use making them believe that money grows on trees because they all know that it must come out of our pockets and that waiting six or eight months, or a year or two, is only putting off the same thing and then it is difficult to go back to the people and tell them that we intend to administer their own money properly.
But when taxes must be collected to pay $280 million, it is never an easy matter. One must always choose the less of two evils.
In his December 1968 budget, the Minister of Finance chose two sources of taxation. First of all, he felt it would be appropriate to increase from $120 to $240 the maximum old age security tax. Thus, only a third of the taxpayers in higher income brackets are affected, that is, with the maximum old age security tax being raised to $240, the head of a family with two dependent children who earns less than $5,800, does not pay a cent more. Of course, it is not much for someone with a $5,800 income, but he must consider- according to the facts and statistics-that he ranks among the third of Canadian taxpayers with higher incomes.
To make up that amount of $280 million, we have raised the sales tax by 1 per cent. But it must be remembered that this sales tax does not apply to all areas of our economy. It does not apply to food; it does not apply to fuel; it does not apply to building materials; it does not apply, in fact, to the most essential products which the consumers must purchase.
As for the two new taxes we have had to impose

it is always a problem to impose new taxes-I am convinced by the general reaction-that people have found them quite normal and that they are willing to pay them,

knowing that they are directly related to a social security measure which everyone in this house wanted, that is increasing the old age pension to $105.
Mr. Speaker, since we are now entering our sixth year of continued economic expansion, since 1987 will again be a year of expansion, and since our economy appears to be more balanced at the present time, we must be cautious and go into action at the slightest warning of inflation or deflation. This is an extremely critical point in the history of our economy.
In years past, after two or three years of continuous expansion, we would have a year of recession. We have succeeded, through dynamic economic policies in maintaining this expansion for six consecutive years. And I feel we must continue to act when the time is right, just like we did in December, taking whatever remedial steps needed.
The motion presented by the opposition is pure political nonsense; it does not take the present situation into account. The mere fact that it contains a meaningless economic statement, at a time when expansionist policies have the upper hand in fighting inflation, makes this a ridiculous motion; no argument whatsoever has been brought forward which could really destroy the theory of the Minister of Finance, in establishing his minibudget.
The serious and timely economic policies adopted by the government since 1963 have resulted in the longest period of expansion in the history of our economy. A theory such as the one upon which we will vote later tonight W-ll surely not provide for continuation of economic progress. However, praise be the Lord. The Conservatives are sitting on the Speaker's left, and it looks like they will be there for quite a while yet.
[English!


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I intervene in the debate this evening, not so much to discuss the items arising out of the budget as to take advantage of this opportunity to bring to the attention of certain government departments grievances which should be rectified as quickly as possible. Some of the matters with which I shall deal are purely local, but there is one which is of national concern and which, 1 suggest, is of extreme concern to all people of Canada.
I refer to the present provision in our Income Tax Act whereby the statutory exemptions allow only $1,000 to single persons and
February 9, 1967	COMMONS
$2,000 to married persons. I have done a little research on this matter. Surprisingly, I find that in 1919 the exemptions, then, were $1,000 for a single person and $2,000 for married persons.
The Income Tax Act in 1919, in its provision dealing with this aspect, read as follows:
-upon all income exceeding one thousand dollars but not exceeding six thousand dollars in the case of unmarried persons and widows or widowers without dependent children, and persons who are not supporting dependent brothers or sisters under the age of eighteen years, or a dependent parent or parents, grandparent or grandparents, and exceeding two thousand dollars but not exceeding six thousand dollars in the case of all other persons,-
If there ever was an outdated, antiquated law, this is it. Surely we must consider that living costs have increased since 1919, that they have particularly increased over the past number of years. Our present law, I suggest, is ancient history when we take into account the steady increases, year after year, of the cost of living on the one hand and living standards on the other.
It is ridiculous to have on our statute books a law allowing only a $1,000 exemption for single persons and a $2,000 exemption for married persons. That law has been in effect since 1919. Does the government suggest that the 1919 standards are adequate for today? Surely not. This exemption, Mr. Speaker, goes back to the time when a Canadian dollar had real value. That is certainly not the situation today.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
As far back as 1956 a distinguished Canadian tax expert, Mr. J. Harvey Parry, a director of the Canadian Tax Foundation, pointed out that a man who was earning $5,000 before the last war had to be making $10,450 in 1956, or his financial position had worsened. That was more than ten years ago, and the situation has changed since then; the difference would be even greater. I would therefore seriously suggest that this exemption be raised. What brings this particularly to my attention is the realization that old age pensioners will receive $1,260 a year when the increase becomes effective. An old age pensioner whose wife is also receiving $1,260 will only be able to claim as a single man. Income from pensions is considered to be taxable income, and the wife's income will be above the amount which is permitted under the present law. The figure is, I believe, $1,250. So an old age pensioner whose wife is also an old age pensioner will have to claim
The Budget-Mr. McQuaid as a single person. I suggest this is most unfair to our pensioners.
This situation was brought to my attention in a letter which I received the other day from a man who this year is celebrating his 100th birthday. This man has lived in Canada for more than 100 years during which time he has contributed to the economy of this country. He happens to live in Prince Edward Island where last year, for nine months of the year, old age pensioners were receiving $100 a month. For the rest of the year they received $75. So this man and his wife each received $1,125 by way of pension. In addition, the man received from his former employer a superannuation allowance of $700. In the course of 100 years he had naturally accummulated a certain amount of savings, which should be to his credit. As a result, he received by way of interest $304 in 1966. So his total taxable income is $2,129. All that this man will be able to claim for his wife is the difference between $1,125 and $1,250. I suggest that this is a hardship and one which should be corrected as quickly as possible.
As a matter of fact I think it would be a very good idea as a centennial project on the part of this government if all those who have reached the age of 100 years were exempted from the payment of tax, irrespective of what their incomes might be. I do not think the Minister of Finance, (Mr. Sharp) would find his budget much affected by such a gesture. I do not think there are many people in Canada today who have reached the age of 100 years, and I doubt very much whether those who have would be contributing heavily in any way to the coffers of the government.
Then again, I believe consideration should be given to raising the exemption allowed single persons to $2,000 at least. In the case of married persons the figure should be at least $3,000. These figures are more realistic than those we have been using since 1919. I am not criticizing any particular government. All governments throughout the years have followed a "stand pat" attitude and refused to increase these exemptions.
I believe we should also take a look at the exemptions allowed in respect of children. Is there anyone in this chamber tonight who can raise a child on $300 a year? The figure is altogether unrealistic. It may be possible during the first three or four years, but I should like anyone to tell me that a child from the age of ten onward does not cost more than $300 to rear and educate. Put this exemption up to a realistic amount; it would not cost the.
12868	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. McQuaid government too much money and it would be fair to parents.
The next item I should like to discuss concerns the Department of Fisheries. I am sorry the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) is not in his place but I hope that he will somehow find time to scan the matters which I intend to discuss for the next few minutes. On January 31 last the minister issued a press release. It has not yet been put on record, and I think it should be. I will quote from it now, as follows:
Requests from a large majority of lobster fishermen on the north shore of Prince Edward Island have led to a lobster trap limit of 500 per boat for this year in a portion of district 7B. This covers the area between East Point and North Cape on Prince Edward Island. It will be effective for the season from May 1 to June 30 of this year.
The high limit is set in view of the short notice being given and must be regarded as a first step towards a trap limit in subsequent years which will probably be established at a lower level on the basis of further experience. This is an area where fishermen use an unusually large number of small traps.
The press release went on:
The Minister also announced a further interim measure on the shore of Prince Edward Island. Operators' licences in this part of district 7B will be issued in 1967 only to those who held such licences in 1966 in that district.
I wish to make it abundantly clear that I am all in favour of this lobster trap limit. I think it is something which has long been overdue and the department is to be congratulated on having introduced it. Many people have the mistaken belief that the fish in the sea, or in the ocean, are inexhaustible in number. This is not the case. It has been proven that some of the most valuable coastal and ocean fisheries are susceptible to decline over the years. This has been recognized by those who are vitally interested in the lobster fishing industry. I quote the following from a report of a meeting which was held not long ago in one of our centres on Prince Edward Island, after a group of fishermen had met to discuss their problems.
The group unanimously passed a resolution calling on the Department of Fisheries to proceed without delay in setting up machinery necessary to introduce and implement a lobster trap limit and lobster fishing licence restrictions in district 7B.
That is fine. Unfortunately-and I cannot for the life of me understand why-the department did not go all the way. They made this restriction applicable only to a part of district 7B-they made it applicable to the north shore of Prince Edward Island, so that a man who fished in that portion of district

DEBATES	February 9, 1967
7B and who had put out, say, 1,500 traps would only be able to put out 500 traps. As I say, this is a good thing and it is, I believe what the fishermen want. But that man who fished 1,500 lobster traps last year is going to be able to put out only 500 in the restricted area this year. So he has 1,000 traps sitting on the wharf. What does he do with them? It is only a distance of approximately 12 miles from the north shore to the south shore of P.E.I. The danger to those fishing on the south shore in district 7B is that, the fisherman on the north shore-the restricted area could haul his traps across that 12 miles distance and set them in the waters off the south shore of the island, thereby crowding out those who fished in that portion of district 7B last year.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I do not think the Department of Fisheries would want to do anything to inconvenience seriously the lobster fishermen this year, but if it is not too late I would recommend to the minister that he make all of district 7B a restricted area. Thus a man who did not have a licence last year on the north shore would not be able to get one this year on the south shore. We shall never be able to have this problem successfully resolved until we get lobster trap limits and licensing limits throughout the whole of district 7B, and I hope the minister will give serious consideration to the implementation of such restrictions.
Yesterday in reply to a question I placed on the order paper some time ago, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) gave an answer which astounded me, an answer which is appalling, an answer which constitutes a complete reneging by the government on a promise it made to the fishermen of my province. This matter dates back to 1964 when regulations were made under the fishing vessels assistance regulations whereby fishermen who constructed small open boats in excess of 35 feet in length were promised a subsidy.
They were told, without any strings attached, that all they had to do to qualify for this subsidy was to construct boats in excess of 35 feet, in the 35 to 45 foot class. Some 95 fishermen in the province of P.E.I. took the government at its word. They constructed these boats-boats which were larger than they ordinarily would have required but which nevertheless they could make good use of; and there was also the question of the subsidy in their minds. They acted in good faith.
February 9, 1967	COMMONS
This took place in 1965, prior to the election in that year. No specifications were set out at that time. As a matter of fact the provincial fishermen's loan board tried its very best to obtain specifications from the federal Department of Fisheries. First of all the loan board drew up a set of specifications which it submitted to the federal department for approval. No answer came back from the federal department. There was no prior consultation at all with the province of P.E.I. so far as specifications were concerned.
Finally the federal department asked the P.E.I. government, or the fishermen's loan board of the province, to draw up a set of specifications. This its members proceeded to do, as best they could. A committee from the loan board was appointed to prepare the specifications. That committee consisted of provincial departmental officials and representatives of the boat building industry.
On February 16, 1965 the committee's recommendations were forwarded to the federal department in Ottawa. No answer was received. The provincial loan board wrote again to Ottawa on March 9, 1965, asking for acceptance or non-acceptance of its recommendations. At that stage the local fishermen wanted to know if they were going to have to build to certain specifications, and what those specifications were, so that they could get construction under way in order to have the boats in the water by spring.
The P.E.I. government told the federal department at that time that if it did not get an answer the boats would be built as closely as possible to the standards which had been approved by the P.E.I. loan board. Still there was no answer; so naturally the provincial government took it for granted that everything was O.K. and the fishermen went ahead in good faith and built their boats.
Very shortly after the boats were completed and just prior to the November, 1965, election, six of the 95 people who constructed these boats were paid their subsidy. How these six were chosen nobody has been able to determine. Possibly the names were drawn from a hat, but anyway the six were paid without any prior examination of their boats.
Applications were sent in by the other 89 fishermen who built boats, but no money was forthcoming and no answer was received from the department in Ottawa. Over a year ago I placed questions on the order paper in connection with this matter but got evasive answers to every one of them. At that time I was told that the boats were being inspected.
The Budget-Mr. McQuaid I tried to find out on what basis this inspection was to be made, what specifications were being followed by the inspectors. Only yesterday it was revealed that 64 of the 95 applicants had been turned down because their boats did not meet specifications; specifications which the fishermen knew absolutely nothing about at the time the boats were constructed, and which the boat builders themselves knew nothing about.
I say that this is most unfair. These 64 fishermen are not going to stand for it. I earnestly suggest that the minister should take a second look at this situation and pay these 64 men the money which was definitely promised them before they constructed their boats.
In the answer which he gave yesterday the minister said that these vessels which were built must be "of approved experimental design." What is approved experimental design? How in the name of common sense can you build a boat to approved experimental design if there is no design and there are no specifications? Did you ever hear of anything more ridiculous in your life, Mr. Speaker?
The minister also said that they must reflect improvement "over conventional types for the size class." I suggest that if a fishing boat is 40 feet long rather than 28 feet long, this constitutes an improvement.
The minister also said that the vessels must meet provincial construction standards and "Department of Transport regulations in so far as the latter apply," and the vessels are to be registered with the Department of Transport. There is no trouble with that. He also said that the vessels are to be "adequately outfitted and equipped to show sufficient evidence of diversification capability over and above lobster fishing." That is a high sounding phase, if ever there was one; but that kind of language is not going to satisfy the 64 men who are waiting for their cheques from the Department of Fisheries. I want to know when these cheques will be issued. The fishermen did want to know. I suggest to the minister that he is in conscience bound to pay these men. If there is any conscience over there at all, the government will get these cheques out just as quickly as it can.
The government, or federal department, set up an examining board to go around and examine these boats. That board made 107 examinations. The government took a shipwright consultant all the way from Victoria, B.C. to P.E.I. to look at these boats. I suggest it cost almost as much to bring him there as it
February 9, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Irvine would have cost to pay the subsidies to these 64 men. I repeat that the minister should get the cheques out to these men as quickly as possible, because just as sure as I am standing here those 64 fishermen from P.E.I. are not going to put up with this treatment.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: Mr. Speaker, I have been very interested in the number of members who have spoken and the content of some of their messages. I am sure that many good suggestions have been made to those on the government side of the house. I hope many of these are suggestions which perhaps will be incorporated into some future legislation. I did not intend to speak at this particular time, but I feel I should because of something which I believe many of us fear most; that is, an increase in taxation.
As indicated in the mini-or baby, or whatever you might like to call it-budget of December 19, we have an item which was placed before the house which actually blames the senior citizens for the increase in taxation that was applied at that particular time. It is my belief that this taxation was unnecessary, and I should like to give my reasons for this. The increases which we had to make available to these people by way of a supplement were caused by the inflationary tendencies in this country. Many of these people retired many years ago. The value of the dollar on which they retired has diminished considerably today. Had the government kept prices in line, this increase might not have been necessary.
In taking the position I do-although this was recommended in the house-I am not recommending, nor am I in favour of government control over prices and wages. Under certain conditions, however, for a certain short period, it is possible that it might be advisable. This was found to be necessary upon the outbreak of the last war and was implemented, I believe, under the Emergency Powers Act. I think sometimes that if we reflect back on the past year we will realize that we were in a state of very serious emergency in that year. In most cases, these people who are receiving the supplement, are no further ahead than they were three or four years ago. Some of them, who are in the old age bracket, find themselves in the position of having to pay higher taxes. We are supposed to be increasing the taxes in two different areas in order to help these people. It is my submission this is ridiculous; in fact it might even be termed subterfuge.

In the first place, it was not necessary to raise the taxes. Surely this is the time when we should be carrying on a complete job evaluation program throughout all departments of government so that we might get rid of some of these square pegs in round holes and vice versa. I think a program of this type would be very much worth while. Perhaps we should give some serious consideration to this at the present time.
We should stop this empire building. I should like to say something about empire building, because there has been so much of it in the past. It is not more taxes that are needed; it is more savings. We need to cut and pare all our unnecessary expenditures. If people are not willing to make a contribution of their own, then they just are not interested in the welfare of their country. I wonder how the following suggestion would fit, for size. We might give every employee who earns in excess of $10,000 a year a 10 per cent cut in pay for Christmas. I wonder how it would be if we were to follow this up a little, and even extend it to members of parliament. I do not think there is a member in this house who would object to giving 10 per cent of his money in order to assist the people in the lower income brackets. This is something we could think about; we might even consider including those in the other place.
What we need, Mr. Speaker, is more efficiency and less of this issue concerning increases in taxation. At the present time 14 per cent of every dollar is used to service our public debt. I should like to refer back to the budget of December 19 and quote from page 11334 of Hansard where the minister made the following statement:
In introducing the guaranteed income supplement we are adding $280 million a year to our cash outflow, and this must somehow be matched by increased cash revenues if we are to avoid increasing our cash deficit with all its financial and economic consequences.
There is not a word here about cutting down or paring our unnecessary expenditures. Further down on the same page the minister says:
The first measure I recommend to the house, therefore, is that we raise the maximum amount payable by an individual on the 4 per cent tax on personal income under the Old Age Security Act, from $120 per year, as it has been for the past three years, to $240 per year.
I do not think anyone objects to that, because it is not the people in the very low income brackets who are being hurt too much; it is the people in the higher income
February 9, 1967

brackets, and they are the people who should expect to pay. Further on the minister says:
This would yield about $135 million a year at current income levels. It would be effective from January 1 but since deduction at the source cannot start immediately, relatively little will appear in this fiscal year's accounts.
I contend that it was quite unnecessary to introduce a budget at all at that time because these people who will receive the old age supplement, according to all the information I have, will not receive any of this money until some time late in March. It would have been quite possible to have ended this session, start another one, have the throne speech debate, and bring in a new budget retroactive to January 1. Therefore I say that at the time this budget was introduced-mini or whatever you may wish to call it-it was almost a redundant item.
Further, at page 11336 of Hansard the minister had this to say:
I have come to the conclusion, therefore, that we should obtain the revenue we need by adding 1 per cent to our general sales tax, making it 12 per cent in total, instead of 11 per cent, with two exceptions.
Then he goes on to deal with the exceptions. At page 11337 he says:
I am also proposing that the increase in the sales tax should not apply to building materials.
He is referring to the 1 per cent. This is a wonderful gesture. The people who are engaged in building houses-something which we are very short of-must have been very pleased with this 1 per cent. Certainly we know there is a very serious housing shortage at the present time. Since the present government came into power our old age security tax has been increased by 33J per cent. It is wonderful to think that they should get credit for having set such a record. It is no wonder the present government is becoming known as a high tax administration, when they increase the amount of money for the old age security tax from 3 per cent to 4 per cent. What will it be in 1968, 5 per cent, 6 per cent? There is a limit to just how much the taxpayer can bear.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Let us refer to another item which has been talked about in this house on many occasions, and I refer to the Carter commission report. We were supposed to have its report a year ago. The minister stated about that time that the had read some parts of the report. The members of this house would like to know what has happened to it. Suggestions have been made that it has not yet been printed in

The Budget-Mr. Irvine both official languages. My contention is that if it is printed in either English or French it should be made available, and certainly it should have been available last October during the conference between the federal and provincial finance ministers, and treasury officials. It was not available at that meeting. We do not know what the complexities of the tax structure are for the coming year.
Let me now refer to an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail recently under the heading "A guide line to trends in 1967". It states in part:
The direction the economy will take in 1967 can be judged by watching a few of the main indicators:
The level of business capital investment is likely to be the most important single determinant of the trend of the economy during the next year. Investment has increased by about 20 per cent in each of the past three years. Any major fall from this rate of advance, when Ottawa announces its investment forecast early in 1967, would point to an easing in demands for labour, materials and credit.
Housing could play an important role in 1967. The decline in housing starts from 166,000 in 1965 to about 135,000 in 1966, besides moderating demands for labour and materials, has diminished the shortterm prospects for sale of household appliances and furniture. An upturn in housing starts would take up some of the slack, if business investment weakens. Early action by Ottawa to increase direct lending would probably indicate the authorities believed the economy needs stimulation.
Weakness in auto sales in both Canada and the United States in 1966 was one of the first hints that the boom might have run its course. Continuation of this trend into 1967 would transmit weakness to a wide range of other industries, such as the steel, glass, paint, and rubber industries. If sales recover, it would help put some bounce back into the economy.
If we do not do something in the way of stimulating building and it drops back again in 1967 the result will be increased rentals of homes, apartments and other types of dwellings. This is turn will cause more inflation.
Let us take a good look at the auto pact. We know of the difficulties being experienced in the Oshawa area at the present time as pointed out by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) yesterday. It is hardly feasible that at automobile made in Canada should be sold in the United States for $500 less than the Canadian price. These inequities must be considered. Surely it is our responsibility and duty as members of parliament to look into these matters.
It has been my pleasure to serve on the joint committee on consumer credit and the committee on trade, finance and economic affairs. It has been difficult at times to attend
February 9, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Irvine the meetings of both committees because they often sit at the same time. It has been suggested that the government should establish a department of consumer affairs. I suggest there is such a body now in existence in the committee on consumer credit. It would cost a great deal of money to set up a ministry of this kind. A minister would have to be named along with the deputy and various other officials and staff. Such a ministry would extend outward from Ottawa into various constituencies, creating a local super snooper in each riding.
Surely it is the responsibility of all members of parliament to act as liaison officers between consumer groups and appropriate federal agencies. I suggest this is the procedure which should be followed in respect of consumer credit and prices. Representations should be made by members of parliament, and they in turn should voice these representations at meetings of this joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons.
The establishment of a ministry in respect of consumers would cost millions of dollars each year with no more advantages than now exist as the result of the established joint committee. Members of parliament can always discuss things on friendly terms with the chairmen of committees. Sometimes it is very difficult for members to get satisfaction from ministers or departmental officials.
The committee on consumer credit is doing a good job and is working hard. The members of that committee are already receiving remuneration for their efforts. Let us make this a permanent committee in order that the people can make representations to parliament without having to go through an unnecessary and expensive procedure.
On August 3, 1964, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was reported as having said that the Dominion Bureau of Statistics reported that there was an increase in employees under government control during March of last year. This increase was set out as follows: in National Defence, 2,181; in the Post Office Department, 2,368; in the National Revenue Department, 2,652; in Public Works, 414, and in the Department of the Secretary of State, 135.
This report also indicated that there was an increase of 629 in the number of employees in the Department of Trade and Commerce, in spite of the fact another department was established. It also indicated an increase in the staff of the unemployment insurance commission. The total of these increases in

staff amounted to 9,896. Using an average income for these people of $7,000 per year-and I am sure the average would be higher-this would amount to an additional $70 million. That is an example of exactly what can take place.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Let me say something about training of skilled workers in this country. We have been bringing skilled employees from other countries to fill our needs in Canada. Surely we should give consideration to the training of our own people for specialized jobs. On November 21, 1960 the then minister of labour, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), presented a resolution to this house which was followed by a bill stipulating that the federal government should pay 75 per cent of the total cost of constructing educational and vocational training schools in Canada. This program was to be administered provincially, and 25 per cent of the cost was to have been picked up by the provincial government. Based on agreements signed on June 1, 1960, all the provinces of Canada with the exception of Quebec immediately came into this orbit, and I believe they followed suit some six months later.
I have seen the work in these schools. I know in particular the work carried out in the Thames Vocational School in the city of London, which I have visited on many occasions. They cater to people who do not have the academic ability to go further than this type of training. They teach people in machine shop work, as mechanics, and various vocations of this type. I know many people who have been trained at this school and have gone out and filled their place in society. If we do not do something for them, I am sure that sooner or later we will have to contribute to their welfare by way of social security programs, which of course shatters their confidence in themselves and do not improve their ability to work in any field.
We have in our area the Sir Wilfrid Laurier school. I am very proud of the fact that I had not only the privilege of opening this school but of presenting a picture of Sir Wilfrid Laurier to the students. I was proud to do this because I recognize this man as one of the outstanding Canadian statesmen of all time. It was a pleasure to have the privilege of making this presentation. A third school is in the process of construction at the present time. However, Mr. Speaker, I submit that we need more of these schools. From June 1, 1961, to September 30, 1966, there were 814 of
February 9, 1967	COMMONS
this type of school, classrooms or additions constructed in Canada at a total cost of $1,250,000,000, with a student capacity of approximately 380,000 for vocational and training.
I submit that we have a large group of people, and always will have, who require this type of training and we should continue this plan. I was very much dismayed when on October 26 last the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made the statement in this house that his government was phasing out this program. I am sure we will rue that day. I am also sure we will have to come back to this program in four, five or ten years time. I ask what is to happen in the interval with respect to that group of people who do not receive this kind of training. Will they become charges upon their municipalities? Will they become victims of our society, having to receive support from some of our social welfare programs?
If this program is to be carried on in any way after the federal government opts out of it or phases it out, the whole burden of the cost will have to be carried by the municipalities; and they cannot afford this sort of thing because they are already overtaxed. We need these facilities to train workers in order to increase our productivity and meet the growing demands of what we might call an affluent society. By increasing productivity we can in some way help to relieve the inflationary pressures which now exist.
Let us turn to the university level. Let us think in terms of the medicare bill which passed recently and will become operative July 1, 1968. I would ask the government this pertinent question:	Where will we obtain
sufficient doctors to make this plan work? I did a little checking on this matter with the University of Western Ontario and with the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) to ascertain whether my figures were correct. In Canada at the present time we have one medical practitioner for approximately 900 persons. In the United States they have one medical practitioner for every 700 persons. We graduate annually about 800 medical practitioners, but the drain-off to the United States is approximately 200, or 25 per cent. However, in recent years this drain-off has been compensated by the immigration of doctors, mostly from England, to the extent of about 400 per year.
In the past, if a person had a cut on his little finger he put a piece of tape on the cut and suffered the discomfort. However, Mr. The Budget-Mr. Irvine Speaker, when you have a medicare plan I think it is only natural that people will request further treatment. To cope with this demand we will need many more doctors. We will also need more teaching facilities in our universities to produce more doctors. The opinion I received from the medical school was that out of 100 doctors who graduate there is one person who is qualified as having the ability and desire to impart knowledge by teaching. Then we get into the area of being short of teachers in a profession that will be overworked. Something must be done by way of providing aid and incentive to keep doctors in Canada. I do not know what can be done in this respect, but I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen)-I am sorry he is not in the chamber this evening-is giving this question serious thought, because it has become a very serious problem.
Another question that arises is as to how we will be able to increase the number of hospital beds available to those in need? We need a continuance of the program for technical and vocational training. We need a continuance of and a great expansion in university facilities to provide this training. Some two or three weeks ago-and I recognize the fact that the minister is a very busy man-I made representations by mail to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) asking that I might have an audience with him to discuss this very subject. As yet I have not had an audience with him. I am sure that when he has an opportunity he will discuss this matter with me, because I have found him to be a very understanding person every time I have had the occasion to approach him with a problem.
If we are to expand our university training facilities we shall have to increase the 10 per cent ceiling on charitable donations if they are for the purpose of expanding the facilities in our universities. We shall have to increase it from 10 per cent to 25 per cent, because if we do not obtain the money in this way to provide these facilities we will have to obtain it in some other way. We must provide this extra university training before we can make the medicare plan work-and it must work.
I hope the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue will get together and give this question some very serious thought before the preparation of the 1967 budget. I think now, in our centennial year, is the time for every person in the house and in the country to be proud to call themselves Canadians, and I am sure they are. I believe it is time we got down to business. I believe it

February 9, 1967
The Budget-Mr. Reid is time we obtained a little business acumen in government affairs. I know it has been said that you cannot run a government like a business because it is not exactly the same thing; but you can incorporate many business ideas into government, and I am sure if we did this it would be very helpful.
Let us cut and pare, particularly when dealing with the estimates for the coming fiscal year, every unnecessary expenditure. Let us get on with the job evaluation program. Let us get down to the basics of running this as we would run a business, and let it be resolved that we save, not waste, and that we do everything we can to stop this incessant empire building. When the estimates come before us in the next fiscal year I think we should be really tough.
[DOT] (9:20 pjn.)
There is one other item with which I should like to deal very briefly. I received a letter dated yesterday from a person in my riding who will have to remain anonymous, and who wrote:
I believe some time ago you brought the question before the house and Mr. Pearson stated that there were no funds available for any increase in retired civil servants' pensions.
Then he says that if they could only get a $10 or $15 a month increase it would be a big help, even if it were given on a means test. He encloses in his letter a clipping out of the London Free Press of February 7, 1967. It reads as follows:
The pension fund of the federal civil service had a balance of $2,390,383,091 last year and is drawing more in interest than it pays out in retirement benefits.
In the fiscal year ending last March 31, interest amounted to $89,499,085 and benefits to $69,906,914. The previous year's interest was $78,715,785 and benefits $64,160,629.
In view of the fact that the money is there, that these people have paid it in, and that many of them have retired, five, 10 or 15 years ago, some of them on a pension of $50 a month, I think that this should be reviewed right away. The money belongs to these people and I think that this should be re-assessed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Walker:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


The Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on a matter which is often spoken about in

the house but which perhaps requires action rather than words. I should like to speak of education and educational expenses, although in a purely constitutional sense as it affects this house, instead of wasting my time on dreams which do not take into consideration the present constitutional realities in Canada.
The proposition I wish to put forward has to do with the income tax. I think it has a great deal to recommend it, particularly the factor of simplicity. At the present time the government of Canada allows students attending universities and institutions beyond the secondary school level to deduct from their income tax the money they pay out in tuition. This is fine as far as it goes and it certainly has been of assistance to a great many Canadians, particularly people like myself who have found that because of this exemption in one year they were able to continue their education in another year when they were particularly short of funds.
The suggestion which I should like to make is that the government should allow students from areas where there are no universities to deduct from their income tax, or that of their parents, the money that they have to spend for room and board. As an example I should like to refer to myself, when I was attending the University of Manitoba. I lived in a town called Atikokan but I attended the university in Winnipeg. I had to pay room and board, and this was the biggest single expense that I had to bear; the tuition fees were a secondary matter. I understand that nowadays tuition fees have gone up considerably, and now they have become a bigger obstacle for people coming from rural areas and wishing to attend universities in the city.
I suggest that under such a program people rwho live in a city where a university is available should not be exempted, because they have already the option of either staying at home or not. A student coming from an area like mine has no option at all. He must pay room and board if he wishes to attend a university because there are no universities in these areas. Another factor to their disadvantage is that the standard of living in these areas is below that which is in existence in cities. Also the standard of education is not as high, and other facilities such as night schools, correspondence courses or extension courses are not as easily available, if at all. Therefore this is a very important consideration.
In view of the fact that job opportunities for students during the summer months are diminishing as the number of students attending
February 9, 1967

universities increases, students who wish to work their way through college are less often able to do so. In fact for many students this opportunity has disappeared completely.
The second suggestion which I should like to make has to do with federal aid to universities. I recognize, as do most hon. members in the house, that university education is a matter of provincial responsibility. I understand also that the federal government does participate in certain aspects of education, namely in manpower training. However, it does so mainly because of its overriding responsibility for unemployment, and not because it can participate legitimately in education. And yet this happens to come under federal jurisdiction. Nevertheless there are other areas in which the federal government does have responsibility. For example there is the area of the federal government's control over interprovincial truck transportation. Provincial trucking agencies are the responsibility of the provinces, but interprovincial trucking agencies come under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
One of the problems that is facing Canadian universities today is the fact that more students are crossing provincial boundaries to attend university. I am a perfect example of this. I was raised in Ontario and I attended university in Manitoba. It seems to me that just as the federal government has legitimately exerted its jurisdiction in interprovincial trucking, it can also exercise a certain amount of jurisdiction over students who are crossing provincial boundaries to attend universities on the other side. I suggest that the government provide capital funds to universities in which a certain proportion of students come either from outside the country or from other provinces. It should also redeem its promise to provide 10,000 scholarships and to award them to students who attend universities outside their province. It seems to me that this would avoid the constitutional confusion which exists at present, and which prevents the government from assisting in this particular problem. I do not think this would impose a greater burden on the universities and it would provide capital funds for a number of institutions.
I am not suggesting that the government do more than it does at present. As a matter of fact the Department of Indian Affairs and Norther Development does provide capital grants to municipal schools to make available a certain number of places for
The Budget-Mr. Winkler the education of Indians. All I am proposing is something that is in existence already and that is being done in a very successful way. I think that the government might take these two suggestions under consideration as their 1967 centennial project.


Mr. Clancy:: May I say to the hon. member who just sat down that I congratulate his father for sending him to university and that I also send him my regrets for the fact that he had to do so.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I thank the Minister of Transport for applauding. I also try to give him as much support as I can.
I regret that the time given me is so short. If I had more time I would have been able to conclude the subject matter before me. However, I am apt to break my train of thought because of the restrictions imposed on me by the shortage of time.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I know that if the minister were in the house he would say that there is another member of the opposition who is trying to tell him how to spend money. The government endeavoured to curtail debate when we were discussing estimates, but in such a debate as this one has an opportunity to advise the government how to spend the funds that are available through taxation.
Tonight, because this is our centennial year and because a certain situation was brought to my attention not too many days ago, I should like to place this matter before the house and the country. This is National Heart Foundation week and I think this matter is an appropriate subject for debate. A few evenings ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) was singing his own praises in regard to the medicare program and the benefits which will flow to Canadians. At one point in his address, when dealing with the question of facilities, and so on, the minister said:
But whether we have medicare or not, we will never have a sufficient supply of personnel and facilities.
This matter was brought to my attention, Mr. Speaker, through a program on the C.B.C. directed by a Mr. Bob Cohen of the press gallery. I found the program very topical and I should like to read an extract from the script in order to put my thoughts on the record:
Canada's medical researchers have just gone through their annual week of meetings.
February 9, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Winkler
These were held at the Chateau Laurier here in Ottawa.
But these seemed to be sessions with a different flavour. Canada's medical scientists are getting more and more anxious about the federal government's lack of support of their research. Last year at this time the government was handed the now-famous Gundy report on medical research in Canada. Charles Gundy is a Toronto financier and chairman of the Hospital for Sick Children. The report said there would be no staff for Canadian medical schools unless the government gave more money for research done by teacher-scientists.
This is the nub of the matter, Mr. Speaker. I believe the teacher-scientist problem is the great one.
Without it, the report suggested, the professional people needed to staff Canada's medical schools would not be attracted to either stay in Canada or come here.
Well, one year later, virtually nothing has happened, The government has expressed sympathy with the researchers' needs. But as one doctor said, "We don't want sympathy, we want firm government policy." Sometimes governments need a bit of a push from outside to establish policy.
I know that this body does not want to become a political pressure group, but I recognize their need. Then the script goes on to point out that the Canadian Association for the Advancement of Health Sciences was established in order to impress upon the government the need in this particular field.
In our centennial year, Mr. Speaker, one of the great things that can be done by Canada is to establish such a program in order to eliminate disease in the world through the means of increased research and scientific development. This would be a lasting monument in this year of celebration that is before us. The government has in many other ways seen fit to spend large sums of money, with which expenditure perhaps I do not disagree. On the other hand, we have commissions and boards spending millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money on projects which are not necessarily what the people of Canada want. They are forced upon the people by the government at a time when a massive, centennial project such as this would be a good and lasting monument throughout the world in this great year of ours.
I shall have to skip a lot of this text, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to bring to the attention of the house and the country one development which has arisen from this meeting of researchers. I should like to draw attention to an invention by a young medical doctor and researcher whom I have known
very slightly during the last few years. The text goes on:
The most exciting research news to come out of the meeting concerns a unique heart operation which promises to be eventually an outstanding procedure for curing the possibly fatal effects of heart attack. It was invented by Dr. Ray Heim-becker, a 43-year-old Toronto surgeon. His research work on the procedure earned him this year's royal college medal in surgery.
This young man, who fortunately had the facilities and the wherewithal to follow up his important work, is making a contribution to Canada and to mankind that cannot be overlooked by the members of this house and by all Canadians. I know that the whole world will benefit from this young man's efforts, and I also know he will also have that satisfaction which comes from hard and earnest endeavour in his chosen profession.
I have before me a letter from the Canadian Heart Foundation which is addressed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and reads as follows:
The provisional committee of the Canadian Association for the Advancement of the Health Sciences is alarmed at the disastrous consequences that would flow from any restraint, even temporary, on the growth of research in Canada. More particularly, we draw your attention to the need to recruit over one thousand teacher-scientists-
Again there is stress upon the teacher-scientist aspect of the profession.
-in the health field to staff our universities in the next five years. Research is essential to the recruitment of this personnel.
We reaffirm the recommendations of the Gundy report as necessary to change the climate of medical research in Canada and urge the government to give an early indication of its long term plans for a drive for medical manpower.
In view of the fact that we are celebrating Heart Foundation Week and that this problem has been with us for some time, I think we should expect some announcement of massive assistance in this as well as in related fields.
Also on the same subject, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read a letter written to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) written by Charles L . Gundy as follows:
The governments in Canada have made it evident that they wish to maintain a first class health care service. It is recognized that to achieve this there must be suitable facilities for medical research and education.
The accompanying report-


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Hurry up.


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I have that again?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I said, hurry up.

February 9, 1967


Eric Alfred Winkler: I do not have sufficient time to permit me to say all I should on this matter, but I will do my best.
The accompanying report, "Medical Research in Canada", examines in detail the vital role of medical research in attaining the highest possible standards in the fields of medical education, health care and health services.
The report considers it urgent to establish a favourable medical research environment in Canada which will encourage teacher-scientists-
Once more stress is placed on this teacher-scientist aspect of the question.
-to remain in Canada and in teaching and research, which will attract back to Canadian universities-[DOT]
There has been a tremendous flow of these people out of this country.
-teacher-scientists and graduates now working elsewhere for lack of opportunity in Canada, and which will encourage undergraduates to pursue medical research as a career.
The report states that a failure to establish such an environment in Canada will result in erosion of the standards of Canadian medical schools and the quality of health care provided to the Canadian people.
To establish a favourable medical research environment, the report recommends a major increase in federal government support-
Which is what I am asking for, Mr. Speaker-
-of extramural medical research. Such financial support should be accompanied by a federal government policy statement to assure scientists and potential scientists that there is, and will continue to be, a good future for medical research in this country.
The idea for this report originated in conversations with scientific friends, particularly among the Canadian Society for Clinical Investigation and the staff of The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto. These friends told me of their alarm at the shortage of funds for medical research in Canada and the seriousness of the threat this held for the future of medical standards. Accordingly, Woods, Gordon & Co., management consultants, was commissioned to prepare a study of the problem which led to the report we are now presenting to you.
A list of those endorsing this report is attached-
-and so on.
This report is one of the most comprehensive reports that one could ever read, Mr. Speaker. I contains the material to prove that there is a need and it illustrates what is happening. In this regard I have an editorial in front of me which points out that the $500 million established by the government in the health resources fund is insufficient, that we need a minimum of $100 million a year. The grants the government has been supplying up to the tune of $12 million a year I am sure the house realizes are quite inadequate to meet
The Budget-Mr. Winkler requirements. These amounts are minimal. The stress, as I have said, is upon preparing medical students with ability for the teacher-scientist field.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
This is a priority. The priority should be for medical research and education, as stated by Dr. Merriman, Associate Professor of Medicine in Saskatchewan. When we realize what we spend per capita for this purpose in Canada and compare it with what is being spent in the United States, we realize something lacks in our thinking in this field. They spend in the United States more than 100 per cent more than we spend in Canada-far more. Last year in the United States, from one source alone, the sum raised was $1,072 million. When we realize how much we depend on foreign medical services, on immigrants from other countries, also bearing in mind that we lose as many people to the United States as any other country loses, something should be done. Nothing would be more fitting for our centennial year than a government supported program such as I have talked about. Every member of the house would support it enthusiastically.
I have time to read one short extract from the Gundy report to show the status of research in Canada. Actually, the report covers the entire field. The quotation is as follows:
Research is today an absolutely essential element in the oreparation of young doctors and in the continuing education of established physicians. A medical school can no longer prepare a doctor with the detailed procedures for diagnosis which he will need throughout his later career. The whole art is changing much too fast... medical schools must concentrate on imparting a broad grasp of the basic principles of medicine, and skill in applying these general principles to specific cases. Above all, they must help their students to understand how medical investigation produces new knowledge and how one evaluates the new findings as they appear. This means in turn that most students in good medical schools today must learn the research attitude, even though a majority of them may never become full-fledged research workers themselves.
Brief as that was, lacking in detail as it is, and I wish it had more detail-I am glad that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has just walked in-the extract does permit me to say this. The best centennial project the government of Canada could embark upon would be a massive program in support of research. We need teachers and facilities. I believe that such a program would be the best dedication we could make to our centennial year. It would be to the benefit of all mankind.

February 9, 1967
Division


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 9.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty pursuant to section 5 of standing order 58 to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on any amendment before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Stewart:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Digby-Annapo-lis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Cameron (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Ormiston). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mrs. Wadds:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the adjournment of this debate.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that the question be placed on the main motion?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the adjournment of this debate.
February 9, 1967	COMMONS
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, some days ago the Attorney General of the Province of Ontario, Mr. Wishart, made a statement in the Ontario legislature to the effect that Ontario Provincial Police were using wire-tapping equipment for investigation purposes. I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) the following day whether or not the government was giving consideration to the implementation of legislation in this regard. I also asked whether the government would agree to send this whole matter to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs for study. The minister stated that he felt no useful purpose would be served by such referral.
I believe it was Mr. Justice Holmes, that famous United States Supreme Court Justice, who said that wire-tapping is a dirty business. We as Canadians in the past have tended to think if we simply ignore problems, if we do not talk about them and do not admit their existence they will somehow or another go away. Unfortunately it has become obvious in recent years that wire-tapping is taking place in Canada extensively, and police forces as well as private investigation agencies are involved.
A royal commission at the present time is investigating charges of wire-tapping in British Columbia. During the course of the hearings of that commission an R.C.M.P. corporal is reported in the Vancouver Sun of December 7, 1966, as having used this method of investigation. That article in part states:
Richards said he had used listening devices during his 15 years with the R.C.M.P.
He said he had done a two-week course in Ottawa on operating tape recorders with listening devices and was familiar with equipment which does not need wires.
Richards said he has used listening devices in the city of Vancouver on instructions from a higher authority.
An alderman of the city of Saskatoon said that in 1965 he discovered that on the instructions of the chief of police the only telephone available to prisoners in the city jail
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion had been tapped so that police could listen in to phone calls made by prisoners who were awaiting sentence or transfer, or individuals who were in jail but not yet tried. Let me point out that telephone calls of prisoners to their lawyers are highly confidential, and under our law should not be listened to by police.
In 1964 a Toronto Star columnist, Ron Haggart, documented a case of wire-tapping in the city of Toronto. In his column he referred to the name of the officer, the licence number of the R.C.M.P. vehicle used and other pertinent facts.
Bell Telephone officials in the city of Toronto who were interviewed by the Globe and Mail admitted that wire-tapping was taking place, and said it was being done by police officials. It is understood that when it is done by police officials prosecutions were not being pursued.
Members of this house have heard a great deal about the Dorion inquiry. Testimony was given before that inquiry by R.C.M.P. officials that they had wire-tapping equipment and were prepared to use it. Let me quote from page 4815 of the transcript of the Dorion commission. An R.C.M.P. officer, Inspector Carrier, was asked the following question:
Mr. Carrier, do you presently have at your disposal. or did you at that time have, that is to say, did you have at your disposal the necessary technical means to tape, amongst other things, telephone conversations?
The answer was, "Yes." Then at page 4816 Mr. Carrier was asked this question:
Mr. Carrier, does the word "cover", in your mind, simply mean that Mr. Crevier was to sit beside another telephone and listen to the conversation, or could it not also have meant tape the ongoing conversation?
A. It could mean either, either to listen or to record it.
Therefore, it seems to me there is no question that the evidence is conclusive that wiretapping is going on. Newspapers from one end of Canada to the other have written editorials in recent years deploring wire-tapping and calling for legislation to outlaw it. I will not quote them tonight, but I would like to quote a couple of paragraphs from a submission made to the royal commission on civil rights appointed by the Ontario government. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, an organization in Toronto which includes some
12880	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of the most respected and best known lawyers in the city of Toronto, made a submission to Mr. Justice McRuer. This association said, under the heading, "The Existing Law":
Amazingly enough, there appears to be no legislation of any practical consequence which inhibits scientific invasions of privacy in this jurisdiction. The Criminal Code contains no specific provisions of this nature.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the quotations the hon. member has just put on the record I cannot give any more specific answer than the one I gave the other day, to the effect that I did not think it would be useful to have this matter referred to a parliamentary committee. The reason is that the whole question of wire-tapping is being studied, not only by the department but by a commission of inquiry in British Columbia, and will no doubt also be part of the study made by a commission on crime.
The hon. member referred to wire-tapping as a "dirty business." I would prefer to refer to it as a very difficult problem. I think no one would contradict the stand taken by the hon. member in connection with the protection of civil rights, the independence of individuals and the right to carry on conversations without being overheard. However, I think the hon. member will also realize that an important aspect of our life is the prevention of crime, and national security.
This is one of the problems that government has to resolve. It is a two-edged sword and the question of wire-tapping is not an easy problem to resolve. Wire-tapping is only incidental to a whole series of electronic devices in this area. I feel it is not something with regard to which a decision can be easily or lightly reached.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I believe that the study which will be undertaken in British Columbia will be useful to us. The studies which are now going on in the department as a result of the suggestions made during the meeting of attorneys-general a year ago have also been very useful. However I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North will appreciate fully the difficulties involved and the necessity for coming up with a solution which will in fact bring protection to honest citizens and at the same time permit the government to prevent crime and to

DEBATES	February 9, 1967
protect our national security. This is what we are trying to do.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL-FAILURE OF ARMED FORCES TATTOO TO APPEAR IN KOOTENAYS

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding which is very interested in celebrating our centennial year both by public events and by projects that have been carried on, even in some of the quite small communities. Quite recently they heard through the press, on television and on radio, about the proposals for the tattoo train which will be visiting various parts of Canada in the near future. The matter was brought to a head by persons who read the magazine "The Legionary" which is read by about 10,000 people in my riding. I want to quote from this magazine for the minister's information. It reads in part as follows:
The Canadian armed forces will play a large part in Canada's centennial celebrations by taking one of the greatest road shows in Canada's history across the nation.
From St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, British Columbia, Canadians will have the opportunity of seeing the Canadian armed forces tattoo which will be the principal contribution of the services to Canada's centennial celebrations. This colourful spectacle will provide the ultimate in military entertainment within the framework of the development of Canada's armed forces from their French and British origins to our time.
Scheduled to appear at 40 locations across Canada during 1967, the tattoo will feature music, pageantry, colour-sweeping spotlights, history, action, comedy, fantasy and variety to provide entertainment, while at the same time making use of a subtle historical line to link the various scenes.
This was read by a number of people and then the matter was discussed at various meetings of the Legion and of other organizations in my constituency.
I should like to quote a letter which I received from J. C. Hall, president, Pacific Command, Royal Canadian Legion, who happens to be a resident of Trail. It reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Herridge:
It has been brought to my attention that the Centennial armed forces train which will be travelling across Canada and performing a tattoo at various locations, will not be stopping over in either the East or West Kootenays.
A number of veterans and other citizens have brought this to my attention hoping that the government can be persuaded to have either one or the other section of the trains make a stop in the Kootenays.
As you are aware, the Centennial train itself, is making a short stop of one day in Castlegar, which is considered by the commission to be a central location for some 67,000 residents in this area.
February 9, 1967	COMMONS
This particular location will involve the transportation of thousands of school children a distance over mountain highways of up to 100 miles in order for them to enjoy the Centennial train, which their parents, as taxpayers have contributed to.
In view of the fact, that we have been informed that no change in arrangements for the Centennial trains schedule can be made at this late date,
I hope you can convince the government to take a second look at the schedule for the tattoo train to bring it into the Kootenays.
As a result of that letter and of other correspondence which I received from various persons in Kootenay West I asked the following question in the house on February 6:
I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence based on representations from Kootenay West and Kootenay East. Can the minister inform the house why the Canadian armed forces tattoo "Red Train" will not appear in any place in the Kootenays, British Columbia, during centennial year?
At that time, Mr. Speaker, you kindly informed me that this was not the type of question which should be asked at that time. I am therefore taking this opportunity to bring this matter to the attention of the Associate Minister of National Defence and I shall listen with interest to his reply to my plea.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the tattoo itinerary was planned with a great deal of care, bearing in mind that it was intended to take the spectacle to as wide a cross section of the populace as possible. However, from the outset this planning was dominated by a series of rigid criteria, the more significant ones being as follows:
First, the availability of indoor performance facilities from one end of the country to the other at a time of year when arenas were still normally involved with various hockey schedules.
Second, certain anchor dates requiring the tattoo to be in given locations at specified
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion times of year; for example, Expo '67, the C.N.E., and Ottawa as the federal capital.
Third, a mandatory release date for the trains, since the railways required much of the rolling stock used by the tattoo for other purposes before the end of June, 1967.
Fourth, recognition of the fact that, whilst revenue from the tattoo was not necessarily the guiding principle in selecting out of the way performance centres, costs had to be kept continually in mind and responsible judgments reached on the areas in which it would not be economically feasible to appear.
Add to these criteria the fact that there was little more than a six-month period within which to complete the entire project and it will be readily appreciated that there were many deserving areas in which the tattoo could not be presented. The Kootenays happens to be one of these places.
In planning tattoo appearances with the province of British Columbia, Victoria and Vancouver were naturally chosen. Prince George and Kelowna were selected as two additional locations, but only after such factors as time, communications, performance facilities and their availability, geographical situation, and population had been carefully considered. Early in the planning phase these choices were submitted to and approved by the British Columbia centennial committee, which recognized the factors influencing the selection.
The itinerary was therefore approved. It is not considered possible at this time to reexamine the question without jeopardizing the whole program. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the hon. member that this matter will again be referred to the officials, and if I am given any encouragement I will certainly communicate with the hon. member. I will try to do my best to see whether we can accommodate the Kootenays.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Friday, February 10, 1967