1967-06-06

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 6, 1967

Mr. Gerard Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the house to table, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the French and English texts of the cultural agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the kingdom of Belgium.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Israeli army having established for Israel the right to live, if today's press reports are correct, I would now ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make a statement to the house as to what progress, if any, is being made to bring about a cease fire. I realize that the United Nations security council will not meet until this afternoon, but I wonder if the Prime Minister is in a position to give some information to the people of Canada. I have found out that they are most anxious to know what is going on. While secrecy is important, at the same time as far as possible they should be able to secure information in this house rather than indirectly through the press.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the security council has been meeting, but more importantly the members of the security council have been discussing among themselves a resolution calling for an immediate cease fire. Those discussions have not resulted in an agreement among all the members of the security council on the terms of such a cease fire resolution. I believe the discussions are continuing at this moment with a view to a meeting of the security council later this afternoon.
We can hope there will be agreement among all the members, including the U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom, France and the United States of America on the terms of such a resolution. We can hope for that, but it is premature to say that it has been achieved. It is being considered at the moment, and as soon as there is any more definite information I would of course be very glad to give it to the house. But while these discussions are going on, and our own ambassador is participating in them, it is difficult for me to say more.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I realize the limitations and I have a suggestion to make for consideration by the government; namely, that a secret session of the house should take place so that members may be given some idea as to what is the general situation, provided that a cease fire is not determined on in the meantime by the United Nations security council. In any event, regardless of whether it is or is not, I suggest that the estimates of the Department of External Affairs should be presented, if possible tomorrow, so that discussion may take place on this matter that exercises the hearts of free men everywhere.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it would be possible and perhaps desirable to arrange for a discussion in connection with the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. I believe they would have to be brought back from the standing committee for that purpose; however, that could be easily done. It might be desirable to do that on Thursday, which is a longer day, but it could be done tomorrow if the situation required it.
So far as a secret session is concerned, this naturally would be held only in conditions of emergency. I am not suggesting that it might not be desirable to have a secret session, but at the moment I do not think it would be as useful as a public discussion. I shall keep in touch with my right hon. friend and the leaders of the other parties before we introduce the external affairs estimates tomorrow or Thursday, and if the situation requires some unusual procedure of the kind suggested perhaps we could agree on that.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I ask

June 6, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry him if it is a fact that the U.A.R. has severed diplomatic relations with the United States and, second, that Iraq, Kuwait and Algeria have decided to cut off oil deliveries to the United States and Britain because of their alleged support of Israel, and that there is speculation that Saudi Arabia and Libya may join such a boycott.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, this is the report that I have seen. It has not been received officially from any of our embassies, but I believe this happens to be the case.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. While we all hope that a cease fire can be effected, and the terms of such an agreement are extremely important for the future peace and stability of the Middle East and indeed of the whole world, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if we can have assurance that the Canadian representative on the security council will urge that the terms of any cease fire include some provision for guaranteed access to the gulf of Aqaba by Israel, and a program for dealing with the problem of the Arab refugees.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, of course the question of most immediate importance is to stop the fighting. The resolution in question should do that. Discussions have been going on during most of the night, as a matter of fact, concerning the terms of what would appear to be such a simple resolution. While I do agree that this is the immediate objective, there should also be an arrangement made, if possible, in connection with this crisis so that a cease fire would not mean merely a return to the situation which existed before the cease fire. Whether it is possible to do that in a resolution which concerns also a cease fire or in a separate and subsequent resolution is one of the questions now being considered. In any event a cease fire will not be effective, except as a cease fire, if it means further action will be necessary through diplomatic or other channels to fight out the problem of access to the gulf of Aqaba. So this is a most complicated question. There is the necessity of stopping the fighting at once, and at the same time of doing more than stopping the fighting, to ensure that it will not recur.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand from the Prime Minister's remarks that the Canadian representative will be taking the
[Mr. DieJenbaker.l
position that any resolution calling for a cessation of hostilities will not require that Israel, for instance, withdraw from Sharm el Sheik in the event that Israel holds a position which guarantees access to the strait of Tiran?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The terms of the resolution are being discussed not only by our representative but at this very moment I believe by the representatives of the U.S.S.R., the U.K., France and the United States of America. If it is possible for all members of the security council to agree on a resolution, including the four permanent members I have mentioned, I think it would be a happy result.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not think it is desirable to be realistic as well as idealistic? Does he not believe that start lines are equally important in the question of a cease fire? In other words is it meant what was the position at that time of what took place last Sunday or a fortnight ago? Surely it is quite unrealistic merely to ask the belligerents to put down arms where they stand in the event that there are actually Arab incursions into Israel or Israeli incursions into Egypt.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the representatives of the governments I mentioned, the U.S.S.R., the U.K., the United States of America, France and Canada, as well as others who are discussing this matter, are trying to do it in very realistic terms.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is practically a supplementary one to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Supposing the security council adopts, later on today, a resolution on the ceasefire in Israel and the United Arab Republic, what guarantee do we have that the belligerent countries will in fact cease fire, if the security council does adopt such a resolution?
Is the situation not so complicated that one does not know exactly what is going on, and what will be the attitude of the government in that eventuality, that is if the adopted resolution is not respected by the belligerents?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; this is a hypothetical situation in respect of which I hope I will not be asked to give a final opinion. I would point out, however, that if a
June 6, 1967	COMMONS
resolution should be adopted which is agreeable to both the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. on a matter of this kind, that in itself would be quite a guarantee.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the truce supervisory organization headquarters was overrun, what provision has been made for re-establishment of the headquarters to either receive or issue directives, and what provision has been made for the safety of the personnel of this supervisory commission which I think has 20 Canadians on it?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, we have no information at the moment that would suggest Canadian personnel with the United Nations truce and supervisory organization have been personnally affected in terms of their personal security by the situation in the Middle East. UNTSO has now taken up new headquarters, but I cannot give my hon. friend information as to exactly where because I do not have it.
I may say that General Rikhye, Commander of the United Nations emergency force, has been cut off from the main body of this force and I believe some 20 members of UNEF are with him, as well as two representatives of the United Nations truce supervisory organization.


Mr, Olson:: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister tell us whether communications have been re-established between the organization and UN headquarters in New York?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: As of twelve o'clock, no.


Mr. W. B. Nesbill (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As far as is possible and appropriate, can we be informed as to the approximate positions of the Arab and Egyptian armies? Has Egyptian territory been invaded and, if so, to what extent? Has the Egyptian army invaded Israel and, if so, to what extent?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it has not been possible for our officials on the spot to obtain any information from the governments in question as to where their forces are at the present time.
DEBATES	1187
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Following a United Nations security council resolution calling for a cease fire, would it automatically be backed up by UN troops?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not necessarily, Mr. Speaker. The resolutions being considered now during these informal discussions are resolutions which do not include implementation by the use of force.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Will he indicate to the house how a cease fire could be arranged if there is no general knowledge as to the approximate positions of the troops?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, that also was my question, one that was rather obvious.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. According to an air force protocol officer much valuable equipment was left by the Canadians in the Gaza strip, and according to him this has been lost. Will the minister inform the house as to the value of this equipment?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): That is not my information, Mr. Speaker. The only Canadian equipment left behind of which I have knowledge are two generators and two mule forklift trucks. They were a number of years old and had served their usefulness to the extent that the commander felt they were not worth retrieving. Therefore, to the best of my information, all national property was retrieved. Any other equipment that was left in Egypt belongs to the United Nations.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could send the minister this statement in order that he may check into it.


Mr. Hellyer:: I would be glad to do so. [Lafer:l


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the inability or reluctance of the Prime Minister to tell the house what is the relative position of the respective forces in the belligerent area in the Middle East, I wonder whether perhaps

June 6, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry the Department of External Affairs could consult the correspondents of the C.B.C. who have been sent from Ottawa to the battle scene to report back to us by radio, to see whether they could advise us as to the exact location of the forces.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The positions of the forces may have changed since my hon. friend asked the question fifteen minutes ago.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Solicitor General. In view of the widespread interest in the right of privacy, as the most valuable right of civilized man, has the government given consideration to the introduction of legislation after the fashion of the bill introduced by the member for Kootenay West, to provide that wire tapping and eavesdropping be prohibited except for the administration of justice and the security of the nation?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will be pleased to learn that I have not changed the views I expressed some time ago in relation to a private member's bill; but I believe I ought to await the report of the royal commission on security before making a final decision.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. Mention was made of the royal commission on security. Would the minister say whether that commission is now sitting, where it has its location so that representations may be made to it, and whether it intends to sit in various parts of the country?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I have not been in close touch with the commission. I expect to appear before them as a witness very shortly here in Ottawa. To the best of my knowledge and subject to confirmation, they have restricted their hearings to date to this city.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Solicitor General whether the terms of reference of the commission include the area of wire tapping and bugging, or were the terms of reference restricted to security provisions within the public service?
(Mr. Lambert.]


Lawrence T. Pennell: The terms of reference, of course, are a matter to be determined by the members of the commission, but I recall that the terms include investigation into security matters keeping in mind both the interests of the state and the rights of the individual.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Does the minister intend to make a statement in the house in connection with the meetings held between the Quebec ministers and the C.N.T.U. leaders with regard to the intentions of the C.L.R.B. concerning labour representation?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: May I put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that the question was out of order. The hon. member is asking the minister to report on discussions which may have taken place outside the house and which obviously do not come under the administrative responsibility of the federal government.


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to ask a question that is in order, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister tell the house whether the cabinet will ask the Canada Labour Relations Board to announce its intentions with regard to union representation?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member could, with profit, place this question on the order paper.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonion-Siraih-cona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is based on a report that Canadian wildlife authorities have co-operated with the Americans in obtaining some whooping crane eggs, which have been taken
June 6, 19S7



to an American naturalist to incubate and try to raise the young birds. Would the minister give immediate consideration to securing the services for this purpose of Mr. A1 Oeming, head of the Alberta game farm and Canada's leading zoologist and naturalist, who is the best qualified of all people in North America in raising cranes, so we may have a successful experiment along these lines? Mr. Speaker, the minister nodded his head, and I was not sure whether he agreed with my suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member was making a suggestion rather than asking a question, and I did not think that was in order at this time.



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, and I ask it in order that the labour problems in Halifax may be alleviated. Is the practice being followed by the National Harbours Board in Halifax with regard to promotions consistent with the practice being followed in other N.H.B. ports?


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


J. Michael Forrestall: With respect, Mr. Speaker, we have in Halifax a very difficult labour situation affecting the raisers of chickens and other livestock, and this practice has been followed for some time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member thinks I am wrong and this is a matter which requires immediate attention, it can be discussed later today.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It arises out of reports of the visit of Prime Minister Holt of Australia. Can the Prime Minister tell us what was the Canadian response to the suggestion of Prime Minister Holt that it was unlikely there would be a meeting this year of commonwealth prime ministers? Was there agreement on that thought?
Inquiries of the Ministry Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
I think it is generally understood-Mr. Wilson also brought up the matter when he was here-that it is not likely there will be a meeting of commonwealth prime ministers this year. But of course that will depend on developments during the rest of the year.



POSSIBLE INCREASED EXPORTS DUE TO EVENTS IN MIDDLE EAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question with reference to the petroleum industry. Has there been any discussion between the Canadian government and the governments of Great Britain and the United States concerning greater exports of petroleum from Canada in view of the dislocation of the industry in the Middle East?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there have been no discussions directly concerned with the present political situation, but the Prime Minister may have had conversations on that subject of which I am not aware.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can say there was at least one recent discussion in which I pointed out how secure Canadian sources of petroleum products are.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether measures are being contemplated to facilitate shipping western oil to the eastern ports for export in case the Middle East oil wells are closed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not in recent days or weeks, Mr. Speaker.



EXPO '67 POSSIBLE PRESENTATION TO CANADA OF PAVILIONS ON SITE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister with regard to the recent visit of the Prime Minister of Australia. It relates to his very kind offer yesterday to present the Australian pavilion on the Expo site to Canada as a
1190	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry permanent institution. I wonder whether action is being taken by the government to encourage other exhibitors to take similar action.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this question should be placed on the order paper.



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has his attention been drawn to complaints about the dumping of insecticides into the St. Lawrence river near the Expo site? If so, is his department conducting an investigation into this complaint?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but my department took part in the exercises previous to present events.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, arising from the fact that I have been sitting here trying to figure out what was the minister's answer to my first question. Would he advise us whether his department has some responsibility in connection with the pollution of the St. Lawrence river and complaints concerning the dumping of insecticides into the St. Lawrence?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that his question cannot be asked at this time.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, the minister certainly gave me a vague answer. He is entitled to do this, but I think he intended to give me a real answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps this might be done at some other time. I suggest to the hon. member that the supplementary question is not in order.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saini John-Alberi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the lack of any
[Mr. MacDonald (Prince) .1
DEBATES	June 6, 1967
favourable comment on the consultants' report of transportation problems in the Atlantic provinces, can the minister say whether he has devised a method to receive such comments and briefs, and if not, in what way will complaints about the said report be received?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I think, sir, the hon. gentleman has been reading the wrong newspapers.


Thomas Miller Bell: On a supplementary question, will the minister state whether the government is in a position to
receive any comments, favourable or otherwise, on this report?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be very glad to receive representations from any interested person or organization. I indicated that during the discussion of my estimates, and the offer still stands.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have another supplementary question. Is there any danger that the minister and the government might act quickly on this report?



REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT OF ABANDONMENT HEARINGS UNTIL LEGISLATION PROCLAIMED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask him whether he is prepared to accede to the request of the Manitoba Branch Line Association to postpone any abandonment hearings until such time as part I of Bill C-231 is proclaimed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, sir, I answered that question quite some time ago.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, X should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether any remedial order in council has been passed to reconcile the guaranteed prairie rail network with the assurances he gave last fall. The minister did say there was an error and that a remedial order in council might be pending.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the order has been passed and published in the Canada Gazette, but I confess I have been away from Ottawa for a week and I have not checked the Gazette myself. However, I will do so.
June 6, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	1191



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. I wonder whether he would be kind enough to advise the house whether it has now been confirmed that the Davie shipbuilding yard has been selected as the lead yard for two of the four new destroyer escorts.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: There has not yet been a final decision in this regard, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I would like to address to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can he give us any estimate as to how many United States citizens may be visiting Canada at the present time in order to avoid the army draft?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a question which asks for information of a statistical nature and therefore cannot be asked at this time.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: May I put it at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
PROPOSED ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN STOPS IN LOTBINliRE COUNTY, QUE.
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Loibiniere):: I
should like to join my Conservative friend for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) to discuss the following question at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
My question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask whether he intends to suggest reconsideration of the decision taken by the C.N.R. to eliminate the stop-overs of its trains at Manseau, Ville Leroy, Laurier Station, important centres in the constituency of Lotbiniere?
The Budget-Mr. Monteith



PRIVILEGE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege and in the absence of the hon. member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Kennedy), who I believe is attending memorial services in Normandy, may I take this opportunity in spite of the very grave world crisis at the present time, to point out to the house that this is the twenty third anniversary of D-day, which was the commencement of the liberation of Europe and the securing at very considerable sacrifice of freedoms which we seem sometimes to take for granted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, June 1, 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.
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, when I concluded my remarks last Thursday evening I indicated that I would reserve any further comments on the budget until I more closely could examine the minister's remarks and their implications. My immediate impulse was to say simply that as there was nothing in the budget, there was probably not much more to say. My belief was that it was a do nothing budget.
Further study has caused me to conclude that the minister has been very remiss in his duty to Canadians as a whole. He reminds me of somebody who has more or less washed his hands of the whole sorry business. His attitude and remarks the other evening were those of an auditor, not a minister of finance. He appeared to be simply reporting to parliament that it really was not his fault if expenditures were up 20 per cent in the current fiscal period. Nor, he implied, should he be held responsible in any way if we face the highest cost of living in our history, a cost of living which he admits is going to increase. It would seem he has no control over cabinet expenditures. He appeared to bow to the inevitable and simply accept his colleagues' demands for higher and higher government
June 6, 19S7

The Budget-Mr. Monteith expenditures. I said then that we have the largest spending, the highest taxing, the highest cost of living and almost the greatest deficit in our history. I repeat that accusation now.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The minister has done nothing to control the spending habits of his cabinet colleagues. This approach, Mr. Speaker is having and will have very serious results for Canadians and Canada. It not only endangers our economic situation in the world at large but could cause the decline of our whole federal system of government. I did not wish to heap too much criticism on the minister's budget the other evening beyond noting that it was a "ho-hum" budget doing little for this country. While it does result in a great deficit, I cannot make myself use some of the phrases heaped on the Conservative government of earlier years when it ran a deficit to help bring Canada out of a recession.
Perhaps there is merit, however, in quoting some of the views of members of the Liberal party on deficits. On June 22, 1961, for instance, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) said, as reported on page 6887 of Hansard:
What a farce. This government has the integrity of an alley cat. After its whinings and howlings it refuses to take responsibility for its financial misdemeanours.
Then this gentleman went on to say:
The minister has said that this is not an ordinary budget. That is a mouthful even for the minister. He called it an economic budget. In truth it will turn out to be an economic bungle.
The present defence minister went on to attack the then minister of finance by calling him a blushing bride, one who puts woollen stockings in a washtub of boiling water and finds on removing them that they have shrunk to a considerably smaller size. I quote his words:
We wonder to what extent the Canadian dollar will be shrunk as a result of the monetary expansion which the minister of finance may have to prescribe in the existing circumetanees.
Then, along came the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). His major contribution to the debate began with these words:
I thought someone on the other side would have been able to find something to say in favour of the budget, but in fact I am not in the least surprised that they have not been able to do so.
With these descriptive phrases, he declared our budget of that time to be the greatest anticlimax in history.

Then the present Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) had her turn. She said:
Alas, the people of the country are left as a woman is left in the lurch waiting at the church-
Then she went on:
We wonder why the Canadian people are restless and afraid. Why do they have no confidence? Why will they not invest their money in Canada?
I am not one of those, Mr. Speaker, who can use such telling phrases in regard to the Liberal budget or really cast such reflections on the work of any man. However, I cite these remarks as examples of what the present government members think of budgets which produce deficits. These quotations from these ministers go back to 1961. They were castigating the deficit of a Conservative government, but the deficit of that day was not like this Liberal deficit. The economic requirements of the day made the Conservative deficit good, common sense, something that helped the country, something which created jobs. The deficit of that day did not bring more inflation as this Liberal deficit is bound to do.
The other evening the minister casually brushed over the effect on the money markets, interest rates, international affairs and domestic prices of his tremendous call for cash to finance this government's operations. He noted that this year he will require $1,520 million, double last year's figure of $719 million, to meet requirements over and above those which taxes can provide. Where will the money come from? It can only come from printing more money, creating bank credit, raising taxes later in the year or raising large sums of money from the public by selling government bonds and other securities.
I should like to say a word here about the projected deficit. Let us not fool ourselves. If the government predicts a deficit of $741 million the government probably expects a deficit of $1 billion, the largest by far in Canada's history. There will be supplementary estimates, price increases, and a great desire to go on spending to try to make everyone happy in anticipation of a Liberal leadership race and a general election. All the signs point to the government having to move into the money market in a very big way.
The minister said that we face a major task in borrowing cash this year. As I said before, when the Conservative government used deficit financing the economy was far below its capacity. We used deficit financing to create jobs. Today, however, the Canadian economy is almost at capacity. Prices are rising.
June 6, 1967

Government spending alone is sending hundreds of millions of dollars more chasing after goods and services.
The other night the minister sort of glossed over the fact that unemployment throughout Canada stands at 3.5 per cent, 2.5 per cent in Ontario and 2.1 per cent in the prairies. There was no mention made of the figure for the Atlantic region. Actually it is 6.5 per cent for 1966 and 10.6 per cent for the month of March compared with 3.9 per cent for Ontario for March. The unemployment figure for Quebec is nearly twice as high as that of Ontario and in the Atlantic provinces it is nearly three times as high.
As the minister noted, prices are now 7.3 per cent above what they were two years ago. It is obvious, sir, that the grocery dollar is getting smaller and smaller. At the same time that prices are rising the government must attempt to raise funds of its own in competition with private business and with individuals, so in effect the price of borrowing money rises too. Recently we have seen interest rates flatten out slightly, with a small increase in lendable funds. We can also expect, now that the chartered banks have been allowed to charge higher interest rates, that there may be some increase in bank credit or the supply of money. This latter trend, which helps encourage business expansion by providing productive capacity, suddenly must come up against government competition for the same funds.
What does it mean? It means interest rates will tend to stay high. It means that bond prices tend to go soft and the corporation bond markets go soft. Here is what the Montreal Gazette reported on June 3, the day after the budget. The Gazette quotes a Montrealer as saying:
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
"We're bound to see the government do a fair amount of new financing this summer and fail."
Then there is this comment:
...and the feeling was that until the money market finds out what the government plans to do "we're walking on egg shells."
The federal government is competing with every businessman, with every manufacturer who wants to borrow money to modernize his plant and to expand and create new jobs, with every retailer who wants to borrow money to improve his store and expand his inventory and with every citizen who wants to borrow money to buy a new home or to send his children to college. This, I think,
The Budget-Mr. Monteith would be acceptable if it were necessary but the huge government spending is not necessary.
I have more respect for the minister than to think that he has casually brushed off any concern about where the money is coming from, although at times he seems to have given up hope in the wave of his colleagues' spend, spend, spend philosophy. For instance, at one point in his speech the minister warned that too many Canadians are trying to take whatever they can get. He goes on to say that some might say that government spending and taxation should be less but then tries to absolve himself by saying that the level of spending is in accordance with the views of this parliament and adds, I think a bit sadly, that "in any event this alternative is not open to us."
We just cannot spend like this without knowing where the money is coming from. I wonder whether the minister is aware of information about trends that he has not passed on to this house? Is the minister counting on a bonanza from Expo that might provide hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign exchange, which in turn could ease this country's need for United States funds? If this is so, we should be told. Does the minister expect, for example, some radical change in trends resulting from the United States auto pact which may greatly enhance this country's position? If he does, we should be told. Does the minister expect some bounty from a new wheat sale or some other transaction? If so, we should be told. Does the minister contemplate another budget in the fall in which he can raise taxes? If he does, we should be told. We have a right to know if the minister has a rabbit in his hat or a pigeon up his sleeve. If he has we want him to pull them out now.
Sir, my concern with the financial gyrations of this government is that it has a total disregard for the expenditure of the peoples' money. One would think it had gone out of style, and certainly the government's lack of concern is borne out by figures. True, the various ministers responsible for departments, including the Prime Minister, are responsible for having put forward their demands, but cannot the brake be applied? Can there be no slowing up along this line?
I would mention three examples that show a gross disregard for the peoples' dollar. First of all, I claim that the government has gone wild with building up new departments and as a consequence of that, with building up the civil service. Though certain new departments
1194	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Monteith have taken over parts of the staff of former departments, the original departments have grown to exceed their previous establishments. I have not hunted out all the instances where Parkinson's law has operated to a point where I am convinced that the citizens of Canada are being "had", but I would mention the Department of Trade and Commerce, which was to lose part of its staff to the Department of Industry, and the Department of Labour which was to lose part of its establishment to the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Both trade and commerce and labour are now larger than ever.
To show how this all mounts up to an ever-increasing charge on the Canadian taxpayer I wish to mention a few figures. Total civil salaries and wages for 1966-67 were estimated to be $1,087 million odd and the actual amount turned out to be $1,165 million odd. The actual figure was larger than the estimated figure by about $78 million. In 1966-67 the actual figure was $1,165 million odd, and in 1965-66 the actual figure was $1,018 million odd. In one year, therefore, the actual increase was $146 million. The 1967-68 estimated civil salaries and wages are $1,307 million. The 1966-67 actual figure, as I mentioned earlier, was $1,165 million odd, the estimated increase so far being over $142 million. I would imagine that when the final figures are available the increase over last year will be in the neighbourhood of $200 million.
In these two years the total payroll will have increased in the neighbourhood of $350 million and there will be some 25,000 additional employees. Many devoted civil servants, of course, are grossly underpaid but surely there comes a time to give some consideration to the people who are being taxed to pay these salaries and to pay for this tremendous escalation in the number of public servants.
I wish to mention also the estimates for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The actual expenditure for 1966-67 was $114 million plus. The actual expenditure for 1965-66 was $99 million plus, the increase being $15 million plus. The estimated figure for 1967-68 is approximately $144 million. As I say, the actual 1966-67 figure was $114 million plus. The estimated increase for this current fiscal period is, therefore, $29,476,000 for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The total increase for two years is roughly $44,500,000 or 44.5 per cent.
Over the years I have not been one of those members of parliament who have continuously belaboured the C.B.C. In fact, I was acting

DEBATES	June 6. 1967
minister reporting to the house for some six months during the illness of the late Hon. George Nowlan. But I do ask, Mr. Speaker, where are we going? There just has to be a change of attitude on the part of the government toward this reckless spending.


Mr. Sharp:: Would the hon. member permit a short question?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes.


Mitchell William Sharp: I should be the last one to object to any lecture on the virtues of economy from the other side, but I should like to ask the hon. gentleman, for the sake of the record, to explain the basis of his suggestion that our expenditures will rise by 20 per cent this year. I can find nothing to justify that statement, either in the record or in what I have said.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Jay Waldo Monteith: I arrived at that figure the other evening by comparing the estimates of the relevant years. I do not have my estimates book with me at this moment, but when I do I shall be pleased to prove the correctness of what I have said and place it on record subsequently. The estimates for this year are 20 per cent greater than the estimates for last year.
The third area about which I complain, among many others I might mention if time permitted, is the allotment for the Company of Young Canadians. This venture is the responsibility of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and I have heard rumours to the effect he now wishes he had never been gullible enough to fall for the gimmick. In its first year, 1965-66, expenditure on this project was approximately $45,000. In 1966-67 the actual expenditure was $1,208,000. It is proposed that in 1967-68 $2,445,000 should be spent. I realize that hon. gentlemen opposite will not consider $2.5 million worth worrying about in comparison with the over-all expenditures of this government. But, after all, this is the taxpayers' money, and an expenditure of this size should be weighed just as carefully as the increase of $115 million in the Department of National Defence.
What value are Canadian citizens getting for their money? The executive director indicates there are some 46 employees on the staff, of whom 26 are stationed in Ottawa and the remainder in five regional offices. The whimsical guess of the Prime Minister that there would be some 2,500 volunteers certainly never materialized. My understanding is
Jane 6, 1967

that as of the last report there were 66 volunteers. If this is so, the budget works out to over $37,000 per volunteer. I will not go into details about the discreditable conduct of some of these volunteers, which I understand went beyond mere peccadillos. Some of these people are undoubtedly well-meaning young Canadians. However, the facts are well known to all of us; they have been well publicized.
I simply say to the Prime Minister: Get rid of this monster of which in the past you have been so proud. Save the Canadian taxpayers' money or, better still, apply this $2.5 million to the cost of the 10,000 scholarships you promised to deserving students, an undertaking which has never been fulfilled.
I cannot but become exasperated with the government when they allow such unnecessary expenditures as those I have mentioned to continue unchecked until they become a burden on the taxpayer. I have given three examples. The minister has the effrontery to suggest that Canadians as a whole have been overspending. I call on him to practice what he preaches, to act as a minister of finance, not as a corporation president reporting a bad year to his shareholders. This budget not only accomplished nothing but it compounds the errors of the past.
I am not alone when I suggest there is something wrong about the minister's approach to the budget and to the financial and fiscal prospects before us. I wish to quote from several articles which will bear out what I have said and underline the serious consequences of this government's policies. First I should like to refer to an editorial in the Ottawa Journal of May 26 in which it was stated:
What the country wants is an assurance that the government has devoted itself to economic planning. Specifically, a promise is wanted that the cost of living will not continue its monotonous march upwards. The government can no longer pretend that inflation is not hurting persons with fixed incomes. Further inflation will increase the price of exports in a world market where competition grows ever keener.
The writer of this editorial adds: "Surely, the minister can promise to put a rein on rising costs." What did the same newspaper say on Friday, June 2?
Mr. Sharp's budget is anti-climax
None has been more diligent than the minister in warning about the perils of inflation. These warnings are repeated with the utmost force in the budget speech delivered last night. But nothing is done to reduce the perils.
The Budget-Mr. Monteith
I should like to draw attention also to what Mr. Fraser Robertson had to say in the Globe and Mail on June 5. It is quite revealing.
In the past several years, the public has acquired a good deal of experience in the methods of frenzied financiers and it therefore should have no great difficulty in recognizing the glibness of Finance Minister Sharp for what it is. In his budget speech, which is the equivalent of the annual report to shareholders from the president of a financial institution, the finance minister put up a bold front, yet he was unable to conceal the one important fact, that the nation's financial operations are out of control.
The finance minister's efforts to explain away the frenzied state of the operations he is supposed to control also had a close resemblance to the excuses put forward by several of our more notorious recent bankrupts.
Later the article says:
Even if a nation does not formally go into bankruptcy, mismanagement of its finances can ruin its citizens-
The budget presented to parliament by the finance minister is undoubtedly the most inflationary budget ever brought down in Canada. The present government has achieved insolvency on both national and current account at a time when money is tight and is rapidly getting tighter and costlier.
Again:
The assumption of the finance minister appears to be that since the government has been able to raise money as needed in the past, it will not encounter any difficulty in the future. Any such assumption must stem either from arrogance or from foolishness, neither of which is becoming a responsible minister.
And to conclude this series of quotations from Mr. Fraser Robertson's article:
For an organization as confused as is the government, on the minister's own admission, it may be, indeed, that the best method of planing is to assume that nothing will work out as forecast. But for business and even for most individuals such uncertainty is the kiss of death.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The following article by Mr. Claude Ryan in Le Devoir is extremely interesting. This is an English translation.
While Mr. Sharp preaches moderation to everyone, it is revealing to study the actions of the federal government....
These proposals indicate that the federal government should itself take a serious cure of foresight and discipline. Without putting into jeopardy any of the basic programs urgently needed, one cannot help but worry about a certain free spending which continues to rule in several sectors of the federal administration.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce wrote the Prime Minister under date of May 19 as follows, having compared our expenditures with United States averages:
In the light of the foregoing developments, the executive council is most concerned that insuf-
June 6, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Monteith ficient consideration is being given to the effects of high government expenditures and its concomitant high taxation on Canada's economic advance and its competitive position. The labelling of various government programs as "free" should be avoided and the cost to the taxpayer should be clearly spelled out at the time they are proposed.
We wish to express our deep concern to you and would welcome your assurance that the dangerous trend towards ever higher government expenditures will be fully recognized and arrested and that only essential government expenditures will be undertaken.
I wish to quote one paragraph from a report presented to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association ninety-sixth annual general meeting. This is the report of the vicepresident and general manager, J. C. White-law, Q.C. Referring to the growth of Canada's gross national product he stated:
As it turned out, almost half of the 10.9 per cent growth in Canada's gross national product last year was due to higher prices rather than to increased output. Excluding the effect of price changes, the real growth rate of the economy dropped to 5.9 per cent from 6.9 per cent in 1965.
I quote the following from the Gazette of Wednesday, May 31:
Representatives of industry attending the annual meeting of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association here are obviously disgruntled, even seriously disturbed, by the fiscal performance of governments in Canada. Their thinking on this issue has permeated most of the sessions___
The brunt of the manufacturers' arguments rested on the dwindling competitive advantages of businessmen in this country vis-a-vis foreign powers. In most cases, they found their rallying points in the escalating expenditures by the public sector, which leave no hope for tax relief in the finance minister's budget tomorrow night.
We all realize how true that was. The figures I am going to quote could be obtained from the public accounts but I take them from an article by Peter Newman in the Ottawa Journal of June 2. Referring to the present government he wrote:
Since it came into office, federal expenditures have risen by $3,115 million-from $6,585 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1963 to the $9,700 million for the next fiscal year in the current budget.
That is an increase of over 47 per cent in gross expenditures during a period of five years. Where are we going, Mr. Speaker?
An editorial in the Gazette of June 3 contained the following:
Though another contribution to inflation has been the massive increases in government spending, apparently little will be done to check this trend. The estimates for 1967-68 forecast the biggest spending program in Canada's history. Federal expenditures are growing this year almost twice as fast as the federal-provincial tax committee expected them to do. The very fact that the government, in a buoyant year, should find itself with a sizeable

deficit should in itself be sufficient warning that spending is running ahead too fast.
I was most interested in a report that appeared in the Toronto Star of June 2 which referred to the minister's budget as a rejection of two extremes. However, it also contained the following paragraph:
Trade Minister Robert Winters, for example, told a Toronto Rotary club recently: "I'm a businessman at heart. I like balanced budgets."
This is another indication of some kind of division within the cabinet. Did the Minister of Trade and Commerce agree with the Minister of Finance on the budget he presented, or just what is the situation? I have here a press summary of a speech which the Minister of Trade and Commerce delivered at Saint John on June 1. It reads as follows:
Trade and Commerce Minister Robert Winters today expressed concern that while Canada's foreign sales were booming, Canadian-made products were losing ground at home.
I could not agree more with that statement and would add that textiles are probably losing the most. Textile manufacturers have just reason to fear the future. I have here a copy of the letter which they sent to the Minister of Finance. It is addressed to the Hon. Michael Sharpe, Ottawa; I presume that was an error. Anyway it sets out their predicament in detail. I wish I had time to read it all, but surely the minister realizes the seriousness of the situation with regard to the textile industry as a whole. However, he has done nothing about it.
A report in the Toronto Star of Friday, June 2 told how builders received the budget. It stated:
Metro builders are disappointed.
"Three cheers for nothing," said one spokesman, Harry Sadler, on hearing last night's federal budget did not include removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials.
Such a move might have helped trim the cost of the average new home in metro by about $1,000.
Need I go further, Mr. Speaker? I think it is obvious what a disappointing budget this has been to all concerned in all walks of life. What then do we have? We have a monstrous budget deficit because of careless overspending with all of its evil effects upon the economy-higher prices, higher interest rates, tapering capital investment-because the minister has given up, bowing to the spending whims of his colleagues. We have a budget which means higher consumer prices, and offers no incentives for business and individuals to increase productivity. We have a budget which reveals that the minister has
June 6, 1967	COMMONS
given up trying to control or project the finances of the Canadian economy.
The minister admits that he does not know where the money is going to come from, and that he does not know the effects of the Kennedy round of tariff negotiations on the Canadian economy except that he expects they could be adverse toward certain Canadian industries. He admits that he does not know what will be the position of the government in respect of the Carter report. He admits that he does not know what will be the final result of the study by the federal-provincial committee on the fiscal structure. In his budget he admits that this government does not know how to give this country sound economic leadership. The finances of this country are out of hand. All this, of course, exists in the face of ever-increasing taxes imposed by this government.
* (3:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, this house should be given an opportunity to express its disapproval of the gross mismanagement by the government of the financial and fiscal affairs of this Canada of ours. Consequently I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard):
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
This government has failed miserably to set an example of responsibility by its refusal to reduce taxation, by its reckless increase in governmental expenditures, thus contributing to the steadily rising cost of production to the great detriment of the Canadian economy and to the sharp increase in the cost of living, already over-burdensome to the Canadian people.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather at a loss to know how one can discuss a budget of this sort. In fact one is almost obliged to write a budget in order to afford an opportunity for criticism because this one has so little material content. We are told by the press, and we always believe the press, that there were 12,000 words in the speech given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to this house on Thursday night. It appeared to me that it was more in the nature of a sermon than an economic report. In fact I could almost see the minister in his Geneva gown standing in the pulpit, wagging his finger to the house and preaching the virtues of thrift and hard work.
I suppose one could say that the minister has shown his ability to care in a very efficient manner for the status quo, leaving it as it is. This is rather interesting at a time when the latest figures indicate there has
DEBATES	1197
The Budget-Mr. Colin Cameron been virtually no economic growth in the last 12 months. In fact what the minister really is telling us is that he is going to hold us steadily at dead centre.
In order to criticize this budget one really would have to write a new one. There are, however, one or two suggestions I might make to the minister of things he could have done. Unfortunately he prevented himself from doing one of them when he gave an undertaking that the recommendations of the Carter commission report regarding depletion allowances and tax exemption privileges for oil and mining companies would not be imposed, I believe he said, for five years. So he tied his hands on that score.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman would not want to create a wrong impression. What I talked about was a three year exemption. I gave no indication of my attitude in respect of depletion allowances.


Colin Cameron: You are perfectly right. I am lifted up, but my optimism fades when I read the 12,000 words and find there is no mention of following Mr. Carter's recommendations in respect of depletion allowances despite the fact that many economists have been commenting on them with approval and have suggested that they should be implemented, even though the government quite rightly is not prepared to deal with the report in exten-so until it has had an opportunity to analyse it and present the white paper which the minister promised the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.
There is another point which it seems to me the minister could have covered without waiting for a comprehensive tax review in accordance or otherwise with the Carter Commission report. He could have reduced the sales tax in a selective way to encourage investment in those sectors of the economy which I believe most of us consider should be stimulated. I see no reason for the minister not having considered reducing it in a selective way with regard to materials for housing because I am sure he, like all of us, is only too well aware of the housing crisis which exists in Canada. A simple way to at least break this crisis would have been to have instituted a system of rebates on materials used in the construction of housing. One might split it up still further and suggest this should have been done in respect of housing for those people who are at a certain economic level. These would be minor, if you like, but nevertheless quite important alterations in our
1X98
June 6, 1367

The Budget-Mr. Colin Cameron fiscal structure which might well have helped some of the people in our society who at the present time are suffering from the minister's rather careful and cautious approach.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am planning to trespass perhaps on the indulgence of the house. I know I shall be in order but perhaps not quite proper when I suggest I do not intend to spend any more time on a 12,000-word sermon which really contained nothing but pious exhortation. Also at this time I am not prepared to write a budget for the minister, although obviously he needs someone to do it.
I should like to deal with a matter which may seem to be far removed from the budget but which I am sure is in the minds of all of us. If the government of Canada should follow the suggestions I will make-and I am convinced it will have to-it will have a very distinct effect on future budgets. I am referring, of course, to the tragic situation in the Middle East. I do not propose to discuss the outbreak of hostilities as such. There is nothing useful to be said in that regard; it is too tragic for any words I might have. Still less am I planning to assess blame to the two antagonists in this struggle. Even if it were possible to do so it would serve no useful purpose to enter into a debate concerning who struck first or second. The point is that they have reached this position at the present time.
I think it is time, however, that we began to assign the ultimate responsibility for this appalling situation. The tragic irony of the situation in the Middle East today is that the two peoples of the world who of all people have been persecuted, exploited, oppressed, victims of discrimination and of imperialism by the so-called Christian world of today are at each other's throats largely as a result of the machinations and broken pledges of the western civilization. On the one hand we have the Jews, dispersed and persecuted, discriminated against by virtually every country of the so-called Christian world, many of whom finally were consigned to the horrors of Belsen and Buchenwald. On the other hand, we have the Arabs, victims of the imperial colonial designs of half of Europe who were forced to dance to the degrading tune of their masters. Both are living indictments of the immorality, bigotry, greed and cynicism of our boasted western civilization. It is neither the Arabs nor the Jews who today stand in the dock but rather Christendom itself.

[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Memory tends to fade quite easily, and there will be many even in this house who are too young to remember those dark days when news began to seep out of nazi Germany revealing horrors that were almost unbelievable. At that time we did not believe the reports. We found it impossible to believe that man could sink so low as to inflict these horrors, these bestial atrocities on fellow human beings, but finally we had to believe it. There was no escape. We felt at that time that evil incarnate was abroad in the world threatening to destroy everything decent in human relations, threatening to destroy the frail citadel of humanity that mankind had been able to build with great difficulty in the long struggle from his brutish beginnings.
The nazis taught the world a sharp lesson with sickening clarity. They taught us the lesson of the depths of the abyss that lies under the thin veneer of civilization, the depths of evil to which man can sink. Sadly, the world did not learn that lesson, did not learn that the pathway of evil which led to Belsen, Buchenwald and Dachau started in the minds and hearts of otherwise decent men and women who tolerated and permitted injustices, indignities and humiliations, however seemingly trivial these injustices and humiliations appeared to be.
All across this country there are institutions with invisible but clearly legible signs which say, no Jews need apply.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I like your sermon better.


Colin Cameron: I did not hear what the sapient member for York-Humber said.


An hon. Member:: It was not complimentary.


Colin Cameron: I do not imagine it was. All across this country we have institutions and organizations which, as I say, not having the courage to print the words clearly, have these invisible signs which are all too legible to our citizens and say, no Jews need apply. Most of our decent citizens, and most Canadians are decent, are ashamed of this situation. We should be more than ashamed, we should be terrified, because this is the path that led to the horrors which overwhelmed the world 30 years ago.
I do not propose to recite the history of the beginnings of Israel. It is being rehashed today in all the papers and magazines by all the
June 6, 1967

political commentators. I may say I had some grave misgivings as to the wisdom of the establishment of the state of Israel, and in the light of events since perhaps those misgivings were not ill-founded. Nevertheless, I knew deep down in my heart that had I been a Jew 20 years ago I would have been in their ranks. I would have said to myself, after all these years, after all these centuries during which my people have been persecuted, humiliated and degraded, by God, the time has come when I am going to develop some place on this globe where I and my children can stand on our feet with dignity as befits human beings. Yes, I am quite sure that is the way I would have thought and acted.
Now we come to the ultimate tragedy of the Jewish people and the Jewish situation, and that is the price which had to be paid for the establishment of the state of Israel. There is always a price to be paid for anything achieved in this world, and all too often the bill is presented to the wrong people. When Israel was established as a direct result of endless years of persecution, humiliation and discrimination, at which all too many in the so-called Christian world blinked their eyes, the bill was presented not to the persecutors, not to the people who tolerated these unseemly and violent conditions, but to the other people, also Semitic, who also have been persecuted by our so-called western civilization.


An hon. Member:: Turkey.


Colin Cameron: The hon. member suggests it was Turkey, and he is quite right. We did very little about Turkey, and after that every European nation almost without fail moved in on the Arab peoples. Then, just after they had struggled out of the suffocating and degrading clutch of European colonialism we said to the Arabs, move over and make room for the victims of our bigotry, our cruelty, our colonialism and our cynicism.
While undoubtedly there were many Arabs who left voluntarily and while undoubtedly many of them may have been urged to do so, others nevertheless-this is an undeniable fact-were driven out of the country under conditions of savage brutality. Today they remain rotting away in full sight of the lands from which they were expelled or fled.
We are now told that it is part of Arab strategy to keep them there, and this may be so. Certainly as long as they are there they tend to keep the flames of Arab resentment burning high. I have to ask myself this question: What else could the Arab peoples do
The Budget-Mr. Colin Cameron with them? These are poverty-stricken countries in the main, ill developed and with problems of their own. Can they be asked to absorb a million refugees? What would Canada do if we were suddenly asked tomorrow morning to admit a million Negro refugees from the southern states or a million people from the slums of London, Manchester or Liverpool? You and I know what we would do. We would say we could not do it, that it was impossible. Yet Canada is a fairly wealthy country and fairly well developed. We would do almost nothing. I might say that when we did have an opportunity to offer asylum to Jewish people fleeing from persecution we turned them from our doors.
Part of the tragedy of the human condition is that we can never go back and undo the crimes and follies of yesterday. We have to go on from where we are. I think in this regard, at a time when President Nasser's name is anathema in the ears of many people of the western world, a time when many papers have insulting cartoons of him appearing almost daily, I should put on record some references to correspondence I had with President Nasser of the U.A.R. after I had returned from Egypt and Israel.
I wrote President Nasser to tell him of my profound depression at the conditions I found in the Middle East, and about two peoples who so badly need each other wasting their resources on military solutions to their problems. I wrote very frankly to him. I told him that as an old man I knew the time comes in life when you have to accept facts, however unpalatable, and that the state of Israel is now a fact. I asked him whether he would not be better advised to move on from that point and seek an accommodation with the people of Israel.
It was probably an impertinence on the part of an insignificant member of parliament to write to the head of a state, a man moreover, no matter what some hon. members may think of him, who is a world figure today. I would not have been surprised, nor would I have blamed President Nasser, if he had ignored my letter. To my surprise, in about a month or six weeks I received a letter from President Nasser. It was a very simple letter written from one man to another with no suggestion of condescension or pretentiousness, in which he thanked me for having written so frankly to him.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Then he proceeded to discuss the problems that lay in the way of a Middle Eastern
COMMONS DEBATES	June 6, 1967
The Budget-Mr. Colin Cameron settlement. First among those problems he placed the situation of the Arab refugees about which, as he said, the world has refused to concern itself. He suggested that until the world was prepared to concern itself about the fate of these people, a settlement would be impossible.
A cease fire is well enough but, as the Prime Minister said today, it is not enough. We have to go on from there. True enough, we must strive for it and bend every effort to get a cease fire because one thing is sure: no matter who may be the victor in the hostilities that have now broken out, the vanquished will be the workers of Israel and the fellahin of the Arab states.
Over ten years ago we did achieve a cease fire, and much of the credit for that must go to our present Prime Minister. We bought time ten and a half years ago, and we did nothing with it; we let it go down the drain. The problems that were there when we sought and gained that cease fire are there today. Those problems are the age-old ones of poverty, disease and ignorance and the bigotry and hatreds that these old enemies of mankind always bring in their train. No matter what the outcome of the present hostilities may be, the problems will remain to be coped with when the fighting ends.
The two peoples who have suffered so cruelly at the hands of so-called western civilization must be brought together, however difficult the process may be, in a program of massive economic development for the whole Middle Eastern area, which program the world as a whole must underwrite. It is not only a debt of restitution to these peoples, both Semitic, who have been the victims of our so-called superior western civilization, but it must also be in the form of an acknowledgement of the debt we owe to these two peoples.
The whole world is aware of the debt which western civilization owes to the Jewish people. Their contributions in the fields of science and the arts are known to us all. But all too often the debt we owe to the other victims of western civilization is forgotten. Seeing them now, struggling as they are out of the suffocating and stifling embrace of European colonialism, we tend to forget that when our ancestors in the Dark ages were sunk in the depts of superstition, ignorance and disease, the ancestors of these Arabs were pioneering in the fields of science, mathematics and medicine and it is on much of

their work that western civilization has built the structure of which we are proud today.
So, Mr. Speaker, back again to the budget. Canada must take a lead in pressing this sort of program on the whole of the world. Once we can achieve a cease fire we must impress on every nation of the world, big and small, its responsibility to contribute to this type of program. In order that our position and demands may be credible, we in Canada must be prepared to make a substantial contribution ourselves. When that time comes, and I am sure all of us hope it comes soon, there will be no time for the sort of cautious, penny-pinching budgets we have been having of late. There will be no time for the careful balancing of accounts. We must be prepared to take some risks. We must be prepared to put it on the line and remember that the situation that causes us so much fear and trepidation today is the direct result of the callousness, bigotry, stupidity and ignorance which are still all too prevalent in our societies in the western world.
We have inherited a debt and now we must be prepared to pay. I would suggest that there are four or five concrete items which should be in any program that we may establish to pay this debt. The first one, of course, is the achievement of a cease fire. That is a must. But a cease fire alone will not be of much value to the world, any more than was the cease fire of 10 or 11 years ago, unless it leads to a genuine peace treaty between Israel and her Arab neighbours.
There must be a guarantee of the borders of all the nations of the Middle East, Israeli and Arab. There must be an agreement that the gulf of Aqaba is an international waterway and that access to it through the strait of Tiran must be available to all innocent shipping. There must be an immediate and generous settlement of the Arab refugee problem, without balancing accounts, without asking, "Why are they there?" They are there. It does not matter if they went there of their own accord or whether they were driven out-and there are those in both categories. The thing is, they are there, men, women and children, living in appalling conditions of utter degradation and misery.
Today when I read in the newspapers that the Israeli forces had captured Khan Yunis I remembered my visit to Khan Yunis. There I saw one of the most substantial contributions of Canadians to welfare which is to be found in the medical rehabilitation centre of Khan Yunis. They had just opened a rehydration
June 6, 1967
centre for refugee infants who come down with dysentry, of course, because of the appalling conditions of these camps. Their bodies become so dehydrated that they cannot absorb fluid in the normal way and have to be brought to the centre to have it fed to them through their noses, drop by drop. I thought of that today when I saw that Khan Yunis had been captured by the Israelis.
So to my mind the first thing we must have is a just and generous solution of the Arab refugee problem, without totting up accounts as to whose fault it is and whose fault it is not. They are there-men, women and children. If any member of this house thinks they have not been living in utter misery that is a disgrace to the world, I suggest that he go to the Gaza strip, if we can ever get there again.
Finally, we must seriously take a lead in a vast and massive economic program of development in the Middle East so that once and for all we can perhaps find some salvation, some solution for our guilt in the past in our treatment of these two peoples who today so tragically and in such desperation are flying at each other's throats in an attempt to solve the problems that we created for them.
We have had an amendment from the official opposition which speaks of the sharp increases in government expenditures. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom all the words between the word "taxation" and the words "the sharp increase" and by substituting therefor the following words:
"particularly its failure to revise the income tax structure so that a married couple with an annual income of $4,000 or less would not be subject to tax; its failure to remove the sales tax from building materials and supplies used in housing construction; and Its failure to take any steps to deal with"


Mr. Knowles:: Those are the words.


Colin Cameron: Yes, I see now that they are the words. They did not seem to make sense to me but I see now that they do. It makes as much sense as the Conservative amendment allowed us to make.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A lot more.


Colin Cameron: A lot more, perhaps.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the centennial budget introduced by the
The Budget-Mr. Caouette Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) has not had the good fortune of pleasing too many people.
As usual, it was a disappointing budget, a budget through which so much was expected of the government and which, on the whole, has produced nothing concrete.
The night of the budget speech, we heard on television the comments of representatives of the various parties in this house and they were unanimous in their disappointment, except of course the member of the Administration (Mr. Chretien) who lauded the benefits accruing from the budget to the Canadian people, when the minister announced the elimination of the 12 per cent tax on pills-I do not know if these are birth control pills-and of the 12 per cent tax on pills and drugs sold in Canada.
The only tax which the government dared to touch is one affecting the smallest number of Canadian citizens. When building materials are involved, an important area, the government is powerless. When additional amounts would have to be found, for instance, to meet the requests of the farmers, the government is unable to act. If an increase in family allowances is requested, the government cannot meet the request because there is an accumulated deficit; in fact, at the end of the present fiscal year, there will be an accumulated deficit of about $740 million.
That is why it is important for the minister not to reduce taxes, not to increase services and to remain at a standstill, except to remove the 12 per cent tax on drugs.
Mr. Speaker, the budget does not reduce either the servicing of the debt which will reach $1,234 million this year. We can afford to pay those interests on the national debt: $1,234 million. The defence budget will require $1,800 million. We can afford to pay that much for national defence, but to increase pensions, family allowances and to help Canada's poor, no funds are available.
And keep one thing in mind, Mr. Speaker. There is now a serious threat that the war between Israel and the Arab countries will develop into a world war. If both belligerents pay no attention to a resolution for a cease fire which the security council of the United Nations would pass, that will mean that Canada may be involved in a third world war. Then, the minister and the government will find the necessary money to take part in the war.
Mr. Speaker, before that takes place, I firmly state that we do not have the financial

June G, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Caouette means to take part in a third world war. We do not have the money now to face a war. If the financial system is unable to fight poverty and insecurity in Canada, it is certainly unable to finance our participation in a third world war. We will object to it very strongly, precisely for the reasons I just stated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: 
Mr. Laiulippe:: It respects only finance.


David Réal Caouette: Of course, that is the only
thing which is respected. Everyone crawls before the financial system.
In wartime, productivity increases, there are no more strikes, mention is never made of unemployment. With the return of peace, the picture darkens again. As soon as peace has come back, we have misery in the midst of abundance. Does that mean that true prosperity must be attained by bloodshed of our fellow-citizens and our children?
The following question has remained without an answer from the minister of Finances: How is it that we are able to finance ourselves in wartime and not in peacetime?
June 6, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Caouette
How is it that we cannot help farmers more than we do in peacetime? But we can help them in wartime as long as we have gifts to make, either to England or to other European countries. We give them farm products.
Right now, the world is full of people who live in misery and for whom we could do something. Why cannot our farmers have the assurance that they will sell their production?


Auguste Choquette: Will you allow me to say
one thing: wartime is an emergency.


David Réal Caouette: When the farmer is starving, is that not an emergency in Canada?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Auguste Choquette: Oh yes. This is an emergency situation. That is why they have $30 million more this year.
Here is the question I want to put to the hon. member: In wartime, we are facing a crisis, an emergency. Everybody is ready to make special efforts. Governments are not the only ones to blame. Individuals themselves are ready to work harder in wartime, because they are facing a crisis, whereas in peacetime-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I like the intervention of the hon. member for Lotbiniere. His words are objective and he is right. In wartime, we unite our efforts to meet an emergency. If we were to do the same thing in peacetime, if the member for Lotbiniere, for instance, joined the Ralliement Creditiste, to settle the problem of the Quebec farmers, I can assure you that the member for Lotbiniere would have the admiration of his constituency.
Mr. Speaker, I realize an emergency exists, as the governments recognize the existence of poverty in Canada, one of the richest countries in the world. Mr. Speaker, this is an emergency, and I believe that the life of our citizens is an issue as urgent as the war issue which is leading them to a massacre on a world scale. I have greater trust in the life of people than in their death.
In wartime, productivity increases. Mr. Speaker, every province is now forescasting increased expenditures over last year-the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) will have to face this problem-except the province of Quebec of course, which prefers tightening its belt for the time being.
But even if Quebec reduces its expenditures, it is clear that the government must face a deficit which cannot be met from the
[Mr. Caouette.)
tax yield. The Quebec Hydro is now negotiating on the New York market for a new $50 million loan.
Is that not a sign that available funds on the home market are already getting rare, as usual? On the national scale, the same thing is happening.
If our industry were to find itself in the same position as last year, it is most likely that development would not proceed at the necessary pace. In that case, greater public expenditures and slower production of goods could only lead to inflation, at a time when everything should be done to contain it. If we want to maintain our position in international trade and allow each individual in Canada to live decently, in security and in freedom, we must urgently reform our financial system.
Every year, Canadian municipalities show a greater deficit and mounting interests. The school boards are all in a very bad way financially: every year they have a greater deficit and must pay more interest.
Who pays for all those deficits? The Canadian citizen. The taxpayers are the ones who pay for the inflation brought about by the government. The government creates inflation and the Canadian people pay for it.
There have been hundreds of strikes in Canada. But, although it is only normal that workers should try to improve their lot, the situation has in no way improved. No strike in Canada has ever provided a solution to the labour problem. The workers are urged to rebel by their leaders, but this produces no solution to their problem. In fact, nothing is changed, except that the cost of living continues to rise. Therefore, we do not have more money in our pocket after a strike, but even less. We should all realize this, and I should like to see someone prove me wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I put this question to the Minister of Finance. Is the present banking system not a debt creating system-as he well knows-under which the total debt will never be paid, not even in part, if we are to keep on developing our natural resources at all? It is not by creating further debts through loans that we will be able to repay our present debts. Yet, that is the solution offered by the government: in order to repay bonds issued fifty years ago, let us borrow in 1967 to repay the debt and interests. Normally, we pay the interests and the debt is transferred to the national accumulated debt of Canada.
June S, 1967	COMMONS
The main deficiency of the present system is that having been created during a period of scarcity, it is inadequate in times of prosperity. That is why Canadians are living in poverty amidst riches.
Mr. Speaker, as everybody knows, the production problem in Canada is not for the farmer nor the factory nor the manufacturer. The only problem is that of distribution of goods and services for human needs, that is for the Canadian consumer. This is the only solution to the problem which, as members of parliament, we must strive to solve without party considerations.
Mr. Speaker, is the present system the solution to a problem of its own creation? Certainly not. It creates problems instead of solving them. It is up to the minister to answer or deny this. The federal government has no funds to help the farmers. The other day, 20,000 farmers came to parliament hill, hoping to go back home with something. But they went home empty-handed, with a mere promise that their case would be studied again by June 10, those people who still had high hopes where there was no hope left. It was in this very house that we heard the member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote) say this: the Quebec farmers are coming here to congratulate the government, not to ask for something, just to congratulate the government. We have seen the kind of congratulations the members of the cabinet got in front of the centre block. The Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) could not even finish his speech to the 20,000 farmers jammed on parliament hill.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) was not too vocal either on that day, before the 20,000 farmers who assembled on parliament hill.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I doubt that the hon. member for Villeneuve interpreted correctly the words of the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote). In all fairness for the latter, one should say that he did not interpret the farmers' march on parliament as a message of congratulations, but that he simply stated the people should not play politics with the farmers' march, which is what our hon. friend for Villeneuve has been doing, that is he has interpreted the farmers' march from a Credi-tiste point of view, which is not correct.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I had before me the text of the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska, but I do not have it any more.
DEBATES	1205
The Budget-Mr. Caouette However, his statement amounted to this: The farmers are not coming here to blame the government; they are coming to thank the government for what it has done for them.
If the hon. member wishes to find the speech of the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska, I am ready to let him know where the speech is recorded. He said, what the hon. member for Lotbiniere has just mentioned, but be added that the farmers came to thank the government. This remark is contained in the speech that he made to second the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the situation can be summed up as follows: the government does not have money for the labour of peace. But it has always plenty for the labour of war, for blood and destruction. The present system is unfair and illogical, and those who promote such a system by voting in its favour or by abstaining from voting are accomplices.
We have just witnessed four by-elections in Quebec and one in Ontario. Thousands of people are so disappointed with politics that they do not even care to vote any more.
Mr. Speaker, for the information of the hon. member for Lotbiniere, I just found the statement made by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska where he said, as can be seen on page 28 of the May 9 Hansard:
The producers of manufacturing milk will perhaps be coming here, in the national capital, to voice their needs and not do as many may think, that is to criticize the government. On the contrary, farmers are more intelligent than that. They will support this government in its efforts to help them in the face of all other classes of society.
This is the word-for-word statement made by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska. Now, the hon. member for Lotbiniere must have realized, in front of the parliament buildings, that the farmers did not necessarily come in order to support the government. On the contrary, they came to claim something from the government, which is not exactly the same thing.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, there is a group of farmers that really came to support the government, namely to guide the policy of this government.


David Réal Caouette: Those who came from my constituency.


Auguste Choquette: Now, there were many Creditiste organizers, and I saw many of them.


David Réal Caouette: They wanted $5.10 per hundredweight for manufacturing milk.
June 6. 1967

The Budget-Mr. Caouette


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I point out to the hon. member that the hon. member for Villeneuve has the floor. He may not be interrupted except to be asked a question.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I merely wanted to dot the i's and prove to the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) that what I said was true, that it really happened that way.
Now, I was speaking of the by-elections we have just had in the province of Quebec. In the riding of Hull, out of 44,000 voters, only 22,000 took advantage of their right to vote. Half the people stayed home in that riding. In Montreal, barely 20 to 22 per cent voted; 80 per cent stayed home. Is it that the people are pleased with the government? No. The people have had enough of politics, they will not have anything more to do with it. And, in the riding of Hull-


Mr. Maife:: They should have voted
Creditiste.


David Réal Caouette: I understand. The hon. member for Champlain says they should have voted Creditiste.
In the riding of Hull, we had as candidate Rene Villeneuve, a school principal; and the member for Champlain knows full well that Villeneuve was the best candidate in that riding, regardless of the fact that he was the candidate for the Social Credit party. He got almost 9,000 votes, that is more than in 1965, while the Liberals lost ground in all four ridings, and were beaten in Sudbury. The hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) said the other night on television, "The people are in favour of the Liberals." "The people voted liberal". Ah, come on. The people stayed home, they did not vote. In Hull, a Liberal riding for 75 years, the candidate elected got only three thousand some hundred votes majority while the Liberal majority in 1965 was over 9,000 votes. The electors who did not vote thought they were doing well, but they lost a wonderful opportunity of giving themselves a representative who would fight against the system, instead of the men.
I have nothing personal against Pierre Caron, who was elected in the Hull riding. He is one who deserves respect. He is a young man; he has qualities and I will never belittle him as a citizen. But, as far as the system is

concerned, I assure you that I will not go for that easily.
The same applies in the case of the Liberal candidate elected in Richelieu-Vercheres- people did not take the trouble of going out to vote. At any rate, those people certainly did not approve of the present situation, for it can lead nowhere but an increased national debt and ever-increasing difficulties to live decently in a country which, after all, is bursting with natural resources.


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


David Réal Caouette: Yes.


Georges-C. Lachance: What does the hon. member have to say about the 25 per cent only of the population who voted in the last municipal election in Montreal? Does it mean that the people were not satisfied with Mayor Drapeau of Montreal?


David Réal Caouette: No, no. But there you say: "People were not satisfied". Well it is the irresponsible people that remained at home, those who are not conscious of their responsibilities, those who are too lazy to get up and go. And there are thousands of them in the city of Montreal. I am going to arrange for a meeting and I shall tell them so at their own face, too. That is the city of Montreal! You wanted to know what I think of it, that is it. They are too callous, they lack the courage to stand up and vote for someone or against someone. If they were satisfied with Mayor Drapeau, they should have gone to tell him: "We are pleased with you, Mr. Drapeau."


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: I only need about two minutes. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank very sincerely my hon. friends in the house for allowing me to continue my remarks, I shall not take very long.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Villeneuve wish to continue?


David Réal Caouette: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
June 6. 1967


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you Mr. Speaker.
We can hold different views and yet remain sociable, as the hon. members are proving now. I will do the same thing in return.
Mr. Speaker, what the Canadian people have been expecting for more than a hundred years, is an efficient, up-to-date government, a government that is adaptable and does not fear to go out and get the tools required to give economic, political and social security to every citizen.
It is my distinct and clear impression that every member holds the view that we should have an aggressive government, a government which is not afraid to take decisions or to face the current evolution. Instead of maintaining the status quo, of holding back, of marking time, let us go ahead when it is time to do so. Let us take the means and build the tools to do the job. It would not be honest for me to say that I reject everything in the present system. Far from it, but I submit that the present administration is not dealing with the real problem. I have said it several times, the government is not dealing with the major problem that now impairs every measure it is recommending or thinking of initiating.
In his budget speech, the minister said:
The past 18 months have been eventful ones in our fiscal affairs-a budget and a mini-budget, three bills to amend the Income Tax Act, one to amend the tax provisions of the Old Age Security Act, two to amend the sales tax, two temporary restraints on business capital investment, the commencement of the Canada pension plan which had major fiscal effects, several reviews of government expenditure policy, a major debate on inflation last September and a long series of hearings by a joint committee into the increases in consumer prices.
It is clear, is it not? Without underrating those initiatives, it is obvious that those solutions to the present problem are simply patchwork measures in an effort to remedy the worse. Nevertheless, they remain only poultices on wooden legs and do not solve the problem.
But of all those pieces of legislation, not one is intended to make our national economy a modern, efficient, flourishing and balanced economy. Is the problem of cyclical crises such as inflation cured and avoided? Absolutely not. Everyone knows that.
The Budget-Mr. Caouette
All those measures which the government introduced in the house have not solved the problem, since the minister, in his present budget, warns the Canadian people against the dangers threatening them. That is not new. It is the repetition of what we were told five, ten, even fifteen years ago. I remember that twenty years ago, the hon. Mr. Abbott, who was then minister of finance and who is now puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, made the same speech or a similar one to that which we heard the other day. Now, that proves that the measures passed by this house were simply temporary, incomplete and inefficient.
Therefore, I ask the minister to explain, for the benefit of all Canadians who are deeply concerned at the present time, how he intends in peace time, to make our economy flourishing, productive, fair, balanced, free of disastrous cyclical crises such as inflation or hardship within affluence.
The creditistes are not not the only ones to contend that and I take the liberty, before concluding my remarks, to quote the comments made by Marcel Pepin, a newspaperman of he Droit of Ottawa, in the issue of June 2 last:
If the Minister of Finance advocates, for all practical purposes, a policy of moderate wage increases, he still refuses to set up a policy for the maintenance of prices and the control of profits, so that his budget speech is nothing but a speech, an exhortation.
Well equipped with documents and data supplied by the officials of the Department of Finance, Mr. Sharp was able to utter his fears concerning an economic distortion in 1937, but fettered as he is by the capitalist character of the government of which he is a member, he merely submitted an exhortation on present conditions.
I understand that Mr. Pepin would like to see a policy of price and salary control, in short, the control of the entire Canadian economy, but the creditistes do not advocate such a controlled economy. On the contrary, they advocate that the way to restore the balance between production and the consumers' purchasing power in Canada, is to distribute to every Canadian citizen a sum called a national dividend based on the difference between Canadian production and the national income, at the present level, thus creating neither inflation nor deflation but restoring the balance between the purchasing power of consumers and Canadian production. Such is the solution of creditistes.
1208	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Caouette e (5:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, on page 38 of his budget speech, the minister says in his distinctive evasive style:
The economy is in a state of approximate balance-
Approximate balance! There is but a small gap of $740 million.
-during a period oi readjustment, cooling off somewhat from the overheated condition of last year.
He goes on in that marvelous phraseology by saying:
The modest prospective deficit in the federal budget in terms of our national economic accounts will be a moderate sustaining force this year.
There you have all that is needed to stage the nicest parody of the century. Approximate balance, does that mean real imbalance? When one speaks of an approximate balance, it is because one is not sure. Then imbalance exists and that is what we are now experiencing. The Canadian people would certainly like to hear about it, but from the minister himself. A small deficit! On the traditional basis of public accounts, the deficit stood at $428 million last year, and this year, having increased, it will reach $740 million by next fall.
The least that can be said is that it is not a mini-deficit but rather a very sizeable one that weighs heavily on the shoulders of every Canadian taxpayer, not to mention the fact that the national debt carries interest.
In 1965-66, this interest was $1,077 million. It rose to $1,159 milion in 1966-67, and to $1,237 million

not $234 million-in 1967-68. That is just the interest on the national debt.
All this, Mr. Speaker, leads me to the conclusion that we could have 25 years of budget speeches such as the one made by the present Minister of Finance without a solution to the problem being found.
Canadians want positive action. They want to live decently in a country which they are ready to build, and I am sure that hon. members and the ministers all want Canada to develop and grow.
Today, it is the financial system which impedes development and stumps growth because it always forces us to pay two or three times for what we get.
To build a school, we borrow. When the time comes to pay for it, two of them have been paid for, one for finance, one for us.

DEBATES	June 6, 1967
Whenever a road is built, one is paid to finance, and one is for us. The same thing goes for hospitals; one is paid for finance and one is for us.
If we have to pay back twice, how can we develop a country like ours? Mr. Speaker, I call on the Minister of Finance, on the Member of the Administration who is still his financial advisor, and on all the ministers to think about the situation and to start giving serious consideration to the possibility of amending our financial system so that it would serve Canada, our institutions.
When the financial system really reflects what we are truly doing in Canada, what our population is paying in Canada, then, Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will not have to fight poverty but that we will be able to guarantee to each and every Canadian, economic security and personal freedom.
(English)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There is a subamendment moved by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron). Possibly the hon. member for Medicine Hat would permit me to read it now and then he could proceed with his remarks. It is moved by Mr. Cameron, seconded by Mr. Knowles:
That the amendment he amended by deleting therefrom all the words between the word 'taxation" and the words "the sharp increase" and by substituting therefor the following words:
"particularly its failure to revise the income tax structure so that a married couple with an annual income of $4,000 or less would not be subject to tax: its failure to remove the sales tax from building materials and supplies used in housing construction; and its failure to take any steps to deal with"
The Chair considers that the subamendment is in order.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) speaking on behalf of the official opposition, called the budget a bad budget and used a number of other adjectives to describe it. He was followed by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron), speaking on behalf of the New Democratic party, who called it no budget at all. Then we had the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) pointing out some failures, in his opinion, with respect to financial matters.
If it is no budget at all there is very little left for me to say and perhaps I will have to do what the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands suggested, produce a
June 6, 1967

budget in my speech. I am going to do that, Mr. Speaker, or at least partially deal with some matters, but not until I have said a word or two about the amendment and the subamendment that have been moved. I wonder whether the hon. member for Perth and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) who moved and seconded the amendment did so with tongue in cheek because the amendment says:
This government has failed miserably to set an example of responsibility by its refusal to reduce taxation, by its reckless increase in governmental expenditures-
I also wonder whether the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who moved and seconded the subamendment, did so with tongue in cheek when they subscribed to most of the amendment and injected some specific ways in which taxes ought to be reduced.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We cut out a lot.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I know what you cut out and I know what is left. You cut out the reference to "an example of responsibility by its refusal to reduce taxation," etc. and added something else. The reason I mention this at this time is that I cannot take the amendment and subamendment seriously because every time last session that there was a proposal before the house to increase federal expeditures the spokesmen for both those parties not only endorsed those expenditures but almost invariably said, "It is not enough; there should be more." To be kind, I think their attitude is just a little hypocritical and I do not think we can take amendments of this kind seriously after the performances we have seen.
Turning now to the minister's speech I would like to ask him to give us some good reasons why he brought in the budget at this time because amendments to income and corporation taxes apparently must await further study of the report of the Carter royal commission. That study has been going on for almost six years. Surely the minister is not prepared to admit that he, his advisers and his party are so bankrupt of ideas for overhauling the tax structure of Canada that they could not at least have brought in something in the budget to make a start on overhauling the tax structure.
The minister also said that all tariff changes will await further study and consideration of the Kennedy round of trade negotiations. I can agree with him that some
The Budget-Mr. Olson additional time may be required to consider the results of that round of negotiations which concluded recently. But I return to the original question. Why bring in a budget which in essence says we are going to postpone tax amendments and tariff changes? Even one of the two tax changes that the budget did introduce, the removal of the sales tax on drugs, will not take effect until September 1, three months from now.
In presenting this budget I think the minister has left the Canadian economy and Canadian business in an even more uncertain position than before it was introduced. The minister has told the country that there is a future possibility of a large number of income tax changes. However, he did not say when they would be introduced. Will certain kinds of business enterprises be postponed waiting for these changes? These changes may deal with capital costs and may deal with income tax rates, both personal and corporate. As a result there is much more uncertainty than prevailed before the budget speech was made. Other than the tradition of introducing a budget once a year I cannot see any reason why the minister introduced this kind of budget.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It wasn't a budget; it was a sermon.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I agree it was a sermon or lecture, whichever you like to call it, but along with that the minister should have made specific proposals or should have waited until he was ready to make such proposals. I should now like to turn to another subject for a moment.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I was just going to ask the hon. member whether he liked my sermon or the sermon of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I was about to deal with that. As a matter of fact I liked both sermons, but I am also in some disagreement with both. Concerning the sermon delivered by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands respecting the persecution, discrimination and other inhuman treatment meted out to the Jews and Arabs over the generations, I should like to say that I was to a large measure in agreement with what he said in so far as the history of the matter is concerned. I must say, however, that I was also a little disturbed by his conclusion and where he laid the blame for the perpetuation of this problem, because I heard him say

June 6, 196?
The Budget-Mr. Olson several times that the whole responsibility for the present dispute in the Middle East and for the hatred and so on which have been built up can be and should be laid at the door of Christendom and the western civilization.
I am not attempting to exonerate Christendom and the western civilization from their fair share of the responsibility, in whatever context one wishes to put it, but I should like to say this and give an example. I sat in the United Nations general assembly last fall when voluntary contributions were being received for the United Nations refugee commissioner. There was, I believe, a request for $30 million for the refugee fund, most of which is used for the Palestine refugees in the Gaza strip and other camps in the Middle East. There are other places where it is used but a very large percentage is used for the relief of the refugees there. Out of the $30 million, $22 million was volunteered by the United States of America. I am not sure of the exact amount but somewhere between $1.3 million and $1.5 million was volunteered by Canada. The balance of the $30 million was volunteered by such countries as the United Kingdom, Scandinavia, and so on. Not one cent was volunteered by any socialist country in eastern Europe.
I do not wish to pour salt on sore wounds, but the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands repeatedly stated that the whole problem of the refugees and the difficulties which arise from that problem should be laid at the door of western civilization and Christendom. I think it is well for us to be reminded once in a while of the facts before we swallow this kind of conclusion, notwithstanding the fact that we can recognize the problem as he pointed it out.
We are faced with a prospective of some $740 million in this fiscal year. I am not opposed to the government increasing expenditures when authorized by a vote or there is agreement in the house that this is what we should do. But I believe the Canadian public and the Canadian taxpayers, who ultimately must pay for all these expenditures, should be presented with the bill for these so-called acceptable expenditures as soon as possible after they are made.
All that a deficit does in any fiscal year is to postpone, sometimes briefly and sometimes a little longer, the day of reckoning, the day when the taxpayer must face up to the fact that these expenditures have been made by parliament. Therefore I suggest to the minister, although it may not have been politically

wise at that point and may have been an unpleasant task, that consequent upon the request for legislation and the expenditures which were passed by the house he should have brought in a budget as soon as possible after the legislation was passed so that the taxpayers would have been presented with the bill. I say that because the relationship between the so-called expenditures and the obligation to pay the price is lost if it is postponed.
Further, we disagree that there should be a large deficit at this time. If there is any time in Canadian economic history when we ought to be at least balancing the budget, if not budgeting for a surplus to pay off some of the past indebtedness, surely it is in a time when economic conditions are reasonably buoyant. I do not believe that conditions will get a great deal better than they are in this fiscal year 1967-68. If we cannot meet our expenses in this kind of a situation, when in heaven's name will we be able to?
I should like to turn now to another subject, the matter of how the minister will raise these cash requirements. The Minister of Finance has suggested that his net additional cash requirement for this fiscal year will be $1,520 million, some of which will be used for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, some of which will be used for the Farm Credit Corporation, and some of which will be used for loans to governments and to pay the deficit.
If we are to be faced with this kind of deficit or national debt in Canada, I would certainly hope that the minister will expand a practice which has been started. I hope he will obtain a larger share of that money from the Bank of Canada. In a discussion earlier this year we heard the minister say in the house that the Bank of Canada over the last five years has been expanding the amount of the money supply on an average of about $200 million per year. I commend him and the other persons responsible for this. However, in a year when we are faced with a requirement for $1,520 million in additional net cash, I suggest that an amount of $200 million coming from the Bank of Canada is an insufficient proportion.
We could become involved in a long argument about how much the money supply will increase during this fiscal year. I am sure the Minister of Finance will agree with me when I say it is not unusual to see a greater increase in the money supply in those years when the government budgets for a deficit
June 6, 1967

than there is in other years. It seems to me that this is an opportune time for the minister and the governor of the Bank of Canada to assume the attitude that a much larger proportion of the money to be supplied should be supplied by the Bank of Canada in this fiscal year.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask the hon. member whether he does not agree that one of the main considerations which must weigh with the monetary authorities is the relationship in respect of the interest rate as between Canada and the United States, particularly with regard to long-term bonds.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not disagree with that at all. I know there are many other considerations which must be taken into account with regard to the amount of the increase in the money supply and where it comes from. 1 am not disagreeing with that. I am just suggesting that if $200 million per year as an average over the last five years, as I believe the minister stated in the house in February, was an appropriate amount when the deficit of the federal government was much smaller than is budgeted for now, a larger share of the fiscal requirements of the federal government could be and should be supplied by the Bank of Canada.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I do not want to go over a lot of the history of the fiscal dealings of the Bank of Canada because I did so in February when the revisions to the Bank of Canada were before the house. However, I should like to put on record one of the examples I have in mind, and I have many of them in front of me. On November 28, 1966, the government of Canada announced a $500 million bond issue. The Bank of Canada picked up $250 million of that $500 million. Some of that money was raised to redeem an issue that was maturing part of which the Bank of Canada held, so in effect they were partially replacing a maturing issue with a new issue. However, it seems to me that this is a good example.
For a great number of years the policy of this party has been that the total requirements of the federal government in certain areas of expenditure should be met by the Bank of Canada to the extent that it is in keeping with sound monetary policy, bearing in mind inflation and that sort of thing. Let me appeal to the minister to take this fact into consideration, because the results are that the greater the amount the Bank of
The Budget-Mr. Olson Canada holds of federal government indebtedness, the greater the amount the Bank of Canada turns over to the federal treasury at the end of their fiscal year.
This amount has been increasing substantially in the past few years. I have before me the report of the Bank of Canada for 1966 which shows that for that year it turned over net income to the Receiver General of Canada in the amount of $150,585,000, which was substantially more than the year before. The more Canadian government bonds that are purchased and held by the Bank of Canada, the more interest accumulates and the higher will be the return to the minister and to the treasury of Canada. I hope that the minister and the governor of the Bank of Canada will give serious consideration to the bank picking up a larger portion of whatever is the amount of a prudent increase in the money supply for this fiscal year.
Let me now turn to another matter, the old age security fund. The minister stated that the surplus in this fund would be increased by $109 million and that this will be added to the $430 million now in the account. Thus at the end of this fiscal year, if all projections are accurate, there will be a surplus of some $530 million to $540 million in the old age security fund.
When the mini-budget was brought forward last fall there was not that kind of explanation given which I think we require at this time. The situation now requires a great deal more explanation. When the minibudget was presented we were told that the revenue resulting from the increase in income and other taxes to be apportioned to the old age security fund was only sufficient to meet the increased payments as a result of the guaranteed income supplement. It now appears that the fund is increasing rather rapidly. I suppose there is the possibility that following each year during which the age is dropped from 67 to 66 and eventually to 65, there will be a greater number of citizens receiving old age security and this will no doubt increase the expenditures from the fund. If that is the complete explanation, it was not made clear to the house.
If I recall clearly the minister's responses to questions, he suggested that the additional taxes resulting from the mini-budget would only be sufficient to cover expenditures for old age security purposes. This fund went up some $200 million this year and we now have a projection of $109 million more. When will we reach the stage when the revenue is balanced with the expenditures from this fund?

June 6, 1967
The Budget

Mr. Olson I hope the minister will keep this question in mind because it does seem to me to be a bit of a disservice to the senior citizen recipients of old age security to blame them for the total amount of the increase in taxes at a time when there is and continues to be a surplus building up in this fund.
I should now like to talk for a few minutes about the proposals in the budget regarding the price of drugs. The minister has said that effective September 1 the sales tax on all drugs, both for human and animal use, will be withdrawn. I noted with interest and appreciation that the Minister of Finance also said that he believed some of the other regulations which the government was now prepared to change respecting duties on importations would probably have at least as great or perhaps a greater effect on the retail price of drugs than the withdrawal of the sales tax.
We need an additional explanation, because I searched the budget speech in vain to find out what the Minister of Finance or the government intends to do about such things as the licences respecting the patent rights and importing of medicines or drugs. This has a very important effect on the price of drugs today. He did say something would be done with regard to the tariff schedules on drugs. The first recommendation made by the province of Alberta to the standing committee on drug costs and prices was:
Compulsory licences to import should be granted, subject to the payment of reasonable royalities. These licences should provide for the importation of semi-finished and finished dosage forms as well as bulk drugs.
We know there has been a sustaining feature in the price of drugs as a result of these acclaimed patent rights. We look forward to hearing not only from the Minister of Finance but his colleagues as well about what they intend to do regarding the regulations and the duty which must be paid on these drugs as they come across the border. I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) in the house. Perhaps he already knows what the government's intentions in this respect are. I certainly hope he will not keep the house and the people of Canada waiting too long for these proposals.
The last matter I want to deal with is one which could properly be brought before the house during the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Transport. I realize that they have already been before the house for three or four days and it is highly unlikely, if the estimates of other departments are to be considered for a reasonable

length of time, that the estimates of the Department of Transport will come before the committee of supply again. That is why it is necessary that I raise the matter at this time.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I refer to the subvention that will be paid by the federal government for the transportation of coal from the Crowsnest pass area of Alberta and British Columbia to the west coast. I raise the matter at this time, and I think quite properly so, because the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) said in the house on January 23 last, when the new transportation bill was being discussed, in response to a question I asked him:
I would think that in any case where there was a possibility of a subsidy any government would be guilty of negligence in not being represented in order to see that as far as possible all the costs that were alleged by a carrier, whoever he might be, were properly checked and audited.
I do not have time to read all the quotations where the Minister of Transport outlined time and again that the first duty of the new transportation commission would be to establish the variable costs of moving any commodity. He repeated time and again that the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Transport and others would be remiss in their duty if they did not firmly establish what the variable costs of moving coal or any other commodity would be if there was any possibility of a subsidy being paid out of the federal treasury. We have not had an inquiry. We have not had a public hearing to establish the variable costs that the railways will be allowed for moving any commodity.
The reason this question is so important in my view is that I believe the Canadian Pacific Railway is doing a great injustice to the coal mining operations in the Crowsnest, as well as to the Canadian treasury, by demanding $5.28 a ton to move the coal. The Great Northern Railway in the northern United States has offered to carry it for $4 a ton. A group representing the coal mining interests in the Crowsnest pass went to the trouble of having a competent firm of cost accountants look into the matter and try to establish, on the information they had, what would be the variable costs of moving this coal. As appears at page 2162 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the standing committee on transport and communications, October 31, 1966, Mr. Dutton who was speaking on their behalf said:
Our organization, R. L. Banks and Associates, made a cost study for the Coal Operators Association of Western Canada in which we estimated as
June 6, 1967

closely as we could the variable cost of the transportation of coal from the three member mines to Port Moody for export. In the case of Coleman, which is one of the mines, our calculation worked out the variable cost at $2.80 per ton, which is the figure on the first line on page 8.
Then he said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member as his time has expired.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wonder whether I could just finish this point, Mr. Speaker. It is the last point with which I wish to deal. I would ask the indulgence of the house to allow me to finish.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to thank the house for giving me the opportunity to finish my remarks. Mr. Dutton continued:
Now, the $5.28 a ton rate is arithmetically 84 per cent greater than this $2.86 a ton variable cost which we had calculated.
In the same Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the committee this firm, R. L. Banks and Associates, which is highly qualified, said:	"
For low value, heavy loading, bulk commodities, any such mark-up is unbearable and unprecedented. In the United States in 1961, the average excess of revenue over variable cost was 27 per cent. Of course, for many commodities the excess was much greater, in a few cases even exceeding 150 per cent. For coal it was 7 per cent.
If it can be established that the variable cost of moving this coal from southwestern Alberta to the west coast is $2.86 per ton and that 84 per cent over that figure is an unreasonable mark-up, there is no justification, first of all, for the C.P.R. demanding that rate and, second, for the government acquiescing to that demand without a thorough investigation.
I close by saying that there are dozens of instances in Hansard where the Minister of Transport stated time and again that there would be a full inquiry into, first of all, the techniques of establishing costs and then establishing the costs in regard to specific commodities. This has not been done. I am just as much concerned about the coal mines in southwestern Alberta and their operations as I am about the public treasury, because if this coal was accepted by the Canadian Pacific Railway at the same rate that was offered by the Great Northern the coal operators would not need a subsidy. Furthermore, the coal industry has a great future but not at $5.28 a
Supply-Solicitor General ton, which appears to be 84 per cent over the proper variable costs.
I hope that the Minister of Finance, who is responsible to the Canadian people for the public treasury, will have a conference with the Minister of Transport and perhaps the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) to see that a very high priority is placed on establishing the variable costs of moving this coal. There is an enormous market for our coal in Japan and perhaps other countries as soon as we can get the Canadian Pacific Railway to haul it to the west coast at a reasonable price.
I want to thank the house for its indulgence in allowing me a few extra minutes to complete my remarks. I hope that when the Minister of Finance replies he will not overlook the fact that we want the coal mining industry in southwestern Alberta and southeastern British Columbia to be able to operate on a sound basis. These people do not need a government subsidy if they can get a reasonable rate from the one and only railroad which can serve them. I hope the techniques for establishing these costs and so on will be one of the matters the government will deal with as quickly as it is physically possible to do so.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to make sure that the hon. member is aware of the agreement reached recently by the government through the Dominion Coal Board with Coleman and I should like to ask him-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to bring to the attention of the minister that the hon. member's time expired a while ago and I doubt that we should extend it further.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with discussions that have already taken place I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
I. Departmental administration including administrative expenses of the Committee on Corrections plus such fees, salaries and expenses as may be approved by Treasury Board for members and the panel of consultants and staff named by the minister to advise and assist the committee, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $1,015,400.
1214	COMMONS
Supply-Solicitor General
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House again in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of the Solicitor General for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968, vote No. 1. Vote No. 1 will be found at page 478 of the blue book and the details thereof are listed on page 480.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I believe the house would have cause to complain if I neglected to make some reference in my opening statement to the problem of crime. It is useful to remind ourselves of the presence of this problem which poses a threat to the quality of our society. Crime, and particularly the varieties of sophisticated crime which confront the police today, flourishes best where publicity is at a minimum and where the community is not alert to the wide range of devious methods which the 1967 model criminal sometimes uses to achieve his goals. We must turn the spotlight of publicity on both the crime and the master criminal in order to focus national attention upon the problem.
It is an unpleasant fact that there has been an increase in reported general crime. By "general crime" I mean the usual types of criminal activity: robbery, theft, breaking and entering, and so on. The available statistics indicate that crimes of this kind are increasing in number each year. In 1966 there were 737,900 Criminal Code and federal statute offences, excluding traffic offences, reported. This mean 1.4 serious offences occur every minute in Canada.
There are apparently three causes for the increase of reported general crime. First, part of the increase can be found in the word "reported". Until recently, a number of police forces either were not alert to the importance of reporting their activities to a central agency or lacked the staff that would have enabled them to report on a regular basis. These handicaps are being overcome and the results, in part, are reflected in an increase in reported crime.
Second, the increase in our population has also brought an increase in the number of offences. Assuming an unchanged rate of crime, there would of course be an increase in the total number of offences in proportion to the increase in the total population.
Finally, I believe there has been, in fact, an increase in the per capita rate of crime in this country. It is no comfort to learn that in the United States and Great Britain the increase in reported crime is higher than in Canada. There is an increase in reported crime in

DEBATES	e- 1967
Canada, however it may be explained, and it must of necessity cause us some concern.
A significant fact in recent years has been that the nature of the task facing police forces is changing. The police are being called upon to deal with a silent enemy within our borders known as organized crime.
The phrase "organized crime" is of course in common usage, but it is not always easy to pinpoint what that expression means. Basically, of course, it means that criminals cease to operate as individuals and begin to work in teams, co-operating wherever it suits their interests. Criminal organizations grow up in which some men are virtually the employees of higher-ranked criminals who direct activities. An additional characteristic of organized crime is that the criminal group remains in existence over long periods of time, constantly turning its hand to new fields; in a sense, this makes a permanent business of crime. These illegal activities have arisen for the chief purpose of catering to our vices -gambling, drinking, narcotics-with illegitimate financial profit as the objective.
Then, we sometimes speak of crime syndicates which the R.C.M.P. describes in these words:
"Syndicated crime" denotes a subsisting association of persons engaged in criminal activities, and so highly organized and successful that it has acquired exclusive control or a monopoly over certain types of crime, or all crime, in a given area.
To know the nature of organized crime is to know the dimensions of the problem the police face. There has been an occasional critical reference to the government's response to the problem of crime. Generally, I take no exception to criticism for I interpret it as a genuine concern about a serious problem. But as hon. members will realize, the investigation and prosecution of crime in Canada is, generally speaking, a matter within the responsibility of the provincial authorities. Normal criminal investigation comes within the provisions of section 92 of the B.N.A. Act which leave the administration of justice to the several provinces.
The R.C.M.P. is primarily a federal police force, of course, although it functions on a contract basis in eight provinces as a provincial force. Even in those provinces, however, it has no direct policing authority or responsibility in the major cities which have their own forces reporting to the provincial attorney general. Therefore, the activities of the federal police are restricted in so far as organized crime is concerned. The R.C.M.P. enforce certain federal statutes such as the
June 6, 1967

Narcotics Control Act and on this basis encounter large-scale crime. They also maintain a criminal intelligence network in the country, and on this basis gain an awareness of criminal activities everywhere. They co-operate on request with local authorities and are the channel of communication with law enforcement agencies in other countries, such as the F.B.I. or Interpol.
I believe there is no police force in the country which is better informed than the R.C.M.P. on the dimensions of the criminal problem. Nevertheless it should not be forgotten in this house that under our constitutional arrangements the R.C.M.P. have no direct involvement with many of the activities which criminals are pursuing.
In the two largest provinces, of course, the R.C.M.P. do not function as provincial police forces, and so their constitutional responsibility is still further limited.
The nature of police work is such that it involves two main problems. First, the criminal must be detected and, second, the evidence must be assembled for a conviction. With the growth in sophisticated crime it becomes harder to collect the evidence necessary to convict. Guilt by association is something which our criminal law has always frowned upon. It is well known that the higher-ranked criminals protect their anonymity and that strong security measures are enforced within the criminal hierarchy. The leaders apparently insulate themselves from their henchmen, and the arrest of a henchman usually does not produce the evidence to sustain a conviction of someone higher up the line.
Breaking through this screen of insulation to get at the real leaders is not simple and requires primarily more intensive investigation and the utmost co-ordination and sharing of police information among the various forces.
Some indication of the threat posed by organized crime may be gleaned from the fact that during the past three years the R.C.M.P. have made seizures of heroin which can be valued at a street price to the addict of about $240,000,000. The R.C.M.P. have reason to believe that in Canada the distribution of so-called "hard" narcotics, by which I mean primarily heroin, is reasonably under control. In Toronto and Montreal particularly, the efforts of the police have been rewarded by considerable success while in Vancouver they have not been quite as successful.
27053-78J
Supply-Solicitor General
Traffic in "soft" narcotics, primarily marijuana, is not so well contained. I should like to put on the record some factors relating to the number of narcotic arrests. For trafficking in or possession of heroin 406 arrests were made in 1964, 395 in 1965, and 461 in 1966. For trafficking in or possession of marijuana 78 arrests were made in 1964, 162 in 1965, and 398 in 1966. Our biggest problem with respect to organized crime relates to narcotics. There are other areas in which criminal activities are also organized, though generally on a local scale.
Counterfeiting is an offence against the Criminal Code but in practice the investigation of counterfeiters is carried out in large measure by the R.C.M.P. The value of counterfeit notes passed to the public in recent years has been: in 1964, 8,148 notes having a value of about $157,000; in 1965, 15,637 notes having a value of about $303,000; in 1966, 14,618 notes were passed to the public having a value of about $250,000.
On the other side of the ledger I should like to point out that the value of the counterfeit notes seized before their manufacturers had a chance to pass them off to the public has been: in 1964, 17,291 notes having a value of $228,400; in 1965, 26,291 notes having a value of $400,000; and in 1966, 18,361 notes having a value of $580,000.
If we are to combat crime successfully we must not only increase the number of trained policemen but we must increase the efficiency of the members of the force. This efficiency can be improved by increased specialization and improved professional training of the police, by giving the police the resources of technology and by greater application of some of the methods used in business, particularly in the area of information handling and communications.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
In few other occupations is rapid access to records so crucial to success. Canadian law enforcement agencies are segmented into 710 municipal, township, provincial and federal organizations that neverthless are highly interdependent for information and assistance.
All recommendations for action decided upon at the dominion-provincial conference of attorneys general have already been implemented or are well along the way toward implementation. For example, the strength of the various national crime intelligence units attached to the R.C.M.P. has been increased. A national wire photo service is now in operation and the R.C.M.P. telecommunications
1216	COMMONS
Supply-Solicitor General system has been greatly extended and now has 65 stations across Canada. A national automobile theft bureau has been established at R.C.M.P. headquarters and has been operating since April 1, 1967.
The increases during the past three years in the strength of the force and in its expenditures on modern equipment have been greater than in any comparable period in our history. Increasing use will be made of technology in the immediate future, including introduction of the most modern data processing equipment which will be integrated with the data systems in use by the F.B.I.
The modern war on crime calls for a critical review of our commercial laws to close up any loopholes that might be exploited by the organized criminal. The house is well aware that the Bankruptcy Act was recently amended to strengthen the hand of the superintendent of bankruptcy in dealing with fraudulent bankruptcies, and I understand that a further revision is being attended to in the Department of the Registrar General. Special bankruptcy investigation squads have been established by the R.C.M.P. in Toronto and Montreal, and in other centres bankruptcy investigations are carried out by the general crime investigation squads.
Perhaps the house will be interested to learn that the R.C.M.P. are now taking steps to implement the proposal to establish a security fraud squad and a central repository of securities regulation information.
Perhaps the greatest difficulty to overcome in the fight against crime is public apathy or indifference. The law enforcement agencies cannot win the struggle against crime alone. Too many Canadians are prepared to accept crime as a natural phenomenon of our society. I can hardly think of a more dangerous development. With this lax attitude organized crime prospers and may spread its tentacles into wide varieties of business which are now free of it. We should not forget that organized crime makes its huge profits by selling its products, whether they be narcotics, liquor or bookmaking services, to members of what we usually describe as the law-abiding public.
The establishment of the R.C.M.P. has been increased from 9,500 in 1965 to nearly 11,000 in 1967. The R.C.M.P. budget has been increased at the same time. In 1965 it was about $80 million, this year it will be about $110 million. A new Canadian police college is on the drawing boards and a curriculum is being prepared.

DEBATES	June 6, 1967
Crime and corrections are non-partisan matters, but I believe it can fairly be said that the government has not been lax in its approach to the problem of crime. The division of the jurisdiction poses a constant problem, of course, but better liaison work is solving the problem.
I now turn to examine the other arm of the department which is concerned in the war against crime. I mean the national parole board and the Canadian penitentiary service. Any meaningful war against crime must also concentrate on ways of getting at the sources of crime and on methods of reforming potential criminals. This is perhaps a more difficult job than even police work is. What we must keep in mind at all times though is that most of those engaging the attention of police from day to day are persons who have already been inmates of penitentiaries. Our criminal repeater problem is very disconcerting. In fact, about 45 per cent of the newcomers to a federal prison in any year have previously been in the same or some other federal prison serving a sentence of two years or more. It is obvious that if we could do something to reform these persons while we have them in custody we would be depriving the police forces of a large body of men who in fact are their best customers. I do not suggest this will be easy.
The year 1967 marks the halfway point in the Canadian penitentiary service's program of institutional development-1963-1973 .-commonly known as the ten year plan. It is in order at this midway point to announce the accomplishments that have been made in the implementation of this program. During the last fiscal year a new medium security institution was opened at Cowansville, Quebec, together with a specialized institution for the treatment of male and female drug offenders at Matsqui, B.C. Further, during this current fiscal year three more medium security institutions for young offenders and selected male adults will be opened at Springhill, Nova Scotia, Warkworth, Ontario and Drum-heller, Alberta. Also a special correctional unit for the most difficult of maximum security inmates will come into operation shortly and afford an opportuity for the penitentiary service to provide a concentrated treatment program for this type of inmate.
The estimates currently being studied provide for the establishing of five community release centres in various cities across Canada, a step which is most significant in filling the void in that transitional period between custody and release and readjustment
June 6, 1967
to the community. I understand the service has completed an agreement to purchase suitable accommodation in Montreal. In addition, funds are being requested for the continuing construction of a maximum security institution at Ste. Anne des Plaines to eventually replace the archaic St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, as well as the initial construction of another institution in Ontario to replace Kingston penitentiary, the start of construction on four reception centres, one each in the Atlantic region, Quebec, Ontario and Western Canada, and the purchase of a site for a new modern institution for the treatment of female offenders in eastern Canada.
All of the above represents a very large building program. Much has been accomplished even in the face of numerous unforeseen and regrettable delays. However, it is hoped that with the completion of the projects planned for this and the next fiscal year, the whole spectrum of institutions included in the plan will be a reality and that the treatment program envisaged therein can be fully implemented.
Although much effort has been concentrated over the last few years in attaining the physical facilities necessary for any modem correctional program, the treatment program itself has not been left unattended nor has that element so necessary in carrying out any program-the staff of the penitentiary service. The penitentiary service, like many other agencies in similar fields, has experienced considerable difficulty in recruiting adequate staff, especially professionals in the psychiatric, psychological and sociological disciplines, to bring about changing treatment and training programs being introduced into its existing institutions and those planned for its new treatment centres. In addition, a concentrated program of both in-service and out-service training for staff is being stepped up.
In order to provide for the increase in staff, from 2,500 to 7,000 during this ten year period, provision is being made this year to enlarge the correctional staff college in Ontario, for the completion of a new staff college in Quebec and the initial construction of another staff college in British Columbia. In this way it is hoped to upgrade the knowledge of all penitentiary staff in the areas of penology and the handling and treatment of inmates and to replace the traditional notion of penitentiaries as a place of custody with one of treatment and resocialization.
I should now like to comment briefly on the activities of the national parole board. I have
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion about one more page of notes, Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted to complete my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lawrence T. Pennell: 
Herman Maxwell Batten: It being six o'clock and in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business I do now leave the chair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Simard), Labour Relations-inquiry as to the right of C.B.C. employees to belong to a union of their choice; the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. Lind), Natural Gas -Southwestern Ontario-Damage caused by pipe line construction; the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Forrestall), National Harbours Board-Hiring practices.
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, private bills and public bills.

1218	COMMONS
Private Bills PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Granl Deachman (for Mr. Wahn) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-114, to incorporate United Investment Life Assurance Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to present Bill No. C-114 on behalf of the sponsor, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn). The bill is to incorporate United Investment Life Assurance Company. The company is to be incorporated for the purpose of carrying on the business of a life insurance company throughout Canada.
United Funds Management Ltd. will subscribe for $500,000 of the capital stock of the company and will make a further contribution to surplus of $500,000. Within two years of commencement of business, United Funds Management Ltd. will sell to officers, directors and employees of the company and, if necessary, others who are Canadian residents 25 per cent of the capital stock of the insurance company for the same price.
United Funds Management Ltd. is an investment management company which is the investment adviser with respect to the portfolio of United Accumulative Fund Ltd., a Canadian mutual fund with assets in excess of $300 million. Over 99 per cent of the 130,000 shareholders of United Accumulative Fund Ltd. are Canadians, as are 13 of the 15 members of its board of directors. Approximately 19 per cent of United Funds Management Ltd. shares are owned by Canadian residents.
Waddell and Reed Incorporated will, within two years of commencement of business of the insurance company, make a public offering to Canadian residents of a sufficient number of the shares of United Funds Management Ltd. to bring its share ownership to below 75 per cent. Accordingly, within two years of the insurance company commencing business the indirect ownership of Waddell and Reed Incorporated, in the insurance company will be reduced to a maximum of 56.25 per cent with practically all of the balance owned by residents of Canada.
United Funds Management Ltd. will undertake to sell to Canadian residents within ten years of the commencement of business of the insurance company sufficient shares of the insurance company then owned by them to bring the indirect ownership of Waddell and Reed Incorporated in the Insurance Company to below 50 per cent.

DEBATES	June 6, 1967
The insurance company will initially offer for sale term insurance and ordinary life insurance, stressing forms of such insurance which complement the investment requirements of the shareholders of the mutual fund, United Accumulative Fund Ltd. The fund has over 130,000 shareholders. Other policies of insurance will be studied and introduced if found to be appropriate.
The insurance sales force will operate out of the existing branch offices of United Investment Services Ltd., the selling organization, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of United Funds Management Ltd. There are presently 62 such branch offices serving almost all of the major cities across Canada and ready to provide facilities and service to the insurance sales force.
Management and administrative personnel and facilities of the parent company and its subsidiaries are available to provide efficient low-cost service in the establishment and administration of the insurance company, including computer facilities and experience in servicing 130,000 customer accounts, many of which remit investments on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis, one form of which includes the handling of insurance applications and claims. Experienced management personnel will be readily available for consultation and an estate settlement department is already in operation.
Initially, the insurance company's funds would be invested largely in federal, provincial and municipal bonds. However, with growth the investment advisors of United Funds Management Ltd. would be called upon to guide the company in its investment activity to allow for diversification to include investment in corporate bonds, mortgages and other securities allowed under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act.
Extensive feasibility studies and projections have been carried out by Eckler Brown and Company Ltd., a firm of consulting actuaries in Toronto, projecting that there should be an operating gain in the third year and subsequent years and that the cumulative operating gain should exceed the surplus strain some time in the fifth year and that by the tenth year there should be a net surplus gain of $1,400,000.
The actuary made his findings after several consultations had taken place between the department of insurance, the actuary and company officers and an examination of
June 6, 1967

United Investors Life Insurance Company experience had been conducted. United Investors Life Insurance Company, a subsidiary of Waddell and Reed Incorporated, is an insurance company engaged in the sale, primarily, of term life insurance to complement the mutual fund sales of Waddell and Reed Incorporated in the United States.
The insurance company would enter into reinsurance contracts to reduce the single case risk element in policies sold.
The insurance company will be headed by Mr. Gordon E. Eddolls, who is president of United Investment Services Ltd. and who has had former experience in the insurance industry. Other management personnel will include Mr. Rodney S. C. Donald, who is president of United Funds Management Ltd. and who has been chief executive of investment management for seven years; Mr. John William Galbraith, C.P.A., vice president in charge of administration of United Investment Services Ltd., Mr. William R. Miller, treasurer of United Funds Management Ltd. and United Investment Services Ltd. The company will employ a senior underwriter and such other specialists as may become necessary. Eckler, Brown and Company Limited will provide continuing actuarial service in connection with the establishment of the company's books, policies and manuals, and the annual actuarial review. Legal counsel will be Messrs. Campbell, Godfrey and Lewtas. The Ottawa agents are Messrs. Gowling, MacTavish, Osborne and Henderson. The auditors are Clarkson, Gordon and Company.
9 (6:10 p.m.)
That is the story in respect of Bill C-114 which is before us this afternoon. Perhaps I might say a few words now on a different though related subject.
From time to time I have introduced bills of this nature in the house and have assisted other members in the introduction of such bills when they happened to be absent. I must say I often feel there must be other methods by which companies can be brought into being as incorporated companies in Canada. I often wonder whether this is one of the more profitable ways in which members of the House of Commons can spend this particular hour and I commend to the government the possibility of bringing into being, either this session or as soon as possible, an act which would remove these bills from the House of Commons and enable these companies to be incorporated in some other way. As long as
Private Bills
this is the way in which companies have to be incorporated I do not mind going through the present procedure. Nevertheless I wish to place this comment on record as I bring Bill No. C-114 before the house this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member for Edmonton West speaks, may I say that I was listening to what the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra told us about the desirability of spending this hour profitably. It is obvious that most hon. members are spending it more profitably than we are because I can only count 12 of them in their places. I do not think we can do any business in that way. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you could ascertain if that figure is correct.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Never mind this pious attitude. Let us get on with our business.


Frank Howard: It is not a pious atiitude. It is a fact of life, if the hon. member is interested.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In another context I notice people do not insist on this. They do not show a pious, sanctimonious attitude by counting people or insisting that others should count them.


Frank Howard: Let us follow the rules. One would not expect a statement like that from a former Speaker. Stick to the rules.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We will get on with the business. I find that other people have an acute disregard of the rules as far as attendance in the house is concerned.


Frank Howard: I see only 12 people here.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I deal with the point which the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) raised in connection with the present method of incorporating companies. I do not feel it is necessary that one hour be spent on every bill of this kind that comes before the house. The place to deal with these measures in detail is in the committee. But it is necessary to bring them before the house because of the system under which they are read the second time, studied in the committee and then returned to this chamber. The hon. member may quarrel with the machinery, but I believe that in matters concerning insurance, matters concerning pipe lines, for

June 6, 1967
Private Bills
example, it serves its purpose very well. I am sure the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) welcomes the opportunity to discuss pipe lines on the floor of the house.
On balance I believe it is best we should discuss these applications or have them available for discussion. I do not think we can abdicate our responsibility when it comes to the principle of the incorporation of insurance companies or banks. This house does not exist merely to say "Amen" to government legislation. It has wider responsibilities. I know there are certain members opposite who feel that its only duty is to praise with high hosannas the wisdom of government legislation. That is not the purpose of parliament.
Bills of the type now before us are, of course, sponsored privately since the government itself cannot accept responsibility for promoting the incorporation of private companies. There are no doubt some imperfections attached to the present way of doing things but I cannot agree with the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra that we should farm out this responsibility to yet another board, yet another group of officials. The tendency within the Liberal party has been to farm these things out to a bureaucracy outside parliament, and I cannot agree with it.
To return to the bill itself, we know it will go before the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs where the sponsors and their counsel, as well as the superintendent of insurance, will be available for examination in detail by members of that committee before the adoption or otherwise of this bill is recommended.
I appreciate what the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has done in placing on record a detailed memorandum as to the purposes of this company and the identity of its owners. I shall have some serious questions to ask in this regard when the bill goes before the committee. This is a bill for the incorporation of a Canadian insurance company to be owned and controlled by outside interests. I have some reservations about that.
I have reservations about insurance companies being closely tied to investment companies or investment fund interests. Unfortunately, during the past few years there has been a proliferation of these related interests incorporated under provincial jurisdiction. Some of these operations could bear much closer scrutiny, particularly when portfolios are dangerously exposed to the influence of sudden deflation or perhaps unwise investment. I raise these points as an indication of

the type of questions I shall wish to ask in the committee.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
So far as the principle of the incorporation of such companies is concerned I would say that provided the applications meet the legal requirements, provided the policyholders are protected, and provided the proposed operation meets the strict requirements of the superintendent of insurance, I do not think anyone should adopt a paternalistic attitude toward the sponsors or investors or try to hold their hands. It should be borne in mind that those who seek the right to incorporate companies and invest their own money are men of business judgment. They make their investment on their own responsibility. If they wish to risk their own money, and so long as no one else gets hurt, that is fine. I am quite prepared to see they get the right to incorporate and to try to make a success of their company. If they do not make a success of it, it is their own money that they lose. All I am concerned about in a matter of this kind is that the policy holders do not get hurt. So far as the shareholders are concerned, as the saying goes they are big boys; they are over 21 and should be able to take care of themselves. I do not think we have to be paternalistic to the point where we guarantee that they will not suffer a loss. With these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to recommend to the house that the bill be accepted on second reading but that in committee we look into the questions I have raised.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago we had an interesting byplay about attendance in the house and I would like to welcome to the chamber those Liberal members who are more in number than the four who were here a little while ago. At least the interruption I made has prompted a greater attendance than was the case previously.
One of the most interesting aspects of that byplay was the proposition made by the hon. gentleman who a few years ago held the most honoured position in this house and who perhaps was as heavy-handed and hard-headed a self-appointed lecturer on the rules as this parliament has ever seen. To listen to that hon. gentleman say in effect, "To heck with the rules, they don't mean anything any longer," is a preposterous proposition, and indicates how shallow an approach is taken to the rules depending on what point one wants to-


Mr. Lamberi:: I certainly did not take a sanctimonious, holier-than-thou attitude.
June 6, 1967


Frank Howard: The hon. gentleman has now interjected a remark while sitting. He would have ridden people out of the house on a rail if anybody while seated had interrupted when he was presiding. He has just interjected that he did not take a holier-than-thou attitude. That is just what he did when he was in the chair. He was above the call-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has the floor for one purpose which I understand is to discuss Bill C-114.


Frank Howard: That is my sole purpose, Mr. Speaker, but I was enticed by the hon. member for Edmonton West to depart from the rules again and I could not resist it. If he will be silent I will proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: May I entice the hon. member back to Bill No. C-114.


Frank Howard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid my speech will be almost identical to that given by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) because I am sure we have both been supplied with the same notes from the same source.
With respect to the bill before us one of the aspects we must consider is the question of Canadian ownership versus foreign ownership. This is something which has been considered in general terms on many other occasions, but we must examine it again in relation to this particular company, United Investment Life Assurance Company.
Some months ago on national television the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made a firm statement to the effect that government policy was designed to move toward the repatriation-I think that is as good as a word as any other-of ownership of the Canadian economy. He said this was the philosophy of the Liberal party and of the government. Many who saw that television broadcast applauded the right hon. gentleman for taking this course. Many people were pleased to see that publicly he fully endorsed the position taken by the former minister of finance, whose present position in the cabinet escapes my memory for the moment. I think he is now President of the Privy Council. In any event I am talking about Mr. Gordon, if I may transgress the rules somewhat to indicate the gentleman.
There is a provision in the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act which says that life insurance companies must come under Canadian ownership except those that were in existence prior to the coming into
Private Bills
force of that provision. The Prime Minister's broadcast and that provision in the act demand of us in parliament that we inquire into the degree of Canadian or foreign ownership that exists with respect to this company.
Quite frankly, I do not see how the United Investment Life Assurance Company can get around the provision in the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act which requires life insurance companies to be Canadian owned, unless there is some loophole in the act which permits this. That may well be the case, because the insurance companies act which will apply to this company when it is incorporated is a very intricate and involved document, not easily understood except by those who have spent a lifetime dealing with insurance companies and their corporate structure.
While, as I say, I do not fully understand whether the provisions of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act require this company to be Canadian owned, nevertheless it appears that such is the case. The statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra contained a couple of references to the effect that the holding company, which owns 81 per cent of another company, that owns in turn 100 per cent of the company seeking to be incorporated, will dispose of some of its holdings to Canadians. This would not be done unless the provisions of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act apply to the company seeking incorporation. In fact, checking earlier in the year with the superintendent of insurance we were told over the telephone that the company was indirectly American owned.
Some emphasis was placed on the proposals about Canadian participation and ownership. This is a good feature in the attitude of this company, one which other companies would be well advised to follow because, as I said, parliament is duty bound to try to put into effect the policy contained in the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act and in the Prime Minister's television broadcast. That policy was also enunciated by the former minister of finance and was supported by some members of the cabinet just as fervently as other members of the cabinet opposed the idea of Canadian ownership. However, as I say, I think parliament is duty bound to follow the lead which the Prime Minister gave in his television broadcast and to make sure that companies seeking incorporation become Canadian owned. There is an element of Canadian ownership in the present case which reflects public policy on these matters.

June G, 1967
Private Bills
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
At the moment I must say that it is difficult to follow all the intricacies of these various companies. I have had the situation explained to me on three or four occasions. I have read the documents and have listened to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deach-man) explain it, but still it escapes my grasp unless I look at a chart which shows me the interconnection between some of these companies. United Funds Management Ltd. owns 100 per cent of United Investment Life Assurance Company, which is the company to be incorporated here. United Funds Management Ltd. is owned to a degree of approximately 19 per cent by Canadian residents and approximately 81 per cent by Waddell and Reed Inc. which is the parent company in the United States. When the bill which seeks to incorporate this company was before the house during the last session, it was one of those which did not pass at the end of the session because of the concern expressed about the simple question of Canadian ownership. As a result of a declaration on the part of some hon. members that they were concerned about Canadian ownership, the sponsors and promoters of the company made a proposal to Waddell and Reed, Inc. in the United States, the parent company of United Investment Life Assurance Company, about the question of Canadian ownership, following the pattern established in respect of the Mercantile Bank.
The pattern established in respect of the Mercantile Bank was that there would be a period of time in which the degree of foreign ownership which now exists would be dispensed with; in other words, over a period of time this company would cease to become a foreign owned company and would become a Canadian owned company by the offering of share capital to Canadians. It was as a result of this expression of desire by some hon. members that the provision relating to Canadian participation in ownership which was made by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra came into being.
I believe it is worth while to read this memorandum again in order to underline the approach of this company in this regard. Waddell and Reed, Inc. is the parent company in the United States which owns United Funds Management Ltd. to the extent of 81 per cent and thereby, through it, owns United Investment Life Assurance Company to the extent of 100 per cent. One of the first things that will occur is that within two years of the commencement of business United Funds

Management Ltd., which is the company which owns United Investment Life Assurance Company to the extent of 100 per cent, will offer to sell to officers, directors and employees of the company and, if necessary, others who are Canadian residents 25 per cent of the capital stock of the insurance company for the same price. This means that within a period of time this 100 per cent ownership by United Funds Management Ltd. will become 75 per cent.
If I keep reading this document and continue to refer to the graphs, I will come to understand at least one aspect of the operation of the company by repetition, if through no other means. Waddell and Reed, Inc., the parent United States company, will within two years of commencement of business of the Insurance Company-and I wonder here whether I am speaking about the same thing because the statement refers to the insurance company with the "i" in "Insurance" a capital letter yet the company which is sought to be incorporated is not to be called an insurance company but rather an assurance company. It may be that the reference to "insurance company" merely relates to United Investment Life Assurance Company, although the writing here is sufficient to make us pause to see whether this is what we are talking about. The statement says that Waddell and Reed, Inc., will, within two years of the commencement of business of the Insurance Company make a public offering to Canadian residents of a sufficient number of the shares of United Funds Management Ltd. to bring its share ownership to below 75 per cent. Accordingly, within two years of the insurance company commencing business, the indirect ownership of Waddell and Reed, Inc., in the insurance company will be reduced to a maximum of 56.25 per cent, with practically all the balance owned by residents of Canada.
That is to say, instead of Waddell & Reed Inc. owning 81 per cent of the company which owns United Investment Life Assurance Company to the extent of 100 per cent, within two years, through the distribution of the share ownership, the indirect ownership by Waddell & Reed Inc. of United Investment Life Assurance Company will be reduced to a maximum of 56.25 per cent, which is getting close to the margin required for full Canadian ownership.
United Funds Management Ltd., according to this statement, will undertake to sell to Canadian residents within ten years of the commencement of business of the insurance
June 6, 1967

company, sufficient shares of the insurance company then owned by them to bring the indirect ownership of Waddell & Reed Inc. in the insurance company to below 50 per cent.
This is a statement of policy and of intention on the part of the company. This statement meets the objections raised in this house by some members on an earlier occasion during another session. So far it is only a statement of policy. With all respect to those who enunciated this statement and with all respect to those who developed the idea and accepted it, in common parlance and without being unkind I should like to suggest that it still has only the value of the paper on which it is written. There is nothing in the bill before us to indicate that United Investment Life Assurance Company will, within a period of time set out in the statement of intention of the company itself, comply with the statement of policy. I think this is something which should be cleared away in the committee. It is the law of Canada that this will take place. It certainly is the law of Canada that it will take place with regard to the Mercantile Bank. In that case it is not simply a matter of the acceptance by the Canadian government of a statement of policy on the part of the Mercantile interests; it is a matter which is nailed down.
When this bill reaches the committee stage,
I think it will be the responsibility of the members of that committee to take the policy enunciation of the company and ask the appropriate officers of the Department of Insurance, which I believe is the appropriate body, to have it drafted in the proper legal form so that it can be incorporated into the particular bill. In this way the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra which, as I understand it, reflects very clearly and exactly the position of the promoters of the United Investment Life Assurance Company, would by law be related to this particular company and this Bill C-114.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
Some may say that by spelling this out in the bill it constitutes a departure from the norm and therefore we should not do it. Let me point out that there are precedents for this. One pipe line company, the name of which escapes me now, some six or seven years ago sought incorporation through sponsorship of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams). That bill contained a provision, because this point was crucial at that time, which required that all the directors of the company at all times would be Canadian
27053-79J
Private Bills
citizens ordinarily resident in Canada. The argument that this is a departure from the norm may be true to the extent that it is not ordinarily done, but there is precedent for it, and that precedent arises from a rather peculiar situation.
I submit that the situation now before us is likewise peculiar, in that a company which is owned indirectly in the United States, partly because this was done so easily, with such a direct approach and without hesitation, and partly involuntarily because certain views had been expressed to the company that the passage of this bill would be made much easier, is seeking to be incorporated by parliament at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I am going to be a great disappointment this afternoon to my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). The other day when we were discussing a bill in respect of the incorporation of another insurance company, the hon. member had some kind remarks to make about me. If I may just make some reference to them, he said as reported at page 755 of Hansard for May 30:
He has just given me cause to admire his perceptiveness and his ability to follow the highly detailed, technical and complex remarks made by the bill's sponsor. My colleague grasped the significance of the document introduced in the introductory remarks by the sponsor of the bill. When my colleague referred to that document and said that he appreciated the straightforward manner in which the bill's sponsor had outlined its purposes, I was amazed. I had not thought it possible to follow the labyrinthian course that the bill's sponsor outlined when he explained the intricacies, complexities and involvements of this company with other companies.
I have a confession to make to my colleague. Notwithstanding the explanation given by the sponsor with respect to Bill C-114, and having listened to the hon. member's detailed elucidation of what is behind this proposal, I cannot in this instance follow the complexities of the proposal we now have before us. I have some general idea that there is a proposal that if this bill should be approved by parliament, some steps are to be taken in the general direction of divesting the original sponsors of the company of some of their stock holdings. Perhaps my difficulty in this regard is due to the fact that I have not had the opportunity of perusing the document to which both the sponsor of the bill and the hon. member for Skeena referred. It may be

June 6, 1967
Private Bills
that my remarks will not have that similarity the hon. member for Skeena said his remarks would have to those of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman).
I have looked at the terms of this bill, however, and the question has arisen in my mind, as indeed it has on quite a number of occasions during this and recent sessions, as to just what direction we are moving in dealing with an almost endless series of bills which seek to incorporate new insurance companies.
Once again I think one should examine the preamble to this bill, which seems to be in a rather stock form, indicating that the persons named in the bill have by their petition prayed that it be enacted as hereinafter set forth, in other words in the details of the bill, and make the bland statement that it is expedient to grant the prayer of the petition; that therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, enacts as follows, and then goes on to set out the detailed clauses. Let me suggest again today, as I have done on some previous occasions when discussing bills to incorporate insurance companies, that this embodies the basic question we are being asked to consider when we come to the second reading stage of a private bill to incorporate a company. This is something which ought to give us cause at least to look seriously at the proposal put before us.
The hon. member acting for the sponsors in introducing the bill, and the hon. member for Skeena, have apparently made some examination of the terms of the proposal in so far as they relate to the shareholdings of the company, and whether it is to be a Canadian owned company or a company owned by the nationals of other countries. This is a very important aspect of the consideration which should be given to the incorporation of a particular company at this stage of our history, be it an insurance company, or indeed any corporation.
There is another question which warrants our attention, and once again I should like to suggest in connection with this bill, as I have suggested on previous occasion in reference to other bills, that we should consider the economic advisability of incorporating an almost endless proliferation of insurance companies. An insurance company in my view is a company which is not a wealth producing organization. It is indeed a wealth diverting organization in that it diverts the savings of individuals who pay premiums for insurance companies into the channels which fit the

desires of the directors or the management of the company. This indeed is a very important aspect of the advisability of granting petitions for the incorporation of a great number of insurance companies.
This is a question which in my view deserves very careful attention. Indeed I think the time has come when members of this house, if they have not already done so, should ask the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to prepare a much more detailed and careful analysis of the situation with particular reference to the number of insurance companies in different areas of the country, and the incidence or relationship of the number of companies to the number of Canadians living in Canada. We do have such figures of interest and concern relating to the number of doctors per capita in a given area of the country, or to the total population of the country.
9 (6:50 p.m.)
In view of the almost endless series of incorporations we have been asked to consider, one might begin to raise the question as to whether we will soon have more insurance companies in the country than we have inhabitants. We will find ourselves in the position that is often referred to in many connections as simply taking in one another's washing. In other words, I will be insuring the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman), the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra will be insuring me, and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) will probably be looking after the insurance requirements of the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury). And so, on it will go, right around the piece amongst the members of this house and across the country. I am not suggesting that the passage of this particular bill will create a situation that will literally be as I have been suggesting, but nevertheless it is one of the important matters which should be of concern to us as we consider any and all applications for the incorporation of new insurance companies.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to standing order 105, the said bill stands referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.
June 6, 1967


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming debate on the motion of Mr. Cameron (High Park) for the second reading of Bill No. C-112, an act to incorporate Aetna Casualty Company of Canada.
Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether this bill could stand, and may I call it seven o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: Normally, Mr. Speaker, I would not object to the minister doing this, but this particular insurance company, Aetna Casualty Company of Canada, as was mentioned earlier, is one to which we raise very strong objection. I hope, by design, to have the floor when it becomes seven o'clock so that the bill will end up at the bottom of the list, where it belongs. Perhaps the minister would give me just a few moments and then he can call it seven o'clock. I would be quite happy if that could be done. I had the floor on May 30 at seven o'clock and had some further remarks to make when I was interrupted by the clock.
As I have said, it was very difficult to follow the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) in his introductory remarks, partly because I did not have a program, as was the case today. Since that time I have had the opportunity to read some of the remarks of the sponsor of the bill when he moved second reading. As will be found at page 752 of Hansard for May 30, the hon. member for High Park said with respect to the company before us:
The proposed company would be a subsidiary of the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company of Hartford, Connecticut. The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company is a corporation carrying on a substantial general insurance business in the United States of America with its head office at Hartford, Connecticut.
The hon. member then pointed out that the 1965 premium income of Aetna Casualty increased 17 per cent to $665 million. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) could somehow have found that extra income, we could have looked for a balanced budget this year instead of having a deficit of $750 million. The hon. member for High Park then said:
The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company of Hartford has conducted business in Canada for some years and has held a certificate of registry under the Foreign Insurance Companies Act for the past 48 years.
He said that this company has never had any offices in Canada and a substantial part
Private Bills
of the business conducted by the company has been with United States corporations which have subsidiaries operating in Canada. So not only is Aetna Casualty Company of Canada owned by a United States company in Hartford, Connecticut, but most of its business in Canada, which is conducted without its even having an office in this country, has been carried out with companies that are also subsidiaries of United States corporations.
I think there are two strikes against the company which deserve our consideration. The first is that it has been a sort of fly-bynight venture for 48 years, and has now finally got around to the point where it thinks it would be worth while and desirable to become incorporated as a company in Canada, and be legitimate, as the saying goes.
We have a fine example in this respect for those who believe in good Canadian corporate citizenship. This principle was enunciated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) in a letter to all subsidiary companies in Canada telling them what they should do to be good Canadian corporate citizens. It would seem to me that the example set by the promoters and sponsors of United Investment Life Insurance Company was a good one, where they said: Yes, we are an American company but within a period of 10 years we intend to phase out American ownership to the point that at the end of that period the company will be Canadian owned.
I think this is the principle which should be followed by Aetna Casualty Company of Canada. I submit that this company should follow the lead and example set by United Investment Life Insurance Company and should take at face value the declarations of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon), the declarations of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), and the feeling of the parliament of Canada. Perhaps I am being overly generous in this respect, but I think relatively few members of parliament would object to the idea of a company seeking to become Canadian owned over a reasonable period of time.
We have the example, not set by the Mercantile Bank, but enforced by the government in respect of that bank and followed by United Investment Life Assurance Company. I hope this company will do the same.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members business has now expired. The house will now resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.
1226	COMMONS
Supply-Solicitor General SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Badanai in the chair.


[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including administrative expenses of the Committee on Corrections plus such fees, salaries and expenses as may be approved by Treasury Board for members and the panel of consultants and staff named by the minister to advise and assist the committee, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $1,015,400.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: The
house in committee of supply on the estimates of the Department of the Solicitor General, item No. 1, departmental administration.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity tonight to make some comments on the estimates of the Department of the Solicitor General. In his opening remarks this afternoon the minister made a very nice, general and non-controversial speech, and there is nothing in it with which I can find fault. However, I do propose to mention some matters he did not include in his speech, and perhaps before the estimates are completed he can round them out by answering some of these questions.
The first matter I wish to mention regards the question of the reorganization of the department itself. I am vaguely dissatisfied with the name of the department in view of the additional responsibilities that have been given to it. Over the years in this country the office of the Solicitor General did not carry the duties or prestige which it now does, since its reorganization. At one time the Solicitor General was not even a cabinet minister. So that the name of the Department of the Solicitor General does not bring to mind for many people the very important duties which the minister now has to carry out. I am sure that if anybody in this government can give some strength and status to the department, the present minister can, and I wish him success along those lines.
The minister introduced his remarks this afternoon by saying that his department was concerned with crime, and then he proceeded to give us some statistics. I wondered then

DEBATES	June 6, 1967
whether we might revise the minister's title and make it "the minister of crime" or perhaps "the crime minister".


Stanley Howard Knowles: But not "the criminal minister".


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I think some change in the name would be justified. However, the minister has his duties and I know that he will perform them well.
The first subject I should like to cover is the penitentiaries branch. I am very disappointed that the joint Senate and House of Commons committee on penitentiaries which was set up a year ago never got around to the subject of the penitentiary service in general. The meetings which we had were held on an emergency basis to try to give the department some direction in connection with the maximum security institutions, one of them already nearing completion and another one about to start. The committee therefore did not get around to what many people had hoped it would, that is the general concept of penitentiaries in government service.
However, out of these committee hearings there emerged one obvious fact, namely that there has been some extensive empire building in regional headquarters at Kingston, which is not in the best interest of the penitentiary service. This regional set-up was originally authorized for the administration of supply services in the region. However, I do not believe it was ever the intention that the internal management of individual units should be run from the regional headquarters. [DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
There are two places in which this policy runs afoul of reality. The first one is the women's prison, and the other is the minimum security institutions. In the standing committee, we did not come to grips with the cause of this breakdown in the regional concept. It obviously exists in the service, and there exists also a hard core of institutionalized and custodial oriented people who want to run things from the centre. I am not going to name this group, even if I could. They are there and always have been. I presume they always will be. This core of people in the penitentiary service is unsympathetic to the minimum security program and resists progress in the social sciences.
This core does not involve the whole penitentiary branch in any way. I am quite satisfied that the minister and the commissioner have the very best of intentions in the matter. I know also that there are many excellent
June 6, 1967

people in the penitentiary service who are anxious to see progress. At the same time there is obviously a constant struggle in that service over the direction of rehabilitative measures. I suggest that the minister and the commissioner must bring to bear their whole weight to remove or transfer those who are not willing to comply with policy directions.
These people are not easy to find and are not easy to transfer. However, the hearings the committee had indicate what everybody knows, that this core does exist and has to be dealt with. Now, I do not say by any means that the attitude of some of these people I am calling the "hard core" is entirely wrong. They have been in the service for many years. They have been disappointed many times. If they are on the lower or custodial level they have perhaps seen efforts on many occasions to improve the situation of prisoners only to find within a short time that a riot of some sort has broken out or individual prisoners upon whom they have been relying have let them down. Eventually there is a return, full cycle, to the position that this is all a waste of time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but in view of the fact that the Security Council of the United Nations has, within the past hour, unanimously passed a resolution calling for a ceasefire in the Middle East, I wonder if the committee would be disposed to rise, report progress, and provide an opportunity for the government to revert to motions so a statement could be made on this matter.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, the information I have received on this situation is very meager indeed. I have in mind now the statement which I believe the Prime Minister made earlier today indicating that it might be acceptable to the house, if circumstances warranted, that the estimates of the Department of External Affairs be called tomorrow. Having regard to both of these points I would, with great respect, request we continue with the business presently before the committee.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I believe the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs also said earlier today that if the security council came to a decision and there was something to report, a report would be made to the house. I am not sure whether they said immediately, but certainly with all possible dispatch.

Supply-Solicitor General


Lawrence T. Pennell: I appreciate the point raised by the hon. member transcends in importance the business now before the committee, but at this time I do not believe I could be very helpful to the committee. Perhaps I could make inquiries and later on this evening, if the information brought to my attention indicates it would be helpful to make a report to the house, I could give consideration to the proposal put forward by the hon. member.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I should like now to turn to the question of minimum security institutions, Mr. Chairman. This is the one group of institutions that the minister passed over in his otherwise comprehensive review this afternoon. In outlining the program for this year, he mentioned the medium security institution at Cowansville, three more medium institutions for young people, the two maximum security institutions which the committee was considering and the institution for females in eastern Canada. I hope that the oversight was merely that, and not an indication that the minimum security program is not going forward with maximum speed. This is one of the fears of the people in the minimum security field, that gradually the program which was begun some years ago will not be carried to its completion.
The problem of immediate concern is the same as that which related to the women's prison, in that there is a regional headquarters which intervenes and, in many cases, sets up the program and internal management of the minimum security institution from outside. I say that this is absolutely wrong. I think there is too much programming, that there are too many regulations and too many rules; prisoners have to be cleared through the penitentiary service at Kingston or some other regional area. There are too many returns of prisoners to be discharged, and so forth. This is one of the weaknesses that became very clear in our study of the prison for women.
I feel that minimum security institutions suffer from the same problem. I think it is absolute nonsense for several institutions, set up presumably on a different approach, to be operated internally from beyond the institution. I think there is no harm whatever in these institutions being provided centrally with food and supply services, but to set up regulations which are applicable to all institutions-and this appears to have happened-is not good policy, and it is not working out. I
1228	COMMONS
Supply-Solicitor General feel this is something that ought to be thoroughly investigated.
We had a very clear insight into these problems when Miss Macneill, who was formerly superintendent of the prison for women, came before the committee. She and two other ladies who had been on her staff, but who are no longer connected with the penitentiary service, unburdened themselves to the committee because they were under no pressure, under no danger of action which might be punitive. I do not say that there is, within the service, any fear of this sort of punishment, but naturally a person is not going to throw away his or her job by making unkind comments about the administrative set-up. It was quite clear to us that the prison for women has suffered because of the effort that was made to apply to the women's prison the rules of the maximum security prison for men. They just do not work out. e (8:20 p.m.)
I say that the same thing applies to the minimum security institutions, which are surely set up on a different basis and with a somewhat different objective. Mr. J. D. Clark, the acting superintendent made a sincere effort to convince the committee that he was not too unhappy with interference from his superiors, but I do not think anybody on the committee really felt that he had made his case. Most on the committee felt that it would have been much better if the penitentiary with which he was connected were self-sustaining and operating. This is the first problem.
I wish to return to my first comment. The minister did not give details about what was planned for minimum security institutions. Granted, we have a bad situation in connection with maximum security prisons, but real progress has been made with minimum security institutions. The concept and organization of minimum security institutions is well accepted, and they are operating satisfactorily. The institutions are constantly afraid that the department's penitentiary service will veer from the good work that is being done and that there will not be support from those higher in the service or from the minister. That is without basis, I know.
The minister believes strongly in the rehabilitation that springs from minimum security institutions. I have a particular interest in Beaver Creek camp, which is near my home town, and have watched it operate since it was set up. It is well accepted in the community and well run, and the local people

DEBATES	June 6, 1967
had absolutely no fear or uneasiness about its being there. Few inmates walked away, and the camp has produced few recidivists; but I assume that other, similar institutions have had the same experience. Talking about Beaver Creek camp, as an example, I heard rumours that there were plans to expand it into a much larger camp, and that the authorities wanted to take advantage of the excellent land and facilities up there. Yet not many months later I heard the opposite rumour: the camp would be closed and that this was to happen in three or four years from now. When such rumours go around the institution they do not make for good esprit de corps, which is most necessary in this type of penitentiary.
Before we conclude these estimates I wish the minister would fill in the little gap he left in his introductory statement and tell us clearly that minimum security institutions are well accepted and that they will be expanded and enlarged as quickly as possible.
I have another remark to make about the penitentiaries branch of the department. Recently I had occasion to get in touch with the industrial branch of the department. I found that they are doing excellent work in preparing jobs within the institutions with which to keep inmates occupied, and from which they could learn a trade or profession while they are in the institutions. I hope that this branch of the department will be given close attention and much encouragement.
I wish to turn for a moment to the parole board. In common with the penitentiaries branch, they are performing their duties in a most sensitive area of public service. Perhaps their area of service is even more sensitive than that of the penitentiaries branch. If the board makes one error, if there is one accident, its objectives may be set back for many years. We know that this has happened in one or two instances, and that has been a tragedy. Doctor McCaldon, the psychiatrist who gives part time penitentiary service, illustrated the problem when he gave evidence before the joint committee. He stated that in one instance the parole board had been negligent in not accepting the recommendations of a psychiatrist, and a few minutes later, when speaking of another instance, he condemned the parole board for too readily accepting the opinion of a psychiatrist and social worker. When he was asked to explain the differences in his viewpoint he said, "It is just one of those things. We must press the parole board to make up its own mind."
June 6, 1967

Purely as a result of observation and from what I have heard, I wish to mention three ways in which the parole board can make its work more effective. First, it may be that the board is operating too much by rule of thumb; sometimes this can lead to inconsistent results and bring about resentment. It is undoubtedly true that every individual must be dealt with separately. There are instances, though in which it is most difficult to make consistent decisions. There has been criticism on this score. Perhaps those applying for parole ought to be made aware of what is being done and what is involved.
Second, the parole board should give reasons for its decisions more readily, especially to those directly involved. There has been much criticism about this and I do not know why in most instances the board's reasons cannot be given. The argument advanced here is similar to that which has been advanced in connection with immigration cases, and others. It has been said that it would not be in the best interests of the public or the applicant to give reasons. On the other hand there is a strong feeling that sometimes the reasons for refusing are not valid, or that the board has been misinformed, as has happened in some instances.
Finally, I think the parole board should try to be less susceptible to public opinion in cases of accident; I am referring, of course, to the Dion case. It was suggested from time to time that, in certain aspects of its work the board had been making good progress until the Dion case came up. We all recognize that what happened was a tragedy. All the same I believe the parole board should not permit itself to be too much affected by such an accident. Perhaps it should be a little more cautious and make somewhat better inquiries, but it should proceed with the plan of parole that it had.
I realize that the board was criticised in this house by members who are no longer here; it was publicly criticized for its decision in the Dion case, which was a tragedy, and in other, similar cases. Yet if there is a case where the board is convinced that it is right and where it is convinced that it is following the right course, so far as I am concerned it would have support.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
A final word about the R.C.M.P. In the course of his introductory remarks the minister gave us a very useful picture of the work the police forces are doing in Canada at every level of government. He told us that the use
Supply-Solicitor General of parole had increased and that the failure rate had not risen. The R.C.M.P. has had some troubles during the last two or three years. The Canadian people are proud of this force-proud of its quiet efficiency and its excellent public image. They are proud of the musical ride and of the mounted police uniforms. However, the security branch of the force has had large holes torn in its image during the last couple of years because of investigations which have led to the revelation of some of its methods and decisions. I do not think this is necessarily bad. In this type of work it is very easy to take decisions based on rumour, on previous cases or on unproven connections with other persons. There have been many instances in which apparently, the wrong person, was identified to the force.
I do not think too much stress should be laid on individual happenings in the past but I do believe the R.C.M.P., particularly the security investigation branch, must reconsider its position from time to time in connection with such cases. At this very moment we as members of parliament are considering the possibility of passing legislation which would wipe out a criminal record after a certain period of time had elapsed, perhaps ten or 12 years. The committee on justice and legal affairs has considered this question, a report has been made and the Solicitor General is, I understand, contemplating legislation. If this legislation is passed, with the result that after ten years a record of conviction is wiped out, why should the R.C.M.P. keep on its files information about unproven connections 25 or 30 years ago-the activities at that time of people who were connected in their youth with communist organizations?
I do not speak from definite knowledge, but there certainly seems to be a general opinion that this is what happens. I believe reconsideration should be given to these security procedures, and especially to the retention of records relating to incidents of ancient vintage. I am sure both the public and the police would benefit if such an examination were made.
I should like to conclude with a word about this proposed legislation concerning the wiping out of criminal records. The committee hearings were most useful, but the real problem was this: What would happen in the case of a person who was asked, in connection with an application for employment, for example, whether he had ever been convicted of a criminal offence? Even if the record of the offence had been wiped out, an answer is required-yes, or no. It was suggested that the
1230	COMMONS
Supply-Solicitor General way to meet this situation would be for a person whose record had been erased to answer the question in the negative. It was argued he would have legal grounds for doing so.
I feel strongly that this is a wrong approach. I do not think there is any legislative way in which a lie can be made into the truth or the truth made into a lie. Regardless of what has been done in the meantime, if a man is asked whether he has ever been convicted of a criminal offence, and he has been so convicted, he must answer, yes.
I suggest to the Solicitor General, who I understand will be bringing in this legislation, that the only question which ought to be allowed should be one like this "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence for which no certificate of rehabilitation has been granted?" In such a situation the person concerned can properly answer that question in the negative without committing perjury, either with legal justification or without.
I trust the minister, when he replies, will answer some of the questions I have raised, particularly those concerning minimum security.


Mr. Winch:: I welcome the opportunity of making a few comments on some of the matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General.
May I say, first of all, how much I regret the fact that the special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on penitentiaries was not reappointed immediately this new session began. I fully realize that there is no hope of its being appointed now, and that even if it were it would have little opportunity to get down to work before the summer recess, if there is to be one. The matters which were in the minds of the members of that committee will therefore have to wait until the fall.
As the previous speaker pointed out, the committee was never able to get down to a real study of many of the problems of our penitentiary service. This work is important and it still remains to be done.
I particularly regret the failure to reappoint this committee because it has denied us the opportunity to look more closely into the situation at the women's prison. Had the committee been able to meet some two or three weeks ago I feel it would have been in a position to make a report expressing its views on this situation before the summer recess. I for one, as a member of the committee, was

DEBATES	June 6. 1967
absolutely amazed at the position taken and the statements made by the acting superintendent. Mr. Clark. I could hardly believe my ears when he told the committee that at the time he took over the place was filthy, the inmates were disrespectful, the program was poor, the discipline lax, and so on. I was not the only one who was amazed. Other members of this house, and Senators who have visited the institution time after time, could not believe what was being said about it. It was of course an indictment of Miss Macneill, the former superintendent. I am sure that the penitentiary service itself must have been amazed at these statements. I only wish they, as the penitentiary service, had come out and refuted the indictment of Miss Macneill, and refuted the allegations. It was within their power and knowledge to do so.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I would like to place on the record the views and remarks of the deputy commissioner of penitentiaries following his visit to the women's prison. I find that he reported in November, 1965, when Miss Macneill was there, and this is what he said:
The most notable feature in the prison for women was that all inmates, except three who are dissociated, were fully employed.
The institution generally was clean and tidy and, particularly, the rooms in the new part of the institution were beautifully kept.
The school program is outstanding and I was most pleased to see the Indian women improving their educational standards.
A visit to the home economics building, where I was entertained at tea with the inmates, was most enlightening. This type of program is excellent for female inmates and certainly should be continued.
He went on to say:
Regardless of the administrative problems that may have arisen in the past in relation to the operation of the prison for women, I must say that the superintendent has an excellent program in operation and, from what I could see from my half-day visit, the inmates were being given every opportunity and encouragement to make the best use of their time in prison.
This is the report of the deputy commissioner, yet we have these statements made by the new acting superintendent. Because of the conflict, because of the situation, I am most sorry that the committee has not been given an opportunity of meeting now, so as to bring in its views and recommendations as to the policies that should appertain in a women's penitentiary.
The Solicitor General pointed out that crime in Canada is on the upswing and that we are facing a critical situation. He also pointed to
June 6, 1967

the high percentage of repeaters. Undoubtedly all he said is correct, but I would like to express the view that the increase in crime, and in particular the high degree of recidivism, must point to the fact that somewhere we have failed and are failing in our rehabilitative policies. I know the main emphasis must be on the individual who commits the crime, but surely according to modern penology we send men into prisons and penitentiaries not for punishment, not for revenge, but for rehabilitation. Yet somewhere along the line we have failed.
It is my belief that one reason we have failed and are still failing is that we think first of construction and second of policy. We have heard from the minister about the ten year program. We are about half way through it now. It has cost and will cost millions and millions of dollars. We are building prisons that are going to stand for 75 or 100 years because they are being built as fortresses, and yet it is quite evident that their construction has no relation to modern policies of penology-
Moreover, we are doing things in construction which other countries say they would never do. In some respects we are including features which authorities in the United States told us that they had wiped out in 1906. I repeat that we are incorporating features in our new prisons that were wiped out over 60 years ago in the United States.
It is quite apparent that in the penitentiary service there is too strong a tendency to base policy on custodial features. It is rather remarkable that in present plans for maximum security here in Canada there are more custodial points, or control points in our newly designed prisons than there are in the super maximum security plans of the United States. Surely you cannot tell me, or try to tell me, that our criminals in Canada are more rabid and more vicious than those in the United States, because I just will not and just cannot believe it. I think we have to get away from this custodial approach. By that I do not mean that there do not have to be control points and discipline. These are bad boys; they are criminals and they have to be treated as such. But hide the custodial features as much as possible, so as to change their minds and, if we can, give them a social consciousness, instead of the anti-social attitude that landed them in the penitentiaries.
I cannot quite understand why it is that we are proceeding with this type of maximum security institution, at the rate and in the
Supply-Solicitor General numbers we are contemplating, without knowing what future policies are going to be, what our plans for rehabilitation, probation and parole are going to be. We want to know these things. Because we want to know them we have, first, the joint committee on penitentiaries; but perhaps even more important we have a special royal commission which is studying every facet and phase of our penal system, right from the time people arrive in court, through probation, judgment, penitentiary and parole. Yet here we are proceeding with a type of construction that is going to last 50, 75 or 100 years the way it is planned, even before we get the report and the recommendations with respect to policies from the royal commission.
Before we know how to proceed we are going to have the construction. To me that is putting the cart before the horse. I certainly hope the Solicitor General is going to accept the recommendation of the joint committee, that after he proceeds with the construction of the second maximum security institution just outside Kingston he will not proceed with any more until it can be seen how the first new ones work, and until we get the report of the royal commission and know exactly what the policies and plans on penology are going to be.
I also hope that even with the ones that are constructed and are under construction, changes will be made. I do not mean just the changes that were recommended by the joint committee; I mean other matters as well. You are never going to rehabilitate a man, especially a bad one, if you put him in a state of dissociation, where there are no windows, where there are just the three walls, a ceiling, a floor and a blank door. In other words, he can neither see nor hear. If anyone has even a touch of claustrophobia, God help him.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I fully realize you have to have dissociation. There are occasions with a type of individual when he must be put into dissociation; but no matter how bad a man is, at least let him see out into the corridor and, if possible, let him look outside and see the sunlight during the day and the sky at night. I think every member should go through that so-called correction unit in Montreal. Correction unit?-there is only one thing missing from that place and that is a sign over the front door, "All hope abandon, ye who enter here", because it is concrete with iron bars, and overhead is the catwalk for the armed guards. This is revenge; it is punishment; it is not
June 6, 1967

Supply-Solicitor General rehabilitation. A criminal will never be rehabilitated in this kind of atmosphere. I say that it is this type of attitude which has cost the taxpayers a lot of money. We should be directing some real thinking toward our plans in respect of penology.
I was startled when the information was given to the members of the committee, and corroborated by the commissioner of penitentiaries, that if we were to consider the cost of our police forces and our courts, and compare such costs with those of maintaining a person in the penitentiary, including the maintenance of his wife and children, in all probability we would find that if such person were married and possibly on welfare, the cost to the taxpayers of Canada would be over $50,000 a year per inmate in our penitentiaries. When you consider the money which is spent in an effort to bring about rehabilitation, it becomes obvious that the money is well spent if the result is less institutionalism.
I also think those responsible for the penitentiary service are not thinking far enough ahead, or if they are they are doing the wrong kind of thinking. I suggest, through you Mr. Chairman to the Solicitor General, that something must be done at the federal level when we have the kind of thinking which believes that we must have the number of maximum security prisons which we have. It is maintained that 32 per cent of the criminals in Canada require maximum security. Why is the figure 32 per cent, when the manual on correctional standards published by a number of the great penologists of Canada and the United States says that 15 per cent is the figure. Why should it be 32 per cent in Canada and 15 per cent in the United States? Why is there all this hurry to have maximum security when, at the same time that we insist on maintaining that we must have this maximum security, space is available in the minimum security and medium security institutions? Why are these institutions not occupied to capacity? Why should we not take those prisoners who the warden says are coming along fine and move them into minimum security, especially when, according to the information we were given a few weeks ago, there are vacancies.
It does not make sense to me that in Canada we consider the percentage to be 32 while in the United States it is considered to be 15. We scream to death that our maximum security institutions are overloaded, while we have vacancies in the minimum and medium security institutions. I believe we should take


a really good look at our policies and plans in respect of penology. I sincerely hope that the government will look into such things as the policy of work release which has been followed in the last 20 months in the federal institutions in the United States. They are convinced that if a man has become rehabilitated he is fit for society. They asked the question: If this man still has some time to serve what can he do? They began an experiment on a trial basis with 2,100 inmates. These inmates left the penitentiary in the morning, went to work, and came back at night and on week ends. They were charged a nominal price for lodging and had to maintain their families. This has proven to be such a success that we were told in Washington that not only is this program to be continued but it will be added to, because it has worked. This is work release, and I believe it is real rehabilitation.
These are matters which I believe we should be thinking about instead of spending so much money building perhaps too many maximum security fortresses. I also hope that a real look will be taken at the parole board and parole policies. We should be releasing many more inmates on parole, under supervision. For the life of me, however, 1 cannot understand some of the thinking of the members of the parole board. I could mention the case of one bad boy who was in the British Columbia penitentiary for the second time. Ke could not take it, so they had to send him to the insane asylum. In three or four months his health improved and he was sent back to the penitentiary. In another four months he went back again to the insane asylum. Then it became a matter of back to the penitentiary, back to the insane asylum, back to the penitentiary, into the narcotic institution, back into the insane asylum, and so on. I do not know where he is now. The doctors, the chaplain, the warden and the classification officer say that he should be out on parole and that he should have been out a long time ago. This is the only way in which there would be any hope that he would be able to save himself physically and mentally. That is, he should be sent out on parole in the custody of his father. When the father sees what is happening to his son, then 1 would become worried about the father and the effect it would have on him. Parole?-no; I believe the chairman of the parole board is in favour of it, but undoubtedly he is not able to convince the members of the board. So it is a case of back into the penitentiary, back into the insane asylum, and back into the penitentiary. One day he
June G. 1967	COMMONS
will remain in the insane asylum-I hope not -because it could happen unless there is more warm and humanitarian thinking on the part of at least some of the members of the parole board, instead of the ice water which seems to circulate on many occasions.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that all these questions, which are vital because we are dealing with human lives, will be considered in a modern and reasonable manner. There is just one other point I should like to mention and, that is the guards. As I have said, these are bad boys who are in the penitentiary. Some of them are very cute, very brilliant and very vicious. I wish hon. members could see the weapons they make-the stilettos, the daggers and the imitation guns. They should see, as I have, some of the guards when they have been slashed, or the guard who had his hand blown off at Christmas time, and his son who lost an eye.
I believe a new policy is required in respect of our penitentiary system. We should not wait until somebody is caught with a weapon before arresting him. It must be made known as a definite policy to every inmate that there are severe penalties which they will receive if they are caught with a weapon. I am certain that if the penalties are made more severe-and I agree with this-and are made known, then many of the criminals would think twice before they would go ahead and forge these most vicious and dangerous weapons and attack the guards. I believe also there should be a government policy that whenever a guard is injured either on or off the job, because of his position and responsibility the department should accept the idea that he should be on full salary for life, because of the danger to which he is exposed in his employment.
I sincerely hope that these matters will be taken into consideration. Like the previous speaker I have the highest degree of confidence in the minister. I am certain that eventually he will get around to doing these things and I hope that then we will be able to have better legislation.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, before starting my short remarks, it is possible and easy, I think, to obtain leave of the house to offer to the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) well deserved and quite appropriate congratulations for the excellent work he is doing in the discharge of his difficult duties. The Solicitor General performs with an unusual dash the
DEBATES	1233
Supply-Solicitor General difficult task which has been entrusted to him.
Mr. Chairman, before coming to the heart of the matter, may I be allowed to refer to a rather exceptional incident which occurred just a few days ago in this house, when an hon. member read to the house a certain message he had received, a quite mysterious message, the content of which it was hard to know. If, during consideration of the estimates of the Solicitor General, we have the right to talk about matters dealing with the implementation of the Criminal Code, I will say that I am quite in order when I mention that incident.
As evidenced by page 819 of the official report of June 1, 1967, the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) rose on a question of privilege and stated:
On the envelope and in the letter-
Which was addressed to him.
-abusive, slanderous and defamatory remarks had been written.
Mr. Chairman, section 249 of the Criminal Code says this:
A person publishes a libel when he
(a)	exhibits it in public,
(b)	causes it to be read or seen, or
(c)	shows or delivers it, or causes it to be shown or delivered, with intent that it should be read or seen by the person whom it defames or by any other person.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I do
not wish to interrupt the hon. member without having listened to him a little, but I think that, at the present time, we are studying the estimates of the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Pennell). Furthermore, the case he refers to has been the subject of a question of privilege in the house and I fail to see how it could be connected with the estimates of the Solicitor General.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I am quite pleased with your remarks to which subscribe several members who have shown their approval by clapping. In fact, I think that you are perfectly right to wonder about the appropriateness of my remarks and their possible connection with the estimates of the Solicitor General.
However, Mr. Chairman, I conclude by saying that if someone is a victim of slander, especially a member of the House of Commons, I do not see why there should be any reluctance to ask the R.C.M.P. at a given time
1234	COMMONS
Supply-Solicitor General to investigate in order to clear up the matter and determine, if necessary, who might have committed an offence under section 249 of the Criminal Code. It is in that sense that this matter is related to the estimates of the Solicitor General, because the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) is known to have made three blunders. First, he wrongfully attacked the hon. member for Saint-Henri (Mr. Lessard) and he had to withdraw. Secondly, he involved the sergeant-at-arms who was not there to defend himself. Thirdly, he actually repudiated a former Conservative minister by saying that the note he received was abusive, since it referred to an association between the hon. member for Sainte-Marie and that former Conservative minister.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to observe the ruling I gave him. He has been
demonstrating for some time that the issue he is dealing with is within the jurisdiction of the house and that it should have been discussed at the time it was debated in this house a few days ago. I cannot see how it can possibly be related to the estimates of the Solicitor General and I would ask the hon. member to submit to my ruling.


Auguste Choquette: the provincial government. He is Judge Jean Grenier, who has a great deal of experience since he was for quite a long time crown attorney in Quebec city. At his swearing in ceremony, when he was called upon to deliver a short speech, Judge Grenier expressed serious apprehensions concerning the methods followed by the National Parole Board, and he also made an appeal for a more prudent course of action.
Mr. Chairman, I have another remark dealing this time with the commutation of the death penalty. The government clearly stated its intention to introduce legislation to abolish the death penalty. That legislation will obviously have to be quite different from the bill considered last year by the House of Commons, as it will have, if the debate is to be fruitful, to gain the support of the majority of the house and try to convince those who proved to be out-and-out retentionists durant last year's debate. Consequently, the new bill, whose exact terms are not known, will necessarily have to make certain concessions if it is to be adopted.
On the other hand, I wonder how the Senate will welcome the bill which the government proposes to introduce. If the Senate were to decide to reject the bill passed by the House of Commons, the cabinet would surely find itself in a difficult position, for the attitude of the majority of cabinet members in this respect is well known, and that is why it has been so very difficult for the cabinet to follow any other policy than that of successive commutations, which we have witnessed since the debate took place on the floor of the house.
For all practical purposes, Mr. Chairman, if the legislation were not passed by the House of Commons, I wonder if the government would not have to consider the possibility of creating a commutation court to free itself of that burden which is often a source of unpopularity. In fact, a Gallup poll conducted last year showed that most Canadian people were in favour of the maintenance of the death penalty. Then, each time it commutes a sentence, especially in such a horrible case as that of Dion, the government obviously assumes heavy responsibilities, even at the risk of becoming unpopular, because the majority of the people has approved the maintenance of the death penalty.
Now, if the legislation were not passed, I wonder why the creation of a commutation court could not be considered. I must add that it would in no way interfere with the royal prerogatives-because I would not want to
Supply-Solicitor General fall into the same trap as my friend the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) and favour the abolition of all royal prerogatives-but it remains that section 658 of the Criminal Code reads as follows:
Nothing in this act in any manner limits or affects Her Majesty's royal prerogative of mercy.
It would be quite possible to establish a commutation court and still leave to Her Majesty the Queen the power to commute death penalties; that would perhaps give a more definite meaning to the intention of the legislator who, in short, wanted to make this commutation system an exception rather than the general rule.
One last remark, Mr. Chairman. The Canadian Bill of Rights clearly provides that any prisoner has the right to know why he is being detained and also the right to get in touch with his lawyer. It has been proved, on several occasions, that some prisoners have been deprived of their right to get in touch with their lawyer because officials of the jail where they were kept, wanted to question them first before allowing them to communicate with anyone on the outside.
In my opinion, since that procedure, which is often followed, is incompatible with the Canadian Bill of Rights, it might be advisable to provide for a further offence in the Criminal Code in order to subject to a fine any police or peace officer who would infringe the clear and specific provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights and to find them guilty of an offence on summary conviction for preventing a prisoner from communicating without delay with his lawyer.
These cases occur not only in Canada but elsewhere. One of my clients, Mr. Chairman, was kept in jail for three weeks for having stolen a shirt in Miami. He was denied the right to get in touch with the members of his family. Finally, after three weeks of detention, he was allowed to communicate with someone in the family, and advise his wife, who had been expecting him for three weeks, that he was in prison and was accused merely of having stolen a shirt. Thoses cases may occur elsewhere also, not only in Miami. I am convinced it happens often in our Canadian prisons.
Mr. Chairman, a serious study of the American system might also be indicated. I am not saying it could be applied in Canada, but it might be well to study that system under which no confession is valid unless it has been made in the presence of the attorney of the accused, of the prisoner.
1236	COMMONS
Supply-Solicitor General
These measures, I think, were adopted in the United States in order to prevent police brutality, for the police were ready to resort to any form of physical violence to extort a confession from a prisoner. I believe there were also some very bad cases in the province of Quebec. Therefore, I wonder whether, in that context, it might not be worthwhile to make a thorough study of the American system which declares invalid all confessions made by the accused in the absence of his attorney.
These are the few remarks I wished to make, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if, in closing, I might be allowed to reiterate my great admiration for the minister and to congratulate him again on his excellent performance of his duties.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Mr. McQuaid:: Mr. Chairman, my comments this evening on the estimates of the minister will not be lengthy and will be confined to a plea to him and to the government to devise some way of giving financial assistance to the establishment within the provinces of adequate correctional facilities for short term offenders. I appreciate the fact that the responsibility for the establishment and continuation of local and county jails is purely that of the provinces, but I am afraid my experience in my own province convinces me that, at least in that province, these responsibilities are not being properly carried out. I believe the reason for this is mainly the lack of finances.
I do not think we should forget the fact that many more men pass through the doors of our county jails than ever come to our penitentiaries or other adult reform institutions. In fact almost all of those who do enventually come to our penitentiaries have first spent some time in the county jails. They have spent this time at a period during their sentence when influences are most deeply felt. For many of them it is their first offence and they are perhaps more emotionally disturbed then than at any other time. Perhaps they are passing through a time when they are more conscious of the treatment being afforded to them in the institution in which they are confined.
We must bear in mind that very few of the offenders whom we have in our county jails are what we might call hardened criminals. Many are there simply because of drinking

DEBATES	June 6, 1967
problems, some minor offences such as common assault, impaired driving, causing disturbances and other offences in the same category. Very few of them can properly be described as criminal type offenders. We must not forget that within a very short time, because they are only short term offenders, these same people are going to be back on the streets after they have completed their term of imprisonment, and their conduct is going to affect you, me and every other citizen of this country. A great many of them are young offenders who, after their release, will be associating with teenagers on whom they are bound to have some influence. If they come out of these county jails embittered, as they probably will, against society and against the type of treatment they have received in the jails, then it is very doubtful if we are going to be able to rehabilitate them successfully.
In my view therefore this is the time when we should make sure that our correctional process is at work, that is when the young offenders are admitted to the county jails. It has been said, and I think quite correctly, that the county jail is the front door of our correctional system. But I am afraid that it is a very forbidding entrance. Let us not forget that prisons today are not hell holes. All inmates of prisons, particularly of county jails, are not vicious. All of them do not carry knives, and all of them live, breathe and die just the same as we do. They are entitled to a certain amount of kindness and proper treatment when they are confined for the first time.
I suggest that society should be most interested in the problems of the local jails because far too many people do not realize what is actually happening there. Not so long ago I was astounded to read some criticisms of the overcrowded conditions of our county jails right here in the province of Ontario. Absolutely no chance of correctional training and no opportunity to rehabilitate is given these inmates. They are simply places of incarceration. This is not as it should be. As I say, I realize this is a provincial responsibility, but I would urge the minister to do something to provide financial assistance to the provinces so they can set up what I would like to see set up in every province, that is jail farms.
Far too many of these short term offenders go to jail for a period of anywhere from a week to a year or two, loll around and have a good time. They are not expected to do anything. I am convinced that a jail farm for men who are sentenced for periods of at least seven days will be the answer to this problem.
June S, 1967

This will be of benefit to them. I do not think there is a more serious morale breaker than to have men lying around with nothing to do. How in the world can we hope to rehabilitate somebody who has gone off the straight and narrow path by throwing him into a jail, letting him lie around in his cell playing cards, smoking cigarettes, telling stories all day and not being asked or required to do any work? I suggest that this is not as it should be. Unfortunately the provinces by themselves-and here I speak of my province in particular-cannot afford to set up a jail farm within the confines of the province. Instead of that, they have small county jails which are far from adequate and which are certainly not doing a good job so far as the rehabilitation of the offender is concerned.
I therefore urge the minister and the government to give some consideration to the granting of financial assistance to the provinces so that institutions of the type I have mentioned can be set up and properly staffed, not by men who perhaps have sufficient political influence to have themselves appointed as guards or guardians in these institutions but by properly trained men who know how to handle prisoners even though they are only short term offenders. The prisoners should be put to work and given a real chance to rehabilitate themselves. If that is done, the rate of recidivism among the offenders in county jails will not be so high and this will eventually reduce the number of offenders who go into our penitentiaries, and cut down the cost of the maintenance and upkeep of the penitentiaries all across the country.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Chairman, I also have some short remarks to make to the Solicitor General.
I have already dealt with the matter during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, namely the matter of rehabilitation of prisoners.
It seems that this subject is in order tonight. Indeed, most members raised this question and I appreciated particularly the remarks on maximum security penitentiaries.
But there is also the matter of the abolition of capital punishment. I have dealt with this matter in the past. I know, like the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) just said, and like other members of this house, that there will be introduced government legislation in this regard, and I can already
Supply-Solicitor General see the ardent supporters of abolition trying to bow and scrape in every way and to make all sorts of compromises to push it through.
Personally, I have already made it clear and it is duly reported in the official report that I voted last year in favour of maintaining the death penalty. Mr. Chairman, for the government bill to have any chance of carrying-and the hon. member for Lotbiniere noted it quite rightly a while ago-the government, I feel, must make concessions and seek a compromise, possibly as follows: "the condemned will have to spend, say, 20 years in jail, in the penitentiary;" or again: "they shall never be liberated except under an order in council". Those are compromises, ramshackle solutions.
I think that if the government brings down excellent legislation on prisoner rehabilitation in our penitentiaries, it might catch the ear of the members of the House of Commons. To my mind, the most important legislation is one that will enable the prisoner to be restored to society. I am thinking mostly of the prisoners, not of those condemned for capital murder, because I do not see how it could be agreed to liberate these people before, say, ten years.
I think that, after ten years behind the bars of a penitentiary, it is difficult for a man to find a place in society, at a time when this society is moving and progressing very rapidly.
However, I think of those who are sent to the penitentiary for two, three, four or five years. Those people are likely to relapse if they are not provided with all the means necessary for their rehabilitation. Moreover, it is a loss for the Canadian manpower and economy. It is even a nightmare for society, because they become a burden for their families and also, obviously, for society, from an economic point of view. Indeed, we must take care of these people who, very often, relapse and return to the penitentiary. We must also provide for their families through all kinds of social security measures.
I think that the government should propose legislation that would enable those people to educate themselves while they are detained as prisoners. There is evidence that the majority of people who are sentenced to penitentiary have a rather low I.Q., which leads us to believe that they were not free to make up their mind about their future. They are at about the same level as 13 or 14 year old students who have to make up their minds about their profession or their trade.
June 6, 1967

Supply-Solicitor General
Therefore, we should have the necessary personnel and equipment in our penitentiaries to help them find a profession or trade which, apart from providing them with the necessary training, would bring them a hope that they might be useful to society upon their release.
In fact, those people have no hope of rehabilitation, and this brings me to the point I want to stress tonight. Since the government is introducing a bill to abolish the death penalty, I consider that it should not leave it to the humble members of this house to propose a measure to do away with judicial records, whether after two or after five years. Personally, I think that they should never be kept more than five years although, shall we say, no less than two. If the government proposed a progressive measure in this field, those who thought last year that they were voting for the maintenance of the capital punishment could very well, this year, in view of a new penitentiary policy, change their mind and support the government project.
I humbly submit that it would be offensive for the intelligence of the members to introduce a bill to abolish capital punishment without bringing forward complete and comprehensive legislation to rehabilitate prisoners in penitentiaries.
These are the few observations I wished to make, Mr. Chairman. I know that the hon. Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Pennell) is dedicated to the abolition of capital punishment. I would like him to become converted, to come around my way of thinking in this connection-shared indeed by many hon. members-so as to introduce adequate legislation that would truly rehabilitate the prisoners in our penitentiaries.
e (9:40 p.m.)


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, about eight or nine years ago I believe there was a correctional planning committee appointed which made a rather detailed report to the then minister of justice. I think perhaps the change in the attitude toward the operation of penitentiaries came at about that time and also at the time, or perhaps a little bit later, when Mr. Macleod became commissioner of penitentiaries. I think a fair amount of credit is due to the foresight of Mr. MacLeod and his staff and to the correctional planning committee for having charted a general and progressive course-when one takes that course in its historical perspective-for


changes in the penitentiary system, the concept of that system and its administration.
This does not mean that everything is rosy and sweet and that we do not need further progress or alterations. As the commissioner would be the first to say, changes in this field take place more slowly, perhaps, and for a variety of reasons, than changes in most other fields in which the government is involved. That is so partly because government-not this government, but any government-moves to a great extent through public pressure. The penitentiary service I am sure is subject to the least amount of pressure, probably because the public is not much concerned about the operation of penitentiaries, except at times of riots or similar circumstances when the penitentiaries are brought to the public's attention. I shall say more about that later.
I listened with great interest to the statement of the minister about criminality and the increase of it. Increased criminal activity is not confined to Canada but is taking place in other countries of the world also. This is an extremely serious matter which cannot be coped with by an evening's discussion in parliament. It involves the attitude of society and an extensive examination of it. It involves the morals and ethics of society rather than law enforcement or the like. Not long ago we were presented with a report on juvenile delinquency, which is only one aspect of the serious problem of criminality in the country, and though the report had taken a long time to prepare, and though we had examined the question in depth and made proposals, nothing stemming from the report is yet before the house in any legislative form. I suppose that this pattern must be followed in dealing with the general question the Solicitor General raised. Only so long as there is a public consciousness and desire to deal with the matter, and only so long as we can develop sufficient public concern about it, so that the Solicitor General's position in cabinet is buttressed as much as possible, have we any hope for success.
I contend what I have contended on other occasions. For a variety of reasons which I will not repeat at the moment but which I am sure the Solicitor General understands and appreciates, as do so many others, a great deal of our effort in this field must be directed to the younger people, to those in their teens. There are problems connected with the matter too, one of them running contrary perhaps to any doctrine that might be taught in any school dealing with law, penology or
June 6, 1987	COMMONS
sociology. The basic approach to infraction of the law is one of punishment. That is the underlying principle in our criminal law. Punishment is for the crime, and it is set within the bounds of the discretion of a court. Relatively little concern is shown to the individual who may have committed a crime. Most often the punishment takes the form of a jail sentence. Despite the changes which have taken place in the last seven or eight years, the basis of our penitentiary system has been one of custody. We keep the individual locked up for the period determined by the court. With the exception of parole and amnesty, the purpose of the penitentiary system is to keep the individual in custody for the period determined by the court.
Though rehabilitation has been mentioned on a number of occasions this evening, within the penitentiary service to a great extent it is given lip service only. It is a nice word; it sounds good, but the efforts that are being directed toward accomplishing it are not as great as we should like to see. That is partly because we are stuck with the concept of custody, of keeping a person locked up for the period the court has decided, and partly because it will take time to overcome a concept that is ingrained in the whole penitentiary staff structure. The mental attitude of the personnel in penitentiaries must be reoriented to the concept of rehabilitation. Any such attempts are hampered because the penitentiaries themselves are of archaic construction.
I understand that we inherited part of Kingston penitentiary at confederation, 100 years ago. Institutions such as this and institutions such as the maximum security prison of St. Vincent de Paul defy attempts at rehabilitation, except in unusual instances, where the greatest effort for rehabilitation comes from the individual inmate himself and not from the staff personnel or those connected with the penitentiary service.
Any prison that is built purely for custody, the staff of which is oriented around that concept and which has been operated in past years on the principle that inmates are to be incarcerated, denies the opportunity for rehabilitation to have full sway. Yet it is on rehabilitation that our efforts should be concentrated.
We think of people in penitentiaries learning something that will fit them for some activity after their release; but such activity is relatively minor and what is taught I submit is outdated. It is possible in the penitentiary to learn how to wash socks and launder
DEBATES	1239
Supply-Solicitor General sheets, to sew up mail bags-if they still do that-to make chairs, sweep floors, cook, and so on. A great deal of the work done by inmates is to make the penitentiary function. Even those trades that are taught and that are geared to the traditional crafts in the construction industry, such as bricklaying, machinists trades, and so on, are needed in lesser degree, and blacksmithing, which is also taught, is not needed at all. In teaching such trades inmates are learning trades which by their very nature are becoming less and less valuable in our economy. I think that only in one penitentiary in British Columbia which I visited, as I recall, within the last few years, did I see a piece of electronic equipment. This was designed to give a few people an understanding of the working of a television system, or a television set.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The whole force of our economy at this moment lies in the field of technological advance and change. Coupled with this there is the factor of age itself. We know we are asking a great deal when we ask a person aged 45 or 50 to change his course and follow an occupation altogether different from the one in which he has been trained; and even if he does this he might find it difficult to find employers ready to employ a man in his middle years. We have geared our "learn a trade" approach in the penitentiaries to occupations which do not really provide the individuals concerned with much of a chance when they do get out.
The purpose of penitentiaries should primarily be to prepare the individual for the day when he is released. This is not being done at present, and with all respect to the desires of the individuals who are running the service, and with all respect to the intensity and sincerity of the Solicitor General I must say there are too many factors built into the system as it exists today which militate against giving this idea a fair chance.
There are hopeful signs, though, and we must take advantage of every one of them. One of the problems which confronts an inmate when he gets out is the simple question of money, or the lack of it-enough in his pocket to give him some freedom of movement so that he may locate himself in employment. I am not sure what amount of money is placed in the hands of an inmate released after a two year sentence; I think it is a minimum of $25 or $30. If this is so, the amount he receives is not enough in today's society to give him any real mobility. As a
1240	COMMONS
Supply-Solicitor General solution to this problem we might turn to the institutions themselves-gear the activities of some of the inmates and some of the facilities in a constructive way so as to produce some commodities or items which could be sold on the open market. This could not be done across the board, of course, because the services of many of the inmates are required in the administration of the penitentiaries themselves-without them, inmates would not be fed, clothed, and so on.
I realize that this suggestion will raise the question of convict labour, low cost labour and all the rest of it. It is supposed to represent a threat to free enterprise. But that is a lot of malarkey, considering we have about 7,000 people in the penitentiaries at the moment and that half of these could not be involved in the production side of what I have in mind. In any event, if the items were sold at the going price how could this interfere with the economic system? Of course, it would give rise to cries of protest-and these might come from the trade unions, too. But I do not think the criticism is valid. It would do a great deal of good if we were to produce something worth while in the penitentiaries and sell it on the open market, thus creating another source of income which could be used to the benefit of inmates as they were released. A portion of this income could be credited to the bank balances of inmates those who are required to work in administrative functions within the penitentiaries themselves, as well as those who take part directly in production.
We may have to subsidize this system as we do the present one. We now subsidize the whole structure of inmate work by paying inmates two bits or four bits a day depending on a man's stature within the system-how good or how bad he has been. The extra sum obtainable on release will help these men, and the individual may feel he is accomplishing something more worth while than he is at the moment.
The key factor is employment. We must concern ourselves with public enlightenment and especially with employer enlightenment. There are some employers who will go overboard to employ a person who has been an inmate of a penitentiary, or to employ a person who is on parole. But they are few in number. Many employers will refuse any employment to such persons on the grounds that they may steal something, presumably from the company, or give the company a bad

DEBATES	June 6, 1987
name, or create difficulties among the other employees and so on. The reason varies with each company and with each individual.
None the less we must try to develop public enlightenment and secure acceptance by employers and trade unions of the idea that assistance must be given to these individuals whenever possible. One of the difficulties an inmate encounters on release is the impossibility of being bonded, as a result of which he loses the opportunity of taking up some kinds of employment. The bonding companies will not put up a bond. Here perhaps is a field for a government venture. Either the Solicitor General's department or the Department of Finance might set up a system of bonding which would take care of this situation and at least remove this obstacle.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for York-Humber rose to speak earlier, and since I have a few more remarks to make I wonder whether I might now call it ten o'clock? I see this debate is scheduled to be resumed tomorrow.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Would the hon. member care to finish his remarks now, before the committee rises?


Frank Howard: The hon. gentleman is very generous but I doubt that I should take advantage of his generosity. If anybody else wishes to speak that will be all right, but the hon. member has placed me in an embarrassing position.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we propose to continue with these estimates tomorrow, as was indicated some time ago, but in order to meet the convenience of I think two members of the house it may be that I will want to call the third reading of the bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act before we start discussing estimates tomorrow.


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Speaker, could the house leader indicate the business for Thursday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I hope tomorrow to be able to announce the business of the house for the remainder of this week and next week, but I think the plan is to take legislative items on Thursday.
June 6, 1967



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saini-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to quote to the hon. Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), the question I directed to her on May 31 last:
Could the minister tell the house whether the C.L.R.B. has decided to make it easier for the C.B.C. employees to exercise their right to belong to a union of their choice?
Why did I ask such a question of the hon. minister? Simply because Canada compels our labourers to join American unions which they do not want.
In fact, what is the C.L.R.B.? Would it not be about time to know the meaning of those mysterious letters which seem to have a right of life or death over the unions governing the C.B.C. employees? Why was that board granted such an authority that no higher authority can reverse its decisions? The Canadian Labour Relations Board is relatively young, since it dates back only to 1948; its ancestor was the Wartime Labour Relations Board, created in 1944, under the War Measures Act. In 1948, the War Measures Act went into oblivion and the government introduced a permanent legislation, namely the federal act on industrial relations under which the C.L.R.B. was established. The board is made up of nine persons: one chairman, four management representatives and four labour representatives.
Whatever the authority given to the C.L.R.B. by the government, the workers and the employees of the C.B.C. do not want a union which was imposed upon them by the C.L.R.B. an official agency completely dedicated to government interests; the employees of the national broadcasting and television network want and ask for free unionism but they reject any idea or any attempt to impose unionism. The Canadian Bill of Rights grants them that precise, unquestionable and inalienable right.
The thousands of workers scattered throughout the country will no longer accept not to be able to choose their unions or to be members of unions which they do not want. Needless to add that these same workers in the civil service do not want to be dictated to by unions that they do not know at all or well enough. We cannot remain much longer indifferent about the fate of thousands of workers who want freedom of association; nobody,
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion not even the present government or all the future governments can issue this challenge to the face of our trade unions. Not one organization in Canada, be it the most authorized, has the right to dictate to our workers the type of union to which they must subscribe, be it coast to coast.
On behalf of trade unions and all public bodies concerned, I wish, Mr. Speaker, to take position openly and denounce, in this house, the omnipotence acquired by certain government organizations, as has so well been written by the hon. member for Montreal-Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) in an editorial published on April 15, 1967.
That is a striking example of the way our bureaucracy goes about getting from governments more and more money and powers to control the administration almost completely.
Those statements illustrate very well how a great number of senior officials operate to build for themselves small empires within the public service, how the bureaucrats gradually take over, how it is that, at times, ministers are paralysed and must follow the policies laid down by the technocrats.
That situation prevails unfortunately at the federal and provincial levels and, in some cases, at the municipal level. Such a state of affairs can only lower the status of the ministers and members of parliament and alter completely the role of democracy, which is that those elected by the people should govern. That is where the danger lies. It is high time to react against that increasing administrative dictatorship.

Hon, A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has referred to the authority and function of the Canada Labour Relations Board. In doing so he has entered into a very wide field which affects the determination of bargaining units and the certification of the bargaining agent by the Canada Labour Relations Board.
The authority which is being exercised by that board is one granted to it by the parliament of Canada. This is a technique which I feel is used in all the provinces of Canada and the United States in order to arrive at decisions with regard to bargaining units and the certification of bargaining units.
I understand from his previous question that the hon. gentleman is concerned about the application of the employees of the French network for certification as a bargaining agent. As my hon. friend knows, that is a
1242	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion matter which now is under consideration by the Canada Labour Relations Board. I understand that hearings have been held before the board through the system of simultaneous translation which is employed by the board and that all interested parties have had an opportunity to be heard. The Canada Labour Relations Board I understand will be handing down its decision in respect of this particular case in the very near future.



NATURAL GAS-SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO- DAMAGE CAUSED BY PIPE LINE CONSTRUCTION

Mr. J. G. Lind (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources an order MO-11-67 by the National Energy Board on May 30 last, which gave Interprovincial Pipe Line Company the right to loop certain portions of their pipe line in southwestern Ontario, namely where it affects the lands and rights of farmers in Middlesex county.
The company has given an undertaking to the National Energy Board that the company will take the necessary steps to ensure that its pipe line does not interfere with any existing future or unplanned municipal drainage systems. They have also given an undertaking that they will not interfere with any future private drainage systems. If this pipe line should interfere with any of these systems, they would, at their own expense, lower their pipe line at the request of the municipality or the farmer, so that the pipe line would not interfere with the drainage system.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
As you must realize, the machines engaged in laying this pipe line do a great deal of damage to the surface of the land over which they operate. I should like the minister's assurance that the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company will preserve the top soil, by removing it first and, after the pipe line is laid, replace it so that the farmer will be able to reseed the area traversed by the pipe line and obtain satisfactory production from this land. After land has been compacted by the traversing over it of heavy equipment, bulldozers, trucks, and heavy industrial equipment which are necessary to lay this pipe line, the farmer must be assurred that the surface soil and general conditions of the rights-of-way will be such that these crossings will in no way interfere with the crop production on the property.

DEBATES	June 6, 1967
The farmer must also be assured that the pipe line companies, if their lines should traverse other than on their rights-of-way, are prepared to settle, giving full compensation for all damages to existing crops. The reason I am raising this point is because the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company, when the last pipe line was constructed across the farms in southwestern Ontario, did so with little regard for the rights of these farmers. The company failed in the past to make complete and adequate compensation to the farmers for damage to crops and existing drainage systems and have refused to compensate the individual farmers for their losses. These losses were due to surface damage to existing crops, compaction of the soil and leaving the right-of-way in a condition that caused the farmer additional expense to return the surface to normal production. Then, the pipe line interfered with existing farm drains. The damage to farm drains does not always appear immediately, but might develop after a year or two.
I maintain it is the Interprovincial Pipe Line's responsibility to repair these farm drains immediately when trouble develops and for five years after the laying of the pipe line along this right-of-way. You may say that the company has given an undertaking to do all these things, but our farmers want the assurance that all past damage and future damage due to the crossing of their farms by this pipe line, will be settled without loss to the individual farmer.
It was my understanding that the right-of-way which crosses the farmer's fields would be distinctly marked, but that it is not fenced. The farmer still has the right to crop this land. As the pipe line crosses from field to field, often the construction companies damage the existing fence lines. The farmer has every right to expect, and the National Energy Board has a right to insist, that these fences be replaced in as good condition as they were when the construction was begun by the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company.
I should also like to point out to the minister that farmers, having to provide pasture for their herds in other locations during the construction, should be given consideration. As you realize, farm fences are erected to keep livestock within confined areas, and any interference with these confined areas costs the farmer time and money. Therefore I should like the assurance of the minister that he will bring these points to the attention of the National Energy Board so that the farmers of Middlesex county and southwestern
June 6, 1967

Ontario will be fully compensated for their losses due to the crossing of their lands by the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company.
Further, Mr. Minister, all crossings of township or county roads should be carried out to the satisfaction of the township road superintendent or the county engineer. Where a pumping station is located near existing dwellings, I would urge the minister to request the board to insist that the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company take all necessary precautions to reduce the noise factor so that our residents will be assured that they will not be disturbed by the continual thumping of their pumps.
I would appreciate it if the minister would give the farmers of Middlesex county his assurance that the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company will be fair, and not take advantage of them. These people are the backbone of our society and they have every right to demand fair and equitable treatment from the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company when the lines cross their properties. Mr. Minister, all I am asking is that you insist that the National Energy Board see to it that these farmers are justly and honestly compensated for the inconvenience caused by the laying of the pipe line.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it is often said that ministers should not be technicians. Tonight I wish I knew more about law, about farming and about pipe lines in order adequately to answer my friend the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. Lind).
I could of course answer simply by saying that I will bring his representations to the attention of the National Energy Board, but I presume this would not be entirely satisfactory to him. Legally, the farmers, in this instance are protected by section 64 of the National Energy Board Act, which provides as follows:
A company shall, in the exercise of the powers granted by this act or a special act, do as little damage as possible, and shall make full compensation in the manner provided in this act and in a special act. to all persons interested, for all damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of such powers.
So when damage occurs, there is recourse to the courts of this land. I understand, however, that the legal procedure may be time consuming and expensive, and consequently I think my hon. friend is right in attaching a great deal of importance to the conduct of the pipe line company. The hon. member has said
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion that the company has accepted recently more responsibility than perhaps it had in the past in this respect. In the National Energy Board's recent decision some of these assumed responsibilities are clearly stated by the company, and I think this will be quite advantageous to the farmers concerned because they can now refer to these undertakings as coming from the company itself. It seems that the company is very eager to maintain good relations with the farming communities.
With respect to past damages in particular, the National Energy Board has no jurisdiction to re-open cases, but it considers that it can act as an intermediary between the farmers concerned and the company. The board has been doing this in the past and is doing it now in cases such as my hon. friend has in mind.
I will bring the representations of the hon. member to the attention of the board. There is no doubt that the hearing which took place in London at the beginning of May has been enlightening to everybody; and at the proper time, if minor amendments are needed to the National Energy Board Act we will give it our full attention.



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD-HALIFAX-PRACTICE FOLLOWED IN MAKING PROMOTIONS

J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I am here at this hour of the evening to try to bring about some correction of a situation that exists in the port of Halifax. I will start by reading this telegram because I think it at least sets the tone of urgency; then I will state the background of the matter. This telegram says:
The national harbours board hourly paid employees off work protesting national harbours board decision to promote a junior man ignoring a provision in the existing agreement that the senior man be given a thirty day trial period and also that salaried men now being used to do hourly paid work.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
This the men feel strongly about. Request every effort be made by you to help correct this situation.
John J. Campbell ILA Vice President
The I.L.A. referred to is the International Longshoremen's Association.
There is little if any need for me to remind anyone in this house or in the minister's office of the very serious and grievous situation that has come to pass in the port of Halifax in the past shipping season. If it has not been the

June 6, 1967
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion worst on record, it is indeed so close to it that records fail to distinguish it. That this is so I think is a matter of record. The government continues to appear unconcerned. A special study on maritime transportation problems is now at long last before us, having been completed, as we understand, some time in February. We received it in June. Perhaps that is because it says nothing and offers no hope. Indeed it contains no solutions to problems in the port of Halifax, but what is much worse than that, it suggests there are no solutions.
Because many of us are not prepared to accept this as the final edict on the future of the port of Halifax, some of us think it is desirable that the public relations aspect of the port of Halifax be enhanced as much is humanly possible, and to this end the government must see, as the rest of us do, the desirability of clearing up the present situation.
Briefly, the dispute can be summed up in a few points. First, the dispute is over the interpretation of section F, article 3 of the working agreement between the government, the National Harbours Board and Local 1843 of the International Longshoremen's Association.
Second, the dispute deals with the right of the National Harbours Board to promote a junior man over a senior one.
Third, the work stoppage at the grain elevators in Halifax is now in its twelfth day.
Fourth, an agreement has been reached, because there is a certain degree of responsibility on the part of the working men, between the local and the National Harbours Board to permit the Nova Scotia poultry industry to secure the required feed for its livestock until the supply of other sources of feed can be arranged.
Fifth, the members of local 1843 agreed two days ago to stay off work and continue their picketing until such time as the matter is settled to their satisfaction.
Many events have occurred in the intervening time and I think some questions should be posed to the government, which I think the longshoremen involved and indeed all those concerned with the port of Halifax would like to hear answerd. The first one is: What is the position of the National Harbours Board in this matter? Second, are other feed sources being sought and secured to assist the Nova Scotia poultry industry? Third, why was there a departure from the normal procedure

in this specific case? Fourth, what is the promotion policy in other N.H.B. ports and indeed all other ports in Canada over which the board has jurisdiction? Fifth, is it the intention of N.H.B. to continue to use so-called white collar workers or office workers in the loading operations of the grain elevators, and if so how long is the government prepared to go along with this?
Finally there are one or two observations which I should like to make. The members of local 1843 of I.L.A., and indeed all men on the waterfront and connected with the waterfront in Halifax, have always displayed a remarkable degree of responsibility. These people are aware of their role with regard to the government, and their responsibilities. I can see no departure from this position during the dispute which is presently occurring in Halifax. If the working agreement between the local and the National Harbours Board calls for a 30 day trial period of any promotion, it strikes me as very curious why this procedure was not followed. At stake is a $2 million poultry industry. Over the week end both the minister of agriculture for Nova Scotia and spokesmen for the industry expressed the grave fear that if some immediate action were not taken this poultry industry would be lost to the province of Nova Scotia. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this industry cannot be impaired. We cannot afford to lose it. I urge the government to take some remedial action and at least clarify the position of the National Harbours Board of Halifax.


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliameniary Secreiary lo Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I should like to express through you, Mr. Speaker, the regret of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) at the fact he is unable to be here tonight. I should like to stress the fact he is very much concerned about the situation as it is developing in the port of Halifax. I am very glad, in the few minutes available to me, to try to outline the position as it is seen by the National Harbours Board.
The Minister of Transport has been advised by the management of the National Harbours Board that the existing collective agreement with the international longshoremen's union is being respected. In other words, the board has offered to proceed with the grievance procedures provided by that agreement. In all the collective agreements with the National Harbours Board at all the ports of this country there is a provision for the promotion of qualified men. The procedure to be followed
June 6. 1967	COMMONS
if a union has a grievance about any promotion by the National Harbours Board is that, as a final step, a three-man appeal board is established. This board includes a representative of management, the National Harbours Board; of the union, in this case the international longshoremen's union; and a third member to be agreed upon jointly by management and the union.
The union exercised its right to use this final grievance procedure in December of last year. In that case, the appeal board ruled in favour of management and against the union
DEBATES	1245
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion objection. Probably this has some effect on the situation at the present time. In this particular case, the one under consideration at the moment, the union has not exercised its right to have a board of appeal appointed to deal with this case. This is the situation, despite the fact the National Harbours Board has offered to follow this same procedure of setting up a final board of appeal. This is the situation, as I am informed by the minister and by the National Harbours Board.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
1247

Wednesday, June 7, 1967